Texas House of Representatives Passes “Sport Bike” Law
 
Could establish dangerous precedent for Texas motorcyclists 
 
On May 4th the House passed House bill 2470, which defines “sport bikes” as a separate class of motorcycles and places special restrictions on the operators of “sport bikes”.  The bill would also require motorcycles designed to carry more than one person to be equipped with passenger foot pegs and handholds for use by the passenger. 

While the requirement for passenger accommodations is redundant (these requirements are addressed in federal regulation) the AMA is most concerned by the state’s arbitrary definition of “sport bike” and the potential of establishing a dangerous precedent of regulating motorcycles and motorcyclists differently based on this definition. 

The bill’s definition of “sport bike” is so broad that it may even be counterproductive to motorcycle safety.  In a position statement, the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) observed that,

There are small displacement (250 cc) motorcycles that, because of the vague and subjective criteria proposed, would be included in the definition of “sport bike” that are as appropriate, or more so, for novice riders than certain other larger displacement motorcycles that create much more horsepower yet would not fall under the “sport bike” definition and therefore not have restrictions placed on them.

HB 2470 is currently in the state Senate.

The AMA encourages all Texas motorcyclists to review the legislation which is posted on the StateWatch section of AmericianMotorcyclist.com and contact their state senator with their concerns.

I got this in an email from the AMA.
 

In reading the bill I see nothing about Sport Tourers.....  I wonder if they consider them Sport Bikes?  What is considered to be a light weight frame?  We do lean over the tank somewhat.  We are equipped to carry passengers so I think we're ok there.  I wonder what precipitated the bill?  Will there be Sport Bike only checkpoints now?  Too many questions on this one.

Here's a legislative summary for the bill.

Legislative Summary

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Sport bikes are high-powered motorcycles that are becoming increasingly popular in Texas. These bikes can reach very high speeds, and when used improperly, can be dangerous. With the high speed and maneuverability of these bikes, it is important that the bikes are properly equipped to support passengers, that passengers are knowledgeable of motorcycle safety regulations, and that the sport bike operators have sufficient experience before carrying a passenger on the bike. C.S.H.B. 2470 sets out regulations relating to the operation of sport bikes.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 2470 amends the Transportation Code to include a sport bike as a motorcycle for the purpose of a provision of law establishing that a Class M driver's license authorizes the holder of the license to operate a motorcycle or a moped. The bill prohibits an operator, in addition to the requirements and prohibitions under provisions of law relating to riding a motorcycle, from carrying another person on a sport bike unless the sport bike is designed to carry more than one person and the operator is at least 18 years of age and has had a Class M license for at least two years or unless the other person is at least 18 years of age and holds a Class M license or is a certified motorcycle operator training and safety course instructor. The bill requires an operator of a sport bike to ensure that a passenger on the sport bike complies with all Department of Public Safety regulations relating to motorcycle safety. The bill requires a sport bike designed to carry more than one person to be equipped with foot pegs and handholds for use by a passenger on the sport bike.

C.S.H.B. 2470 defines "sport bike" to mean a motorcycle that is optimized for speed, acceleration, braking, and maneuverability on paved roads; that has a lightweight frame; on which the operator leans forward over the gas tank during operation; and that is not a touring, cruising, standard, or dual-sport motorcycle. The bill includes a sport bike in the definition of "motorcycle" for purposes of provisions of law relating to protective headgear for motorcycle operators and passengers.

C.S.H.B. 2470 provides a short title, Malorie's Law, for purposes of citing its provisions. The bill makes a conforming change.

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2011.

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE

C.S.H.B. 2470 differs from the original in nonsubstantive ways in the provision defining "sport bike." The substitute differs from the original in other nonsubstantive ways by using language reflective of certain bill drafting conventions.
__________________

Also known as Malorie's Law.  Here's some text from a website I found.

Malorie Elise Bullock, a 19 years of age Honor’s College student at Texas A&M University of Commerce, tragically lost her life April 8th 2010, while a passenger on a light weight motorcycle (crotch rocket).  This petition is to help prevent further injury or death as a result of being a passenger on light weight motorcycles.

Riders and passengers of light weight motorcycles are required to obtain a permit for carrying a passenger or being a passenger on these motorcycles.  Riders carrying passengers may only be experienced riders with the knowledge of changes and adjustments which are needed to carry passengers.  A knowledge written test and rider’s skills test will be required, with a passing score, to obtain a passenger permit.

