By gosh that's a really slick looking infographic you got there. note: It says "may be" an electric motorcycle, but Washington doesn't have an "e-moto" law that sits in between the 3 class "definition" and the ceiling of the federal definition of an e-bike, unless something really recent went into effect that hasn't hit their online statutes yet that I am completely unaware of. Under the most recent bill I am aware of, the law merely authorizes a commission to recommend definitions for an e-moto. That would explain the "it may be considered" and not yet "is considered" language.
See SENATE BILL 6110 (2026):
"(2)(a) The department of licensing must convene a work group to study and recommend a revised statutory framework for electric motorcycles. The department may contract with a third-party consultant for work group support and drafting the new statutory framework."
Washington legislators specifically stripped those four points defining an electric motorcycle from the house version of the bill.
Even by your own measure in Washington state, then, I am riding an e-bike because my bike has operable pedals for primary use and no foot pegs at all, less than 750 mechanical watts, under a "may be" "definition" with only speed of greater than 28 miles an hour alone not fitting the infographic which is not Washington law concerning e-motos; not to mention that state 3 class laws are unconstitutional to the extent they "define" an e-bike AND are unconstitutionally void for vagueness in failing to define what type of watts 3 class refers to. Since my bike is lawful under the federal definition of an e-bike, with a motor of 1 h'p. or less at 15 USC 2085, it cannot be an electric motorcycle simply because it can go 35 m.p.h. when supplemented by pedaling, and that is the case in all fifty states. Perhaps you'll find it useful to stick to actual, instead of pretended, law. especially "e-moto" rules you do not have.
I know, you'll rebut with "no court has said so" but you would still be in error:
Justice Field delivered the definitive, historic quote on this concept in
Norton v. Shelby County (1886):
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177 treats it thus::
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it."
And since 1803, the rule has been in place that the constitution favors the rights of the individual (here involving the right to travel) in the case where an unconstitutional law might be in conflict:
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws, and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.”-
Marbury v. Madison, (1803)
More recently, this rule has been affirmed very famously in
Miranda v. Arizona, (1966), and Miranda is famously mentioned in nearly every cop thriller movie and television show you have ever seen. It has been repeated in numerous cases afterward.
As a MATTER OF FACT you must have heard that recently the Washington High Court is in the news "legalizing drugs" (they did not, the legislature failed to outlaw them) and NOW clerks of the court statewide are offering refunds for fines paid in the past precisely becasue they acted under an unconstitutional law. That's because Washington drug laws were
void ab initio (void from the start) and no-one is pretending these laws were only invalidated going forward; no, the courts had no authority from the beginning. Here "...bestows no power or authority on anyone,
affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it," is in action before your very eyes and you have no clue what you are seeing. I think you're stuck on autopilot and not paying attention.
I am amazed how many people are so unaware of a core civic principle that has been around since 1803 or are aware but unable to see its relevance, or just ignore it.
Reading an infographic does not substitute for a valid understanding of law, but it does illustrate your cartoonish, uninformed approach. You didn't look any further than a cartoon. You're pitching softball and I'm hitting hardball.
And you still haven't explained why you assigned an age to me of over 60.
