15 MPH E-bike and Scooter speed limit announced for NY City by Mayor Adams

[jabberwocky]

What I would like to see is a Federal agency, like the DOT, define the e-bike classes for the US market. It's no different than requiring helmets be DOT approved. There should be at least one class above Class 3 that defines high power or unrestricted bikes. I would also like to see the DOT or a similar agency define the types of terrain that e-bikes can be ridden on. The DOT just defines the framework, but each state writes their regulations against this framework. These could range from no regulation at all, to specific regulation for specific things. For example, if Oregon wants to keep e-MTB's off of endangered trails, they can. If Alabama doesn't have any, they don't need to.

It would be really nice (and would make logical sense) but a national standard just isn't how the US is setup to work. The hodgepodge of laws and definitions is annoying though. The 3 class model legislation seems to be what everyone is standardizing on (my home state of VA adopted it several years back) but you still get states like NY that decide to just do their own thing.

Local control of trail/transportation is pretty normal. There are advantages and disadvantages to it. My history is in mountainbike advocacy and there is a big advantage to not having to convince the federal (or even state) government that allowing new trails is a good idea. But you do end up with a lot of different rules for similar parks in the same area.

The only MTB trails that officially allow ebikes in my area though are the ones with local management. The state and national parks are a pretty universal no.

The problem with enforcing behavior by only enforcing behavior with no laws behind it is that it is impossible to enforce. You might as well have no laws at all. A case can be made for that. It can all work well as long as riders are responsible. Unfortunately, the general e-bike community has proven themselves to have plenty of irresponsible riders. Just search Youtube. Just stand on the side of 8th Avenue in NYC and watch.

Yeah, I just assume that the whole "no rules for ebikes, enforce behavior!" is just a bad faith argument from people who want to ride their unrestricted bikes everywhere. Enforcement barely works for cars on roads, which have massive enforcement regimes (with huge funding) setup specifically to do so. Other user groups (who are the ones who actually, you know, advocated and built the stuff ebike riders want to use) would understandably not be on board with having to figure out how to setup and fund a new enforcement system just so some ebikers can ride whatever they want.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

The state and national parks are a pretty universal no.

I'm absolutely not into the U.S. federal, state or local laws. Just let me tell you the EU's 25 km/h (15.5 mph) restriction present in the Union and the member states' law makes the e-bike and pedal bike equal to each other. Therefore, European national and landscape parks either allow both pedal bikes and e-bikes, or none of them. For instance, the Tatra National Park of Poland allows no bikes/e-bikes but the Kampinos National Park embraces both as long as these ride on dedicated trails.

 

[mschwett]

…Yeah, I just assume that the whole "no rules for ebikes, enforce behavior!" is just a bad faith argument from people who want to ride their unrestricted bikes everywhere. Enforcement barely works for cars on roads, which have massive enforcement regimes (with huge funding) setup specifically to do so. Other user groups (who are the ones who actually, you know, advocated and built the stuff ebike riders want to use) would understandably not be on board with having to figure out how to setup and fund a new enforcement system just so some ebikers can ride whatever they want.

this is so true.

 

[BlackHand]

Yeah, I just assume that the whole "no rules for ebikes, enforce behavior!" is just a bad faith argument from people who want to ride their unrestricted bikes everywhere. Enforcement barely works for cars on roads, which have massive enforcement regimes (with huge funding) setup specifically to do so. Other user groups (who are the ones who actually, you know, advocated and built the stuff ebike riders want to use) would understandably not be on board with having to figure out how to setup and fund a new enforcement system just so some ebikers can ride whatever they want.

I don't disagree with you particularly, but the ASSUME at the start of your statement is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I find it extremely rare for anyone to say there should be 'no rules for ebikes'. A lot of us do think that behavior should be enforced within the framework of existing rules before we layer on even more rules and restrictions.

Right now neither behavior nor rules have been enforced until things reach a breaking point like in NYC. But hey, if you run a red light there on an ebike you get a criminal summons to court. Do the same in a car and you get a traffic ticket you can pay online.

