There are a number of vehicles being designed to fill the economy vehicle gap, and it's to the advantage of a manufacturer to have it registered and licensed as a "motorcycle" to circumvent DOT/EPA regulations.
That creates a situation in which a motorcyclist is at risk of getting elbowed out of the loop. For many years we've had very similar definitions of "motorcycle" in state laws, which generally include having not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, and on which the operator sits astride the engine and steers with handlebars or a tiller. That got slightly more confusing when state laws were modified to include enclosed or semi-enclosed bodywork, in which case the operator could steer with a steering wheel, but would have to have a seat belt. (and various combinations and permutations)
I've been OK with the laws for many years, making the personal decision that having not more than three wheels was an acceptable dividing line between a motorcycle and a car. IMHO, a motorcycle with or without a sidecar attached is clearly a "motorcycle." I also believe that my Spyder--or any motorcycle-based trike is acceptably a "motorcycle."
But, is a two-wheeled bike with additional "training wheels" a "motorcycle"? I say no, simply because of the wheel count. Likewise a GG quad or a four-wheeled ranch or offroad vehicle. In ranch and farm states, it seems very logical to hop on the ATV and run into town for some combine parts, and for a few years the local LEOs would issue tickets for driving an unlicensed, uninsured quad on public roads. However, big ranchers are in positions to get the police chief or sheriff hired or fired, so it didn't take long in Montana, Utah, Wyoming, etc. for the cops to back off and just look the other way. Today it's very common for someone on a quad to come ripping through a small western town at 50 or 60 mph, with little probability of arrest. And that has led to the proliferation of quad ranches where unlicensed customers spend a week riding around on quads--offroad or on.
Likewise, in retirement communities in states such as Florida and Arizona, there is a need for old folks to get down to the clinic or grocery store. They are hopping on golf carts and just driving down the street. Some are even arguing that by using a golf cart for transportation they are helping reduce the consumption of fossile fuels, and as such the government should give them a tax break for buying a golf cart. Actually, it would make more sense for them to be buying medium size "ranch" quads that are capable of city traffic speeds.
At the moment, there are a number of micro cars being built, some with four wheels; some with three wheels. Like the Isetta, today's micro cars are small, roundish, and designed for in-city use. But, someone with limited resources might balk at having to buy a genuine micro car and then have to deal with licening, insurance, etc.
This isn't just rhetorical. States have to deal with operator and vehicle licensing, law enforcement, and in the case of motorcycles, rider training. A number of states have only recently awakened to the need for training for operators of three-wheeled motorcycles. What do they do with one of the giant auto-based trikes with V-8 engines and seating for five? Or, for that matter, the Piaggio MP3 with two narrow front wheels--that leans into turns and steers by countersteering?
Anyone have any brilliant ides for getting all this in order? Do we need a new definition of "motorcycle"? Should there be a new category of vehicle to describe a small, cheap economy something--that doesn't relate to the number of wheels? And, should motorcyclists be resistant to micro car builders usurping the "motorcycle" definition?
pmdave
That creates a situation in which a motorcyclist is at risk of getting elbowed out of the loop. For many years we've had very similar definitions of "motorcycle" in state laws, which generally include having not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, and on which the operator sits astride the engine and steers with handlebars or a tiller. That got slightly more confusing when state laws were modified to include enclosed or semi-enclosed bodywork, in which case the operator could steer with a steering wheel, but would have to have a seat belt. (and various combinations and permutations)
I've been OK with the laws for many years, making the personal decision that having not more than three wheels was an acceptable dividing line between a motorcycle and a car. IMHO, a motorcycle with or without a sidecar attached is clearly a "motorcycle." I also believe that my Spyder--or any motorcycle-based trike is acceptably a "motorcycle."
But, is a two-wheeled bike with additional "training wheels" a "motorcycle"? I say no, simply because of the wheel count. Likewise a GG quad or a four-wheeled ranch or offroad vehicle. In ranch and farm states, it seems very logical to hop on the ATV and run into town for some combine parts, and for a few years the local LEOs would issue tickets for driving an unlicensed, uninsured quad on public roads. However, big ranchers are in positions to get the police chief or sheriff hired or fired, so it didn't take long in Montana, Utah, Wyoming, etc. for the cops to back off and just look the other way. Today it's very common for someone on a quad to come ripping through a small western town at 50 or 60 mph, with little probability of arrest. And that has led to the proliferation of quad ranches where unlicensed customers spend a week riding around on quads--offroad or on.
Likewise, in retirement communities in states such as Florida and Arizona, there is a need for old folks to get down to the clinic or grocery store. They are hopping on golf carts and just driving down the street. Some are even arguing that by using a golf cart for transportation they are helping reduce the consumption of fossile fuels, and as such the government should give them a tax break for buying a golf cart. Actually, it would make more sense for them to be buying medium size "ranch" quads that are capable of city traffic speeds.
At the moment, there are a number of micro cars being built, some with four wheels; some with three wheels. Like the Isetta, today's micro cars are small, roundish, and designed for in-city use. But, someone with limited resources might balk at having to buy a genuine micro car and then have to deal with licening, insurance, etc.
This isn't just rhetorical. States have to deal with operator and vehicle licensing, law enforcement, and in the case of motorcycles, rider training. A number of states have only recently awakened to the need for training for operators of three-wheeled motorcycles. What do they do with one of the giant auto-based trikes with V-8 engines and seating for five? Or, for that matter, the Piaggio MP3 with two narrow front wheels--that leans into turns and steers by countersteering?
Anyone have any brilliant ides for getting all this in order? Do we need a new definition of "motorcycle"? Should there be a new category of vehicle to describe a small, cheap economy something--that doesn't relate to the number of wheels? And, should motorcyclists be resistant to micro car builders usurping the "motorcycle" definition?
pmdave