Jump to content

Talk:All-terrain vehicle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

editor comment

[edit]

Nothing new in this article though it has some historical tit bits here and there. For example, the year 3 wheeled ATV seized to be sold can be got from this sentence. "In 1987, the agency sued ATV manufacturers, declaring the vehicles an imminently hazardous consumer product. The suit was settled a year later, with the companies agreeing to stop selling the three-wheel ATV models the agency considered highly unstable." Sales figure for ATV in some past years come out in this sentence "According to the industry, 884,000 ATVs were sold in 2003, up from 447,000 in 1998." Other historical data "The popularity of ATVs has been increasing, with 6.2 million four-wheel vehicles in use in 2003, double the number in 1998. Injuries have been rising steadily every year, according to agency statistics. In 2003, there were 125,500 injuries, up from 67,800 in 1998. About 31 percent of those injured in 2003 were younger than 16, compared with 37 percent in 1998." [23] gathima 18:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Citation sought (ATV Price ranges)

[edit]

"Engine sizes of ATVs currently for sale (as of 2006) range from 50cc to 800cc. They range in price from about $2000 to nearly $8000." I am wonder where this info applies. USA? It is why I would like to seek a citation.--Jusjih 06:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I added the citation to the CPSC research giving the market data in question. It is for the US. My apologies for not giving the region initially. --Lynne Jorgensen 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected this information back to what it was originally as cited in the article. While it may be true some ATV's retail for $12,000 this is no representative of the market, and will need a citation to prove such information.--Budlight 05:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the cost info back to the original (from $13000 to $8000) because that is what the citation gives. If someone is going to change it to $13000, please give a correct citation for it. The CPSC citation does not contain a reference to the upper end of the ATV cost range as being $13000. Please see the Wikipedia policy on citing references and verifiability of information at WP:V. Lynne Jorgensen 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non trail usage?

[edit]

Wondering if it would be prudent to make note of non-typical usages of ATVs. For example, they are a familiar sight driving down city streets in phildelphia and can be seen with rims and other such adornments.--Ron 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious! I've never heard of widespread inner-city use, though I have seen some on the outskirts of Miami. Nothing like what you describe, however. I would think this would be a good addition to the article -- very educational, and I thought I'd seen and heard a lot about ATVs to this point. Thanks for your expertise! Lynne Jorgensen 02:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people actually use them for drag racing (complete with wagering) in inner cities. However, I would have to be convinced that it's a "familiar sight" in urban Philadelphia. --Don Williams 22:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper on the illegal use of ATV's in city parks and on city streets- and on the Philadelphia Police efforts to reduce these.-Sept. 2012 see http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Phillys_bike_life_culture.html----[User: Mi.Lee.Hu.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi.Lee.Hu (talk • contribs) 04:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In several countries in Europe ATVs are legal to use on the street and are considered an automobile. Japanese and North American manufacturers have to convert ATVs sold to Europe for the market. This includes having the foot brake operate all four wheels, reinforce the ignition to guard against theft, place engine restrictions (if the particular market calls for them) and adding turn signals and reflectors. Also, it is legal to ride 2-Up on a one-person machine. I rode in the French Alps and it was quite an experience riding on the streets of the French towns. If I can find any photos I will consider adding them. There are also several American communities that have made it legal to ride on streets in order to facilitate business growth around trail use and to connect trails. One place that comes to mind is the city of Logan, W.V. that is in the heart of the Hatfield-McCoy Trails.Alf rules 21:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some work needs to be done on expanding the classifications of ATVs. While the 2WD "sport" quad is well understood, they are limited in application, due to the lack of 4WD. Originally, 4x4 "utility" machines were focused on, well, utility. They were often used by farmers for working lands, and by hunters by accessing distant hunting areas and game retrieval. Their use has migrated to a much greater focus on recreation in recent years, with a greater emphasis on performance and comfort. In addition, the "sport 4x4" class, pioneered by the Polaris Scrambler, and built upon by the Yamaha Wolverine and Can-Am Renegade. (BPD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.94.87.21 (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

I just wanted to mention that where I live in Canada, ATVs are almost always referred to as "four-wheelers" or "three-wheelers", and almost never ATVs. Is this the common term anywhere else?Thomasiscool 16:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Thomasiscool[reply]

