Statement Regarding Potential CPSC Ebike Law Preemption of 3-class Legislation

[Asher]

DC regulates ebike per the federal definition (motor power only limited to 20mph but human and motor can provide a bit more speed). Please stop injecting false claims. Mopeds can go to 30mph motor alone. This is very very simple to understand.

Have you yet to even read the federal / CPSC definition. That was intended to be the regulation for "low speed electric bicycle" as a bike and states were supposed to "use" regulate as a bike. So so simple and it's how states like Oregon have regulated both product compliance and "use" since 1997.

Nope. Class 3s are regulated like mopeds in DC. See Dewey's post.


https://dmv.dc.gov/sites/default/fi...raditional Motor Vehicle Chart (10.28.20).pdf

District of Columbia proposes revising ebike and escooter laws

Local blogs the WashCycle and Greater Greater Washington are reporting DC Councillor Cheh has introduced the "Electric Mobility Devices Amendment Act of 2019". Previously under DC Code and Municipal Regulations Class 1-2 ebikes fell under the definition of Motorized Bicycle, Class 3 was a Motor...

electricbikereview.com

 

[PM Cycles]

Lol you called me stupid and couldn't spell it correctly, and asked for civility and called me 'ashlicker'. Quality posting there. It's 'cerebrally' not 'celebreal'. You're welcome, hun.

It's pretty frustrating that you are talking constantly about illegal E-Bikes.

 

[PM Cycles]

Back in 2014 when ebikes were legalized in PA I bought my first ebike. I made a lot of assumptions that turned out to be incorrect... I was wrong about a lot of use regulations. For some thinking PFB has been around for 5 years, as was posted earlier in this thread, they are mistaken. PFB was involved supporting ebikes here in 2013/14, long before the merge with BPSA. They've been an advocacy and lobbying organization for a long time.

It wasn't until ebikes were explicitly banned from trails and paths that I got involved. I've been involved with a variety of political issues, in a couple of states since the 1980's. I really didn't want to get involved with politics again due to how ugly the arena had become. This directly affected something I truly loved.

A small group of us started at the lowest local governing body and listened and learned about the laws, regulations and their concerns. I read through all the laws, the CPSC and USDOT documents. I prepared. We worked our way up the governing bodies. Often I didn't think there was any progress. I publically debated the guy (one unelected person) who wrote the 2014 PA ebike law. He had dire warnings about letting any ebike on any cycling infrastructure. He felt ebikes should remain in traffic on public roads.

After a year of work and setting up demo rides for regulators and land managers we had been told we were making progress. Eventually we did succeed. Successes at the county level, state level and an adjoining state followed.

So we put the time in, we worked with rational regulators and land managers that initially had banned all access and turned it around. We did a lot for ebikers in the region. We didn't just spout off on a forum, we went to work. Now another supposed ebike enthusiast calls me a "bootlicker".

I've been an ebiker and a member of this forum since 2014. I've tried to help others that come here and I haven't personally insulted anyone. Now a Johnny come lately calls me a bootlicker. When you can't refute the argument, insult the person. If you are one of the leaders in this fight, you have less chance of succeeding than I initially thought.

I have gotten pretty frustrated with people's logic on here and apologize for calling you a bootlicker. This thread is NOT about non compliant E-Bikes on trails. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm against illegal E-Bikes on trails and infrastructure as well.

 

[Ken M]

Nope. Class 3s are regulated like mopeds in DC. See Dewey's post.


https://dmv.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dmv/publication/attachments/Non-Traditional Motor Vehicle Chart (10.28.20).pdf

District of Columbia proposes revising ebike and escooter laws

Local blogs the WashCycle and Greater Greater Washington are reporting DC Councillor Cheh has introduced the "Electric Mobility Devices Amendment Act of 2019". Previously under DC Code and Municipal Regulations Class 1-2 ebikes fell under the definition of Motorized Bicycle, Class 3 was a Motor...

electricbikereview.com

C'mon...Read the actual DC Law. They do not recognize the 3-class system - Claiming class 3 is a moped is nonsensical. The have motorized bicycle (still a horrible name as it implies it's a motorized vehicle but hard to fix that thinking) as motor alone assist to 20mph but that still allows assist per the exact same clarification that is referenced by the CPSC clarificaion.

I honestly can't speed so much time trying to educate everyone in this tread on definitions and use. Please just read HR727.

 

[Asher]

C'mon...Read the actual DC Law. They do not recognize the 3-class system - Claiming class 3 is a moped is nonsensical. The have motorized bicycle (still a horrible name as it implies it's a motorized vehicle but hard to fix that thinking) as motor alone assist to 20mph but that still allows assist per the exact same clarification that is referenced by the CPSC clarificaion.

I honestly can't speed so much time trying to educate everyone in this tread on definitions and use. Please just read HR727.

I posted the dc law. I guess it's another episode of Ken against the world, and only Ken understands the truth. Class 3 = moped in DC law.

 

[J.R.]

I have gotten pretty frustrated with people's logic on here and apologize for calling you a bootlicker. This thread is NOT about non compliant E-Bikes on trails. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm against illegal E-Bikes on trails and infrastructure as well.

No one is telling you that you have to agree with them. A couple of things are needed if you want to convince people to join you are facts and a little charm. As ugly as things have gotten in recent years, people are tired of the cable news tactics. You have lost more than you gained here on this issue. After being insulted it's made it easy to dismiss the entire argument.

As for you and Ken saying it's not about trail use, it actually is about trail use. For years I commuted 34 miles round trip on a rural rail trail. There are paved trails in urban locations across the nation that people commute on. You'll see posts of mine on this forum where I call all this cycling infrastructure 'off road cycling venues'. Saying it's not about trails is incorrect and a strawman arguement.

Make your argument on the facts as you see them and not about the people. If you can't convince people, then that's where it ends. I do know the issue very well.

 

[Ken M]

Back in 2014 when ebikes were legalized in PA I bought my first ebike. I made a lot of assumptions that turned out to be incorrect... I was wrong about a lot of use regulations. For some thinking PFB has been around for 5 years, as was posted earlier in this thread, they are mistaken. PFB was involved supporting ebikes here in 2013/14, long before the merge with BPSA. They've been an advocacy and lobbying organization for a long time.

It wasn't until ebikes were explicitly banned from trails and paths that I got involved. I've been involved with a variety of political issues, in a couple of states since the 1980's. I really didn't want to get involved with politics again due to how ugly the arena had become. This directly affected something I truly loved.

A small group of us started at the lowest local governing body and listened and learned about the laws, regulations and their concerns. I read through all the laws, the CPSC and USDOT documents. I prepared. We worked our way up the governing bodies. Often I didn't think there was any progress. I publically debated the guy (one unelected person) who wrote the 2014 PA ebike law. He had dire warnings about letting any ebike on any cycling infrastructure. He felt ebikes should remain in traffic on public roads.

After a year of work and setting up demo rides for regulators and land managers we had been told we were making progress. Eventually we did succeed. Successes at the county level, state level and an adjoining state followed.

So we put the time in, we worked with rational regulators and land managers that initially had banned all access and turned it around. We did a lot for ebikers in the region. We didn't just spout off on a forum, we went to work. Now another supposed ebike enthusiast calls me a "bootlicker".

I've been an ebiker and a member of this forum since 2014. I've tried to help others that come here and I haven't personally insulted anyone. Now a Johnny come lately calls me a bootlicker. When you can't refute the argument, insult the person. If you are one of the leaders in this fight, you have less chance of succeeding than I initially thought.

I think the bootlicker comment is that you just automatically accept what PFBs is telling you...which is kind of true. Like many you seem to think 3-class is associated with trail access somehow.