 

[stompandgo]

BlackHand, that is exactly my point.

 

[jabberwocky]

I'm absolutely not into the U.S. federal, state or local laws. Just let me tell you the EU's 25 km/h (15.5 mph) restriction present in the Union and the member states' law makes the e-bike and pedal bike equal to each other. Therefore, European national and landscape parks either allow both pedal bikes and e-bikes, or none of them. For instance, the Tatra National Park of Poland allows no bikes/e-bikes but the Kampinos National Park embraces both as long as these ride on dedicated trails.

Nationally managed stuff (national park service, forest service, blm, etc) are slow moving, and many of them are hostile to regular bikes on natural surface trails. So electric bikes are difficult. Its a shame, one of my favorite places to ride is the George Washington National Forest (hundreds of miles of rugged trails all up and down western VA and eastern WVA) but its all closed to ebikes.

I don't disagree with you particularly, but the ASSUME at the start of your statement is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I find it extremely rare for anyone to say there should be 'no rules for ebikes'. A lot of us do think that behavior should be enforced within the framework of existing rules before we layer on even more rules and restrictions.

Right now neither behavior nor rules have been enforced until things reach a breaking point like in NYC. But hey, if you run a red light there on an ebike you get a criminal summons to court. Do the same in a car and you get a traffic ticket you can pay online.

I'm not sure what you mean by "behavior should be enforced within the framework of existing rules before we layer on even more rules and restrictions". The issue is that most bike/pedestrian infrastructure has never been designed with powered vehicles in mind, and human physiology limits speed enough that car-style enforcement has never been necessary. So if ebikes want access to that stuff, there has to be some limitation on what an ebike actually is or you get extremely obvious conflict issues. If legal ebike definitions bother you you're welcome to advocate for their change, but if your answer to "some ebikes are much too powerful" is "who cares, just enact speed limits and enforce them and let people ride what they want!", well, I don't personally think thats a good faith argument. I suppose we can be generous and say maybe its just very poorly thought out.

 

[BlackHand]

Again, nobody or practically nobody is saying that there shouldn't be limits on what is actually an ebike.

If legal ebike definitions bother you you're welcome to advocate for their change

They don't

if your answer to "some ebikes are much too powerful" is "who cares, just enact speed limits and enforce them and let people ride what they want!"

It isn't.

What does bother me is that any attempt to discuss regulating behavior in conjunction with existing limitations is interpreted by some posters as equivalent to arguing there should be no limits on what counts as an ebike.

I'm personally completely fine with the idea of required registration and plates for class 3 ebikes. It makes regulating access and behavior easier. In return I would expect equal access to bike infrastructure (I'm not counting natural surface single track in that).

 

[stompandgo]

I'm personally completely fine with the idea of required registration and plates for class 3 ebikes. It makes regulating access and behavior easier. In return I would expect equal access to bike infrastructure (I'm not counting natural surface single track in that).

If that means that I can get liability insurance for it, I'm in.

Right now, Massachusetts doesn't even recognize Class 3.

 

[Catalyzt]

Yeah, I just assume that the whole "no rules for ebikes, enforce behavior!" is just a bad faith argument from people who want to ride their unrestricted bikes everywhere. Enforcement barely works for cars on roads, which have massive enforcement regimes (with huge funding) setup specifically to do so. Other user groups (who are the ones who actually, you know, advocated and built the stuff ebike riders want to use) would understandably not be on board with having to figure out how to setup and fund a new enforcement system just so some ebikers can ride whatever they want.

Maybe some folks use it that way, but that is not the argument that I am making.

All I'm saying is, it's a good starting point. Why not use the gear and systems-- radar and laser detectors, highway patrol-- that we already have in place as the foundation for developing a FEW new, targeted federal regulations? It's probably more practical to scale up what we've got, just as the first play.

Just the fact that cops never enforce speeding violations EVER for the most severe offenders, we NEVER see a radar gun on a bike path in Manhattan, is a big part of what creates the 'anything goes!' attitude.

