Very interested in opinion on the Pre-emptive Clause in HR727 defining ebikes....

[Ken M]

I've read more legal assessments of the CPSC pre-emptive policies and I just do not agree with those that claim it only apply to the bike regulations and not the definition but the entire CPSC 1512 document is titles Bike Requirements.

 

[David42000]

Lawyers love to float between "intent" and "letter" of the law to suite their agenda. I had a graduate level business law and ethics class and this was a significant discussion but it's my understanding that "letter" is what judges use unless there is already precedence. If only intent mattered then our laws would be as simple as the Ten Commandments. I'm 99% sure that the "intent" of the ebike definition that Dr. Currie was involved with was to federally define a low power electric bicycle as just another bike type (mtn., road, gravel, recumbent, trike, etc.). He was working on an ebike in the late 1990s that had blinkers, head light, brake light etc. and he knew that if they were federally classified as a motor vehicle that the requirements would stiffle the technology.

Do we really want states defining what a bike is, ebike is, moped is, autocycle is, automobile is, etc. That to me makes no sense. What is some state decided no car could have over a 1.6Liter motor. You think they could enforce that the next day without a huge legal battle. Not a chance.

Look at the ebike tax incentive bill that is being proposed. They mention to get the tax incentive it must be a Class 1, 2, or 3 ebike purchase but CPSC owns jurisdiction thru 1st sale and they don't give a f*ck about the stupid classes so how can the tax bill be based on the class system that is not even adopted by all states. This is just another example of lawyers / lawmakers not thinking (they are so pre-occupied with control and money they don't do their jobs.

You are correct. Courts in fact do look strictly at the text of a law, when it is unambiguous, but when the law could be read more than one way they look to the intent of the legislature among othe construction tools. There are many more rules courts follow to determine what a law says.

 

[David42000]

I can't agree with this statement. I agree that states are clearly being told that they cannot override the CPSC's requirements in a way that's more stringent. But those are requirements related to import and sale. It seems to be a stretch to suggest that creating sub-categories to specify how the product can be used in the public sphere conflicts with that.

Where you might be right that there is a conflict would be down to requirements for speedometers, and labeling. But overturning that wouldn't necessarily affect the classification system itself.

A thing can be compliant for sale, but also restricted for use on public property. The two are not mutually exclusive, and so I believe you'd have to show a stronger case to demonstrate a conflict here. And to be honest, a lawyer would be much better equipped to craft such an argument than most of the people on this forum.

You're the average consumer and walk into the bike shop and two models are for sale. The shop guy tells you that this nice class 2 is legal to ride on the street, but the other one isn't. In fact the second bike is still compliant with federal law and in fact should be legal to ride on the street. You say, well, I have to get to work, and so you choose the class 2. This is a violation of law under the interstate commerce clause. You're not in trouble, but the people behind the more stringent regulation at the state level, which is void due to preemption but interferes with interstate commerce regardless. Why? It coerced your choice away from the e-bike whose manufacturer has a right to compete fairly.

If a coalition of companies conspire to force competition out of the market, they may be guilty of an antitrust violation with civil and criminal penalties. If all they did was lobby the legislature, however, they cannot be prosecuted for that becasue lobbying is protected free speech, and usually not even false and deceitful lobbying is enough. What the cartel has to do is commit private acts to maniuplate the market, say, like they totally confused eveyone over what was legal by obscuring the meaning of the federal law. All manufacturers have a right to a level and honest playing field. That's what the problem is, and it is much more than making sure the non-favored bike is available at point of sale. If some trade organization is telling in public facing statements that the one bike is unlawful on the roads, THAT is unfair trade, and it is illegal. A number of ex-corporate CEOs still rot in prison for much the same.

