Asking Texan politicians to follow California in this environment. Good luck
When all that oil runs out they'll come crawling for some new source of funds, then they'll be kicking themselves for not jumping into the money pit earlier. But enough about normal greedy politics, let's reply to this post.
Riding a motorized bike without a driver license and/or insurance is not necessarily illegal.* Motorized bikes here are "street legal" unless there are ordinances in your jive-ass town that say otherwise. As long as the hog your straddling meets the safety requirements and you obey all traffic laws you got nothin to sweat.
My contention is that I'm on a bicycle with a motor that fails to meet all the criteria that would classify it as one requiring a driver license, registration, insurance or even a helmet. My setup, probably yours too, isn't prohibited or restricted by the bicycle code at all, so by proxy I'm considered a motorist operating a bicycle. BAM. Legal.
State law for motorized bikes requiring a license, banning them, etc. doesn't exist in Texas.
Billy Cooper or Frankenstein, (if that is your real name-- ** considerable skepticism **)
What are you readin or smokin that has you convinced motorized bikes ain't allowed in these here parts, and whatever it is don't Bogart it.
You're right, it isn't illegal to ride a motorized bike, but without a solid definition (like exactly how California
worded it in 'the books') of
what a motorized bike is then your vehicle is going to get put under the scope and measured up to whatever there is to measure it by, and funny enough it closely resembles a moped, so you are s**t outa luck. The argument here is that you have to prove to somebody that your bike is not a moped, but without a written law that somebody can actually look at and say 'hey, that's a motorized bike and not a moped by this definition of a motorized bike I'm looking at' then you just aren't going to go anywhere.
This is why police (and judges) couldn't just accuse electric bikers as having full blown mopeds, because the laws were so often written to include cc sizes defining an upper limit on motor size, the problem being that it completely implies that a moped must have an internal combustion engine to even begin to qualify, nobody wants to even try that argument and so passes. Now a Tesla has absolutely no ice on board, completely electric, and is considered a motor vehicle, and not just that, a legitimate car. Scooters are getting wrapped up in it too, China has had problems with electric scooters (like as big as a 200cc scooter) being they didn't have to pay taxes (registration and all that) like 'normal' vehicles do. Well they wrote new laws and fixed that problem.
You are f***ing f***ed until you can get new laws, how much more simple can I say this?
My dad used to sing that song 'don't bogart that joint my friend,' good memories, but I haven't bogarted anything, I'm reading what you're reading so if my minds clouded by that then so
must yours, don't blame me for your legislators writing s**tty laws.
Herman if I understand right, you are restating what the DMV link shows; that if it exceeds the moped category, it's automatically considered a motorcycle, right? I would agree except there are way more things that disqualify a motorized bike from being a motorcycle than the only thing that would qualify a motorized bike as being a motorcycle...? In other words, since a motorcycle requires registration and a bicycle cannot be registered...no-go.
And motorcycles require a particular type of license but ya can't take the exam rolling on a Huffy Davidson... So no-go.
There's also Autocycle and Motor-driven cycle that a motorized bike kinda sorta might maybe used-to could fit into, but those are both technically Motorcycles so same story the way I see it.
I can't be wrong on this because I've never ever made a mistake. I thought I did, once, but I was mistaken. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)
The number of things that disqualify it from being a motorcycle doesn't matter, it's what qualifies it for a higher tax class is what matters. You actually have to prove yourself not guilty in traffic court, they don't need to prove anything as long as it can qualify for the definition, that simple qualification is good enough. They rarely use 'disqualifiers' to prevent certain vehicles for getting trolled, but they usually exist in the books as 'exemptions' like the ones for electric mobility devices, tractors, and golf carts. Without having a exception category in the books regarding your vehicle again you are f***ing f***ed. Must I go on?
You can't ride an unregistered huffy davidson for the test, much like you can't use an unregistered Harley Davidson, or an unregistered Ford for a standard driving test, the vehicle must be god d**n registered what the hell who woulda thought?? Damn you make a lousy argument!