Yes, and the logical line would be the speed that unassisted bikes often achieve on the road. It would also be logical that there would be a speed limit of 20 mph or lower for pedestrian / bike paths that everybody must obey and not just let lycra freaks race 35 mph on them.
"A groundbreaking e-bike measure..." Could have implications for all U.S.
- Thread starter J.R.
- Start date
stevenast
Well-Known Member
Also, keeping throttle assisted bikes off unpaved trails is an excellent compromise. Using the throttle basically looks using a low powered motorcycle. I know throttle can be handy at times, but the public perception is important too.
The opinions I'm posting here probably won't be popular with readers of THIS FORUM. However the ebike riders in California can be counted in the thousands, while the users of the paths can be counted in the millions. When you are 0.1% you don't get your way in everything.
The law is an excellent compromise to allow ebikes into society, without necessarily giving all the freedoms that the users of this forum would like to see.
The opinions I'm posting here probably won't be popular with readers of THIS FORUM. However the ebike riders in California can be counted in the thousands, while the users of the paths can be counted in the millions. When you are 0.1% you don't get your way in everything.
The law is an excellent compromise to allow ebikes into society, without necessarily giving all the freedoms that the users of this forum would like to see.
So it's about appearances and feelings, not logic.
Cameron Newland
Well-Known Member
Yes, but this compromise bill is better than the regulation we've seen coming out of New York over the years. Baby steps...
stevenast
Well-Known Member
Actually logic and appearances are both factors. As well as economics and taxpayer use ... there are a lot of factors...
If you are going to keep citing logic please remain logical.
JRA
Well-Known Member
Steven, you already do:
Colorado[edit]
Ebike definition in Colorado follows the HR 727 National Law: 20 mph (30 km/h) e-power and 750 W (1 hp) max, 2 or 3 wheels, pedals that work. Legal low-powered ebikes are allowed on roads and bike lanes, and prohibited from using their motors on bike and pedestrian paths, unless overridden by local ordinance. The city of Boulder is the first to have done so, banning ebikes over 400W from bike lanes. Bicycles and Ebikes are disallowed on certain high speed highways and all Interstates unless signed as "Allowed" in certain rural Interstate stretches where the Interstate is the ONLY means of travel.[65]
The only exception is the throttle classification which I still maintain that if the legal top speed is 20 mph what does it matter if it is by throttle or pedelec? I have ridden plenty with a direct drive 1000w 48v system (legal in the state I live to have 1000w @20mph) that wouldn't go any faster than 20 mph at full throttle, and in fact was hard to get to go much faster due to the parasitic drag of the motor past that point pedaling downhill with a tail wind. Anyone can over ride that feature via the controller but in doing so they are breaking the law. I realize there is a movement against throttles but some of us prefer them and as long as we are within the regs why say we can't use them as long as we stay within the regulated speed limit?
Anything over 20 mph is a moped class and CO has rules for that also.
Last edited:
JRA
Well-Known Member
The thing is that in the EU you have to have Pedelec. No throttles allowed. That is why Accell is pushing for that here because all they have to offer are Pedelecs and as I said previously it is not going to bode well for our current laws if the Euro's start pushing their requirements on to us here.
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
For good or bad and all too often: Cali=dog, US=tail.
How do you NY riders feel about this story? Hopeful? And @Larry Pizzi can you elucidate?
How do you NY riders feel about this story? Hopeful? And @Larry Pizzi can you elucidate?
Bike_On
Well-Known Member
Steve,
Your points are pragmatic and a realistic, social compromise. Yes, a line has to be drawn. In fact, this bill draws 3 lines.
I feel this bill is selling out our higher speed brothers. It kicks them off the mtn bike trails and throws them into the motor cycle world if on the road. A 1.5hp electric bike is still much closer to a bicycle than an ICE motorbike. It's a sell out. sad.
Bike_On
Well-Known Member
JRA,
Good summary from CO,
Bike and Ped Paths:
Common sense would be welcome here. A Speed limit on the trail is the appropriate regulator of the path, for ebike and non-ebike alike. This is a tough venue to argue for because almost every bike path out there has a NO MOTOR VEHICLE sign on it. Still, the current federal law calls the CA class 1 and 2 ebikes a bicycle...that should have clout. Also, people can turn off their motors and pedal if warranted.
The CA bill is a shot to get turf on the MTN trails. I use to think the spandex crowd was nasty and indignant towards the ebike concept, but I think the MTN crowd is worst! They want their privacy on their quiet path and don't want to be passed. The roadies get passed and never see the ebike again. Not so on the trail. It just festers.
