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

[jabberwocky]

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.

Translation: The states had laws that governed use, Ken just didn't like them and therefore they didn't exist.

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

This doesn't help your case the way you think it does. The order still vests significant discretion within the land managers of the various locations under their jurisdiction to actually decide what actually gets opened to ebikes. We are almost 2 years past the order being issued and large pieces of land remain closed to ebikes, because the managers basically said "we don't think its a good idea".

A good area to use as a bellwether for DOI is the vast collection of MTB trail in and around Moab UT. Almost entirely on BLM land, remains open to normal bikes and closed to ebikes.

 

[Ken M]

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.

There is a difference when an ebike is 100% compliant to the LSEB definition in HR727 under CPSC regulation yet is non-compliant to state 3-class legislation. These are not intended to be "off-road" ebikes ("off-road" ebikes do not comply with the federal LSEB definition and also do not comply with the NHTSA definition for a "motor driven cycle" or "motorcycle." That loophole has existed for some time and I agree with you that it could have an impact on the "use" regulations of ebikes but they shouldn't because they are not legal to ride on public infrastructure regardless that some do so.

Note: What I don't like is that my Polaris Appex is LSEB compliant and yet no longer legal to ride on Colorado public infrastructure per letter of the 3-class legislation when it was just viewed a s bike before 3-class adoption.

Here's a good example of an Haibike sold as a Class 1 ebike that is not even compliant to Colorado Class 1 ebike regulations (this may actually be a common non-compliance). The Yamaha pedal-assist drive system does not disengage the motor when the brakes are applied or the bike is not being pedaled as required in Colorado 3-class legislation and I believe in most states that have adoption 3-class legislation. You can be sitting at a stop light with the weight of you leg sitting on the pedals and the motor is sensing that torque and is engaging the motor to provide assist (this is actually a potential way to overheat the motor). Maybe Yamaha has addressed this problem but that is present on my $5,000+ Haibike Trekking model.

 

[Ken M]

Listen guys ... I'm not trying to burn the world down or cause problems. I just feel that interstate commerce laws were violated by the states passing "more stringent" ebike definitions than the federal definition. Typically the states adopt identical definitions to already safety regulated products and then focus on "use" regulations at the state and local levels. I also agree that just because product is legal for sale in all 50 states does it imply it is legal to use in all 50 states but with "bikes" we have a unique situation (LSEBs are not "motor vehicles" and are federally defined as a type of bike right along with other bikes). Obviously there was not pressing safety issue driving the 3-class legislation which tends to be the only allowance (other than the product is only used in that state) for establishing more stringent definition of a federally safety regulated product.

 

[rich c]

Listen guys ... I'm not trying to burn the world down or cause problems. I just feel that interstate commerce laws were violated by the states passing "more stringent" ebike definitions than the federal definition. Typically the states adopt identical definitions to already safety regulated products and then focus on "use" regulations at the state and local levels. I also agree that just because product is legal for sale in all 50 states does it imply it is legal to use in all 50 states but with "bikes" we have a unique situation (LSEBs are not "motor vehicles" and are federally defined as a type of bike right along with other bikes). Obviously there was not pressing safety issue driving the 3-class legislation which tends to be the only allowance (other than the product is only used in that state) for establishing more stringent definition of a federally safety regulated product.

You are in for a long task since local municipalities can also write their own zoning laws for bicycles and eBikes.

 

[jabberwocky]

You are in for a long task since local municipalities can also write their own zoning laws for bicycles and eBikes.

The reason we have 75 threads and a million posts from Ken about this is he doesn't acknowledge that anyone (state/county/locality) can write use regulations and thinks the CPSC definition overrules everything.

 

[mschwett]

… I also agree that just because product is legal for sale in all 50 states does it imply it is legal to use in all 50 states…

i’m glad that you acknowledge this, because this is why everything you’ve said over and over again about interstate commerce and the CPSC is meaningless. nobody in colorado is saying that a business in california can’t sell a certain kind of eBike. nor is anyone in california saying that anyone can’t ride a certain kind of eBike in Chicago, Illinois. there is NO interstate commerce being violated, just as there was not when California began to require that cars driven on public infrastructure meet certain emission standards.

cities, counties, and states can and will continue to set rules for the use of any kind of anything on their public infrastructure. i am all for a federal definition which facilitates and simplifies that process, and if it has multiple “levels” it’s more likely to facilitate a more nuanced approach, as we’ve already seen. local safety concerns can and should override any abstract federal standard. clearly, what’s safe on a bike lane in fresno is not the same as what’s safe on a MUP in manhattan.

 

[Ken M]

You are in for a long task since local municipalities can also write their own zoning laws for bicycles and eBikes.

