Idaho Laws
- Thread starter barret
- Start date
@Randy..
I guess your in the group labeled #4(b) on my list..
I can show you the code that says it's a motor vehicle and if it's classified as a motor vehicle, you need a license to drive it on public roads. (Just not an MC endorsement - which is what Barnfresh was stating)...
BUT.. You'll be the one to point out the part I quoted in my last post and say our bikes are..
(Case and point was your original reaction).
@Barn...
It will be a lesson in futility to try to argue the point that our bikes are classified as "motor vehicles", because of the above, "@Randy".
I guess your in the group labeled #4(b) on my list..
I can show you the code that says it's a motor vehicle and if it's classified as a motor vehicle, you need a license to drive it on public roads. (Just not an MC endorsement - which is what Barnfresh was stating)...
BUT.. You'll be the one to point out the part I quoted in my last post and say our bikes are..
THAT'S why I said it was "irrelevant" in the first place, because you already have formed the opinion that our bikes are NOT "motor vehicles"..
(Case and point was your original reaction).
@Barn...
It will be a lesson in futility to try to argue the point that our bikes are classified as "motor vehicles", because of the above, "@Randy".
Last edited:
Sangesf, you can't provide any code that says it's a motor vehicle, that is the point.
On one hand you state you can provide the code, and then quote code that contradicts yourself.
Please, I beg you, give me the Idaho code that says a moped is a motor vehicle.
On one hand you state you can provide the code, and then quote code that contradicts yourself.
Please, I beg you, give me the Idaho code that says a moped is a motor vehicle.
Here are the codes..
Been there, wrecked that...
The point being that if the DMV in two places state you need a DL to ride a moped and there is a code that says a moped ("any vehicle that is self propelled") is a motor vehicle, hence DL required..
THEN you will start the argument about "self-propelled"..
Been THERE, wrecked THAT!
It's a constant back and forth.. Like I said.
You either have a DL and don't care or you don't have one and you think one shouldn't be needed...
And now here's the point at which you point out certain things that you believe that exempt a moped from the definition of a motor vehicle...
Been there, wrecked that...
The point being that if the DMV in two places state you need a DL to ride a moped and there is a code that says a moped ("any vehicle that is self propelled") is a motor vehicle, hence DL required..
THEN you will start the argument about "self-propelled"..
Been THERE, wrecked THAT!
It's a constant back and forth.. Like I said.
You either have a DL and don't care or you don't have one and you think one shouldn't be needed...
A few thoughts here.
First, do you believe that there is no chance that the dmv and the itd chart are based off of the old moped statutes that did not have the title exemption? Under the old statute a moped most definitely was a motor vehicle. It wasn't until the moped definition was changed a few years ago that the title exemption was put in, and poof, mopeds are no longer motor vehicles.
Old definition;
"Moped" means a limited-speed motor-driven cycle having:
(a) both motorized and pedal propulsion that is not capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed in excess of thirty (30) miles per hour on level ground, whether two (2) or three (3) wheels are in contact with the
ground during operation. If an internal combustion engine is used, the
displacement shall not exceed fifty (50) cubic centimeters and the moped
shall have a power drive system that functions directly or automatically
without clutching or shifting by the operator after the drive system is
engaged
Second, mopeds usually fail the "Self-propelled" definition.
As defined by Merriam-Webster
self-pro·pelled
Adjective:
Moving or able to move without external propulsion or agency
How many people have you seen complain on the forums about having to peddle to get going. Not very "self-propelled".
First, do you believe that there is no chance that the dmv and the itd chart are based off of the old moped statutes that did not have the title exemption? Under the old statute a moped most definitely was a motor vehicle. It wasn't until the moped definition was changed a few years ago that the title exemption was put in, and poof, mopeds are no longer motor vehicles.
Old definition;
"Moped" means a limited-speed motor-driven cycle having:
(a) both motorized and pedal propulsion that is not capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed in excess of thirty (30) miles per hour on level ground, whether two (2) or three (3) wheels are in contact with the
ground during operation. If an internal combustion engine is used, the
displacement shall not exceed fifty (50) cubic centimeters and the moped
shall have a power drive system that functions directly or automatically
without clutching or shifting by the operator after the drive system is
engaged
Second, mopeds usually fail the "Self-propelled" definition.
