San Rensho 

I don't think a bike has to have a seat to be a bike. What about downhill bmx bikes that have a vestigial seat that is never used?

dougmc

Depends on the specific state's law. For example, from Texas law (541.201) --

(2) "Bicycle" means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.

B. Carfree

It may vary by state, but in OR (and, I suspect CA) it is NOT a bike. When riding it one would be a pedestrian (but a damned fast one):

801.150 "Bicycle." "Bicycle" means a vehicle that:
(1) Is designed to be operated on the ground on wheels;
(2) Has a seat or saddle for use of the rider;
(3) Is designed to travel with not more than three wheels in contact with the ground;
(4) Is propelled exclusively by human power; and
(5) Has every wheel more than 14 inches in diameter or two tandem wheels either of which is more than 14 inches in
diameter. [1983 c.338 §22]

genec

So far FL and OR require seats to make it a "bike..." CA has no such requirement.

dougmc

Actually, just because your vehicle doesn't meet your state's definition of a bicycle, that doesn't mean you're legally a fast pedestrian.

The law could just call it a generic "vehicle".

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. In general, the law (i.e. police, courts, etc.) treat anything that's even vaguely bike like (mostly this means it's small and human powered) as a bike, even if it's got three or four wheels, no pedals, no seat, wheels that are not tandem or too small to meet their definition, etc.) like a bike.

For example, it would really suck to get a ticket for riding your 12" tire folding bike on a bike lane and get a ticket for that. Fortunately, that almost never happens. (I think the "tires must be larger than X inches" stuff is meant to exclude children's bicycles.)

Raiden

I once saw a human-powered vehicle with the wheelbase of an average car, bucket seats, and even a trunk; all four riders had pedals that were all tied together something like two tandem bikes side-by-side. I've since wondered what the legal definition of the vehicle was.

Edit: I took a picture! This was in Davis, CA.

prathmann

Saw a couple of the elliptical-trainer type on a rather hilly (and wet) metric century ride here in April. They appeared to be making pretty good time - not in the first few groups but ahead of most of the regular bikes. I suspect they might do less well on a flat course that's into a headwind.

kludgefudge

In my opinion it is a bicycle. 2 wheels? check. Human powered? check. Foot crank operated chain drive? Check, just a little more complicated than usual.

I don't see what whether it has a seat or not really has to do with anything, besides the fact that some make the baseless assumption that it's lack of seat makes it not a bike...just because of the wording of some laws. This is pure silliness. Is a bicycle with the seat removed no longer a bike? Modern BMX saddles are basically vestigial at this point, only being used as a holding point for some maneuvers and maybe sitting on while waiting ones turn to perform a trick over some obstacle. Apperently they have even done away with seatposts: The seat bolts directly to the frame. I don't think anyone would argue that BMX's are not bikes though.

genec

The problem is that the fine points of the law do make a difference... especially if you are in a courtroom.

noglider 

Then is this a bicycle or a car?

https://www.youtube.com/v/lbIWv8d1DCQ

genec

Well it is NOT a bicycle, as it has more than two wheels. But apparently it is legal. https://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/410165

kludgefudge

Cop: "the safety factor is.....unsafe."

I think the cop kinda realized as he was saying those words how incredilby safe that vehicle was.

Really, It should have had some sort of disclaimer on the back to let motorists know what it was (why the heck is that monte carlo in front of me only doing 8km/h!?!?!?1) and maybe some working brake lights.

Oh, and if 4 wheeled pedal powered contraptions that don't have monte carlo bodies wrapped around them are considered bicycles, then I think this can be considered a bike too.

madpogue 

Don't have it in front of me, but WI definition does not include pedals; that (since it requires feet) was found to be an ADA violation. I think it reads "operated by a crank" or some such. It does, however, include a seat, so the contraption starting this thread would constitute a "play vehicle". Human-powered play vehicles are perfectly legal on the streets here, they're just not "vehicles", and not subject to the same privileges and responsibilities. In effect, you're a pedestrian. Motorized play vehicles (electric stand-on scooters, for example) are not allowed on public sidewalks or streets here. Anything with both a motor and a seat is considered a motor vehicle, and all the "street legal" (lights, brakes, etc.) laws apply.

Wheel-wise, in WI, if at least two of the wheels are at least 16" in diameter, it's a bicycle. So a Rhodes Car or a gutted and pedaled Monte Carlo would be a bicycle. "As far to the right as practicable" takes on a new meaning, however.....

FlatSix911

Interesting concept ...

https://www.elliptigo.com/product/

adgmobile

I would, they're more like toys...

madpogue 

"Silliness" and "legal definition" often go hand-in-hand. Here in WI, motorcycles (they call them "scooters"; yeah, right!) that have NO WAY of being human-powered (no pedals/crank), but just happen to be under a certain engine displacement, are legally defined as "mopeds", and thus (get this) can be PARKED ON A SIDEWALK. Alas, all the "baseless assumption" and "silliness" arguments in the world won't get you anywhere in front of the judge.

boneshake

Just remove the seat of your current bike.

Seriously, some people train that way.