FEDERAL LAW SAYS YES !!! And now State Law too ? Yes !!!!

[married_n_macon]

look yall I love my motored bike, its great for errands and showing up at work w/ out that all day coating of sweat. Any thing I need to do by road I can do by my motored bike but the trails are a different story.
Not that I haven't been tempted to rip the woods on trails I know but there is a thin line of decency that should not be crossed. If large philipino is QUIETLY putting thru the paved trail way while yeilding to cyclists thats fine. But if there is a sign posted saying "no motorized vehicles" then that needs to be respected. This goes double so for mtb trails that have single tracks, frankly I'ld be the first to tree check some jerk on a moto of any kind if they buzzed me on the twisties.
20 years ago some of the first mtbers acted like delinquents on the trails. This ****ed off hikers who in turn complained to others and resulted in their conglamerately huge voice screaming for the ban of mtbs on many trails.
Now the cyclists voices are huge and growing, they have regained many but not all of the trails they were banned from and they have built twice as many.
DO NOT MAKE THEM YOUR ENEMIES! They can be our biggest allies or we can push them to aleinate us.
We are allowed to go anywhere a bicycle is allowed, but that doesn't mean we are allowed to motor every where. It will only take a few jerks ripping chainsaw sounds thru the woods to turn the hikers, runners, and cyclist against us. Those in cars will shake there fists and move on in there carcoon, Those on bikes will chase you down, get your plate and find out where you live.
A curteous motored bike will be seen as a casual cuiriosity on the rails trails or the paved ways, but a rude one will be seen as a motorised intruder like a car driving in the lane. If we push that edge we will force those cyclists to go against us enmass, and for a court to have to make that clarification while hearing the LOUD voices of cyclist activists many of who have a solid hatred of anything motored, let us try to avoid that confrontation.

 

[HoughMade]

There is no federal law which provides blanket rules for what a motorized bicycles can operate on the road. There is not!

There are federal regulations regarding manufacturing and import standards, but those have nothing to do with what is legal on the road in a given state.

What is legal in a state, county or city is a function of the state and local laws. That the feds may have published standards is irrelevant. In this case, the state may or may not adopt the standards. That is up to them.

 

[loquin]

Regarding the Bad Links.

The DOT and the NHTSA have both put new document portals into place.

I've updated the DOT links in the original post.

Here are the results of a search through the NHTSA intrepretations.

The documents can be located by visiting http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/Index.cfm and then entering the word "Bicycle" into the search box.

http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/16250.ztv.html
http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/19824.ztv.html
http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/14165.ztv.html
http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/14668.ztv.html
http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/19211.ztv.html

http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/15444.ztv.html

http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/8042.html

http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/18122.ztv.html

http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/0697.html

http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/10821-6.html

It's a pretty confusing mass of interpretations, but the first 5 of those links seem to be the most appropriate to our situation...

According to the NHTSA, a bicycle with a motor on it IS considered a motor vehicle, if the motor is intended as the primary source of motive power.

And, in the case of Whizzer and others, even if you cannot take off without peddling, if the motor will maintain power sufficient to ride the bike continuously (my italics) without peddling, then the bike would be considered a motor vehicle.

However, if the motor power is insufficient to maintain movement continuously without peddling, then it would not be considered a motor vehicle.

Since these motors won't push a bike from a standing start without peddling, and can't maintain speed up some grades without eventually coming to a halt if you don't peddle, then that should probably be the approach that we would need to press with governmental agencies. That the motor has insufficient power to start the bicycle without assistance, and it will eventually slow down to a halt if you do not peddle the bicycle when riding on a highway. The motor assists the rider in moving the bicycle.

However, that also means that bikes with a Staton Nuvinci kit or other form of CVT would be considered to be a motor vehicle by the NHTSA. After all, Staton discusses towing a pickup in low range with a Nuvinci equipped bike at his website!

 

[sparky]

I'm well aware of what a law is, and even what my local laws are. However, I'm not happy with them and will continue to ride like any other rebel would do in my situation.

Instead of just riding and hoping for change, I'm trying to solve the problem that half this country faces in terms of MB laws. It's not practical to bring about change by "attacking" the local governments, IMO (and I only say attack, 'cause I don't know of a better word, and it's gonna take a lot more than just one person here to bring about change on a large scale). State and national change to MB laws is what I'm after.

I'm worried about my tail first, so I'm going to be contacting EVERY "official" person in my state that has to do with transportation (MDOT, MS Hwy Patrol, Legislators, Governor, etc.), merely asking for their opinion on the matter. If they think it's right my MB is considered a motorcycle, when everybody else underneath them has told me I can ride on the streets (exc. highways)... I'd like to show examples of other states who have taken the extra step to define a motorized bicycle in their laws, and these DOT limitations found at the links below would also be of great help to me.

- http://www.bikemotor.com/hybrid.html
- http://goldeneaglebikeengine.blogspot.com/2007/07/list-of-federal-rules-i-found.html

After I get a response from these officials, maybe it'll be good enough to print out and show to a cop. I dunno, but it's worth a shot. If they think MBs should be classified differently than a motorcycle (Duh!), then they'll know how to really change the laws. Even if they don't like the idea, at least I'm planting the seed for them to think about when they realize everything's goin' down the drain, and maybe we're onto something. Worst case is that they never see it... but by sending an email or letter to every official in the state, I find it hard to believe that none of their secretaries would relay the message.

