TexasCHLforum.com

This is almost as dumb as the reduced capacity magazine law that Clinton enacted when he was in office.

ScooterSissy wrote:...... If there were an accident, the g-forces involved would make holding on impossible. Even if that weren't the case, holding on to the bike would not prevent injuries, there are are no protective structures on the bike, like on a car, to prevent injuries.

Yes, it's a stupid "feel good" law.

G-forces ...... and the speed in which an accident happens.
It's never like; you're cruising along and get advanced notice. Hince the saying, "ride like you're invisible".
And the old adage; "dress for the crash".

Let me preface with.. I do not intended to sound condescending or lecturing. Reading the responses it appears many if not all that have posted do not understand the background of this law. To understand HB 3838 which has been law since 1 SEP 2013.. IOW it's not new..(what your reading about here) you have to understand the predecessor bill HB 2470 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... ill=HB2470" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; from the 2011 session, Malorie Bullock and her mother as well as this think from a few years ago that was concealed carry of a hand gun and the blood in the streets it would cause.

Malorie Bullock died April 8 2010 while riding on the back of a sport bike that had no hand holds, no foot pegs and a rider not trained sufficiently. NOTHING IN HB3838 or HB 2470 would have saved her life... that to all who research will find clear other than her mother. Just like 30.06 would not have saved the victims of Lubys massacre.

HB2470 was a horrendous bill that was heart felt, but poorly written by those who do not understand motorcycles and causes of crashes. (something like those that opposed concealed carry at it's inception) It attempted to regulate who by age and experience could ride a ""Sport bike" (A) that is optimized for speed, acceleration, braking, and maneuverability on paved roads; (B) that has a light-weight frame; (C) on which the rider leans forward over the gas tank; and(D) is not a touring, cruiser, standard, or dual-sport motorcycle."

HB2470 died because of the tremendous opposition by those that cared enough to detail why it was a failure. only applied to one type of motorcycle, poorly defined "type" poor definition of what and who it applied to... general vagueness
The Bill was stripped of much nonsense for the 2011 session and introduced as HB3838... it was still a feel good law, still would have no real impact on safety and was still poorly written. It was passed and signed into law, I believe because those that did so misunderstood it to be a mean nothing, no effect law,, but hey, they could point to the "good" they did so there ya go.

HB3838 has no effect on new motorcycles sold for the last 2 dozen or so years...as all designed to ride a passenger have the required hand holds, seat and foot pegs.

The issues are several...the wording "Designed to carry a passenger" ,designed by who? the manufacture? of the motorcycle owner? Hand holds... what are they? The manufactures know....and the design features vary from a seat strap to a handle, to a ledge or surface. but they law includes no definition,, so what is a officer, prosecutor, judge to do? Yup you guessed, make it up as they go.
What of a motorcycle that has been "designed" or modified by the property owner to no longer carry a passenger? is that permissible?
What motorcycles were designed by the manufacture to carry a pass anger? and how will a LEO, prosecutor, judge know which ones are "designed' or not?

What we asked for was no law, as that was not going to happen, we asked that the standard be simple.. If the motorcycle had a passenger it required all three features.. seat surface, hand hold of any type that mirrored an OEM installed feature, and foot rests for the passenger. If it lacked any of the three it could not legally carry a passenger. We asked that the law only be enforceable if a passenger was actually being carried at the time of the alleged infraction. What we got was HB3838 that miserably falls to make anyone safer and fails to give riders, officers, prosecutor and judges the specific wording in simple terms to abide by the law, enforce it and educated when required.

The Law is not helpful, it makes no one safer, it makes lawful infractions where they need not be any .. Take one of my motorcycles for example.a 1998 Honda VTR1000F. It was "designed" by the manufacture to carry a passenger. Came with a seat, foot rests and a seat strap hand hold. Long ago I decided I had no need for such features as I do not ride passengers on this bike. I modified the "design" so it was not capable of carrying a passenger.. a seat cowl was installed (no more seat surface for a passenger) the seat strap was removed when a new more comfortable custom seat was installed, and the foot pegs were removed.

Is this bike in violation of HB3838 as it sits, ridden or not, carrying a passenger or not because it was "designed" to carry a passenger by the OEM but no longer has those three features? Some officer, prosecutor, judge might say yes, others no.

I am charged by DPS to inform all my new riders every week about this law.,, so I do,, I also ask them to contact their representatives and ask for the law to be repealed or modified as recommended. Please, do as well.

