People for Bikes: Progress on Ebike Laws in the US

[Asher]

The eMotorcycle industry has really abused the definition of eBikes. We really need to see Type 1 laws back in line with EU standards. US biking advocates would like to see European levels of cycling but insist on reinventing the wheel.

A Type 1, an eBike intended to provide assist, should not produce more power than a club level Rider. Assist is not doing the entire job for you, it's doing a portion of the work. 250 watts is enough to do 100% work (about what a non-team rider puts out) and yet our laws says it's 3 times that. Watch the GCN shootout between a very fit cyclist on a high end road bike vs an MTN eBike climbing an mountain in the French Alps. The road bike that won was fitted with power meters thereby providing great data on human power. The rider put out 280 watts, so to match him on my 250 watt eBike I'd need to put out 30 watts. That's very little work on my part.

Classifying Type 1 as assist only and then letting it be 750 watts (a full horsepower) added to the expected human power is exactly why eBikes get banned. The total is approaching 4 times the power of the cyclist that get told to slow down on 15 MPH mixed use trails.

The extremes of the debate are pretty consistent - on one end, it's some guy like Phil for whom cars don't even enter his mind, and e-biking is some weird race between random people on bikes that no one signed up for. And on the other, some speed demon who objects to the very concept of speed limits on any vehicle, let alone a bike that tops out anyway at 20-40 mph.

The EU and US laws both make sense roughly, given the state of biking on their respective streets. There's some room for improvement - higher power limits on Class 3 along with minimum requirements on lighting and brakes, a la European rules.

 

[BEC111]

The extremes of the debate are pretty consistent - on one end, it's some guy like Phil for whom cars don't even enter his mind, and e-biking is some weird race between random people on bikes that no one signed up for. And on the other, some speed demon who objects to the very concept of speed limits on any vehicle, let alone a bike that tops out anyway at 20-40 mph.

The EU and US laws both make sense roughly, given the state of biking on their respective streets. There's some room for improvement - higher power limits on Class 3 along with minimum requirements on lighting and brakes, a la European rules.

Wait, do you mean that rational, practical rules should exist for the mutual benefit of riders, drivers and walkers? What a concept.

 

[Ken M]

I really hope People for Bikes takes a step back and looks at the regulatory landscape and realize their 3-class model legislation is anything but. If they would have ignored the lobby money to harmonize with Europe for better economies of scale and just emphasized the Dr. Currie definition passed in HR727 in 2002 and just encouraged the states to formally use that just as any traditional bike via the existing traffic laws covering bikes everything would be a whole lot easier for riders and any enforcement effort.

Does anyone think that class stickers are ever going to work for enforcement given that there are multi-mode ebikes now being sold? I tried to talk to People for Bikes but they are so firm on their position which is really sad given they need to be more about bikes and less about lobby money.

 

[Asher]

I really hope People for Bikes takes a step back and looks at the regulatory landscape and realize their 3-class model legislation is anything but. If they would have ignored the lobby money to harmonize with Europe for better economies of scale and just emphasized the Dr. Currie definition passed in HR727 in 2002 and just encouraged the states to formally use that just as any traditional bike via the existing traffic laws covering bikes everything would be a whole lot easier for riders and any enforcement effort.

Does anyone think that class stickers are ever going to work for enforcement given that there are multi-mode ebikes now being sold? I tried to talk to People for Bikes but they are so firm on their position which is really sad given they need to be more about bikes and less about lobby money.

I used to think like you but I've moderated my thoughts.

1. Changing speed limits up and down isn't a few notches from 15 to 20 mph really isn't hard or costly.
2. American utility cycling is often faster anyway because it's less concentrated in dense slow bike lanes.
3. No one is enforcing the laws anyway. I contacted the feds about a company marketing motorcycles in bike lanes with no license required and they have taken months to decide nothing, and state officials said talk to the feds even though they're violating state laws.


