Malories Law...
 

Texas riders are getting fired up....

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/HB02470E.htm

Malorie was a 19-year-old woman that got on the back of her boyfriend's bike. She somehow hit the pavement, the details have not come out about the accident, other than she died as a result of her injuries. The loved ones have drafted this bill with the help of their rep and they are pushing it through.

So far, it got through the house with little attention. We are now aware and FIRED UP. It doesn't make sense to me. None of it... the defining of "sportbikes" is a dangerous precedent, and not exactly even correct in their wording. The need for handles confuses me.

Feel free to join the party: http://capwiz.com/amacycle/issues/al...U&show_alert=1

http://superbikeblog.blogspot.com/20...laws-4598.html

Personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore

So they want all sport bikes to be operated by someone with an M endorsement and provide the passenger, if built for two, pegs and hand holds? Sounds like a law that pretty much does nothing to me? Most sportbikes have passenger seat and pegs, some have hand holds, all could be modified to have them if you want to have a passenger on board. I am not sure what they are trying to accomplish, maybe restrict solo seat bikers from giving rides? If so Harley Sporststers should have to comply...As well as motards/dual sports

What they're trying to accomplish, is to look like they're doing something.

Sure, it's a non issue, but hey, I feel safer already.

Now if I were an evil bastard, I might say that Malorie is dead because she had poor taste in boyfriends. Good boyfriends, you see, don't pull big wheel-stands with their girlfriend on the back of the bike, which, I'm guessing, is what happened here.

Texas would be better served, if they passed a law against stupid people.

Malorie clearly did not have enough sense to hold on tightly, to her idiot boyfriend. Tragic? Yes. A good reason to pull over anybody with a passenger on their bike, so the cops make sure you have the proper training/experience? Fuck no.

JC

Pretty much this. Not sure what this is going to accomplish other than just one more law intended to regulate common sense. The whole need for a passenger to be a licensed motorcyclist baffles me as well.

Edit: okay, this may be the contracts person in me but with this section: "(D) is not a touring, cruiser, standard, or dual-sport motorcycle" - would the not then need to include definitions of these "other" motorcycle classes as well? I haven't read the whole thing yet but this catches my eye fairly quickly...

Where the law screws up is that it requires the passenger to be 18 and have an M endorsement too. I put my 10 year old on the back of my CBR and ride out to baskin robins once a week, which they just effectively made illegal. So now because some dipshit killed his GF I cant take my daughter to get ice cream on sunday afternoon.

My CBR also never came with handholds for the passenger from the factory.

It also classifies a bunch of bikes into the term sportbike that may or may not actually be a sport bike. Where does the FJR fit in? How about the new 1000 ninja? Or even a CBR250 which is a great bike to learn on? What about the XR1200?

Does my CBR900 fit in the touring category? I do touring on it, gone up and down the east coast, I raised the handlebars so I'm not over the gas tank anymore. I think it might fall under exemption D of paragraph 1.

Actually, I believe it is saying that you can't carry a passenger unless you're 18 and have had your M license for two years OR the passenger is 18 (or a motorcycle safety instructor).

Still curious on the "(D) is not a touring, cruiser, standard, or dual-sport motorcycle" part and what defines those.

Until we make "stupid" illegal...this is all just a waste of time.

In this day and age it seems to be rewarded. Spill coffee on yourself and become a millionaire :td:

Nope, the first line of paragraph 2:

the operator:

and back to the passenger:

From those 3 sentences I understand that the rider needs to have 2 years experience with an M endorsement, be 18 or older, the passenger needs to be 18 or older and also have an M endorsement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but thats what I read from it.

Why would a person who can ride their own, want to be a passenger?

Uma does it sometimes, but it's abnormal for her or anybody else.

I read Sec. 545.4161 as either the operator OR the "other person" (Passenger?) is 18, with an M license or MSF instructor.

I can't believe they would make it illegal for a parent to take their child for ice cream...but Texas is a red state after all

I wish my VFR was in the "touring" category. I don't like paying sport insurance.


You know, I had a friend die because he wasn't buckled up. I still think it should be a person's choice to buckle up.

If you read the article from the superbike blog, then yeah that's what it says. But it's wrong, based on what I read from the bill itself. The text of the bill says those provisions for the passenger only apply if the operator is under 18, or hasn't had their M license for two years.

I still think that it says both need a M endorsment. I took the previous post from the blog, this is what I read from the capitol.state.tx.us site:

It seems pretty stupid to me, but from what I'm reading the passenger needs to be 18 and have an M endorsement.