Thanks
Erik

Motorcycle Safety Foundation Rider coach
DPS approved basic and advanced motorcycle Training provider
Owner and Operator of Marquez Racing, Service, Adventure bike prep, repair

E.M., I don't look at your post as being condescending or lecturing. I look at many of the post phrases to support, echo and expain
in a bit more depth (thank you) much of what has previously been posted.

"HB2470 was a horrendous bill that was heart felt, but poorly written by those who do not understand motorcycles and causes of crashes."

"It was passed and signed into law, I believe because those that did so misunderstood it to be and mean nothing, no effect law,, but hey, they could point to the "good" they did so there ya go.

" ......but the law includes no definition,, so what is a officer, prosecutor, judge to do? Yup you guessed, make it up as they go."

"The Law is not helpful, it makes no one safer, it makes lawful infractions where they need not be any .."

Not intending to take anything out of context using certain quotes, but, I think we're all on the same page here.
"

Every day I feel worse and worse for the LEOs that are asked to enforce this garbage.
Parents, don't like motorcycles? Ban motorcycles. Ban 2-up riding under a certain age. Strapping a passenger on a motorcycle with steel cable won't have a better outcome than someone riding without grab-bars. Basic physics... ugh.

E.Marquez wrote:Let me preface with.. I do not intended to sound condescending or lecturing. Reading the responses it appears many if not all that have posted do not understand the background of this law...

Mr Marquez. I appreciate the explanation. I disagree with one part (the need for a handhold); because in my experience, they're all of for show. I don't recall ever seeing a passenger using one at anything above about 30 mph. I don't think they would really be effective even at that speed.

I'll tell you honestly, I think those that wish to "do something" real about motorcycle safety would do far better to attack (what I believe to be) the real problem, rather than it's symptoms. That problem (in my view) is inexperienced riders.

I think Texas needs to pass a (and enforce) "graduated" motorcycle licenses. I got my license almost 45 years ago, when a 14 year old could get a license for a bike under 4 brake HP. I didn't even know what that really was, but you can bet I knew which ones were and weren't (including my own). Today we have a similar restriction on CC size, but no real system such as that in England.

If we gave an initial license for operators for less than 100cc, then after a year of no moving violations on the bike, graduated it to say 250cc. After that, no violations on the bike, and proof of ownership of a > 100cc < 250cc bike, both for two years, you get a 250cc-900cc licnese. Similar restrictions (ownership of a > 250 < 900 and no violations for two years) then would get you a license for any size.

That would give new owners a chance to get some experience before hopping on a bike that it far more than they're ready to handle.

I didn't know the history of the law; but a quick look, along with almost 45 years experience, and my guess is that 19 year old operator was on a bike he wasn't ready to handle.

ScooterSissy wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:Let me preface with.. I do not intended to sound condescending or lecturing. Reading the responses it appears many if not all that have posted do not understand the background of this law...

Mr Marquez. I appreciate the explanation. I disagree with one part (the need for a handhold); because in my experience, they're all of for show. I don't recall ever seeing a passenger using one at anything above about 30 mph. I don't think they would really be effective even at that speed.

I'll tell you honestly, I think those that wish to "do something" real about motorcycle safety would do far better to attack (what I believe to be) the real problem, rather than it's symptoms. That problem (in my view) is inexperienced riders.

I think Texas needs to pass a (and enforce) "graduated" motorcycle licenses. I got my license almost 45 years ago, when a 14 year old could get a license for a bike under 4 brake HP. I didn't even know what that really was, but you can bet I knew which ones were and weren't (including my own). Today we have a similar restriction on CC size, but no real system such as that in England.

If we gave an initial license for operators for less than 100cc, then after a year of no moving violations on the bike, graduated it to say 250cc. After that, no violations on the bike, and proof of ownership of a > 100cc < 250cc bike, both for two years, you get a 250cc-900cc licnese. Similar restrictions (ownership of a > 250 < 900 and no violations for two years) then would get you a license for any size.

That would give new owners a chance to get some experience before hopping on a bike that it far more than they're ready to handle.

I didn't know the history of the law; but a quick look, along with almost 45 years experience, and my guess is that 19 year old operator was on a bike he wasn't ready to handle.