All that said, there are some problems:
1. 750W is pretty limiting for a 28 mph top speed for wind, hills and cargo. EU law is more permissive with s pedelecs. But the CPSC is the authority here, limiting bikes to 750W. Harmonizing with the EU spec of ~4kw would help, for class 3 only.
2. Class 3 has no vehicle weight limit. I don't want Motos in the bike lane. Something like an 80-100 lb limit

It is interesting that our Class 3 is much more accessible and we haven't seen a huge wave of crashes. Maybe it's not being tracked well, maybe there are few riders, but something to monitor over time vs EU.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

1. 750W is pretty limiting for a 28 mph top speed for wind, hills and cargo. EU law is more permissive with s pedelecs. But the CPSC is the authority here, limiting bikes to 750W. Harmonizing with the EU spec of ~4kw would help, for class 3 only.

There is no manufactured EU L1e-B class e-bike (a.k.a. S-Pedelec) that is more powerful than 250 W (nominal). Yes, you could probably buy an e-moped fitting these criteria but I need to find one type-approved here yet. (A 4 kW L1e-B exists only on paper. A manufacturer should get the type-approval first, and that is hard).

 

[Ken M]

Wait, do you mean that rational, practical rules should exist for the mutual benefit of riders, drivers and walkers? What a concept.

I rode over 6,000 one year on my ebike and I can honestly say that whenever I had a incident with a walker it was because they didn't think any bike should be on the surface they were walking on. Both times they did everything they could to block me from riding by. One time I just stopped as they were walking on the sidewalk against traffic flow and also on the opposite side of the sidewalk that would allow bike riders by on their left or the right side of the sidewalk. I stopped on the right side and they walked up and stood there and I said we can sit here all day or you can get on your side of the sidewalk and allow me to go by.

I'm all for traffic rules that help keep riders and walkers safe but it makes no sense to limit a low speed electric bike to 20mph via a cease of assist when the aerodynamic drag pretty must takes it toll in the 20-30mph range anyway so creating to classes (one at 20 and one at 28 is just technically as stupid as you can get when a 5% downhill will allow both these ebikes to exceed 30mph without any motor assist.

The bottom like is that most riders are very safe and respectful so the 3-class system adds no value but more confusion that makes enforcement virtually impossible. At least if we just used the CPSC 1512 definition as the same as a traditional bike it would be easy to keep a log of the compliant OEM bikes and it's actually very easy to assess the drive system parameters of illegal bikes but few are going to bother if the CPSC definition is used universally.

I'm going to remind EVERYONE ... the 3-class system was not about improving safety or clarifying any abiguity of the federal definition...it's was 100% to harmonize with the EU market for economies of scale (not really a good reason if we want urban ebike mobility in this country to flourish in the US / North America). Bosch wanted to keep low cost cheap hub motors out of Europe because they were putting a few $million into developing a mid drive and the EU legal limits dramatically favor mid drives vs hub drives but that is something that should be determined by the market. The US allowance for a 750W rating come close to leveling the playing field if the assist is limited per the federal definition as intended by Dr. Currie (the 3-class system is a non-nonsensical joke especially if you understand there is no tangible difference in the way power is applied via pedelec programming or a throttle.

I think people need to take a step back, think, and ensure they are not just being an echo chamber for those that are not thinking.

 

[Asher]

I rode over 6,000 one year on my ebike and I can honestly say that whenever I had a incident with a walker it was because they didn't think any bike should be on the surface they were walking on. Both times they did everything they could to block me from riding by. One time I just stopped as they were walking on the sidewalk against traffic flow and also on the opposite side of the sidewalk that would allow bike riders by on their left or the right side of the sidewalk. I stopped on the right side and they walked up and stood there and I said we can sit here all day or you can get on your side of the sidewalk and allow me to go by.

I'm all for traffic rules that help keep riders and walkers safe but it makes no sense to limit a low speed electric bike to 20mph via a cease of assist when the aerodynamic drag pretty must takes it toll in the 20-30mph range anyway so creating to classes (one at 20 and one at 28 is just technically as stupid as you can get when a 5% downhill will allow both these ebikes to exceed 30mph without any motor assist.

