The facts stipulated to by the parties present a single, issue for review: Are the personal injury protection benefits to which plaintiff, Sarah Penniman, a non-owner passenger on a motorcycle, is entitled under the requirements of the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act § 10-4-701, et seq., C.R.S.1973, to be paid by the liability insurance carrier of the automobile that collided *819with the motorcycle? Our answer is no. We therefore affirm the trial court.

The plaintiffs argue Sarah’s injury falls within the purview of such coverage by claiming that she was a pedestrian at the time of the accident. However, specific language of § 10-4-703(9), C.R.S.1973, excludes from the definition of pedestrian, a person who is riding in or upon a motor vehicle, or “a machine operated by motor or engine.” A motorcycle is a machine operated by motor or engine, and plaintiff was riding on it. Therefore, she was not a pedestrian.

The issue was fully addressed and disposed of in the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the trial court.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.