Next month People for Bikes is having a legislation update webinar....Everyone join in on that

[Ken M]

The link is no link posted yet but it appears to be on the schedule: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/bike-industry-webinars

I would like everyone that follows any of the regulatory status on ebikes to attend this webinar. I do plan on asking them a few questions on the 3-class legislation that I have never been able to get answers on. They are aware of my petition with the CPSC to have 3-class legislation preempted in all the adopting states so I'm not exactly loved by them but 3-class did not result from true ebike advocacy goals - a few PFBs staff members in a room with a Bosch executive just seems like a strange birth place for rational legislation (no dialog outside that room probably took place and yet so many trust it as a step forward vs HR727).

 

[J.R.]

P4B has a webinar every month on a variety of cycling topics. Questions are taken at the end in written form.

https://youtube.com/user/peopleforbikes

2020 ebike specific webinar:

 

[AstroTurf]

just listened to this... very informative.

thanks!!!

anti pfb ken m shot in the foot again.

Jim

 

[Ken M]

Why did Morgan declare that the Fed regulation is outdated and they hope to replace in 5-10 years. Is that because they actually know they have no control of what is legally sold in all 50 states so they really only have a "voluntary" standard (they presented 3-class as such to the CPSC last year).

So in that webinar Morgan states that without modern day ebike laws, ebikes are not given the same rights as bicycles. That is an intentionally mis-leading claim.

So from 2002 to till about 2013 when the states started adopting 3-class what did ebike riders do? Just stare at their ebike and never ride it? I know Colorado just recognized a CPSC / HR727 compliant LSEB as a bicycle and yet this is claimed to be outdated. My Polaris Diesel and Izip Express went from legal to ride in Colorado to illegal to ride in any of the states that adopted 3-class legislation.

Why did the AG of Mississippi state his opinion of the statutes is that a compliant LSEB is supposed be use regulated as a bike?

I get it....people will attack the messenger but if I'm successful getting 3-class, preempted it will better for ebike riders - one definition and most states will just coalesce that an LSEB is a bike for use regulation.

 

[Ken M]

just listened to this... very informative.

thanks!!!

anti pfb ken m shot in the foot again.

Jim

Listen to how Morgan parses here statements when presenting the model legislation slide. She knows 3-class has ZERO control of what is legally sold. Zero. They hate this fact because not all compliant LSEB are compliant to 3-class so these LSEBs essentially become illegal to ride but in reality this has never been addressed by any state. The state legislators are not even aware of this problem - these products were sold and used legally for quite some time before 3-class came along and making them "non-compliant" was never even mentioned by PFBs.

Also notice how she claims the industry came up the class system. That is a lie...it was drafted in a room with some PFBs employees and one executive from Bosch. That is not a representation of the industry....that is why I call it legislative capture.

 

[Ken M]

Eventually the CPSC will make a rule making decision on the preemption petition. While I do accept that 3-class legislation may not be preempted I believe the power of the expressed preemption clause in HR727 is going to be very difficult for the CPSC to just dance around. LSEBs were a defined and regulated product for a long time before the class system was drafted by People for Bikes (it did not come from the bike industry as they claim).

 

[Ken M]

As I expected People for Bikes cancelled the regulatory webinar this year. Everyone will say it's just coincidence but they are aware I was going to bring up the petition and the original driving reason for the 3-class legislation.

 

[J.R.]

As I expected People for Bikes cancelled the regulatory webinar this year. Everyone will say it's just coincidence but they are aware I was going to bring up the petition and the original driving reason for the 3-class legislation.

If you watch enough of these webinars (internet based seminars) you'd know that the topics frequently change because the planned experts aren't available. They will often choose to not answer many questions. This is a seminar, not a political action committee meeting. They also aren't obligated to answer questions from the general public. They aren't elected representatives of the people.

 

[Ken M]

If you watch enough of these webinars (internet based seminars) you'd know that the topics frequently change because the planned experts aren't available. They will often choose to not answer many questions. This is a seminar, not a political action committee meeting. They also aren't obligated to answer questions from the general public. They aren't elected representatives of the people.

They should be willing to answer questions on a legislative initiative they pushed via lobby money. Sorry if putting them on the spot is rude but I have yet to hear anyone make a credible claim that it provided more "clarity and safety" that the federal definition. I thought they've done an legislative update every year for the past few years. I'm willing to answer any question as to why I feel the federal definition is better and why 3-class should be preempted. I'm sorry but parsing 3 classes by just 8mph and throttle will always just be brain dead policy and it did start with People for Bikes in a room with maybe 6 people and an executive from Bosch.

 

[J.R.]

They should be willing to answer questions on a legislative initiative they pushed via lobby money. Sorry if putting them on the spot is rude but I have yet to hear anyone make a credible claim that it provided more "clarity and safety" that the federal definition. I thought they've done an legislative update every year for the past few years. I'm willing to answer any question as to why I feel the federal definition is better and why 3-class should be preempted. I'm sorry but parsing 3 classes by just 8mph and throttle will always just be brain dead policy and it did start with People for Bikes in a room with maybe 6 people and an executive from Bosch.

