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

[Ken M]

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.

You ignored the ebrake element of 3-class that I outlined. Brakes are a requirement. I have never said the CPSC has any interest in use regulations but they don't want states defining or redefining a product that is already safety regulated. Obviously anyone could frame compliance with laws as voluntary because we humans can choose not to comply with them, but there are potential consequences.

I believe the intent of HR727 which defined a compliant LSEB as a bicycle was to avoid all the subjective use parsing you keep bringing up. States can still regulate "use" of bikes but allowing a state to redefine products just opens to door to the nonsense you mentioned.

I think we are so very far apart on our interpretations it's best to just let it go. I can hope the CPSC preempts and you can hope they don't. One of us has to be wrong. You should read Court Rye's opinion on this in the EBR forums as he agrees entirely with me and he is around people in the industry all the time.

 

[Ken M]

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).

Really. Then why does the CPSC have well over 10,000 consumer product definitions? The states don't tend to have consensus on much of anything which is why we kind of need the feds tellling the states what is a compliant product for sale (and that is typically what the states accept to use regulate.

 

[J.R.]

You ignored the ebrake element of 3-class that I outlined. Brakes are a requirement. I have never said the CPSC has any interest in use regulations but they don't want states defining or redefining a product that is already safety regulated. Obviously anyone could frame compliance with laws as voluntary because we humans can choose not to comply with them, but there are potential consequences

You're confusing a requirement to ride on a specific venue with specifications for sale. The CPSC specs bikes to be made for sale and states with the 3 class law have requirements for use on public cycling infrastructure. It really is that simple.

If you contact the US State's Attorney's office, your own State's Attorney's office and ask some simple questions, without making accusations or detailing a political agenda, you'll get the answers you want. They both have consumer affairs departments. If you do the same with the CPSC they will also advise and direct you to the information that's available on their website.

The CPSC has no advice on what is allowed to be used on public land in any state. As a matter of fact they have nothing to say about any state requiring anything to to ride. Not lights, helmet, throttle, brake cutoffs. The states do have different equipment requirements than other states, and different riding venues within the state in order to ride. They even have different requirements for day and night riding, age requirements and safety apparel requirements. None of these requirements are mandatory at time of sale. As is the case with class requirements. Not required at time of sale.

I believe the intent of HR727 which defined a compliant LSEB as a bicycle was to avoid all the subjective use parsing you keep bringing up. States can still regulate "use" of bikes but allowing a state to redefine products just opens to door to the nonsense you mentioned.

Believing and knowing are very different. States aren't redefining what a safe bicycle is. They are requiring a level of equipment for use on certain venues. The feds and states do the same with a lot of other things like boats and ORV. Both say they work in partnership. The CPSC won't comment on 3 class requirements because it's not within their legal authority. They don't have the authority to police a state if the state requires lights at night, speedometer for road use or a helmet for riders. They also don't have the authority to police a state if they require everything a class 1 is required to have to ride on paths and trails. It's all 'use requirements' and the Consumer Products Safety Commission has no opinion. Kind of says it in their name, safe products, not safe use.

It's not my interpretation, its theirs.

 

[Ken M]

This thread has just taken a very bizarre direction. I have not ever even hinted that the CPSC has any say on "use" in a state but a state does not need to redefine a LSEB for use. They can be less stringent but not more stringent than what the CPSC requires as is well documented. When a state decides that ebrakes on ebikes in required for use that is dictating an element of design that impacts interstate commerce because ebrakes MUST be on the ebike prior to entry into interstate commerce. This is not rocket science and if ebrakes had any significant safety relevance the CPSC would require them. Why should we trust that some local politician has a clue what is important for a safe ebike product? At least the CPSC and the other safety agencies have been doing it for 50+ years. Where is any information that justifies the states needing to "use require" ebrakes (we should not accept pure ass pulls from either the local governments or the feds)? I'm sorry but I do not have a better way to ask that.

Regardless of opinions some states requiring ebrakes is not about "use" ... that is over-riding an element that the CPSC has very specific safety / performance requirements outlined and I challenge anyone to show it's justified (making up something doesn't count...provide some tangible information and safety data to support your claims). If the local level officials in the states think they know better, they should work together and contact the CPSC to have ebrakes required in 1512 regulation. That is how it's supposed to work....

