AMA supports ban of plated dirt bikes

[Geoff]

As much of our trail system has been closed, we use our plated bikes for getting from one trail to the next.
The AMA's position on conversions will soon end our ability to ride "trail to trail" on a decent bike(XR/WR/KTM EXC....).
I am not sure that I can support my membership with the AMA.

Tell the AMA what you think:

membership@ama-cycle.org

Copied from another forum:


Dear John & Scott,

As you probably know the allowance of "conversions" varies greatly state to
state. Thus, the AMA rules for a dual sport run require that dual sport
motorcycles comply with all state requirements for road use. (It should be
noted that the rules for a dual-sport run are in the AMA "on-road" rule book,
not the "off-road" rule book. From an activities perspective the AMA sees dual
sport bikes as first and foremost on-road motorcycles.) Yes, some states will
let you "get away with more" than the others but those states may be in error.

Some of the bikes being converted are manufactured and marketed as closed-course
only machines. They are marketed as competition only so that they will be
exempt from EPA noise and emissions standards under the Clean Air Act. The WR
will not meet the EPA emissions standards for highway use (in fact it will not
even meet the minimum standards for a "green" sticker in California for
"unrestricted" off-road use). And just because someone has installed an after
market lighting kit on a bike does not mean that it is truly in compliance with
US DOT.

I realize that the specific situation that we are talking about is very
frustrating for the bike owner, so let me explain why it is so important that we
try to do the right thing. The EPA asked some very specific question of us
about the dual-sport conversion issue (YES, they know what has been going on).
One thing that they had considered doing to prevent riders from exploiting this
"grey" area was to limit access to competition models. Thus, only riders with
"professional" credentials would have access to "competition models", such as
the WR. So, the AMA and other concerned motorcyclists have spend the better
part of the last two years convincing the EPA that motorcyclists are responsible
enough to buy competition only models for competition, recreation models for
trail riding and street legal bikes when they intend to go dual-sporting.

As a fellow dual-sporter let me just say that there may have been a time when
there were not a lot of (competent off-road) dual-sports to choose from; but,
that time is no more. There are some great legal (and quiet ) dual-sports
available. As I have often commented about the bone stock dual-sport that I
ride, "if you can't get it done on this thing, then you had better look into
another sport".

If you want to talk about any of this in more detail please call me.

Good luck,

Royce L. Wood
Legislative Affairs Specialist
American Motorcyclist Association
13515 Yarmouth Drive
Pickerington, OH 43147
(614) 856-1900 ext. 1225

 

[HiG4s]

Maybe someone should remind the EPA than it is legal to build a vehicle from scratch and get it licensed. And in that case, just as in conversions, it is the state authorities that inspect and license the vehicle that are responsible for making sure the vehicle meets requirments before issuing a license. If the State is in error, it should be the state that the EPA should question, instruct, or fine.

 

[HGaither]

EPA, AMA,NAY,NAY,NAY

Sounds like Big Brother is at it again, how far are we going to let this go? If we do let it go then we will soon be banned altogether by a bunch of pencil pushing geeks that probably don't know a dual-sport from a bottle of Bel-Ray.Right now I think the American Medical Association is doing us more good than the AMA. At least they fix our broken bones when we crash our horrible polluting machines. I think it's about time for the million bike ride around DC.

 

[HGaither]

And another thing

If this keeps up I will have to tell my grand children what it was like to ride a REAL DIRT BIKE, on real dirt. I think they are going to take away freedoms untill they are no more . And then what do we do?

 

[Kramer]

The sad part is that EPA has NOTHING to do with the man's problem. Mr. Wood apparently thinks he can blame it on EPA, while shaking a finger at us. We should know better??

The question lies with Iowa DOT Mr Wood. Thanks for nothing.

 

[OrangeCrush]

S O S

There are some great legal (and quiet ) dual-sports
available. As I have often commented about the bone stock dual-sport that I
ride, "if you can't get it done on this thing, then you had better look into
another sport" >>(quote)

Jeez how biased is that, this guy is an advisor?? LMAO :scream:

I suppose he rides the DRZ400, my lord how can anyone say one bike is good enough?? So find another sport if you can't get it done on this particular bike?

Guys like this have had a great deal of sexual problems and his inadequacy of having a small p*nis has boiled over into his motorcycle beliefs. Hence your stuck with it so use it the best you can or don't use it at all........It's a shame a darn shame......................:moon:

 

[OrangeCrush]

..........s

s

 

[WoodsRider]

I'd like to see the original question before passing judgement on the AMA. It could be the person was trying to enter the "Dual-Sport" class at an enduro and were denied entry into that class or stripped of a trophy because they weren't riding a true dual-sport (as defined by the AMA rule book).