Your argument is with lawmakers, not PFB. They don't make, enforce or change laws. They don't write or vote on laws. They can make suggestions and proposals, just like any group or individual. Lawmakers write law, legislators vote on them and governors sign them. You need to speak with legislators. As I've said many times, get involved in your state

Seminars can inform, but it is just a seminar. Just a light discussion on current events in cycling. PFB can do whatever they want to do. So can you. Making demands of them is a waste of time.

 

[Ken M]

Your argument is with lawmakers, not PFB. They don't make, enforce or change laws. They don't write or vote on laws. They can make suggestions and proposals, just like any group or individual. Lawmakers write law, legislators vote on them and governors sign them. You need to speak with legislators. As I've said many times, get involved in your state

Seminars can inform, but it is just a seminar. Just a light discussion on current events in cycling. PFB can do whatever they want to do. So can you. Making demands of them is a waste of time.

I made no demands on them. At most I've asked for them to explain why they took lobby money to promote 3-class legislation given the federal definition was so much more elegant. I think it's a fair question given they present themselves as a bike advocacy organization. You and I fundamentally disagree on the merits of the 3-class legislation and I'm sure that comes from your focus on trail access for Class 1 while I don't think there is any real difference on the trail between any the classes (certainly no data exists to say otherwise).

Why is the default position of the DOI order recognize all LSEBs (classes included) as just bikes such that they are allowed anywhere a bike is unless exceptions are justified and publicly discussed. That pretty much sounds like just using the HR727 definition for a LSEB as a bike.

 

[J.R.]

I made no demands on them. At most I've asked for them to explain why they took lobby money to promote 3-class legislation given the federal definition was so much more elegant. I think it's a fair question given they present themselves as a bike advocacy organization. You and I fundamentally disagree on the merits of the 3-class legislation and I'm sure that comes from your focus on trail access for Class 1 while I don't think there is any real difference on the trail between any the classes (certainly no data exists to say otherwise).

Why is the default position of the DOI order recognize all LSEBs (classes included) as just bikes such that they are allowed anywhere a bike is unless exceptions are justified and publicly discussed. That pretty much sounds like just using the HR727 definition for a LSEB as a bike.

I'm not going into all that old ground. All I'm addressing is PFB. You can frame it however you want; demand, question or whatever you want answers. You're argument is with your legislators in Colorado. The laws have passed and no matter what PFB does or doesn't say, its legislators that wrote and passed the law. Neither the CPSC or PFB can change that. At this point only legislators or the courts can change that.

I genuinely hope you find some peace in this.

 

[Ken M]

I'm not going into all that old ground. All I'm addressing is PFB. You can frame it however you want; demand, question or whatever you want answers. You're argument is with your legislators in Colorado. The laws have passed and no matter what PFB does or doesn't say, its legislators that wrote and passed the law. Neither the CPSC or PFB can change that. At this point only legislators or the courts can change that.

I genuinely hope you find some peace in this.

I'm at peace because I understand the legislative system isn't really there to serve the best interest of the majority of the people. I did think that the expressed preemption in HR727 provided an opportunity to shut down legislation that was not in the best interest in the potential adoption rate of ebikes and I believe ebikes can impact climate change and health.

I live 20 minutes from PFBs. I would like to think they are truly a bike advocacy organization but I think the merger with BPSA changed their agenda and priorities. To me it makes no sense that the loop around Tuscon AR can not be ridden continuously by any of the classes other compliant LSEB only because the views and biases of local land managers varies. I just think that can be fixed so I threw the dart and crossed my fingers that the CPSC is compelled to preempt because the expressed preemption clause does have significant meaning and 3 class is a violation of the letter of the interstate commerce laws.

 

[J.R.]

I just think that can be fixed so I threw the dart and crossed my fingers that the CPSC is compelled to preempt because the expressed preemption clause does have significant meaning and 3 class is a violation of the letter of the interstate commerce laws.

Think objectively about this for a minute, not what you want or hope to happen. 1, If the bikes aren't banned for sale (and they aren't), there is no issue with commerce in any way. 2, What do you think would happen if more than half the country was told they had to scrap their 3 class laws? Do you think they would say 'oh, okay'. No they would take it to court and the feds never win these states rights issues. Add to that there isn't a commerce case to be made by the feds. The bikes aren't banned for sale or use. Just banned for use on public infrastructure.

None of this has anything to do with trails or adoption rates or PFB or human scale transportation or Europe. The laws were written and passed. Your argument is with your state's legislature.

 

[Ken M]

Think objectively about this for a minute, not what you want or hope to happen. 1, If the bikes aren't banned for sale (and they aren't), there is no issue with commerce in any way. 2, What do you think would happen if more than half the country was told they had to scrap their 3 class laws? Do you think they would say 'oh, okay'. No they would take it to court and the feds never win these states rights issues. Add to that there isn't a commerce case to be made by the feds. The bikes aren't banned for sale or use. Just banned for use on public infrastructure.

None of this has anything to do with trails or adoption rates or PFB or human scale transportation or Europe. The laws were written and passed. Your argument is with your state's legislature.