The bottom like is that most riders are very safe and respectful so the 3-class system adds no value but more confusion that makes enforcement virtually impossible. At least if we just used the CPSC 1512 definition as the same as a traditional bike it would be easy to keep a log of the compliant OEM bikes and it's actually very easy to assess the drive system parameters of illegal bikes but few are going to bother if the CPSC definition is used universally.

I'm going to remind EVERYONE ... the 3-class system was not about improving safety or clarifying any abiguity of the federal definition...it's was 100% to harmonize with the EU market for economies of scale (not really a good reason if we want urban ebike mobility in this country to flourish in the US / North America). Bosch wanted to keep low cost cheap hub motors out of Europe because they were putting a few $million into developing a mid drive and the EU legal limits dramatically favor mid drives vs hub drives but that is something that should be determined by the market. The US allowance for a 750W rating come close to leveling the playing field if the assist is limited per the federal definition as intended by Dr. Currie (the 3-class system is a non-nonsensical joke especially if you understand there is no tangible difference in the way power is applied via pedelec programming or a throttle.

I think people need to take a step back, think, and ensure they are not just being an echo chamber for those that are not thinking.

So the class system is a Bosch/industry conspiracy to keep cheap chinese hubs out but at the same time the 750 watt limit let's them in? Lolwat... This is incoherent.

As is your understanding of safety. By your argument, a slice of swiss cheese doesn't really exist because it has holes in it.

When ebikes can exceed their speed limit when going downhill... Analog bikes can too. So there is less of a risk of different bikes going very different speeds.

If aerodynamics takes care of ebikes going 30+ mph... Why do you care that they're speed limited at nearly 30 anyway?

I agree that the 28 speed limit is dumb, but it was probably also picked to get around license requirements for mopeds which go 30 mph. Flipping a switch from 28 to 30 wouldn't be hard, and 30 is compatible with a system that uses increments of 5 in Imperial units.

 

[J.R.]

I've been unhappy with some of the regs in the 3 Class law since it was first written in 2015. The law never included trails or paths and when we had a ban on ebikes in off road venues here in PA, we asked PFB for assistance in getting them approved for mtb trails and bike paths. People do use rail trails and paths for commuting, not just recreation. They told us they didn't have any resources to help us. They won't get involved with off road use. There are other things I don't like about the law.

That said, the 3 Class law is the reason many trails and paths have opened for ebike use. Whether its enforceable or not, lawmakers and regulators are opening up off road venues to Class 1 ebikes. The government reps we worked with explicitly said they would never allow throttles or ebikes capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. 15 mph speed limits are very common on trails and paths, most often published in park regulations and/or on message boards at trailheads. I've only seen actual speed limit signs a couple of times. For these lawmakers and regulators the class restrictions give them cover to the general public. They can show taxpayers that the 'scary ebikes' are not allowed. A game of give and take.

Educating the general public is key to acceptance. My county has about 6000 acres of county parkland and forests with many trails. Thousands of acres of state parkland and forests. The parks department director, who spent more than 40 years in the department, was dead-set against ebikes. We worked with them for about a year, setting up test rides. They lifted the ban on Class 1 ebikes. She retired in 2020 and in an interview with the newspaper she mentioned 4 achievements, one of the 4 is ebikes on the trails That article shocked me! Education can work. When you're going through the process it feels painfully slow and I had no sense we were getting anywhere. Turned out rational people acted rationally. I will not be surprised to see the former director riding her ebike on the rail trail one day

 

[Ken M]

So the class system is a Bosch/industry conspiracy to keep cheap chinese hubs out but at the same time the 750 watt limit let's them in? Lolwat... This is incoherent.

As is your understanding of safety. By your argument, a slice of swiss cheese doesn't really exist because it has holes in it.

