Honestly not nearly as bad as it could be, given lawmakers general lack of knowledge about technical details. Some sort of legal backlash has been inevitable for a while now (at least IMO) given the proliferation of emotos. For the most part its just nationalizing the 3 class system that is the current standard in a lot of states (including mine) so it doesn't look to change much to people in those states. The provision that has the most potential to upend the market is point 4 in the draft bill, which prohibits the sale of any ebike that can be configured to increase max speed or motor power beyond the federal definition, at least if its labeled or marketed as an ebike. Will be interesting to see how the emoto sellers work around that if it comes into effect.
PFB is right that there is a patchwork of laws. There is not a near-nationwide "standard." There are 1000+ bicycle deaths per year and only 93 deaths per year on e-bikes. "e-motos" is an ill-defined category. There is no crisis here, but because bikes are old hat an electric bicycles are a relatively new technology, electric bike stories get the clicks and the T.V. ratings stories about bike deaths don't.
Back in 2014 there were basically two buckets: States that conformed with federal law at a 1000 watt (continuous) cap (slightly less stringent, perhaps, for more efficient motors) and states that refused, and classified e-bikes as motor vehicles instead. All PFB did was create a different, and more confusing, patchwork.
Like I have said previously, I recognize the reasons you support 3 class and agree to an extent. Something similar would be good, if it weren't vague and
keeping the only part of 15 USC 2085 (Ken's HB 727) that is, in fact outdated. That's the "less than 750 watts" part, because the market was not saturated with 750 watt motors at that time. Dr. Currie did not consider 750 watt motors and reject them in favor of a cutoff at "less than 750 watts." The proliferation of the 750 watt motor was a reaction to the law, rather than the law being a reaction to 750 watt motors. He was an electric light vehicle enthusiast and wanted people out of their cars as solutions to smog and traffic density.
For years we have glossed over the one watt difference as insignificant. What happens when heavy enforcement falls on Group 2 and Group 3 states when there is not just federal "less than" law AND a bright line emoto cutoff law at "More than 750 watts?" All of a sudden that one watt is incredibly important.
This is the current patchwork problem: People in 17 states will suddenly have illegal 750 watt bikes with stickers on them saying so. Will they rush out and buy new "compliant" e-bikes boosting the profits of the compnaies that control the PFB board? Or will they walk away in disgust at the shell game? THAT is what will happen, if SAFE SPEEDS and E-moto bills pass.
It wasn't very long ago that PFB assured us they were only
clarifying the law, and they also said numerous times they had no interest in regulating "e-motos," which we may all have different mental concepts of. I'm certainly never going to consider a one watt discrepancy to be the difference between a bicycle and a motorcycle.
| Grouping | Description | States |
| Group 1: "Less Than" (Blind) | Adopted PFB "less than" (and nearly all 3 class) language verbatim; 750W sticker is prima facie non-compliant. | AL, AZ, AR, CT, FL, ID, IL, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OH, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY |
| Group 2: "No More Than" | Inclusive ceiling; "no more than" 750W. This reflects legislative consideration of the popularity of 750 watt motors. | CA, CO, DE, GA, HI, MA, MI, MN, NV, NC, OK, PA, SC, UT, WA |
| Group 3: "Averaging" | Vague "averaging" power definitions; | IN, NE |
| Group 4: Outliers | Rely on legacy/mechanical definitions; One (Oregon) is the most compliant with fed. law of all the states in this group. w/ a 1000 watt ceiling AK and KY have no special e-bike law at all. | AK, KY, MT, OR, RI |
PFB caused this. They could have avoided it by recognizing that the 750 watt motor came into being as an industry and consumer favorite as a result of 15 USC 2085. Read correctly, Dr. Currie left wiggle room (becasue no two bikes are
ever exactly alike) for manufacturer testing between 1 h.p. (745.7 mechanical watts) and "less than" 750 mechanical watts. He didn't eliminate 750 watts precisely because he thought the 750 watt motor was too powerful. The 750 watt motor wasn't a thing yet. PFB kept the "less than 750 watts" and divorced it from the standard "1 h.p." that indicates the ~750 is mechanical. Recognition of the mechanical standard results in 900-1000 watts continuous electrical necessary to produce ~1 h.p. at the shaft. A large number of states used to have a 1000 watt law in recognition of the federal standard. The rest had failed to reclassify e-bikes as bicycles. PFB
could have targeted only those states like Alaska and now like New Jersey that kept calling electric bikes motor vehicles in defiance of federal law and had them conform with the state level standard of 1000 watts continuous. Instead they substituted something much vaguer and entirely different.
You don't
accidentally do something like this. It is very purposeful. It's activist creep and market manipulation.
You note correctly that we are an unpopular group politically and have no clout. Once this plan is completed, and the e-bike returns to a niche market for the wealthy and the hard core enthusiast, you'll find that even less clout is much worse than the clout
possible now if we all focus on saving the e-bike instead of squabbling over 3 class or 15 USC 2085. When 15 USC 2085 is gone, we are in a deep pile of nasty stuff.
