ATTENTION NEEDED!

[Grinner]

Holy PHUC!!!! Has anyone else seen this load of horsesh!t?!??

http://www.twtex.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59215" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ARGHGHGHGHGHGHGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!


Also...to help those that wish to contact their reps to say bs to this crap and try to put a stop to it from becoming law...

http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dufremle]

I think you are overreacting.

The first change is to define what a 'sportbike' is.

SECTION 3. Section 541.201, Transportation Code, is amended
by adding Subdivision (18-a) to read as follows:
(18-a) "Sport bike" means a motorcycle:
(A) that is optimized for speed, acceleration,
braking, and maneuverability on paved roads;
(B) that has a light-weight frame;
(C) on which the rider leans forward over the gas
tank; and
(D) is not a touring, cruiser, standard, or
dual-sport motorcycle.

The second change says that in order to carry a passenger, the motorcycle must be designed to carry a passenger (no sitting on the tank or hanging off the back of the seat), and that either of the persons must have a valid motorcycle license (makes sense) for 2 years. I don't agree with the 2 year part, but basically they are saying that one person should have some knowledge of how to ride a motorcycle. This is probably to stop someone from getting a motorcycle license then going out and giving rides before they can handle the motorcycle, and getting into an accident.

SECTION 4. Subchapter I, Chapter 545, Transportation Code,
is amended by adding Section 545.4161 to read as follows:
Sec. 545.4161. OPERATION OF SPORT BIKE. (a) In addition to
the requirements and prohibitions under Section 545.416, an
operator may not carry another person on a sport bike unless the
sport bike is designed to carry more than one person, and unless:
(1) the operator:
(A) is at least 18 years of age; and
(B) has had a Class M license for at least two
years; or
(2) the other person:
(A) is at least 18 years of age and holds a Class
M license; or
(B) is a motorcycle operator training and safety
course instructor certified under Chapter 662.
(b) An operator of a sport bike shall ensure that a
passenger on the sport bike complies with all department
regulations relating to motorcycle safety.

The third change is that the motorcycle has to have foot pegs and hand holds for the passenger. The foot peg part is a no brainer. Since most sportbikes don't have hand holds I'm not sure how they would enforce that.

SECTION 6. Subchapter M, Chapter 547, Transportation Code,
is amended by adding Section 547.803 to read as follows:
Sec. 547.803. SPORT BIKE SAFETY EQUIPMENT. If a sport bike
is designed to carry more than one person, the sport bike must be
equipped with foot pegs and handholds for use by a passenger on the
sport bike.

I actually agree with most of it. I don't agree about the hand holds. I think I will contact my Rep and ask for that to be removed from the bill.

Here is the full text: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 02470I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is an analysis of the bill: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 02470H.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DarcShadow]

The hand holds I always thought was law, pretty sure it is other places and yes, all stock sport bikes with a rear seat have hand holds. That's what that stupid leather strap is on the passenger seat.

I'm a bit confussed by passenger with a license. So does that mean the rider doesn't need a motorcycle license as long as the passenger has one? The 2 years is BS. I couldn't even count the number of people I gave rides to within the first year of having a bike. I did have a good 3 or 4 months of solo riding and racked up alot of miles in that time though.

Why is there a need to classify a sport bike is the real question? And that's a potentially dangerous road to go down. If sport bikes are broken off I can see a lot of sport bike only laws being passed in part because the vocal motorcyle riders are cruisers and could care less what sort of laws apply only to sport bikes.

[WillK675]

The problem with this bill is that it's discriminatory. Saying that you only have to meet those legal requirements if you ride a sport bike. So basically if I have no riding experience, I can go buy my first bike and go get a harley, and carry passengers immediately. But if I decide to get a sport bike, I have to wait 2 year before I can carry a passenger?

Personally there is no reason for this to be law. But if it is going to be law, then you need to strip the verbiage of defining specific motorcycle types, and make it for all motorcycles.

There is no F'ing reason whatsoever to 'legally' define a sport bike! Or any other motorcycle type for that matter. That would be like legally defining a sport car, or SUV, ect. There is no F'ing purpose in it. As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, you could probably get this thrown out really quickly under the premise of it being a 'discriminatory form of profiling' and everyone knows how much legalese hate profiling.

[Dragonfly]

It is definitely discriminatory, against Sportbikes and their operators!

[Dragonfly]

So if I am an unlicensed motorcyclist, I can operate a cruiser and give rides to whomsoever without having to worry about getting cited?

I have seen more sportbikes with grab rails (hand holds) than cruisers!

