Note: It does appear that NJ is staying somewhat hands off the Class 1 and 2 ebikes (still not a fan of the Class system as it's really caused the problems) and focusing on the class 3 (as if 8mph more assist speed turns an ebike into a moped). I entered a lot of AI interactive conversation on this subject at the end and it's pretty clear the Class system should have been preempted by the CPSC early on (I filed a petition years ago on this).
I hope some industry people read this as it seems almost no one even understands the regulations. The federal "low speed electric bike" (LSEB) legislation HR727 passed in 2001 defines what is legal for sale in all 50 states (interstate commerce is a huge reason why the CPSC exists). This legislation states that a compliant LSEB is not a motor vehicle and equivalent to a bike (multiple bike types are defined in 16 CFR Part 1512 -- Requirements for Bicycles including LSEBs). They are not to be considered motor vehicles - just another bike type. This legislation passed congress one vote short of consensus and was signed into LAW by the President - the states never needed to define ebike classes because they voted yes on this federal legislation. There is even a rarely used preemptive clause in this bill prohibiting states from establishing more stringent definitions. Therefore, some of the 3 Class legislation should be preempted and I've tried via formal petition, but the CPSC decided to not step into this mess and claimed an LSEB is not the same product as an ebike defined in the 3 class legislation which was really just avoiding a formal preemption. States are then supposed to regulate the USE of bikes. USE USE USE USE - is that clear! Use means where bikes can be ridden, legal age, helmet use, speed limits, night riding requirements, etc. (not bike safety, capability/assist limits, etc. - people/states seem confused on what USE means).
The legislation that is being pass in New Jersey is just another example what happens when the law makers and the industry experts don't understand the existing law(s). The federal legislation was the effort of a Phd Electrical Engineer named Malcolm Currie who envisioned transportation grade ebikes getting more people out of automobiles which is why the auto industry funded People for Bikes to lobby the states for the goofy 3 class legislation that is part of the current problem (only the less stringent Class 3 ebike is allowed per the preemptive clause in HR727 but you'll never hear that from an industry expert because they don't understand what is contained in HR727 but neither do the state law makers).
I would like to work with EBR to create an informational video that presents TRUE information on the current ebike regulations - HR727 says a motor rating must be less than 750W so if the motor rating on some ebikes claims to be 750W would be not compliant because "less than" does not allow a mathematical claim at 750W. It's even worse because a motor rating has nothing to do with peak drive system power - a nominal motor rating of 500W would like be a motor that could run at 2000W for a short duration (visit www.ebikes.ca to get a full technical explanation on this). Sorry but this is just one example of how ignorant the masses are on this subject. Sorry to preach but that this point some one needs to detail all this.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was established in 1972 largely based on the federal government's authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
While the primary purpose of the CPSC was to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death from consumer products, the legal foundation for its power relies on controlling and defining products that move through, or affect, interstate commerce.
In essence, the CPSC was formed to address national safety issues (the goal) by utilizing the Constitution's Commerce Clause (the legal mechanism).
It was people for Bikes that originally pushed the speedometer on class 3 ebikes and now they are expected to challenge the new jersey regulations. shouldn't they have realized their 3 class system was in violation of the preemptive clause?
AI responded....This is a sharp observation that cuts right to the heart of the "identity crisis" facing e-bike regulation in America. You’ve pointed out a massive irony: the industry’s own "Three-Class System" (which PeopleForBikes championed) created the very opening that New Jersey is now exploiting. Here is a breakdown of how that strategy may have backfired and why they are in this legal "preemption trap": 1. The "Class 3" Distinction Created a Legal Gap Under H.R. 727, there are no "classes." Federal law simply defines a "low-speed electric bicycle" as a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts, whose maximum speed on a paved level surface is less than 20 mph. The Conflict: By creating "Class 3" (which assists up to 28 mph), the industry moved outside the strict speed limit of the federal definition (\(<20\) mph).The Consequence: Because a Class 3 e-bike technically exceeds the speed threshold in H.R. 727, PeopleForBikes essentially handed states the argument that these bikes are not "low-speed electric bicycles" under federal law. This opened the door for New Jersey to say, "Since this isn't a federal 'bicycle,' we can call it a moped and regulate it however we want." 2. The Speedometer as a "Voluntary" vs. "Mandatory" Standard When the industry drafted the 3-class model, they included the speedometer for Class 3 bikes as a voluntary industry standard to build consumer and legislator trust. They likely didn't realize that by codifying it into state laws, they were inviting states to treat these devices as motor vehicles. If they had stuck strictly to the H.R. 727 definition, they would have had much stronger protection against state-level equipment mandates. By pushing for 28 mph, they traded federal protection for higher performance. 3. Why PeopleForBikes is Challenging it Now The reason they are expected to challenge NJ (despite the speedometer being part of their own model) is that NJ didn't just adopt the "Class 3" equipment standard—they added Registration, Insurance, and VIN requirements. The Slippery Slope: PeopleForBikes wanted the speedometer to be the limit of the regulation. They intended it to say: "It has a speedometer, so it's safe and regulated."NJ's Response: NJ took that logic and ran with it, saying: "If it needs a speedometer and goes 28 mph, it's a motor vehicle. Therefore, it needs a license plate, a title, and a VIN." The "Legislative Buyer's Remorse" You are correct that the industry should have seen this coming. By moving away from the "unanimous" safety blanket of H.R. 727 to chase higher speeds, they created a "gray area" where e-bikes are neither strictly bicycles nor strictly motorcycles. New Jersey is simply the first state to aggressively fill that gray area with traditional DMV bureaucracy. The legal battle will now likely center on whether a Class 3 e-bike is a "Consumer Product" (protected by H.R. 727) or a "Motor Vehicle" (controlled by the State).
In response to an earlier petition the CPSC decided that the "low speed electric bicycle" as defined by HR727 was a different product as defined in the 3 class legislation. The issue is that New Jersey is not going to recognize an HR727 low speed electric bicycles as different.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. This is the "Regulatory Collision" that makes New Jersey’s law uniquely chaotic. By refusing to distinguish between a Federal Low-Speed Electric Bicycle (H.R. 727) and the industry’s 3-Class System, New Jersey is effectively attempting to "de-federalize" a product category that has existed for 25 years.
Here is why New Jersey’s refusal to recognize that distinction is a legal powder keg:
The "Broad Sweep" Problem: As you noted, the CPSC has clarified that an H.R. 727 bike (under 20mph) is a specific federal consumer product. By requiring registration, insurance, and speedometers for all e-bikes (including those that strictly meet the 2002 federal definition), New Jersey is directly countermanding the CPSC’s jurisdiction.
The "Requirement" Violation: The Consumer Product Safety Act generally prevents states from adding requirements to products that already have a federal safety standard. Since an H.R. 727 bike is federally a "bicycle," NJ's mandate for a speedometer is a "non-identical requirement" for a product that the CPSC says doesn't need one. Legal scholars argue this is a textbook case of federal preemption.
NJ’s Tactical Error: By treating a 20mph "federal" e-bike the same as a 28mph "Class 3" e-bike, the state has lost the "Class 3 is different" loophole. They are now trying to regulate a product that falls squarely under the protection of 15 U.S.C. § 2085.
Essentially, New Jersey is betting that the courts will prioritize "State Police Power" (the right to regulate road safety) over "Federal Preemption" (the right to uniform product standards). However, because they are mandating physical equipment (speedometers) and documentation (VINs) that don't exist in the federal framework, they are on very thin ice.
You can follow the New Jersey Micromobility Guide for any emergency amendments or the PeopleForBikes Legal Page for updates on the inevitable constitutional challenge.
I hope some industry people read this as it seems almost no one even understands the regulations. The federal "low speed electric bike" (LSEB) legislation HR727 passed in 2001 defines what is legal for sale in all 50 states (interstate commerce is a huge reason why the CPSC exists). This legislation states that a compliant LSEB is not a motor vehicle and equivalent to a bike (multiple bike types are defined in 16 CFR Part 1512 -- Requirements for Bicycles including LSEBs). They are not to be considered motor vehicles - just another bike type. This legislation passed congress one vote short of consensus and was signed into LAW by the President - the states never needed to define ebike classes because they voted yes on this federal legislation. There is even a rarely used preemptive clause in this bill prohibiting states from establishing more stringent definitions. Therefore, some of the 3 Class legislation should be preempted and I've tried via formal petition, but the CPSC decided to not step into this mess and claimed an LSEB is not the same product as an ebike defined in the 3 class legislation which was really just avoiding a formal preemption. States are then supposed to regulate the USE of bikes. USE USE USE USE - is that clear! Use means where bikes can be ridden, legal age, helmet use, speed limits, night riding requirements, etc. (not bike safety, capability/assist limits, etc. - people/states seem confused on what USE means).
The legislation that is being pass in New Jersey is just another example what happens when the law makers and the industry experts don't understand the existing law(s). The federal legislation was the effort of a Phd Electrical Engineer named Malcolm Currie who envisioned transportation grade ebikes getting more people out of automobiles which is why the auto industry funded People for Bikes to lobby the states for the goofy 3 class legislation that is part of the current problem (only the less stringent Class 3 ebike is allowed per the preemptive clause in HR727 but you'll never hear that from an industry expert because they don't understand what is contained in HR727 but neither do the state law makers).
I would like to work with EBR to create an informational video that presents TRUE information on the current ebike regulations - HR727 says a motor rating must be less than 750W so if the motor rating on some ebikes claims to be 750W would be not compliant because "less than" does not allow a mathematical claim at 750W. It's even worse because a motor rating has nothing to do with peak drive system power - a nominal motor rating of 500W would like be a motor that could run at 2000W for a short duration (visit www.ebikes.ca to get a full technical explanation on this). Sorry but this is just one example of how ignorant the masses are on this subject. Sorry to preach but that this point some one needs to detail all this.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was established in 1972 largely based on the federal government's authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
While the primary purpose of the CPSC was to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death from consumer products, the legal foundation for its power relies on controlling and defining products that move through, or affect, interstate commerce.
In essence, the CPSC was formed to address national safety issues (the goal) by utilizing the Constitution's Commerce Clause (the legal mechanism).
It was people for Bikes that originally pushed the speedometer on class 3 ebikes and now they are expected to challenge the new jersey regulations. shouldn't they have realized their 3 class system was in violation of the preemptive clause?
AI responded....This is a sharp observation that cuts right to the heart of the "identity crisis" facing e-bike regulation in America. You’ve pointed out a massive irony: the industry’s own "Three-Class System" (which PeopleForBikes championed) created the very opening that New Jersey is now exploiting. Here is a breakdown of how that strategy may have backfired and why they are in this legal "preemption trap": 1. The "Class 3" Distinction Created a Legal Gap Under H.R. 727, there are no "classes." Federal law simply defines a "low-speed electric bicycle" as a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts, whose maximum speed on a paved level surface is less than 20 mph. The Conflict: By creating "Class 3" (which assists up to 28 mph), the industry moved outside the strict speed limit of the federal definition (\(<20\) mph).The Consequence: Because a Class 3 e-bike technically exceeds the speed threshold in H.R. 727, PeopleForBikes essentially handed states the argument that these bikes are not "low-speed electric bicycles" under federal law. This opened the door for New Jersey to say, "Since this isn't a federal 'bicycle,' we can call it a moped and regulate it however we want." 2. The Speedometer as a "Voluntary" vs. "Mandatory" Standard When the industry drafted the 3-class model, they included the speedometer for Class 3 bikes as a voluntary industry standard to build consumer and legislator trust. They likely didn't realize that by codifying it into state laws, they were inviting states to treat these devices as motor vehicles. If they had stuck strictly to the H.R. 727 definition, they would have had much stronger protection against state-level equipment mandates. By pushing for 28 mph, they traded federal protection for higher performance. 3. Why PeopleForBikes is Challenging it Now The reason they are expected to challenge NJ (despite the speedometer being part of their own model) is that NJ didn't just adopt the "Class 3" equipment standard—they added Registration, Insurance, and VIN requirements. The Slippery Slope: PeopleForBikes wanted the speedometer to be the limit of the regulation. They intended it to say: "It has a speedometer, so it's safe and regulated."NJ's Response: NJ took that logic and ran with it, saying: "If it needs a speedometer and goes 28 mph, it's a motor vehicle. Therefore, it needs a license plate, a title, and a VIN." The "Legislative Buyer's Remorse" You are correct that the industry should have seen this coming. By moving away from the "unanimous" safety blanket of H.R. 727 to chase higher speeds, they created a "gray area" where e-bikes are neither strictly bicycles nor strictly motorcycles. New Jersey is simply the first state to aggressively fill that gray area with traditional DMV bureaucracy. The legal battle will now likely center on whether a Class 3 e-bike is a "Consumer Product" (protected by H.R. 727) or a "Motor Vehicle" (controlled by the State).
In response to an earlier petition the CPSC decided that the "low speed electric bicycle" as defined by HR727 was a different product as defined in the 3 class legislation. The issue is that New Jersey is not going to recognize an HR727 low speed electric bicycles as different.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. This is the "Regulatory Collision" that makes New Jersey’s law uniquely chaotic. By refusing to distinguish between a Federal Low-Speed Electric Bicycle (H.R. 727) and the industry’s 3-Class System, New Jersey is effectively attempting to "de-federalize" a product category that has existed for 25 years.
Here is why New Jersey’s refusal to recognize that distinction is a legal powder keg:
The "Broad Sweep" Problem: As you noted, the CPSC has clarified that an H.R. 727 bike (under 20mph) is a specific federal consumer product. By requiring registration, insurance, and speedometers for all e-bikes (including those that strictly meet the 2002 federal definition), New Jersey is directly countermanding the CPSC’s jurisdiction.
The "Requirement" Violation: The Consumer Product Safety Act generally prevents states from adding requirements to products that already have a federal safety standard. Since an H.R. 727 bike is federally a "bicycle," NJ's mandate for a speedometer is a "non-identical requirement" for a product that the CPSC says doesn't need one. Legal scholars argue this is a textbook case of federal preemption.
NJ’s Tactical Error: By treating a 20mph "federal" e-bike the same as a 28mph "Class 3" e-bike, the state has lost the "Class 3 is different" loophole. They are now trying to regulate a product that falls squarely under the protection of 15 U.S.C. § 2085.
Essentially, New Jersey is betting that the courts will prioritize "State Police Power" (the right to regulate road safety) over "Federal Preemption" (the right to uniform product standards). However, because they are mandating physical equipment (speedometers) and documentation (VINs) that don't exist in the federal framework, they are on very thin ice.
You can follow the New Jersey Micromobility Guide for any emergency amendments or the PeopleForBikes Legal Page for updates on the inevitable constitutional challenge.
Last edited:
