|
|
|
mrider
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2015, 05:07:06 PM » |
|
ok so some of my bikes say nothing in the manual about holdon straps so i 'm good on those and screw them on the rest  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jess from VA
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2015, 05:17:43 PM » |
|
By continually saying (punting to) REFER TO THE OWNERS MANUAL, one might logically argue that if the owners manual makes no mention whatsoever to a handhold, none was included on the bike, and one is not available for the bike, so how can I comply with the law?
I doubt many motorcycle manuals make any reference to a passenger's handhold (even if there is one). They might refer to a seat strap.... IE, you have to remove the seat strap before removing the seat.
This law is void for vagueness.
If you don't have a handhold or seat strap, I'd stretch a good piece of half to three quarter inch nylon rope between the seats, tied securely on each side. I don't think she has to hold it, it just has to be on there.
Your honor, I've brought my motorcycle manual to court for your review. I've read the entire thing, and it makes no mention of a passenger's handhold. My bike did not come with a passenger's handhold. Me and my passenger want to obey the law, and we tried to find something on the bike for her to hold onto, but we can't find anything. So In making our best efforts to obey the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, she holds on to my testicles while riding. This works out pretty well as long as she doesn't get scared or excited. My testicles are permanently attached, and they are always on the bike when I am riding it with her.
No sir, I am not trying to be a wise ass in this court, and it's not my fault all these people are laughing.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 10, 2015, 05:24:15 PM by Jess from VA »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mrider
|
|
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2015, 08:26:29 PM » |
|
bunge cord |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Serk
|
|
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2015, 06:21:05 PM » |
|
Something just ain't right about saying "The fat lady needs to be wearing a strap-on"
...just not right...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Never ask a geek 'Why?',just nod your head and slowly back away...  IBA# 22107 VRCC# 7976 VRCCDS# 226 1998 Valkyrie Standard 2008 Gold Wing Taxation is theft. μολὼν λαβέ |
|
|
f-Stop
Member
Posts: 1810
'98 Standard named Hildr
Driftwood, Texas
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2015, 11:08:17 AM » |
|
Write Rep. Phillips about the vagueness of his law… http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/member-page/?district=62I just wrote him asking if Dena and I were in compliance with Malorie's law when she holds unto me instead of the grab rails while cruising down the road. (FYI, Honda calls the Valkyrie rear fender rails "grab rails" and they call the back rest brackets "grab rails".) In the message I also asked for clarity on the definition of "handhold" and "foothold". So…write to Rep. Phillips! It's easy and maybe when he gets enough responses in his in box, he'll get the message! (Remember…be polite, keep the message short and choose your words well!)  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 11:16:01 AM by f-Stop »
|
Logged
|
  Had my blinker on across three states! |
|
|
|
GeoffreyB
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2015, 02:26:48 PM » |
|
Well, so much for keeping it short - here's what I sent (and I may have liberated some of the verbiage from others)  : I am writing you as a resident of Texas, and lifelong motorcycle rider who is now subject to Malorie's Law, which you sponsored.
Sadly, the only people that Malorie’s Law appears to help is the family of Malorie in hopefully achieving some level of personal closure.
However, to the tens of thousands of Texas motorcyclists this law is intended to help is so vague that it causes an undue hardship for both law enforcement and riders. I strongly suspect that upon first challenge in the courts, it will be found unenforceable due to the vagueness of the law.
Questions the law fails to address as written include:
1. What precisely defines a “handhold” and a “footrests”?
Are there structural ratings required for these? How were they determined, and who determined them? Many new model motorcycles come from the factory with a seat strap; is this considered a “handhold”?
2. Have the potential physical effects of crash forces imparted to a passenger's arms and torso from the ''handhold'' been evaluated?
3. Has there been a study to determine if risk of bodily injury to a passenger involved in an accident is increased by staying ''with'' the motorcycle, vs allowing the motorcycle to fall away from the passenger?
4. Will there be exceptions for antique or custom motorcycles?
5. What year models forward will this law pertain to (2015 forward or back-dated to a certain year)?
6. Which agency is designated as interpreting the law?
7. Is this law allowed to be interpreted differently based upon law enforcement agencies?
8. Provided a motorcycle meets with all criteria of a to be determined “handhold” and “footrests”, and a passenger is riding on the back of the bike, should the passenger opt to not make use of the “handhold”, which person is held legally liable to be ticketed/fined? The operator of the motorcycle or the passenger?