I understand that but if the intent of the federal definition was to set in regulatory stone that a LSEB is the equivalent of a bike then that zoning must apply to "bikes" and no differentiate them as different products for use regulations.

I know that most people think of ebikes are different from bikes because they have a motor and were originally regulated by NHTSA as motorized vehicles. But HR727 very specifically states they are not motorized vehicles and were defined along with other bike types under the "bike definitions." ALL the congressional testimony provided during the discussion of HR727 clearly centers around a compliant LSEB being same as any other bike. I simply believe a 750W ebike as defined by HR727 is so much the same as a bike it should be "use" regulated as such. The local attorities can still ban bikes but not parse them based on their subjective biases. That is a good thing when you consider the biking loop around Tuscon is not open to a compete ride by any compliant ebike/LSEB.

 

[Ken M]

i’m glad that you acknowledge this, because this is why everything you’ve said over and over again about interstate commerce and the CPSC is meaningless. nobody in colorado is saying that a business in california can’t sell a certain kind of eBike. nor is anyone in california saying that anyone can’t ride a certain kind of eBike in Chicago, Illinois. there is NO interstate commerce being violated, just as there was not when California began to require that cars driven on public infrastructure meet certain emission standards.

cities, counties, and states can and will continue to set rules for the use of any kind of anything on their public infrastructure. i am all for a federal definition which facilitates and simplifies that process, and if it has multiple “levels” it’s more likely to facilitate a more nuanced approach, as we’ve already seen. local safety concerns can and should override any abstract federal standard. clearly, what’s safe on a bike lane in fresno is not the same as what’s safe on a MUP in manhattan.

You should do a full read on the California emissions standard exception that was allowed. It was by no means a no brainier for California to adopt those more stringent requirements. Their need was exceptional and they went about adopting the more stringent requirements the way they should have.

The cities, counties, and states can continue to set the rules for use. 3-class was not about "use" it was redefining of a federal safety agency regulated product - it requires changes to an LSEB prior to entry into interstate commerce. You imply the federal definition / standard is "abstract" when it is much more technically elegant and concise vs the state 3-class definitions. No way it's rational to claim 3-class is less abstract. NO WAY!

 

[mschwett]

…The local attorities can still ban bikes but not parse them based on their subjective biases.

not until this

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

is amended as this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, except in the case of determining how much power a two wheeled vehicle can have to be used on public infrastructure in which case the federal definition of the CPSC shall be used.

 

[mschwett]

You should do a full read on the California emissions standard exception that was allowed. It was by no means a no brainier for California to adopt those more stringent requirements. Their need was exceptional and they went about adopting the more stringent requirements the way they should have.….

i agree that’s a complex and probably not the best example. a better example is that local roads all over the country prohibit vehicles over a certain weight, or length, or capacity, based on local safety concerns. again, not a matter of interstate commerce.

 

[Ken M]

not until this



is amended as this:

The right to regulate interstate commerce is a federal enumerated right. Not a state right. The feds define compliant products that can be sold in the US. The states are supposed to stick to "use" regulations.

There are allowances but they are restrictive to keep states from all just having unique products that no manufacturer can produce with economies of scale if every state were allowed unique product definitions. It makes sense when you consider it makes sense to be able to buy the same hair dryer in all 50 states and then if you move you can use that same hair dryer in the state you move to.

 

[Ken M]

i agree that’s a complex and probably not the best example. a better example is that local roads all over the country prohibit vehicles over a certain weight, or length, or capacity, based on local safety concerns. again, not a matter of interstate commerce.

Sure but they don't say a sedan is OK and a hatchback is not. They don't say that a 6 speed manual transmission is OK but a auto-transmission is not because it just might damage the road more based on some local road managers wildest imagination. In most of those cases its not the vehicle weight they ban it's the gross loaded weight they ban so they don't get challenged (that keeps it a "use" regulation because I don't know of any unloaded vehicles that don't comply with those regulations you mentioned but maybe you can find me an example (has to be a vehicle safety regulated and compliant per NHTSA).

 

[J.R.]

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.

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse.

If it can be sold and purchased, there is no commerce issue.

Simple one sentence statement that describes the issue.

Where they can be ridden is up to the state. If someone buys a bike that can't be ridden, that's on the buyer. Its low for a seller to not advise, but that's not illegal. As any cop will tell you 'ignorance is no defense for breaking the law'.

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.

Again your argument is with your legislators. Often products are grandfathered in. Not the case with ebikes. See your representative.

 

[Ken M]

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse.

If it can be sold and purchased, there is no commerce issue.

Simple one sentence statement that describes the issue.

Where they can be ridden is up to the state. If someone buys a bike that can't be ridden, that's on the buyer. Its low for a seller to not advise, but that's not illegal. As any cop will tell you 'ignorance is no defense for breaking the law'.