When ebikes can exceed their speed limit when going downhill... Analog bikes can too. So there is less of a risk of different bikes going very different speeds.

If aerodynamics takes care of ebikes going 30+ mph... Why do you care that they're speed limited at nearly 30 anyway?

I agree that the 28 speed limit is dumb, but it was probably also picked to get around license requirements for mopeds which go 30 mph. Flipping a switch from 28 to 30 wouldn't be hard, and 30 is compatible with a system that uses increments of 5 in Imperial units.

The EU limit at 250W was intended to impact low cost hub motors. They would like to have have harmonized with the US at that level but the federal definition was written and federally approved so long ago they understood that was not going to happen. This is not incoherent....just needs to be followed.

Not sure I understand the swiss cheese analogy. I fully support some mixed-us paths having speed limits. I just don't understand the cease of assist given the dynamic power being limited to what would sustain 20mph. If you run simulations that provides from 250-350W (bike type aerodynamics and other test conditions are involved) which quickly gets negated given the exponential impact of aerodynmics above 20mph (a rider doubling that power is going to achieve about 25mph so you can see why speed pedelecs at 28mph are more about rider capability than drive system and that is mentioned many times by Court in his reviews of speed pedelecs).

The reason I don't like the cease of assist at 20mph is because it's too slow and many good road bike riders cruise at faster speeds under their own power for long distances. That is just a fact. The upper 28mph assist limit isn't really needed so long as power above 20mph is limited to what will sustain 20mph for a 170lb rider on flat surface. Dr. Currie wrote the federal definition kind of strangely but on close technical examination is was really quite brilliant.

A moped providing 100% of the power needed to go 30mph or faster is nothing like an ebike. Strangely I ended up riding an ebike much more frequently after trying a couple emopeds (one would get to about 28mph on flats and one about 33mph. I found both very scary to ride in traffic because cars would want by all the time. I would not want a moped that could not sustain less than around 45mph just to feel somewhat safe sharing the street with cars.

 

[Ken M]

I've been unhappy with some of the regs in the 3 Class law since it was first written in 2015. The law never included trails or paths and when we had a ban on ebikes in off road venues here in PA, we asked PFB for assistance in getting them approved for mtb trails and bike paths. People do use rail trails and paths for commuting, not just recreation. They told us they didn't have any resources to help us. They won't get involved with off road use. There are other things I don't like about the law.

That said, the 3 Class law is the reason many trails and paths have opened for ebike use. Whether its enforceable or not, lawmakers and regulators are opening up off road venues to Class 1 ebikes. The government reps we worked with explicitly said they would never allow throttles or ebikes capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. 15 mph speed limits are very common on trails and paths, most often published in park regulations and/or on message boards at trailheads. I've only seen actual speed limit signs a couple of times. For these lawmakers and regulators the class restrictions give them cover to the general public. They can show taxpayers that the 'scary ebikes' are not allowed. A game of give and take.

Educating the general public is key to acceptance. My county has about 6000 acres of county parkland and forests with many trails. Thousands of acres of state parkland and forests. The parks department director, who spent more than 40 years in the department, was dead-set against ebikes. We worked with them for about a year, setting up test rides. They lifted the ban on Class 1 ebikes. She retired in 2020 and in an interview with the newspaper she mentioned 4 achievements, one of the 4 is ebikes on the trails That article shocked me! Education can work. When you're going through the process it feels painfully slow and I had no sense we were getting anywhere. Turned out rational people acted rationally. I will not be surprised to see the former director riding her ebike on the rail trail one day

You bring up one of the big issues with the 3-class system. If someone owns a class 3 ebike and has a commute that requires the use of mix trails and paths then in theory they would be riding illegally even if never going above the actual speed limit of the path. While maybe some riders of non-ebikes are going faster .... legally.

I do agree 100% with the idea the education makes are huge difference in peoples perception of ebikes.