Well, if you look at the magazines, you have ATV Action, ATV Sport and ATV Illustrated. Don Williams 07:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Quad, Dirt Wheels, and many more that dont have ATV in the name, That is a very shity point. "four-wheeler" and "three-wheeler" are the most common here to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.12.60 (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your highly inarticulate contribution. Don Williams 00:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to just mention I laughed out loud seeing Don's deadpan response above to the 'shity' crticism comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.12.104 (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live in Canada it usually depends on the level of education of the individual, and whether or not they use the machines. I know several avid users who even call them "bikes". OHV ("off-highway vehicle") is the official term in Nova Scotia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naymetayken (talk • contribs) 15:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

I've cleaned up the references section to be similiar to what I've seen on most other pages.

The following links weren't attached to a certain part of the article and likely should be

I fixed the last two, so that the citations and references match up. They refer to footnotes 3 and 4 in the safety section. Lynne Jorgensen 01:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

[edit]

I find the overall tone of this article to be decidely anti-ATV. Especially the section regarding injuries and deaths. While it is worth noting that there are people killed and injured on ATVs each year, it is also worth noting that the accident rate per hour of use is actually decreasing. The more ATVs are sold, the more people will ride them. And the more ATVs are ridden, the more accidents will happen. Just something to think about, I believe. I will research sources to back up my claims. Alf rules 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the article excessively PRO 4-wheeler, without discussion of noise pollution, pollution from mud runoff, property invasion, and habitat destruction. Mudholes become mosquito breeding grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.138.125 (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATV ROAD

[edit]

Can you ride an ATV on the road and What is so bad about three wheelers?PendoFSX 00:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4[reply]

About road riding: In some states, South Dakota, for instance, ATVs with a displacement of 250CC or greater can be licensed as a motorcycle for road use. However the machine must have a rear-view mirror and horn. BTW, in the Black Hills of South Dakota, more than 80% of the 1.4-million-acre Black Hills National Forest, is open for ATV users. Additonally, BLM land, national grasslands and state lands are also open to ATV users.Dab1066 04:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more about roads

[edit]

"Three wheelers" can actually be made street legal in the United States due to loop holes for three wheel vehicles to be classified as motorcycles, allowing "meter-maid" vehicles and the such. Conversion kits are available to convert some sport ATV's to a single rear wheel, thus allowing them to be licensed with the afor mentioned horn, mirror, turn signal additions. Four wheel ATV's cannot be made street legal in most states because they are then classified as cars and do not pass Federal safety standards (side impact, etc.). Road legal quads abound in Europe and the quad magazines regularly do articles on them. RustyATV 04:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street use of ATVs is legal in several states. In Idaho, they are registered with a "limited use" plate, which permits operation on all county and local (city) roads/streets, unless specifically prohibbited by that county or city. Operation on state and interstate highways is not permitted. Requirements include brake lights, mirror and horn. Turn signal lights are not required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.75.110 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Needed (Weasel Words - Overwhelming?)

[edit]

"the overwhelming evidence of human growth patterns upon the landscape indicates damage to the sensitive habitats are caused by unmitigated growth of single-family housing planning and extractive industries" 207.216.216.119 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Error - Number of Injuries

[edit]

I found this article to be incredibly slanted in favor of ATV's. But that aside the claim of 500 accidents a year is preposterous. In 2003 the state of Minnesota has reports of 254 ATV accidents, 228 people injured and 18 deaths, this in just one state that has 1.6% of the total US population.

here is the link to the Minnesota data files.dnr.state.mn.us/enforcement/incident_reports/atvaccidents03.pdf

whoever wrote this article mislabeled tha data, in the link that they provide for this data (2) it says there 470 DEATHS in 2004, but in the text of the article they said "There are only about 500 injuries from Quads each year all from misuse by very young drivers from the age of five to ten.[2]"

Would be nice if they read the actual article they are citing in their faulty statistics.

In 2004 there were more than 136,000 injuries treated in Emergency Rooms, God know how many there were total, also only 33% of these injuries were in persons less than 16 years of age, whereas in the articles the author says that the majority of the 500 injuries were riders between 5 and 10.

