I'm not going to try to explain the entire intent of HR727 when it comes to specifications besides saying it does not define a max motor power of less than 750W (it's a motor rating and to understand that people need to do a bit of technical research), does not different a pedalec or throttle assist system because the power below 20mph is not important but the power is actually limited above 20mph to what motor power results in 20mph on a level surface with a 170lb rider (this is PhD intelligent but seems nebulous - the NHTSA did not want to release legal purview if the motor only resulted in speeds over 20mph so it's NOT a cut-off as almost everyone in the industry perceives - sadly most countries do have an assist speed limit).
Correct, this is no speed limit. Many of us recall how the feds lacked authority to set a national 55 m.p.h. speed limit and had to make it conditional to receiving highway funds, a bribe. The feds CAN'T set a speed limit. This is an engineering formula, and it's purpose is to govern power to weight ratio included with motor power. It is intended to keep the focus off the motor alone and gauge how a whole system works together. It stops someone taking a motor from a compliant adult sized bike and strapping it to an undersized preschooler's trainer, losing forty pounds thereby, and coming up with an "overpowered" bike. Legislative history and Currie's testimony prove this. it is important to understand that CPSC has no bright line rule and evaluate each e-bike on a case-by-case basis, which means that the states can't have a bright line rule, either, when it comes to what the definition of an e-bike is. And they don't need to know anything more than the federal definition "an e-bike is a consumer product the same as a bicycle" to do their job. Their job is to govern user conduct, exactly as you keep saying. Because they have to classify the product the same in order to avoid an unfair and deceptive impact on the free market, the state's choices are narrow: Set the same rules of the road for both bikes and e-bikes and allow them access to the public roads, or deny them access to the roads equally. It's that simple.
The first mistake most people make in analysis is in allowing the category of consumer product to be split and then believing that each can be governed and defined at the state level separately and more stringently. The whole point of "HR 727" or 15 U.S.C. § 2085(b) is to make sure that bikes and e-bikes are treated the same as a product. If state law doesn't make the product "bicycle" illegal for the road, it can't make an "e-bike" illegal for the road by redefining the product.
2nd analytical mistake: A state can only generally regulate a consumer product definition when the federal government has not preempted it, and especially when the feds have ignored it, which you mention time and again and no-one comprehends
becasue they are getting their legal understanding from PFB and not legitimate legal analysis (and the friendly lawyer going over the 3 class system in a YouTube video is, too).
3rd analytical mistake: HR 727 is a floor, not a ceiling, when it comes to the state's limited power under preemption. A state is not compliant with a preempted federal regulation by viewing the regulation as a ceiling and setting their own regulation a little below that "ceiling," i.e., more stringent, safer. A product can be state compliant but not necessarily federally compliant, and that can occur when the state is less stringent. That is the case for some states reasoning a 1000 watt continuous power motor is an e-bike's motor. 1000 watts allows an efficiency variable sufficient to generate 1 h.p. at the shaft. Is my particular 1000 continuous watt e-bike compliant? For a technical bright line, CPSC has to do a case-by-case analysis. Generally, it is ridiculous to get bent out of shape over a few continuous watts because it is a variable and it can even vary within the exact same make and model of motor with identical continuous watt rating. It might not be perfectly compliant with federal law, but the state certainly is not being more stringent and therefore their law is constitutional under preemption. That is risky for the manufacturer and retailer. Arguing that the state needs to have a "brightline clarity" of "x" continuous watts is a null argument, and none is necessary if the state keeps to regulating conduct with general, not highly specific and technical product categories. The red flag for this mistake is when you have to question whether a vehicle is in fact an e-bike. If it's not very obvious that it's not, at best it is a question for the CPSC to handle in commerce.
I keep hearing the argument here that riders are scared that messing with the 3 class system will bring "worse" regulation, not that they like the 3 class system. But 3 class is not, legally speaking, a law at all; it is unconstitutional. The problem is in the fact that the public and enforcement authorities have been led to believe it is a law. It's certainly on the books. But it's null under preemption.
BTW, I know it is ingrained in memory, but HR 727 is a poor way to refer to 15 U.S.C. § 2085(b) more than twenty-four years after it's passage. There's a lot of "HR 727s" out there, but only one 15 U.S.C. § 2085(b). Help the reader every way you can with easy to access lynchpin information.
Simple solution: States govern use and not products. Only if an e-bike is prima facie not an e-bike because it is clearly beyond the federal definition in terms of mechanical power, i.e., the motor is stamped something like "1.5 shaft h.p." is registration etc. required as a motor vehicle or moped or motorized bike, whatever category your state has. Ticket speeding. When a bike's compliance with federal law is questionable due to variables, let the CPSC know. That's how the
law is supposed to be working. Whether the CPSC is keeping up with the job is another story, and not an issue that will be solved by changes in legal definitions of the product. If changing state laws about ebike definitions SEEMS to work and help clarify things, that is because you are not seeing the regulatory capture and deceptive manipulation of the marketplace. It only seems that way because now the colluding corporations have firm control and THEY have clarified that only their products are on the table for discussion. 15 U.S.C. § 2085(b) is nearly the only thing standing in their way of completely sealing the illusion.
(this was editied for clarity after Jabberwocky and RunFortheHills replied, but the portions quoted by Jabberwocky remain the same.)
