In congested areas no bike rider should be flying thru the crowds. This is common sense yet you are using it as bad example of why there should be speed set assist limits which actually do not limit the top speed an ebike can travel.
Police - questioning the power rating of your E-bike? or Ticketing you?
- Thread starter Tom@WashDC
- Start date
Funny that I rode around 10,000 miles on my ebike in the Denver area over 2 years and not one time did I see an ebike or bike rider traveling at unsafe speeds for the conditions at that time. When people were on the sidewalk the rider went much slower or they went onto the street and rode with auto traffic. So many keep hinting that any ebike with an assist higher than 20mph is just too dangerous for the average rider. Well I haven't seen that to be true.
Awesome.
So that makes one really wonder.....why the need for all the regulations, laws and restrictions ?????
There was NO need. I beg everyone that reads these forums to review the 2002 HR727 federal law that defined a "low speed electric bicycle" (LSEB) as a non-motorized vehicle and carved out a sub-definition for them as bikes (even regulating the safety requirements the same as bike). This bill was essentially the law adopted (with few exceptions where some states had "motorized vehicle" status defined for ebikes but that was superseded by HR727) by all states and from 2002 till the beginning efforts by People for Bikes (taking lobby money from the largest car parts manufacturer in the world) in 2012-2014 to push the 3-class legislation. There was NO problems with LSEBs being "use" regulated as bikes by the states yet PFBs made all kinds of false claims that 3-class was needed for safety improvement and regulation clarity (how is 3 poorly defined classes better than 1 LSEB definition that was written by a PhD electrical engineer that knew exactly what he was trying to achieve for all us bikers.
If a compliant LSEB was still being use regulated as a bike (still is in the remaining states that have not adopted 3-class legislation and if they are smart they never will. They need to tell the spandexters at People for Bikes to just stay out of the state with 3-class garbage.
I recently had a phone conversation with the CPSC and they firmly believe that an LSEB is just a bike and that the 3-class ebikes are a separate product defined by the states (allowed) but that does not change the status of LSEBs are compliant for sale and use in all 50 states as bikes. Sadly the only way this can go from opinion to certainty is a court decision because they states feel they have the right to redefine what a bike is and what isn't. Note: State lawmakers have no clue how powerful the expressed preemptive clause in HR727 is (used less than 10 times in 15,000+ products regulated by the CPSC).
You will find a lot of guys on this forum that think regulation by class stickers is a great idea. They'll talk about how the class system gives them trail access they didn't have which is koolaid they were told to repeat. It's simply not true because compliant LSEBs were allowed on those trails they claim didn't allow motorized vehicles.
scottsdalecommuter
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
I just looked this up and found it interesting, low speed elec bike is 170 lb rider on 750W motor with pedals that can’t go more than 20mph on motor only. As an engineer who happens to be 170lb with this exact bike specs (aventon pace 500) I would agree this is a nice simple definition and anecdotally I feel quite safe riding under these conditions. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t feel in control over 22mph and in crowded areas go much slower and sometimes cut power for safety. Thanks for encouraging me to read that!
Actually that is not a speed/assist limit defined in HR727...it's a power limit. The motor alone can not provide more power above 20mph than will sustain 20mph (that provides a lot of design flexibility because motors and controllers vary in efficiency and the efficiency of bikes varies as well). Below 20mph the full rated 750W (which allows peak power to be higher) is permitted which makes great sense for utility and cargo bikes. I can only state my technical opinion that this was a well thought out definition for the future of ebikes but it's being attacked by those that think the 3-class legislation is better (it's not in any way and was drafted with mindset to neuter ebikes to remain recreation and leisure mainly and not be very attractive to getting more people out of cars). Don't ever be fooled that People for Bikes pushed 3-class legislation to have the best future for ebikes overall (they are not a bike advocacy organization in reality).
HR727 was passed into law in 2002 via a senate and house vote just one vote shy of total consensus yet most of the people that ride ebikes and talk about the regulations are not even aware it exists. What makes NO sense to me is that these were state representatives that voted on this federal law and then along comes People for Bikes pushing the states (with lobby money) to adopt the 3-class legislation that makes no sense whatsoever (as if the assist tech to 20mph makes sense for 2 classes and requiring class 3 ebikes with no throttle to be on the street or bike lanes on the street where all other vehicles have throttles or gas pedals - that is illogical in every way except if the goal was EU harmonization). For a minimum of 12 years there was no legit safety or state regulatory issue with HR727 so 3-class legislation was not needed whatsoever (who would think that enforcement via stickers was a step forward...c'mon).
The motor alone limit of 20mph with 170lb rider on level surface is clearly a power limit if critically thought about. Dr. Currie did not want to define and assist cut-off because in reality that is not how anyone applies power as a rider. Limiting power above 20mph to what sustains 20mph motor alone is a great way to ensure that ebikes pretty much remain in the speed range of regular bikes but advocates of the 3-class system fail to recognize the logic of the federal definition which made perfect sense for the states to just accept as bikes for USE regulations which had been around for over 70 years at the state level. An LSEB as a bike made great sense. I have talked with the lawyer that worked on HR727 for years to move ebikes/LSEBs away from NHTSA as a motor vehicle to the CPSC and he said the intent was that an LSEB be regulated as a bike per state use regulation (the states do not need to define a product already defined and regulated by the CPSC).
I want to re-emphasize that HR727 passed one vote short of congressional consensus ... pretty much unheard of consensus. So I ask why is there any need for the states to adopt a brain-dead multi-class system that can not be enforced and CPSC compliant LSEBs are still 100% legal for 1st sale in all 50 states? Why is that no matter how much myself or anyone else tries to engage with PFBs on a public discussion of their 3-class policy they will not engage. I'm for safety and common sense but 3-class legislation was a huge step backwards for ebikes.
Last edited:
mschwett
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
the more i think about this whole debate, the stranger - and stupider - it is.
16 CFR 1512 has long had a definition of "bicycle" for the purposes of establishing safety requirements around such vehicles. for example, they are required to have brakes; either rear only or front and rear. there are lots of other basic safety requirements, all falling under the federal hazardous substance act regulations. if a "bicycle" doesn't comply with these things, it's hazardous and not legal for sale or use in some context in the United States. "any bicycle offered for sale to consumers in disassembled or partially assembled condition shall meet these requirements..."
nowhere in the federal hazardous substance act, or part 1512 in particular (i actually read the whole thing!) does it say that a state, county, or city MUST allow bicycles anywhere at all. a very, very clear example of this is that many states permit riding bicycles on sidewalks, some do not, and most grant counties or cities the authority to forbid it. california, as a state, allows it, but san francisco as a city, does not. alabama, as a state, forbids it completely.
nobody rational has ever claimed that because the federal hazardous substance act defines what a "bicycle" is that it must be allowed to be ridden on sidewalks. or roads. or interstate highways. those three things are public infrastructure constructed and maintained by different jurisdictions which are each allowed to make their own decisions about safe use.
the addition of the low speed electric bicycle to 16 CFR 1512 does not change the ability of a state or county or city to limit the use of bicycles (or electric bicycles).
let's set all the curiously american questions about jurisdiction aside and look at it more practically. the federal definition doesn't specify any speed cutoff, only a maximum power for the motor ("less than 750 watts") and a maximum speed achievable through use of the motor alone ("maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph."). practically speaking, this means the motor is limited to between 175 and 300 watts in a steady state at 20mph. (300w for MTB tires, 205lb total load, upright seating position, 175w for road tires and riding on the drops.) let's just call it 300w.
cruising at 15mph, a bike under this definition has the same limits as a "class 1" ebike, which is also limited to 750w, and allowed to provide 750w of assist up to 20mph. the bike, on it's own power alone with the ride ghost pedaling, could take you up a 10% grade at 15mph. no difference at all between class 1 and "federal" bike. ditto flat ground at 19.5mph. you can ghost pedal and go 19.5mph on either bike.
it gets SLIGHTLY more interesting above 20mph. let's say i want to go 23mph. on a class 1 ebike, i have to do all that work myself: 415 watts for the upright position on the MTB tires, beyond the capability of most casual riders. the "federal" bike would continue to help me out with 300w and i have to supply 115, no problem. so i can go a little faster, but ONLY the amount faster that my own legs are capable of providing. a typical casual cyclist, not trying to get all sweaty is probably limited to around 150w, so we're talking about the difference between 300w and 450w. how much faster is that? ABOUT THREE POINT FIVE MILES PER HOUR. 450w gets you about 23.5mph. the federal bike gives us a whopping 3.5 additional miles per hour!
not too exciting. if only there was a definition which allowed MORE. oh wait - there is. the "class 3" ebike allows 750w of power to be delivered up to 28mph. i can now ghost pedal and go 28mph, which is meaningfully faster than 20mph. so, assuming you're a casual cyclist willing to put down around 150w while riding around town, it can be summarized like this:
class 1 eBike: 20mph max
federal eBike: 23.5mph max
class 3 eBike: 28mph max
i think the whole debate would be different if there was some federal law that said "all cities, counties and states must allow anything defined by federal regulations as a bicycle to be used anywhere." but there is no such law. and there never ever will be. why? the constitution. "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."
16 CFR 1512 has long had a definition of "bicycle" for the purposes of establishing safety requirements around such vehicles. for example, they are required to have brakes; either rear only or front and rear. there are lots of other basic safety requirements, all falling under the federal hazardous substance act regulations. if a "bicycle" doesn't comply with these things, it's hazardous and not legal for sale or use in some context in the United States. "any bicycle offered for sale to consumers in disassembled or partially assembled condition shall meet these requirements..."
nowhere in the federal hazardous substance act, or part 1512 in particular (i actually read the whole thing!) does it say that a state, county, or city MUST allow bicycles anywhere at all. a very, very clear example of this is that many states permit riding bicycles on sidewalks, some do not, and most grant counties or cities the authority to forbid it. california, as a state, allows it, but san francisco as a city, does not. alabama, as a state, forbids it completely.
nobody rational has ever claimed that because the federal hazardous substance act defines what a "bicycle" is that it must be allowed to be ridden on sidewalks. or roads. or interstate highways. those three things are public infrastructure constructed and maintained by different jurisdictions which are each allowed to make their own decisions about safe use.
the addition of the low speed electric bicycle to 16 CFR 1512 does not change the ability of a state or county or city to limit the use of bicycles (or electric bicycles).
let's set all the curiously american questions about jurisdiction aside and look at it more practically. the federal definition doesn't specify any speed cutoff, only a maximum power for the motor ("less than 750 watts") and a maximum speed achievable through use of the motor alone ("maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph."). practically speaking, this means the motor is limited to between 175 and 300 watts in a steady state at 20mph. (300w for MTB tires, 205lb total load, upright seating position, 175w for road tires and riding on the drops.) let's just call it 300w.
cruising at 15mph, a bike under this definition has the same limits as a "class 1" ebike, which is also limited to 750w, and allowed to provide 750w of assist up to 20mph. the bike, on it's own power alone with the ride ghost pedaling, could take you up a 10% grade at 15mph. no difference at all between class 1 and "federal" bike. ditto flat ground at 19.5mph. you can ghost pedal and go 19.5mph on either bike.
it gets SLIGHTLY more interesting above 20mph. let's say i want to go 23mph. on a class 1 ebike, i have to do all that work myself: 415 watts for the upright position on the MTB tires, beyond the capability of most casual riders. the "federal" bike would continue to help me out with 300w and i have to supply 115, no problem. so i can go a little faster, but ONLY the amount faster that my own legs are capable of providing. a typical casual cyclist, not trying to get all sweaty is probably limited to around 150w, so we're talking about the difference between 300w and 450w. how much faster is that? ABOUT THREE POINT FIVE MILES PER HOUR. 450w gets you about 23.5mph. the federal bike gives us a whopping 3.5 additional miles per hour!
not too exciting. if only there was a definition which allowed MORE. oh wait - there is. the "class 3" ebike allows 750w of power to be delivered up to 28mph. i can now ghost pedal and go 28mph, which is meaningfully faster than 20mph. so, assuming you're a casual cyclist willing to put down around 150w while riding around town, it can be summarized like this:
class 1 eBike: 20mph max
federal eBike: 23.5mph max
class 3 eBike: 28mph max
i think the whole debate would be different if there was some federal law that said "all cities, counties and states must allow anything defined by federal regulations as a bicycle to be used anywhere." but there is no such law. and there never ever will be. why? the constitution. "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."
First off, I never wrote / stated that that Part 1512 or HR727 states that a state, county, or city MUST allow bicycles anywhere. I don’t know if you intentionally mischaracterized what I wrote or just failed to comprehend what I wrote. I said that if an LSEB is defined as a “bike” then it makes sense that anywhere a state, county, or city allows a bike to ride that an LSEB is also permitted. Funny this is what PFB claims as their goal, yet they promote 3-classes that implies they are Ok with each class being "use" regulated differently. Is 8mph difference and a throttle really a big enough justification for classes or just a poor policy? A state, county, or city can completely ban the use of all bikes but good luck if the the bike haters ever try to do that. It's so crystal clear that there was no merit to defining the 3 classes - a class for throttle only because some view them differently and a Class 3 because EU has S-pedelecs (both of these are nonsensical).
Who defines what a bike is or any other product sold in the US? I believe the federal government does via the safety agencies (CPSC, NHTSA, FDA, etc.). Yes they also define the compliance requirements as in Part 1512 for ALL bikes including LSEBs. I think the clear intent of HR727 was to have LSEBs same as a bike and I have actual notes from the legal efforts going back to 1997 that prove this and anyone can listen to the congressional testimony by Dr. Currie stating they are just like "bikes" with some help. Only one STATE congressman at that time had an issue with HR727. Only ONE!! In other words, this federal law / definition was essentially a consensus decision by ALL 50 states.
I summarize it simply as the Feds own the “WHAT” and the states own the "use" - “where”, “when”, “by who”, and things like registration and insurance requirements (given all that the state can do they didn't need to redefine the "what"). You’ll read this fairly frequently as the states control “use” … but where does it say they can redefine what a bike as some seem to think "use" means they can. The can only define a product as identical to the feds definition or it's not even the same product. States are allowed to define products for their own use which in reality that is what the CPSC told me that they did with 3-class legislation and ebike classes.
You are one of the few that does interpret the federal definition as I do. I believe it technically establishes a power limit at 20mph and above per the constraints of 170lb on a level surface and I ran simulations as you probably did to get the power range above 20mph for different bikes types (a phd electrical engineer that wrote the definition would easily understand this). The NHTSA did not want to allow ebikes to be transferred to CPSC jurisdiction unless " motor alone" they could not go faster than 20mph. That would mean that at no time can the motor be providing more power above 20mph that would sustain 20mph - that is how the PhD electrical engineer avoid the assist cut-offs that are brain dead policy as that is not how bike speed is limited with a human only pedaling (their power is always what limits the speed so it makes sense to limit motor power but so very very few understand this. Lazy thinkers I guess.
Note: There is only one technically correct interpretation of the definition with the constraints and that is a power limit at and above 20mph - the motor alone power above 20mph can not be more than what would sustain 170lb rider on a level surface at 20mph. I've had people tell me the constraints don't mean anything and that full "rated" power to any speed is allowed. Anyone that has review the history and the years of effort that was put into pulling ebike away from the NHTSA would know that there is no mistake in the definition (it was the most power that the NHTSA was going to allow or there had to be an assist speed limit). Some claim that with a throttle there must be an assist speed limit but NOOOOOO there can be the same assist level provided above 20mph as a pedal-assist ebike because the PhD electrical engineer was smart enough to know that the tech would change over time and he didn't want to define a throttle or other assist tech as being the only way allowed. That is forward thinking. The assist limit method promoted by Peope for Bikes is not smart of forward thinking but they are not exactly a group of engineers.
Here’s where it gets very sticky. A class 3 ebike does not have a stated power limit above 20mph only an assist cut-off at 28mph. I believe there are class 3 ebikes using motors like the Bafang M600 and M620 that have well above 300W being available above 20mph which would make them illegal and a hazardous product (you were correct on this). The companies producing them submit letters of conformance to the CPSC yet these are not conforming products (they could be sold as an "off-road" product but that loophole creates confusion when something like the Sur-ron is called an ebike, which is the reason why the CPSC is so specific about the terminology name of products - to them an LSEB is a specific sub-class of ebikes). Give some thought on this.
You’ll see many people that have attacked me claiming I’m in favor of essentially motorcycle like ebikes being allowed ot ride on sidewalks even though I have never stated that. They simply fail to read and comprehend and it’s not because I didn’t write it clearly. They are lazy readers.
One technical misunderstanding you have of HR727 and even 3-class is that the 750W is a limit. Techinically it’s a “motor rating” which is not a power limit. I won’t go into the technical details on this but you can find a good article on Grin’s website if you want to really understand why 750W is not a power limit. Again the PhD Electrical Engineer that wrote the federal definition wanted to allow more power below 20mph to enable really good utility and cargo ebikes (a single person bike with a power limit above 20mph really doesn’t need to have tons of power below 20mph to be effective but if you want an ebike that can throttle up a 6% grade at 20mph I think you need about 1200W or maybe a bit more and per both HR727 and 3-class this is legal. All those 3-class stickers stating a power limit are really funny to those that understand what a motor power rating is.
Last edited:
what were they doing on the side walk e or non e?????
It's legal to ride bikes / LSEBs / ebikes on many sidewalks in the Denver area and surrounding suburbs. There are some streets that have no shoulder between the car traffic lanes and the curb so the only rationally safe place to ride is on the sidewalk. When there was a road side bike lane I would use it. Most sidewalks are void of pedestrians except for downtown Denver where bikes are not allowed on sidewalk but the traffic speed is such that bikes / LSEBs / ebikes are safer riding with traffic.
Do you live in a state that does not allow bikes on sidewalk at all?
Exactly. They aren't even an "independent" organization any longer entirely funded by the BPSA, they are now officially part of BPSA, their only concern is selling more bikes.
But they do! They want the ebike industry to make more money, that's it.
I have tried and tried to be negative enough on EBR about People for Bikes and their promotion of the 3-class legislation but they never chime in. They know they go the draft from Bosch and a lot of lobby money and don't want to be honest enough to tell us that's why they pushed this bad ebike legislation.But they do! They want the ebike industry to make more money, that's it.
They wanted to harmonize with Europe as much as possible such that the same ebikes (with one speed parameter change) could be sold in Europe and the US. It was not about safety or clarification as they claimed...nor about ebike trails access as later claimed.
The issue is now that even the largest ebike specific publication has voiced an opinion that legislation is having a negative impact on the adoption of ebikes for transportation. I just posted that in another forum thread. Still People for Bikes will remain silent. I live 20 minutes from them now. I lived in Boulder for many years and they kind of embarrass me that they have no back bone to publicly discuss this legislation.
yeah your not real supose to here in northern N.H. there not always a bike lane per say but there is a white line and then the sidewalk if there is a sidewalk. That's why it's a SideWALK. So those aren't really sidewalks in Denver then. Only roadway you can't ride here is a freeway.
The ebike industry, in the US anyway is split into the existing bike companies who make almost exclusively Class 1 mtbs. They only care that the Class legislation allows them access to some singletrack trails. They'd prefer all trails, but since Class 1 ebikes are so stealthy, everyone rides them everywhere regardless, which creates enough demand to keep selling them at a nice fat markup. The biggest ebike segment are Class 2, and there, no one gives a rats ass about selling legal ebikes, they're just trying to sell bikes catering to what people want.
I'm sure if you sat down with the decision makers at ebike companies they'd agree that the Class system is not great, but it accomplishes the short term goal of getting bikes out the door and being able to tell people there are places they can ride them. I'd bet they're assuming access will increase either organically by more and more people just riding wherever they'd like, and eventually towns will just shrug and give up, or new legislation will be created by states or towns to control the chaos based on what people ride, and not some theoretical ideal.
P4B will never back down from their long game of getting the class system adopted in all 50 states. It is what they're getting paid to do, and it costs them @$150-200k in each case. They're not going to walk away from it.
Where there is a wide shoulder or a bike lane most riders will use them but there are literally streets with no clearance for bikes between the cars and the curb. Way to dangerous to ride on those streets so riders do consider it acceptable to ride on the sidewalks which are not exactly full of pedestrians walking - probably more bikers on the sidewalks than walkers typically.
We all know that biking infrastructure isn't really a priority and that actually is fair given the number of cyclists (the chicken before the egg debate). I understand the argument that if the infrastructure is done that bikers will come but I just think their must be more people on bikes / ebikes before it makes great sense to spend significantly on bike infrastructure. I was able to ride about 10,000 miles on my ebike in 2 years commuting around Denver. Could the infrastructure be better? Sure, but it was good enough as bikes kind of allow improvising the means to get around.
Understand were your coming from my point is that's not a sidewalk it's a bike/pedestrain way.
Really good comment and well written. I do agree.
But....There is a pending huge legal issue brewing. The federal definition in HR727 (keep in mind this passed one vote short of congressional consensus by representative from all 50 states) ultimately defines "what" is legal for sale in this country (this DOES NOT change even if all 50 states adopt 3-class). Obviously the 3-class system is not really "use" only legislation in that it redefines the "what" that is legal to ride. That is a situation that doesn't exist with the vast majority of products defined and regulated at the federal level. Note: HR727 also has a preemptive clause that has only been expressed in less than 10 of 15,000+ products regulated by the CPSC. An LSEB was supposed to be "use" regulated as a bike by the states.
I have a document going back to 1997 that makes it crystal clear that the effort to get HR727 passed had the intent to define an "Low Speed Electric Bicycle" to be same as a Bicycle so the states would "use" regulate them as a bike (not treat them differently as many did by claiming they were motor vehicles). The NHTSA regulated them as motor vehicles prior to HR727 so the fact that states did was consistent but after HR727 that all changed and the states were slow to adjust to that reality - that an LSEB was no longer a motorized vehicle and that it was just a bike. There was a small team (lead by PhD electrical engineer Malcolm Currie) that worked for many years to wrestle away LSEB compliant ebikes away from the NHTSA. That effort was supposed to benefit all future ebikers by having compliant ebikes considered as bikes by the states that had long standing "use" / traffic regulations for bikes. There was ZERO justification for 3-class legislation to come along 12+ years later being pushed by auto industry lobby money (albeit thru BPSA to P4Bs) when there were no problems with LSEBs being consider just bikes by most states already.
The LSEB definition makes great sense. It allows the full 750W motor rating (not actually a peak power as so many interpret is as) below 20mph but restrains power above 20mph to the level that would sustain a 170lb rider at 20mph on a level surface (that is the power limit the motor can provide above 20mph and it's from 300-350W for most ebikes). This way speed is still limited in the historic range of bikes but few people will take the time to understand how power had always limited bike speed (obviously a PhD Electrical Engineer would understand this and it's a far better way to limit speed than braid dead assist cut-offs that P4Bs pushed with 3-class).
Baldhills
Member
- Region
- USA
Sounds like our gun control politicians.There’s a good thread here on EBR by @Ken M that gets into the depth and logical sense of the ebike laws. I’ll put the link shortly.
Very interested in opinion on the Pre-emptive Clause in HR727 defining ebikes....
Note: I also posted this poll in the forum regulations section but I think that is a less read forum on EBR so posting in general discussion as well. Please provide a poll response if you have a few minutes. This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with respect to low-speed...electricbikereview.com
The main problem is that the people who’ve written the laws + those who signed them into Becoming the law don’t know very well how an ebike functions.
Similar threads
