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: