OFFICE 0~ TXE ATTORNEY GENERAL . STATE OF TEXAS 

JOHN CORNYN 

September 26,200l 

The Honorable Rene 0. Oliveira Opinion No: JC-0416 

Chair, House Committee on Ways and Means 

Texas House of Representatives Re: Whether the Texas Department of Public 

P-0. Box 2910 Safety has authority to establish and administer a 

Austin, Texas 78768-2910 training and safety program for off-road dirt bikes 

(RQ-0364-JC) 

Dear Representative Oliveira: 

You have requested our opinion as to whether the Texas Department of Public Safety (the 

“DPS”) may regulate courses of instruction in the operation of off-road dirt bikes. For the reasons 

set forth below, we conclude that the DPS may not do so. 

Chapter 662 of the Transportation Code provides for a motorcycle operator training and 

safety program. Section 662.001 requires the Governor to designate a state agency to establish and 

administer a motorcycle operator training and safety program. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. 8 

662.001 (Vernon 1999). The Governor has designated the DPS as that state agency.’ The purpose 

of the program is: 

(1) to make available to motorcycle operators: 

(A) information relating to the operation of 

motorcycles; and 

(B) courses in knowledge, skills, and safety relating 

to the operation of motorcycles; and 

(2) to provide relevant information to the public on sharing roadways 

with motorcycles. 

Id. 8 662.002(a). “The program shall include curricula developed by the Motorcycle Safety 

Foundation.” Id. 5 662.002(b). The DPS is authorized to “license or contract with qualified persons 

‘Letter from Honorable Mark White, Governor of Texas, to Colonel James B. Adams, Texas Department of 

Public Safety (Sept. 1, 1983) (on file with Opinion Committee). 
The Honorable Rene 0. Oliveira - Page 2 (JC-0416) 

to administer or operate the motorcycle operator training and safety program.” Id. 8 662.005. 

Section 662.004 requires that the program “include instructor certification requirements developed 

by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.” Id. $ 662.004. “A person may not offer training in 

motorcycle operation for a consideration unless the person is licensed by or contracts with the 

designated state agency,” i.e., the DPS. Id. 4 662.006. 

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (the “Foundation”) plans to offer a new training program, 

“The DirtBike School,” to “provide hands-on rider training with an emphasis on safety and skills 

development for riding in the off-highway environment.“2 Children as young as six-years old may 

attend the school. Citing section 662.006 of the Transportation Code, the DPS has advised the 

Foundation “to discontinue offering the [dirt bike] program because the instructor coaches are not 

under contract or licensed by the DPS.” See MSF Brief, note 2, at 2. Thus, the DPS clearly believes 

that it is authorized by chapter 662 of the Transportation Code to regulate courses of instruction in 

the operation of off-road dirt bikes because it regards a dirt bike as a “motorcycle” for purposes of 

that chapter. Contemporaneous construction of a statute by an administrative agency charged with 

its enforcement is entitled to weight, but such construction must be reasonable. See TEX. GOV’T 

CODE ANN. 8 3 11.023 (Vernon 1998); Denton County Elec. Co-op, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm iz, 818 

S. W.2d 490,493 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 199 1, writ denied). The question before us, then, is whether 

the DPS construction of the term “motorcycle” is consistent with state law. We conclude that it is 

not. 

“Dirt bike” is neither defined nor recognized in Texas statutory law. In the American 

Heritage Dictionary, it is described as “a lightweight motorcycle designed for use on rough 

surfaces, such as dirt roads or tracks.” AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 

5 13 (4th ed. 2000). The Random House Dictionary defines “dirt bike” as a “trail bike,” which in 

turn is described as “a small motorcycle designed and built with special tires and suspension for 

riding on unpaved roads and over rough terrain.” RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH 

LANGUAGE 560,2007 (2d ed. 1987). A 1976 decision from the United States Customs Court states 

the following: 

It is pertinent to note that the motocross or “dirt” motorcycle differs 

from the motorcycle suitable for lawful or safe “street” use in the 

following essential respects: 

(a) it has a narrower frame; 

(b) it has a greater ground clearance; 

*Brief from Kathy R. Van Kleeck, Vice President, Government Relations, Motorcycle Safety Foundation, to 

Ms. Susan D. Gusky, Chair, Opinion Committee, Office of Attorney General, at 1 (Apr. 26,200l) (on file with Opinion 

Committee) [hereinafter MSF BriefJ. 
The Honorable Rene 0. Oliveira - Page 3 (JC-0416) 

(c) it has “knobby” tires which cannot be used on 

paved roads; 

(d) it lacks the necessary electrical lighting 

equipment; and 

(e) it is lighter than the “street” motorcycle in that it 

weighs only 220 pounds instead of 400 to 500 

pounds. 