Riders and passengers will be ticketed when either one or both do not have a permit for passengers while riding on the light weight motorcycles.

http://firstladiesoftheroundtable.org/MaloriesLaw.aspx

From the same website:

Malorie's  Law
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to the regulation of sport bikes and certain other

motorcycles.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1.  This Act shall be known as Malorie ' s Law .

SECTION 2.  Section 521.084, Transportation Code, is amended

to read as follows:

Sec. 521.084.  CLASS M LICENSE. A Class M driver's license

authorizes the holder of the license to operate a motorcycle,

including a sport bike as defined by Section 541.201, or a moped.

SECTION 3.  Section 541.201, Transportation Code, is amended

by adding Subdivision (18-a) to read as follows:

(18-a)  "Sport bike" means a motorcycle:

(A)  that is optimized for speed, acceleration,

braking, and maneuverability on paved roads;

(B)  that has a lightweight frame;

(C)  on which the operator leans forward over the

gas tank during operation; and

(D)  that is not a touring, cruising, standard, or

dual-sport motorcycle.

SECTION 4.  Subchapter I, Chapter 545, Transportation Code,

is amended by adding Section 545.4161 to read as follows:

Sec. 545.4161.  OPERATION OF SPORT BIKE.  (a)  In addition to

the requirements and prohibitions under Section 545.416, an

operator may not carry another person on a sport bike unless the

sport bike is designed to carry more than one person and:

(1)  the operator:

(A)  is at least 18 years of age; and

(B)  has had a Class M license for at least two

years; or

(2)  the other person:

(A)  is at least 18 years of age and holds a Class

M license; or

(B)  is a motorcycle operator training and safety

course instructor certified under Chapter 662.

(b)  An operator of a sport bike shall ensure that a

passenger on the sport bike complies with all department

regulations relating to motorcycle safety.

SECTION 5.  The heading to Subchapter M, Chapter 547,

Transportation Code, is amended to read as follows:

SUBCHAPTER M. ADDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR

MOTORCYCLES, [AND] MOTOR-DRIVEN CYCLES, AND SPORT BIKES

SECTION 6.  Subchapter M, Chapter 547, Transportation Code,

is amended by adding Section 547.803 to read as follows:

Sec. 547.803.  SAFETY EQUIPMENT. If a motorcycle, including

a sport bike, is designed to carry more than one person, the

motorcycle must be equipped with foot pegs and handholds for use by

a passenger on the motorcycle.

SECTION 7.  Section 661.001(1), Transportation Code, is

amended to read as follows:

(1)  "Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle designed to

propel itself with not more than three wheels in contact with the

ground, and having a saddle for the use of the rider.  The term

includes a sport bike, as defined by Section 541.201. The term does

not include a tractor or a three-wheeled vehicle equipped with a cab

or occupant compartment, seat, and seat belt and designed to

contain the operator in the cab or occupant compartment.

SECTION 8.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

So, if I'm reading this right, to give your girlfriend/SO a ride on your Sport Bike, she also has to have a Class M Motorcycle license.  Hmmm...

That's the way I read it as well.  Hmm interesting.... I can see 'maybe' the other stuff but requiring a passenger to have a motorcycle license as well?  I don't see this going very far but you never know...  Sorry about the girl, though.

The way I read it was to give your girlfriend or SO a ride she has to have her class M license OR YOU have to have your class M license for at least 2 years.  I don't know how it works in Texas, but here in Ohio while you have your temp learning permit, you cannot have a passenger (along with other stipulations as well).  Also, during your first year of having your license, you and your passenger are required to wear a helmet (why you would not wear helmet is beyond me, I happen to like my brain).  I don't like putting different restrictions on different types of motorcycles.

It sounds like the same morons who wrote the assault rifle definition years ago wrote this anti-motorcycle bill.

It sounds like the same morons who wrote the assault rifle definition years ago wrote this anti-motorcycle bill.

That pretty much describes the entire Texas legislature AND their idiot governor.

The way I read it was to give your girlfriend or SO a ride she has to have her class M license OR YOU have to have your class M license for at least 2 years.

That appears to be the correct reading of it.

The bill prohibits an operator, in addition to the requirements and prohibitions under provisions of law relating to riding a motorcycle, from carrying another person on a sport bike unless the sport bike is designed to carry more than one person and the operator is at least 18 years of age and has had a Class M license for at least two years or unless the other person is at least 18 years of age and holds a Class M license or is a certified motorcycle operator training and safety course instructor.