This is a bullshit piece of legislation, targeting SPORTBIKES. Brought about because someone's kid/teen/young adult was injured or killed while being a passenger on the back of a sportbike.

I wouldn't have a problem if it stated ALL MOTORCYCLES. But what pisses me off is that it is assumed because it happened on a sportbike then only sportbikes and their operators need to be regulated.

People need to take responsibility for their actions or inaction, if you don't want your kid to be a passenger on a sportbike, parent them! Don't turn to the state to regulate everyone because you can't parent your kids!

[milesmiles]

People need to take responsibility for their actions or inaction, if you don't want your kid to be a passenger on a sportbike, parent them! Don't turn to the state to regulate everyone because you can't parent your kids!

[Blizzard_1708]

yep, it is easily overturned because of the discriminatory verbage.

[Firewa11]

Last time I wrote my rep regarding a bill / measure to allow inexperienced pilots to be trained out at Alliance airport by a civilian agency in T-38's right over my house, my rep wrote me back how he was against gays in the military too.

*shakes head*

[Grinner]

It is definitely discriminatory, against Sportbikes and their operators!

this is the main reason i posted it. Defining "sportbike" is the same as raceism (no offense Bro)...its all segregating ANY. way you look at it.

From the majority I have read, it all stems from a young woman making her own choice to be in the spot she was in...dying...and her family getting behind (supposedly) this bill that was introduced.
My other say on this is...
Quit losing your common phucn sense and educate properly as a parent or adult in society. Then you have to be willing to accept the consequences of your childrens actions when they become an adult and in this sad case, when something like this happens, help to educate the others and understand that you can only do so much and the rest is left up to them. Dont keep tryin to instill pillows you think will keep everyone else supposedly safe cause of your own sic sense of closure. I will be the first to tell you that I will almost always miss your idiocracy pillows and aim for the common sense for living.

I must hush for a weee bit.....

[WillK675]

I think I'm going to make some phone calls. I know a lobbyist down in Austin. See what he can do about getting this tossed, and lane splitting passed.

[DarcShadow]

You go Will. Will for Governor!

[dufremle]

It already passed the House. Hope it gets stopped in the Senate.

[DarcShadow]

Didn't the lane splitting thing pass the house too? I always thought things got through the house rather easily but died waiting on a desk some where along the line. The real question is what other stuff it attached to this bill? I'm sure the motorcycle stuff is a small portion of it and is being overlooked for the most part.

[shilka99]

This is where it all came from:
http://firstladiesoftheroundtable.org/MaloriesLaw.aspx

[Telomere]

If this was my daughter (and both of mine ride as a passenger with my husband. I am too scared to take them on the back of mine...not to mention I don't have foot pegs now that she was "rebuilt"), I would be asking "what the hell happened?" and was she wearing proper protection. People sadly die from motorcycle accidents, whether it be a sport bike or a cruiser but it does happen. That is the risk we take when we get on them. People also die from automobile accidents. I can go on but I will restrain....

[fixxervi6]

I sent a message to the first ladies of the round table and also wrote to the sentator.

We are suppose to have freedom in America... suppose to anyway. Last I checked climbing onto a "crotch rocket" was still a CHOICE

[Blizzard_1708]

Malorie's Law is the name for this law, and it is because of a mother and her loss of her 19 year old honors student, on the back on a sport bike.

The lane splitting bill passed the senate, but never made it to house floor for debate and vote.

[Firewa11]

Here is what I wrote to my senator:

Your Honor,

I was recently made aware of H.B. 2740, which is otherwise known as "Malorie's Law", and I wish to bring your attention to this bill. What brought about this bill was indeed a tragedy, involving a young girl of 19 (Malorie) making the choice to get on the back of a motorcycle with an inexperienced rider, and resulted in her death.

It is indeed a tragedy, and I feel for her family and friends, as anything resulting in a death is horrible. But this was Malorie's choice. Nobody forced her to get on a motorcycle as a passenger, and nobody forced her to not get the scoop on how experienced the rider was that she went with.

Passing a law like H.B. 2740 paves the way for discrimination of all sport bike riders, as it clearly defines a sport bike as being different from all other motorcycles. If this law is passed, it would pave the way for other laws to discriminate against riders of so-called "sport bikes".

Another part of this bill clearly discriminates against sport bikes riders, as it makes provisions to require riders to have a minimum "X" years of experience before being allowed to have a passenger, but says NOTHING about riders of cruisers or scooters. With the wording of this bill, this would allow a brand new rider to go get their license and get on a cruiser (i.e. Harley), and take a passenger that same day. However for a sport bike, this bill would require a new rider to wait 2 years. For most riders I know, and in the club to which I belong, riders of sportbikes are safer, and better riders than those on cruisers.