Is PA using the so called "model legislation" from PFBs or something else. I haven't looked up their state law yet. Also want to add that your trail access concerns should be primarily solves by the recent DOI order which covers everything but national forests and state parts. In reality of a compliant ebike was just considered a bike for use there would have never have been any trail access issues.

Let me ask you a question as you say you educated yourself on the CPSC laws. Did you ever ask any of the local politicians to read HR727 and get their opinion on what was intended in 2002. It's states clearly that a "low speed electric bicycle" is not a motor vehicle and is defined as just a bike and safety regulated as a bike. If "use" regulated as a bike then it all works but my guess is you didn't have them read anything (I honestly believe the best way to get everyone on the same page is to first start with everyone understand the bike regulatory laws, how HR727 came about (taking ebikes away from NHTSA who had them defined as motor vehicle), and then understanding how 3-class impacts interstate commerce (that's why I suggest some review of the CPSC history and the preemptive power it does have).

Don't assume 3-class solves anything with riders of non-compliant ebikes/off-road/mopeds as that is a mutually exclusive issue.

 

[Ken M]

I posted the dc law. I guess it's another episode of Ken against the world, and only Ken understands the truth. Class 3 = moped in DC law.

It's not me against the world. You are just not reading the law correctly

 

[Ken M]

I posted the dc law. I guess it's another episode of Ken against the world, and only Ken understands the truth. Class 3 = moped in DC law.

Listen, you posted a couple links to blogs I believe. The only thing that matters is the actual wording of the law which I believe state this: "A motor incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than twenty miles per hour (20 mph) on level ground." Now if you have read how the CPSC did clarify the federal definition that human and motor power can combine to enable a faster speed (this is why PFBs states that class 3 is consistent with the federal definition) then you would understand that the DC definition allows this too (that is a motor alone statement - motor alone can sustain 20mph which does NOT include some added human effort).

It's not me against the world on this. You must stop just reading the blogs that confirm your opinion and read the actual laws (I learned that the internet has far too much BS that reinforces personal bias so you have to go to the actual written law to understand this subject).

 

[Ken M]

It's not me against the world. You are just not reading the law correctly

Do you want to debate the actual wording of the DC Law with everyone able to see the law and your interpretation of it? Probably not.

 

[Asher]

Do you want to debate the actual wording of the DC Law with everyone able to see the law and your interpretation of it? Probably not.

Yes the law doesn't say motor alone or motor assist, and is ambiguous in a narrow sense. It hinges on the meaning of 'operated by motor', ie is a bike considered operated by motor when you're ghost pedaling at 25 mph? Seems like yes, and that's what everyone I've heard from in dc has concluded.

 

[J.R.]

I think the bootlicker comment is that you just automatically accept what PFBs is telling you...which is kind of true. Like many you seem to think 3-class is associated with trail access somehow.

Is PA using the so called "model legislation" from PFBs or something else. I haven't looked up their state law yet. Also want to add that your trail access concerns should be primarily solves by the recent DOI order which covers everything but national forests and state parts. In reality of a compliant ebike was just considered a bike for use there would have never have been any trail access issues.

Let me ask you a question as you say you educated yourself on the CPSC laws. Did you ever ask any of the local politicians to read HR727 and get their opinion on what was intended in 2002. It's states clearly that a "low speed electric bicycle" is not a motor vehicle and is defined as just a bike and safety regulated as a bike. If "use" regulated as a bike then it all works but my guess is you didn't have them read anything (I honestly believe the best way to get everyone on the same page is to first start with everyone understand the bike regulatory laws, how HR727 came about (taking ebikes away from NHTSA who had them defined as motor vehicle), and then understanding how 3-class impacts interstate commerce (that's why I suggest some review of the CPSC history and the preemptive power it does have).

Don't assume 3-class solves anything with riders of non-compliant ebikes/off-road/mopeds as that is a mutually exclusive issue.

Another disingenuous reply. I've written dozens of times on these forums that there's a lot I don't like about the 3 Class law, that it doesn't legalize off road use, as a matter of fact the only way it addresses the off road issue it that it leaves it up to local goverment. What it has done is give regulators an acceptable option in class 1. No matter what you do or say, land managers and regulators will not accept a throttle. If all ebikes fall under the same category, ebikes will be banned on all off road venues. I've also written many, many times how disappointed I am with PFB. When we asked for help from them on paths and trails they said they didn't have the resources to help. They don't get involved with any off road use.

Off road includes:
Urban paths
Bike paths
Hike and bike trails
Canal towpaths
Bike lanes (in many locales)
Sidewalks
Rail trails
Single tracks

I have read aloud HR727 at meetings with regulators. I learned the feds can't control access. That from legal experts neither pro or con ebikes. You couldn't be more wrong about state and local rights. I'll repost:

These are state's rights issues. The Supreme Court almost always sides with the states rights for use regulations. The last thing any of us would want is a bunch of beurocrats in DC to control bike paths and trails in our own back yards. Picking one state like Oregon and saying they don't have a problem is silly. Oregonians are regulating Oregonians. As it should be. States with the 3 Class law can say the same.

There's an assumption here that the states that do not currently have the 3 class law would be okay with the CPSC controlling all this. Those state's AG will also sign onto any state's rights law suit in federal court. No state in the country will want to give up regulatory control of their own property. None. Read some of the Supreme Court's rulings on use regulations and state's rights.

This is not a transportation issue; the CPSC overstepped their authority when they took this issue from the USDOT. Even if it was a transportation issue, state and local governments have regulatory use control of state, county and township road use. They set the speed, weight, access, noise and every other issue. The Feds have nothing to do with it, other than to say what a safe vehicle is. Even then local governments can grant exceptions. I live in rural farm country and I see farm trucks and trailers more than 50 years old. They would never pass federal regs to be road worthy, some don't even have seatbelts. There they are, tagged and registered on the road.

I don't care about the few diehards proposing this; I care about the newcomers to ebikes. I care about land managers and regulators that research the issue and stumble across these forums. I've had to answer a lot of questions from regulators about illegal ebikes and how they are used.

Addendum, I drive a class 2 pickup truck in Pennsylvania. I guess I can tell the state they can't require me to pay for a class 2 registration or require me to display a class 2 sticker because the feds don't require it. I wouldn't be driving for long. A state has a right to regulate use.

 

[jabberwocky]

Another disingenuous reply. I've written dozens of times on these forums that there's a lot I don't like about the 3 Class law, that it doesn't legalize off road use, as a matter of fact the only way it addresses the off road issue it that it leaves it up to local goverment. What it has done is give regulators an acceptable option in class 1. No matter what you do or say, land managers and regulators will not accept a throttle. If all ebikes fall under the same category, ebikes will be banned on all off road venues. I've also written many, many times how disappointed I am with PFB. When we asked for help from them on paths and trails they said they didn't have the resources to help. They don't get involved with any off road use.

This, a million times. Its not that the 3 class system is perfect or that I fully agree with it, but at least class 1 defines something that is potentially acceptable to most land managers for trail. Class 2/3 or Kens hybrid no speed cap thing does not. Its just not, at this time, an argument that can be won. As a good microcosm of what mountainbikers are up against, we have an entire national advocacy organization (the Sustainable Trails Coalition) whose single issue is getting the feds to remove normal bikes from the definition of "motorized travel" in national wilderness areas, which has been a battle MTBers have been fighting (without success) since the early 1980s. In the face of that, getting access for bikes with any sort of motor is an absolutely massive win. Coming along and saying that the definition needs to be changed to one thing that has higher speeds (that aren't even precisely defined!) plus throttles and then handwaving away concerns people have with it making an already difficult fight more difficult is pretty frustrating. I get that Ken doesn't give a s*it about trail access, hes made that clear. But a lot of people do, and insulting/ignoring their concerns comes across as not actually being a good faith advocate for ebikes.