Although the "is a certified motorcycle operator training and safety course instructor" clause seems redundant, as I would think that anyone who meets those qualifications would also be at least 18 and hold a current motorcycle license.

Just another 'feel-good', 'do-something' law designed to protect us from ourselves...

Just another 'feel-good', 'do-something' law designed to protect us from ourselves...

. . . or to protect passengers from idiot stuntah wanna-be's?

Just another 'feel-good', 'do-something' law designed to protect us from ourselves...

+1

The way I read it was to give your girlfriend or SO a ride she has to have her class M license OR YOU have to have your class M license for at least 2 years.  I don't know how it works in Texas, but here in Ohio while you have your temp learning permit, you cannot have a passenger (along with other stipulations as well).  Also, during your first year of having your license, you and your passenger are required to wear a helmet (why you would not wear helmet is beyond me, I happen to like my brain).  I don't like putting different restrictions on different types of motorcycles.

This makes a little more sense, and is more agreeable I think.  That OR really changes the context.

That being said, its laws like this that make you wonder how any of us ever survived our own childhoods! You know, back in the day when people were responsible for their own lives and actions, and didn't need to government to tell us not to do stupid things.

A similar policy debate was brewing in Ontario last year, but no changes were made to the Highway Traffic Act.....yet!
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/08/28/15172156.html

. . . or to protect passengers from idiot stuntah wanna-be's?

I don't think that'll be the case in practice.  Passing an exam of some sort doesn't make you good.  Besides in most cases anything mandated by the state usually becomes a joke.  You pay your money, show up for an afternoon, and get your paper.  The state will collect some money on the new licensing or testing if only through taxes and, when they write up some noob kid, they'll tack one more thing onto the ticket.    No one gets any safer. 

People have to realize that making new laws almost never  makes people safer.  All you can really do is hold people accountable.

. . . or to protect passengers from idiot stuntah wanna-be's?

Yeah, god-forbid that any passenger be responsible for making that decision for themselves... 

Yeah, god-forbid that any passenger be responsible for making that decision for themselves... 

A lot of passengers that haven't been around bikes don't have a clue about what they're getting into.  Add a young stud who wants to show off, and the passenger has no idea what she's in for:

Girl falls off motorcycle

On Sunday, day before 2009 COG National we rode in on the dragon to Fontana, and saw a CBR stuffed under a guardrail.  A young woman had fallen off as a passenger and was killed.  She was about 28 and had 3 kids.

I also recall the road rash poster girl, who although familiar with bikes, jumps on the back of one in a hooded sweatshirt and the guys proceeds to go ~140mph and looses her off the back.

I wonder if this legislative direction is similar to the graded motorcycle licensing in Europe.

I think it makes sense, but should apply to all motorcycles, not just sport bikes. You tell me if want your kid climbing onto the back of a bike with some idiot who just got his license...

You tell me if want your kid climbing onto the back of a bike with some idiot who just got his license...

Hmm... Posed that way, the question makes me think a bit longer. But, I still think I need to trust my kids to make good decisions, and I hope I've raised them to do so.

I'd like to trust my gov't representatives to spend their time on more pressing issues than a new law every time some young person gets injured or killed. It's tragic, and I'm glad I'm not in the girl's parents' shoes, but is there a rash of these incidents that I'm not aware of?  Is this type of thing hurting more people than drunk drivers?

I thought Texans had more common sense.

Another law that won't be followed by the people it's directed at.

Just like the laws here in CT, that state that for the first six months of a kid having their driver's license they aren't permitted to have ANY kids in their car when they drive... including siblings. The following six months they can have a sibling in the car, but only if a parent is with them.

Even with this law, the kids do whatever they want. Last Feb four kids were killed locally when the driver hit a tree. The driver was 16, and only had a learner permit. They "borrowed" his girlfriend's mom's car.

A lot of passengers that haven't been around bikes don't have a clue about what they're getting into. 

Sorry, but I believe in personal responsibility. Anybody who does anything and doesn't have a clue as to what they're getting into is simply asking for trouble. It is very regrettable when someones personal decision costs them their lives, but nobody has ever successfully claimed that life is fair...

As far as your poster girl, she has stated that it was her own fault for getting on a bike without protective gear... and now actively campaigns for ATGATT...

I could support a law stating that all motorcyclists were banned from having passengers for the first two years of their license. I could support a law stating that anyone under 21 could not have passengers under 21. But for the nanny state to single out sport bikes just because a few passengers trusted the wrong people or made misinformed choices is not something I can or will support...