I hope someone can clean this article up so that there are some factual injury statistics. 192.240.46.60 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took out all of that convoluted "information". Don Williams 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, those statistics were not only accurate, but highly relevant to the article. Don, am I misinterpreting what you took out? Did you take out the 136,100 injuries in 2004 and 470 deaths in 2003? User 192.240.46.60 should indeed read the referenced work. Those are not numbers of accidents but victims. Minnesota's 18 deaths contributed to the US total of 470. There's nothing about that that doesn't add up (except that they're from different years, but you get the idea).
The second statement, "There are only about 500 injuries from Quads each year... age five to ten." that User 192.240.46.60 makes was not made by me, though it appears someone is attributing it to the source I used for the other statistics. That source does not include this information, and I believe this statement is not true for the US. Perhaps it is true for some other country?
It appears that someone mucked up the stats section after I wrote it and it got all haywire with other numbers so that it didn't make sense anymore. I restored my original paragraph and updated it using CPSC's latest statistics. Lynne Jorgensen 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. I just knew that it wasn't accurate and needed to be removed, then replaced when fixed. But, I do have a problem with this: "Statistics released by CPSC show that in 2005, there were an estimated 136,700 injuries associated with ATVs treated in US hospital emergency rooms -- more than double the number of injuries treated in the last year of the consent decrees." It needs the context of injuries-per-user or injuries-per-hours-of-use. Just a flat number doesn't tell you if injury rate is up or down. Either add that info, or I'm going to yank it as incomplete. Don Williams 00:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added risk per ATVs in use figures from CPSC's report, which is the only research available on the subject. The statement that injuries have doubled is based on sound statistical methodology (read the report). Rate/Risk is another matter altogether and it wasn't what I was originally citing. If you yank it I'll ask for mediation. Lynne Jorgensen 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Injury statistics are important and a useful tool for someone considering the sport. However, they must be put in perspective. In comparision, how many injuries and deaths occur from other recreational activities? Bicycling comes to mind as a suitable comparison (BPD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.94.87.21 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new department of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about ATV safety would be appropriate and mutually beneficial, particularly because it prominently features an exciting video narrated by Julie Vallese of the Consumer Products Safety Commission. The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=57 please consider it. Jrosenfe 15:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a link added for the site EscargoTracks http://escargotracks.com They are a new company in Canada that has built custom tracks for several types of ATV which allows the argo to be more flexible and access greater amounts of terrain type. It appears to be the first track to allow extreme all terrain access. There is alot of interest in this new track on Youtube and argo users around the world. The site offers video footage of various argo's in different terrain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17:17, 27 July 2007 (talk • contribs) 66.206.244.155

External links should be added to dmoz, see Wikipedia:EL#Links to be considered. Is this thing working? (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Land usage

[edit]

The land usage section is slanted and biased AGAINST ATV riders pretty badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.110.50 (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot disagree more strongly with the above statement. Quad bikes (as well as motorbikes) tear up soft trails and make mudholes (in non-desert areas), Many, if not most, 4-wheelers regularly ride on private land in Maine. I tink this article is remarkably positive to neutral, without regard to the environmental destruction they cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krementz (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, citing "studies" without a reference to the study is pretty blatant. I can reference "studies" that the authors of various parts of this article are morons. What, you don't believe me? I said studies didn't I? What further proof do you need? All kidding aside, the tone of most of this article is decidedly anti-ATV.
"In some countries where fencing is not common, such as the US, Canada and Australia, a small percentage of ATV riders knowingly cross privately owned property in rural areas and travel over public/private properties, where their use is explicitly limited to trails." - No reference, no quote, nothing... Without references, Wikipedia is far more dangerous than it is useful. This is PR, pure and simple.
The vast majority of the points made could be applied to just about any off-road vehicle. All vehicles create ruts when traveling through soft wet ground (I've actually seen far worse damage from off road motorcycles than quads, at least the quads balance their weight on 4 wheels.
Unfortunately this article is spreading across the internet just like the invasive species the article references. All you have to do is Google "Studies have also shown that ATVs may help in the spread of invasive species" and you'll see this article replicated almost in it's entirety without even the discussion page. Anti-ATV propaganda at it's best... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.34.33 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is relative. It is worth noting that horses and pack animals typically do greater damage (on a per-use basis) than ATVs. A typical ATV weights about 600 lbs, with that supported on 4 wide, soft, low pressure tires, and that load is carried by rolling of the tires. A 1200 lb horse carries it's weight on 4 hard (often shod) hooves, with that weight carried by only 2-3 as they are moving. As such, the "ground pressure" of horses is several times that of ATVs. Adding to their damage is their "emmissions", which contribute to polution of the trails, waterways and the spread of noxious weeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.94.87.21 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional editing should be done concerning the positive economic benefit that ATV/OHV recreation provides to local communities. Many small, rural communities in my state benefit considerably, and are very supportive of the sport. One area that gets significant publicity is the Paiute Trail in Utah. The trail system is some 900 miles, connects many small communities and is a common vacation destination for those involved in the sport.
The access to our public lands that ATVs provide should also be mentioned. At a time when a very small percentage of the population recreates on forest service and BLM lands, ATV (and other OHV operation) in increasing and offering more people opportunities to experience these lands. In addition, these users are among the few that provide funding for multiple use trail systems, through registration and permits. OHV use also funds the Recreational Trails Program, through fuel tax on off-highway fuel. This program benefits both motorized and non-motorized trails. (BPD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.94.87.21 (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation?

