Idaho Moped Law

[jburr36]

Wow this thread has grown since I last posted.

Just wanted to mention that I made my maiden voyage to Emmett from where I live (about 3 miles one way) and back on my unfinished 4-cycle motorized bike yesterday.

I have yet to add the lights and horn and I'm still fine tuning the setup so I have loose wires hanging from both brake handles and the kill switch as well as the switch cluster that controls the turn signals, horn, and headlight. That must have been what got the sheriff's attention.

I like to be prepared so I always carry a motorcycle handbook when I ride but the police here (at least this one) seemed to be up to speed on mopeds.

He stated that none of the lights and horn or mirrors are required for me to ride this legally but he made sure it was a motor with less than 50CC displacement. He also asked me if I had it at wide open throttle. I told him why **** yeah I did. I was doing 25 MPH on a flat country road so I was ok there.He said that since it is that I did not need to have it registered or insured but he did say that I needed to have a valid Idaho driver's license because since it has an engine it is classified as a motor vehicle even though it is not classified as one needing titled, registration, and insurance. He then asked to see my driver's license so I showed it to him.

After all that he told me to drive safe and watch for traffic and beware that Emmett has a lot of 20 MPH zones and that the city police can write me a speeding ticket if I ride it too fast through town. I don't have the speedometer yet.

After I read though this thread I did a google search on Idaho moped laws and found this: kinda conveluding but weird interpretation. must suck to be on a motor driven skateboard - Idaho Moped Laws

 

[GreedyRogue]

I have made the argument before that they are not motor vehicles, so I'm not going to do it again.

You believe it is a motor vehicle. Ok. If that is true then not having the lights horn or mirrors would violate Idaho code. specifically codes 49-906(tail lights), 49-956(horn), and 49-940(mirror).

The only exception is headlights which apparently you don't need according to the 49-905 code.

It can't be both ways. Either it is a motor vehicle and has to follow all motor vehicle requirements (except specific instances like titling or motorcycle endorsement), or it is not a motor vehicle.

Motor vehicles require both insurance and registration. You can't choose to only follow the rules you want, it's all or nothing.

Try driving a car without lights horn or mirrors, see how long you last.

 

[DuctTapedGoat]

Well, either way that's cool that he was mostly educated about it. Though, as an officer it is his responsibility to enforce the code as he sees it.

True - it is not a motor vehicle, and it's still iffy on the DL.

The DL I would like to either see in the code, or not there at all. Everything else is far from a grey area.

 

[jburr36]

You believe it is a motor vehicle.

Again, It's not what I believe that matters. It's how the police, the prosecutor, the the courts interpret the law that matters.

Try driving a car without lights horn or mirrors, see how long you last.

And again as I mentioned before, totally different classifications of vehicles here. Apples and Oranges. The only thing common between a car and my moped is that they are designed to transport a person from point A to Point B. Other than that that the differences vary greatly. Motorcycles are classified different than cars and have extra sets of rules and training that must be acquired before one is granted the privelege of riding on a highway thus the need for a special endorsement. Try lane sharing with a car. Classifying a motorized bicycle equal to a car is like trying to classify a bus, tractor-trailer (even doubles and triples) equal with a car. These vehicles differ greatly thus why they have laws and rules specific to them respectively.

I posted what I was told by 'the man' on my 1st trip to town. We can post all the lawyer talk and split hairs with the statutes with our own interpretations of it until the end of time but all that is irrelevent because the buck does not stop with us. It stops with the courts and the judge who presides over it or maybe an appellate court.

By the way, DuctTapedGoat, the sheriff never mentioned anything about the shift kit. But after discussing it with other members in my family who are in law enforcement here there was a debate about it. What it came down to is the pedal crank. At that point of the moped the crank is considered "a duel-use propulsion mechanism which can be driven by the engine solely or by human powered solely or a combination of both." And since the shifting mechanism for the gears are on the output side of the pedal crank to deprive the use of them from the engine would also deprive the use of them from human power propulsion. Most of us concluded that the the system for the enging ended at the crank which makes the shifter ok to use. The one that didn't said let a court decide and make a precident case out of it.

 

[jburr36]

Here is an interesting case law decision I just found from the US Bankruptcy judge regarding classifying ATV's as exempt from the definition of a Motor Vehicle. One could argue that because of this decision that our mopeds are not classified as a motor vehicle but, and I quote directly,

Interestingly, Idaho Code ￾˜ 49￾-402(10) provides that ￾"[a]ny vehicle that
does not meet [FMVSS] shall not be registered and shall not be permitted to
operate on public highways of the state, as defined in section 40￾-117, Idaho Code, unless otherwise specifically authorized.￾"

http://www.id.uscourts.gov/decisions-bk/bosworth3.ckm.pdf

When we put an engine on our bicycles they are no longer classified as a bicycle. They are classified as Mopeds under Idaho law. According to the quote above we cannot legally operate our mopeds on Idaho public roadways without lights, mirrors, and a horn because without such they cannot be registered. In other words, our mopeds could technically be declared for off-road use only, unless otherwise specifically authorized.