I would not be so concerned about the 3-class system if I didn't feel it was actually going to have a negative impact on the potential of ebikes becoming a fantastic urban mobility solution. If anyone spends the time really comprehending the federal definition that Dr. Currie wrote they would understand he understood the technology and had a vision as well. Would anyone say the same about the 3-class system that originated because the EU wanted our market harmonized for economies of scale (that is not about the usefulness of ebikes that is about how much money a few select companies may make from the harmonized market).

 

[J.R.]

You bring up one of the big issues with the 3-class system. If someone owns a class 3 ebike and has a commute that requires the use of mix trails and paths then in theory they would be riding illegally even if never going above the actual speed limit of the path. While maybe some riders of non-ebikes are going faster .... legally.

I do agree 100% with the idea the education makes are huge difference in peoples perception of ebikes.

I would not be so concerned about the 3-class system if I didn't feel it was actually going to have a negative impact on the potential of ebikes becoming a fantastic urban mobility solution. If anyone spends the time really comprehending the federal definition that Dr. Currie wrote they would understand he understood the technology and had a vision as well. Would anyone say the same about the 3-class system that originated because the EU wanted our market harmonized for economies of scale (that is not about the usefulness of ebikes that is about how much money a few select companies may make from the harmonized market).

References are really helpful in following this deep topic. Malcolm Currie PhD personally hired Larry Pizzi in 2002 and when Malcolm retired Larry was chosen to take over. Larry probably knows Malcolm's vision better than anyone else in the industry. Larry spearheaded the 3 Class law.

LA Designer: IZIP’s Larry Pizzi and Daniel Shiau

Ask a hardcore cyclist about eBikes and he or she will likely be dismissive. But the electric motor-assisted bicycle is coming into its own. One of the Southland manufacturers that…

www.kcrw.com

As for how much power a cyclist can generate, a pro can generate 400 watts for an hour. He might have slight bursts of greater power, but can't maintain it. An average adult, of average fitness can generate 50 to 150 watts for an hour while cycling.

A 250 watt Euro spec ebike peaks between 500 and 600 watts. So an average adult ebike rider, with average skills has greater power and speed than a fit, experienced pro cyclist.

What is a good average wattage cycling?

QUESTION: I’ve been uploading my rides to Strava for a while now and it gives me estimated wattage, but it’s unclear to me if those numbers are any good or not compared to other riders. I’m doing ok with my times on some local segments, but what’s a good average wattage cycling in general? — […]

www.roadbikerider.com

Human power - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Asher]

The EU lim

The reason I don't like the cease of assist at 20mph is because it's too slow and many good road bike riders cruise at faster speeds under their own power for long distances. That is just a fact. The upper 28mph assist limit isn't really needed so long as power above 20mph is limited to what will sustain 20mph for a 170lb rider on flat surface. Dr. Currie wrote the federal definition kind of strangely but on close technical examination is was really quite brilliant.

A moped providing 100% of the power needed to go 30mph or faster is nothing like an ebike. Strangely I ended up riding an ebike much more frequently after trying a couple emopeds (one would get to about 28mph on flats and one about 33mph. I found both very scary to ride in traffic because cars would want by all the time. I would not want a moped that could not sustain less than around 45mph just to feel somewhat safe sharing the street with cars.

I agree about the 20 mph limit, it's just it's mostly an academic matter with zero enforcement currently in the US.

FWIW the newcomer ebike brand lobby published this new policy paper recently [1]. They make clear that the incumbent bike industry takes issue with their stance on abandoning power limits and pedaling requirements.

One the one hand, I wouldn't want people making bike lanes dangerous by riding recklessly fast in them. On the other, there's really little reason to deny someone access to the bike lane because they're on an electric kick scooter. But policy is being written at the behest of a bike industry whose interests don't always overlap with the public's. And more specifically, laws based around what a human can or cannot achieve unaided are pseudoscience - they have the ring of scientific authority but aren't actually relevant to the primary issues, of what's safe, healthy and economical for everyone and every context. Speed, weight and size are the big factors there. Making someone go slow because they're legs are weak has no sound basis in the public good.

