This Fire Is Not Going to Help

[brainoncapitalist]

False, to operate an ATV requires either a training certificate or a drivers license.

41-22-30
2(b) (i) has in the person's possession the appropriate safety certificate issued or approved by the division; and
(ii) if under 18 years of age, is under the direct supervision of a person who is at least 18 years of age if operating on a public highway that is:
(A) open to motor vehicles; and
(B) not exclusively reserved for off-highway vehicle use; or
(c) has in the person's immediate possession a valid motor vehicle operator's license, as provided in Title 53, Chapter 3, Uniform Driver License Act.

And that topic is NOT covered in Drivers Ed. Or at least it wasn't 24 years ago.

I see it as requiring the person to have a safety certificate. See the 'and' at the end of 2(b)(i)?

[divegeek]

False, to operate an ATV requires either a training certificate or a drivers license.

41-22-30
2(b) (i) has in the person's possession the appropriate safety certificate issued or approved by the division; and
(ii) if under 18 years of age, is under the direct supervision of a person who is at least 18 years of age if operating on a public highway that is:
(A) open to motor vehicles; and
(B) not exclusively reserved for off-highway vehicle use; or
(c) has in the person's immediate possession a valid motor vehicle operator's license, as provided in Title 53, Chapter 3, Uniform Driver License Act.

And that topic is NOT covered in Drivers Ed. Or at least it wasn't 24 years ago.

I see it as requiring the person to have a safety certificate. See the 'and' at the end of 2(b)(i)?

But the "or" at the and of 2(b)(ii)(B), which is logically grouped at the 2(b) level, means that alternative (c) also applies -- so a valid DL also works.

To break it all down, the law says you need one of:

2(a) to be under the supervision of a certified off-highway vehicle instructor,

2(b) to have the appropriate safety certificate, or

2(c) to have a valid DL.

What clutters this up a bit is the sub-clauses under 2(b) which address drivers who have a certificate but are under 18 and driving on a highway. If you're not talking about driving on a highway, though, you can just omit those parts and then the structure is much clearer.

[FrankenHollow]

I'm going to give that to you, Divegeek.
I believe it is poorly written, but when broken out into a single sentence, it would read the way you break it down.


This is how I interpreted it in the past:
That "or" only applies to the subsection it is in.
Subsection (2)(b)(i) is of higher hierarchy and requires all riders to have a safety certificate.
(2)(b)(ii)(B) is an additional requirement that anyone under 18 must also be under the direct supervision of a safety certificate holder, unless they have a drivers' license. But, they must still have a safety certificate.

Either way, Governor Herbert put it best, in his own words:

We can meet together and pass law after law after law. But you can't pass a law that outlaws stupid.

[divegeek]

I'm going to give that to you, Divegeek.
I believe it is poorly written, but when broken out into a single sentence, it would read the way you break it down.

This is how I interpreted it in the past:
That "or" only applies to the subsection it is in.

If that were the case, there would be nothing for the "or" to connect. It has to connect (2)(b) to (2)(c), because there isn't a (2)(b)(iii), nor is there a (2)(b)(ii)(C). It can't connect a clause lower in the hierarchy to one higher in the hierarchy. And in connecting (2)(b) to (2)(c) it implies that (2)(a) through (2)(c) are a list of options; satisfying any one of them satisfies the law.

Subsection (2)(b)(i) is of higher hierarchy and requires all riders to have a safety certificate.
(2)(b)(ii)(B) is an additional requirement that anyone under 18 must also be under the direct supervision of a safety certificate holder, unless they have a drivers' license. But, they must still have a safety certificate.

Nope.

First, keep in mind the the entirety of (2)(b) is only relevant if neither (2)(a) nor (2)(c) applies, because (a) through (c) is an "or" list. If (2)(c) applies, as it would in the case of a 16 year-old with a Driver's Licence, then no safety certificate is required. So, (2)(b) only matters when the driver does not possess a DL.

Note that it is certainly possible for a person who has a DL and already possesses a safety certificate to be taking a refresher course from a certified instructor, in which case that person would be legal under all of (2)(a), (2)(b) and (2)(c). But they only need one to be legal, so when you're trying to figure out whether or not someone is legal under (2)(b), you're assuming they're not already covered by (2)(a) or (2)(c).

So when reading (2)(b), assume the driver doesn't have a DL and isn't being supervised by an instructor.

(2)(b)(i), then, says that persons operating an ATV must have a safety certificate. This is regardless of age. A 40 year-old with no DL would have to have a certificate to operate an ATV, as would an 8 year-old.

(2)(b)(ii) additionally requires (notice the "and" at the end of (2)(b)(i)) that persons under 18 operating an ATV on a road where regular motor vehicles are also operated -- (2)(b)(ii)(A) and (2)(b)(ii)(B) clarify when this applies -- must be supervised by a person at least 18 years of age. It doesn't say anything about this older person having a safety certificate.

EDIT: I think I may use this law in future CFP classes. It's not related to gun law, but it provides a nice example of how to parse a complex statement in the law, using both "and" and "or" and relating them to the hierarchical structure defined by the clause headings. In my classes I devote about 20 minutes to a discussion of how to read the law, and this would be a great one to build that around. It's actually a good thing that none of the firearms laws have similar complexity, but just for teaching purposes I wish one of them did, so I could be covering both "how to read law" and a specific, relevant statute at the same time.

[wolverine_173]

Any more details on exactly how the millville fire started?

[DaKnife]

Only official statement I can find on the Millvile fire is this from the utahfireinfo.gov statement about the fire

The Millville Fire began around 4pm on Sunday, July 1, 2012. The fire started from target shooting near the base of Millville Canyon. The fire began on Division of Wildlife Refuge land and has spread into National Forest land, burning on a steep hillside East of Millville, Utah.

So nothing more specific at this time. And probably won't but unless the Logan Press picks it up.