What is most ironic is that the state legislation only requires ebrakes on throttle-assist ebikes which do not benefit safety-wise whatsoever from them. The ONLY assist system ebikes that may safety benefit from ebrakes is the on/off cadence-assist systems that are considered pedal-assist systems in the state 3-class legislation. These systems literally just turn on/off full assist power and if the hall sensor just happens to be activated by any pedal movement a potential exists for an accident (I had someone test ride my cadence assist bike and they went right into the side of a cargo container when the ebike cadence-assist triggered full assist when the did a slow turn next to the container). Throttle-assist systems do not suffer from this because assist is moderated via a simple throttle that has been in use on mopeds and motorcycles for over 100 years without brakes that cut assist.

 

[Ken M]

I never suggested you did, I said just the opposite a few posts back and many times before. Why won't you then agree states aren't redefining an ebike?



They don't have to be included prior to entry into interstate commerce or prior to sale. They could be added to comply with 3 class state use requirements or the bike could be used on ORV trails and private property. It is the responsibility of would be owners to buy a bike that will comply with the regs where they wish to ride.

You're entire argument is with your state legislature. No state has infringed on CPSC authority in any way. I understand you don't like the law your legislature has passed. The feds won't be the tool for the change you seek.

Requiring ebrakes and specific assist programming is "redefining" an ebike relative to the federal definition per my opinion. I have no clue how someone would be able to integrate ebrakes onto a turnkey ebike from a major manufacturer when the controller may not even have an input for ebrakes and then the owner would have to modify the programming to give the ebrake functionality needed to disengage the motor.

To claim it's voluntary or it's the rider's responsibility is just a way to end around the fact that they are requiring something not required by the CPSC and they have not even attempted to justify this more stringent requirement with safety data to back it up. States requiring ebrakes is just one example of them infringing on CPSC authority to control 1st sale nation wide.

I contacted the CPSC secretary and no decision has been made yet. I don't take that as a bad thing because a rejection is usually a much quicker response.

 

[J.R.]

• The CPSC is empowered to define safe consumer products for sale to consumers in the United States.

• HR727 is written to define a low powered ebike is a bicycle, a consumer product, for the purpose of sale.

• As such (a bicycle) HR727 refers to the bicycle standards 16 CFR part 1512 Requirements For Bicycles. Specifications for safe bicycles for sale in the U.S.

• CPSC has no authority to advise how any product is used in the U.S. Their only purview is safe products for sale.

• The 3 Class law does not define ebikes, it regulates use.

• No 3 Class state bans the sale of any non 3 Class conforming ebike.

• The 3 Class law only applies to ebikes using public roads and public cycling infrastructure.

 

[Ken M]

• The CPSC is empowered to define safe consumer products for sale to consumers in the United States.

• HR727 is written to define a low powered ebike is a bicycle, a consumer product, for the purpose of sale.

• As such (a bicycle) HR727 refers to the bicycle standards 16 CFR part 1512 Requirements For Bicycles. Specifications for safe bicycles for sale in the U.S.

• CPSC has no authority to advise how any product is used in the U.S. Their only purview is safe products for sale.

• The 3 Class law does not define ebikes, it regulates use.

• No 3 Class state bans the sale of any non 3 Class conforming ebike.

• The 3 Class law only applies to ebikes using public roads and public cycling infrastructure.

Yes, the CPSC defines and regulates product safety but the CPSC was created pursuant to the enumerated federal power to regulate interstate commerce. That is just a fact.

It's easy to say that 3-class just regulates use but unless the bikes enter interstate commerce 3-class compliant there is almost no way the state or the buyer can modify to make compliant so it inherently crosses the line into "definition" territory in my opinion. The ebrakes are the easiest to illustrate the problem with because no way the buyer can make the ebike compliant for use unless the ebrakes are on the ebike prior to entry into interstate commerce. Your idea of voluntary because they can be legally sold is a bit shaky when what matters is can the ebike be legally used on public infrastructure.

My view is that 16 CFR part 1512 defines the array of compliant bikes (including the LSEB) and states have a long history of simply accepting them as a bike and only regulating use of all the various forms as a bike.

 

[Ken M]

• No 3 Class state bans the sale of any non 3 Class conforming ebike.

• The 3 Class law only applies to ebikes using public roads and public cycling infrastructure.

• HR727 is written to define a low powered ebike is a bicycle, a consumer product, for the purpose of sale.

• As such (a bicycle) HR727 refers to the bicycle standards 16 CFR part 1512 Requirements For Bicycles. Specifications for safe bicycles for sale in the U.S.

It's not my interpretation, its theirs.

If you contact the US State's Attorney's office, your own State's Attorney's office and ask some simple questions, without making accusations or detailing a political agenda, you'll get the answers you want. They both have consumer affairs departments. If you do the same with the CPSC they will also advise and direct you to the information that's available on their website.

