On Motorcycles and Marriages

Meet the Twike.

The Twike is a cute little two passenger vehicle made in Switzerland, available as either a pure electric or a human-electric hybrid drive. Everyone who has ever seen a Twike in person develops an opinion of them, be it positive or not. Very few see the Twike and walk away without an opinion.

Many of those with positive opinions see the Twike's efficiency as paramount to its value. It only needs an average of 4-5 kilowatt-hours to move the Twike and two passengers 100 kilometers. I know, I know, most of you out there in Peristaltor Land measure vehicle efficiency in miles per gallon, and are completely unused to converting miles, let alone kilometers, to a function of electric power. Trust me, the Twike's power requirements are surprisingly light.

I worked with the Twike and other small electrics during my stint at Electric Vehicles Northwest, a small shop here in Seattle that specializes in developing a market for and promoting use of small, commercially available electric vehicles.

I haven't thought much of the Twike since EVsNW sold its only Twike to a buyer in Conneticuit years ago. Recently, though, on one of the LJ communities to which I belong, pictures of the little three-wheeler surfaced again. Though my company's efforts at becoming the sole US distributor of the Twike fizzled out, others are still trying, and, it seems, running head-long into the same barrier that we in Seattle met:



I don't mean to sound like a downer, but it'll never work.

Sadly, every state in the Union defines what an acceptable and roadworthy "motor vehicle" is -- and by omission what is not. For example, in Washington State, a "car" has four or more wheels, and a "motorcycle" has two or three wheels. Thus, the Twike fits nicely under the description of "motorcycle" in this state.

That is not the case in other states.

For example, in Vermont, motorcycles must not have three wheels. Bring a three-wheeler into Vermont, and it cannot be licensed. I don't know why, but that is the case. Vermont laws, I believe, distinguish a motorcycle as having two wheels, or an added sidecar; a true three-wheeler built from the ground, therefore, does not qualify as a Vermont motorcycle. Four wheels = car, two wheels = motorcycle; three wheels = nothing licenseable. It literally falls between the gaps of the law.

Likewise, in Texas, a "motorcycle" has a saddle, while a "car" has a seat. Since the Twike obviously has a seat -- two, in fact -- it is a "car;" but since it cannot meet the state's more stringent safety standards covering "cars" regarding crash-worthiness as set forth by the Federal government, it cannot be licensed in Texas.

I doubt very much that any of the states are trying to outlaw Twikes, though I confess I don't know for sure. What the states are trying to do with these defining laws is stipulate which vehicles the state finds road-worthy in order to prevent transit of vehicles that have proven unacceptable in the past. Much to the chagrin of those trying to bring the Twike to the US market, however, laws depend upon precedent, and cannot anticipate a vehicle that did not exist at the time the law was written.

You might be surprised at what some people try to drive. I remember a story during the gas crunch of the seventies when a tinkerer, thinking he could tap "unharnessed" energy, mounted a gigantic unshrouded propeller with three foot metal blades to his front bumper and powered it with an oversized fan belt connected to his engine. Imagine being a pedestrian as this guy revs at the light! With the law in place in California, the officer at the scene ordered that jerk to shut off his engine right-fucking-now, since by law cars could not be equipped with spinning blades of death.

---

States do more than just license motor vehicles. They also license marriages.

I'll be upfront in advance. Just as I feel electric vehicles should be more a part of our landscape here in the US, I feel the present hysteria against same-sex marriage to be overblown and without merit. Though veiled today beneath the accumulated detritus of religious "traditions," the legal institute of marriage started as and continues to be a way for two people to be recognized as a legal institution comprised of themselves. This institutional recognition was not designed primarily to glorify them as a couple in the sight of God, not to keep the brides safe from the potentially prying penii of suitors or guarantee the groom reprise from acting upon life's ever-present Titillation & Arousal.

Marriage as it pertains to the law simply clarifies by definition who rears any children the union produces or adopts, and who inherits the property in time of death without a will.

That's it.

In case you haven't noticed, folks, property and children are elements that can be found involved in the private lives of both homo- and heterosexuals.

You see, the ruckus stems not from the fact that homosexuals exist -- they always have. It is not because these homosexuals get together and form relationships. Again, they always have, and they always will.

No, the kerfuffle seems to focus upon the fact that many of these couples think it their right to be recognized as, well, couples. In the Bad Old Days, homosexuals pretended to be heterosexuals or simply "not interested in sex," and self-righteous or ignorant heterosexuals pretended homosexuals simply didn't exist. ("No, Johnny, you did not see Daddy kissing Santa Claus. . . .")

---

Well, those days are over. Like the Twike, homosexuality officially exists. Now we and the states in which we live have to codify the reality that remains. Or not.

I got on this meme-etic tear listening to a news report regarding the simple fact that someone married in one state is, according to the US Constitution, married in all the others. To avoid that little inconvenience, a few states are considering constitutional amendments restricting the marriage's definition to the bearers one penis and one vagina, while others are moving forward with ordinances, amendments and laws (oh, my!) leaving the specicifity of the bearer genitalia an open matter to be resolved by the couple. The fact is, like the plight of the Twike, some states defined "marriage" restrictively and others did not, leaving marriage not unlike a three-wheeler that can either be a bike with a sidecar or a Swiss efficiency machine.

Will the Twike sell in the States? Who knows. I suspect that depends upon the price of fuel in the future, just as the marriage debate may very well depend upon how many resembling genitals wish to carry their bearers across the altar instead of the state lines.