Passes & Canyons Blog

Bikes coming down Pikes Peak.

I’ve gotten a couple legislative updates recently from Stump, ABATE of Colorado’s legislative liaison. He says it is possible that there may be movement this year on lane-splitting and also on the long-delayed distracted driving bill.

Forbidding the use of cell phones, except in hands-off mode, is an idea that has gained in support over the years, and it looked like the time was at hand just before Covid hit and the work of the Colorado Legislature got pared back to the bare essentials. Two years ago the Senate Transportation and Energy committee moved the bill ahead unanimously but then things went haywire.

According to Stump, General Motors has now decided to put its weight behind such measures:

Lastly, I received the following from Susan Dane, the person spearheading the distracted driving bill the past few years:

It appears General Motors is interested in supporting distracted driving legislation in Colorado. I’ve learned that they have provided support in other states related to this type of legislation. I’m working to set up an initial conversation with their people to see what this may look like. Don’t know where this may go, but it’s hopeful to hear that a major player like GM could get involved. I’ll let you know how things go.

She couldn’t get a sponsor for a bill last year but it looks like something might happen this year.

So we’ll see what comes of this.

As for lane-splitting, here is Stump’s bullet-point list of the status:

Hooked up with professional lobbyist – Sundari Kraft with Ascent Strategies LLC. Signed contract (required by law) for help PRO BONO!
Advantages: good connections with Legislators; more knowledgeable about bill process; great advocate but still considers ABATE to be subject matter expert.
Might “piggyback” on highway safety bills being submitted by Reps. Garnett or Larson.
Met with her to give basic “parameters” about a possible bill and ABATE’s concerns. Gave my personal guidelines (Similar to Oregon’s proposal, which I think has a chance of passing):
Permitted on multi-laned highways with speed limit of 55 or higher
Traffic stopped or moving in the same direction at 10 mph or less
Travel up to 10 mph faster than traffic
NOTE: I don’t think lane filtering would have a chance of passing and these parameters might work, which would allow motorcyclists to lane-split on the interstates when it’s 100 degrees out and traffic is backed up. But remember, it’s not mandatory.

As for creating a separate definition and category for autocycles, Stump noted that the bill is scheduled for committee hearing on February 1.

The big news is that bills are being scheduled in committees and HB22-1043 (Motorcycle and Autocycle Definitions) is scheduled for Tuesday, 2/1 at 1:30 pm, in LSB-A. That’s the building across 14th street from the Capitol (SE corner of 14th & Sherman). If you haven’t emailed the 12 members of the H-T&LG Committee yet, please do so in the next week. Here’s the list of members for your convenience:

Tony Exum Sr. (Chair) — tony.exum.house@state.co.us
Matt Gray (Vice-chair) — matt@matthewgray.us
Andrew Boesenecker — andrew.boesenecker.house@state.co.us
Marc Catlin — marc.catlin.house@state.co.us
Meg Froelich — meg.froelich.house@state.co.us
Edie Hooton — edie.hooton.house@state.co.us
Andres Pico — andres.pico.house@state.co.us
Janice Rich — janice.rich.house@state.co.us
Tom Sullivan — tom.sullivan.house@state.co.us
Donald Valdez — donald.valdez.house@state.co.us
Tonya Van Berber — Tonya.Van.Beber.house@state.co.us
Kevin Van Winkle — kevin.vanwinkle.house@state.co.us

It’s really important that you contact them, so they know this is important to Colorado motorcyclists and we’re really concerned that autocycles have their own category for the purpose of maintaining accurate accident and fatality data. Thanking you in advance.

That’s it for now. Updates to come.

Biker Quote for Today

You might be a Yuppie biker if you drink cappuccino instead of beer.

Autocycles, like these Slingshots, may run with the bikes but they clearly are not motorcycles.

After two years of bare-bones legislative sessions, we are finally starting to see movement on other issues, including some of concern to motorcyclists in Colorado.

House Bill 22-1043 was introduced January 12 by District 16 Rep. Andres Pico and District 2 Sen. Dennis Hisey to clarify the distinct and separate definitions of motorcycles vs. autocycles. As we have seen an explosion in recent years of three-wheeled vehicles that are clearly not motorcycles, these vehicles, nevertheless, continue to be classified as motorcycles. Note that some three-wheeled vehicles are rightly classified as motorcycles, and this proposed legislation addresses that fact.

This is a problem because crashes occur the data connected to them get lumped in with the data from motorcycle crashes, with a clear possibility of wrongly skewing the actual motorcycle data. This in turn can be used for policy-making that is erroneous. Thus the need to create a separate category of vehicle and keep the two separate.

Here’s the current abstract for the bill:

Current law defines an autocycle as a motorcycle. Section 1 of the bill removes autocycle from the definition of motorcycle. The definition of motorcycle is changed to add that a motorcycle needs to have handlebars to steer and has a seat the rider sits astride. The definition of autocycle is also changed to clarify that an autocycle doesn’t use handlebars directly connected to the front tire or tires to steer. In removing autocycle from the definition of motorcycle, the bill makes the following clarifications and changes:

Section 2 clarifies that the driver of an autocycle need not have a motorcycle endorsement regardless of the autocycle’s maximum speed and that all 3-wheel motorcycle drivers need a general or limited motorcycle endorsement;

Current law requires all motorcycle drivers to wear eye protection unless the motorcycle has 3 wheels, has a maximum speed of no more than 25 miles per hour, has a windshield, and has seatbelts. Section 3 clarifies that this exception applies to drivers of autocycles, not motorcycles, fitting that description.

Current law requires a motorcycle driver who is under 18 years of age to wear a helmet unless the motorcycle has 3 wheels, has a maximum speed of no more than 25 miles per hour, has a windshield, and has seatbelts. Section 4 clarifies that this exception applies to autocycles, not motorcycles, fitting that description.

Current law imposes a fee of $4 to register motorcycles for motorcycle operator safety training. Redefining autocycles as not being motorcycles means that autocycle owners will not pay the fee.

Section 5 removes the authorization for 2 autocycles to drive abreast in one lane.

Sections 6 through 31 make conforming amendments.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)

The bill has been assigned to the House Transportation and Local Government committee. We’ll be watching its progress and will report back if a time comes when it appears that contacting your legislators would help push it through.

Biker Quote for Today

When a car started telling very bad jokes the motorcycle was disgusted and exclaimed, “Are you four-wheel?”