Let's see how many irresponsible, dangerous riders we can take off the streets with the rules we've got, and then see what's left over. What is the greatest safety risk, the greatest public nuisance?

It's really the idea of relative risk, figuring out the most dangerous issue, and going after that first. This is just the mindset of my profession, I work in healthcare, so it's just my natural bias. It is a bias, for sure, but I'm not arguing for unrestricted bikes everywhere.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

There are people completely happy with 15mph and 20mph feels a bit too fast for them. But to be honest both 15mph and 20mph suck. It means when you will use the roads the cars will crawl 15 mph or less behind you and your 20 miles commute will take 2 hours one way instead of 1 hour or so which means people are not going to use ebikes anymore and will use cars instead. Trust me, you do not want to commute 20 miles or more on 15mph bicycle everyday or ride it on the roads with 25-35 mph speed limit. More traffic jams are coming.

Seriously, how many e-bike user actually commute more than 20 miles or more in a day?

I guarantee any guess you give will be ludicrously too high.

 

[ava1ar]

Seriously, how many e-bike user actually commute more than 20 miles or more in a day?

I guarantee any guess you give will be ludicrously too high.

Even if there are 5 of us, we are capable of doing this because there is not hard enforced limit of 15 mph. I see this as attempt to forbid us to bike to work and put me into public transit or even worse to the traffic on the road. I already shared by observation about me never seen erratic Class 3 ebike rider, unlike Class 2 and especially unrestricted moped like things. When you have to pedal hard to reach those 25-28mph, you won't have much time to do bad things. Unlike the throttle where you just push and "be cool".

Overall, my summary about this all is following: let's first start enforcing and taking care about the existing regulations and limitations. And they, after we see the result, think about other. So far, nothing is being enforced and only reason why current witch hunt is happening is not to make something safer, but rather to use this as an excuse for Trump immigrants hunting effort. These are same guys who was called heroes during pandemic for keeping the people in quarantine and delivery everything needed to them. Pandemic is gone and these people are not heroes but illegal immigrants now?

So honestly I don't care about what they are planning to do, since this is hoax anyway. There is a good proverb (probably arabic) - when the dogs bark, the camels just keep walking. This is how I see all what's happening.

 

[jabberwocky]

All I'm saying is, it's a good starting point. Why not use the gear and systems-- radar and laser detectors, highway patrol-- that we already have in place as the foundation for developing a FEW new, targeted federal regulations? It's probably more practical to scale up what we've got, just as the first play.

Because police departments don't even have the resources or inclination to enforce traffic laws on the roads they are already responsible for? You understand that setting up laser/radar and police patrols for MUPs (which have existed for decades without the need for such things) merely to avoid minimal regulation on ebikes is an insane request? This is why I assume this is a bad faith argument; you have to know that the result would be no enforcement at all.

I sometimes get the impression that ebike riders assume they are the only user group in existence, and all this bike infrastructure was just sitting around until we came along. It exists because pedestrians and cyclists really really really didn't want to share space with motor vehicles and found enforcement of basic traffic laws on roads insufficient. So ebikers coming in and saying "we won't accept regulation on what we ride, lets recreate that system that failed so badly for roads!" is just... a complete nonstarter. No other user group will be remotely happy with that.

Don't get me wrong, I think a blanket 15mph ebike speed limit is incredibly stupid. Its not a productive response to the issue; its a political attack on a user group that has become unpopular enough that a showy-but-stupid response is seen as worth doing. Which sucks. But its worth understanding why ebikes have become so unpopular.

 

[Catalyzt]

Because police departments don't even have the resources or inclination to enforce traffic laws on the roads they are already responsible for? You understand that setting up laser/radar and police patrols for MUPs (which have existed for decades without the need for such things) merely to avoid minimal regulation on ebikes is an insane request? This is why I assume this is a bad faith argument; you have to know that the result would be no enforcement at all.

Stomp, I have great respect for your posts and really appreciate your contribution to the forum, and you know I'm not just saying that. However, I literally cannot follow your argument here There must be some kind of misunderstanding, something I'm missing.

