INDIANAPOLIS – Drivers of mopeds will be required to register their vehicle under legislation coauthored by State Rep. Gail Riecken (D-Evansville).
The Indiana House of Representatives passed House Bill 1343 today, which would require operators of motorized scooters to register their vehicle with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) and pass a special examination testing their knowledge of traffic signs. The law would also prohibit these drivers from carrying passengers.
“We are looking to protect moped owners from theft and make sure that they know the basic traffic laws,†said Riecken. “We have seen a major increase in the number of people who have their mopeds stolen and in accidents where moped drivers are at fault.â€
Indiana currently does not require riders to have a license, registration or insurance to operate low-powered mopeds or scooters. However, the recently passed legislation will require these drivers to register their vehicles and prove their competence.
The bill will not require these drivers to obtain a driver’s license or insurance, but Riecken believes that by registering the vehicles with a license plate, law enforcement will be able to better identify vehicles and crack down on the number of untraceable vehicles on the road.
In its current form, the bill could generate an additional $70,000 in extra registration fees for the state.
The bill now moves to the Senate for further action.
Nanny state nonsense. Congratulations control freaks, you got another dumb law passed.
“In its current form, the bill could generate an additional $70,000 in extra registration fees for the state.”
This is ALL this bill will accomplish.
I do believe the prohibition of carrying a passenger is a good safety decision.
You do know some mopeds are designed for two people.
Yeah,if they cannot afford an automobile let them eat cake…class warfare leadership straight up. morons.
The core issue is why someone is socially classed regulated to ride that so called dangerous son of a bitch in the first place.
So whos the blame in actuality?The accountability? If you are classed or regulated to one of them since they have been openly of concern by your qualified lawmakers up state,then if they meet the registration requirements and even insure the deemed so dangerous mode of transportation,if they do get wiped off in an collision or such “whom would be the base choice” for a personal injury claim?
I guess, they could raise the minimum wage enough to cover the fees….
Progressive per socially effective economic evolution,not so much.
(Cool add super bowl ad.) per vorticity of equation vs stupid legislation.
http://www.msn.Foxsports.com/south/story/georgia-injury-lawyer-unleashes-epic-super-ad-020314
coactus est modus operandi. ut profiteretur.
forced mode of operation. as registered.
This is nothing but an attack on the poor by the democrats. People of means do not normally ride mopeds especially in freezing weather. I think/know one of the reasons people can’t enter and stay in the workplace is because of transportation. This will cause some people to quit or lose their job.
I’m in the UK right now. There are many poor people here who use the very good public transport system, and there are many I see relying on bicycles and mopeds. I see bicycles on the relatively large “A” roads. More risk than I’d take on personally, but they wear high visibility jackets and use flashing lights on the front and back of the bike. Moped riders are in the same boat. They are always taking on more risk than a car driver, so accidents resulting in fatalities will always be higher. Also accidents involving teenagers will always be higher among bikers and moped riders. It’s a matter of demographics.
The important thing the hysterics are missing in their arguments is what good does it actually do society to put more hurdles in the way of poor people in the middle US who, lacking a well-constructed public transport system, must turn to mopeds? The result would be a rise in bicyclists on the road and a transfer of registration money from the poor to the government.
I was stationed in England for two years back in the early 80s and from a transportation point of view it seems not much has changed since then and I’m with you regarding taking on that level of risk on their roads.
On the whole I do not think this bill will do any good for society. People riding mopeds certainly are not doing it while leaving a perfectly fine car/truck sitting at home in their drive way. Well maybe they are because its broke and its much cheaper all the way around to use a moped in its place.
On a side note about England; I did love the train rides, to bad we do not have the same level of rail infrastructure.
Public transport is so good here, you could get by never driving at all. A lot of people do. I’d trade our nation’s interstate highway system any day for an interstate rail system. There is nothing like kicking back and letting someone else drive while you work or surf the net or read a book.
America sucks in that respect. Half the cities that do have buses, the routes aren’t very practical for all purpose use. Not enough of them. Too many changes. Not enough stops. Not enough coverage. Piss poor pedestrian access, especially in the sprawl areas without even so much as sidewalks.
This might be why I’m particularly bothered by this issue if scooters. We are already so hostile to pedestrians and public transport, now we are stifling one of the only cheap, viable alternatives. It’s bad governance, its bad planning, it’s terrible politics. I maintain there’s gotta be a lobby behind this nonsense, and it sure as hell ain’t poor people.
This is a little nuisance issue, and I really could care less.
But I don’t understand the logic of the objections of those who dislike formally registering a moped that shares the street with other vehicles. Does this also mean you object to street motorcycles being registered?
Last…I’m trying to drill down to the point of objection…so, one more question. The question is: Should marijuana and cocaine be legal in the State of Indiana?
On occasion when no sidewalks are present I will walk along the street. I guess a “license plate” needs hanging off my rear end to signify I passed a test on how to walk along a road. Though I never have to worry about a passenger.
The answer to your question; no.
I’ve made the reasons for my objections clear… Because most mopeds have no more actual power than a healthy man on a 10-speed bicycle, and the top speeds will be similar, plus they can ride in the ‘bike lanes’ on the shoulder.
Yes, both should be legal along with meth. The crackdown on meth as caused a different level of danger to the general public because of a more dangerous manufacturing method. Addiction treatment would be more effective if an intervention was more personal instead of by the criminal justice system.
This issue is a complete waste of time and resources for our Assembly to address.
The issue of mopeds should be taken up and decided upon by the cities, NOT our state.
That would be the best course of action.
But then the state would not get the money from the test/license.