Unfortunately it could also be that the individual was denied entry into a dual-sport ride due to the fact they were on a converted motorcycle. In that case I see it more as an issue with the promoter who should have advertised in advance that converted motorcycles would not be allowed.

Here in the northeast and in the midwest, if you participate in an enduro you'd better have "street-legal" motorcycle. If there isn't a method for getting a legal plate for an enduro competition machine then I'll be giving up enduros. I've spent enough time on dual-sport XRL's, DRS's and LC4's to know they are not enduro competition machines.

 

[madwrench]

I agree with WoodsRider---I would have to see what the original problem was that got the AMA response. I don't like the way the AMA guy phrased stuff, but I think the real problem lies with the EPA and state DOT. Here in Wisconsin we have to cheat in some form or another to put a license plate on a dirt bike, and I would not expect the AMA to endorse or encourage that---to do so would greatly impact their credibility in all the other legislative fights they take on. It's hard enough to put on ANY offroad event nowadays. No matter how you feel about dual-sport stuff (yeah, I agree--they just ain't real dirtbikes), the events are important in getting and keeping poeple interested in offroad motorcycling. Our club began running a dualsport event last year, and it looks like it may open up opportunities for land use to do enduros (we've lost two enduro venues in the last two years)--IF we don't screw it up by pissing people off if they think we're lying to them.
YES IT SUCKS!! I wish someone would build a fully street legal, titanium and carbon fiber,200 pound, real-dirt two-stroke and sell it for under 6 grand!

 

[dirt bike dave]

Originally posted by Geoff

So, the AMA and other concerned motorcyclists have spend the better
part of the last two years convincing the EPA that motorcyclists are responsible enough to buy competition only models for competition, recreation models for trail riding and street legal bikes when they intend to go dual-sporting.

GREAT! With friends like this, we don't need enemies! If I decide the best bike for me is a competition model that I can make street legal in my state, then I expect the AMA to stay out of my way.

I know lots of people that have converted offroad bikes to dual sport use in California. If the AMA is against us doing this, then that is a big problem.

IMO, Royce Wood's position seems to more align with the motorcycle manufacturer's than it does the motorcyclist's. The makers have reasons to encourage the sale of factory dual sport machines. My AMA card says American MOTORCYCLISTS Assocition - I expect the AMA to represent motorcyclists first, not the manufacturers or the EPA.

 

[gasgasman]

......so I can go buy an Indy car, make it street legal and drive it to work.:think

There is more to a factory street legal bike than just blinkers.
e.g. Fuel tanks have to pass a puncture test.
Tires have to be DOT approved.
All lights have to emit a certain amount of light, per DOT.
Drivetrain have dampners .

 

[dog]

Here is the letter I wrote.
By the way, it would be better to send it to the AMA president, and others, instead of the membership desk. I sent mine to:
rrasor@ama-cycle.org
and
gsweet@ama-cycle.org

Letter as follows:

I have been a long term AMA member and have been more and more upset about the AMA's lack of support for off-road motorcycle enthusiasts. I have to buy an AMA membership for many events I ride, yet I rarely see the AMA helping in environmental or legal issues to preserve off-road riding. I see a lot of emphasis on the repeal of helmet laws for road bikes, etc. Similarly, the magazine is 90% related to road bikes with a token motorcross article thrown in. In fact, the Blue Ribbon Coalition does far more with less resources than the AMA.

I find the following letter particularly upsetting. It is clear that Mr Wood has no clue about the real off-road situation for many riders. In Washington State, vehicles must be street legal to operate on logging roads and two track dirt "roads". Many times it is needed to connect long sections (20-30 miles) of single track trail with short sections (1/2 mile) of dirt logging road. By the way, I would absolutely guarantee Mr. Wood would not enjoy riding these trails on a bike with a metal gas tank, dot tires, and a full set of turn signals. Many off-road riders in Washington State do dual sport conversions to bikes like XR's, WR's and KTM four strokes to make them legal for such riding. This is done with the full knowledge by the State Department of Licensing, the State Highway Patrol, and the US Forest Service. I find it more than ironic that the AMA is more strict on this issue than the agencies above.

How about using some more of my membership money to help open more public lands for off-road riding, instead of fighting helmet laws, heritage museums, and being more strict on dual-sport conversions than the State and Federal Government.