I will assume that you do not really mean that police do not have the the resources to enforce traffic laws AT ALL, because we both know that's not correct. You're using some hyperbole, fine. Not giving you a hard time about that.

I think what you mean is that police departments do not have the resources to enforce the traffic laws as well as we would like in order to maintain a reasonable level of public safety, but... if we enacted new regulations... drum roll, please...

Someone would need to enforce them as well! Who, precisely, would do that?! Are we going to have an eBike inspection system?! Require licensing for all eBikes, helmet laws, designate some fifth type of bike path... one way or another, there has to be enforcement. Regulation without enforcement makes no sense.

'Avoiding minimal regulation' seems like a straw-man argument; I don't think you're saying this in bad faith, you must be misspeaking or I am not understanding you. In most places, we already do have minimal regulation of eBikes. I don't object to the classification system! I absolutely don't object to banning Surrons or other overpowered electric bicycles that are misclassified as eBikes! Or the 750-watt limit, or 500 watt, or whatever it is. I'm nowhere near any of that, not interested in that junk, and and neither are most folks on this forum.

I have no problem with tweaking the regulations-- don't know what would be better than what we have now in California, but I don't have any philosophical, moral, or religious objection to it. I just think at the end of the day, someone has to confront people, and say, "No, you can't do that here," and have a system of warnings, fines, and other consequences.

--> Is what you mean that we should regulate bikes like Surrons and call them motorcycles, requiring a license and registration? I have no problem with that whatsoever. If anything I said gave you any other impression, my apologies for that.

--> Can we say that both regulations and enforcement of behavior are necessary to maintain public safety? If we agree on that, it's not a binary situation where we can only work on one or the other. We can improve both. I just think we'll get better results by starting with behavior. We have some regulation of ebikes themselves, but virtually no regulation of behavior at all.

I sometimes get the impression that ebike riders assume they are the only user group in existence, and all this bike infrastructure was just sitting around until we came along. It exists because pedestrians and cyclists really really really didn't want to share space with motor vehicles and found enforcement of basic traffic laws on roads insufficient. So ebikers coming in and saying "we won't accept regulation on what we ride, lets recreate that system that failed so badly for roads!" is just... a complete nonstarter. No other user group will be remotely happy with that.

I'm still not getting precisely what you feel would be better. What new regulations? And how would they be enforced?

Don't get me wrong, I think a blanket 15mph ebike speed limit is incredibly stupid. Its not a productive response to the issue; its a political attack on a user group that has become unpopular enough that a showy-but-stupid response is seen as worth doing. Which sucks. But its worth understanding why ebikes have become so unpopular.

This may be a bit different where I live than where you do. No one EVERY confuses me with someone riding what I believe is a misclassified motorcycle. The eBikes I ride are not unpopular here. Pedestrians, dog walkers, acoustic bikers-- I just don't feel like what I'm doing is pissing people off.

The showy-but-stupid response is so tedious, agreed. It's like as a species, we never learn anything.

 

[CanNik]

GOOD!

Blame the idiots who are not satisfied with common sense speeds

If you want speed get a motorbike!

 

[ava1ar]

GOOD!

Blame the idiots who are not satisfied with common sense speeds

What are "common sense apeeds"?

 

[stompandgo]

Because police departments don't even have the resources or inclination to enforce traffic laws on the roads they are already responsible for? You understand that setting up laser/radar and police patrols for MUPs (which have existed for decades without the need for such things) merely to avoid minimal regulation on ebikes is an insane request? This is why I assume this is a bad faith argument; you have to know that the result would be no enforcement at all.

>Stomp, I have great respect for your posts and really appreciate your contribution to the forum, and you know I'm not just saying that. However, I literally cannot >follow your argument here There must be some kind of misunderstanding, something I'm missing.

Cat, he's Jabber. I'm Stomp. We do have somewhat similar views, although different in some ways.

I am not for the free for all it is right now. That's why politicians like Mayor Adams are laying down hard edicts that accomplish nothing except piss off everyone.

