George S.
Well-Known Member
It all seems to revolve around the 'commerce clause', which is about Federal power. This justice, a long long time ago, summed it up pretty well:
Chief Justice Waite in the case of the Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 629 a case closely paralleling Gibbons v. Ogden in other respects also. ''The powers thus granted are not confined to the instrumentalities of commerce, or the postal service known or in use when the Constitution was adopted, but they keep pace with the progress of the country, and adapt themselves to the new developments of times and circumstances. They extend from the horse with its rider to the stage-coach, from the sailing-vessel to the steamboat, from the coach and the steamboat to the railroad, and from the railroad to the telegraph, as these new agencies are successively brought into use to meet the demands of increasing population and wealth. They were intended for the government of the business to which they relate, at all times and under all circumstances. As they were intrusted to the general government for the good of the nation, it is not only the right, but the duty, of Congress to see to it that intercourse among the States and the transmission of intelligence are not obstructed or unnecessarily encumbered by State legislation. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation28.html#sthash.KRssoH3l.dpuf
http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation28.html
So, yeah they should respect the Federal attempt to define the ebike throughout the country, with one simple set of rules.
On the other hand, if the California Bill passes, the industry is basically saying they want 20+ mph ebikes. I don't know if anyone can rely on an interpretation of the CPSC rules to make the 28 mph pedelecs legal as bikes. No reasonable analysis seems to support the speed pedelec as a bike. Haibike doesn't think it is a bike.
One of the bike groups wants to change the Utah ebike regulations in the next session. None of these groups really say what they want. In general, no one knows what is going on, or who is running the show. The California bill appeared out of nowhere. For a while, Pedego opposed it. It seems to work for the big companies.
If you plan to sell the speed pedelecs, the Stromer comes to mind, I don't know how much legal cover you need. The California categories at least define that ebike, while they separate Speed bikes from all other ebikes. All these laws seem to end up making it hard for anyone to enter the industry and just sell a few bikes. They seem to hurt the cheaper bikes, they may hurt kit bikes. It all seems a little corrupt.
It's hard to respect an industry where no one knows what is going on, what they really want to do. It's a small group, deciding everything. At least CPSC was wide open, and let people do a lot of things, up to the limits. Your approach is simple, but it seems to limit ebikes to 20 mph.
Good luck. Maybe you can fix things.
Chief Justice Waite in the case of the Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 629 a case closely paralleling Gibbons v. Ogden in other respects also. ''The powers thus granted are not confined to the instrumentalities of commerce, or the postal service known or in use when the Constitution was adopted, but they keep pace with the progress of the country, and adapt themselves to the new developments of times and circumstances. They extend from the horse with its rider to the stage-coach, from the sailing-vessel to the steamboat, from the coach and the steamboat to the railroad, and from the railroad to the telegraph, as these new agencies are successively brought into use to meet the demands of increasing population and wealth. They were intended for the government of the business to which they relate, at all times and under all circumstances. As they were intrusted to the general government for the good of the nation, it is not only the right, but the duty, of Congress to see to it that intercourse among the States and the transmission of intelligence are not obstructed or unnecessarily encumbered by State legislation. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation28.html#sthash.KRssoH3l.dpuf
http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation28.html
So, yeah they should respect the Federal attempt to define the ebike throughout the country, with one simple set of rules.
On the other hand, if the California Bill passes, the industry is basically saying they want 20+ mph ebikes. I don't know if anyone can rely on an interpretation of the CPSC rules to make the 28 mph pedelecs legal as bikes. No reasonable analysis seems to support the speed pedelec as a bike. Haibike doesn't think it is a bike.
One of the bike groups wants to change the Utah ebike regulations in the next session. None of these groups really say what they want. In general, no one knows what is going on, or who is running the show. The California bill appeared out of nowhere. For a while, Pedego opposed it. It seems to work for the big companies.
If you plan to sell the speed pedelecs, the Stromer comes to mind, I don't know how much legal cover you need. The California categories at least define that ebike, while they separate Speed bikes from all other ebikes. All these laws seem to end up making it hard for anyone to enter the industry and just sell a few bikes. They seem to hurt the cheaper bikes, they may hurt kit bikes. It all seems a little corrupt.
It's hard to respect an industry where no one knows what is going on, what they really want to do. It's a small group, deciding everything. At least CPSC was wide open, and let people do a lot of things, up to the limits. Your approach is simple, but it seems to limit ebikes to 20 mph.
Good luck. Maybe you can fix things.