 

[Ken M]

Yes the law doesn't say motor alone or motor assist, and is ambiguous in a narrow sense. It hinges on the meaning of 'operated by motor', ie is a bike considered operated by motor when you're ghost pedaling at 25 mph? Seems like yes, and that's what everyone I've heard from in dc has concluded.

It does clearly implies motor alone up to 20mph. Ghost pedaling means the rider is providing no additional power so again your mention that 25mph via ghost pedaling is non-nonsensical. If everyone in DC has concluded that maybe they need to retake some remedial English classes.

"A motor incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than twenty miles per hour (20 mph) on level ground" - Does it say anything but the motor to 20mph? Think about a throttle-assist ebike with just enough power to sustain 20mph and the rider then starts pedaling and providing added power what is the result.... additional speed right. You suggestion that "ghost pedaling" can allow the motor to assist to higher speeds is wrong because it explicitly states the motor must be incapable of propelling faster than 20mph. I don't think it gets much easier to state.

That is LEGAL additional speed and exactly as the CPSC definition provides and has even been clarified on PFBs website. Don't tell me it's me against the world on this when this clarification is on PFBs website in their Ebike 101 Legal review. You and some others on this thread should also read that.

 

[Ken M]

Another disingenuous reply. I've written dozens of times on these forums that there's a lot I don't like about the 3 Class law, that it doesn't legalize off road use, as a matter of fact the only way it addresses the off road issue it that it leaves it up to local goverment. What it has done is give regulators an acceptable option in class 1. No matter what you do or say, land managers and regulators will not accept a throttle. If all ebikes fall under the same category, ebikes will be banned on all off road venues. I've also written many, many times how disappointed I am with PFB. When we asked for help from them on paths and trails they said they didn't have the resources to help. They don't get involved with any off road use.

Off road includes:
Urban paths
Bike paths
Hike and bike trails
Canal towpaths
Bike lanes (in many locales)
Sidewalks
Rail trails
Single tracks

I have read aloud HR727 at meetings with regulators. I learned the feds can't control access. That from legal experts neither pro or con ebikes. You couldn't be more wrong about state and local rights. I'll repost:

These are state's rights issues. The Supreme Court almost always sides with the states rights for use regulations. The last thing any of us would want is a bunch of beurocrats in DC to control bike paths and trails in our own back yards. Picking one state like Oregon and saying they don't have a problem is silly. Oregonians are regulating Oregonians. As it should be. States with the 3 Class law can say the same.

There's an assumption here that the states that do not currently have the 3 class law would be okay with the CPSC controlling all this. Those state's AG will also sign onto any state's rights law suit in federal court. No state in the country will want to give up regulatory control of their own property. None. Read some of the Supreme Court's rulings on use regulations and state's rights.

This is not a transportation issue; the CPSC overstepped their authority when they took this issue from the USDOT. Even if it was a transportation issue, state and local governments have regulatory use control of state, county and township road use. They set the speed, weight, access, noise and every other issue. The Feds have nothing to do with it, other than to say what a safe vehicle is. Even then local governments can grant exceptions. I live in rural farm country and I see farm trucks and trailers more than 50 years old. They would never pass federal regs to be road worthy, some don't even have seatbelts. There they are, tagged and registered on the road.

I don't care about the few diehards proposing this; I care about the newcomers to ebikes. I care about land managers and regulators that research the issue and stumble across these forums. I've had to answer a lot of questions from regulators about illegal ebikes and how they are used.

Addendum, I drive a class 2 pickup truck in Pennsylvania. I guess I can tell the state they can't require me to pay for a class 2 registration or require me to display a class 2 sticker because the feds don't require it. I wouldn't be driving for long. A state has a right to regulate use.

