• Welcome to Elio Owners! Join today, registration is easy!

    You can register using your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account, just click here.

Momentum V115

Sailor Dog

Elio Addict
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
812
Reaction score
1,210
Location
South West
Gotta correct you on this. Can't let it stand. There seems to be a couple of things that you don't understand.
The states cannot nullify any federal requirement, but they still have unlimited freedom to add to the regulations...
As long as it doesn't nullify the federal requirements. There are states that already have an autocycle classification.

So we will still have your scenario where WA can still require a center fixture and Indiana can still require side by side seating...
Or anything else the states require in order for a vehicle to be considered a roadable autocycle in those states.
Except for the fact that EM will have gotten around the current federal MC headlight requirement...
Basically nothing will change except expensive posturing and window dressing.


Rubbish. It does nothing of the sort.

State endorsement and helmet laws don't (and still won't) have a thing to do with federal vehicle class designations.
So that blows a hole in a large part of the theory. Front wheel drive required to be an autocycle...
And you say "Maybe by design, maybe not?"
Alaska, Maine & NY state laws that are currently adverse to Elio with regard to helmet or motorcycle license endorsements will be superceded by federal autocycle legislation... worst (best?) case scenario. Expect NY will change motorcycle license endorsement requirement shortly. Only NY will contribute significantly to Elio sales of the 3.
 
Last edited:

Elio Amazed

Elio Addict
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
4,630
Alaska, Maine & NY state laws that are currently adverse to Elio with regard to helmet or motorcycle license endorsements will be superceded by federal autocycle legislation... worst (best?) case scenario. Expect NY will change motorcycle license endorsement requirement shortly. Only NY will contribute significantly to Elio sales of the 3.
No they won't. It doesn't work that way with helmet laws and licensing.
What did I say in my last post? Do your research.
 
Last edited:

Sailor Dog

Elio Addict
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
812
Reaction score
1,210
Location
South West
No they won't. It doesn't work that way with helmet laws and licensing.
What did I say in my last post? Do your research.
EA, your research is detailed and thorough, I just don't agree with your interpretation of it. Sometimes I feel that the gut over the brain is the better way to figure out who the winners will be. Even if it doesn't work cognitively! And even if some of the details and minutiae are subject to minor inaccuracies on my part. With investing, it's better to see the forest for the trees. It would be very difficult to justify Apple or Tesla from a detailed (and very accurate) comprehension of the facts. And yet... I would never be able to conduct (no time):( the detailed research as you have, but I depend on your (and others) research to base my gut decisions on. Worked well with Tesla, I expect the same with Elio.
 
Last edited:

Elio Amazed

Elio Addict
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
4,630
And yet... I would never be able to conduct detailed research as you have, but I depend on your (and others) research to base my gut decisions on.
Others may be making very important decisions based on a mixture of gut and fact as well.
That's why it's critical to correct inaccuracies and untruths ASAP and not leave them out there to mislead.
 

floydv

Elio Addict
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
2,672
Location
California
As I read it, the autocycle legislation serves at least two main purposes:
(1) establish key safety, design, and equipment requirements for the Elio that enhance its safety and appeal as a motorcycle vis-a-vis automotive-style safety requirements (e.g., full covering, seat belts, etc.) while exempting the Elio from problematic motorcycle (e.g., headlight spacing, windshield fairing, etc.) and true automobile requirements (e.g., full frontal and offset crash testing, other crash tests that are impossible due to Elio's design, etc.), and
(2) lay the groundwork for the Elio qualifying to participate in and generate credits for the CAFE program.

The federal safety, design, and equipment requirements apply to manufacturers and therefore preempt state laws overlapping with these requirements (to prevent a patchwork of regulatory requirements that manufacturers would be hard-pressed to meet on a state-by-state basis), unless a state has obtained a waiver or authorization as prescribed under federal law.
 

Elio Amazed

Elio Addict
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
4,630
As I read it, the autocycle legislation serves at least two main purposes:
(1) establish key safety, design, and equipment requirements for the Elio that enhance its safety and appeal as a motorcycle vis-a-vis automotive-style safety requirements (e.g., full covering, seat belts, etc.) while exempting the Elio from problematic motorcycle (e.g., headlight spacing, windshield fairing, etc.) and true automobile requirements (e.g., full frontal and offset crash testing, other crash tests that are impossible due to Elio's design, etc.), and
(2) lay the groundwork for the Elio qualifying to participate in and generate credits for the CAFE program.