So if you really want to argue that our mopeds are not classified as motor vehicles and no driver's license is required then legally you cannot operate it on a public roadway because it can only be used for off-road use ONLY unless someone can show us where in the Idaho code that we are specifically authorized to use our mopeds on the streets without FMVSS standards met.

 

[GreedyRogue]

First off the case deals with atv's and in no way deals with mopeds in any manner, what so ever.

Second the statute you quoted deals with motor vehicles registration only. You can't force motor vehicle requirements on something that is not a motor vehicle.

I stand by the fact that our mopeds fall outside the motor vehicle definition, and will until a court proves otherwise.

 

[jburr36]

Interestingly, Idaho Code ￾˜ 49￾-402(10) provides that ￾"[a]ny vehicle that
does not meet [FMVSS] shall not be registered and shall not be permitted to
operate on public highways of the state, as defined in section 40￾-117, Idaho Code, unless otherwise specifically authorized.￾"

That is not just pertaining to registration. Since you are determined to believe that mopeds are not motor vehicles you must prove mopeds are specifically authorized to operate on Idaho public roadways in any idaho statute otherwise according to your definition of a moped not being a motor vehicle you cannot legally ride them on the roadways.

I believe the sheriff that stopped me. He stated that they are motor vehicles thus require a driver's license. That way he is allowing me to legally ride my moped on the public roads according to his interpretation of the law.

I also believe the Idaho Motorcycle Operator's Handbook published by the Idaho Department of Transportation when it states that both classifications of Mopeds as defined by 49-114(9) require a valid driver's license to operate in Idaho's public roadways.

The confusion of your issue is that you are trying to have it both ways. You do not want your moped to be classified as a motor vehicle because you do not have a valid driver's license yet you wish to operate it on a public roadway as a motorized vehicle.

 

[GreedyRogue]

Actually I am not confused at all. A moped is not a motor vehicle. And I don't want to ride them on the streets like a motor vehicle, I ride it like it is a bicycle. Which is street legal.

Enjoy getting all pissed off. I assume that is what the 30 point red text is supposed to convey.

 

[DuctTapedGoat]

Interestingly, Idaho Code �˜ 49�-402(10) unless otherwise specifically authorized"

Mopeds are specifically authorized, you just posted it in BIG RED LETTERS. What's your point?

If you want to talk Idaho Moped law, lets do it.

 

[jburr36]

Actually I am not confused at all. A moped is not a motor vehicle. And I don't want to ride them on the streets like a motor vehicle, I ride it like it is a bicycle. Which is street legal.

Enjoy getting all pissed off. I assume that is what the 30 point red text is supposed to convey.

I not pissed off, just making a point. As stated earlier, once you put an engine on a bicycle it is no longer classified as a bicycle. So you are trying to say that riding a non-bicycle like a bicycle makes it legal. LOL.

 

[GreedyRogue]

I'm done with this thread. It went from a decent conversation about the moped laws here in Idaho to a troll fest.

Anyone who has read what I have written in this post can agree that the legal definitions are murky. I have tried my best to get them clarified but most people have the same attitude you have jburr36. "I'm right, you're wrong!"

This whole thread can be boiled down to this;
The current moped definitions can be interpretated both ways. Do what you need to, see you in court when you get your ticket.

 

[jburr36]

Mopeds are specifically authorized, you just posted it in BIG RED LETTERS. What's your point?

If you want to talk Idaho Moped law, lets do it.

I know they are authorized. That IS my point. Idaho code 49-114(9) clearly states that, The Idaho Motorcycle Operator's manual clearly states that, The cops told me that and so did many family members who are in law enforcement told me that. The caveat is that Mopeds require a driver's license if they are to be operated on Idaho roadways. They also made it very clear. Most vehicles that are self propelled (other than pedestrian vehicles like powered wheelchairs) that is operated on a public roadway requires a valid driver's license. The only exceptions pertain to farm equipment and the like which mopeds do not.

I'll do one better, next week I'll go to the county courthouse and talk to Judge Smith and get his interpretation of it. He presides over our local traffic court. I would rather depend on him regarding Idaho Moped Law than anyone in a forum on the internet. After that I'd be happy to talk Idaho Moped law.

 

[jburr36]

I'm done with this thread. It went from a decent conversation about the moped laws here in Idaho to a troll fest.

Anyone who has read what I have written in this post can agree that the legal definitions are murky. I have tried my best to get them clarified but most people have the same attitude you have jburr36. "I'm right, you're wrong!"

This whole thread can be boiled down to this;
The current moped definitions can be interpretated both ways. Do what you need to, see you in court when you get your ticket.

If you read that opinion from the bankruptcy judge even he remarked that Idaho lacks a clear definition of what is a motor vehicle. What it boils down to is how each vehicle with a motor is used thus defines its classification in Idaho code - On road or off road - farm equipment and the like.

I didn't come here to troll or have an attitude. I came back to this thread to tell you what a sheriff's officer told me regarding my moped I was riding the very 1st time I rode it on the streets out here. As for the ticket, I didn't get one because I produced a driver's license. I was told that by the sheriff.