In case you haven't noticed, the opinions on this subject of classification and regulation differ depending on where the person is living. California is very different than Massachusetts. California has well defined e-bike classes and regulations on where they can be ridden. They even have an e-bike safety class for the masses. Massachusetts has all of the same problems and none of the definition and control. That is my point. The definition of each class of e-bike should be the same in all 50 states. Come to a common definition (the hard part, I know) and go with it. Only then can regulations be written that make sense. I'll give you an example. Pedal bicycles are not allowed on limited access highways with some state exceptions. Do you want to allow unrestricted e-bikes on them? Class 3? Anything? A state can make an exception, but what should the regulation be across the country? Without a mandatory classification system, you can't regulate properly, and you end up with stupid political declarations in their place.

 

[Chargeride]

I posted a video of that Suronster youtuber, hes the strange corporate permitted counter culture young man with a huge following...cue corporation turning a blind eye cos money and that...
So his latest video is the road legal Starg Vark 80hp electric dirt bike.

Straight away he goes on a ride before his plate arrives and procedes to ride like a lunatic, very nearly rear ending a car turning right.

He does admit 'my bad, I was doing 80 in the bus lane', then its wheelies at 60 in city streets, tearing through industrial yards giving the finger to the cameras.
'They cant trace me, no plate.'

Hes isnt a horrible person, just excuberant, unaware youth with far less
consequence awareness , relying on his young reactions to keep things 'safe'.

Thats the problem with ebikes, even I feel that counter culture unhibited buzz creep in, its an antidote to the shackles of modern society, its no consequence that ebikes and small untegistered gas bikes featured heavily in the LA riot footage .
Ride starts at 7.40, he easnt even in full power mode because he smashed the phone display

What Im getting at is that riding deserves a youtube ban, instead Stark are sending him the bike to promote the brand and its still up with 1.2m views, there is no cohesion except give us da money.

 

[Biplaneguy]

That is my point. The definition of each class of e-bike should be the same in all 50 states. Come to a common definition (the hard part, I know) and go with it. Only then can regulations be written that make sense.

This. That common definition should include what requires registration and/or licensing and what doesn't, then the individual states can make operating regulations to suit their particular needs. Just like a car registered in, say, New York is legal to drive in California, though you have to obey California traffic laws.

Before my wife got her ebike, she was looking at Vespa style scooters. In Connecticut where we live, no registration is required or available. However, in New Jersey where she spends a lot of time, registration is required... but she can't get a registration as a CT resident. The solution, apparently, is to register the scooter in Vermont, which does allow out of state registrations.

This reminds me a lot of ultralight airplanes as they evolved from hang gliders and the craziness of their early days as the FAA tried to figure out how to regulate them. Even today people push the limits, with a lot of "fat ultralights" that are just a bit too heavy or too fast to be true legal ultralights, but look like and are flown as ultralights. For the most part today the FAA turns a blind eye unless somebody causes trouble.

 

[Catalyzt]

>Stomp, I have great respect for your posts and really appreciate your contribution to the forum, and you know I'm not just saying that. However, I literally cannot >follow your argument here There must be some kind of misunderstanding, something I'm missing.

Cat, he's Jabber. I'm Stomp. We do have somewhat similar views, although different in some ways.

I am not for the free for all it is right now. That's why politicians like Mayor Adams are laying down hard edicts that accomplish nothing except piss off everyone.

In case you haven't noticed, the opinions on this subject of classification and regulation differ depending on where the person is living. California is very different than Massachusetts. California has well defined e-bike classes and regulations on where they can be ridden. They even have an e-bike safety class for the masses. Massachusetts has all of the same problems and none of the definition and control. That is my point. The definition of each class of e-bike should be the same in all 50 states. Come to a common definition (the hard part, I know) and go with it. Only then can regulations be written that make sense. I'll give you an example. Pedal bicycles are not allowed on limited access highways with some state exceptions. Do you want to allow unrestricted e-bikes on them? Class 3? Anything? A state can make an exception, but what should the regulation be across the country? Without a mandatory classification system, you can't regulate properly, and you end up with stupid political declarations in their place.