You argument is that every state then could have unique assist limits, unique product labeling, unique brake performance & type, etc. and just claim is all about "use" needs. Why not leave it to the feds to decide what a "bike" is and what is needed for it to be safe for sale and the states stick to use only regulations of that product.

If you were a bike manufacturer are you supposed to produce a bike to a potential 50 different state "use" requirements or to the one federal definition knowing they control 1st sale. What would happen if PA decided the max power should be less than 100W for use? Who is going to produce that bike for PA or would an interstate commerce petition be filed? Would the buyers be responsible to modify the drive system to limit power to 100W because it's voluntary for the manufacturers?

The CPSC has over 10,000 products they define and safety regulate for 1st sale. The state locals are not up for this task.

 

[J.R.]

You argument is that every state then could have unique assist limits, unique product labeling, unique brake perfomance, etc. and just claim is all about "use" needs.

Ken, I wrote the simple bullet points that respond to everything you ever mention. It's all encompassing from the information that was provided to me when I asked some simple questions. I didn't put anyone on the spot and I waited for the responses. Surprisingly it all turns out to be public information. It's not my interpretation. Whether you agree or not, you can't just dismiss it as opinion.

You could take this passion and expand your ebike horizons locally by advocating for more access and better access for less abled riders. More paths, fundraising...

I once thought I had it figured out in 2014. Spending time with real experts and asking questions, I learned and continue to learn. They aren't the enemy of ebikes. Local people trying to do the right thing for the majority of people.

Tomorrow it could all change for the worse again. Today my state is more open to ebikes than the vast majority of states. Is that where it ends? Absolutely not.

 

[Ken M]

Ken, I wrote the simple bullet points that respond to everything you ever mention. It's all encompassing from the information that was provided to me when I asked some simple questions. I didn't put anyone on the spot and I waited for the responses. Surprisingly it all turns out to be public information. It's not my interpretation. Whether you agree or not, you can't just dismiss it as opinion.

You could take this passion and expand your ebike horizons locally by advocating for more access and better access for less abled riders. More paths, fundraising...

I once thought I had it figured out in 2014. Spending time with real experts and asking questions, I learned and continue to learn. They aren't the enemy of ebikes. Local people trying to do the right thing for the majority of people.

Tomorrow it could all change for the worse again. Today my state is more open to ebikes than the vast majority of states. Is that where it ends? Absolutely not.

This is the best legal information I have found on:
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY: PREEMPTION, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2262&context=vlr

I know we see opposite sides of the coin which is typical given the wide gray line between federal and state rights in the US. I just fall back on what I feel is common sense that we don't want states defining up to 50 different products such that economies of scale are impacted for little or no reason. I understand that 3-class is now adopted by more than half the states but the 3-class ebikes will remain compliant if the preemption happens.

If 3-class is only about "use" .... explain why PFBs has said in videos that they felt the federal definition needed "clarity"? That implies they felt they needed to improve the definition but they were not exactly technical enough to understand what the constraints meant. In this video Morgan with People for Bikes says at the 5:30 point that some states have the same "definition" referring to the 3-class adopting states. At the 11:55 point she says "the benefit of the class system is that is DEFINES what an ebike is and is not." She also says they "were going state by state to "clean up the definition of ebikes." Essentially she is saying they did redefine what an ebike is vs the federal definition. She even mentions working toward a "national standard" with 3-class definition. Now I know some will say they were redefining for "use" but she says in the video they looked at what was "sold in Europe" and even incorrectly states the federal definition maxs out at 20mph. They don't understand the different between a "definition" and "use" regulation.

 

[J.R.]

This is the best legal information I have found on:
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY: PREEMPTION, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2262&context=vlr

I know we see opposite sides of the coin which is typical given the wide gray line between federal and state rights in the US. I just fall back on what I feel is common sense that we don't want states defining up to 50 different products such that economies of scale are impacted for little or no reason. I understand that 3-class is now adopted by more than half the states but the 3-class ebikes will remain compliant if the preemption happens.

If 3-class is only about "use" .... explain why PFBs has said in videos that they felt the federal definition needed "clarity"? That implies they felt they needed to improve the definition but they were not exactly technical enough to understand what the constraints meant. In this video Morgan with People for Bikes says at the 5:30 point that some states have the same "definition" referring to the 3-class adopting states. At the 11:55 point she says "the benefit of the class system is that is DEFINES what an ebike is and is not." She also says they "were going state by state to "clean up the definition of ebikes." Essentially she is saying they did redefine what an ebike is vs the federal definition. She even mentions working toward a "national standard" with 3-class definition. Now I know some will say they were redefining for "use" but she says in the video they looked at what was "sold in Europe" and even incorrectly states the federal definition maxs out at 20mph. They don't understand the different between a "definition" and "use" regulation.