 

[jburr36]

Here is yet another source that clearly states that in Idaho Mopeds (article talks about electric mopeds only though) require a valid driver's license -

Idaho Electric Scooter Laws | eHow.com

Here's one that mentions both gas and electric -

Idaho Other Types of Motorcycles - ID Scooter & Moped Info - DMV Guide

and yet another that clarifies the driver's license requirement

http://moped2.org/laws/Idaho.htm

and another source for further clarification on the driver's license requirement for moped

Can you ride certain electrical/gas scooters without having to have a license? | Gas Powered Scooters

And this graphical flowchart produced by IDOT even clarifies the driver's license requirement

http://itd.idaho.gov/dmv/vehicleservices/documents/IDChart23WV.pdf

on this forum adjuster jack laid out Idaho moped law in its proper context -

Idaho Moped/ Motor Assisted Bicycle Law - Lawyers.com Community

All these sources have interpreted Idaho's moped law as I did and as the sheriff did when it comes to the driver's license requirement.

 

[GreedyRogue]

So 4 random sources of questionable sources and 1 consumer on a lawyer website convinces you huh?

You should finish reading the rest of the posts at Lawyers.com. Page 2 post buy Ford.

GreedyRogue:
My original question was whether a moped was defined as a motor vehicle according to idaho law.

Under Title 49, apparently no.

 

[jburr36]

So 4 random sources of questionable sources and 1 consumer on a lawyer website convinces you huh?

Every source I posted, including the IDOT flowchart has a concensus that a valid Idaho driver's license is required to operate a moped on Idaho's roadways but no, none of those convinced me of that. It was the county sheriff that stopped me 2 days ago and told me I needed a valid driver's license to ride my moped on the streets that convinced me.

It seems that every one of those websites is questionable to you because you refuse to accept that consensus because it contradicts your own interpretation of the moped law in Idaho.

Edit: I didn't include the Idaho motorcycle operator's manual because I already listed it in my 1st post.

http://itd.idaho.gov/dmv/driverservices/documents/motorcycle_manual.pdf

page 7 of the pdf version clearly states that it requires a valid Idaho driver's license to operate it on public roadways. We are also allowed to operate them off=road but we need a OHV plate and registration for them just like ATVs.

 

[DuctTapedGoat]

Okay - that is the interpretation, not the point.

You've got nothing but opinions!

Boise Idaho Municipal Code - NOTHING about mopeds.

Idaho Statutes - All of the moped enforcement comes from here.

If you read anyone's opinion (DMV included), it's just an interpretation of what should be enforced!

One could say "A motorcycle endorsement isn't required, but 'process of elimination' says that a driver's license WOULD be required." But the code doesn't work through process of elimination!

Another could say "A motorcycle endorsement isn't required - that must have been put there because if they wrote 'A driver's license isn't required', people would interpret that as there being a need for a motorcycle endorsement". Which is still, just an opinon.


There also is a difference here - a converted bicycle is not really a true moped, though it is, it isn't. When mopeds were in their height 30-40 years ago, they were automobiles with VINs. What we ride falls UNDER the moped definition, but it's not a moped according to the source of state's definitions. We ride motor assisted bicycles which at their heart have serial numbers, not VINs. Though one could get a VIN, and register it as a motorcycle (despite it having pedals), and could have no restrictions on speeds aside from posted speed limits. But, you're not talking about that.

We're talking IDAHO CODE, that's it - don't bring in other people's opinions or other sources of outside interpretations and supposed "definitions".

Jeez, I feel like I may as well be having a theological discussion with a JudeoChristian.

 

[jburr36]

ROTFL! You forget about the opinion from who enforce the laws I have repeatedly mentioned in this thread? The sheriff is who I relied on for interpretation of Idaho moped laws. All I did was list a series of websites that illustrate a consensus of what a moped is and that it requires a valid idaho driver's license to operate on Idaho roadways. And every one of those outside interpretations from other people's opinions, the DMV and IDOT included was identicle to what the sheriff's officer told me the other day and I highly doubt that I was the 1st person he ever pulled over riding a bicycle converted into a moped.

Regarding the Idaho statutes on mopeds - they define what a moped is. Not what a moped once was or was converted from, VIN, serial numbers, etc. Plain and simple.

Again, according to the sheriff that stopped me the other day my converted bicycle is a moped as defined in 49-114(9) and shall be regulated as such. That isn't my opinion. It's the interpretation of the law from a law enforcement officer. All I care about is me riding my moped legally and safely in accordance to all laws in Idaho so I'm going to abide by how the police interpret Idaho's moped laws and I couldn't really care less about anything else because it just doesn't matter.

And I feel like I'm dealing with someone who is blind in one eye and can't see out the other.

 

[DuctTapedGoat]

I'm not saying that they aren't classified as them.

The only person who's say matters in the DL required debate is an Idaho jury. Everything else is just bs, be it from cops, forums, DOT/DMV or anywhere else - even a judge.

 

[jburr36]

Until we get case law from a jury trial we have to accept the bs from the cops, forums, DOT/DMV, judge or anywhere else. Who's going to volunteer to be the one to make the case law. Not me, I have better things to do.