Law for Washigton riders

[richirich]

Moped (RCW 46.04.304)
"Moped" means a motorized device ...

This is the first line of the actual RCW. A bicycle with a motor would be considered a motorized device. I do not think that it really maters what you slap a motor onto , you could be as creative as you want, if it has less than three wheels it would still be a motorized device.
. How would you argue that whatever you had with a motor on it would not be considered a motorized device?

 

[Nipash]

From my research, most policemen and Washington State Patrol workers think they are moped's and rightly so - since that's the description they fit the best. However, anyone at the Department of Licensing (the people that are SUPPOSED to let me register it as a moped), Olympia or in motorcycle shops think it's a bicycle. So the problem we have here is that there isn't a consensus within the government. I guess what you'll have to do is either get a moped frame and just use it's info; or get pulled over, take the case to court and argue that the government doesn't have it's act together. You could also get an e-mail/recorded phone conversation from the Department of Licensing saying that they won't register it. Or you could just use the definition of a motorized vehicle law to argue your point since mb's aren't self-propelled. Either way, if you win a court case in WA about this I'll buy you a beer

 

[richirich]

Department of Licensing did not say they absolutly wouldnt register it. They said it had to be WA state patrol inspected and pass to be registered. But, its like good luck with getting it to DOT standards.

The thing that most people are missing is that the RCW states that any motorized DEVICE with less than three wheels falls into the moped class.

It seems they wrote it like that so it covers everything that anyone could possibly put a motor on. Otherwise you would probably be seeing 3 wheel lawnchairs, modified shopping carts or anything else that would be ridiculous riding on the road.

Sh*t if someone won this in court and started a statewide Precedence getting it legal , id give them my bike and just build another one...

 

[biknut]

Moped (RCW 46.04.304)
"Moped" means a motorized device ...

This is the first line of the actual RCW. A bicycle with a motor would be considered a motorized device. I do not think that it really maters what you slap a motor onto , you could be as creative as you want, if it has less than three wheels it would still be a motorized device.
. How would you argue that whatever you had with a motor on it would not be considered a motorized device?

I can see you point. Texas doesn't have wording like that in the motor vehicle code. I'm pretty sure Florida doesn't either.

However it's does sound contradicting. You could definitely argue that a motor bicycle isn't a motor vehicle under Washington law.

Check one more thing. In the Texas motor vehicle code it says practically on page one, all motor vehicles are considered self propelled, and on page two is says you only need registration and a license for a motor vehicle, or something to that effect. I forget the exact wording, but that's what it means.

If the law is contradicting that can be exploited in court. It would be interesting to find out if there's ever been any motor bicycle conviction in your state for no registration. That doesn't mean someone paid a ticket. Has there ever been a conviction in a court challenge that involved a motor bicycle where the plaintiff actually lost the action? I was told by the Texas DPS that there hasn't been here, as of a year and a half ago. That's one of the things that made me say screw it, I don't think they can get a conviction.

 

[happyvalley]

Hmmm, and to think WA had a pretty lenient motorized bike law up until just last year.
Gee, I wonder what happened to have them change it?

 

[Pablo]

Hmmm, and to think WA had a pretty lenient motorized bike law up until just last year.
Gee, I wonder what happened to have them change it?

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but #1 is revenue. Look at all the EV rule changes. Basically they were not getting gas tax dollars out of these vehicles. #2 is probably ecofrenzy spin and noise and "safety" - they probably filtered up some complaints.

Bottom line is, the average MB at no say in the process.

 

[richirich]

To look at the big picture, as more people are looking for cheaper modes of transportation and the motorized bicycle and trikes are becoming more popular it would meen less revenu for the state.
No driver licence fee's
No registration fee's
Less Gax tax from lower gas purchases

And it would just be easier to make it illegal than try to regulate it.

 

[happyvalley]

Hmmm, and to think WA had a pretty lenient motorized bike law up until just last year.
Gee, I wonder what happened to have them change it?

Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but #1 is revenue. Look at all the EV rule changes. Basically they were not getting gas tax dollars out of these vehicles. #2 is probably ecofrenzy spin and noise and "safety" - they probably filtered up some complaints.

Bottom line is, the average MB at no say in the process.

Actually, reading through the vagaries of this thread it appears to me that the old reactive canard about revenue doesn't quite fit. There's simply too few of these things to represent much of a substantial revenue stream, one way or the other, to turn a legislators head. I do think you've hit upon something with the "safety" point, legislators favor handling those kind of complaints expeditiously simply because to be seen doing so is a vote getter.

But to my original comment, what the 'average' MB has become is not what the average MAB used to be, for many years, before the law was changed.

 

[SdCruizer]

to bad you dont live in Ca
all I did was print out a form, put my make of the bike, serial number and bogus engine number on a form, send $18 and 2 weeks later got a moped license plate
no renewal fees ever, no dmv lines nothing

too bad the plate is to large to mount anywhere

not really sure if I needed the moped plate but its so easy to get I figured why not
But you still needed to legally have a m1 or m2 license to drive these bikes no matter what but I dont think they would ever check unless you were doing something stupid to get busted

 

[richirich]

Maybe this could be part of the problem. Even though its not MB with the problem you could see if was actually legal where a trend could start and the severity of accidents would be grater if people would be traveling at higher speeds without proper equipment... just a thought

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/local/bicyclecollisionsinseattle.html

 

[rustycase]

Maybe this could be part of the problem. Even though its not MB with the problem you could see if was actually legal where a trend could start and the severity of accidents would be grater if people would be traveling at higher speeds without proper equipment... just a thought

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/local/bicyclecollisionsinseattle.html

I strongly agree with part of that concept, RR !

The travelling public is indeed entitled to 'some' degree of safety expectations when they go out upon their roads and highways on their personal business.

IMO, a bicycle travelling faster than 30mph approaches safety issues, in traffic, than many don't care to admit.
Of course they remain no comparison to a negligent or incompetent operator of a two ton mass of metal and plastic moving at a high rate of speed...

Once again IMO, if a person wishes more, perhaps they should join the moped army, or even build a real motorcycle. They'll be much happier!

I'm presently getting fairly good use out of my kit-bike, running errands around town. Not really any need for more speed, but power for climbing hills is always nice!
And I gotta work on my cargo capacity!!!

My goal is to remain 'below the radar', operate cost efficiently, and doing everything I can to avoid the taxation schemes more powerful devices are subjected to.

Best
rc

 

[Bob Gray]

I realize I'm resurrecting an old thread here, but I have a little bit of experience that might be relevant.

Years ago I registered a 250cc dirt bike as a street legal motorcycle.

I jumped through a few of the hoops people here have mentioned, went to the DMV, got told to go to the State Patrol, etc...

What I ended up doing was adding all the lights and street legal tires necessary to pass inspection, (made a lot of trips to Bent Bike, getting all that stuff up and running with oddball parts and no experience is harder than you might think). Once I had that done I took it to the WSP for inspection, they gave me a piece of paper saying that it was in order and then I went over to the DMV where I forked over about $200 to get a license plate for it.

The long and short of it was that it was a PITA, but doable. Had I known what I was getting into I would have just sold the bike and bought a street legal bike to begin with.

I imagine a similar thing could be done with a motorized bicycle.

First off, I would start by telling the DMV up front that you have a "homemade moped" that you need to get registered. Don't tell them it's a "bicycle" or even a "motorized bicycle". The DMV doesn't handle those. They handle "mopeds" and under Washington law that's what you've got.

Second off, it's got to be possible. Just think of all the choppers and homemade trailers that get built, registered and licensed. They're not all being built with fraudulent VINs. The real issue is whether it's worth the trouble.

IMO, the real devil in the details is likely to be the tires. I strongly suspect that in order to pass inspection you will need DOT approved tires. That means motorcycle tires, which also means motorcycle wheels and once you start going down that route you're talking about one big, HEAVY motorized bicycle. If it were me, I'd think about taking them back off again after the inspection.