[edit]

"Nationally, the US Forest Service considers managed ATV use to be a legitimate activity in national forests, yet it also lists their unregulated use as one of the four greatest threats to long term forest management. The US Forest Service recently released a national travel management plan designed to minimize the negative environmental impacts of ATVs while providing a safe, sustainable and enjoyable opportunity for ATV users." --It seems to me that a statement like that should require some kind of citation. 76.208.9.104 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is used here in 2003: http://www.powersportsforums.com/atvs-quads/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleenatkins (talk • contribs) 06:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

erosion photo

[edit]

"Unverified?" Those are obviously ATV tracks, and obviously eroded. The only further verification you could have is to have a wider angle to get a better idea of whether there is in fact no erosion surrounding the track. Can we NOT be ridiculous about this?Andy Christ 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

[edit]

i knoticed their was some vandalism on the page. ive taken care of that. Atvrider1919 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grossly Biased

[edit]

This article really needs a cleanup to bring it to NPOV. An example sentence that either needs to be cited or removed is:

Since the late 1980s, ATVs are used for sex and underage drinking. This has led to greater conflict between ATV users and child-safety advocates, rural landowners, fellow outdoor recreationalists and environmentalists.

Laplie 01:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is wrong

[edit]

Royal Enfield invented a powered Quaracycle in 1893 that both resembles a modern Quadbike and operates in a similar manner. This Article is also too US centric and doesn't have any infomation about what other governments reconise as a Quadbike or about not ATV quads (EG cars classified as motorbikes like the G-wiz and the reliant robin). TBH the article could do with a complete overhaul.(Morcus (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

those are cars classified as motorcycles though, not ATVs, they have their own catigory anyway three wheelers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.83.23 (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quad bikes and redirects

[edit]

Quad Bike redirects here but I feel a second page specifically about Powered Quadracycles should exist under Quad bike. There are many Quads that are not ATV's and this article doesn't contain info on them, also this article is far too US centric with half the Article filled with infomation about critisms and observations that are irrelevent in the UK and most likely in other places, The first paragraph gives a deffinition of what an ATV is wich is diferent to the DVLA's deffinition of what a quadracycle is (A 4 wheeled Vehicle below a certain weight). There would be the potential for alot of cross over but I feel it is nessessary whilst this article remains in this format.(Morcus (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

A quadricycle is specifically a vehicle powered by a human, so I'm not sure at all what you mean. In any case, most of what is on the page you helped create is replicated here or is uncited. Alastairward (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look at the Quad bike article and I reinstated the redirect. The lead paragraph of that article had confusing information, whereby the license category that a driver of an ATV in the UK was used as a definition of such a vehicle. Other than that the rest of the article is a simple replication of what is here or is uncited. Alastairward (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contribute with some editorial and link to the UK Quad Bike Industry. We have a communication with some well known celebrities who have been involved in accidents relating to Quad Bikes. We would appreciate if you could let us know as soon as you have read this posting and question. My name is Darren and I work for a company called [www.myquadbike.com]and we are a website that could contribute towards Quad Bike safety within the uk, along side EASi [www.quadsafety.org]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myquadbike (talk • contribs) 15:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lousy Article