In closing, H.B. 2740 has no business being passed, as it cleary discriminates against sport bikes themselves, and especially against the riders of sport bikes. It also paves the way for future laws that would discriminate further against sportbikes by defining them seperately from other forms of motorcycles.

What happened to Malorie is a tragedy, but this bill is a result of friends and family of Malorie placing blame on someone other than Malorie herself for the loss of her life. Nobody forced Malorie to ride on an unsafe motorcycle with an inexperienced rider, resulting in her death. Passing a law to try and enforce this is absurd.

Please vote YES to personal freedoms and choices, and NO to HB 2470. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Don Sandee.

[DemonDuck]

Well..... yea... ummm.... yep. Wonder if it would lower my insurance? I am about to write some stuff to the first ladys of the round table and senate.

[WillK675]

Well I made some phone calls, and couldn't get contact info for the person I know in Austin that is a lobbyist. However.... I've got a Mom that is on the job to get this thing killed.

For those of you that don't know, my Mother worked for a state rep for 7 years. Well needless to say, she knows how things work in Austin and still knows people. So I've talked with her about it, sent her the HB number, and she is going to look into it and see what she can do.

So there you have it ladies and gents... A mom that is on the side of sportbikers.


P.S. I gave her the info for the lane splitting bill and she's going to look at that one for us too.

[dufremle]

The lane splitting bill is HB 1571. I think it's pretty much dead.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ill=HB1571" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[WillK675]

For anyone wondering. Here is how it was voted by the house.

HB 2470 ON THIRD READING
(by Phillips)
HB 2470, A bill to be entitled An Act relating to the regulation of sport
bikes.
HBi2470 was passed by (Record 683): 141 Yeas, 2 Nays, 2 Present, not
voting.
Yeas — Aliseda; Allen; Alonzo; Alvarado; Anchia; Anderson, C.;
Anderson, R.; Aycock; Beck; Berman; Bohac; Branch; Brown; Burkett; Burnam;
Button; Cain; Callegari; Carter; Castro; Chisum; Christian; Coleman; Cook;
Craddick; Creighton; Crownover; Darby; Davis, J.; Davis, S.; Davis, Y.;
Deshotel; Driver; Dukes; Dutton; Eiland; Eissler; Elkins; Farias; Farrar; Fletcher;
Flynn; Frullo; Gallego; Garza; Geren; Giddings; Gonzales, L.; Gonzales, V.;
Gonzalez; Gooden; Guillen; Hamilton; Hancock; Hardcastle; Harless;
Harper-Brown; Hartnett; Hernandez Luna; Hilderbran; Hochberg; Howard, C.;
Howard, D.; Huberty; Hughes; Hunter; Isaac; Jackson; Johnson; Keffer; King, P.;
King, S.; King, T.; Kleinschmidt; Kolkhorst; Kuempel; Landtroop; Larson;
Laubenberg; Lavender; Legler; Lewis; Lozano; Lucio; Lyne; Madden; Mallory
Caraway; Margo; Marquez; Martinez; Martinez Fischer; McClendon; Menendez;
Miles; Miller, D.; Miller, S.; Mun˜oz; Murphy; Naishtat; Nash; Orr; Otto; Parker;
Patrick; Paxton; Pen˜ a; Perry; Phillips; Pickett; Pitts; Price; Quintanilla; Raymond;
Reynolds; Riddle; Ritter; Rodriguez; Schwertner; Scott; Sheets; Sheffield;
Shelton; Simpson; Smith, T.; Smith, W.; Smithee; Solomons; Strama; Taylor, L.;
Taylor, V.; Thompson; Torres; Turner; Veasey; Villarreal; Vo; Walle; Woolley;
Workman; Zedler; Zerwas.
Nays—Weber; White.
Present, not voting—Mr. Speaker; Bonnen(C).
Absent, Excused—Hopson; Morrison; Truitt.
Absent—Gutierrez; Oliveira.

May want to write you representative letting them know your disappointment in them voting for such a discriminatory bill.

[Blizzard_1708]

A status of "In committee" is not dead, this is an active bill. The first part of the legislative period is for introducing bills, the second part is for committee work where it is analyzed and researched, and the third part is for debate and voting.

[Blizzard_1708]

Although, looking back at SB 506 (same thing, but 81st Legislature) there was more activity on it by this date.