Kalifornias contradictory Motorized Bike laws in pictures.

bairdco said:

or you could pay 19 bucks, buy some flashy lights and quit losing sleep over it.

Click to expand...

bairdco said:

the law is pretty cut and dried. simply put, you now have a moped, and they're asking you to have the same equipment that a moped has.

in all your posts i haven't seen any evidence showing the law is unjust, unfair, or illegal.

brakelights are easy to rig up, and with everything your bike has, would look cool anyway. i don't understand why you want to make such a big fuss over it.

despite what people think, most places in california are pretty lenient on us. the newport cop i know told me the same thing 2 years ago, about "cracking down on illegal bikes."

i haven't seen anything get worse in orange county. i ride in HB and newport all the time with no hassles, on different bikes. all of them are registered but none of them have all the equipment needed.

my race bike has no plate, no lights, and barely looks like a bicycle anymore. it is registered, i just don't wanna put the plate on. but i carry that piece of paper with me when i'm riding it, but have never been stopped.

there's another old saying. "you can't fight city hall."

you can try if you want, but i think it's more fun to beat them at their own game. ride legal and show them you're not just some tweaker on a crappy huffy.

the simplest solution to beating that jerk cop, is to do what the law wants, then carry a copy of it with you. if you get stopped, you can show him you're obeying the law the way it's written, and he'll probably respect you for it.

or you can be a dick and get ticketed, hassled, possibly arrested, get your bike impounded, or beat up and hopefully someone youtubes it.

i look at it like this. i can ride almost every day of the year living in southern california. if that means buying a 2 dollar switch a making a brake light, big deal...

Click to expand...

PAracer said:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc406.htm
Do you abide by 406? This is what defines an MB in Ca. If you do not abide, then you are a motor driven cycle. Or you're a grapefruit. Maybe a submarine...

Click to expand...

bairdco said:

ok, ok. i'm the judge, you're the guy with no brake light and no rear brake.

i say, how do you plead, blah blah, and you say based on VC24015 you don't have to comply because you aren't a "motor driven cycle."

i ask, "where does it say you're a motor driven cycle?

you say, "right there in plain english."

i say, "hmmm... let me read this out loud:

24015. (a) Motorized bicycles shall comply with those federal motor vehicle safety standards established under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C., Sec. 1381, et seq.) which are applicable to a motor-driven cycle, as that term is defined in such federal standards.

now, let me pause here for a minute," the judge continues.

"it does not say you ARE a motor driven cycle. it says you SHALL COMPLY with the SAME safety standards as a motor driven cycle.

Such standards include, but are not limited to, provisions requiring a headlamp, taillamp, stoplamp, side and rear reflex reflectors, and adequate brakes.

and then you need some extra stuff too. let me read on...

(b) In addition to equipment required in subdivision (a), all motorized bicycles operated upon a highway shall be equipped with a mirror as required in subdivision (a) of Section 26709, a horn as required in Section 27000, and an adequate muffler as required in subdivision (a) of Section 27150.

luckily, though, you don't need every single thing a motorcycle or a motor driven cycle requires, as section C states:

Except as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b), none of the provisions of this chapter relating to motorcycles and motor-driven cycles, as defined in this code, shall apply to a motorized bicycle.

now," the judge says, "what was your argument?"

at this point you're sweating, and trying to think of a way to counter the judge's argument. the judge will let you sweat for a minute, 'cause they like that.

then he's gonna pronounce you guilty.

see, the judge is doing the exact same thing you are. interpreting the letter of the law in his own words. the difference is, he's a judge. his interpretation IS the law.

now, if you really want to drive him nuts, quote VC section 4020 http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d03/vc4020.htm

oh, and one last thing. laws or no laws, cops or no cops, not having a rear brake is stupid. with all the fabrication that went into your bike, claiming you have "no clearance" just doesn't cut it. if your front brake fails for any reason, not having a stop lamp isn't such a big deal anymore. since you won't be stopping till something stops you...

Click to expand...

bairdco said:

ok, ok. i'm the judge, you're the guy with no brake light and no rear brake.

i say, how do you plead, blah blah, and you say based on VC24015 you don't have to comply because you aren't a "motor driven cycle."

i ask, "where does it say you're a motor driven cycle?

you say, "right there in plain english."

i say, "hmmm... let me read this out loud:

24015. (a) Motorized bicycles shall comply with those federal motor vehicle safety standards established under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C., Sec. 1381, et seq.) which are applicable to a motor-driven cycle, as that term is defined in such federal standards.

now, let me pause here for a minute," the judge continues.

"it does not say you ARE a motor driven cycle. it says you SHALL COMPLY with the SAME safety standards that are applicable to a motor driven cycle.

Such standards include, but are not limited to, provisions requiring a headlamp, taillamp, stoplamp, side and rear reflex reflectors, and adequate brakes.

and then you need some extra stuff too. let me read on...

b) In addition to equipment required in subdivision (a), all motorized bicycles operated upon a highway shall be equipped with a mirror as required in subdivision (a) of Section 26709, a horn as required in Section 27000, and an adequate muffler as required in subdivision (a) of Section 27150.

luckily, though, you don't need every single thing a motorcycle or a motor driven cycle requires, as section C states:

c) Except as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b), none of the provisions of this chapter relating to motorcycles and motor-driven cycles, as defined in this code, shall apply to a motorized bicycle.

now," the judge says, "what was your argument?"

at this point you're sweating, and trying to think of a way to counter the judge's argument. the judge will let you sweat for a minute, 'cause they like that.

then he's gonna pronounce you guilty.

see, the judge is doing the exact same thing you are. interpreting the letter of the law in his own words. the difference is, he's a judge. his interpretation IS the law.

now, if you really want to drive him nuts, quote VC section 4020 http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d03/vc4020.htm

oh, and one last thing. laws or no laws, cops or no cops, not having a rear brake is stupid. with all the fabrication that went into your bike, claiming you have "no clearance" just doesn't cut it. if your front brake fails for any reason, not having a stop lamp isn't such a big deal anymore. since you won't be stopping till something stops you...