[edit]

This sounds like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. Weasel words abound. Opinion does not belong in an encyclopedia article period. Article is twice as long as it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.195.101 (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Emissions sections is particularly troublesome. Lawn mowers produce far more "harmful" emissions than ATV's. Plus there is a broken link on a significant claim that ATV's are harmful to the environment, despite their low incident of use. What a bunch of BS.--96.244.247.130 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

There are now a number of complaints about neutrality on the talk page. This page currently contains four major non-reference sections ("Safety Issues in the U.S.", "Emissions", "Land Usage", and "Sport Usage"), of which at least the first three would really constitute the "Criticism" section of a typical WP article. Reading them is like reading a debate -- "almost immediately realized alarming injury rates" followed by "mainly due to improper and irresponsible use". A decent chunk of a Times article arguing for change is excerpted into the article. In the article body, after the lead-in, there are really only three sentences (the "Sport Competition" section) that aren't related to arguing for or against ATVs. Mark7-2 (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please fell free to add more sourced data "not against" ATVs.
BTW, the "Safety" section is not "Against" BUT "About" ATVs.Randroide (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quad bike?

[edit]

OK, this is not the place to change things, Wikipedia is describing what is but I cannot resist... "bike" = bi-cycle = 2 circles. A "quad bike" must then be 4 * 2 circles, it must have eight wheels =) bi-bike, that's what it is!! (compare to trike, it got three wheels) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.240.124 (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi,

I'm surprised to see that Wikipedia doesn't want to add my link to the ATV site I've been building the last few months: http://www.atv-allterrainvehicles.com. It's a general site about the different aspects of driving an ATV and what it requires from both the vehicle and the driver. I've been putting articles on it on a regular basis, and what's more: they have no commercial content. So why not allow it? This site contains regular info, that could help people who think about riding an ATV themselves. Edwikied (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go read WP:EL including WP:ELNO. Wikipedia is not here to promote your website. If you read the criteria for links to avoid you will see that you fall down on several points. The only contributions you have made are to add external links to articles. As mentioned on your talk page, that is a fast track to getting banned off Wikipedia. If you want to make a useful contribution then add content not links. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have published A Ride Guide for Prospective ATV Buyers that would be beneficial for visitors on wikipedia for the All-terrain vehicle section, that can be found here: http://www.quaddealers.ca/articles/buy-atv-for-sale-canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.167.202 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USA Emphasis

[edit]

I am not terribly interested in this subject but reading the page it appears almost as if the subject is not "quadbikes" but "quadbikes in the USA", this is especially true of the first few paragraphs and makes for a bit odd reading reiknir (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed the US bias from this article - perhaps if there are some relevant issues for quadbikes in the US, then they could form part of an existing section, but right now it seems as if this article is only concerned with quads in USA. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
can people please contribute to this talk page, before this descends into an edit war? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As no one is contributing, any objections if I remove the US only section? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do NOT remove SOURCED data. I also fail to see any rationale to remove any "U.S. only" section, specially if we take into account the simple fact that (AFAIK) all the existing studies about the safety (or lack of it) of ATVs have been made in the USA English speaking countries.
And please, please (please...) avoid this kind of edits [24]. If you are going to make controversial edits, please make them step by step to facilitate overseeing and communication with other editors.
OTOH you were absolutely right about the unsourced blocks of text you removed. I carefully respected those edits you made Randroide (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"all the existing studies about the safety (or lack of it) of ATVs have been made in the USA English speaking countries." Nonsense, Loads of research into the safety of quads in Northern Europe after they firs came onto the market in the 70/80's after a large number of serious accidents, especially in Sweden, these contraptions are heavily used in Scandinavia by farmers after all. This research led to them being banned, at the least temporarily, in a number of countries and trike variants outlawed in some instances altogether. Did you mean to write "no existing studies in a language I can understand" ?. reiknir (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please reference those studies?. It is a pity I can not read Swedish Randroide (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that cited data can be removed if (as in this case) it contributes towards undue weight. Oh and be a little more careful with reverting, your revert removed a huge section on this history and development of ATVs, try putting the information back manually, rather than just hitting the revert button. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your impression is absolutely correct: Sourced data can and should be removed if creates a case of undue weight. But I fail to see the WP:DUE case you see so clear. Could you please be more specific about where do you see UW?.
Sorry my unintended deletion of the sections you mentioned. Please note that the edit you made I reverted was an extremely complex one [25]. Once I checked you deleted sourced (and IMHO highly relevant) data I decided to revert your contribution. Please make "step by step" edits and I guarantee you I shall never delete well sourced contributions. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this article is certainly USA centric--unfortunately this reflects current research on the topic. As the top page of this edit page shows (motorcycles, cars, and trucks), ATV's tend to fall through motor vehicle regulation gaps and data on their safety is not especially easy to obtain. While the US has (especially in the past 10 years) started to focus research data to correcting this, there are few published peer reviewed articles on ATV safety from much of the world. As I am an ATV researcher, I will be adding global sources as soon as I am aware of their existence. I will make note that there was quite the research splurge in the early 70's when ATV's were first made available to the public in large quantities, but current safety data is hard to find. (129.255.1.225 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Safety

