On facts remarkably similar to those of this case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court concluded that an ATV was a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, so that defendant was guilty of driving without a valid driver's license while operating it on a public street. Commonwealth v. Predmore, 347 Pa. Super. 195, 199, 500 A.2d 474, 475-76 (1985); see also Fitch v. State, 313 Ark. 122, 125, 853 S.W.2d 874, 876 (1993) (ATV was "motor vehicle" for purposes of Arkansas' driving while intoxicated statute); cf. State v. Benolken, 838 P.2d 280, 282 (Alaska App. 1992) (ATV fit definition of "motorcycle" under relevant statute and could not be driven on public highway without valid license). Defendant posits three related arguments in an attempt to create an ambiguity in the statute.
But in other contexts, courts have determined or assumed that ATVs are motorcycles. See State v. Benolken, 838 P.2d 280 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992) (ATV is "motorcycle" for purposes of determining whether driver must have driver's license); see also Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Jackson, 573 N.Y.S.2d 556 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991), aff'd, 585 N.Y.S.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 199 2) (ATV involved in accident was insured under owner's motorcycle policy). [9, 10] Several common threads run through all of these definitions.