People for Bikes: Progress on Ebike Laws in the US

[6zfshdb]

The push here in the US to go "all electric" offers some protection to the manufacturers of these high powered bikes when used on roads. Unfortunately, these bikes only serve to increase anti e-bike regulations on MUPs & trails.

 

[JRA]

What is Class 3+? I have never seen any actual federal or state regulations regarding it?

The SurRons (sic) in reality has nothing to do with eBikes other than they are lumped into our category as they have no pedals which makes them eMoto's by regulation or at best a MoPed, although once more they lack pedals. Even the Super 73 (sic) scooter type things that have pedals only really have them as a nod towards legitimacy as an eBike IMNSHO and at best fit into the Class II regs as long as they can't exceed 20 mph. These types of e transport are what are blurring the lines and thus the governments and general public's perception of eBikes and will ultimately retard their real value as a legal mode of transportaion and as a tool for recreation.

 

[None]

I commute on my ebikes & regular bicycles in NYC metro for the last fifteen years.
I don't stop at every stop sign or red light, I try to get across intersections as quickly as I can to avoid accidents (because most accidents occur at intersections).
Drivers get angry at me for running red light when they are clearly far away enough that I can get through the intersection safely without them having to brake their vehicle.

Of Course a Rolling 'Idaho Stop' Is Safer for Cyclists. Here's Why.

Streets are safer when there is common understanding. So why aren't there more laws allowing cyclists to roll through stop signs?

velo.outsideonline.com

 

[harryS]

I am wondering if any one using a ebike ever had a issue on a Indiana or Michigan trail ? I did some reading and the laws were not very clear.

I was up in Charlyvoo last May. Had visions of endless miles riding along the Lake Michigan coast, but the reality is most of it is private land. A mile or two in a State park is as good as it got. Anyway, we had class 2 ebikes, and I believe it's still no throttles on paths, No one cares though. Didn't see any behemoth 26" fat bikes. Lots of 20 inchers.

 

[Dewey]

Some changes may be coming to the ebike 3-class system if state bill SB 1271 is adopted in California https://www.bicycleretailer.com/ind...s-class-1-and-3-electric-bikes-closer-passage

• Requiring future Class 3 ebikes to not be fitted with throttles.
• Adding EN 15194 as an acceptable testing standard alternative to UL is a good idea, many reputable brands have done the former but not the latter.
• Redefining "accredited laboratory" to include ISO-17025 certified labs is a means to validate those brands that have used the ACT Lab or other non-NRTL's to do UL or EN electrical safety compliance testing.
• Removing the phrase "continuous rated power" from the 750w motor rating definition and defining a hard 750w power upper limit will require controller current reprogramming for future 500w and 750w 48v/52v systems to be in compliance. A 750w hard power limit would be difficult to enforce.

 

[Fire_Safety]

Dear Dewey,

Have you studied the EN and UL standards? If not how would you know what’s actually addressing the product safety of an e-bike or its battery? Many of the fires from e-bikes around USA or globally are from EN compliant e-bikes. EN ebike and related standards are not as robust as electrical system safety standards. They also have not had proper USA stakeholder involvement. Taking standards from other countries and applying it to USA market doesn’t represent the USA stakeholders. If we should apply the logic of taking foreign standards and applying them in markets that have not assessed for themselves is like saying we’d follow laws/norms from another country rather than laws/norms in the country we reside in. It’s also important to note UL standards are American National Standard Institute (ANSI) accredited, which means they have earned the recognition as being applicable in United States by the head authority of standards in the country. EN standards are not.

On the topic of testing labs and certification organizations, does anyone ever recommend to go to a massage therapist to fix a fused spine or a torn ligament? Typically the latter ailments require a doctor and a specialized one for better chance of recovery. Similarly going to a test lab to assess product compliance is not qualified other than doing testing, the rest of the condition of the system like the materials used, design principles, applicability of components used, evaluation of the electrical circuits, etc. are not assessed at all. How can a product be deemed compliant by a test laboratory when the other elements of the safety standard are not evaluated/checked? Certification organizations exist for a reason for over 100 years and it goes well beyond testing that determines whether a product is compliant. Also certification organizations are accredited as well to ISO 17065 which is much more stringent then ISO 17025 test lab accreditation. Generally certification organizations have both accreditations while test labs only have the latter.

Finally certified products from a certification organization requires ongoing factory inspection (the various schemes are documented in ISO 17067) to ensure the product that was certified continues to be made with its safety features intact on the production line. A compliant product to EN or even UL standard by a testing lab will not perform the ongoing factory audits to ensure the ongoing production continues to have compliant products.

I hope that future laws take more considerations and understanding of the differences between UL and EN standards as well as testing and certifying. Putting all the terms together does not help public safety at all.

 

[m@Robertson]

In SB1271:
26302. (a) and (b) would obliterate the entire ebike rental industry in the state until they replaced their existing fleets with compliant batteries. Realistically that means new bikes, not just new batteries. The same goes for all existing product in the retail sales channel but the industry that will be hurt the worst will be rentals where an investment has already been made and is expected to last for the life of the product. There is a theoretical alternative that the subjected industries could test their batteries to achieve certification and compliance but that seems unlikely in the extreme.

EDIT: whoops. The 750w absolute power limit means the whole bike is out the window.

I'm just scratching the surface here. There's more but, bottom-line: This isn't going to happen as-written based on its effect on existing small businesses (especially in the absence of the kind of disastrous safety culture that hasn't been demonstrated to exist here in this state... I'm thinking NYC).

Oh and also not even 250w EU motors adhere to a 750w absolute power limit. This would wipe out the ebike industry by giving people the power that the words on the motor advertise. Once they realize how little that is, sales will disappear, and so will a regulation like this once popular opinion makes itself known. The toothpaste is already out of the tube on this subject and attempts to reverse that will fail.

Also, every single ebike that has been sold to date will no longer be an ebike (see 312.5(d)(2)). I could have skipped everything I wrote up to this point and stuck with that. Not happening.

 

[BEC111]

Very interesting and informative discussion. It would seem that the current solution to Ebike regulation is to assemble panels of people who don’t ride bikes of any type, rarely walk further than from their cars through the store (or wherever) and are not comfortable with the present, let alone the future.

 

[Dewey]

I hope that future laws take more considerations and understanding of the differences between UL and EN standards as well as testing and certifying. Putting all the terms together does not help public safety at all.

Respectfully you are writing from the position of an employee of UL Solutions. I approach this from the position of an American consumer, and IMO there is nothing untoward with the US accepting internationally recognized electrical safety standards. You have to be realistic about the time and resources it will take for brands to get into UL compliance, otherwise you get the absurd situation in New York City where Class 1 ebikes from reputable brands, including Brompton, Dahon, and Montague, cannot be sold there because they are certified to meet international electrical safety regulations listed in EN 15194 but not UL 2849. To be clear I am not anti-UL and I appreciate the work you do, but as you noted a contributor to the problem is white label dangerous imports from China not built to meet any sort of safety standards. UL should partner with People for Bikes and lobby Congress to lower the $800 tariff exception that encourages the problem bikes to be imported to the US

 

[JRA]

I wonder if Larry Pizzi will continue as an advocate for eBikes not that he is being phased out of ACCEL's operations? I suppose he will continue on with PFB but how much industry support will they have going forward as the industry as a whole seems to be pulling back some after the Covid bloom that it experienced?

Regardless of what the gov't does to put laws in effect to control eBikes going forward as far as I can see the main culprits are the SurRon and Super 73 type bikes that are gaining the most negative attention and as they have marketed them in the past as "eBikes" it is now causing the effect of the types of laws that focus on getting rid of them? Typical reaction of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by the powers that be......

 

[m@Robertson]

Very interesting and informative discussion. It would seem that the current solution to Ebike regulation is to assemble panels of people who don’t ride bikes of any type, rarely walk further than from their cars through the store (or wherever) and are not comfortable with the present, let alone the future.

That sums up ebike regulatory practice completely and succinctly.

 

[Dewey]

... not even 250w EU motors adhere to a 750w absolute power limit. This would wipe out the ebike industry by giving people the power that the words on the motor advertise. Once they realize how little that is, sales will disappear, and so will a regulation like this once popular opinion makes itself known. The toothpaste is already out of the tube on this subject and attempts to reverse that will fail.

Also, every single ebike that has been sold to date will no longer be an ebike (see 312.5(d)(2)).

Yes, I was reading social media posts from concerned cargo bike riders in California about SB 1271. I reprogrammed a 36v BBS01 controller to 20a so 720w peak power, and that was enough for me to tow a loaded weehoo trailer up hill, but my current daily rider is a 48v Class 2 RadExpand that I believe has an 18a controller setting that I cannot change. As you say most current ebikes would fall outside a 750w peak limit.

 

[Fire_Safety]

Thank you Dewey for your explanation.

Advocating for the American National Standard Institute’s accredited United States safety standards should be clear as to why that would be in USA Citizens best interest. Otherwise why even have national consensus standards that take years to reach publication? So much contributions came from multiple stakeholder groups across United States to develop the safety standards for micromobility and have them be accredited by ANSI. Should that be ignored?

Also, in a product liability case, would it hold up in court that a product was only safety tested to a European standard instead safety certified to a US standard? CPSC have gone on record multiple times urging all manufacturers, distributors, importers, and retailers to be compliant. It’s not hard to pull up public statements in that regard for anyone to quote.

I do agree wholeheartedly with you dangerous goods should have had safety regulations from the start. Anything with a lithium battery is a dangerous good by United Nations definitions. All lithium powered products across the board, whether for micromobility applications, consumer electronics, appliances, etc. should all be required to be 3rd party safety certified. I am advocating for reducing risk of fire, explosion, & electric shock.

 

[Dewey]

...why even have national consensus standards that take years to reach publication? So much contributions came from multiple stakeholder groups across United States to develop the safety standards for micromobility and have them be accredited by ANSI. Should that be ignored?

No, but the solution to the e-bike fire safety problem is multi-factorial. UL compliance is one of several issues that need to be addressed, including:

• Congress should lower the $800 de minimis value encouraging direct-to-consumer retailers to sell e-bikes and lithium-ion batteries without certificates of conformity.
• The CPSC may require brands & their contract manufacturers comply with safety standards for batteries. There is a bipartisan bill about this in the senate which is being stalled by a senator who has a political beef with the CPSC.
• City governments could build more secure parking/charging infrastructure like 'Oonee pods' or mandate EV charging stations must also have a 110v outlet.
• City governments could amend and enforce the occupational safety regs on the books to require food industry improve access to safety equipment or subsidize initiatives that encourage and educate deliveristas to purchase safe batteries and follow safe charging practices.

 

[Roamers]

I approach this from the position of an American consumer, and IMO there is nothing untoward with the US accepting internationally recognized electrical safety standards.

My standards experience is with another product, but will apply to ebikes.

My preference is to follow ISO standards since there is input from worldwide stakeholders. I don't know if ISO/TS 1420 will go to non-TS status or how it compares to the EN standards. In my old industry, the EN standards were ISO standard based, with tweaks to change wording when Europeans didn't get their way.

From a product liability perspective, it would be foolish not to follow applicable UL standards for products sold in the US.

 

[BEC111]

A parallel observation:

Do you think meeting standards might result in more standardized battery and charger designs? I thinking about an increased amount of interchangeability between bikes in a brand and perhaps even between brands? For example the EV car standardization on Tesla charger compatability.

Would the drive towards competitive advantage preclude cross-brand compatibility or would that compatibility enable lower prices among at least the mid and low end of the market.

 

[Roamers]

Do you think meeting standards might result in more standardized battery and charger designs?

There needs to be a group that wants standardization for that type of standard to be written.

 

[tomjasz]

To regulators
Mind your own damn business. And yes I’m a Minnesnowtan.