The 28 mph limit for street bike lanes is a reasonable solution for the US and suburban Europe/urban European car lanes, it's just that it has a power limit when it shouldnt, and lacks a weight limit when it should have one. Of course, more weight requires more power so it's not entirely unaddressed, but no one is enforcing this stuff.

Also by law California allows any size moped/motor scooter in the bike lane if it's electrically powered and capped at 30 mph, 3000w. That might work if it had a 100 lb weight limit, but it doesn't.


[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/np08tsxmvrdaynw/LEVA-EU Position Review Type-Approval - Final.pdf?dl=0

 

[AndyZed]

I know there's a lot of bait and switch going on. "Here's the 250 watt model we advertise, can we sell you the battery upgrade?" And with that the Canadian sourced Bangfung mid-drive became 350-400 watts. It is still faster, lighter, and has much longer range than the majority of the eBikes. This particular eMTB, like my gravel eBike, has a complete drive disconnect clutch. When off there's no additional rolling resistance over a normal bike. That means it can be ridden great distances off, just like my normal bike. 100KM or 63 miles event "off" is certainly doable using my gravel eBike. My new tires made a huge difference. I installed Continental Grand Prix 5000 TLs (28cm front / 32 cm rear). Coasting I've caught and could have passed a friend who annually rides the paris roubaix cycling race.

I met an eBike owner last week from the other end of the scale (on rolling resistance) who wished they'd add regenerative braking. A rolling bicycle stores kinetic energy and any attempt to recapture that as battery charge always fails do to conversation losses. I didn't want to ask but I bet his eBike has walk assist, a feature added to mask how bad it rolls and how overweight it's become compared to a normal bike.

eBikes start at 24 pounds and go up to 31 pounds for decent road eBikes. If they weigh much more than that then the designer feels like he must try to conceal the weight. I should really weigh mine, I'm sure I've added too much. 36-37 would be my guess.

I just weighed my new Cannondale synapse neo set up as my new commute bike. It weighed in at 44 pounds fully dressed (39.5lbs bare) I easily ride this bike over the 20mph limit on flats and forget about downhill. It's definitely not my 22lb road bike, but it helps me commute by bike more consistently.

 

[Ken M]

I agree about the 20 mph limit, it's just it's mostly an academic matter with zero enforcement currently in the US.

FWIW the newcomer ebike brand lobby published this new policy paper recently [1]. They make clear that the incumbent bike industry takes issue with their stance on abandoning power limits and pedaling requirements.

One the one hand, I wouldn't want people making bike lanes dangerous by riding recklessly fast in them. On the other, there's really little reason to deny someone access to the bike lane because they're on an electric kick scooter. But policy is being written at the behest of a bike industry whose interests don't always overlap with the public's. And more specifically, laws based around what a human can or cannot achieve unaided are pseudoscience - they have the ring of scientific authority but aren't actually relevant to the primary issues, of what's safe, healthy and economical for everyone and every context. Speed, weight and size are the big factors there. Making someone go slow because they're legs are weak has no sound basis in the public good.

The 28 mph limit for street bike lanes is a reasonable solution for the US and suburban Europe/urban European car lanes, it's just that it has a power limit when it shouldnt, and lacks a weight limit when it should have one. Of course, more weight requires more power so it's not entirely unaddressed, but no one is enforcing this stuff.

Also by law California allows any size moped/motor scooter in the bike lane if it's electrically powered and capped at 30 mph, 3000w. That might work if it had a 100 lb weight limit, but it doesn't.


[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/np08tsxmvrdaynw/LEVA-EU Position Review Type-Approval - Final.pdf?dl=0

There is a power limit inherent in the federal definition (no more power past 20mph than would sustain 170lb rider at 20mph).