So sorry about using the wrong name here, Stomp. I had been responding to you on another thread, and my brain got its wires crossed. Always been an issue for me, getting worse with advancing years!

Thanks for this. I knew the laws differed in different places; I didn't realize the differences were quite so dramatic. My bike arrived with a 'Class 3' sticker on it, I kinda assume that sticker would be on it if it were delivered to a different state, and assumed that the classification system was mandatory, but the regulations governing it changed a bit from state to state. In fact, they are far more different than I realized.

I think the phrase 'national standards' would have helped me out-- in post #61, Jabber said "It would be really nice (and would make logical sense) but a national standard just isn't how the US is setup to work." I thought that he felt national standards were impractical; maybe he was just being frustrated and thinking they probably wouldn't happen.

I then re-read post #60. It does seem like the DOT would be the right agency to handle this. (It would still need to be enforced somehow.) I have zero problem with any of this.

I think of classification, regulation, and enforcement as being distinct but related concepts. What you guys are advocating for seems to be a national classification and regulation system, which I support. I also support enforcement. The relationship between these ideas is reciprocal and multi-directional; as you say, you cannot have regulation without classification, and you can't have enforcement without regulation.

Regulations should be crafted with enforcement in mind. For example, requiring a CARB compliant intake or exhaust works only because CA has an entire bureaucracy in place to enforce it. (Smog Check.)

This did drive me a little crazy with one of my non-compliant old sports cars; the tailpipe emissions were crazy low, but one of my mods was not compliant, and I had to replace them.

This. That common definition should include what requires registration and/or licensing and what doesn't, then the individual states can make operating regulations to suit their particular needs. Just like a car registered in, say, New York is to drive in California, though you have to obey California traffic laws.

Totally makes sense. Hard to argue with that!

This reminds me a lot of ultralight airplanes as they evolved from hang gliders and the craziness of their early days as the FAA tried to out how to regulate them. Even today people push the limits, with a lot of "fat ultralights" that are just a bit too heavy or too fast to be true legal ultralights, but look like and are flown as ultralights. For the most part today the FAA turns a blind eye unless somebody causes trouble.

Ultralights, and their regulation, fascinates me. I went down this rabbit hole a bit with a client who takes a medication that makes it impossible for them to have a pilot's license. So, we started thinking about ultralights-- both the ethical and safety issue about whether this particular medication would actually impair someone from operating an ultralight (I thought it did not based on a literature review) and the legal issues. Seems like they could qualify for a sports pilot license at best, and could fly an ultralight. (They don't need a sport pilot license for that, of course.) 'Sport pilot' is a wild regulatory concept, when you think about it!

And yes, I learned a little about 'fat ultralights!' Or other ultralights that were not really ultralights. People doing weird stuff to get around the weight restriction, mostly.

I'm interested in trying the sport myself. As far as I got on the mechanical/safety issue is that a 2-stroke engine is as reliable and safe as any other if you know and track the service life of every single part. A battery-operated ultralight would be more reliable, and the prototypes are super interesting, but having such a short flying time raises other risks, it seems. Anyway, I'd love to take a course some time, see what it's like and how it feels!

I don't think I'd take up the sport regularly. I have a fair amount of experience sailing small boats, and as a skier and bodyboarder, I know how unpredictable weather can be, and how rapidly a totally safe situation can degenerate, and how little warning one often has.

 

[stompandgo]

This. That common definition should include what requires registration and/or licensing and what doesn't, then the individual states can make operating regulations to suit their particular needs. Just like a car registered in, say, New York is to drive in California, though you have to obey California traffic laws.

Before my wife got her ebike, she was looking at Vespa style scooters. In Connecticut where we live, no registration is required or available. However, in New Jersey where she spends a lot of time, registration is required... but she can't get a registration as a CT resident. The solution, apparently, is to register the scooter in Vermont, which does allow out of state registrations.

Boom. Nailed it. Exactly my point.