Good question actually. The problem is dividing classes in such a way that they must be so configured prior to entry into interstate commerce. States have been allowed to require having a light installed for night riding and requiring helmets as deemed necessary. But the states were told they would be preempted if they tried to require lights to be installed on any/every bike prior to entry into interstate commerce. That makes sense to me because for 100+ years bikes haven't had the cost burden of requiring lights even though riding at night without a light is clearly more dangerous (the CPSC is not trying to entirely protect us from stupid behavior and bikes are obviously inherently dangerous only having 2 wheels in most designs).
Don't we need some harmony between what is compliant for sale throughout the US and what is allowed for use by the states (the states still have the right to literally ban the use of any product defined by the feds)? It is my understanding that this is one of the reasons industry / business generally supported the creation of the safety agencies (to stop the practice of states having unique product definitions that could be sold legally). I believe PFBs is claiming NY is now a 3-class legislation state but it's my understanding their class 3 is a throttle bike limited to 25mph (that is actually compliant to the LSEB definition so long as the speed above 20mph is generated via rider power being additive to what would sustain a 170lb rider on a level surface at 20mph). The problem is that is a configuration that can only be provided priort to 1st sale (unless the OEMs want to allow customers the flexibility to program the assist algorithms after purchase (that isn't going to happen for warranty reasons and the liability is could place on the OEMs).
I was not going to submit a petition to the CPSC until I felt I had a good understanding of interstate commerce and federal and state regulatory standing along with a precedent decision. Honestly this was the document I read that I feel made it clear that the PFBs 3-class legislation was a violation of interstate commerce law. Honestly a great read given it's a legal document:
https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2262&context=vlr
You can verify the reasons given by PFBs for drafting and promoting the 3-class legislation (they claim for clarity and safety yet was there any safety data in 2016 on ebikes showing a higher degree of issues vs traditional bikes and clearly clarity claims have zero merit because going from one class/definition to 3 is clearly not more clear). They tend to now leverage one of your claims that the separation of throttle-assist from pedal assist class 1 ebikes provided all the trail access we enjoy. Sorry I just don't buy into that because I'm an engineer and there is no difference on a trail between a pedal-assist vs throttle-assist drive system (local trail manager perceptions because of past motor vehicles tearing up trails is a non-starter and lacks any technical legitimacy).
I don't view this a simple topic. I think the interpretation of the LSEB definition in HR727 is a bit complex because the NHTSA made it crystal clear they would not release ebikes from motor vehicle status unless motor alone speed was not over 20mph. So being a PhD electrical engineer Dr. Currie came up with a way to limit the motor power at 20mph and allow that power to remain assisting when the rider adds power to go faster than 20mph (the reason I claim that clearly class 1 and 2 are more stringent than the federal definition which the rare expressed preemptive clause in HR727 restricts).
I'm not by any means a constitutional scholar or legal expert but I do know that the federal government has the enumerated right to regulate interstate commerce. The vast majority of time the feds define a legal product for sale in all 50 states it legal to use (with use restrictions) in all 50 states. Right now a compliant LSEB can be sold in the 28+ states that have adopted 3-class legislation that is not legal to ride on any public infrastructure and I find that irrational in almost every way. I have a Polaris Diesel that was 100% federally compliant and legal to ride on Colorado infrastructure prior to 3-class and now it's not legal to ride because the throttle assists past 20mph but will only go faster than 20mph if I'm adding power (that allowed it to be federally compliant - I call one of the state lawmakers that drafted the Colorado bill and he was entirely unaware they did this and admitted they should have had at least one technical person on the committee (they just accepted that PFBs had done their homework....big mistake in my opinion).
The CPSC does have some flexibility on definition policy when a product is only used in a specific state or there are exceptional needs (like the California smog problem). What I found really interesting was just how rare the "expressed preemption" clause in HR727 is. You can verify this if you want but it's only been used like 10 times by the CPSC on over 10,000 regulated products (I understand they stopped using it years ago because the states found it over-bearing but I haven't done enough research on that). But bikes were one of the first products regulated by the CPSC and Dr. Currie sure seems to have had the political capital to have slipped that into HR727 in 2002 as a way to keep states away from trying to alter his definition for a compliant LSEB (he deserves all ebiker's respect because he was the reason ebikes were pulled for NHTSA and transferred to CPSC jurisdiction - that alone is huge moving forward because the motor vehicle requirement would impact ebike costs dramatically and kill adoption rate).
There are many many bike designs but so long as they comply with the basic definition they have been considered a bike for state use regulations going back many decades (when on the street or a designated bike lane traffic laws for motor vehicles are applied as part of state "use" requirements including speed limits).
? You all seem very informed on this stuff.