[edit]

About this edit [26]

The editor removed 2 links revelant to the subject and 8 sourced facts. Could you please explain your reasons for this edit?. We could trim/condense the list, if you wish. But a total blanking seem unacceptable to me. Uh: And your blanking left a picture with an unsourced claim. Randroide (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems overly negative regarding ATVs - it should be rename "ATVs and why they suck" the safety/emissions/etc sections should be much smaller. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents sourced facts about ATVs, and by now those are the facts available for these machines. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum. If you want to add to the article sourced positive facts (whatever they are) about ATVs (as much positive sourced facts as you want), you have all my blessings.
There´s no reason at all to make any section "smaller". Please read [27].
I restored the safety section you deleted. I suppose you deleted that section because it was unsourced (I deleted the sources in a n edit error weeks ago). I restored section and sources.
If you really want to delete the (IMO crucial) fact that valid sources indicate that ATVs are as risky as motorcycles [28], I think it would be much better for us if we go now to a Dispute Resolution process (WP:DR). Sorry but with me there is going to be no consensus to delete this fact, so I suggest to move to a DR now.
I also suggest you going to a Wikipedia:Third opinion.
Sorry, but I decided to revert all your edits once I saw this [29] Randroide (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useless Article.

[edit]

It's been a while since I've read this and its useless, for a start its to US centric and the history is all wrong. Royal Enfield Built a Quad in the 1800 yet the history starts in the 70's.(Morcus (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

could you please site Enfield's first bike? While ATV's may have existed before the 60's, major sales to the public began in the late 60's to early 70's. (Gibbs 1995) They started becoming commonplace in the early 80's coinciding with popular mechanics articles and increased sales (Rodgers 1990). (129.255.1.225 (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

New major ATV manufacturers

[edit]

I added Argo to the list, since they are also pretty big in the industry. Since they do not have an article on wikipedia, I simply linked it to their homepage. Is that cool with everyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.227.118 (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

opps! forgot to put it in alphabetical order! Changed it tho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.227.118 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than link to their home page -- which merely proves they exist -- it would be better to link to a story in a book or magazine or news outlet which focuses on the company itself, which would demonstrate that they are a major manufacturer. For example, a story in Business Week or the New York Times or whatever which states, "Argo is a major ATV manufacturer" or something like that. But I can't seem to find any independent sources which say that. Are they really that big? --Dbratland (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Mention of Electric ATVs?

[edit]

It would be helpful to at least mention electric ATVs, perhaps in the "Emissions" section to present a zero-emissions alternative.

Here is a quick link which, being from How Stuff Works, may not be citation-worthy but still offers some good general information for a party savvy in the subject matter area to build upon: http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/off-roading/off-road-atvs4.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harris.thomasj (talk • contribs) 14:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]

Info regarding the proposed merger can be found here. Also, please follow the link and reply to my comment if you want to discuss the merger. Passengerpigeon (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on All-terrain vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on All-terrain vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All-terrain vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I added a link that regards ATV tourism in West Virginia: https://wvexplorer.com/recreation/atv-touring/

Then I saw the note about discussing it first. I'll be happy to remove it pronto, if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsibray (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on All-terrain vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:All-terrain_vehicle&oldid=1216972532"