If we are going to compromise for trail access, I think it should be a power limit, not a throttle issue. That allows for a more diverse bike on the market that can dial down the power for the trail.
Things are changing... These laws will favor certain manufacturers and drive /limit design.
Bike_On
Well-Known Member
Court posted this classification a few months back. It had a class 4 in his post for 750W+.
http://electricbikereview.com/guides/electric-bike-classes/
There was some good discussion in the comments.
The big dog companies are hedging their investments here and making sure their type and style is mainstreamed, accepted, and legally windowed to their products. This CA law takes the throttle by the throat and shakes it into place. I'd have to check again, but even the class 3, 28mph bike lane/road option has to be throttle less. (this is technically a 1hp (750W) 20+mph machine) and surpasses the current national law. If would be really nice to legally be allowed to go 20+mph on an ebike. I agree with Pedego, that nuancing the throttle option makes it complicated.
Last edited:
Bike_On
Well-Known Member
It's time to draw the line(s) , but where is the voice of the public?
As stated above, CA has 3 categories and 1 unspoken 4th. Perhaps 2 + 1 would be more simple:
1. 500W or less is a bicycle, pas or throttle, ok on paths per local decision, ok on bike lanes, road. top speed of 20mph. Allowed on mtn trails. range 0-20mph.
2. 500-2000W (.5 to 2.6hp) is a moped with top speed of 35mph, top speed range 20-35mph. PAS or throttle. Allowed on bike lanes, road. Allowed on bike paths per local rules: need lights, bell, speed limits, or motor off. Limited trail use. Subject to state moped title, reg.
3. 2.6hp+ - classified with motor cycles and scooters, 50cc and above.
Said another way, ebikes can be:
1. Bicycle
2. Moped
3. Motorcycle
This is how most laws now define the two wheelers. We just need to draw the right lines.
Marko
Active Member
Which regulation do you mean about helmets? I am only aware of 168/2013 and its supplementing regulations which will enter into force 1.1.2016. With it all e-bikes need to be type approved. S-pedelecs, for example, will have a weight limit of 35 kg (70 lbs). The power will be limited as stated below.
3/2014 Annex XIX
Cycles designed to pedal of vehicle category L1e-B shall have a mass in running order ≤ 35 kg and shall be fitted with pedals enabling the vehicle to be propelled solely by the rider’s muscular leg power. The vehicle shall feature adjustable rider positioning in order to enhance the ergonomic posture of the rider for pedalling. The auxiliary propulsion power shall be added to the driver’s pedal power and shall be less than or equal to four times the actual pedal power.
..
134/2014 appendix 4
The maximum peak power shall be ≤ 1,6 × maximum continuous rated power, measured as mechanical output power at the shaft of the motor unit.
Marko
Active Member
That article discusses NL laws which make a mc helmet compulsory. They also state that it remains to be seen if rest of EU will follow and refer to the type approval regulation entering 2017 whereby s-pedelecs will be L1e-B or mopeds. I don't know where that year comes from because in the regulation article it (9?) says 2016. However, scrolling thru them I did not find helmets mentioned. I guess if there is no exception then mc helmet would be needed.
Link Removed
Link Removed
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
Marko,
I've read several articles this year about EU s-ped regulations and helmets appear to have become a real issue. I'm aware that bureaucrats can make regulations for the EU that have the function of law, that's typically not the case here in the US. Seems a little murky, like all things e-bike the world over.
Most recent was an article in BIKE Europe:
"ECE-2205 helmet standard
In the Netherlands the government recently announced an obligation to wear a helmet when riding a speed e-bike. It triggered a discussion on what kind of helmet that must be. However, also here the L1 category division comes into play. It must be a helmet that meets the standards laid down for motorcycle & moped helmets. This is the ECE-2205 standard which differs considerably with the EN 1078 norm that stands for bicycle usage."
Last edited:
Marko
Active Member
Ok, thanks for that. Indeed, there is something going on in the NL. But luckily helmet makers are awake and "making an effort in developing a helmet specifically for speed e-bike usage. It must look like a bicycle helmet, but have to meet the ECE-2205 standard for motorcycle & moped helmets." So, hopefully that means something lighter and vented but still conforming to standard.
About regulations and directives in the EU. Regulations are binding legislation in the member countries from the day they enter to force. Directives are usually transposed to national legislation and there the responsibility is on the Member State to get it right, but there is a bit more flexibility.
About regulations and directives in the EU. Regulations are binding legislation in the member countries from the day they enter to force. Directives are usually transposed to national legislation and there the responsibility is on the Member State to get it right, but there is a bit more flexibility.
Last edited:
Similar threads