It's all pretty stupid, for sure (and I'll be writing my senator). But it's the "or" between sections 1 and 2 that's important. You can carry a passenger if you meet all the criteria in 1, or if your passenger meets one of the criteria in 2.

point taken, I guess I missed the OR part. But that doesnt make sense at all, the rider already has to have an M endorsement, why require the passenger to have a liscense if the rider doesnt, seems kinda stupid to me.

so you can learn to ride with an instructor riding pillion to "guide" you. Not many places still teach riding like that (and not a lot of people willing to do so either) but it works at the track...

ride pillion to someone who doesnt know how to ride? screw that, thats just plain stupid

No shit. I cant imagine trying to learn to ride with a figurative monkey on my back. *shudder*

i dont even like riding on the same street as someone who is learning, on the same bike, effff that.

I wouldn't either :lol:

Not saying it makes SENSE (this is government we're talking about here :lol:)

Thanks for the heads up, Moira. I just wrote Senator Watson about it.

I think the idea is that if you have your M license, you know what you're getting into if you hop on the back of a bike with a new rider at the controls. They're trying to protect folks who don't know any better. Fight ignorance with ignorance, I guess.

At the most basic of levels, this bill [if turned into law] cannot be enforced. Why have a law that can't be enforced? I mean, there is no way to prove how long someone has had their M license...

There are other things that are VERY wrong with this. But, at the most basic of levels it should be something that officers aren't left to their own devices...

Okay, wrote to both Senators Watson and Wentworth. I'll keep an eye on the public discussion schedule.

It's just another "rule" full of loopholes with which they can bust riders' balls.

So to refer back to my first post, is a 250 ninja or 250 CBR considered a sport bike? Should those two bikes only be allowed to be ridden by people with 2 years experience? Or should those bikes be reccomended as good bikes to learn on, because it sounds like they fit in the sport bike category

Personally, I think the intent of the law is to keep Jonny Squid from buying his turbo 'busa for his first bike, stopping by Malorie's house on his way home to take her for a ride, and ends up killing her

They both fit the description.

The intent IS to limit Johnny Squid, but how does this law as it's worded do that? It states two years... no where on my license does it have a date when I earned my M license. And, how does having it for two years help anything? I could be THAT guy that gets it, and doesn't use it for two years...

Thing is, other bikes that my not really be sport bikes are "defined" as such which is pointless; in fact, defining any kind of specific motorcycle is just as pointless. Someone has just as much of a chance of getting tossed off the back of Fat Mike's new Softtail Delux as they do a Turbo 'Busa.

Thanks for the heads-up. Just read the bill and emailed Jeff Wentworth. I'll try to follow-up with a phone call to his office tomorrow.

Completely off topic: Does anyone else read the title as mamories law?

Sorta looks fun for two of those guys....

Ogden...is that our guy? Well, that's who I emailed.

I agree, but in the minds of the average citizen, when Fat Mike dumps his boat anchor, it is just an accident. But when some hopped up, drug crazed, adrenaline junkie drops his crotch rocket, it is major media news and requires legislation

Exactly. This bill makes no sense and is just designed to give riders one more thing to be hastled about and to take up space and make sheeple happy.

the insurance companies like to classify them as such so they can bang you on higher rates.

What's wrong with having handholds on a sportbike? :idk:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...d/IMG_1322.jpg

Cool. When you gonna try it with beer?

redflip

:lol:

Can I get a hi-five for the man with the awesome one-liner? :lol:

:lmao: Well played, sir.

My original line was going to be, "That'd probably work great with beer, too" but I deleted it cuz I didn't think some peeps would get it :D

Just as an update; word out of the senate is that this thing is dead in committee and will never see the light of day. Hopefully that's true, but there are a bunch of folks watching the committees agenda to be sure. If it isn't brought to the floor by the 25th, then it's dead for this session.

Big thanks to everyone who got involved here, but I fear this fight isn't over. I fully expect to see a revised version of this thing pop up in the next legislative session, which is why I've already contacted my Representative to let him know that stuff like this is not OK, and that I'm watching.

I count 3. There's a guy right at the beginning that gets air worthy of a pilot's license. He's off frame for most of the video. :lol:

I was refering to the two that were thrown clear... one guy got rolled over.

Three guys are thrown clear - watch again, closely at the beginning. One guy clears the frame in the blink of an eye, only to lawn dart the ground when the truck has about a 1/2 roll left before it comes to rest.

I see 5 possibly 6.

There is two guys that roll out when the truck first hits, they stay in the background and are shadows by the end, then two guys in front of him that almost get rolled over plus the air jordan guy that is out of frame, and possibly one more body that never left the car or is hidden behind it. I only say there are 6 because it looks like 3 rows of 2 per row in the opening shots and first roll

I just see 'em all as being fucked

True...

JC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ik0UK6r3s0

"Did someone order a pound of ground boobies?"