The commerce issue is that 3-class compliance must be prior to introduction into interstate commerce. This isn't as fine a point as it may seem. The states really are supposed to be restricted from establishing more stringent product requirements unless truly justified. I think it went under the radar screen because most of the imported ebikes were harmonized with EU classes already so the manufacturers were not going to file a complaint and the ebikes that are not 3-class compliant but are compliant to HR727 are still sold and the states really don't enforce 3-class compliance for use. That is as you claim no real impact to commerce but 3-class is more stringent than the CPSC definition.

You are right that feds don't typically win state rights arguments but the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce lies with the feds. If the CPSC determines this crosses that line then the states will not have much recourse but to fix their legislation (given the total lack of enforcement at the local/state level it could be totally under the radar screen). For 12 years most states just allowed CPSC compliant ebikes to be ridden anywhere a bike was allowed (I understand the numbers were low prior to 2015 but that does not change that reality).

 

[J.R.]

The commerce issue is that 3-class compliance must be prior to introduction into interstate commerce.

Not true. Any bike can be shipped and sold in any state. You can sell any bike. There's no ambiguity in that statement. No bikes are banned for sale. It's really as simple as that. No sale ban = no commerce issue. I don't know how else to say that. There aren't more stringent requirements for the sale, just the use on public infrastructure.

For 12 years most states just allowed CPSC compliant ebikes to be ridden anywhere a bike was allowed

States made different rules for use on public infrastructure, as is their right.

 

[jabberwocky]

For 12 years most states just allowed CPSC compliant ebikes to be ridden anywhere a bike was allowed (I understand the numbers were low prior to 2015 but that does not change that reality).

That... is just straight up not true. Its not even true now, with more and more states opening up access. You may have decided thats what was allowed and done so without being hassled, but no state in the US has or ever had a law that said ebikes can be ridden anywhere bikes can.

 

[Ken M]

Not true. Any bike can be shipped and sold in any state. You can sell any bike. There's no ambiguity in that statement. No bikes are banned for sale. It's really as simple as that. No sale ban = no commerce issue. I don't know how else to say that. There aren't more stringent requirements for the sale, just the use on public infrastructure.





States made different rules for use on public infrastructure, as is their right.

The CPSC controls compliance of a LSEB for 1st sale in all 50 states. That is just a fact. The 3-class ebikes being more stringent are obviously compliant LSEBs but the question still remains is if that acceptable per interstate commerce interpretation and the expressed preemption in HR727. I'm not a legal scholar but my understanding is that the states crossed a line that could be a problem for 3-class legislation.

In 2015 I purchased a Polaris Appex. You can look up the EBR review on that ebike and it assists to 25mph via pedal-assist and throttle-assist mode. Colorado did not adopt 3-class legislation until late 2017 and I believe we were the 2nd state to do so. Prior to 2017 my Polaris was compliant to the state "use" law because Colorado recognized HR727 LSEBs as just a bike. I had over 6,000 miles on that ebike prior to the adoption of 3-class legislation. Because it provide throttle-assist beyond 20mph it was no longer legal for "use" on any public infrastructure (no grand fathering of prior compliance was considered based on my knowledge). I simply decided to investigate the origins of the 3-class legislation (even discussing it with a number of industry insiders at the final Interbike trade show). I still ride the ebike occasionally but the reality is that it's a liability risk to do so because if I hit a pedestrian I am riding an illegal unregistered motor vehicle (it is not a compliant ebike per the 3-class legislation while it remains compliant to CPSC HR727 LSEB definition).

What I don't understand is how you don't seem to grasp this as being an issue. There are people buying compliant LSEBs that are not compliant to 3-class legislation and they don't even realize they can not legally ride them in a 3-class state on any public infrastructure. They DON'T know are are not told the truth by the dealers.

 

[Ken M]

That... is just straight up not true. Its not even true now, with more and more states opening up access. You may have decided thats what was allowed and done so without being hassled, but no state in the US has or ever had a law that said ebikes can be ridden anywhere bikes can.

Not true. Many states didn't even have "use / traffic" laws pertaining to ebikes so in general a compliant LSEB was conidered a bike for "use" laws in those states. Some states wanted to claim they were motor vehicles but that was posturing that would not have held up for even a single ebike ticket.

Why does the recent DOI order pretty much state that all compliant LSEBs are to be allowed where bikes are allowed?

 

[jabberwocky]

What I don't understand is how you don't seem to grasp this as being an issue. There are people buying compliant LSEBs that are not compliant to 3-class legislation and they don't even realize they can not legally ride them in a 3-class state on any public infrastructure. They DON'T know are are not told the truth by the dealers.

Sure, the market is full of non-compliant stuff. If you push, they will say its for "off-road use/private property use only", which is how lots of vehicles are sold (dirt bikes, ATVs, UTVs, various race/track cars, etc). If you aren't on public infrastructure you can ride whatever the property owner of the land you are on allows. I'm definitely not saying it isn't problematic; this forum alone is full of people basically saying "LOL f*ck the law", and its hard not to see that attitude coming back to bite ebike access/acceptance in the ass eventually.

Its ultimately up to the buyer to figure out what they are allowed to ride and where.