So a few things.. I never stated I was in favor of a hand hold requirement...or that i think they are effective.... Did I???? If that was a take away from one of my posts, I misspoke . So your not disagreeing with anything I said or implied ( I think)

As to your observed use of hand holds.. well they are your observations so I cant agree or disagree with them. I will say I see plenty of passengers using hand holds, Are they effective? Well marginally so at best in my opinion. .. but there you are. And i'd prefer the passenger hold on to the rider. So I think we agree on that point as well.

Second, graduated licensing system has never been proved effective... in any place it's used..far as my research and a hole bunch of guys with PHD for titles can figure. If you know of a study that has peer review which shows a graduated licensee system results in fewer crashes, fewer deaths then a non graduated system please post the link.
Motorcycle safety foundation, National Highway safety institute, California Highway patrol, Texas Department of public safety, nor any other place I deal with has no such data or links to such reports.

Inexperienced riders As of 2007, a new Texas rider can not get a motorcycle license in Texas without having taken and passed the MSF Basic Rider Safety course. That speaks directly to your concern for in trained riders..and I agree to a point. Training is vital, but my suggested training likely includes training in ways and ideas you may not be considering.

The much larger issue, the one considered THE issue by leading folks on motorcycle safety is rider behavior, risk awareness and risk management. The training is useless if rider behavior though risk awareness and good risk management are not taken as or more seriously than how to balance the bike, negotiate corners and seeing intersections as prime locations to have an accident.

E.Marquez wrote: So a few things.. I never stated I was in favor of a hand hold requirement...or that i think they are effective.... Did I???? If that was a take away from one of my posts, I misspoke . So your not disagreeing with anything I said or implied ( I think)

That was in response to this line - "we asked that the standard be simple.. If the motorcycle had a passenger it required all three features.. seat surface, hand hold of any type that mirrored an OEM installed feature, and foot rests for the passenger."

E.Marquez wrote: Second, graduated licensing system has never been proved effective... in any place it's used..far as my research and a hole bunch of guys with PHD for titles can figure. If you know of a study that has peer review which shows a graduated licensee system results in fewer crashes, fewer deaths then a non graduated system please post the link.
Motorcycle safety foundation, National Highway safety institute, California Highway patrol, Texas Department of public safety, nor any other place I deal with has no such data or links to such reports.

I think such a study would next to impossible to quantify, as a graduated system such as I described would take 5 years for the first "full graduates", and then a few years to see the results. In the mean time, many other factors would be affecting those results - if you did a study today and then another study in say, 7 years, you might see a big difference in statistics with nothing done. However, I'm in favor because it does do two things - it provides some level of experience before an operator goes on to bigger bikes, and it keeps impulse buyers from (legally) hopping on a big bike. It's much harder for a 19 year old to try to impress his girl friend on a Honda Rebel (250cc) than on high end crotch rocket.

E.Marquez wrote: Inexperienced riders As of 2007, a new Texas rider can not get a motorcycle license in Texas without having taken and passed the MSF Basic Rider Safety course. That speaks directly to your concern for in trained riders..and I agree to a point. Training is vital, but my suggested training likely includes training in ways and ideas you may not be considering.

I have to be honest, I never took the MSF Basic Rider Safety course, but I observed my wife and daughter part of the time as they were taking theirs. I think it's a good start, but one weekend of parking lot training on a 250cc bike doesn't really give a rider the "experience" they need to jump on a crotch rocket.

E.Marquez wrote: The much larger issue, the one considered THE issue by leading folks on motorcycle safety is rider behavior, risk awareness and risk management. The training is useless if rider behavior though risk awareness and good risk management are not taken as or more seriously than how to balance the bike, negotiate corners and seeing intersections as prime locations to have an accident.

And experience is the best teacher on that.

You know, as crazy as it sounds (especially after I 'fessed that I have never taken an MSF course), I wouldn't be opposed to an annual "continuing ed" requirement. Say one Saturday in such a "reminder" course.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that stupid laws that do nothing but make lawmakers feel good aren't the answer. At the very least, a graduated system wouldn't be something some one could look at and see the holes immediately, like this law.

I've had a MC endorsement on a license since I was 14 yo. A Honda 65 was plenty and legal at that time.
If we were on a "graduated system" and I was just now beginning to ride..... I would look like a gorilla on
a circus trike. The Honda 65 would not be a good fit for my frame or weight. The 125 - 250 cc class would
also be too small. I am not in favor of a graduated system. I am in favor of the Basic Rider course, and wish it was
able to include actual "student driver" time on the street. Not just drills on a parking lot.

