Here’s an idea that’s fair and equitable: Charge fees on all motorized vehicles (mopeds included) by weight only. Want to tool around in a Hummer? It’ll cost you. It’s proven that heavier vehicles do more damage to roads, so it’s only fair that those who damage the most pay the most.
Just make sure the fee for economy cars, motorcycles, scooters, and mopeds starts really low and gets much more expensive by the time we reach hummer size.
I agree, I would be for the moped registration if it was only a ‘fee’ to own one, not operate one. By state law you must get insurance once it is classifeid as a motor vehicle. All I see is this is a way for insurance companies to make more money, not to mention, will moped operators need to get a ‘motorcycle’ license.
It always seems that Republicans are constantly trying to find ways to stick it to South Dakotans who are trying to be thrifty, green conscience and economical, which is backwards. We should be sticking it to people who are wasteful, like Hummer drivers.
I guarantee you once bicycling gets more popular the city will mandate a bicycle license to drive on city streets, mark my words.
The bicycle license will come about either this summer, or next summer depending on how fuel tax revenues go.
How they could possibly enforce such a law is baffling – just like trying to enforce the sales tax on internet purchases and the excise tax on goods purchased out of state.
The state tries to justify this outrage on being able “help” track, via a “database” on these easily stolen items. The real reason is not that officer friendly has nothing else to do but help you find a stolen moped. . . oh, no – it’s the bureau of revenue that wants to ensure they can collect the sales or use tax on sales of mopeds, canoes, and other such outrageous economical energy users. Their motto is, “no revenue source goes unexploited”.
Dear i3wiss: You are just jealous because 1) you are not rich and can’t skate like the rich can, 2) you don’t have a moped, and 3) don’t own a shoe store like Shasta Krabs, etc.
Maybe it’s just too early in the morning and I’m missing something here. This insurance requirement thing. Aren’t moped owners in the state of SD already required to have moped insurance?
They would have to pay a registration fee, they would probably have to get their licenses changed to motorcycle license and they would probably have to switch from homeowner’s insurance to regular motor vehicle insurance.
Here’s an idea that’s fair and equitable: Charge fees on all motorized vehicles (mopeds included) by weight only. Want to tool around in a Hummer? It’ll cost you. It’s proven that heavier vehicles do more damage to roads, so it’s only fair that those who damage the most pay the most.
Just make sure the fee for economy cars, motorcycles, scooters, and mopeds starts really low and gets much more expensive by the time we reach hummer size.
I agree, I would be for the moped registration if it was only a ‘fee’ to own one, not operate one. By state law you must get insurance once it is classifeid as a motor vehicle. All I see is this is a way for insurance companies to make more money, not to mention, will moped operators need to get a ‘motorcycle’ license.
It always seems that Republicans are constantly trying to find ways to stick it to South Dakotans who are trying to be thrifty, green conscience and economical, which is backwards. We should be sticking it to people who are wasteful, like Hummer drivers.
I guarantee you once bicycling gets more popular the city will mandate a bicycle license to drive on city streets, mark my words.
The bicycle license will come about either this summer, or next summer depending on how fuel tax revenues go.
How they could possibly enforce such a law is baffling – just like trying to enforce the sales tax on internet purchases and the excise tax on goods purchased out of state.
Honor system similiar to dog licensing.
The state tries to justify this outrage on being able “help” track, via a “database” on these easily stolen items. The real reason is not that officer friendly has nothing else to do but help you find a stolen moped. . . oh, no – it’s the bureau of revenue that wants to ensure they can collect the sales or use tax on sales of mopeds, canoes, and other such outrageous economical energy users. Their motto is, “no revenue source goes unexploited”.
Yet let the rich skate by, pathetic.
Dear i3wiss: You are just jealous because 1) you are not rich and can’t skate like the rich can, 2) you don’t have a moped, and 3) don’t own a shoe store like Shasta Krabs, etc.
Waaah, waaah –
Sincerely,
EggBert Republican Loyalist to the death
Rep. Shantel Krebs is closing her expensive shoe store.
I know, because she is a crappy show salesperson like Al Bundy.
l3wis,
Maybe it’s just too early in the morning and I’m missing something here. This insurance requirement thing. Aren’t moped owners in the state of SD already required to have moped insurance?
http://www.moped2.org/laws/South-Dakota.htm
It is usually covered on your homeowner’s or renters insurance, so yes you do, but it is not an extra expense.
l3wis,
So just what exactly are the extra expenses a moped owner can expect if Shantell’s measure should pass?
They would have to pay a registration fee, they would probably have to get their licenses changed to motorcycle license and they would probably have to switch from homeowner’s insurance to regular motor vehicle insurance.