Can anyone in those states provide clarity on this? I prefer to not get a bunch of opinions because I know the wording of these states ebike definitions is a bit different but they both seems to allow a combination of motor and human power above 20mph just as a speed pedelec provides.
Does Oregon and Minnesota allow speed pedelecs???
- Thread starter Ken M
- Start date
fooferdoggie
Well-Known Member
class 3 here I Oregon. all my e bike shops carry class 3 with and without throttle.
Thanks...I assumed as such but they made it even more gray that motor and human power can combine to go faster than 20mph so long as the motor assist alone would not sustain over 20mph which is around 250-350W for most rider weights and bike types.
fooferdoggie
Well-Known Member
throttle is limited to 20mph. thats pretty standard. 28 is the usual. https://www.cynergyebikes.com
Ken M:
State by State Electric Bike Laws | PeopleForBikes
PeopleForBikes is committed to improving biking for everyone. Learn more about our work and join our movement.
www.peopleforbikes.org
I ask this question because 99% of people interpret the federal / CPSC definition to have an assist cease / cut-off at 20mph but they have clarified it to be a peak power allowed past 20mph that is what can sustain a 170lb rider at 20mph.
My guess is that both Oregon and Minnesota intended to be consistent with the federal definition but someone felt that had to get fancy with the wording and it ended up looking like they intended to not allow any assist past 20mph which makes all speed pedelecs / class 3 ebike illegal for use on any public infrastructure while still be legal to be sold in the state because CPSC controls thru first sale. Just doesn't make any sense that any state would do this intensionally.
I have written correspondence from People for Bikes that they intended to 3 class system to be consistent with the federal definition but missed on 4 things:
1) Class 1 and 2 state cease to assist past 20mph which is more stringent than the federal definition/law (even though they acknowledge that Class 3 is still a bike per that same law).
2) They require a speedometer on a class 3 ebike but the CPSC is not verifying that they are installed on Class 3 ebikes so inherently a more stringent requirement.
3) They way they classed and applied cease of assists they literally made a lot of ebikes that are still sold in this country (like any throttle ebike that assists past 20mph that is compliant to the CPSC definition) illegal for use on public infrastructure.
4) This is a big one in my opinion - the federal law states that a compliant ebike is not a motor vehicle (ie not considered to even have a motor and remain as a bike) so how does the 3-class system regulate by definitions of motor / drive system performance? I know this seems strange but they are NOT motor vehicles by federal definition / law.
As stated I don't think this was intentional. I think they thought the class 3 was actually opening a bike performance above the CPSC definition but in reality that was/is a compliant performance level to the federal definition already. The 3-class system was driven by the interest of a few big players (mainly Bosch) who paid PFB and lobbyists to drive the regulations to harmonize for improved economies of scale (wanted to sell the same ebikes here as in Europe and they also wanted hub motors to be a disadvantage performance wise vs mid drives). It was not about safety that is the koolaid they put out for everyone to drink.
My guess is that both Oregon and Minnesota intended to be consistent with the federal definition but someone felt that had to get fancy with the wording and it ended up looking like they intended to not allow any assist past 20mph which makes all speed pedelecs / class 3 ebike illegal for use on any public infrastructure while still be legal to be sold in the state because CPSC controls thru first sale. Just doesn't make any sense that any state would do this intensionally.
I have written correspondence from People for Bikes that they intended to 3 class system to be consistent with the federal definition but missed on 4 things:
1) Class 1 and 2 state cease to assist past 20mph which is more stringent than the federal definition/law (even though they acknowledge that Class 3 is still a bike per that same law).
2) They require a speedometer on a class 3 ebike but the CPSC is not verifying that they are installed on Class 3 ebikes so inherently a more stringent requirement.
3) They way they classed and applied cease of assists they literally made a lot of ebikes that are still sold in this country (like any throttle ebike that assists past 20mph that is compliant to the CPSC definition) illegal for use on public infrastructure.
4) This is a big one in my opinion - the federal law states that a compliant ebike is not a motor vehicle (ie not considered to even have a motor and remain as a bike) so how does the 3-class system regulate by definitions of motor / drive system performance? I know this seems strange but they are NOT motor vehicles by federal definition / law.
As stated I don't think this was intentional. I think they thought the class 3 was actually opening a bike performance above the CPSC definition but in reality that was/is a compliant performance level to the federal definition already. The 3-class system was driven by the interest of a few big players (mainly Bosch) who paid PFB and lobbyists to drive the regulations to harmonize for improved economies of scale (wanted to sell the same ebikes here as in Europe and they also wanted hub motors to be a disadvantage performance wise vs mid drives). It was not about safety that is the koolaid they put out for everyone to drink.
McCorby
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
Interesting! Can you provide specific documentation/proof that supports these claims?
I will try to post links to the videos talking about the initial $300,000 in lobby money to BPSA & PFBs. I know for a fact that Colorado quickly adopted the PFB 3-class system to encourage Haibike to move their US sales headquarters from California to Colorado because I have personally talked with one of the lawmakers that pushed the bill thru in months which is very fast.
As for intent of the federal / CPSC definition I feel it's pretty clear they wanted compliant ebikes to be considered as bikes by the states for traffic / usage regulation but the states just had to mess that up (some didn't and just define all compliant ebikes as bikes. If you look at the CPSC 1512 you will see that "low speed electric bicycle" is under the bike definition as are other primary bike configurations. I even invite envite everyone to read the congressional notes when they were discussing HR727 because it becomes clear they wanted "low speed electric bicycles" to be just another bike so that elderly and disabled could use them for transportation (that is a usage discussion that the states just love to ignore. While I don't know for sure I'm almost certain that Dr. Currie who I'm very confident wrote the technical definition wanted it federally passed to lock down legal standing to make in hard for the government to come back and try to squeeze retirement pay from ebikes if they ever become hugely popular for human scale transportation - he knew we would need human scale transportation more than states would need more registration fees and insurance companies could screw people with by labeling an ebike a motor vehicle.
There are some lawyers (but my guess is they were paid to put out biased opinions) that claim that the pre-emptive clause in HR727 only applies to the regulations in CPSC 1512 but the entire document is titled "Bike Regulations" and clearly the definition for a compliant ebike has components of a requirement (motor power and speed capability are defined).
I have tried several times to engage law professions on this (they only give opinions when paid to have one but they they just tell you what you want to hear after you pay them so their opinions are essentially worthless outside the court room). One Attorney General (Mississippi) has published an opinion on this and he said that ebikes should be regulated by the states as a bike. Common sense...simple...no bias by EU manufacturers.... and guess what that works a hell of lot better than 3-classes. Listen I don't want to chastise People for Bikes but they did not advocate the 3-class system to improve safety or to improve the chances of ebike success...they did it for the money which is why I would like to see the federal definition used to define a compliant ebike as a bike for all state traffic / usage regulations.
I don't want here those claims they tear up the trails (that is crap because anyone knows that water erosion is by far the biggest factor to trail damage because there is no vegitation left to retain the dirt), that compliant ebikes will just zoom around the cities endangering themselves and others (present data or just be consider flat earthers).
Similar threads