Sincerely
Name and email here

Insert the letter from Mr. Wood on the original post here

 

[dirt bike dave]

Good letter, dog. We have the same situations down here in CA. I will send a copy of that off.

Originally posted by gasgasman
......so I can go buy an Indy car, make it street legal and drive it to work.:think

There is more to a factory street legal bike than just blinkers.
e.g. Fuel tanks have to pass a puncture test.
Tires have to be DOT approved.
All lights have to emit a certain amount of light, per DOT.
Drivetrain have dampners .

- gasgasman - So long as my vehicle complies with my state's vehicle code for road machines, it can be made legal. If my state's vehicle code has less stringent requirements than the EPA and the Federal DOT require for new street bikes, that is my state's perogative.

I don't want the AMA helping the feds to get more control over my life. IMO, Mr. Wood's letter indicates a poor understanding of conditions out west.

 

[dog]

The following is Mr. Woods reply to my letter. He has some valid points, and it appears his message was taken out of context.



What immediately follows is a statement that I have issued regarding the
"posting" that you are responding to. I have included some additional comments
specific to your concerns at the bottom of the page.

A "Position Statement" from the AMA is a very specific thing. Only the AMA's
Board of Directors can endorsed an official position on an issue -- such as the
AMA's position in support of "Voluntary Helmet Use". The Board of Directors has
not given the Government Relations Department any specific direction on the
dual-sport conversion issue -- only the overriding principal -- that the AMA
does NOT advocate any illegal or irresponsible activities.

It would appear that somebody has taken it upon him/her - self to take a message
that I wrote in response to a rider's inquiry about a specific case and publish
it on the world wide web as if it represented some type of political objective
of the AMA. The email in question was an honest assessment by the Government
Relations Department of the current status of the law. Whether or not the
current law is popular with riders, or whether or not the AMA should work to
change the law are different matters.

It is unfortunate that such an important issue has come to the foreground in
this manner. If someone had asked me to develop a discussion paper on the
topic, I would have been happy to comply. If someone had come to me with a
proposal for me to take to the AMA Board, I would have helped them in anyway
that I could. Instead, I replied to what I thought was a legitimate request for
help from a rider, who claimed to be considering spending a tremendous amount of
money to fight the state of Iowa, by giving him my honest assessment of the
situation - I don't see anything in the federal law that would compel the state
to give him a street title for a "closed course competition only" motorcycle.

Some of those who have contacted me because of this posting have questioned the
AMA work on the off-highway vehicle emissions issue. In doing so, many have
displayed a complete ignorance of what we have done over the last two years.
This tells me that they are probably not AMA members and that they did not do
anything pro-active on the emissions issue such as commenting to the EPA (as we
have asked the riding public to do on numerous occasions). The truth is, the
AMA advocated more for off-highway motorcycle and all-terrain vehicle riders
than anyone else. I will not recreate that history here but much of that
content can be found on the "Protecting Your Right to Ride" page of
AMADirectLink.com.

By baiting me into providing fodder for some web site chat room, someone has cut
into a significant portion of my time that would have been better spent on other
issues. For example, the comment deadline for the San Rafael (which is popular
with dual-sporters) route designation plan is this Friday. Not to mention the
time of other staffers who have erroneously received emails based on this
posting. My phone number was on my response, if anyone had any concerns or
questions they could have done the civil thing and given me a call. Instead, we
see the classic weakness of the motorized community -- everyone is looking for
an "inside" fight, but not many of us will stand up to the "real" threats.

 

[JPIVEY]

Good work, Dog :) , Thank you

 

[KWJams]

Yeah--!

It always amazes me how wadded up some folks get their pantys when something they want (and know is not kosher) is not supported by the AMA.

Why is it so hard to understand why it is not permitted by the goverment (not the AMA) to take a bike built and designed for closed course competition and try to sneak it under the barriers that society has erected?

If we tear down the AMA---who will protect any of our rights to ride then?

 

[WoodsRider]

So the original letter was from a guy trying to get the AMA to help him convince the Iowa DOT to grant him a street title for his dirt bike?

Millions of acres of public land on the verge of being closed and they should drop all that to help some spode get a plate? :think

 

[madwrench]

I'm glad it's resolved. As per earlier post, I thought perhaps we didn't have the whole picture. I'ts easy to go ballistic on partial info--the tree huggers do it all the time. The AMA IS on our side--and Mr. Woods has a right to be pissed off about getting slammed.