As defined by Merriam-Webster
self-pro·pelled
Adjective:
Moving or able to move without external propulsion or agency
How many people have you seen complain on the forums about having to peddle to get going. Not very "self-propelled".
Sorry to bring up an old post, I'm new to the Boise area and just ordered a 66cc engine. Can anyone give me any pointers regarding laws that are up to date, any issues with the law, obviously common sense but are they really sticklers around this area riding on public roads?
Police stopped me in Emmett, ID today and stated that since it was under 50CC I need not have registration and titled but they stated I had better put lights, horn, turn signals on mine. Also stated that I am required to have a valid driver's license and liability insurance.
I'm going down to the police department tomorrow to ask for a printout of Idaho statutes that requires insurance for a moped that isn't legally required to be registered and titled.
I'm going down to the police department tomorrow to ask for a printout of Idaho statutes that requires insurance for a moped that isn't legally required to be registered and titled.
I don't think you can get insurance on a unregisterable vehicle. Their call for you to have insurance is in error. They will try to say that isn't so, that you need insurance but the law exempts mopeds which includes motorized bikes. You have to dig deep into the statutes but it's there.
My father was a Boise City cop a long time ago and has been involved with law enforcement for 35 years. He nearly hit the roof when I told him this. I do say there has been some changes since I argued this here a few years ago specifically to the definition pertaining to electric mopeds.
I have the statutes here. I'm going to print them out and take them to the police department and ask them where it states that vehicles which are specifically exempt from title and registration requirements, making them by statute not a motorized vehicle, are required to carry liability insurance. In fact according to the statutes it would be unlawful for any insurance carrier to cover them with motor vehicle liability insurance because they are not motor vehicles.
The driver's license requirement is a direct contradiction in the statutes according to definition but I'm not going to push that point. Just the point they are trying to enforce on me atm.
It's no wonder Judges here have been dismissing so many of these citations for driving without a license and insurance.
I have the statutes here. I'm going to print them out and take them to the police department and ask them where it states that vehicles which are specifically exempt from title and registration requirements, making them by statute not a motorized vehicle, are required to carry liability insurance. In fact according to the statutes it would be unlawful for any insurance carrier to cover them with motor vehicle liability insurance because they are not motor vehicles.
The driver's license requirement is a direct contradiction in the statutes according to definition but I'm not going to push that point. Just the point they are trying to enforce on me atm.
It's no wonder Judges here have been dismissing so many of these citations for driving without a license and insurance.
Thanks! I ordered the lights, horn, turn/break lights as well as mirrors so should be good there. I thought anything above 5HP and classified as a vehicle needed a drivers license, or did I completely read that wrong.
It's all about the cc's. If you got the money and are crazy enough there are 15 HP 50 cc motors... perfectly legal but not practical.
Idaho statutes specifically state anything above 50cc on a vehicle (which includes a bicycle) is classified as a motor vehicle and are subject to all the requirements of such. 5 HP is well above the threshold for the classification. In fact that on a bicycle would classify it as a motorcycle and you would need to have it titled, registered, and plated and you would also need a motorcycle endorsement on your driver's license and liability insurance. Anything 49cc or under is exempt from title and registration and under the statute definition of a motor vehicle it could not be classified as one.
I spoke with a Lt. at the local police dept. here in Emmett and I explained to him that I am unable to get any insurance carrier to underwrite a liability policy because my bike is not classified as a motor vehicle under the statute. He stated he needs to verify this with the prosecutor and he'll get back to me.
I told him that there have been a few members of the forum who live here in Idaho who have been cited for no DL and/or insurance and have had these citations dismissed due to the fact that at least bikes like mine aren't motor vehicles. The Lt. asked me for their names to look up the case law but I told him that this site uses aliases. If someone who has had a citation dismissed here in Idaho would like to send me their name or case number in private I would forward it to the police and DA here to establish the case law precedent here. There are at least 4 motorized bicyclists here in town and I would hate to see them abandoning their bikes due to our police misinterpreting the law.
My position in this matter is being in compliance with the law. I didn't challenge the fact that the police are misinterpreting the law when I made my inquiry today. I went in with the premise I needed their guidance to assist me in locating the relevant statutes that mandate I require insurance because I could not find any due the classification of my moped.