 

[David42000]

I understand why Bosch and Brose would love the 3-class harmonization but they could have shipped and sold EU spec'd ebikes to the US without pumping in lobby money that effectively limited US ebikes down to the EU level. I don't think Dr. Currie's definition was any kind of dangerous over-powered ebike specification and the only real issues were from some land managers that just didn't like throttles (as you pointed out earlier that money could have been spent educating them).

The federal definition limited the power above 20mph to what would sustain a 170lb rider at 20mph so by tossing in the harmonization cease of assist at 20mph the merits of 750W below 20mph is kind of negated on a single passenger bike with a lot of gears.

My entire view on this is based on the fact that we really need ebikes to be as desirable (while still being in the bike speed range so they can be treated just as bikes are for traffic / use) as possible for urban mobility. While maybe that was on the backs of the minds of the people at PFBs and BPSA I don't think it was their priority - they viewed harmonization as the way for better economies of scale for the EU focused bike companies.

Why didn't they just push to get clarity that a CPSC compliant ebike be treated a bike for all state/local/managed land use. That would have been a whole lot cleaner and better for the US market without harming anyone just wanting to sell an EU specified ebike here (some will never ride over 20mph which is OK but far better to have somewhat more capable ebikes and have path speed limits when justified for safety).

I live not far from PFBs location in Boulder CO and have tried to discuss this with them but it's not something they are really open-minded about as they feel the 3-class system is consistent with the federal definition but they are not really technically solid on that assessment.

They have no clue what their own law means. Mr Moore has to take a "position" on what it means.
In-house counsel Matt Moore serves as part of the public face of PFB’s "clarification" efforts. In a 2026 video, "E-Bikes vs. E-Motos: Legal Distinctions, Legislative Strategies, and Regulatory Actions," and only after receiving a question about the vagueness of having no hard standard, Mr. Moore addresses the "Whatts" confusion at 51:00, stating:

E-Bikes vs. E-motos: Legal Distinctions, Legislative Strategies, and Regulatory Actions

"PeopleForBikes’ position is that 750 watts means continuous rated power. Uh that's how motor power, useful motor power is is measured. Uh, the federal definition is silent on that."

What's that 1 h.p. rating there, Mr. Moore, if not a measure of useful mechanical power which continuous watts are not?

 

[David42000]

"when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph."

Seems that they had translated this from an a European law because here in US most operators would be obviously above 170lb.
For A 250lb rider the ebike would be a lot slower so that would not make any sense.

Why allow up to 20mph for a "skinny" operator all while allowing said law to limit the power/speed for a more powerful/heavier operator ?? That is discriminatory !

It's an engineering bench mark that sets a weight/power ratio. Under the 1 h.p. motor definition alone, a manufacturer could strap this motor onto an underweight and tiny bike frame and when a fifty pound kid rides it he goes 40 m.p.h. This is not discrimination, it's physics. A motorcycle that could hit a 120 m.p.h. with a 150 pound rider is going to be a bit slower than when a 250 pound person is riding. There's just a limit to what the motor can do and the heavier the load the slower it goes.

 

[Biplaneguy]

"when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph."

Seems that they had translated this from an a European law because here in US most operators would be obviously above 170lb.

170# is also the standard human weight used for aircraft design calculations, has been for years.

 

[David42000]

170# is also the standard human weight used for aircraft design calculations, has been for years.

Ahhh, THAT is good to know. Thanks.

 

[David42000]

Actually what is interesting is that on flat surface rider weight is a very small factor. Now getting that extra weight up a hill is really discriminatory.

In reality the way Dr. Currie wrote the federal definition there was allowance for more power below 20mph (I believe that is why he went with motor rating vs drive system peak power - motor rating is quite nebulous if you spend the time to read technical information on Grin Tech website). The power limit above 20mph was a great way to ensure ebikes were not really out side the normal speed range of traditional bikes because above 20mph aerodynamic drags negates power quickly give the resistance factor is exponential.

The concept of "drive system peak power" didn't really exist then, I strongly suspect. That terminology is a reaction to regulation it seems to me.