If good things happen, we can figure out all the states that aren't MB-friendly, and repeat the process. Then once we've tackled the remaining 20+ states... we can go for that National ride to DC like augidog suggests, just for the heck of it. I'd love to go across the country, but doing it with a bunch of other hardcore MBers would be sooo much cooler. That's living life to the fullest!

EDIT: "A traveller through a country would stop at a village and he didn't have to ask for food or for water. Once he stops, the people give him food, entertain him. That is one aspect of Ubuntu but it will have various aspects. Ubuntu does not mean that people should not address themselves. The question therefore is: Are you going to do so in order to enable the community around you be able to improve?"
-- Nelson Mandela

 

[sparky]

Thanks for the links Loquin!!

I'll be looking thru them later to find the limitations found on the GEBE blog I linked to.

 

[loquin]

Now, the DOT's proposed rule is more relaxed than the NHTSA's intrepretations. The DOT proposal uses the 48cc/20mph upper limit, and they define how the bike/motor combo is to be tested.

It's NHTSA's stance that any motor type (inc. Electric or Gas) when mounted on a bike makes that bike a motor vehicle, if the motored bike can be operated continuously without the use of peddles, even after you've peddled up to speed.

When a road/highway goes up hill, depending on the grade, our bikes will not continue to operate unless we peddle.

In my opinion, that is the key factor, and that criteria should be used, rather than a specified top speed, in order to define whether a peddled bike with attached motor is to be defined as a motor assisted bicycle. If a motorized bicycle, with operable peddles, cannot carry a 180 pound rider up a 'standard' grade (8% grade, for argument's sake) without slowing to a stop, then it is obviously intended to be peddled, and the motor assists the rider in maintaining speed. If it CAN go up the standard grade unassisted, then, the bike should be considered a motor vehicle, and treated as a 'motored bicycle' per NHTSA guidelines.

8% is a fairly steep grade, but, it is often experienced in the mountains, and any motor vehicle should be able to climb that grade without slowing to a halt.

 

[SimpleSimon]

I like that idea, loquin. I agree especially with "8% is a fairly steep grade, but, it is often experienced in the mountains, and any motor vehicle should be able to climb that grade without slowing to a halt."

I used to own a Subaru 360 van. It would climb an 8% grade - at 5 mph, in first gear, maxxed out.

 

[imperfectionst]

Those are cute. It probably matches the mileage of your bike!

 

[SimpleSimon]

Those are cute. It probably matches the mileage of your bike!

I wish I still had it. Unfortunately, my sister took it one evening, to "go into town to the grocery store".

Six hours later we got a call from the cops - she'd plowed into a telephone pole, drunk, and run off, leaving the destroyed van sitting. I had a heck of a time convinccing the cops I wasn't driving it. Once I got it back, I pulled the engine and transaxle, built a trike with it. My first experiment with foam/fiberglass body forming, it went really well. I really liked that trike - it had a MUCH better power/weight ratio than the van had. Sold it finally, for $4,800. That was in 1976.

I should have kept it.

 

[sparky]

Now, the DOT's proposed rule is more relaxed than the NHTSA's intrepretations...

It's NHTSA's stance that any motor type (inc. Electric or Gas) when mounted on a bike makes that bike a motor vehicle, if the motored bike can be operated continuously without the use of peddles, even after you've peddled up to speed.

From what I'm seeing, the DOT's stance isn't too much different from the NHTSA's stance.

In the letters you linked to, there are responses from the DOT such as:

If the motor, once activated by muscular power, can continue to drive the vehicle in the absence of muscular power, the vehicle is considered to be a "motor vehicle" since, without the input of muscular power, the vehicle is entirely "driven by mechanical power" with the meaning of the statutory definition of a "motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). Our letter of May 22, says, in effect, that a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle" if, in the absence of muscular power, mechanical power alone is insufficient to drive it.

Under the laws we administer, a "motor vehicle" is one that is driven by mechanical power. Thus, an ordinary bicycle is not a "motor vehicle" because it is driven solely by muscular power. We have also concluded that a bicycle with an engine that supplements muscular power rather than superseding it to become the primary propulsion source is also not a "motor vehicle." Vehicles that are not "motor vehicles" are subject to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

By way of explanation, the addition of a motor to a bicycle transforms it into a "motor vehicle" if the motor operates primarily as a substitute for muscular power.

With respect to bicycles with motors, we use the term "power-assist" to refer to a vehicle that cannot be driven by the motor alone but which requires muscular input at all times when in motion, assisted when needed by the engine. We do not consider this type of vehicle to be a "motor vehicle" subject to our regulations. If this correctly describes the Whizzer, then your petition is moot. However, if the Whizzer is capable of being propelled by the engine alone with no muscular power required when the engine is engaged, then the Whizzer would be a "motor vehicle", specifically a "motor driven cycle."

It seems like the only area where the DOT loses is against Loquin's argument about the steep hills and mountains. Perhaps this is why states like MS, AL, & FL don't seem to classify MBs as separate transportation devices from motorcycles??

From what I'm reading about the DOT's stance, I will always be riding a motor vehicle since I'm on flat ground, and it's pretty tough to make a bicycle with motor attached not move on flat ground.