Important Congressional Bill H.R. 2381 - its not good!

Quote from Bigdog

So from the day we are classified as an autocycle under the new rules...we might not be grandfathered in..

New rules and new compliance requirements.

..

........

I for one, am not worried... I've seen many bills like this before die in committee UNLESS the injury insurance claim rate exceeds a certain dollar amount (blame insurance lobbyist for that one). Further, there is more pressing stuff going on politically, that I would be SHOCKED if this gets any tracktion.

Quote from Bigdog

Keep this in mind...those old vehicles are not or were not being placed into a “ new” category which is what we will be facing....BIG DIFFERENCE... apples and oranges...

My state Calls it an auto-cycle....and I have to follow motorcycle rules and safety inspection.

So from the day we are classified as an autocycle under the new rules...we might not be grandfathered in..

New rules and new compliance requirements

Display More

Your title clearly states that it was a motorcycle on the build date, and every state title reads as such. The laws allowed for it to be built, licensed and titled as such for the manufacture date. The lawmakers can choose to call it a rock starting tomorrow; it still doesn't change that the state issued title states that it is a motorcycle. Any decent lawyer could beat that without breaking a sweat.

If you want to worry about this, feel free to stress away. Me, not so much.....

What happens if they want to issue you a new title for the new classification and they date it today....(from the date the bill takes effect)

In PA it’s already classed as an autocycle....and not having any other direction...they just say I have to follow the motorcycle rules....and have motorcycle plates and inspection sticker....and every safety item required for motorcycles.... a national reclassification could, could require us to make changes to fall in line with the new requirements...

Does anyone remember having to put after market turn signals on your two wheeler to get it to pass inspection because it didn’t come with them? I DO....that was because my state required them. So why couldn’t that be an airbag? Or anything else we don’t already have?

Your motorcycle didn’t come with a helmet ....but some states require it to operate...

I think we should be proactive and work on some kind of a signed petition to present to the lawmakers...urging them to vote no on the bill.

What qualifications do the bill originators have to decide what qualifies and why?

As a side note, I just mailed my registration for my SS for 2018 and my county added a $5 surcharge...

.......

.

Where did you find my picture?

The items that are required for your SS to be operated on highways is based on what year it was built and how the mfg delivered it for sale as a saleable unit in that state. If there were some unusual circumstance that required additional equipment to legally operate the vehicle the manufacturers would have to retrofit all those items onto our existing SS. (Something reminds me of free seatbelt kits for vehicles that were given out to owners of vehicles when seatbelt laws were mandatory)

i belive if it passed the requirements for the year it was sold. It will always pass and be held to those requirements. No matter how it's titled.. You would be the only thing that may have to wear something different like a helmet or a reflective vest. (Y'all see what I'm saying I bet..) More on this change below....

Now here is what can change.....

They can make laws that require you personally to wear certain protective gear according to how the definition is written into a new law. That is bad enough. And I would be against anything of that nature.

Quote from Goats_Hogs

Not true. All new cars and trucks sold now must now have airbags to be sold in the US. I have a 1994 Chevy Z71. That was the last year for no airbags in that truck, in 1995 they had them. My vehicle is compliant for the year it was manufactured and the laws and regulations that were in place at that time.
Disclaimer, we do not have safety inspections in Indiana currently. They do in Ohio however, and I have more than one friend that lives there with older vehicles (without airbags) and they still pass.

Here is a perfect example, seat belts. If it did not come with seat belts at the year of manufacture you do not have to have them. "BUT" if you install the seat belts in that car/truck you are required to wear them.

Quote from Goats_Hogs

Your title clearly states that it was a motorcycle on the build date, and every state title reads as such. The laws allowed for it to be built, licensed and titled as such for the manufacture date. The lawmakers can choose to call it a rock starting tomorrow; it still doesn't change that the state issued title states that it is a motorcycle. Any decent lawyer could beat that without breaking a sweat.
If you want to worry about this, feel free to stress away. Me, not so much.....

@Goats_Hogs why do you even bother

Quote from Bigdog

Yes and no....states that have safety inspections can fail your vehicle for not having all the required safety items.... so if you take it to get inspected and the new law requires an air bag...you fail until you get one. Or you would have to run a special plate...with many limited use rules.

The best thing to do is a petition or call your congressman and tell them to vote no.

