FBSleeper
New Member
John:
As with the others, I applaud your great work here. Thus far, I don't think that LR 1721 is listed on the online legislative site, which isn't too surprising this early in the legislative session. Do you have a copy of the full language of the bill which you could share? As an attorney in Portland, I'd be very interested in reviewing it. Does it merely redefine "motorcycle" in the Motor Vehicle Code (title 29-A) to exclude an "autocycle" ? This would mean that an autocycle would be treated as a car for all purposes under the motor vehicle laws, including for licensing, helmets, and inspection. 29-A MRSA section 1301(9), left over from the prior autocycle law, now provides that an autocycle cannot be used for a driver's test. Should that be changed as well? I have got to assume that the Elio will have a parking brake (it would be nice if the tour would come to Maine so I could see for myself, but I'm not holding my breath), but if it doesn't, then section 1902 of title 29-A will have to be modified to treat an autocycle as a motorcycle in that one instance (also, the State Police inspection regulations currently require an autocycle to have a parking brake).
Section 2902-B of title 24-A (the Insurance Code) permits an insurer to exclude coverage for injuries to a motorcycle passenger, if that insurer meets certain notice requirements. A change of the definitions in title 29-A would not change this provision of title 24-A, so section 2902-B would have to be modified to exclude autocycles from this provision. Section 13001 of title 12 defines a "motorcycle or related 2-wheel, 3-wheel or belt-driven vehicle" to be an ATV subject to a special excise tax, and special registration requirements. The definition excludes "automobiles" as defined in section 101 of 29-A, so that definition in the Motor Vehicle Code should be modified to explicitly include autocycles.
The state police inspection regulations define an autocycle to mean an enclosed motorcycle, originally manufactured as an autocycle, designed to have no more than three wheels in contact with the ground at any time. These regulations currently treat an autocycle as a motorcycle for inspection purposes, with the additional requirements that it have a parking brake system, a seat belt for each seat, a roll bar, a windshield equipped with a wiper, a steering wheel or tiller, and brakes on the two main wheels. However, the provisions for inspection of a motorcycle are inappropriate for an Elio type vehicle, including those dealing with front forks (which, among other things, regulate the angle at which they are to be set at), chains, sprockets, guards, footrests, handlebars, handlebar controls, and stands. Also, a motorcycle inspection does not include testing of the hood, air bags, reverse gear, and bumpers. Given this, these regulations will also have to be changed before an Elio can be successfully inspected in Maine.
There is no requirement in Maine that either a motorcycle or automobile have an anti-lock brake system, only that if there is one it may not be disconnected. Although it certainly would be wise to have such a system, I'm not sure that it should be required on an autocycle when it is not required on other vehicles, so I would hope that this is not included in any definition of an autocycle.
Finally, I had read somewhere that some insurance policies do not insure motorcycles in the winter, at least in those areas, such as Maine, where the weather would ordinarily preclude driving a motorcycle outdoors. Will Liberty Mutual insure an Elio year round in Maine?
Again, thanks for all your work.
As with the others, I applaud your great work here. Thus far, I don't think that LR 1721 is listed on the online legislative site, which isn't too surprising this early in the legislative session. Do you have a copy of the full language of the bill which you could share? As an attorney in Portland, I'd be very interested in reviewing it. Does it merely redefine "motorcycle" in the Motor Vehicle Code (title 29-A) to exclude an "autocycle" ? This would mean that an autocycle would be treated as a car for all purposes under the motor vehicle laws, including for licensing, helmets, and inspection. 29-A MRSA section 1301(9), left over from the prior autocycle law, now provides that an autocycle cannot be used for a driver's test. Should that be changed as well? I have got to assume that the Elio will have a parking brake (it would be nice if the tour would come to Maine so I could see for myself, but I'm not holding my breath), but if it doesn't, then section 1902 of title 29-A will have to be modified to treat an autocycle as a motorcycle in that one instance (also, the State Police inspection regulations currently require an autocycle to have a parking brake).
Section 2902-B of title 24-A (the Insurance Code) permits an insurer to exclude coverage for injuries to a motorcycle passenger, if that insurer meets certain notice requirements. A change of the definitions in title 29-A would not change this provision of title 24-A, so section 2902-B would have to be modified to exclude autocycles from this provision. Section 13001 of title 12 defines a "motorcycle or related 2-wheel, 3-wheel or belt-driven vehicle" to be an ATV subject to a special excise tax, and special registration requirements. The definition excludes "automobiles" as defined in section 101 of 29-A, so that definition in the Motor Vehicle Code should be modified to explicitly include autocycles.
The state police inspection regulations define an autocycle to mean an enclosed motorcycle, originally manufactured as an autocycle, designed to have no more than three wheels in contact with the ground at any time. These regulations currently treat an autocycle as a motorcycle for inspection purposes, with the additional requirements that it have a parking brake system, a seat belt for each seat, a roll bar, a windshield equipped with a wiper, a steering wheel or tiller, and brakes on the two main wheels. However, the provisions for inspection of a motorcycle are inappropriate for an Elio type vehicle, including those dealing with front forks (which, among other things, regulate the angle at which they are to be set at), chains, sprockets, guards, footrests, handlebars, handlebar controls, and stands. Also, a motorcycle inspection does not include testing of the hood, air bags, reverse gear, and bumpers. Given this, these regulations will also have to be changed before an Elio can be successfully inspected in Maine.
There is no requirement in Maine that either a motorcycle or automobile have an anti-lock brake system, only that if there is one it may not be disconnected. Although it certainly would be wise to have such a system, I'm not sure that it should be required on an autocycle when it is not required on other vehicles, so I would hope that this is not included in any definition of an autocycle.
Finally, I had read somewhere that some insurance policies do not insure motorcycles in the winter, at least in those areas, such as Maine, where the weather would ordinarily preclude driving a motorcycle outdoors. Will Liberty Mutual insure an Elio year round in Maine?
Again, thanks for all your work.