You want there to be a boogeyman, but as I continue to say People for Bikes doesn't write, vote for, pass or enforce any laws. I'll repost:

• The CPSC is empowered to define safe consumer products for sale to consumers in the United States.
• HR727 is written to define a low powered ebike is a bicycle, a consumer product, for the purpose of sale.
• As such (a bicycle) HR727 refers to the bicycle standards 16 CFR part 1512 Requirements For Bicycles. Specifications for safe bicycles for sale in the U.S.
• CPSC has no authority to advise how any product is used in the U.S. Their only purview is safe products for sale.
• The 3 Class law does not define ebikes, it regulates use.
• No 3 Class state bans the sale of any non 3 Class conforming ebike.
• The 3 Class law only applies to ebikes using public roads and public cycling infrastructure.

You can keep demonizing People for Bikes if you want, but I don't know where that takes you, or how that helps you in any way. You want them to answer for your state law, but they didn't pass it. I've never held them up as an authority. They are a private organization. Let's just imagine they said 'oops, sorry we were wrong about everything'. Your state would still have the law they wrote and passed.

 

[Ken M]

You want there to be a boogeyman, but as I continue to say People for Bikes doesn't write, vote for, pass or enforce any laws. I'll repost:

• The CPSC is empowered to define safe consumer products for sale to consumers in the United States.
• HR727 is written to define a low powered ebike is a bicycle, a consumer product, for the purpose of sale.
• As such (a bicycle) HR727 refers to the bicycle standards 16 CFR part 1512 Requirements For Bicycles. Specifications for safe bicycles for sale in the U.S.
• CPSC has no authority to advise how any product is used in the U.S. Their only purview is safe products for sale.
• The 3 Class law does not define ebikes, it regulates use.
• No 3 Class state bans the sale of any non 3 Class conforming ebike.
• The 3 Class law only applies to ebikes using public roads and public cycling infrastructure.

You can keep demonizing People for Bikes if you want, but I don't know where that takes you, or how that helps you in any way. You want them to answer for your state law, but they didn't pass it. I've never held them up as an authority. They are a private organization. Let's just imagine they said 'oops, sorry we were wrong about everything'. Your state would still have the law they wrote and passed.

I don't want there to be a boogeyman. I think PFB believed they needed to fix "definition" issues at the state level where in some cases ebikes were still considered motorized vehicles and they were guided a bit by Bosch to promote the class system because that is what Europe (the far bigger market volume) was using. In Europe that is how they "defined" ebike product compliance. Before the 2002 federal definition many states had adopted definitions so they could regulate compliant use per those definitions (in the absence of a federal definition for a product that is what happens as has happened with Autocycles present day) and since NHTSA viewed them as motorized vehicles that is how many states set their "use" regulations (some outright banning them from public infrastructure as "motor vehicles" that didn't fit into any use law). There is extensive discussion in the video about how many states and local agencies tagged ebikes as "motorized vehicles." That was not fixed in many states after HR727 was approved which I believe is why People for Bikes started down the path they did with the 3-class system - instead of getting the states to just recognized the federal definition of a LSEB as a "bike" they redefined using the class system and pushed Class 1 as the only equivalent of a "bike" in the class system.

If the 3-class system only regulates "use" why does Morgan use the term "define" so many times in the video? There is also a big tell in the video when Morgan mentions how they looked at what was being sold in Europe to establish the class system (she really never mentions "use" in the video it's all about defining the product). She claims the federal definition limits assist speed to 20mph (not true because it limits power at 20mph) which made PFBs feel like they created class 1 and 2 as consistent with the federal definition and got state compliance acceptance of Class 3 when in fact most class 3 ebikes are compliant with the federal definition (some actually are not but an entirely different thread needed to open that can of worms).

They could have done a similar campaign to just get the states to recognize the federal definition as a bike for use regulation as many of the states had done including Colorado (even the ones that had not formally eliminated the "motorized vehicle" perception were still allowing ebikes to be used as bikes. I have seen some of the discussion in local meetings where officials still claim that ebikes are "motorized vehicles" as the basis for not allowing them on some paths and trails.

One other point about the video. Morgan mentions a small case study (IMBA study identified) that showed that class 1 ebikes do not physically impact the trail differently than other bikes and that class 2 and 3 do. The study only compared a traditional bike to Class 1 and motorcycles and set the hypothesis that Class 1 would be same and motorcycles would be worse. Again her statement was not truthful and this study was somewhat biased to show Class 1 and traditional bikes have same impact but most likely there is no difference in class 2 or 3 or federal LSEB either.

