FUV State requirements

[Rickb]

Interesting. That makes no sense at all. Law enforcement is required to enforce State laws and if it’s ambiguous it needs to be clarified and or changed by the State that passed the legislation. Police officers don’t interpret laws, they enforce laws that are on the books.

My understanding is that Arcimoto was working closely with Oregon Officials to be certain the Statutes cover the FUV. You might want to contact Arcimoto to get their take on registering and licensing the FUV in their home state of Oregon.

[harriska2]

I’ve been blind copying Arcimoto on the exchanges. Haven’t heard back from them. I’ll eventually talk to our police here and see what they think. I don’t mind getting the endorsement. But if my son has to wear a helmet I don’t think we’ll keep the Arcimoto. With the headrest as high as it is I’m afraid it will interfere with the ability to turn your head to look for traffic.

[Rickb]

Have you test driven the FUV? I recall good visibility when looking over either shoulder to check traffic or make lane changes that visibility was unobstructed. I think Joel Sheltrown, Arcimoto’s legislative guy will be successful in helping with an appropriate amendment, if required, to exempt the FUV from Oregon’s Motorcycle endorsement and helmet requirements.

[harriska2]

Have you test driven the FUV? I recall good visibility when looking over either shoulder to check traffic or make lane changes that visibility was unobstructed. I think Joel Sheltrown, Arcimoto’s legislative guy will be successful in helping with an appropriate amendment, if required, to exempt the FUV from Oregon’s Motorcycle endorsement and helmet requirements.

Yes, we both drove one. The visibility is great! I’m afraid that a helmet would make it more difficult for visibility. If they don’t consider the Arcimoto enclosed for licensing purposes, they won’t consider it enclosed for helmet requirements either

[Rickb]

Although I don’t think you need an endorsement or helmet in Oregon, I’m in the process of reading Idaho’s motorcycle manual in prep for my required endorsement written test, and it states that many people ass.u.me helmets restrict vision..........specifically states that’s not true.........no visual obstruction, whatsoever, while wearing one of the 3 types of motocycle helmets. Written test in a couple of weeks.

Everybody should read a motorcycle manual regarding safe riding skills. I’m finding the safe riding tips beneficial. I plan on buying a color matched helmet for my grandson and applying the Arcimoto WINGS graphic on the front. He will think it’s cool and he is used to wearing his bike helmets.

[harriska2]

It would make sense to me that the head rest can interfere with turning your head. Most motorcycles don’t have a very upright seat with head rest. I took and passed the permit for motorcycle endorsement years ago. Much of what is taught simply doesn’t apply to the Arcimoto (needing to lift the bike, crossing railroad tracks at 90 degrees, etc.)

[Rickb]

Little of the operational info applies, I was thinking more awareness of biker driving safety rules of the road. Good point on the possible helmet and headrest issue. However, the photo of my head and the distance between the headrest if wearing a helmet seems adequate. Time will tell.

According to dialogue I’ve had with Arcimoto and the OTD, Oregon exempts the FUV, so endorsement and helmets won’t be an issue for you and your son. Whereas, I have some work to do in Idaho.

[harriska2]

Little of the operational info applies, I was thinking more awareness of biker driving safety rules of the road. Good point on the possible helmet and headrest issue. However, the photo of my head and the distance between the headrest if wearing a helmet seems adequate. Time will tell.

According to dialogue I’ve had with Arcimoto and the OTD, Oregon exempts the FUV, so endorsement and helmets won’t be an issue for you and your son. Whereas, I have some work to do in Idaho.

[ShockJockey]

First post here. I've been a longtime follower of Arcimoto and the three wheel vehicle idea in general. I've been an investor in Archimoto for a while now, and recently I put in a preorder. I know this thread is a little old, but I would like to work to make sure things are in order if/when I end up as an owner some day. From what I can tell, in Indiana the FUV doesn't qualify for the Autocycle definition. The code in Indiana reads as follows:

Section 9-13-2-6.1 - "Autocycle"

Subject to IC 9-19-7-2.7, "autocycle" means a three (3) wheeled motor vehicle in which the operator and passenger ride in a completely or partially enclosed seating area that is equipped with:
(1) a rollcage or roll hoops;
(2) safety belts for each occupant; and
(3) antilock brakes;
and is designed to be controlled with a steering wheel and pedals.

So I think it checks off item 1 and 2, but I don't think any of item 3. At least I would assume it wouldn't qualify for antilock brakes, and it has handlebars and only one pedal (the brake) not pedals plural. I know that a couple of you have mentioned that you were looking into getting a definition from Arcimoto, and was wondering, did any of you ever get that? I know my representative relatively well (we both grew up in this area and went to school together), so I think I could get at least some time to talk with her about this, but I would like to do that with a good legal definition in hand when I do.

[SparkE]

Why don't you just get a motorcycle license?