What is a motorcycle? If you’re most people, a motorcycle has two or three wheels, a saddle that has you sitting astride the vehicle, and directional control through handlebars. If you’re the federal government, it’s any vehicle that has fewer than four wheels with a few other qualifiers. A handful of lawmakers want to change that. Bill H.R. 3385 seeks to eliminate vehicles like the Polaris Slingshot from being called motorcycles.
This comes to us thanks to WTVC, and the bill has the motorcycle industry feeling uneasy. As it currently stands, the federal government is really flexible about the definition of a motorcycle. If you mosey on over to the Code of Federal Regulations, you’ll find this definition for “Motorcycle” under 49 CFR 571.3:
Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.
There are other federal standards that motorcycles must follow. You’ll find that motorcycles must have their headlight(s) on the vertical centerline and must follow certain labeling and measurement rules. But for the most part, if you build a vehicle that has fewer than four wheels, the federal government considers it to be a motorcycle.
Categories Of Motorcycle
This has led to a few very different vehicles existing in the landscape that, to the eyes of the federal government, are motorcycles. In the eyes of the feds, a Can-Am Spyder and a Polaris Slingshot are both motorcycles, even though they’re very different vehicles. A Can-Am Spyder has a motorcycle saddle, a motorcycle engine, a powersports transmission, and motorcycle controls mounted on handlebars. A Harley-Davidson Freewheeler, countless trike conversions, sidecar rigs, and other vehicles that are motorcycles but just with three wheels fit into this category.
Meanwhile, there’s another category of three-wheeler. A Polaris Slingshot has a steering wheel, car seats, a car powertrain, and even car wheels and tires. I single out the Polaris Slingshot here, but there are tons of models that fit this second category. If you own a Morgan 3 Wheeler, a Vanderhall, a Pulse Autocycle, a Reliant Robin, an HMV FreeWay, or any number of kit-built trikes, congratulations, the federal government sees you as owning a motorcycle.
Building a car with only three wheels comes with advantages. Your car doesn’t need to be crash tested, it doesn’t need to follow Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for cars, and it doesn’t need to meet car emissions standards, either. This is how companies that don’t have the funding to make four-wheeled cars are able to get their products onto the market. This is also the case for the forgotten Elio and the possible future of the Aptera.
This has created a sort of weird situation, however, because these vehicles aren’t motorcycles in the traditional sense. You don’t drive a Polaris Slingshot and think you’re riding a motorcycle. It feels like a car. As such, states have picked up the slack, enacting their own flavors of “autocycle” regulations. The idea is that, if you own something like a Polaris Slingshot in a state that would normally require helmet use, that state might no longer require you to wear a helmet because the state is willing to consider carlike trikes, or autocycles, as something closer to cars.
The Bill
On May 14, 2025, Representative Derrick Van Orden (R) of Wisconsin sought to do something about this by filing Bill H.R. 3385. His bill gets straight to the point. If signed into law, the federal definition of a motorcycle will be defined as:
(a) In general.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue such regulations as are necessary to amend the definition of the term “motorcycle” in section 571.3 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to match the definition in this section.
(b) Motor cycle defined.—In this section, the term “motorcycle” means a motor vehicle, as was originally manufactured, with motive power, having a seat or saddle requiring the rider to sit astride, designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, steering controlled by handlebars, acceleration and braking controlled by handlebar and foot controls and capable of reaching speeds in excess of 30 mph.
That’s it. The bill ends there. While the bill was introduced last year, it has been slowly snaking its way through the House. Its last action was on February 10, when the bill moved to “Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.”
Rep. Van Orden was precise in his wording here. His version of the federal definition of motorcycle will still define trikes as motorcycles, but only if they have foot controls, handlebars, and saddle seats that have the rider sit astride the vehicle. That means that the aforementioned Harley-Davidson trikes and the Can-Am trikes would be safe and allowed to be sold.
However, since federal law doesn’t have definitions for trikes that have car seats and car controls, the entire second category of motorcycles will no longer be considered motorcycles. This would put them into a sort of legal purgatory. These vehicles are not crash tested and aren’t built to car standards whatsoever, so they wouldn’t be considered cars. However, they would also be kicked out of the motorcycle category, too.
The Defense
The Motorcycle Industry Council has taken note of this discrepancy and says that if H.R. 3385 were to become law, it would effectively ban all carlike trikes, destroying that entire industry. Further, since 15 states, including Alabama, Florida, Idaho, and Illinois, tie their laws to the federal definition of a motorcycle, this could mean that potentially tens of thousands of vehicles will no longer be legal to drive.
Here’s some of what the Motorcycle Industry Council said in a letter dated January 10:
RE: Oppose H.R. 3385, which directsthe Secretary of Transportation to issue certain regulations to update the definition of motorcycle.
Dear Chairman Bilirakis, Vice Chairman Fulcher, and Ranking Member Schakowsky:
The Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), represents several hundred companies in the powersports industry. H.R. 3385 will be considered on January 13 at the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. We write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 3385, as the legislation threatens to eliminate an entire category of innovative American-made products from commerce and jeopardize thousands of domestic jobs.H.R. 3385 seeks to narrow the federal definition of a “motorcycle” by excluding three-wheeled vehicles equipped with steering wheels, pedals, and bucket seats—commonly referred to as autocycles. This is not a mere administrative adjustment; it is a de facto ban on an established and successful motorcycle market segment. Federal law currently lacks a separate “autocycle” safety category. By removing these vehicles from the motorcycle definition, H.R. 3385 places them in “classification limbo,” making it illegal to sell or register them.
The Motorcycle Industry Council argues that, in addition to “Total Market Elimination” and the aforementioned conflicts with state laws, H.R. 3385 is “A Deviation From Free-Market Principles,” would negatively impact American dealers, manufacturers, and workers, and disrupt established motorcycle safety standards.
As of now, it appears that the bill is still steaming ahead. It has gained sponsorship from Representative Jay Obernolte (R) of California, Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R) of Wisconsin, and Representative Darin LaHood (R) of Illinois.
Maybe There’s A Middle Ground?
I do get the desire to do something about autocycles. It has always baffled me that, in the eyes of the federal government, a Polaris Slingshot is the same thing as a Honda Super Cub. They are vastly different vehicles. It has also often rubbed me the wrong way when some startup companies pushing potential three-wheel vaporware tout their vehicles as being extraordinarily safe, when they would never actually have to prove their claim. If you want to build a car, but don’t want to worry about car safety or car emissions, just subtract a wheel, and the feds will call it a motorcycle. So, I get why there’s concern about autocycles.
However, I think the proper course of action is to carve out proper autocycle regulation, not just eliminate them entirely. There is a middle ground here that is not being explored.
It’s also confusing because this move would directly impact American business. Polaris builds the Slingshot right here in America. It’s the same deal with Vanderhall and some other, smaller companies slinging three-wheelers. These are vehicles designed, engineered, built, and sold by Americans.
Thankfully, there’s still plenty of time for this bill to be stopped. If you own one of these vehicles or support them, call your state representatives. Tell them that these vehicles should be legal. Otherwise, I’ll be monitoring this situation to see how it plays out.
Top graphic image: Polaris
So this is basically a Harley-Davidson protection bill, right?
I’m reluctant to say yes, because Harley is hardly the only company that would benefit from this. Canada’s BRP (Can-Am) would be a big winner, as would Germany’s Rewaco and any company that does conversions on Honda Gold Wings or other bikes.
I didn’t say it was a smart Harley-Davidson protection bill.
LOL! That’s fair.
I am guessing there is zero overlap between the buyers of the Harley trike and the Polaris Slingshot.
Probably not but that needn’t stop a legislating moron from thinking “Them people oughtta be buying Harleys”
If this passed I‘m guessing that those certain trike-cars could only be used on tracks or off road, like side-by-sides? Is that right?
As I see it, motorcycles are only road legal because the existed when the laws were written. If the motorcycle didn’t exist and you invented it today, there is no way it would be legalized for road use. Autocycles are only road legal because of the lax definition of motorcycle, a loophole. I would argue that the time to close that loophole (if indeed it is necessary to close) is long past.
I agree, but before it is closed they would have to resolve the other issues, adding an “autocycle” or trike category, and making sure people don’t lose their vehicles etc.
Autocycles are as old as cars and motorcycles, and in most countries they do have their own laws and rules. They are not trying to close a loophole, they are trying to entirely ban a longstanding type of road vehicle.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with the status quo. It doesn’t hurt me for these things to be allowed.
But why though? I’m assuming (probably unfairly) based on the (R) that it’s not for any reason that would improve public health, benefit consumers, or create any kind of boon for labor…
The lack of regulation around motorcycles is kind of odd in the first place, but I think it’s down to two things:
The first definitely applies to autocycles, since they just aren’t that popular, especially as transportation. But then again, the relative number of miles driven by Ferraris is a drop in the bucket, and they have to follow automotive regulations.
The second one is a little iffy, since these would definitely do more damage if you were t-boned by one than (most) motorcycles.
The lack of regulation around motorcycles is kind of a striking feature of our automotive landscape, though. I get why it’s worked out this way, since regulations are usually written in blood and the bulk of accidents involve cars and not motorcycles, but it is a bit funny to think I can’t get a new car without advanced airbags, seat belts, and soon even safety systems like collision avoidance, etc, but I can still get a brand new motorcycle that has no such protections and drive it on the same roads, in many places without even a helmet.
No reason why not to make a new category and regulate these things. Then they can be legal while also tightening down on the vehicles that blur the line between motorcycles and ebikes.
To be honest they probably should
Just buy a Miata instead.
I did! 😀
I’d be more inclined to care if every Slingshot owner I met wasn’t a knob.
People own those? I thought it was just tourists renting them!
Someone has to own the rental agencies.
Unfortunately, this is probably going to pass, because it doesn’t affect enough people to cause a really overwhelming blowback and because performative safety theater is popular with politicians from both main parties
I’m actually a little surprised that a member of the Grand Old Pedophiles is doing this kind of JERB-DESTROYIN’ proposal.
Someone on a Slingshot beeped at him when he didnt move quick enough at a green light and he’s been pissy about that, is all I can figure
Van Orden is the probable-alcoholic who’s known for screaming at and threatening interns on Capitol Hill.
So you may be correct.
I’m trying to understand the rationale for this change. What sort of “performative safety theater” is involved here?
Unless some guy on a Slingshot flipped off Van Orden?
Or is it something to do with Harley Davidson? The Rep. is from WI.
“These side by sides don’t meet the same safety standards as an SUV, imagine if a child were a passenger in one and it got in a wreck. Think of the children! We have to do something, do anything, for the children! Why won’t someone please think of the children! Oh no, I squeezed too hard and broke the necklace, knew I shouldn’t have worn my wife’s pearls to work today”
That’s the performative aspect, right there
The thing is, that child would be far safer buckled into the Polaris Slingshot, than riding on the back of the Can-Am Spyder for example.
d) all the above
I just don’t get why these even exist. It cant be used like a car since it doesn’t have a roof and cant be ridden like a motorcycle because it has car seats. I think the people that purchase these would do just as well with a vehicle that has a removable windshield and doors……a jeep.
I’d happily rock a convertible Jimney instead. Rented an old one in Greece – most fun I’d had on 4 wheels in years.
In my experience, they’re owned by people looking for the flashiest thing you can buy for the least amount of money. Hence the propensity of these to be equipped with a bewildering array of strobing LED lights and outward firing over the top stereo systems. The absolute shits.
Not all trikes are slingshot abominations. Morgans and Vanderhalls are great fun, beautifully made, and nowhere close to bargain bin buys.
I do enjoy those, at least aesthetically. Haven’t had a chance to drive one yet. Vandys do seem to have a pretty steep depreciation curve, and none of the local dealers still have them after being launch dealers.
The weird thing is that these things aren’t even cheap. A new Slingshot in a decent trim level costs just as much as a new Miata.
Around here people mostly rent them on nice days.
You don’t get why these exist? These are sort of halfway between a sports car and a sports bike. It seems obvious what the appeal is. It’s just like an Ariel Atom, except with 3 wheels.
I’ve been all for them having their own definition since I designed a few decades ago. Currently, these vehicles are more compromised by having to adhere to the loose motorcycle classification in having inappropriate lighting and being relegated to open-roof toy. Federally defining them as some kind of in-between that relieves the burden of safety, but allows them to use car standards where it makes sense, like lighting, and laminated glass windshields that also means they could be enclosed would mean the category could make a lot more sense to more people and provide that cheap transportation so many people could use as well as economical, semi-practical fun cars for the rest of us who want something like that and eliminate the issues of varying state definitions. Of course, we’re not going to get something thoughtful or sensible, they’re just going to define them out of existence unless Polaris and the like can get a big enough bribe in on time.
The original definition did not bar any kind of enclosure. The Corbin and Zap three wheelers both were classified as 3 wheel motorcycles although both of these were enclosed.
Individual states have different rules that can precluded enclosure. Some states have changed their laws thanks to lobbying by a few trike companies (Aptera was part of it—they actually accomplished something, at least in its previous incarnation), but NJ, for instance, at least had mandatory helmet use on a motorcycle, but it was illegal to wear a helmet in an enclosed vehicle. An enclosed trike classified as a motorcycle seems like an excuse for police harassment. IIRC, the Campagna T-Rex couldn’t sell the vehicle with a windshield in various places from the factory for whatever reason related to motorcycle classification, so it was a dealer option and it was just a plastic windshield, so no wipers unless you want a short lifespan of the windshield. When I was planning on building an enclosed tadpole, I wanted to build to car standards for lighting purposes and the engine would be a car engine, but the RMV told me classification and, indeed, ability to attain registration at all was up to the inspecting state police officer. In the end, I would rather build a 4-wheeler than deal with the BS. A federal classification would give a roadmap for states to adopt.
I have much the same mixed feelings as our Mercedes. I don’t agree with legislating them off our roads, but maybe some seperate category? Maybe include the Kei cars being banned nationwide.
I’m curious if you can drive a Slingshot for free in toll lanes like you can a motorcycle.
Or legally lane split. /s
That would be exciting (not in a good way).
Wisconsin: Have your young kid drink in a bar and drive the side by side home, fine,
but oh no not an autocycle.
Joking aside
I do not mind these but I do like the idea of needing a motorcycle license just to reduce the idiocy. People who rent these can be a menace and hopefully requireing them to have a motorcycle license will help.
Hey, that’s me! I own one!
Oh. Oh, no.
If they’re legally considered motorcycles, then you need a motorcycle endorsement to operate them, right?
In NY I do not believe that you need a motorcycle endorsement to operate one. But you do need a helmet…..not sure how that makes sense but here we are.
That’s determined by the states. Washington, for example, doesn’t require an endorsement or a helmet for three-wheeled motorcycles that are partially or completely enclosed, have a seat (or seats) instead of a saddle, have a seat belt (or belts), and have a steering wheel instead of handlebars.
So… all the things that make it NOT a motorcycle. We need some other category allowing these.
The regulators could also shoehorn in a “three wheeled car” category, like the Reliant Robin. Then define specific requirements that applies to those, such as crash safety, emissions, license requirements.
This will just lead to more hair splitting.
How humped does a seat have to be to be astride? If they throw on a 16″ handlebar with a clip on ring for easier use (like a Wii wheel) and redundant controls, does it change anything?
When I was in high school, my step father completed a dune buggy that he home built. It was my primary mean of transportation for a couple of years. It had no windshield, and thus no wipers. It became harder and harder to inspect over the years, not because it wouldn’t pass, but because inspection stations were worried about OKing what looked to be a death trap. They told me as much. So they started failing it because it didn’t have windshield wipers (it was never driven in the rain, BTW.) I asked someone at the local DMV about what needed to be done, and he suggested getting it registered as a motorcycle, but noted I would have to wear a helmet while driving it. Instead, we put a lexan windscreen in it, and bolted a wiper motor on it, which got a few more years out of use while I was in college, although I had a real car by then so it wasn’t a necessity.
I think there should be exceptions for home built vehicles. If you build your own dune buggy, you pretty much know what you’re getting into. Where as someone buying a Slingshot might have no idea how dangerous it can be.
He did not know what he was getting into. He had the frame built for him, out of square tubing! The seats were 80s office chairs. He chopped the front shock towers off because he didn’t think they were doing anything, and the same with the FRONT BRAKES. I had to put both back on.
I can’t decide whether your stepdad was the coolest dad around, or the nuttiest.
I have a hunch of why he pushed this bill. Let me Google something:
Harley Davidson HQ: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Polaris Inc.: Medina, Minnesota
Gotcha
the motorcycle industry seems to be against it tho
inb4 Harleys aren’t real motorcycles LOL
Harleys not being ‘real’ motorcycles is a new one for me; usually I hear the inverse: that anything that ISN’T a Harley isn’t a real motorcycle.
Wait, Harleys aren’t just lifestyle accessories???
I thought they sold only fashion accessories, like t-shirts.
Just like Ferrari.
The honest truth is that, of all the mentioned three wheelers, the only one that looks to be fundamentally unsafe, is the Harley trike.
You can make a trike with one wheel in the front safe, by shifting the weight all to the rear axle. But with the driver and engine both ahead of the rear axle- this is a flip over risk.
This is a rule written by and for the auto industry, and is really about making sure hyper-efficient, low-cost EVs like the Aptera can’t get a chance to enter the market. The cost of regulatory compliance is so burdensome that they had to choose a 3-wheeled platform to have a way to keep the cost affordable, otherwise they’d need to sell hundreds of thousands of units to break even and they simply aren’t sitting on the billions of dollars this would cost. The auto industry doesn’t want us having inexpensive cars, otherwise they’d actually build them, and they don’t want any competition to disrupt the current high-margin SUV/truck zeitgeist.
What we really need is to end bailouts, and if the USA auto industry doesn’t offer inexpensive/affordable long-range EVs, let the Chinese in to do so. THAT will light a fire under their asses.
I was going to say “follow the money”.
While I can understand the desire to better define this segment (what does a “motorcycle” mean state by state for helmet laws, for example) it’s such a niche market that I don’t think people really care. What’s out there are mostly weekend toys.
But opening the door to cheap alternative commuter options is something some lobbying group identified as a concern to their bottom line.
Exactly
Other car companies keep up just fine with emissions and making small affordable cars. The US car companies think that they can litigate their way out of it instead of engineering solutions
It’s not emissions when a passing drivetrain can be bought off the shelf (though testing can be expensive, a drivetrain that passes in a bigger, heavier vehicle will surely be fine) or it can be an EV, it’s safety. The only comparable 4-wheelers are not road legal in the US unless they’re built as kits and none are as cheap as a Slingshot. That this is led by the war is peace, ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery party tells me for sure there’s industry bribery behind this.
Look, the auto industry doesn’t need any help in ensuring that Aptera never gets vehicles to market. Aptera is doing a good enough job of that on its own.
Come on- you know the Aptera was, is and will always be vaporware. There is no chance that three wheel cars would ever have any kind of market share beyond the curiosity/enthusiast market.
I disagree on Chinese EVs. I expect they will come, and it will put automakers under more financial pressure and less competitive pressure. They’ll want to sell cheaper (not less-expensive; higher margin) cars and what people consider acceptable or “better than the competition” will lower.
I don’t use either service, but I strongly doubt Temu has had a positive effect on Amazon.
Not that I think Chinese-made/designed things are necessarily cheap junk (I’m sure some of it will be), but even the perception they are would have change the “context”.
Once again, Congress futzes with “fixing” something that solves nothing.
Meanwhile, the EPA is being gutted while fascism and graft thrive.
I’m conflicted, here.
But I’m also one that believes in helmet laws.
Sure, by strapping yourself into a seat of a self-exhausting Slingshot, per-say, you’ve definitely got a bit of a false-sense of safety over being open-air of a motorcycle – and by having one fewer wheels, why should that give a pass to car-level safety & emissions afforded to motorcycles which are an entirely different configuration?
And where does that fit the Gurney Aligator?
Yet it is much safer than a motorcycle. If you are belted in, you are not going to be smashing your head on the ground.
No, you’d have a head-on impact with the foglamps of the Ram1500 that plows through you because you’re sitting two feet lower than their hood height.
My XJR sits two feet lower than the hood height of a Ram1500.
A large pickup will go over a Miata as easily as a trike. Should all convertible owners wear helmets? Are you suggesting we ban oversize trucks?
Being much safer than a motorcycle doesn’t require being safe under all conditions. How many motorcyclist die or are injured each year skidding off a slick road into a barrier or trees? A trike is massively more stable, and can be drifted and tossed around on a slick surface without a loss of control. And if you do roll, even a mediocre roll bar is better than no roll bar and the entire weight of a motorcycle landing on you.
If you do go off, a steel frame will be impacting something before your body. That is a lot of energy being absorbed that would be going into the skull of a motorcyclist. At high speed it wont matter much, but at 25 mph it certainly will. In traffic impacts the short nose and tail of a trike is a whole lot more ride down than a motorcyclist has.
In the vast majority of road accidents, the main purpose of a helmet is to protect your head when hurtling through the air into something. Being strapped into even a small frame largely negates that event.
Q1: Might be a good idea. Q2: Yes, yes, yes. Not ban outright, but require a CDL.
Sounds like the Ram 1500 should be banned
Motorcycles have reasonably strict emissions standards nowadays. I think almost all of them have catalytic converters now.
What a waste of legislation. The cumulative miles driven by these car-like motorcycles has to be less than 0.01% of the total miles driven in the US every year.
These are toys, no one is using this as their family hauler or work truck. How many do you think drive more than 30-50 miles before not being driven for weeks? They fill the same cultural niche as motorcycles so they need to stay in that category legally.
Rep Van Orden needs to find a different axe to grind if he wants a bill named after himself.