tit. 47, § 1151(E). Section 11-406 provides for a narrow exception to this general prohibition for “implements of husbandry” driven on roadways other than highways. Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11^406. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, the ATV operator’s purpose in driving on a roadway does not determine whether the ATV operator violated § 1151. Rather, the mere act of driving an ATV on a street or highway is a violation of § 1151. The ATV operator’s purpose is relevant only to determine whether his otherwise unlawful conduct is deemed lawful under the narrow exception in § 11-406. To adopt Plaintiffs’ proposed interpretation of Oklahoma law would render the general prohibition of ATVs on Oklahoma streets and highways in § 1151 meaningless. See TWA v. McKinley, 749 P.2d 108, 110 (Okla.1988) (<HOLDING>). Because the jury could have found that
holding that statutes are to be interpreted in accordance with the legislative intent and in a manner that will not render the statutes application absurd unreasonable or unjust internal quotation marks and citation omitted recognizing that the two statutes are nearly identical holding when two statutes cover the same general subject the statutes are construed together in order to arrive at the legislative intent in any particular section holding statutes are not applied retroactively absent clear legislative intent recognizing that the doctrine of in pari materia requires that statutes relating to the same subject be construed together to harmonize the statutes and give effect to legislative intent