Moped and Motorized Bicycles in Arizona
Every now and then an unusual story involving bicycles, in this case motorized bicycles, and a point of law comes along. Surely, this is one of those cases. It revolves around a relatively new law enacted last year (2006??), that defines a whole new category: motorized bicycles.
It is well-established that bicycle riders in general do not need any sort of operating license. For why this is so in Arizona, see e.g. Bicycle License. Bicycles are defined as being human powered, so what happens if you strap a motor on it? The answer: it depends. Here is the hierarchy along with their statutory definition(the section numbers of 28-101 are prone to change, they are accurate as of this writing in Sept 2007), in ascending order of power limits:
- Bicycle: §28-101(6).
- Motorized Bicycle: §28-2516.
- Moped: §28-101(30), see also §28-2513.
- Motor Driven Cycle: §28-101(31). a.k.a. motor scooter
- Motorcycle: §28-101(34).
Phew! that was more categories than I thought!
Motorized Bicycle (hereafter referred to as MB): No operating license is required, nor is title, registration or insurance. Although MBs may be operated in bicycle lanes, they may not use paths because these are generally not “designated for the exclusive use of bicycles”. The motor is limited to 48cc’s (which begs the question about an electric motor, was that an oversight? Tuscon’s ordinance DOES include the 1HP electric limit). In other words it is treated just like a bicycle would it not be for the following phrase: “operated at speeds of less than twenty miles per hour”.
Moped: A motor vehicle operator’s license is required, but it can be any class — unlike more powerful cycles where a class M is specified. Title requirements are waived, required license and registration are inexpensive and fixed by statute. The power requirement is more specific: < 50cc’s AND < 1.5HP AND < 25mph at 1% or less grade. Mopeds may NOT be operated in bicycle lane or path.
Motor Driven Cycle: IS a motorcycle, but the motor is limited to 5HP. As such, a class M operators license, and title/insurance/registration would be required. There are a bunch of equipment differences, seems to mainly revolve around headlight requirements. They may be restricted from controlled access highways.
Motorcycle: No motor power limit. Class M operators license, and title/insurance/registration required.
Discussion
The defining statute for mopeds gives a fairly tight definition of the speed capability, rated as no more than 25mph. But note that it is in no way a “moped speed limit” (Is there any case law to the contrary? Also need to check city laws could be more restrictive, e.g. Tuscon has an age limit on MB). For example, if a perfectly compliant moped were rolling downhill faster, that would be no problem. Normal speed limits still apply, see §28-701 . As a practical matter, I have no idea who actually certifies these limits. The moped’s manufacturer, perhaps? Also, and obvious factor that would affect the 25mph max rating drastically is rider (or riders, many mopeds can accommodate a passenger) and payload weight. This is not in the definition at all.
By contrast, the MB definition (which is curiously not with all the other definitions in 28-101?) says that “For the purposes of this section (a MB) is operated at speeds of less than twenty miles per hour”. Does that constitute a “MB speed limit”? Bicycles by their nature can easily exceed 20mph with no helper motor at all. What if the motor is switched off — would the 20mph apply then? As usual, normal speed limit laws still apply of course. Also, there is no statutory requirement for a speedometer. A flyer put out by the city of Tuscon helpfully says that “You should also consider using additional equipment such as a speedometer…”. Would a MB that is licensed/insured/etc as a moped be a moped all the time or only when operated under 20mph — note that this is a big deal as a practical matter because mopeds are banned from bicycle facilities (regardless of operating speed) whereas MBs are subject to the same ride-to-the-right restrictions as bicycles. Another hiccup in the MB morphing into a moped is the moped’s definition of not being capable of exceeding 25mph on level ground. It is quite possible, or even likely, that a MB cannot fit this definition — it may fit the description of motor driven cycle which has other equipment and license requirements. All of these add together to make me wonder how reasonable all of this is, and how the heck a judge would see this. The statutes could really use a going-over.
Other oddities: the (presumably gasoline) motor size is limit is practically the same — 50cc for mopeds, and 48cc for MBs. What’s up with that? Shouldn’t it have been like 25cc?
Another possible loose end is highway restriction. Bicycles in AZ are allowed to use highways except where prohibited by DOT, see §28-733. In effect this ends up being prohibited in all urban situations, and sometimes allowed in rural areas. I can’t find anything specific about mopeds or MB restrictions. Both are defined as bicycles + motor, so I suppose they inherit the same rights/restrictions to the road as bicycles.
[The background and history of the controversy surrounding the MB law of 2006 goes here]
Ticketed rider pedals fine line in court
Carol Sowers, The Arizona Republic, Sept. 18, 2007 03:52 PM
SCOTTSDALE - A 50-year-old Scottsdale man is battling traffic citations in City Court because he says he was ticketed twice by a police officer who doesn’t know the difference between a motorized bicycle and a moped.