If you have every ridden a cadence pedelec that is just an on/off for the assist I would think the incumbent bike industry would see that as a much bigger no/no than an throttle that has incremental control of the assist. I have no clue why there is this perception there is really a different in how 750W (the power of your average toaster) behaves overall whether a pedal-assist or a throttle-assist.

 

[Asher]

There is a power limit inherent in the federal definition (no more power past 20mph than would sustain 170lb rider at 20mph).

If you have every ridden a cadence pedelec that is just an on/off for the assist I would think the incumbent bike industry would see that as a much bigger no/no than an throttle that has incremental control of the assist. I have no clue why there is this perception there is really a different in how 750W (the power of your average toaster) behaves overall whether a pedal-assist or a throttle-assist.

I don't get your point about the power limit - there's an explicit one of 750 w anyway.

As for a throttle assist, that's already legal, as evidenced by Vanmoof. A full throttle, as in a lever that doesn't require pedaling to spin the wheels, is seen as a threat to the bike industry because it makes the whole drivetrain irrelevant if you don't actually want to pedal, and then you have a scooter/ motorcycle. For whatever reason, they've already firmly thrown in their lot with mid drives incompatible with throttles. Even with the success of the mini/scrambler style bikes (Juiced, Super73, Rad, Lectric), the big bike brands have passed on the trend. There's also the fear that throttles will elicit irresponsible riding on bike paths, though I think this exacerbated by vehicle weight - IME from light escooters to heavy Dutch mopeds on bike paths, rude riding and vehicle weight are correlated.

 

[Ken M]

I don't get your point about the power limit - there's an explicit one of 750 w anyway.

As for a throttle assist, that's already legal, as evidenced by Vanmoof. A full throttle, as in a lever that doesn't require pedaling to spin the wheels, is seen as a threat to the bike industry because it makes the whole drivetrain irrelevant if you don't actually want to pedal, and then you have a scooter/ motorcycle. For whatever reason, they've already firmly thrown in their lot with mid drives incompatible with throttles. Even with the success of the mini/scrambler style bikes (Juiced, Super73, Rad, Lectric), the big bike brands have passed on the trend. There's also the fear that throttles will elicit irresponsible riding on bike paths, though I think this exacerbated by vehicle weight - IME from light escooters to heavy Dutch mopeds on bike paths, rude riding and vehicle weight are correlated.

I think very few people really understand the technical way Dr. Currie wrote the federal definition. A motor rating of less than 750W (everyone doesn't even see the less than and thinks 750W is the limit) is not a power limit statement. A motor rating is fairly nebulous such that a 250W "rated motor" could probably take 1000W peak for say a few minutes .... this is why we see many bikes stating a peak drive system power that is above 750W and everyone scratches their head and wonders how can that be.

But that "rating" would have been too much above 20mph such that compliant low speed electric bicycles would never have been assigned to CPSC as a non-motorized vehicle. Keep in mind Dr. Currie had a Phd in electrical engineering so he just limited the dynamic power at 20mph to what would sustain 20mph which gets negated quickly above 20mph by aerodynamic drag - an average rider could add say 200W continuous and that would get them to maybe 24mph but they'd have to work to get to 28mph and really work hard to get over 30mph which is the top rider speeds on a road bike. He would have known all this (most people have no clue how power and speed relate).

If you want to really learn about "motor ratings" go to Grin Technologies website and read their technical information on this. My issue is that PFBs and the law makers most likely had no clue what the true interpretation of the federal definition was and why is actually was crystal clear and was intended to provide a huge utility value (ie more power below 20mph than the toy specs of the EU models).

I do not understand that you correlate rude riding with vehicle weight. I've seen rude road bike riders on sub 20lb road bikes.

One more comment. I understand the desire and merits of a pedal-assist but I found that there simply are programming shortfalls for urban riding (as I think many have experienced) such that have precise control of the assist level at all times via a throttle (I assume most riders using a throttle on an ebike are going to pedal unless really just wanting a leisurely ride) to be superior. I know the programmers all think they know exactly what assist someone wants in all situations but that is a pretty big ego that in reality doesn't deliver that.

 

[Asher]

I do not understand that you correlate rude riding with vehicle weight. I've seen rude road bike riders on sub 20lb road bikes.

One more comment. I understand the desire and merits of a pedal-assist but I found that there simply are programming shortfalls for urban riding (as I think many have experienced) such that have precise control of the assist level at all times via a throttle (I assume most riders using a throttle on an ebike are going to pedal unless really just wanting a leisurely ride) to be superior. I know the programmers all think they know exactly what assist someone wants in all situations but that is a pretty big ego that in reality doesn't deliver that.

Sure some roadies are rude and I wasn't referring to them, but roadies will always be a rather niche group, plus there's mutually assured destruction to crashing on a road bike. I rode in amsterdam briefly, where heavy slow mopeds (snorfiets) were allowed on bike paths, and the users would just mash the throttle all the time and power past people. Thankfully they were usually capped at 25 kph, but there was none of the mutual negotiation that occurs between riders on bikes. It's not something you'd predict, just something you notice in real time. Encountered similar phenomenon elsewhere.

Some people don't like to pedal, and prefer the throttle. Delivery guys in NYC seem to never pedal, because they're on their feet all day or because their bikes don't have pedal assist, it's not clear. I find throttles inferior for 90% of riding, but very handy for that other 10% - principally when doing a left turn against oncoming traffic (hard to pedal during a turn), starting from a stop, and if possible, getting a temporary power boost.

 

[Ken M]

Sure some roadies are rude and I wasn't referring to them, but roadies will always be a rather niche group, plus there's mutually assured destruction to crashing on a road bike. I rode in amsterdam briefly, where heavy slow mopeds (snorfiets) were allowed on bike paths, and the users would just mash the throttle all the time and power past people. Thankfully they were usually capped at 25 kph, but there was none of the mutual negotiation that occurs between riders on bikes. It's not something you'd predict, just something you notice in real time. Encountered similar phenomenon elsewhere.

Some people don't like to pedal, and prefer the throttle. Delivery guys in NYC seem to never pedal, because they're on their feet all day or because their bikes don't have pedal assist, it's not clear. I find throttles inferior for 90% of riding, but very handy for that other 10% - principally when doing a left turn against oncoming traffic (hard to pedal during a turn), starting from a stop, and if possible, getting a temporary power boost.

I understand. I had a very bad accident a couple years ago on ice and broke 3 cervical vertebrae. I'm pretty lucky to be walking and will hopefully return to riding this spring although everyone is telling me I can't have another crash or the outcome will be bad but I feel that I have to ride. I've been riding around the neighbor for the last year but not like the 30 miles a day I use to ride. I just hope people that ride recklessly realize just how fragile we are.

 

[Nutella]

The people who don't want ebikes on trails aren't dumb, and are pointing out the problems with the Class1-3 laws. I wish P4B had left well enough alone with the CPSA. Fair warning, it's almost 40 pages long, but they get right to it in the first few.

https://www.bcha.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/TWS-BCHA-et-al-Comments-on-BLM-Ebike-Rulemaking.pdf?fbclid=IwAR25fakvNC0JZxmIVa3PhUxgm2ArUtzRG43QwpMo4AZSnKhEquuZc9Tr_Dk

 

[Ken M]

I haven't commented in this thread for some time but the more I read on the regulations the more I realize how everyone is confused (maybe I am as well).

I notice people confusing the LSEB compliance definition as if it means nothing relative to usage. There is no reason that the federal LSEB definition needed any clarification for use by the states as many states (including Oregon with the highest ebike adoption rate still reference the federal definition as a bike for use).

The federal LSEB definition was just fine for defining the limits of perfomance to be considered a bike. There was no reason the states couldn't have just leveraged their bike traffic lays for use, but you'll read all kinds of claims that 3-class is the only reason any ebikes are allowed on trails. I guess if you drink enough koolaid you can actually convince yourself of that but that does not make it true.