Riders and lawmakers must understand the actual regulations and intent....

[Ken M]

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).

 

[Old-tool-guy]

Can you post a link to the hr727 document.

 

[RunForTheHills]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/727/text

 

[Ken M]

I can not emphasize enough that anyone truly interested in the future potential of ebikes and what is regulation compliant understand what HR727 states and was intended to do. Before this bill was passed an ebike was considered a motor vehicle safety and definition regulated by the NHTSA. The effort by People for Bikes to have states pass the 3 Class legislation (while accepting lobby funding from the largest automotive parts producer in the world (Bosch)) was about harmonizing specifications with Europe and neutering the performance of ebikes such that they were not as appealing for effective transportation (the auto industry doesn't want a lot of people considering an ebike and effective mobility solution that can supplement or replace automobiles). The auto industry want bikes and ebikes to remain recreation / fitness / and leisure solutions in everyone's minds.

Malcolm Currie worked for many years to get the legal purview for ebikes away from the NHTSA to the CPSC which resulted in the passing of HR727. He was a PhD Electrical Engineer and was CEO of two large corporations - he used that political capital to get HR727 passed and I believe he did that because fully understood the potential of the technology. I've had several conversations with the lawyer that worked with Malcolm so I understand the intent was positive (it should not be harmed by the ridiculous 3 Class legislation pushed by People for Bikes - they are supposed to be a bike advocacy group, not a paid lobbyist for the auto industry).

I'm not going to try to explain the entire intent of HR727 when it comes to specifications besides saying it does not define a max motor power of less than 750W (it's a motor rating and to understand that people need to do a bit of technical research), does not different a pedalec or throttle assist system because the power below 20mph is not important but the power is actually limited above 20mph to what motor power results in 20mph on a level surface with a 170lb rider (this is PhD intelligent but seems nebulous - the NHTSA did not want to release legal purview if the motor only resulted in speeds over 20mph so it's NOT a cut-off as almost everyone in the industry perceives - sadly most countries do have an assist speed limit).

 

[Chargeride]

Its a very annoying cutoff as well, especially at 15mph, you are constantly dropping in and out of it.

 

[mschwett]

ken, in the past years you've made these same points over and over, specifically referencing 727, dr currie, people for bikes, and so on... dozens, if not a hundred times.

at some point any sane individual truly committed to a cause (if they are interested in results, not just hearing themselves talk) must see that the same failed effort repeated over and over again results in nothing more than failure.

new approaches and new ideas are needed - ones that address the actual reality on the ground which is that the 25 year old house bill defining LSEBs and putting them under CPSC rather than rules for motor vehicles - is simultaneously too restrictive for some, too lenient for others, and unclear in other important ways. there is also a long standing tension in this country between the federal and the state/local, and any real solution needs to specifically address this, which the class system at least attempts to.

as i'm sure you know, the vast majority of public roads on which bicycles are ridden are state or county built and maintained. any solution to the problem has to allow such states and counties to regulate the use of facilities which their own taxpayers have paid for, including what types of vehicles go where. an elegant solution to this is a class system which has enough types to allow local jurisdictions to set appropriate rules without inventing new types, but few enough to not complicate things for a struggling industry and confused buyers.

personally, i would suggest three

class A (what would currently be class 0) : ideally allowed every place a bicycle is allowed, including bike lanes and trails, this type is similar to other countries definitions and is limited in peak power to the approximate power of a fit human cyclist (200-300w), no throttles, a maximum power multiplier, etc. no more than 35lb.

class B : higher peak power limit, higher weight limit, 25mph (40kph) assist limit, this would capture fast road bikes, cargo bikes, mountain bikes, and so on, keeping the maximum assist speed below the most common urban speed limit in the country, hopefully avoiding the need for licensing and registration and keeping speeds below that which even the strongest human cyclist can sustain on level ground. many jurisdictions would allow these in bike lanes, some would not, paths/mups/trails would probably be a mixed bag but again, those are paid for locally and local government should have a say.

class C (more than the current 3) : requires licensing, insurance, lights, and so on. generally not allowed on paths and bikes lanes. no power or speed limit - because it requires licensing and insurance, you are subject to all the same rules of the road as any other motor vehicle, which are generally regulated by enforcement of laws, not vehicle design.

a federal revision to 727 combined with cleanup of (sadly) hundreds of local laws would make this work well for most parts of this country.

 

[Chargeride]

all the people they are trying to catch with blanket laws are already riding illegally.
They will continue to do so, while everyone else is queueing up for their eyetest and registration while wearing a motorcycle helmet

 

[Ken M]

ken, in the past years you've made these same points over and over, specifically referencing 727, dr currie, people for bikes, and so on... dozens, if not a hundred times.

at some point any sane individual truly committed to a cause (if they are interested in results, not just hearing themselves talk) must see that the same failed effort repeated over and over again results in nothing more than failure.

new approaches and new ideas are needed - ones that address the actual reality on the ground which is that the 25 year old house bill defining LSEBs and putting them under CPSC rather than rules for motor vehicles - is simultaneously too restrictive for some, too lenient for others, and unclear in other important ways. there is also a long standing tension in this country between the federal and the state/local, and any real solution needs to specifically address this, which the class system at least attempts to.

as i'm sure you know, the vast majority of public roads on which bicycles are ridden are state or county built and maintained. any solution to the problem has to allow such states and counties to regulate the use of facilities which their own taxpayers have paid for, including what types of vehicles go where. an elegant solution to this is a class system which has enough types to allow local jurisdictions to set appropriate rules without inventing new types, but few enough to not complicate things for a struggling industry and confused buyers.