9. If a motorcycle is technically designed by the manufacturer to hold two people (operator and passenger), but the bike owner opts to ride with a “one up” seat (for only the operator), will the bike still be required to be outfitted with a “handhold”?
10. If a motorcycle is technically designed by the manufacturer to hold two people (operator and passenger), but the manufacturer has only provided footrests and grab rails, is this in compliance with the law?
11. If a motorcycle traveler rides through Texas, and their home state does not require a “handhold”, how will this law be interpreted for them? Will they be legally liable for modifying their motorcycle just to ride through Texas or will they be exempt?
12. Before this law was submitted, were traffic accident and injury/fatality reports studied for causality of injury/fatality and potential for this bill to have a positive effect on those cause?
As the sponsor of this bill, I would appreciate it if you would answer these questions.
While I fully support the intent to say that a passenger should only be allowed on a motorcycle that was designed for 2 riders, and I'll go so far as to applaud your improving the definition of such to include footrests, the ''handhold'' provision is poorly thought out. If you'd spoken with Motorcycle Safety Foundation members/trainer, the AMA, physicists, or motorcycle riders, you would know that the safest option is not for a passenger to be grabbing to a strap between their legs, but to hold on to the driver.
I'm quite concerned that an elected official in Texas would sponsor a bill that is so vague, and appears to be written without input or knowledge of what the true facts and safety issues around motorcycle riding are.
This bill appears, at face value, to be nothing more than a nice effort to quiet the self-centered concerns of an exceptionally vocal constituent. However, without the proper research and vetting of the facts, this nice effort now causes an undue burden on law enforcement, the courts, and the motorcycling public. Please explain your reasoning (with researched facts) as to the creation of this unenforceable law.
Reading it here, you'll have to excuse my somewhat OCD rambling (and a few awkward pieces of grammar) - it's hard to organize your thoughts quickly in a government web-form for e-mail! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
GeoffreyB
|
|
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2015, 03:12:51 PM » |
|
WOW - that's a fast response! Got a call, and had a nice discussion with our Rep. You can read the ACTUAL bill here: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3838/2013NOTE: The new "law" is just added verbiage to an existing statute! In essence, the way the part of the law about passenger requirements for a motorcycle reads (and was intended) as follows: If you have a passenger riding - you must have footpegs and a handhold. Just about anything will qualify as a handhold. No passenger = no requirement. The Motorcycle Manufacturer's association (MIC?) told the rep that just about all bikes INTENDED TO HAVE A PASSENGER built in the last 20 years have both, and meet the requirement. Yes, the law is a bit vague, but it sounds like it was somewhat intentional - to not limit the definition of "handhold" (ie - grab rail, grab bar, passenger grab). While I think this law will have zero effect on most of us here, it will certainly make the younger, crotch-rocket crowd eligible for some hefty fines.... A very nice writeup about it here: http://edwardsmotorcyclelaw.com/texas-new-law-footrests-handholds-motorcycle-passengers/ It's also notable (and though dated, a useful comparison) to see laws by state http://edwardsmotorcyclelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2012-9-27+On-Highway+Motorcycle+Laws.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
keepinon
|
|
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2015, 02:24:13 AM » |
|
The bill referenced above is what is causing problems for many, here. This part: Sec. 547.617. MOTORCYCLE FOOTRESTS AND HANDHOLDS REQUIRED.
A motorcycle that is designed to carry more than one person must be
equipped with footrests and handholds for use by the passenger. I know three riders, of various bikes, that have been denied an inspection sticker because of this clause. The law should not be retro-active. If a motorcycle didn't have passenger "handholds" when built, they should not be required by some dumbazzed politician. JMO.... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 02:26:02 AM by keepinon »
|
Logged
|
1998 GL1500 CT Trike
|
|
|
BnB Tom
Member
Posts: 1708
Where'd old times go?
Frisco, TX
|
|
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2015, 04:56:06 AM » |
|
Reminds me of a story...
There was this cowboy who rode his horse into town and a good looking young lady asked if he would give her a ride.
He politely answered, "Sure. Just hop up here behind me and we'll ride down to the lake."
On the way to the lake a rabbit jumped out and startled the horse. The horse reared up, the lady grabbed the saddlehorn and the cowboy yelled "Yippee".
A little further down the road a bird flew out of the bushes and startled the horse.
Again, the horse reared up, the lady grabbed the saddle horn and the cowboy yelled "Yippee".
The lady was curious. She asked the cowboy why everytime she grabbed the saddle horn he yelled out.
The cowboy answered..
"Lady, we're riddin' bareback!!"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
