Court Opinion

ID: 9742966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:23:30.747176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:38.073003
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
concurring in result with opinion.
I agree with the majority's holding in this case that the trial court erred in granting Weyer's motion to dismiss for the reason that the ATV in these cireum-stances should be considered a motor vehicle for purposes of our Habitual Traffic Violator (HTV) statute.2 As noted in the facts, Weyer was observed riding his motor vehicle on State Route 68 and State Route 161 at speeds topping more than eighty miles per hour. Op. at 176.
Be that as it may, there may very well be cireumstances where a self-propelled vehicle-other than a motorized bicycle-may not qualify as a motor vehicle subject to the provisions of the HTV statute. An ATV may certainly be driven both "on the road" and "off the road," and that type of vehicle is capable of cross-country travel without the benefit of a road. Op. at 177. On the other hand, I would note that our legislature has seen fit to specifically exempt certain vehicles from the definition of *178"off-road vehicle," such as construction vehicles, golf carts, snowmobiles, and registered aircrafts and watercraft. See Ind. Code. § 14-16-1-3. Whether the operation of these vehicles might, in some circumstances, be a concern with regard to the applicability of our Habitual Traffic Violator statute remains a question that may be answered on another day. For these reasons, I concur in the result reached by the majority.

. Ind.Code § 9-30-10-16.