You are correct that the CPSC is empowered to define compliance for products for 1st sale but they are also empowered to regulate interstate commerce. Is that true as you seem to avoid claiming they have no power to preempt state regulations that do impact interstate commerce?

 

[J.R.]

If the 3-class system only regulates "use" why does Morgan use the term "define" so many times in the video?

Who cares!! Old video, by some private individual who works for a private organization. She, they don't write or enforce law. Who cares! You always assume I should defend PFB. You're asking the wrong person, I just don't care what they say. I've had harsh criticism for their refusal to help with paths and trails. Didn't even watch your video.

You can pounce on the word define if you want. There's a difference between product definition and use definition. Define can literally mean anything explained.

You would have understood the issues better, had you asked the agencies involved. I have asked and the answers are noted above in the list.

 

[Ken M]

Who cares!! Old video, by some private individual who works for a private organization. She, they don't write or enforce law. Who cares! You always assume I should defend PFB. You're asking the wrong person, I just don't care what they say. I've had harsh criticism for their refusal to help with paths and trails. Didn't even watch your video.

You can pounce on the word define if you want. There's a difference between product definition and use definition. Define can literally mean anything explained.

You would have understood the issues better, had you asked the agencies involved. I have asked and the answers are noted above in the list.

Let me put this into a sentence to help clarify the difference in "product definition" and "use definition".
Defining "use" would be setting a speed limit on the path / bike lane of 20mph .... defining "product" is setting an assist limit of 20mph.
There is a difference and it's easy to understand if you give that consideration.

Why is that if I complain about PFBs it's a bid deal but if you do it's somehow totally justified and valid? I simply think they made mistakes on the 3-class model legislation and it could come back to have a major negative impact on their credibility. I understand that once adopted by the state it's not their problem but if the state laws are preempted they will find their advocacy efforts a bit harder is my opinion because the drafted "THE MODEL LEGISLATION" as they like to call it.

As above, You claim there a difference between a product definition and use definition. I agree. Defining that a bike/ebike must obey traffic laws, stay to the far right side of a road, obey a speed limit, etc. is defining use. Saying that an ebike must have ebrakes and have assist cut-offs at 20 or 28mph is product defining. Big difference and their class/product definitions do impact interstate commerce because they are not modifications the buyer can complete for legal use.

If a state totally changes the NHTSA product definition for a car for "use" it's OK. LIghts, brakes, etc. can all be redefined for use by the state....NO THEY CAN'T.

 

[J.R.]

Everytime I post a reply to you and your questions, you go back after my reply and edit your post adding content and questions. You could just add another post and I would get an alert. I'm unwilling to deal with these underhanded tactics. It completely changes the debate and is dishonest.

 

[Ken M]

Everytime I post a reply to you and your questions, you go back after my reply and edit your post adding content and questions. You could just add another post and I would get an alert. I'm unwilling to deal with these underhanded tactics. It completely changes the debate and is dishonest.

I tend to write and post fast and then when I read again i just fix what are mistakes. My baseline position has not change whatsoever.

PFBs and the states are not permitted to "product define" an already regulated product they have the right to "use" define which are things like speed limits.

I get the feeling you are now seeing the difference. Requiring ebrakes, defining assist limits, requiring custom labeling and a speedometer is not sticking to "use" regulations. We do not need 50 states thinking they can all just redesign/redefine what a compliant ebike is.... we need them to stay inside their lines which is use regulation.

 

[Ken M]

You should watch the PFBs video as careful listening will bring to light they were confused between what state "use" regulation and federal "product" definition are. Morgan says multiple times they were defining what an is and isn't. A state does not need to do that to regulate use.

 

[J.R.]

I tend to write and post fast and then when I read again i just fix what are mistakes. My baseline position has not change whatsoever.

That is untrue. You add questions, you change context. I'm done with you. Had you apologized that may have changed how I felt in this, but you add lies to dishonesty.

 

[Ken M]

IMBA strongly recommends that trail management decisions for any recreational user have a foundation in science. My guess is that entirely ignored when making decisions on trail access as many are still claiming compliant LSEBs are motorized vehicles.

 

[Ken M]

That is untrue. You add questions, you change context. I'm done with you. Had you apologized that may have changed how I felt in this, but you add lies to dishonesty.

I HONESTLY do not intend to ever change context. I do remove my sometimes over the top rants like saying PA is mamby pamby. I am sorry if I appear to change anything but edit fixes and seeming to mean spirited.

I do feel I understand the difference between "product" and "use" definitions and it was not actually easy for me to get it clear in my head when I first stated to explore what made me feel uneasy about the 3-class legislation.