Again your argument is with your legislators. Often products are grandfathered in. Not the case with ebikes. See your representative.

Years ago the CPSC told the states they could not require lights to be installed on a bike prior to entry into interstate commerce but some bikes did and do come with installed lights (manufacturers are always free to exceed the federal safety requirements but states are not openly allowed to do as they please with safety requirements). But the CPSC informed the states they could require lights as a use requirement for night riding because it addressed a safety risk not addressed by their requirements. Per your understanding and claims the states had the right to require the lights on all bikes but this case can be reviewed by anyone...they were told NO, not before entry into interstate commerce and only as a specific use requirement that can be a rider's responsibility like wearing a helmet).

I actually did discuss my Polaris Appex issue with one of the 4 state representatives that pushed the 3-class legislation in Colorado. He was not aware of any earlier production ebike made non-compliant for use by the adoption of 3-class. I detailed out the problem and he said "wow, maybe we should have had someone technical on the committee while discussing 3-class legislation." Sometimes mistakes are made and I'm hoping to clean this up in one big preemption.

 

[J.R.]

prior to entry into interstate commerce

And no state requires that prior to selling the bike. The bike can be sold. I have literally said that at least 10 times and you will not understand for whatever reason.

No bikes are banned from being sold or purchased.

Please tell me what you don't understand about that sentence. I honestly don't mean any of this as an insult. You keep saying they can't require this or that prior to sale. I keep saying no state requires any of that prior to sale. You literally can buy any bike anywhere in the US.

 

[Ken M]

And no state requires that prior to selling the bike. The bike can be sold. I have literally said that at least 10 times and you will not understand for whatever reason.

No bikes are banned from being sold or purchased.

Please tell me what you don't understand about that sentence. I honestly don't mean any of this as an insult. You keep saying they can't require this or that prior to sale. I keep saying no state requires any of that prior to sale. You literally can buy any bike anywhere in the US.

The 3-class legislation requires the programming (assist limits), class specific labels, class 2 ebrakes, and Class 3 speedometer to be present on the ebikes prior to introduction into interstate commerce (i.e. it's not voluntary compliance) on a CPSC product that is already regulated (one of the very first products ever regulated by the CPSC). That is where I think the line is crossed from regulating "use" to the states trying to control product definition. The strange result of this is that there are compliant LSEBs like my Polaris Appex that end up not be legal to ride on any public infrastructure in a state that has adopted 3-class legislation and I'm 99% sure that none of the state legislators are aware of this (there is actually a pretty sizable list of ebikes that this happened to ... I just happen to own a couple different brands and models).

You just said that no state requires these 3-class legislative elements prior to 1st sale but how else are they ending up on the ebikes before they are sold (no OEM is going to allow their drive system programming to be altered by the buyer or even the bike shop selling them). They are in reality required on the product prior to entry into interstate commerce and I believe the CPSC will perceive that.

I don't take anything you have written as an insult. I see your point of view so I'm doing my best to provide my point of view.

How is a 3-class compliant bike provided to the market? I have read the 3-class model legislation as drafted by People for Bikes and it states the manufacturer or distributor is responsible for the required compliance elements (ie prior to entry into interstate commerce).

The CPSC only assesses compliance for 1st sale per the federal definition and the requirements so the presence of the elements is not going to impact them declaring they are compliant LSEBs (3-class programming is compliant to the CPSC federal definition as we have agreed but dividing the classes creates more stringent definition by the states and they is expressly prohibited in HR727 (that is very rarely expressed).

 

[J.R.]

The 3-class legislation requires the programming (assist limits), class specific labels, class 2 ebrakes, and Class 3 speedometer to be present on the ebikes prior to introduction into interstate commerce

You should read the law. 3 class states do not require any of those things for the sale of the bike, only for their use on public cycling infrastructure. Therefore it is voluntary. A bike owner has the option to add or remove components in order to comply with the class they need and they can also apply the appropriate class sticker. It's in the law. The option also exists for a bike shop to do that. It is not illegal to import, distribute, sell or buy any ebike in any 3 class state.

The strange result of this is that there are compliant LSEBs like my Polaris Appex that end up not be legal to ride on any public infrastructure in a state that has adopted 3-class legislation

They may comply for their sale, the community has decided they do not comply for use on public cycling infrastructure. They are legal to use on public ORV trails. My state, as well as most states, have thousands of miles of ORV trails on public land.

You made the claim that the CPSC controls first sale and the states control use. That is the way it is done in states that have the 3 class law.

You also have agreed that the CPSC is only concerned about specifying what is safe for sale. They do that with most consumer products. To my knowledge they don't get involved in any way with use regulations of a stove, a toilet or a bike. States tell consumers where a stove can be installed, where a toilet can be installed and where vehicles can be ridden. So when the CPSC says a compliant ebike is a bike, they are referring to their sale and not use. Their purview is safe consumer products for sale. They never discuss use.

