What Even Is A Motorcycle Anyway? US Lawmakers Want To Redefine It
A bill introduced in the US House of Representatives could leave Slingshots out in the cold, which the Motorcycle Industry Council doesn't like.
By: Janaki Jitchotvisut Courtesy: RideApart
When someone says the word 'motorcycle,' what's the first thing that comes to mind? What's the mental picture that instantly flashes before your eyes? If you're a rider, maybe it's one of your own bikes, which is totally reasonable. And if you're thinking of getting into riding, maybe it's your dream bike, which also makes complete sense.
What I'm willing to bet that it isn't is probably a Polaris Slingshot, or any similar vehicle that controls in a similar way. To be clear, I'm not knocking you if you own or enjoy a Slingshot; that's up to you, and not every vehicle is for every person.
But I will say this, as I also said right after I drove a Slingshot for the first time: It's not a motorcycle. It's something else. And, in fact, it is most often defined as an 'autocycle,' which seems like a much more accurate descriptor, just looking at the compound word and considering both the word 'automobile' and the word 'motorcycle.' When an automobile and a motorcycle love each other very much, sometimes they come together, and an autocycle is born. I think that's how it goes, anyway? Someone get Michael Bay on the phone to clarify this one, please.
The text of H.R. 3385, which was introduced by the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus co-chair Representative Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin, however, seeks "to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue certain regulations to update the definition of motorcycle, and for other purposes." If enacted as currently written, it further seeks this definition to be updated "not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act."
How, precisely, does this bill seek to redefine the term 'motorcycle'? Easy. "A motor vehicle, as was originally manufactured, with motive power, having a seat or saddle requiring the rider to sit astride, designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, steering controlled by handlebars, acceleration and braking controlled by handlebar and foot controls and capable of reaching speeds in excess of 30 mph."
I've ridden and driven a lot of different things in my time, so I recognize the elegance and precision of this definition. If this definition is accepted, then reverse trikes like the ones Can-Am makes would still qualify as motorcycles. Sidecars would qualify as motorcycles. Heck, regular trikes like the Harley-Davidson Tri-Glide would also qualify as motorcycles. None of those aforementioned three-wheelers would be negatively impacted, because you ride astride all of them, and you use handlebars and both handlebar and foot controls to operate them.
They are also all capable of reaching speeds in excess of 30 mph, which disqualifies e-bikes. That's an interesting point to note, particularly since some legislators elsewhere are seeking to redefine certain go-fast e-bikes as motorcycles.
Now, the Motorcycle Industry Council has sent a letter to members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee, before whom this bill currently sits. It cites several reasons for its opposition, including "total market elimination," a conflict with state laws in several states, economic impact, and disruption of existing safety standards.
What If They're Both Right?
Autocycles, as a category, exist in a nebulous space that is not quite a motorcycle, and not quite an automobile. Instead, they're a secret third thing, a vehicle category that exists in a sort of strange loophole in between the two. Autocycles are currently licensed, titled, and registered as motorcycles, despite the fact that I'm reasonably certain that even the most hardcore autocycle fans would admit that the experience of driving an autocycle is much different than riding a motorcycle.
At the same time, since autocycles are not automobiles, they are not required to meet the safety standards that automobiles are. This is by design; automotive safety testing is expensive, and you have to have quite deep pockets to be able to pay for the kinds of tests you need to legally sell new automobiles to customers. Instead, autocycles meet the safety standards currently set for motorcycles, which are much different.
But at the same time, does that seem right to you? To be honest, I don't ever want to crash or dump anything, personally. But at the same time, if I have to choose between a 4 to 500-pound motorcycle falling on my well-protected ankle and a 1,650-pound Slingshot, I'm pretty sure I know which one I'd prefer. And I'm pretty sure you do, too.
The Motorcycle Industry Council raises the point that suddenly changing this definition would automatically thrust autocycles into a type of legislative limbo, which could potentially harm both industry stakeholders and owners/enthusiasts of autocycles. At the same time, proponents of this legislation argue that statistics regarding injuries and deaths experienced by motorcyclists are unnecessarily skewed because autocycles are lumped in with motorcycles for record-keeping purposes, so we can't ever truly know how many riders (versus autocycle drivers) are being injured or killed in any meaningful way.
Perhaps The Best Answer Is, In Fact, A Secret Third Thing
The phraseology is somewhat smirky, I know, but what if that's truly the best answer here? ATVs, side-by-sides, snowmobiles, and PWCs might all slot neatly under the powersports umbrella with motorcycles, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone here trying to tell you that they're all the same thing.
And neither are autocycles. No one's saying that they shouldn't exist; to the contrary. Ride your ride, drive your drive, have your fun. But they're significantly different vehicle types, and perhaps the thing that makes the most sense is to treat them differently.
If that is the answer, then the MIC's point that suddenly flipping a switch would negatively impact businesses and owners, even 120 days later, should also be considered. Sudden and seemingly capricious legal designation changes don't serve anyone, and could very well kill that segment. Ideally, any such changes would be undertaken in ways that consider the needs of all involved to make any such transition as smooth as possible.
Are there political and logistical reasons why such a change couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't happen? Possibly, maybe even probably; I'm neither a politician nor a lobbyist. But just as side-by-sides aren't trucks, autocycles aren't and never have been motorcycles.
Maybe it's time they had their own branch on the powersports family tree.
Disclaimer:
As a service to the sport we all love and follow, Biker Life posts numerous media releases and articles from a wide variety of sources on our website. Due to the large number, and sometimes short time available, it is nearly impossible to review each public release. These articles are written by reporters, writers or press officers who work for various organizations, event organizers, teams, drivers, riders, and other parties, and they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Biker Life.