Never confront law enforcement in an adversarial way especially when we get flagged down or pulled over. Be courteous and respectful even if you disagree with them. They will be less likely to be persuaded to consider your point of view if you behave badly or challenge their authority. The police officer is doing what they believe is the right thing just as we believe we are doing the right thing. Even if we do get cited for no DL or insurance while riding our motorized bicycles the time to challenge it is in court and not with the officer that is issuing the citation. I've dealt with others here and in the other forum who have become adversarial and even combative with the police and they will lose every time that way. Not only that it makes a bad impression on others in out position on those who matter.
I'll post here when I get an update on this.
Last edited:
Thanks for the update, I'll check up on it further as well. Not that I don't believe it or anything, if anything else, I just have more to take care of.
I made it a point to print out the state statutes and highlighted the relevant text before I went to the police. That's where I'm getting my info from. It's best to be as informed as possible before we get involved with these. Many people don't and some end up getting it in the end because of that. I've read posts from people in other states who dumped all kinds of money and time into motorizing their bicycles only to find out they aren't legal in their state when they got cited.
Yeah, I'm reading/printing that out now, I haven't found where it says above 50cc thought but I gather I will eventually. I may have to end up ordering a 48cc just to be safe. Any idea where I can find stating that 50cc and above requires a license and/or motorcycle endorsement.
Hmm. Looking at the statute anything 50cc or above is considered a motorbike., motor-driven cycle, or motorcycle. Here is a flowchart I use:
https://itd.idaho.gov/dmv/vehicleservices/documents/IDChart23WV.pdf
A bicycle with 5 HP or less is classified as a motor-driven cycle by the statute:
(13) "Motor-driven cycle" means a cycle with a motor that produces five (5) brake horsepower or less as originally manufactured that meets federal motor vehicle safety standards as originally designed, and does not include mopeds. Such vehicle shall be titled and a motorcycle endorsement is required for its operation.
This was found here:
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH1SECT49-114.htm
Last edited:
That makes sense to a point, looking a bit further using the same chart. That would mean the mopeds aren't required to be registered/titled. However, a class d drivers license is required to operate. Also, I want to call around to Insurance companies and see if they provide insurance.
Still waiting for a response regarding insurance. However, I did call the DMV, told them everything that I was doing with engine size and everything else regarding title/registering. I'll need to have it inspected by the state to determine exactly what classification it falls under. From the sounds of it, I may have to drop down to the 48cc
49cc is fine. But for insurance it depends on whether bike ends up being classified as a motor vehicle or not. Above 50cc you'd have to apply for a title and registration and plates before you can get it insured. If you tell the insurance agent it's under 50cc you'll hit the same issue as me. one might be able to get liability for off road use but that's still inadequate considering that we use our motorize bicycles for on road use most of the time. Insurance companies underwrite policies according to use and risk associated with our vehicles and there is a huge difference in the types of risk between off road and on road use. They won't underwrite a policy for a non-motor vehicle for on road use because there is no such provision in the statute that requires it hence the very issue I brought to the attention of the police. If there was such a law that mandates our motorized bicycles be covered with liability insurance and the insurance companies refused to underwrite a policy I'd be filing complaints with the state commission that regulates insurance companies.
The EPA mandates that every internal combustion engine sold/imported into the US must have some sort of label describing the engine displacement and such. The officer that flagged me down yesterday made a point of verifying my engine cylinder displacement.
Years ago these Chinese HT manufacturers weren't labeling the engines and the EPA cracked down on them. We used to see claims from makers and vendors that HT engines were 80cc which was a lie. They were actually 66 or so CCs being marketed as 80cc and so on causing all kinds of drama with both government regulators and consumers. The state won't have any issue determining the cylinder displacement these days so if you do try to use a 66cc engine the police and DMV inspectors will know. Some try to remove the label but that only makes the consumer have to prove the displacement somehow.
From what I've read there isn't that much different in the performance of a 48cc and a 66cc motor if the gear ratios are properly accounted for. My 49cc 4 cycle has enough power to move me around and a 48cc 2 stroke would be stronger than my 4 stroke I would assume.