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

[stompandgo]

Did states have unique descriptions or classifications for Bikes? There was a federal definition and safety standards and states regulated the USE of those compliant bikes. Seems to me that it was working. A Low Speed Electric Bike definition was added to federal regulations in 2001 and there were no tangible issues until People for Bikes received lobby money from the auto industry to push the 3 class definition system. What I'm trying to get everybody that likes ebikes and wants to see the industry successful and to get more people out of cars is that this effort was purely regulatory capture by the auto industry (they were always planning to push license, registration, and insurance requirements on ebikes knowing that would limit their success, but the 2001 HR727 was always intended to get in their way - Currie was way ahead of them).

Note: By the way the class system has the same assist levels (via power rating which is not even a max power limit) in all 3 Classes while there is 2 different top assist speeds.

I have no clue why you would bring up ebike racing as that is entirely a different subject. They can establish what a compliant race ebike just like all other forms of racing. Stop trying to complicate this.

Does each state have safety and product definitions for automobiles, toasters, vacuums, etc. or do they focus on USE of those products and allow the federal regulations via the CPSC and NHTSA to regulate what is legal for sale in the states (read about interstate commerce and why these regulatory agencies we vastly popular when established - rarely does the federal government get some this right).

Racing is not an entirely different subject. It underscores my point that an e-bike's capabilities should be classified into some kind of classification, and that classification displayed on the bike. This goes for law enforcement as much as race officials. You hate the class system, no problem. Give me some other standard that accomplishes the same thing.

 

[Ken M]

Racing is not an entirely different subject. It underscores my point that an e-bike's capabilities should be classified into some kind of classification, and that classification displayed on the bike. This goes for law enforcement as much as race officials. You hate the class system, no problem. Give me some other standard that accomplishes the same thing.

If you haven't yet be sure to read the federal regulation - it defines 1 Class that is legal for sale as a "low speed electric bicycle" that is actually intended to be USE treated as bicycle in all 50 states. States are free to define less stringent definitions allowed for use in their state but not more stringent (ie not reduced specifications on performance or safety).

Again, racing can manage unique requirements as is done by other racing bodies.

 

[Ken M]

Policies should be designed to promote cycling especially for urban mobility. Requiring registration, insurance, or licensing would create administrative burdens that discourage the use of e-bikes for commuting and recreation.

My guess is that most of the serious ?ebike? accidents are either caused by automobiles or the riders not actually riding an HR727 compliant ebikes.

Note: It must be recognized that when going down a hill virtually every rider on a traditional bike or ebike can easily achieve speeds over 30mph without motor assist. Unless gravity can be regulated restricting ebike assist speeds even as 20mph has ???? merit.

 

[Chargeride]

The physcology of the rider is very important, these laws are constructed to cover all skills, competence, age and perceptions of danger humans have.

Being able to sustain 20mph with zero effort is completely different to having to work for it, the brain quickly accepts the new parameters as the norm.

There is no apparatus to mentally slow down ebikers as they transfer from open road to cycling through pedestrians, add in the factor of the perception they are riding a harmless pushbike and the silence of an ebike increase the potential for collision.

Im sure every possible outcome with data to back it up was endlessly debated with activists and pressure groups on both sides.

I would love more the 15.5mph on my emtb in Europe, but that means everyone gets it, including seniors with dodgy balance and teenagers with little development of risk.

This bill hasnt followed a tiny part of that path towards a balanced conclusion, its reactionary grandstanding by an institutionalised class who are running with..if you dont play nice , then no ones having it.

With regards to gravity assist, I dont have any info on wether roads and signage are designed to deal with the extra potential for speed, going fast downhill and developing the awareness is a skill developed since the wheel was invented, its a shared experience for everyone and the spectacle of a fast descending rider generates a group awareness that ebiking has yet trigger.

The elephant in the room is the extensive import and modification of illegal motorcycles, ee are all sat here thinking when is this going to be banned , it appears to be hanging by a thread off the back of net zero.

 

[Ken M]

It is a fascinating—and frustrating—legal contradiction. You’ve hit on the exact point that legal scholars and cycling advocates are currently using to challenge the NJ law: the "Legislative Estoppel" argument.
When the U.S. Congress passed H.R. 727 in 2002, it was intended to create a uniform national standard so that a "bicycle" in New Jersey wouldn't legally become a "motorcycle" the moment it crossed into Pennsylvania. By passing this new state law, New Jersey is essentially trying to "opt-out" of a federal definition they originally agreed to.

 

[Ken M]

The physcology of the rider is very important, these laws are constructed to cover all skills, competence, age and perceptions of danger humans have.

Being able to sustain 20mph with zero effort is completely different to having to work for it, the brain quickly accepts the new parameters as the norm.

There is no apparatus to mentally slow down ebikers as they transfer from open road to cycling through pedestrians, add in the factor of the perception they are riding a harmless pushbike and the silence of an ebike increase the potential for collision.

Im sure every possible outcome with data to back it up was endlessly debated with activists and pressure groups on both sides.

I would love more the 15.5mph on my emtb in Europe, but that means everyone gets it, including seniors with dodgy balance and teenagers with little development of risk.

This bill hasnt followed a tiny part of that path towards a balanced conclusion, its reactionary grandstanding by an institutionalised class who are running with..if you dont play nice , then no ones having it.

With regards to gravity assist, I dont have any info on wether roads and signage are designed to deal with the extra potential for speed, going fast downhill and developing the awareness is a skill developed since the wheel was invented, its a shared experience for everyone and the spectacle of a fast descending rider generates a group awareness that ebiking has yet trigger.

The elephant in the room is the extensive import and modification of illegal motorcycles, ee are all sat here thinking when is this going to be banned , it appears to be hanging by a thread off the back of net zero.

Most healthy younger people can run faster than 15.5mph/25kph...should they be banned from sharing a sidewalk because of this potential?
We need ebikes to reach their mobility potential to get more people out of cars when possible. The automotive industry is going to create as much chaos as possible to keep bikes in the fitness/recreational realm - this is just common sense.

There is no reason why multi-use paths and sidewalks can't have bike/ebike speed limits just as different roads do. When an ebike is in a road side bike lane why wouldn't a high assist speed actually improve safety so they are closer to the speed of motorized vehicles?

 

[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.

Read the AI information I added to the bottom of my original post. I never lost this debate. I knew eventually a state would push something that was more clearly in violation of the preemptive clause in HR727.

 

[Ken M]

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

Dusts off hands ..job done

Sadly all this is the result of People for Bikes pushing the 3 class ebike definitions state by state. I tried to warn them but they were getting lobby money to do this. HR727 was simple and would have been fine for "low speed electric bikes" to just be use regulated by the states as same as all bikes.