 

[Ken M]

You should read the law. 3 class states do not require any of those things for the sale of the bike, only for their use on public cycling infrastructure. Therefore it is voluntary. A bike owner has the option to add or remove components in order to comply with the class they need and they can also apply the appropriate class sticker. It's in the law. The option also exists for a bike shop to do that. It is not illegal to import, distribute, sell or buy any ebike in any 3 class state.

They may comply for their sale, the community has decided they do not comply for use on public cycling infrastructure. They are legal to use on public ORV trails. My state, as well as most states, have thousands of miles of ORV trails on public land.

You made the claim that the CPSC controls first sale and the states control use. That is the way it is done in states that have the 3 class law.

You also have agreed that the CPSC is only concerned about specifying what is safe for sale. They do that with most consumer products. To my knowledge they don't get involved in any way with use regulations of a stove, a toilet or a bike. States tell consumers where a stove can be installed, where a toilet can be installed and where vehicles can be ridden. So when the CPSC says a compliant ebike is a bike, they are referring to their sale and not use. Their purview is safe consumer products for sale. They never discuss use.

Let me present part of 3-class a different way. Brake performance is a very specific requirement in CPSC 1512 and that requirement applies universally to LSEBs and all other defined bikes. It's not a definition. Most 3-class adopting states have the requirement that a class 2 throttle-assist disengages the motor when the brakes are applied (I assuming you have knowledge of the ebrakes with the hall switch wire that tells the controller when the brakes are applied). The states are setting a performance requirement for brakes that has nothing to do with use and is not required by the CPSC. Do you know of any trails or paths in the entire US that require ebrakes? Is that something you have discussed at all those local "use" meetings you have attended? Probably not because it's not a use related element at all....it's a product requirement and in reality so is class programming but I thought this was an easier one to get a point across.

Explain to me how the states can do that and claim it does not impact interstate commerce as that performance must be physically integrated into the ebike controller and recognized by the controller programming to disengage the motor. So if that is not inherently REQUIRED on the ebike prior to entry into interstate commerce then I must be a total idiot. No buyer can add that function to a turnkey product and it's not recognized as a performance requirement for brakes by the CPSC.

If we are going to accept that the states can claim any alteration of a federal definition or requirement is necessary for "use" then we may as well eliminate the federal agencies and toss the federal enumerated right to regulate interstate commerce in the trash can so local trail managers can be happy. C'mon....the states crossed the line with 3-class because People for Bikes lobbied them to convince them it was bike friendly legislation when it was really anything but.

 

[J.R.]

Explain to me how the states can do that and claim it does not impact interstate commerce

Because the 3 class law has nothing to do with what is required for sale of any bike. It is voluntary. If you want to ride on public infrastructure, you need to ride an approved bike. Your choice... voluntary. You don't have to ride on public cycling infrastructure. You aren't required to. You have other choices of places to ride. Just like mopeds aren't allowed on certain roads. There are other roads. Trucks are limited on certain roads. There's always other roads. I could go on, but you get the point.

I have it on good authority that when the CPSC says an ebike, within their description, is a bike they are referring to their safety specifications of bicycles. They even link to the bicycle safety specifications for a bike. There is no reference to where the compliant bicycles can ride or limits to local governments on use restrictions. The CPSC has no opinion on use. An ebike is a bike means it has to have all the safety equipment of any bike for it to be sold. It really is as simple as the CPSC wants sellers to equip ebikes with all the safety equipment of any bike. They spec reflectors, pedal size and all the other tidbits on any bike. If you ask the right people an open ended question, meaning no agenda and no insinuations, you can get the answers.

Reading the CPSC mission statement it's very clear what they are and what they do. No rulings or opinions on use.

Here's a curious thing. None of their specifications are required for any custom made bike. I can have a custom made bike without reflectors or pedals or seat. Legal to do, legal to buy. They do say the state safety specifications are required to be followed though. There's a list of exemptions on their website.

You can argue about bits and bobs if you want. I'm okay having a debate about how a safe bike/ebike should be made. I won't, but I can see value in that discussion. Safety is a good thing. Maybe the CPSC and all 50 states should take on updating their safety specifications for the good of the consumer.

 

[jabberwocky]

Its actually amazing how many things that you'd think would be nationally regulated are actually basically the states voluntarily doing things in concert. A lot of transportation is like that (the standards body for highways, for example, is the AASHTO, and its basically a consortium of the 50 states transportation departments, not a federal agency). On some things, the feds can't actually mandate the states do it how they want, but they can set and withhold funding and use that as a lever where they really want to get their way (again, fairly common in transportation).