If the State lives and dies on 70K then the State has much larger issues to deal with. I think as Weinzwestside points out, this is such a minor issue the State shouldn’t be wasting their time and taxpayer dollars. At the most they should tell cities to deal with it.
Otoh, getting the local politicians of Evansville to focus on anything other than name recognition legacy buildings, Colosseums, stadiums and parks to further their political career is a fruitless task.
Yeah, but if our politicians in Indy tell Local leaders to deal with it, then they wont look busy…
True. As in all jobs there are times you will find yourself with a certain amount of “downtime”. To bad legislators do not make more use of it and do nothing. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
Was it illegal for them to ride on sidewalks before? Did they have to obey basic traffic laws?
Yes it is illegal for them to be ridden on sidewalks;
http://moped2.org/laws/Indiana.htm
Yes on both counts. Already illegal on sidewalks, as are bikes, and of course they still are subject to all traffic laws, including DUI laws.
The facts don’t lie, only the politicians do. This is a path toward mandatory insurance. My guess is, the insurance companies are behind this lobbying effort to demonize and register and eventually force insurance on mopeds.
I’ve seen no reliable data behind the assertion that collisions involving mopeds are dangerously on the rise. Even if they are, are they more frequent on average than bicycle collisions or even pedestrian collisions? Give us the numbers, Gail.
The law doesn’t go far enough. Irresponsibility is not a factor of horse power or paying an indulgence to the state. Funny how money makes what is otherwise illegal legal.
Some of you are so full if sh!t I don’t know how you function w/o a government job. FOR REAL.
I defy ANYONE that drives more than once a week to honestly tell me they have never witnessed firsthand unsafe moped riding. This includes going down Hwy. 41 @ 35 MPH – ASKING to be hit.
You complain but when anything is finally done it’s such a horrible thing. Get real. Only a putz hoping to run for office-or already in office-would take that view.
The next POSITIVE step is mandatory insurance. Ever seen the damage caused by running over a moped? It can be quite costly. They should be required to carry insurance to cover damages just like every other motorized vehicle.
This was one instance where the extra registration fees have zero bearing on the issue. It’s public safety & we have to start somewhere.
I am surprised your bellybutton lint did not include pedestrian insurance. Now that’s positive step.
Just think about it, mandating more things a person needs to have insurance coverage and then you can start complaining about how much money insurance companies make. Oh wait, a better idea… fold it into Obmama care.
For God’s sake. Can we leave Obama out of SOME things?
Since this thread was about insurance; no.
You assume this REGISTRATION SCHEME is an abolishment.
Stop, think, reset. Now I’ll take that apology.
Actually I can see both sides and it comes down to existing laws and enforcement of those laws, most everything that any of us might bitch about concerning mopeds is already covered by existing laws, but like most of the traffic laws very few are enforced with any kind of vigor unless federal overtime money is being spent.
I really don’t believe EPD has a traffic enforcement policy given the number of unsafe vehicles you see on the road or the blatant disregard for stop signs, turn signals, and speeding that every average driver witnesses in their daily commute, about the only thing that will get you pulled over is not wearing your seat belt.
JMHO
Let me ask you a question, Heisenburg… What, for you, constitutes ‘safe moped riding’? You’ve just made it apparent you consider ANY moped riding to be less than desirable on the roads. Am I mistaken in that conclusion?
If this is the case, what do you consider ‘safe bicycle riding’? Should bicycles require insurance? And if so, since the power source between them is the same, should pedestrians be licensed to pay taxes for funding sidewalks? Should they need insurance since even they sometimes cross streets and get hit by automobiles?
The key here is in the assumption of risk. Under the current mandatory insurance system (which is a farce, by the way), we assign fault in accidents and make at fault drivers pay. If a motorist fails to see a bicyclist and hits him, the motor vehicle driver will likely be assigned fault unless he can demonstrate the much slower bicyclist had not taken required steps to make himself properly visible, or had violated the rules of the road. Then they can be sued civilly. The same scenario should play out in moped collisions.
But there again, I have seen no data to support the hysteria that moped riders are any less safe than bicyclists or motorcycles. The reality is, most collisions with mopeds are the result of car drivers not looking out for them.
I have news for you either way, no matter what you do at this point, you are not going to stop the proliferation of mopeds. The only thing that would stop that would be lower fuel prices. That’s probably not happening.
You could legalize drinking and driving. Then moped drivers wouldn’t be “I lost my license because of a DUI.” (I’m just having fun. This subject is silly.)
It’s not silly to the poor people trying to make ends meet by riding mopeds to work. I think this Bill is silly, and I think any politician like Gail Reiken, who voted for it is silly. Nay, more than silly. She is derelict on this one. She should be looking out for the poor; instead she is hitting them while they’re down. And it’s for the worst of reasons – public hysteria aimed against a minority.
Agreed. Gail’s action is totally out of character for a Democrat since they spend much of their time looking for ways to put taxpayer money into the hands of minorities and not taking it out.
Don’t blame this bill on Gail Reicken or glorify the 10% needing transportation for a job. Its the other 90% that has caused this bill to be put in place zig zagging down the middle of the street and giving you the finger when you honk your horn at them to move over. PUT the blame where it belongs!!!!!
Silverdome,
Did you report them?
The fact is, this bill was sponsored by Gail, so yes, she owns it. Your cheering it along on the basis that one a–hole weaved on one in front of you once and flipped you off is like me saying I hate Converse All Stars because someone once kicked the sh– outta me while wearing a pair.
Your reasoning isn’t ‘reason’ at all, it’s the crying of an ineffectual passive aggressive who likes to misdirect punishment. If you think this bill will stop people from riding scooters, weaving on them, or flipping you off when you blow your horn, you’re mistaken.
Comments are closed.