Porter v. United States, 76 Cust. Ct. 97, 101 (1976). Another case describes a “dirt bike” in this 

manner: 

[T]he dirt bike has been designed for recreational use and not for use 

on public highways. It has no headlights, no taillight, no horn, no 

turn signals, no mirror, and no speedometer. Because it lacks these 

features, the dirt bike cannot be licensed under the Vehicle Code. 

Pistorius v. Travelers Ins. Co., 502 A.2d 670,672 (Pa. Super. 1985). It may be the case that more 

recent dirt bikes possess some of the listed features, such as lights, a horn, or a speedometer. For 

purposes of this opinion, however, as will become clear below, the key feature of a dirt bike is that 

it is not designed for use on public highways. 

The term “motorcycle” is not defined in chapter 662 of the Transportation Code. When a 

statute fails to define a term, however, a court may look to other statutes that deal with the same 

subject matter. See Ex parte Harrell, 542 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976); Duval Corp. v. 

Sadler, 407 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1966). See also TEX. GOV'TCODEANN. 6 311.01 l(b) (Vernon 1998) 

(“Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative 

definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.“). Accordingly, in order to determine 

whether a dirt bike fits within the definition of “motorcycle” for purposes of Texas law, we turn to 

other statutes for guidance. 

Chapter 661 of the Transportation Code requires protective headgear for motorcycle 

operators and passengers. “Motorcycle” is defined therein as: 

a motor vehicle designed to propel itself with not more than three 

wheels in contact with the ground, and having a saddle for the use of 

the rider. The term does not include a tractor or a three-wheeled 

vehicle equipped with a cab, seat, and seat belt and designed to 

contain the operator in the cab. 
The Honorable Rene 0. Oliveira - Page 4 (JC-0416) 

TEX. TFUNSP. CODE ANN. 8 661 .OOl( 1) (Vernon 1999). Hence, if a dirt bike is a “motor vehicle,” 

which term is not defined in chapter 661, this definition suggests that it is in fact a “motorcycle” for 

purposes of Texas law. Other statutes, however, point to a different conclusion. 

Chapter 501 of the Transportation Code, the Certificate of Title Act, requires that every 

motor vehicle have a certificate of title in order to be operated on a public highway. See id. 9 

501.022(a). “Motor vehicle” includes, inter alia, “a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or moped that 

is not required to be registered under the laws of this state, other than a motorcycle, motor-driven 

cycle, or moped designed for and used exclusively on a golf course.” Id. 8 501.002(14)(E) (Vernon 

Supp. 2001). Thus, the owner of a dirt bike is required to have a certificate of title in order to 

operate a dirt bike on a public highway. But dirt bikes, by their very nature, are not designed for 

operation on public highways. 

Chapter 502 of the Transportation Code requires the owner of a motor vehicle to apply 

annually to register the vehicle. See id. 9 502.002 (Vernon 1999). “Motorcycle” is defined there as 

“a motor vehicle designed to propel itself with not more than three wheels in contact with the 

ground. The term does not include a tractor.” Id. 4 502.001(12). “Motor vehicle,” in turn, means 

“a vehicle that is self-propelled.” Id. 5 502.001(13). “Vehicle” is defined as “a device in or by 

which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, other than a 

device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.” Id. 9 502.001(24). Hence, because a dirt bike 

is not designed for use on a public highway, it is not a “vehicle,” and thus, not a “motor vehicle,” 

and consequently, not a “motorcycle” for purposes of the vehicle registration law. 

