TexasCHLforum.com

threoh8 wrote:

Crossfire wrote:OK, maybe not a moped. Licenses and insurance? Really?

Yep.

According to that, a motorcycle is a motor vehicle but a moped is a motor driven cycle.

Virginia uses the same criteria to distinguish between a "motorcycle" and a "moped" (50cc engine, 30mph top speed). While I was living there, I did some research into getting a moped or Vespa to get around town with better gas milage than a car, and I was surprised how few typical "mopeds" are that weak... almost all the ones I looked at were too powerful or too fast. Unless you go out of your way to get one specifically, I'd bet 90% of the scooters/mopeds are "motorcycles" for the purposes of Texas.

you dont need a motorcycle endorsement to ride a moped. from what i see most people consider them less dangerous then a real motorcycle.

Tamie wrote:

threoh8 wrote:

Crossfire wrote:OK, maybe not a moped. Licenses and insurance? Really?

Yep.

According to that, a motorcycle is a motor vehicle but a moped is a motor driven cycle.

I think you actually have it backwards. "Motor Driven Cycle' is not a definition, but rather a requirement...

Definition of a moped – A motor driven cycle whose speed attainable in one mile is not more than 30 miles per hour and that is equipped with a motor that produces not more than two-brake horsepower.

Also, Anything that exceeds either of the speed or HP limits, is by definition, actually a motorcycle.
I'm pretty sure that most Vespas and other popular city mopeds nowadays exceed/don't meet those 3 requirements above, and are actually, by that definition, motorcycles.

The only actual 'mopeds' that would probably fit those requirements, would be ones like this:

The old style engine-assisted-bicycle kind that still has pedals. (Hence Motor-Driven-Cycle)

And not the ones like this, that are more common nowadays:

This one's 150cc, quite more than 2hp! Also, doesn't look like a 'Motor Driven Cycle'... looks nothing like a bicycle.

Even this 50cc one here, which could be under 2hp, advertises over 30mph (and as such, probably is more than 2hp), and wouldn't qualify as a 'moped'

alvins wrote:you dont need a motorcycle endorsement to ride a moped. from what i see most people consider them less dangerous then a real motorcycle.

There is a constant stream of wrecked mopeds/scooters adding to the pile at our storage lot. They are so cheap people rarely pick them up and they get sold for scrap after 60 days.

But the pile is always growing.

mctowalot wrote:

alvins wrote:you dont need a motorcycle endorsement to ride a moped. from what i see most people consider them less dangerous then a real motorcycle.

There is a constant stream of wrecked mopeds/scooters adding to the pile at our storage lot. They are so cheap people rarely pick them up and they get sold for scrap after 60 days.

But the pile is always growing.

well most people think riding a moped is like riding a bicycle.their is even a lady here in the texas medical center who ride hers with high heels on.its quite a sight to see her emergency stop in dry weather.even more funny when its wet.also they usually have those really small tires and that is even worse with all the pothole and cracks in the street.

Hello everyone,

I ride my bicycle almost every day in downtown Austin (I have been a bike commuter since I first started working) and I always carry when riding (I have a CHL). I also have a Vespa scooter (200 cc which makes it a motorcycle; motorcycle license required) and I always carry when riding it too. I wonder how may bicyclists and scooter riders carry. I bet not many. In any case, thanks for the posts; I'm always interested in CHL and bicycles.

I agree with the comment about not defending against bike thievery; as my CHL instructor said: can you imagine sitting in a court room and being asked by the prosecutor " do I have this right that you killed XXX over a $700.00 bicycle?"

PS: note the NRA sticker on the seatpost

Thanks as always for all the posts,

bob