Click to expand...

MotorBicycleRacing said:

California might as well be Mexico!

Too much talk and not enough action......please track that
cop down, get a ticket and challenge it in court then give
us a full report!

Let us know the trial date and I will be there to cheer you on.

Click to expand...

PAracer said:

Court isn't really the right place to address this. Especially when the bike is illegal anyways. According to the law (406) it is a motor driven cycle. And it's probably not a good idea to tell the judge that you have 999 watts. I know that I don't lie very well.

It would be better to write a letter to your local congressman.

Click to expand...

bairdco said:

1. How does NHTSA define a Motorcycle?


NHTSA defines the term “motorcycle,” for the purpose of the statute and regulations it administers, as “a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with ground” (49 CFR 571.3).

this describes my bike. so it must be a motorcycle under federal law.


NHTSA defines the term “motor driven cycle” as a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less. A motor driven cycle is exempted from certain requirements of the FMVSS that apply to motorcycles.

wait. this also describes my bike. so it must be a motor driven cycle under federal law.


NHTSA does not define the terms “motor scooter,” “moped,” “pocket bike,” “mini-chopper,” “mini-ninja,” or any other terms of this nature that may be used for the purpose of marketing motorcycles and motor driven cycles. Those terms therefore have no relevance to the classification of a vehicle for the purpose of determining which FMVSS would apply to it.

now i'm really confused. so who determines the laws?


Note that States are free to regulate the use of such vehicles and may use their own terms when describing vehicle types for the purpose of their regulations.

oh, that sums it up nicely. i guess the state of california is free to regulate my motorized bicycle however it sees fit.

the reason i'm not jumping for joy with you, is because i don't understand any of your argument. you keep trying to say that federal laws beat local laws, that california law contradicts itself, etc.. and none of the reasons you're giving show any proof of that. it takes me a few minutes to read through the stuff you post and i can easily come back and show you where i think you're wrong.

it all seems pretty clear to me.

it's like you keep making up stuff to fit your argument.



the law says "adequate brakes." it doesn't define what it is, but
one front brake is not "adequate" for a motorized bicycle. there's a reason motorized vehicles have more than one brake. if one fails, the other can stop you. that's simple common sense.

the only reason i keep arguing with you is because i don't want any new guys coming along and taking your opinions as fact, and ending up with tickets and impounded bikes, when it's easy enough to just comply with the system.

this isn't beating the IRS, or dodging the draft, or anything even remotely worth fighting for.

for every misinformed statement you make regarding your interpretation of the law, a judge will counter your argument and you'll lose.

like MBR said, come back after you've been to court and tell us how it went...

Click to expand...

miked826 said:

You are wrong again Grasshoppa! A motorcycle is defined as a "Motor Vehicle" by the Feds, and a motorized bicycle and bicycle is not on that list.

That's what separates a Motorized Bicycle from a "Motor Driven Cycle" and a "Motorcycle".

That's why Ca solely excludes it from it's definitions of the word "vehicle" on their site.

You think I'm just playing with words now to mess with your head but all those words in quotes above are also Legal Definitions that are enforceable in a Court of Law and motorized bicycles fall under none of them. CA can make any law it wants as long as it's not already covered by the Feds.

Click to expand...

bairdco said:

1. How does NHTSA define a Motorcycle?


NHTSA defines the term “motorcycle,” for the purpose of the statute and regulations it administers, as “a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with ground” (49 CFR 571.3).

this describes my bike. so it must be a motorcycle under federal law.


NHTSA defines the term “motor driven cycle” as a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less. A motor driven cycle is exempted from certain requirements of the FMVSS that apply to motorcycles.

wait. this also describes my bike. so it must be a motor driven cycle under federal law.


NHTSA does not define the terms “motor scooter,” “moped,” “pocket bike,” “mini-chopper,” “mini-ninja,” or any other terms of this nature that may be used for the purpose of marketing motorcycles and motor driven cycles. Those terms therefore have no relevance to the classification of a vehicle for the purpose of determining which FMVSS would apply to it.

now i'm really confused. so who determines the laws?


Note that States are free to regulate the use of such vehicles and may use their own terms when describing vehicle types for the purpose of their regulations.

oh, that sums it up nicely. i guess the state of california is free to regulate my motorized bicycle however it sees fit.

the reason i'm not jumping for joy with you, is because i don't understand any of your argument. you keep trying to say that federal laws beat local laws, that california law contradicts itself, etc.. and none of the reasons you're giving show any proof of that. it takes me a few minutes to read through the stuff you post and i can easily come back and show you where i think you're wrong.

it all seems pretty clear to me.

it's like you keep making up stuff to fit your argument.



the law says "adequate brakes." it doesn't define what it is, but
one front brake is not "adequate" for a motorized bicycle. there's a reason motorized vehicles have more than one brake. if one fails, the other can stop you. that's simple common sense.

the only reason i keep arguing with you is because i don't want any new guys coming along and taking your opinions as fact, and ending up with tickets and impounded bikes, when it's easy enough to just comply with the system.

this isn't beating the IRS, or dodging the draft, or anything even remotely worth fighting for.

for every misinformed statement you make regarding your interpretation of the law, a judge will counter your argument and you'll lose.

like MBR said, come back after you've been to court and tell us how it went...

Click to expand...