Chapter 601 of the Transportation Code, the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, 

requires that a person, in order to “operate a motor vehicle in this state,” demonstrate financial 

responsibility. Id. 9 601.05 1. “Motor vehicle” is defined in this chapter as “a self-propelled vehicle 

designedfor use on a highway, a trailer or semitrailer designed for use with a self-propelled vehicle, 

or a vehicle propelled by electric power from overhead wires and not operated on rails.” Id. 0 

601.002(5) (emphasis added). As a result, a dirt bike is not a “motor vehicle” for purposes of the 

Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. 

Subtitle C of title 7 of the Transportation Code, denominated “Rules of the Road,” defines 

“motorcycle” as “a motor vehicle, other than a tractor, that is equipped with a rider’s saddle and 

designed to have when propelled not more than three wheels on the ground.” Id. 0 541.201(9) 

(Vernon Supp. 2001). A “motor vehicle” is “a self-propelled vehicle or a vehicle that is propelled 

by electric power from overhead trolley wires.” Id. 9 541.201(11). Subtitle C is by definition not 

applicable to dirt bikes, however, by virtue of section 542.001, which states: “A provision of this 

subtitle relating to the operation of a vehicle applies only to the operation of a vehicle on a highway 

unless the provision specifically applies to a different place.” Id. 0 542.001 (Vernon 1999). 

Consequently, the definitions of “motorcycle” and “motor vehicle” in subtitle C of title 7 can have 

no application to dirt bikes. 
The Honorable Rene 0. Oliveira - Page 5 (JC-0416) 

Chapter 152 of the Tax Code, which relates to taxes on the sale, rental, or use of motor 

vehicles, defines the latter as “a self-propelled vehicle designed to transport persons or property on 

a public highway.” TEX. TAX CODE ANN. 5’ 152.001(3)(A) (V emon Supp. 2001). And chapter 153, 

which deals with motor fuel taxes, similarly defines “motor vehicle” as “a self-propelled vehicle 

licensed for highway use or used on the highway.” Id. 8 153.001(20). 

From a review of these statutes, it becomes clear that most provisions of Texas law define 

the term “motorcycle” in terms of “motor vehicle,” which in turn is defined in terms of highway use. 

Although it is not inconceivable that an individual might attempt to operate a dirt bike on a public 

highway, such vehicle is not designed or intended for use in that manner. In determining that a 

forklift was not a “motor vehicle” for purposes of registration, a Texas court said: 

The definition of “vehicle” in Articles 6675a and 6701d must 

logically be said to implicitly contain the concept that the device was 

designed to transport people or property upon the public highway. If 

a vehicle is simply every device which conceivably “may be” used to 

transport persons or property, in the sense of “might” be used, then 

a vast array of self-propelled devices having no relation to the public 

highways would be included in these statutes governing the public 

roads and highways. 

Brookshire v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 508 S.W.2d 675,678 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [ 14th Dist.] 

1974, no writ) (emphasis in original.) In our opinion, the term “motorcycle” as used in chapter 662 

of the Transportation Code is inseparable from the common statutory qualification on the concept 

of “motorcycle” in Texas law: that it is a motor vehicle designed for use on the public highways. 

We caution, however, that if a vehicle is in fact “designed for use on a public highway,” it does not 

fall within the conceptual framework of “dirt bike” as described herein. 

A state agency may exercise only those powers specifically conferred by statute, or those 

which may necessarily be inferred therefrom. See dth & Neches, L.L. C. v. Aldridge, 992 S.W.2d 684, 

687 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, pet. denied); Sexton v. Mount Olivet CemeteryAss ‘n, 720 S.W.2d 129, 

137 (Tex. App.-Austin 1986, writ ref d n.r.e.); see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0189 (2000) at 

4 (citing above cases). Chapter 662 of the Transportation Code grants to the DPS authority to 

establish and administer “a motorcycle operator training and safety program.” Because a “dirt bike” 

is not a “motorcycle” for purposes of chapter 662, we conclude that the DPS may not regulate 

courses of instruction in the operation of off-road dirt bikes. 
The Honorable Rene 0. Oliveira - Page 6 (JC-0416) 

SUMMARY 

The Texas Department of Public Safety is not authorized 

to establish and administer operator training and safety programs for 

off-road dirt bikes. 

Attorney General of Texas 

HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

NANCY FULLER 

Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel 

SUSAN D. GUSKY 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Rick Gilpin 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee