Kalifornias contradictory Motorized Bike laws in pictures.

[miked826]

Why do Kalifornia MB's have to comply with "motor-driven cycle" NHTSA standards in VC 24015 when CA VC Section 405 specifically states that, "A motor-driven cycle does not include a motorized bicycle"? Kalifornia is, On A Highway To H3LL, but ya gotta love the the weather. LMAO

 

[miked826]

Anyone who owns a printer could drive a cruise ship through that loophole if they ever get pulled over on a MB for violating CA VC 24015. No lawyer needed. Thanks Sacramento!

 

[bairdco]

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

 

[miked826]

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

I have lights and I'm getting a plate but that still will not stop some cop who is h3ll bent on nailing a MB'er to the wall if he thinks you violated VC 24015 cause I'm not installing a "stoplamp" per VC 24015. Never, ever. And if "adequate brakes" means front AND rear brakes to the cop at the time, I can't do that either cause I don't have clearance in the back.

"I'll see you in court officer.....have a nice day."

Love, exciting and new
Come Aboard. We're expecting you.
Love, life's sweetest reward.
Let it flow, it floats back to you.

Love Boat soon will be making another run
The Love Boat promises something for everyone
Set a course for adventure,
Your mind on a new romance.

Love won't hurt anymore
It's an open smile on a friendly shore.
Yes LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE! It's LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE! (hey-ah!)

Love Boat soon will be making another run
The Love Boat promises something for everyone
Set a course for adventure,
Your mind on a new romance.

Love won't hurt anymore
It's an open smile on a friendly shore.
It's LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE! It's LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE! It's
LOOOOOOOOOOOVE!
It's the Love Boat-ah! It's the Love Boat-ah!

 

[bairdco]

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...

 

[PAracer]

You could live in PA. We need to come up with a vin for our bikes. To get a vin, you need to go through the 'enhanced inspection program'. Good luck finding a place that will do that and pass you. You also need all the equipmant that a moped requires. Must all be DOT approved, too. Then you get your title. Then you go pay for insurance. Then you can register. Then you can put your plate on the bike. Figure about $400 all said and done. Oh, by the way, it's snowing and it wont be warm and dry until May. Enjoy. Be legal and be happy.

 

[miked826]

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...

Sure you rig up a brake light, but I can't easily rig up a back brake in my case and VC 24015 leaves "adequate brakes" undefined and basically left for the cop to decide. Fortunately CA VC 405 effectively nullifies VC 24015. So why would I have to be a "dick" about it? The VC 405 says in plain English that a MB is not a "motor-driven cycle". So how could a MB be subject to ANY NHTSA provisions regarding a "motor-driven cycle" as stated in VC 24015? If pointing out one vehicle code law that cancels out another vehicle code law makes me a "dick" then shave my head, spray me with glue and slap some pubes on my neck. Just don't write me a ticket for violating VC 24015 and expect me to just roll over and accept it. Why should I? Why should anybody? The law is on my side and is plainly written in the CA VC Section 405.

 

[PAracer]

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...

 

[miked826]

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...

Do I abide by 406? Well, it's spit into 2 sections, A and B. I do abide by 406A but technically speaking I do not abide by 406B. My bike falls under both but since Cops don't carry any meters to measure amp/watts/volts or cc for that matter, I just tell them what it states in the VC Section to the letter. They don't like hearing that from me but that's not my problem. They have no other choice but to go by what I tell them regarding watts/amps/volts and cc.

So as far as the Police are concerned, I do abide by 406. Until the day the throw a multimeter and dynamometer in their car trunk that is. Then I might have a problem.

 

[bairdco]

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...

 

[miked826]

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...

Dude LMAO. It makes NO difference in a Court of Law what your opinion is on bike brakes. Nobody cares. The only thing that matters is what the law says or doesnt say about BICYCLE brakes. Nothing else matters.

A "MOTORCYCLE" with a gas motor of LESS than 5 HP is "motor-driven cycle" according to NHTSA standards. A BICYCLE is NOT a "motor-driven cycle" so "motor-driven cycle" laws DO NOT APPLY. How simpler can I say that?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/faq%20site/pages/page3.html#Anchor-52644

You can't have it both ways. California is NOT Mexico. CA laws/VC have to be legal and can't cancel each other out, so as not to be successfully challenged in court by somebody like me.

CA VC 405 clearly states that. Case dismissed!

Next on the docket! What say you now? LOL

 

[miked826]

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...

Oh no he didn't!! Oh yes I did!!

Federal law trumps state law (including CA) and is supreme in the land.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/faq%20site/pages/page3.html#Anchor-52644

NHTSA defines a "motor-driven cycle" in plain English. Pay close attention to the word "M-O-T-O-R-C-Y-C-L-E" in the definition.

No need to get upset at me. I would think you would be jumping for joy, like me. I didn't write the law.

You lose again.

 

[PAracer]

And all this is contingent on nobody asking if your bike provides less than 1000w of assist.
Have you removed all the labels from your equipment? Probably a silly question. It was one of the first things I did way before my engine rested inside my bike frame.

 

[MotorBicycleRacing]

Dude LMAO.

You can't have it both ways. California is NOT Mexico. CA laws/VC have to be legal and can't cancel each other out, so as not to be successfully challenged in court by somebody like me.

CA VC 405 clearly states that. Case dismissed!

Next on the docket! What say you now? LOL

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.

 

[miked826]

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.

I will not disagree with you on that. LOL

He's looking for me. He said it himself. As soon as I get my $19 plate on I will abide by every law applicable to me and my machine. Seeing as that will not be good enough for some LAPD Motorcycle Cops that want to nail me to the wall as a trophy, I will announce the time/date/location of my impending trial.

I will not go quietly into the night. I will not roll over like a dog. I am not a sheeple that blindly follows what I'm told because, "That's just the way it is".
May the judge have mercy on my soul. Proceed. Let's get this party started. LOL

 

[PAracer]

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.

 

[bairdco]

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.

It makes NO difference in a Court of Law what your opinion is on bike brakes. Nobody cares. The only thing that matters is what the law says or doesnt say about BICYCLE brakes. Nothing else matters.

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...

 

[miked826]

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.

You mean 2000 watts right? LOL

OK I'll say this to you as well Federal law trumps state law and Federal law states that a motor driven cycle is a "MOTORCYCLE WITH AN ENGINE OF 5HP OR LESS. CA is not legally allowed to make up it's own definition that goes against the Feds. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution. Fun read if you have the time.

 

[miked826]

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...

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.

 

[miked826]

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.

Your MB isn't a "Vehicle" until the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT says it is. That is why CA excludes it from it's definition of the word "Vehicle". They have no other choice or they would be in violation of The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/online/fee_calc/vehdef.htm

States can impose whatever MB laws they feel like doing as long as they don't call MB a "Vehicle" or tax and collect fees on like it is or that state is in violation of The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution.

God Bless America.....everybody sing along now. LOL

 

[miked826]

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...

Your MB isn't a "Vehicle" until the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT says it is. That is why CA excludes it from it's definition of the word "Vehicle". They have no other choice or they would be in violation of The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/online/fee_calc/vehdef.htm

States can impose whatever MB laws they feel like doing as long as they don't call a MB a "Vehicle" and tax and collect fees on like it is or that state is in violation of The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution.

God Bless America.....everybody sing along now. LOL