The federal safety, design, and equipment requirements apply to manufacturers and therefore preempt state laws overlapping with these requirements (to prevent a patchwork of regulatory requirements that manufacturers would be hard-pressed to meet on a state-by-state basis), unless a state has obtained a waiver or authorization as prescribed under federal law.
Yep. But it still does not "preempt" state laws regarding helmets and licensing. Those are up to the states.

And the states will still be able to impose additional requirements regarding safety, design and equipment...
So long as those state requirements do not nullify the federal requirements
The definition of "overlapping" laws/requirements.

As far as it furthering the Elio's chances for eventually qualifying for the CAFE program, that's a matter of speculation.
 
Last edited:

floydv

Elio Addict
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
2,672
Location
California
Yep. But it still does not "preempt" state laws regarding helmets and licensing. Those are up to the states.

And the states will still be able to impose additional requirements regarding safety, design and equipment...
So long as those state requirements do not nullify the federal requirements
The definition of "overlapping" laws/requirements.

As far as it furthering the Elio's chances for eventually qualifying for the CAFE program, that's a matter of speculation.
Gotta disagree with you there. Federal law preempts states from imposing different requirements on the same subject unless those requirements are for the State's own fleet vehicles and those requirements impose higher performance:

(a) Uniformity of Regulations.—
The Secretary of Transportation may not prescribe a safety regulation related to a motor vehicle subject to subchapter I of chapter 135 of this title that differs from a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the Secretary may prescribe, for a motor vehicle operated by a carrier subject to subchapter I of chapter 135, a safety regulation that imposes a higher standard of performance after manufacture than that required by an applicable standard in effect at the time of manufacture.
(b)Preemption.—
(1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter.
(2) A State may enforce a standard that is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter.

49 U.S. Code section 30103. So, for example, a State can't require airbags on motorcycles sold to general retail unless the Feds already require airbags and the State regulation is identical (not sure why a State would go to the trouble to do this). If the State wants to require airbags on motorcycles, it can only require that from the manufacturer of motorcycles the State has contracted with to supply its own fleet, and it can only do that because having an airbag on a motorcycle is presumably "a higher safety performance requirement" than not having one (the State may have to establish a record to prove that).
 

Elio Amazed

Elio Addict
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
4,630
There are examples that prove that there are ways around this.
There are three-wheeled "motorcycles" that have been given unofficial "passes" by the feds...
On several "safety" items but not given the same passes by a handful of states.

Not that it relates to this specifically, but just a tidbit from the PA state government re: it's new autocycle law...

"Since an autocycle is considered a motorcycle all other motorcycle laws, including the helmet law, do apply. Some autocycle drivers will fall under the helmet law exemption (enclosed cab, 2 years of riding experience, PAMSP course). The new law also requires that all passengers must be at least 8 years of age to ride in the autocycle."

http://www.dmv.pa.gov/Information-Centers/Laws-Regulations/Pages/AUTOCYCLE-LAW.aspx
 
Last edited:

Rob Croson

Elio Addict
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
1,384
Reaction score
2,279
Location
Ohio
Gotta correct you on this. Can't let it stand. There seems to be a couple of things that you don't understand.
The states cannot nullify any federal requirement, but they still have unlimited freedom to add to the regulations...
As long as it doesn't nullify the federal requirements. There are states that already have an autocycle classification.
My understanding of the way these things work is that most states will adopt whatever federal regulation is in place on these types of things. If there is a federal standard, most states will simply mandate that you have to comply with the federal standards, rather than create their own laws. States have passed their own regulations, because is there is no overarching federal regulation. Will they continue to do that if a federal autocycle act is passed? I don't know. floydv says a federal regulation would preempt all those state laws. You say they can go further and require more. I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea. So perhaps states *could* do it, but would they, if there is already federal guidance provided?

Rubbish. It does nothing of the sort.
Well, maybe not. I haven't read the whole thing. Like I said when I started, this is my understanding of the purpose of the federal autocycle laws.
 

Elio Amazed

Elio Addict
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
4,630
My understanding of the way these things work is that most states will adopt whatever federal regulation is in place on these types of things

For the most part, yes.
The Feds don't dictate helmet and license/endorsement laws.

Again, why are we suddenly concerned about this?
What's supposed to be going on with the Federal Autocycle law again?
I did a search including gov. sites and the only thing I could find was about the old one.
And no-one had done anything with that one since 03/10/15.

"Introduced 03/10/2015"
"03/10/2015 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation."

So what's happening with this one...
Other than it was introduced in May and EM did a fluff piece on it in one of their momentums?
Oh, wait...

"Introduced 05/04/2017"
"05/05/2017 Referred to the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2381
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom