- H.R. 3385 calls for a new federal definition of a motorcycle within 120 days of enactment
- Autocycles with steering wheels and pedals would fall outside the motorcycle category
- The Motorcycle Industry Council warns of a regulatory vacuum and billions in market failure
At first glance, defining what exactly a motorcycle is seems like a simple question. In the US, however, this question is currently the subject of political debate. Representative Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin, co-chair of the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus, introduced H.R. 3385 in the House of Representatives on May 14, 2025. The stated goal: The Secretary of Transportation should update the nationwide definition of the term “motorcycle” in the Code of Federal Regulations.
What the bill specifically provides for
The full text of H.R. 3385 is concise but precise. The new definition reads as follows: “A motor vehicle, as 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.” Translated into German, this means: A motor vehicle in its original condition with its own drive, equipped with a seat or saddle that requires a straddle-like seating position, designed for a maximum of three wheels in contact with the ground, with handlebar steering, throttle and brake control via handlebar and foot controls, and a maximum speed of more than 48 km/h (30 mph).
If the draft is adopted in its current form, the Department of Transportation would have to amend the relevant regulation in Section 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations within 120 days of its entry into force. The draft is currently before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, specifically the Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce.
Which vehicles would be affected and which would not
The proposed definition is based on several clearly definable criteria. The decisive factors are the combination of an astride seating position, handlebar steering, and operation via handlebars and foot controls. Classic two-wheeled motorcycles easily meet these criteria. The same applies to sidecars, reverse trikes such as the Can-Am models, and conventional three-wheelers such as the Harley-Davidson Tri Glide. All these vehicles are ridden astride and controlled via handlebars and foot controls.
The situation is different for so-called autocycles. Vehicles such as the Polaris Slingshot have a steering wheel, pedals, and bucket seats. The driving position is more similar to that of a car. According to the proposed new definition, such vehicles would no longer be considered motorcycles.
Another detail of the definition is the minimum speed of more than 30 mph (approximately 48 km/h). This would explicitly exclude e-bikes, which is a noteworthy point given the ongoing debates in other countries about classifying fast e-bikes as motorcycles.
The position of the Motorcycle Industry Council
The Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) has publicly opposed the bill. In a letter to the members of the relevant subcommittee in the House of Representatives, the industry association put forward several arguments against H.R. 3385.
A key point of criticism is the risk of a so-called “classification limbo,” i.e., a regulatory vacuum. Autocycles are currently licensed, registered, and registered as motorcycles. If the definition were changed without simultaneously creating a new, separate vehicle category at the federal level, these vehicles could be classified as neither motorcycles nor automobiles. According to the MIC, this would make it virtually impossible to continue selling or registering them legally.
In addition, several US states link their own motorcycle definition directly to the federal definition. A change at the federal level would therefore have a direct impact on registration and operating regulations in these states. Tens of thousands of existing state registrations could become invalid.
The MIC also pointed to the economic importance of the segment. According to the industry association, the autocycle sector represents investments of several hundred million US dollars in the domestic market. The total powersports retail market in the US was estimated to be worth US$51 billion (approximately €47.6 billion) in 2025.
Why proponents believe the change is necessary
On the other side of the debate are arguments that relate primarily to the clarity of accident statistics and the fundamental issue of vehicle safety. Proponents of the new definition argue that autocycles are included in the current statistics on injuries and deaths among motorcyclists. Since autocycles and classic motorcycles are recorded in the same category, it is not possible to reliably determine how many accidents are actually attributable to conventional motorcycles and how many to autocycles.
Safety requirements also play a role. Autocycles currently have to meet the safety standards applicable to motorcycles, not the significantly stricter requirements for automobiles. However, the vehicle types differ considerably. While a typical motorcycle weighs between 180 and 230 kg (approximately 397 to 507 lbs), a Polaris Slingshot weighs around 750 kg (approximately 1,653 lbs). The crash safety of a vehicle with a steering wheel, fixed body, and seat belts poses fundamentally different requirements than that of an open two-wheeler.
The core of the debate: a separate category or regulatory no-man’s-land
Essentially, there are two valid positions. One side argues that autocycles are simply not motorcycles and never have been. They do not share the seating position, steering, or basic riding experience of a conventional motorcycle. Similar to how side-by-sides are not trucks and snowmobiles are not off-road vehicles, autocycles are a separate vehicle category that should also be treated accordingly in terms of regulation.
The other side fears that an abrupt change in legal classification without transitional provisions or an alternative category would damage the entire industry. Manufacturers, dealers, and existing owners would be equally affected. The MIC has expressly warned that entire product lines could be withdrawn from the US market.
It remains to be seen how the bill will be dealt with in the further parliamentary process and whether it will remain in its current form. H.R. 3385 is currently under consideration by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
