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. The requirement for a speedometer on Class 3 alone violate HR727s preemptive clause but most people just don't understand the interstate commerce intent of the CPSC.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Do we really need to parse a "low speed electric bicycle" as defined by HR727 into classes. As performance changes / increases there are different product classifications - ebike/moped/motorcycle/etc. Some companies are putting functional pedals on what essentially are mopeds or motorcycles and calling them ebikes but they are not compliant to HR727 if for no other reason than the fact that the NHTSA would never have transferred ebikes if they could go faster than 20mph motor alone.

Worse was the 3 class system requiring (keep in mind that the state laws can only be "use" related) stickers indicating class compliance. Anyone can put a sticker on a non-compliant ebike so this is just nuts at best.

Did People for Bikes ever assess if a PAS to 20mph does less damage to trails, is safer, etc. than a throttle to 20mph. No, they did this because the EU did not allow throttles so they want to harmonize but again HR727 controls what is compliant and states are suppose to establish "use" regulations. They over stepped intent of our legal system and it's done nothing but create the mess we are now seeing across the US.

 

[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.

Historically for non-electric bikes, "classifications" referred to the type of bike (e.g., Road, Mountain, Gravel, Commuter, Cruiser, Trike, Recumbent). Obviously depending on intended use the bike designs were optimized for that use. Doesn't mean you could not ride a mountain bike as a commuter in the city and the same CPSC safety requirements are applied to all the classes/types.

The most significant reason why People for Bikes decided to push the 3 class system (which was just a dissection of HR727 compliant "low speed electric bicycles") was for harmonization with the EU which essentially had 2 classes - a 25kph/15mph max assist pedelec and a 45kph/28mph speed pedelec (no clue why they felt throttles were a problem except the perception that a throttle means it must be a motorcycle/moped). The bike industry obviously wanted to ensure the ebikes sold in Europe (the much bigger ebike market at the time) could be legally sold in the US without major modifications (programming different max assist speeds is not a problem obviously). Sadly People for Bikes has chosen to be dishonest by claiming they pushed the 3 class system for safety reasons which gets people to support it when that had NOTHING to do with why they promoted it (class 3 actually is less safe than what HR727 codified because it allows full power to 28mph but HR727 allows this because states can have less stringent definitions). I actually feel this is the only good aspect of 3-class because to be a viable alternative transportation solution that helps and there is plenty of data that shows the vast majority of riders were hitting 28mph on tradition bikes when going down even moderate slopes.

Note: Look closely at Europe's 2 class vs US's 3 class - wow, the only real difference is throttle ebikes being allowed in the US because HR727 did not restrict them from being sold in all 50 states.

Currently we have people saying we need the 3 class system because it determines where we can legally ride the different classes and without it maybe ebikes won't be permitted anywhere. This is ignorant nonsense because the intent of HR727 was for "low speed electric bicycles" to be the same (a non-motorized vehicle) that would be "use" regulated by the states as a traditional bicycle. There was one state legal system that established that was the intent. Sure many states have used 3-class to regulated "use" but this is NOT going to legally stand unless the federal regulation is changed. All riders should support HR727 to stand because it will keep ebikes as bicycles for use and that's important (states would love to add costs for registrations and insurance companies would love to collect more policy money).

eBikes have created a safety concern/?problem? - on mixed use paths the speed delta between pedestrians and riders has widened a bit but that actually hasn't increased pedestrian injuries significantly. The increase may simply be younger riders that tend to be more irresponsible riders. Some claim that ebikes do more damage to trails but there is NO data to support that and common sense is that most damage to paths is rain erosion and bikes going downhills and skid burming turns which should not be consider trail damage.

States should regulate "use" of HR727 compliant ebikes as bikes and set speed limits on paths just like we set speed limits roads. I know this is not easy to enforce but most riding of any bike is regulated by riders wanting to be safe. Over 60% of bike fatalities are accidents with vehicles and classes aren't going to solve that. We need to stop the "safety theater" mindset in the US that the class system is being used for.

 

[Ken M]

There is no apparatus to mentally slow down ebikers as they transfer from open road to cycling through pedestrians

C'mon....bikers don't want to get hurt so common sense is that they will slow down when there are pedestrians. This does not advance the bike safety debate whatsover as it sounds like saying "they have WMDs."