Please please please stop implying that I have ever said anything about states not having the right to regulate "use." Saying they can not product define classes has nothing to do with use ... oh but they claim that because some states are using the classes to designate access.

CPSC didn't overstep their authority when "low speed electric bicycle" regulatory control was transferred to them - it was not taken from USDOT as you claim. It was a hand-off that definitely helped ebikes or every ebike would have lighting, brake lights, blinkers, horn, fixed seat heights, etc.

Let me state this ONE more time. I think HR727 and the congressional notes that the intent was that an LSEB be considered a bike....defined as such. So that is the product the states have to "use" regulate. Leave as a bike and decide where bikes can be ridden and how. The states do not have the right to redefine the product itself. I don't think trail managers do either.

If you have lawyers that deny that HR727 states that a LSEB is just a bike read the Mississippi Attorney General opinion of his review of the statutes so they are going against probably someone higher in their echo chamber. As far as I know that is highest level legal statement on the intent of HR727. I sent a request to all the remaining AGs to request them to state an opinion but I would not classify any of them as leaders as all deflected. Very sad.

 

[Ken M]

Another disingenuous reply. I've written dozens of times on these forums that there's a lot I don't like about the 3 Class law, that it doesn't legalize off road use, as a matter of fact the only way it addresses the off road issue it that it leaves it up to local goverment. What it has done is give regulators an acceptable option in class 1. No matter what you do or say, land managers and regulators will not accept a throttle. If all ebikes fall under the same category, ebikes will be banned on all off road venues. I've also written many, many times how disappointed I am with PFB. When we asked for help from them on paths and trails they said they didn't have the resources to help. They don't get involved with any off road use.

Off road includes:
Urban paths
Bike paths
Hike and bike trails
Canal towpaths
Bike lanes (in many locales)
Sidewalks
Rail trails
Single tracks

I have read aloud HR727 at meetings with regulators. I learned the feds can't control access. That from legal experts neither pro or con ebikes. You couldn't be more wrong about state and local rights. I'll repost:

These are state's rights issues. The Supreme Court almost always sides with the states rights for use regulations. The last thing any of us would want is a bunch of beurocrats in DC to control bike paths and trails in our own back yards. Picking one state like Oregon and saying they don't have a problem is silly. Oregonians are regulating Oregonians. As it should be. States with the 3 Class law can say the same.

There's an assumption here that the states that do not currently have the 3 class law would be okay with the CPSC controlling all this. Those state's AG will also sign onto any state's rights law suit in federal court. No state in the country will want to give up regulatory control of their own property. None. Read some of the Supreme Court's rulings on use regulations and state's rights.

This is not a transportation issue; the CPSC overstepped their authority when they took this issue from the USDOT. Even if it was a transportation issue, state and local governments have regulatory use control of state, county and township road use. They set the speed, weight, access, noise and every other issue. The Feds have nothing to do with it, other than to say what a safe vehicle is. Even then local governments can grant exceptions. I live in rural farm country and I see farm trucks and trailers more than 50 years old. They would never pass federal regs to be road worthy, some don't even have seatbelts. There they are, tagged and registered on the road.

I don't care about the few diehards proposing this; I care about the newcomers to ebikes. I care about land managers and regulators that research the issue and stumble across these forums. I've had to answer a lot of questions from regulators about illegal ebikes and how they are used.

Addendum, I drive a class 2 pickup truck in Pennsylvania. I guess I can tell the state they can't require me to pay for a class 2 registration or require me to display a class 2 sticker because the feds don't require it. I wouldn't be driving for long. A state has a right to regulate use.

I believe the commercial truck classes are defined at the federal level but I'm not an expert on that. I think they have to be federally defined or the national trucking industry would be a huge mess with states trying to create their own product / truck definitions. There is a good reason for the supremacy clause of the US constitution and interstate commerce falls under that. I think we have a long way to go to get everyone on the same page on this subject because it's crystal clear that some people are struggling understanding the difference between a definition and "use."

 

[Asher]

It does clearly implies motor alone up to 20mph. Ghost pedaling means the rider is providing no additional power so again your mention that 25mph via ghost pedaling is non-nonsensical. If everyone in DC has concluded that maybe they need to retake some remedial English classes.

"A motor incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than twenty miles per hour (20 mph) on level ground" - Does it say anything but the motor to 20mph? Think about a throttle-assist ebike with just enough power to sustain 20mph and the rider then starts pedaling and providing added power what is the result.... additional speed right. You suggestion that "ghost pedaling" can allow the motor to assist to higher speeds is wrong because it explicitly states the motor must be incapable of propelling faster than 20mph. I don't think it gets much easier to state.

That is LEGAL additional speed and exactly as the CPSC definition provides and has even been clarified on PFBs website. Don't tell me it's me against the world on this when this clarification is on PFBs website in their Ebike 101 Legal review. You and some others on this thread should also read that.

My mistake, I meant clown pedaling not ghost pedaling. Thought they meant the same thing.

749 w motor + 1 watt from rider -> 21+ mph. DC law: 'operating by motor 20-30 mph = moped.' Everyone except you says DC law means that a 99% assist or even a 1% assist above 20 mph makes it a moped.

 

[Ken M]

This, a million times. Its not that the 3 class system is perfect or that I fully agree with it, but at least class 1 defines something that is potentially acceptable to most land managers for trail. Class 2/3 or Kens hybrid no speed cap thing does not. Its just not, at this time, an argument that can be won. As a good microcosm of what mountainbikers are up against, we have an entire national advocacy organization (the Sustainable Trails Coalition) whose single issue is getting the feds to remove normal bikes from the definition of "motorized travel" in national wilderness areas, which has been a battle MTBers have been fighting (without success) since the early 1980s. In the face of that, getting access for bikes with any sort of motor is an absolutely massive win. Coming along and saying that the definition needs to be changed to one thing that has higher speeds (that aren't even precisely defined!) plus throttles and then handwaving away concerns people have with it making an already difficult fight more difficult is pretty frustrating. I get that Ken doesn't give a s*it about trail access, hes made that clear. But a lot of people do, and insulting/ignoring their concerns comes across as not actually being a good faith advocate for ebikes.

My low concern for trail access is because I don't want what is acceptable to trail managers defining what a compliant ebike is. There was a CAMBA (not sure if that is the right accronym) representative speaking at a PFB conference and he was saying ebikes should be EU limited at 250W and 15.5mph so they are more acceptable on trails.

I do want again to say that all I did was file a petition for preemption of the state class 3 regulations that I felt was inevitable. I will not be in the general counsel chambers when they make a decision. While I hoping they preempt the 3-class system because I view more confusion is inevitable if they conclude it has standing. They will not be thinking about trail access when they make their decision is my guess. I think they will be looking at if 3-class does indeed impact interstate commerce and attempts to regulate a product they have already defined and regulate (since 2002 to be accurate).

 

[Ken M]

My mistake, I meant clown pedaling not ghost pedaling. Thought they meant the same thing.

749 w motor + 1 watt from rider -> 21+ mph. DC law: 'operating by motor 20-30 mph = moped.' Everyone except you says DC law means that a 99% assist or even a 1% assist above 20 mph makes it a moped.

Here's where my lessons have to get a bit more technical. 749/750W will sustain well over 20mph on most ebikes (in reality no 750W ebike can legally provide full power assist above 20mph which is soon going to impact a number of manufacturers but a separate subject). No where in the DC law does it state the motor must cease to provide assist above 20mph...it's just states that motor alone can not sustain a higher speed. The everyone you refer to is just the majority that don't even understand power/speed relationships on a device like an ebike. Per simulations, it takes somewhere around 300-350W for an ebike w/ rider to attain and sustain 20mph (please don't make me prove this as the "everyone" crowd will not understand the physics involved). So let's say a motor is providing 300W per throttle-assist control and the ebike is crusing along at 20mph. That is 100% compliant right? Now assume the rider does pedal and provides say an additional 100W (motor stays at 300W to remain compliant to the definition). Is everyone really saying the additional speed achieved via that extra 100W is not compliant to the DC law?

Why doesn't the DC law just state that assist must cease at 20mph like the class 1 and 2 of the 3 class system? That results in the wonderful "assist wall" that I would say "everyone" universally does not like. You are INTERPRETING a cease of assist into the DC Law that is not there.

"A motor incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than twenty miles per hour (20 mph) on level ground" That is a power limit for any speed above 20mph, not a cease of assist. Instead of going back into your everyone echo chamber, go to anyone that is really knowledgeable of physics and show them this thread entry and get their advice. Assist capability is not a speed limit for the bike and it's not a cease of assist as 3-class has or it would just state that.

Let me add one more piece of information. If you think more than 1% of lawyers understand the simple physics involved in this discussion thrust me they do not. Sadly they will take on opinions that defy the laws of physics if they are paid to do so....money is their echo chamber, not knowledge, not common sense....just give them cash and get whatever opinion you want. I'm just trying to stick to the words in the DC law.

 

[J.R.]

Please please please stop implying that I have ever said anything about states not having the right to regulate "use." Saying they can not product define classes has nothing to do with use ... oh but they claim that because some states are using the classes to designate access.

CPSC didn't overstep their authority when "low speed electric bicycle" regulatory control was transferred to them - it was not taken from USDOT as you claim. It was a hand-off that definitely helped ebikes or every ebike would have lighting, brake lights, blinkers, horn, fixed seat heights, etc.

Let me state this ONE more time. I think HR727 and the congressional notes that the intent was that an LSEB be considered a bike....defined as such. So that is the product the states have to "use" regulate. Leave as a bike and decide where bikes can be ridden and how. The states do not have the right to redefine the product itself. I don't think trail managers do either.

If you have lawyers that deny that HR727 states that a LSEB is just a bike read the Mississippi Attorney General opinion of his review of the statutes so they are going against probably someone higher in their echo chamber. As far as I know that is highest level legal statement on the intent of HR727. I sent a request to all the remaining AGs to request them to state an opinion but I would not classify any of them as leaders as all deflected. Very sad.

The states are regulating use by using the 3 classes and so is the Federal Government through the DOI. The Department of the Interior did open park land to ebikes and the law follows the state and local laws where the park land is located. As a matter of fact the Fed explicitly notes the 3 classes in the final rule. A National Park in one state will have different ebike regulations than a NP in another state.

General Provisions; Electric Bicycles

The National Park Service promulgates regulations governing the use of electric bicycles, or e-bikes, within the National Park System. This rule defines the term ``electric bicycle'' and establishes rules for how they may be used. This rule implements Secretary of the Interior Order 3376,...

www.federalregister.gov

So a Cabinet level department has acknowledged the 3 classes. The Fed tends to yield to settled law on state's rights.

There are plenty of documents on the DOT archives about the takeover by CPSC of ebike specifications. I would agree to the DOT allowing it after the fact, but it wasn't handed over. The DOT is another cabinet level department. It was a headache for the DOT to rule on a case by case basis. I've had this conversation with you on an older chapter of this book.

I believe the commercial truck classes are defined at the federal level but I'm not an expert on that. I think they have to be federally defined or the national trucking industry would be a huge mess with states trying to create their own product / truck definitions. There is a good reason for the supremacy clause of the US constitution and interstate commerce falls under that. I think we have a long way to go to get everyone on the same page on this subject because it's crystal clear that some people are struggling understanding the difference between a definition and "use."

Sorry, I didn't say anything about commercial trucks. My personal pickup truck is a PA Class 2 pickup truck. If I was in any other state it would not apply.