That is BS, they can create as many hurdles for "future slingshots" as they want but it wouldn't affect those that came before it.

I have a perfect example, in one of my properties there is a floor drain in the garage which are illegal in MN since the 80s i think, every time an inspector goes to the property they cite me for the floor drain if i am there when he is i normally point out the grandfathered status to avoid a visit downtown but if i am not there a visit with a hearing officer and the citation is dismissed once they confirm that the properly is grandfathered.

While i agree that the best thing is to avoid it all together, it is not as bad as other things that have passed(Net Neutrality).

Quote from rabtech

The items that are required for your SS to be operated on highways is based on what year it was built and how the mfg delivered it for sale as a saleable unit in that state. If there were some unusual circumstance that required additional equipment to legally operate the vehicle the manufacturers would have to retrofit all those items onto our existing SS. (Something reminds me of free seatbelt kits for vehicles that were given out to owners of vehicles when seatbelt laws were mandatory)

i belive if it passed the requirements for the year it was sold. It will always pass and be held to those requirements. No matter how it's titled.. You would be the only thing that may have to wear something different like a helmet or a reflective vest. (Y'all see what I'm saying I bet..) More on this change below....

Now here is what can change.....

They can make laws that require you personally to wear certain protective gear according to how the definition is written into a new law. That is bad enough. And I would be against anything of that nature.

Display More

Hey, look who showed up! Where you been, bub?

Quote from FunCycle

@Goats_Hogs why do you even bother

I hear ya. I keep thinking people can change. Sad thing is, while they can, they rarely do. I had to try, and try I did. Move on people, nothing to see here.....

Quote from Goats_Hogs

I hear ya. I keep thinking people can change. Sad thing is, while they can, they rarely do. I had to try, and try I did. Move on people, nothing to see here.....

We have already had this conversation once

Just once?

Quote from KayTwo

Hey, look who showed up! Where you been, bub?

I'm here all the time. It's just winter and I don't have my slingshot here at my house. So I can't even go out and tinker with it. It's up there by you. Stop in and say hi to it.

I will be up there in a couple weeks. I will be there from Thursday till Sunday so you will have to stop by and see me. When I find out what days exactly I'll post it.

Quote from rabtech

I will be up there in a couple weeks. I will be there from Thursday till Sunday so you will have to stop by and see me. When I find out what days exactly I'll post it.

Standing invite to come by for a home-cooked meal, man.

thanks. I will let you know when I head up there.

Quote from BryanL

Looks to me like this new bill would take the Slingshot out of the autocycle category. Not necessarily a bad thing.

“(1) ‘autocycle’ means a motorcycle with 3 wheels in contact with the ground, front-wheel drive, a fully enclosed occupant compartment, and a steering wheel, which is subject to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as determined necessary by the Secretary of Transportation through regulation.”.

It doesn't have front wheel drive or a fully enclosed occupant compartment.

It was a motorcycle when I bought it.

" THIS IS NOT GOOD," ACTUALLY IT IS GOOD!
As Orangeman and others have mentioned this has been in the works for a couple years. It is not a bill to hurt slingshots or spyders, it is a bill to support our type of motorcycle manufacturing as it is currently practised, but to stop light car manufacturers from encroaching on it by simply taking front wheel drive light cars, with fully functional doors and windows and fully enclosed and by just removing one wheel , trying to claim these light cars no longer have to be certified as cars. Polaris and Can Am arent opposing this, they are supporting it. It clearly differentiates between what we know and love as these Slingshots, and some foreign three wheel fully enclosed cars that have started showing up imported,and trying to be slipped through under our category of reverse trike motorcycles .

here is the first rule making from as far back as 2015 where they have been trying to differentiate those light cars from Slingshots and Spyders.

These attempts at clarifying what is an acceptable reverse trike motorcycle and what is a light front wheel drive car with one wheel removed, have now evolved into this new legislation and is clearly prohibiting only those light cars trying to slip into our category but having front-wheel drive, a fully enclosed occupant compartment, which was defined as having,passenger-car characteristics such as fully enclosed cabins,hinged doors with roll-up windows, in the 2015 rule making above.

This bill will not hurt our class of motorcyles , it is only designed to prevent foreign light car manufacturers from trying to slip into it, which in turn will protect it. Bring it on !