Pawpaw wrote:The next step will be requiring seat belts on motorcycles.

my grand mother cant figure out why motorcycles don't have seatbelts even after you explain it to her a million times.

I'm going to have to read this law carefully before I comment further, but my initial take is that although they may be required, is it also required that the passenger hang on to them ? You can lead a horse to water, after all....

Personally I don't see the need for them on my bike.

In addition, if my wife is forced to use them she will be unable to let me know when to stop for a bodily function break . Slapping my helmet has been a very effective means of communication for several years...

To be quite honest, my wife is a bit of a talker. She knows this. Therefore no intercoms on the bike. She can have anything she wants that I can give her, but I need to focus when driving the bike and having her in my ear would be counterproductive in this.

In addition, there may be some more formal opposition to this bill from manufacturers. I believe the federal government has an agency that is responsible for setting standards for motor vehicles, not the states. IANAL, YMMV and all that stuff.

lonewolf wrote:

1411922570152.jpg

I'm going to have to read this law carefully before I comment further, but my initial take is that although they may be required, is it also required that the passenger hang on to them ? You can lead a horse to water, after all....

Personally I don't see the need for them on my bike.

In addition, if my wife is forced to use them she will be unable to let me know when to stop for a bodily function break . Slapping my helmet has been a very effective means of communication for several years...

To be quite honest, my wife is a bit of a talker. She knows this. Therefore no intercoms on the bike. She can have anything she wants that I can give her, but I need to focus when driving the bike and having her in my ear would be counterproductive in this.

In addition, there may be some more formal opposition to this bill from manufacturers. I believe the federal government has an agency that is responsible for setting standards for motor vehicles, not the states. IANAL, YMMV and all that stuff.

Hey thanks for the response
Few things
It's not a bill, it is a law and has been in texas since last session.
No push back from the manufacturers as they already comply and have for many years.
Nothing in the law requires the passenger to use the hand holds as far as I can see, nor was that ever brought up in the bill discussion.

In the old bill from 2011 there was some requirememts directed toward the passenger but HB3838 speaks only to the rider and their bike.

Your reply is appreciated! I did refer to it as a law early in my post, and misspoke when later referring to it as a bill. My bad, and good catch on your part. I guess the strap that bridges the seat between my part and the back seat is compliant. My wife's little Suzuki has a strap as well, although I can certainly not picture me riding behind her on that. Ever.

Your efforts in the promotion of motorcycle safety is greatly appreciated on my part, having participated in your course several years ago. I hadn't ridden since 1983 and needed to be seriously refreshed, which the Basic course did a fine job of. I have recommended it to any new riders whether they have purchased their bike yet or not.

Kudos to you for your efforts!

I have a 2000 Suzuki Intruder 1400 that was designed without, and is still without, "handholds for use by the passenger." It has a back seat and foot pegs for a passenger, and was designed to carry more than one person.

My reading of the law says I can no longer operate this vehicle on the street because as written, it must have those three elements including the handholds. I am wrong in reading this? Were I to be pulled over for speeding could they just tag on and extra $200 fine since my motorcycle does not have the required equipment even though I never carry a passenger?

Sec. 547.617. MOTORCYCLE FOOTRESTS AND HANDHOLDS REQUIRED. A motorcycle that is designed to carry more than one person must be equipped with footrests and handholds for use by the passenger.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1111 (H.B. 3838), Sec. 4, eff. January 1, 2015.

Also, even though this has been law since 2013, it went into effect Jan 1, 2015.

Jaguar wrote:I have a 2000 Suzuki Intruder 1400 that was designed without, and is still without, "handholds for use by the passenger." It has a back seat and foot pegs for a passenger, and was designed to carry more than one person.

So it would appear the 2000 VS1400 motorcycle was designed and manufactured with hand holds. http://www.partzilla.com/parts/search/S ... parts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Frame Handle Grip"
Part 1 & 2
1 41610-38B00 GRIP, FRAME HANDLE RH
2 41620-38B00 GRIP, FRAME HANDLE LH
It also appears many riders of those models cover up (or hang from) the hand holds with saddle bags and such.

If your motorcycle does not have those hand holds, please post your model number (or better yet PM me the VIN)
This is not to flame you in any way.... but if a bike was not designed with hand holds (have not found one yet) I want to know.

Thanks