Colorado: Should there be a distinct license for three-wheelers?
Since three-wheeled vehicles come up on AutoblogGreen so often, we thought it would be prudent to inform you that Colorado is considering adding a distinct license requirement for three-wheeled motorcycles. Generally, if you have a motorcycle license, the state you live in allows you to ride a motorcycle with a sidecar or a trike, so no matter where that third wheel is located, you do not need any special skills... legally. Anybody who has ridden a bike with a sidecar knows that it is a totally different experience than a bike with a single-track. Also, trikes with their third contact point up front are generally more stable than one with the third wheel in back.
We'll chime in and say that some extra training should be necessary for a sidecar rig, but it's likely that this is less important for trikes. Unfortunately, distinctions such as this are very difficult to legislate, so we'd imagine that any changes will be rather sweeping generalizations and will take place on a state-by-state basis. We'll keep you updated if necessary.
[Source: The Kneeslider]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
KarenRei 7:43PM (2/22/2008)
As someone buying an Aptera (although not a Colorado resident), I hope that they realize that there's a lot more to trikes than just motorcycle sidecars. I've already tried to get the ball rolling in my state to make the regulations more suitable for vehicles like the Aptera.
Reply
GoodCheer 10:22PM (2/22/2008)
If you're trying to create a new class of driver's liscense for 3-wheel vehicles, than people wanting to drive Apteras, Carvers, Sparrow etc. will still need to get a new liscense, and it would still be complicated.
I would think a simpler option is to mandate EITHER helmet use OR enclosed seating and seatbelt use for all "motorcycles" [using the current
Reply
GoodCheer 9:03AM (2/23/2008)
(oops, what happened to the second half of my post?)
... definition of 3 or fewer wheels]. I a crash of a 'sit-on' design (morotcycles, motorcycle-based trikes, sidecar rigs, that Bombardier thing) I believe you WANT to be thrown away from the rig so that there's one fewer thing likley to crush you, so a helmet should be mandatory while seat belts would be counter-productive. In a 'sit-in' design, in contrast (Aptera, Carver, Sparrow etc) you are protected by the structure of the vehicle, so a helmet will do less good, but seatbelts should be mandatory.
Reply
Tim 9:49AM (2/23/2008)
License = Permission from the state.
I know, let’s license EVERYTHING!
That way, we can call the state to make sure we can use that extra square of toilet paper. We wouldn’t want to take any responsibility for ourselves, would we?
Land of the FREE and home of the brave… NOT!
Reply
Throwback 4:13PM (2/23/2008)
Tim there is a difference. If you choose not to use that extra piece of toilet paper that only affects you and your family. If you are unable to safely operate a motored vehicle you may kill someone. Personally I don't think anyone should be allowed to drive if they have not shown an ability to do so. There are times when legislation is needed.
Reply
zaedrus 7:34PM (2/23/2008)
GoodCheer-
Great idea and very well put.
Throwback-
Also well put. It is, after all, PUBLIC safety. And there are plenty of people that already test those limits.
Jeremy-
I've always believed that the third contact in BACK was more stable, and comes into play when braking more than accelerating. While braking on a turn with a high C.O.G. and the 3rd point in front, the risk of rolling is greater.
And two brakes in front make sense since roughly 75% of braking energy is taken there.
Reply