personally, i would suggest three

class A (what would currently be class 0) : ideally allowed every place a bicycle is allowed, including bike lanes and trails, this type is similar to other countries definitions and is limited in peak power to the approximate power of a fit human cyclist (200-300w), no throttles, a maximum power multiplier, etc. no more than 35lb.

class B : higher peak power limit, higher weight limit, 25mph (40kph) assist limit, this would capture fast road bikes, cargo bikes, mountain bikes, and so on, keeping the maximum assist speed below the most common urban speed limit in the country, hopefully avoiding the need for licensing and registration and keeping speeds below that which even the strongest human cyclist can sustain on level ground. many jurisdictions would allow these in bike lanes, some would not, paths/mups/trails would probably be a mixed bag but again, those are paid for locally and local government should have a say.

class C (more than the current 3) : requires licensing, insurance, lights, and so on. generally not allowed on paths and bikes lanes. no power or speed limit - because it requires licensing and insurance, you are subject to all the same rules of the road as any other motor vehicle, which are generally regulated by enforcement of laws, not vehicle design.

a federal revision to 727 combined with cleanup of (sadly) hundreds of local laws would make this work well for most parts of this country.

I stopped posting for a long time but the new efforts in NJ kind of got my attention.
Have you ever researched the establishment off the CPSC? Things get very complicated if every state has different product definitions and requirements.

I think the real problem is that what are e-motorcycles being called ebikes by marketing from manufacturers. Your Class C sure seems to be an electric motorcycle.

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).

The strongest rider was able to sustain over 30mph for 1 hour on a level surface. Also the vast majority of riders feel safe at 28-30mph going down some hills based on extensive European studies. I've never proposed motorcycle-like power/speed performance for ebikes and based on the two examples I mentioned I do think a top assist speed of 50kph/30mph makes logical sense to remain a bike that is USE regulated as a bike.

HR727 defines an ebike that allows flexible power below 20mph (allows for cargo bike utility) and LIMITS POWER above 20mph such that in reality an average rider pedaling aggressively may be able to sustain 28mph for a while on a level surface. If more power is allowed below 20mph ebike riders would be able to sustain 20mph up hills which dramatically increases the utility of the product for transportation.

I understand the concept of creating classes provide a warm and fuzzy feeling but it's not necessary. How many ebike owners and riders do you think have read and understand HR727 given that all the noise chatter is about the 3 Classes pushed by People for Bikes? No many is my guess and I wonder how many people at People for Bikes even read it before they pushed the 3 class system to the states.

 

[stompandgo]

Classes are necessary for local and state regulation on their roads and trails, and for racing, where the NGB wants to limit output. How else would you do this?

 

[Chargeride]

No money or will to enforce present laws?
Lets make more laws.

Dusts off hands ..job done

 

[Ken M]

Classes are necessary for local and state regulation on their roads and trails, and for racing, where the NGB wants to limit output. How else would you do this?

They are not necessary. Was any study ever done to show a Class 1 pedelec impacts trails or roads less than a Class 2 throttle assist ebike? Was any study done to show that the impact of a Class 1 going 20mph impacts trails or roads more than a Class 3 going 28mph? There was nothing done to show the merit of the class system....NOTHING.

If they want to control speeds on some trails/roads/bike lanes than have USE speed limits just as we are all well aware of when we drive. Do not be brainwashed by the arguments people are pushing to justify the Class system. It was mainly about harmonizing products with Europe and opening the idea of insurance, registration, and licensing of any assist beyond 20mph (as they have in Europe for above 15mph).

 

[Ken M]

No money or will to enforce present laws?
Lets make more laws.

Dusts off hands ..job done

The "low speed electric bike" as defined by HR727 is all that is needed. It's simple and complied with the NHTSA assist limit guidelines to release legal purview to the CPSC. I'm pretty sure anyone pushing the 3 class system is receiving money to do so but I can't prove that. I do know that the lawyer that worked on HR727 was open to claiming that the auto industry resists any legislation that opens the potential for transportation use of bikes.

 

[stompandgo]

They are not necessary. Was any study ever done to show a Class 1 pedelec impacts trails or roads less than a Class 2 throttle assist ebike? Was any study done to show that the impact of a Class 1 going 20mph impacts trails or roads more than a Class 3 going 28mph? There was nothing done to show the merit of the class system....NOTHING.

If they want to control speeds on some trails/roads/bike lanes than have USE speed limits just as we are all well aware of when we drive. Do not be brainwashed by the arguments people are pushing to justify the Class system. It was mainly about harmonizing products with Europe and opening the idea of insurance, registration, and licensing of any assist beyond 20mph (as they have in Europe for above 15mph).

The class system is used for verification of assist levels. It gives a visual indicator of approval. Don't want any approvals or verification? Fine. Want to leave behavior up to individual responsibility? Fine. Want to rely on enforcement of regulations to maximize safety and minimize damage? Fine. Studies can get you any result that you want. They mean nothing. Without enforcement, regulations are useless. The class system at least lets consumers and government agencies know what was under the hood.

I guess your answer to all this is to put rangers with radar guns on the trails.

What about racing? Yes, e-bike racing is a thing. Limiting power in racing is very common.

 

[Chargeride]

The New Hampshire proposed bill includes yearly registration for ordinary pedal bikes down to 20 inch wheels.