Steve Livingston says the officer, R. Royston, a longtime traffic officer, does not understand a new law that treats motorized bicycles like traditional pedal-powered bicycles.
Jesse Squier, Livingston’s lawyer, argued that a veteran traffic officer like Royston should have known about the new law, and that he “has a vendetta against my client.”
But Scottsdale prosecutor Mike De La Cruz argued that Livingston’s motorized bicycle really is a moped and that the officer “acted in good faith.”
The year-old law says riders who attach motors no larger than 33 ½ cubic centimeters [actually the law says no larger than 48cc’s] to their bicycles don’t need a driver’s license, insurance, or registration, and can travel in bicycle lanes, but can’t go more than 20 mph.
Royston testified Monday that he never heard of the new law when he stopped Livingston in November for riding his orange motorized bike in a bicycle lane along Granite Reef Road, near McDowell Road.
Royston insisted the cycle was a Moped, which are not allowed in bicycle lanes, and which require registration and driver’s licenses. The officer cited Livingston for “driving on a suspended license.”
Livingston admitted his license had been suspended for drunken-driving, but told Royston at the time that he didn’t need a driver’s license to ride his motorized bicycle.
Scottsdale Judge Wendy Morton dismissed the suspended license charge Monday [I heard that this is not correct, and that in actuality PROSECUTOR dropped the charge — however there were two suspended license charges and so had little effect] , but Livingston’s trial on a speeding ticket will continue later this month.
Royston spotted Livingston a second time in March, again riding his motorized bike in a bicycle lane near Eldorado Park at Oak Street and Miller Road.
Royston testified Monday that he was helping with a nearby accident investigation when he heard Livingston’s bicycle approaching him from about 100 yards away.
“It sounded like a gas-powered skate board,” Royston told the court.
The officer said he retrieved his radar gun from his patrol car and clocked Livingston at 28 mph, 8 mph faster than the legal limit for motorized bikes.
Royston pursued Livingston until the cyclist stopped a few blocks later, again on Granite Reef Road.
“As far as I was concerned he was a Moped in a bicycle lane, Royston testified, adding that he “had a hard time catching up with him.”
Livingston testified that his cycle odometer showed him going no faster than 19.5 mph that day.
Prosecutor De La Cruz questioned the accuracy of the bicycle odometer, insisting that the 28.5 mph radar gun reading qualified Livingston’s bicycle as a Moped.
De La Cruz said that as a result, Livingston was not covered by the legislation that took effect in September 2006.
“The officer got the law right,” De La Cruz said.
Royston handcuffed Livingston, put him in the back of his car and told him that he was tired of arguing about the law, according to a transcript of a tape Livingston made during his arrest.
“I’m going to settle this argument, and a judge is too, and we’re going to put you in jail for it,” Royston said, according to the transcript.
The trial is expected to resume Sept. 24.
…
Bike rider convicted of riding on suspended license
Carol Sowers, The Arizona Republic, Sept. 26, 2007 07:03 AM
A 50-year-old Scottsdale man has lost the first round of a court battle with a police officer who has cited him twice for riding his “motorized bicycle” in a bicycle lane, claiming it is really a moped.
Scottsdale Judge Wendy Morton agreed Tuesday with Scottsdale Police Officer R. Royston, convicting Steve Livingston of riding on a suspended license.
The city court judge ruled that Livingston’s bright-orange cruiser with a helper motor is a moped. Morton said Livingston exceeded the 20 mph maxium speed for such bicycles and that he was therefore riding it illegally in a bicycle lane while on a suspended driver’s license.
Morton threw out Livingston’s argument that his bicycle is covered under a year-old state law that says bicycles with helper motors can use bike lanes, and riders don’t need insurance, registration, or driver’s licenses, so long as they don’t exceed 20 mph.
Royston testified that in March he clocked Livingston’s cruiser at 28.5 mph in a bicycle lane on Granite Reef Road near Oak Street.
“As far as I was concerned, he was a moped in a bicycle lane,” Royston testified.
Livingston denied going that speed, saying his bicycle computer showed a maximum speed of 19.5 mph for the entire day.
Royston arrested him for driving on a suspended driver’s license, stemming from drunk driving charges.
Jesse Squier, Livingston’s attorney, argued that Royston had a vendetta against his client because he had stopped him five months earlier for riding his motorized cruiser in a bicycle lane.
Royston admitted he knew nothing at the time about the new motorized bicycle law and considered them mopeds.
Livingston could face jail time and thousands of dollars in fines when he is sentenced Oct. 17.
Squier said he will appeal Morton’s ruling, in part because the “motorized bicycle law” doesn’t spell out penalties for exceeding the 20 mph speed limit.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
I read this article elsewhere and the picture of the “motorized bicycle” doesn’t match the description of the bike the man was riding during the traffic stop. ???? I can’t believe this would be in the paper..the Arizona Republic must be desperate for stories. It’s shameful. Criminals slandering cops. Obviously Steve Livingston doesn’t know the law if he has broken it so many times by driving drunk. It takes several DUIs to have your license suspended. [actually, that’s not true, DUI penalties have become increasingly stiff: the minimum is 30 + 60 days suspension, see 28-1385(F)] This guy is willing to take everyone elses lives in his hands by driving drunk but he thinks he should be in the paper as a victim???? I think if you have a suspended license you shouldn’t be driving anything motorized because you are not responsible enough.
azbikelaw responds: Thanks for you comments, John. First off — I’m gonna say that the contraption probably SOUNDS like hell, and is a public auditory nuisance — but that’s not excuse to try and mis-apply traffic laws, if they don’t apply.
The picture in my paper showed a very fancy-looking “retro” cruiser style bicycle, the motor was attached just ahead of the rear wheel very low to the ground, it was b/w photo so I can’t tell the color. But, the short answer is it looks like bicycle with a motor added to it. Did you read any of the legal stuff — which is the whole point of MY article — the legislation which defines a motorized bicycle is vague/loose/not well constructed. This creates a situation where the law needs to be interpreted by a judge… so we’ll just have to wait and see what the judge decides.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:17 am
A. It is a de-facto rule that law enforcement has control over anything powered by gasoline. Not in law, just generally speaking. Just like the unwritten assumption that law enforcement can never tell a lie. The law is cloudy and vague, thank god for that. Motorized bikes are not to be regulated in the first place. Unless you are of the notion that we should all be regulated like a heard of sheep. Which i agree, some humans are just that stupid. But the rest of us don’t need regulating.
The cop did not like the idea that he may not have a say so over a motorized bike rider. And, as we all know from the supreme court decision, a cop can arrest you for anything now. Welcome to the united states of arrestia. or the socialist states of america. Face it, there is a law against everything now, and you have no rights.
The whole stupid 20mph law is to keep people driving cars.
cars generate revenue for the govt. taxes, tickets, LOTS of traffic tickets, licenses, registration, insurance, gasoline tax revenue, parking fee’s, etc.
Bottom line, the local court will extract some amount of money from him, no matter what. that is the bottom line.
And the bike rider needs to switch to an electric bike so as to not attract negative attention to himself.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:21 am
John T, you are as ignorant as the judge is in this matter. It might be a good idea to “know what you’re talking about” before moving your fingers on the keyboard. The Scottsdale court is a kangaroo court. The cop LIED about speed, there was no speeding ticket nor any evidence of speed taken. The point is that the crooked cop testified under oath he was going to stop the rider the second time because he believed it was a moped riding in a bike lane. The officer still didn’t know the law six months after it went into effect. During the second stop (by the same cop), in which Mr Livingston was arrested, it was recorded on digital tape. The word “speed” was not used once during the ordeal. The prosecution and officer, by their fabrication of the speed (which actually was never over 20 mph and there is no printout etc.), have used that as a smokescreen to hide the fact that Mr. Livingston was falsely arrested two times by the same cop. The cop’s willfull negligence of knowing the law has caused this situation to exist. All I can say is when your in the city of Nazisdale, watch your six whatever your ride or drive.
November 24th, 2007 at 3:15 am
just to throw a different perspective.i have developed a few bicycles with motors on them .i rode my latest for several months at least 20 miles a day six days a week.it,s capable of nearly 40 miles an hour.i made it that way for survival. the law,forcing a human on a lightweight bicycle to 20 mph is a death sentence.all of this crap is over a poor human wanting to try to keep up with society with limited funds.taking a bus in phoenix sucks as well as waiting in the sun for countless amounts of time in summer.sometimes it’s full past capacity.actually often too full.
i say for myself; i’m getting tired of being restricted by ridiculous laws.what would it hurt to go the speed limit on a bicycle.putting a person on a bicycle at 20 mph;in front of many tons of rolling steel is flippin stupid.
i tend to believe that a lawmaker in general ,doesnt ever pedal a bike,or worry about survival.
i predict that us poor folks are going to have to rise and get crazy on the system throw these idiots out and give the country a tune up.it’s getting so theres nothing to lose.i’m lucky the cop thats on me;is’nt ticketing me.
heres an idea.”LEGALISE FREEDOM”. or risk the eventuality that us americans(who will fight)might take over and ruin the soft and easy careers enjoyed at our expence.
i’m going to break the law today and ride my ” MB” to work.SCREW EVERYBODY.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
RIGHT ON TOM!!!! I agree with you 100% Could not have said it better myself.