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

[J.R.]

Class 4 is a lame attempt to throw everything on two wheels with a motor over the 750W limit into one category as if to say "I only care about riding on trails so anything over 750W doesn't matter". It is one of the first points I was trying to make...you need to step back form the thing that you are so intensely focused on and see the bigger picture and re-envision a system for the situation today and into the future...not the situation related to trail access only. I can't bring myself to apologize for calling a bike with a motor a "motorbike". It just makes too much sense. What is in a word anyway?
For that matter what is a Moped? Look it up, state by state, and you will see numerous definitions. Same with Scooter. Personally I don't have much stake in the whole trail issue, which by the way is one small part of the topic, perhaps not the main topic (although that's fine if that's what is important to you--we all have our "main concerns"). I'm OK with 20mph limit on bikes that can be allowed on federal land trails designated for bikes. But I fail to see why someone with a physical disability that does not allow them to pedal sufficiently should be discriminated against especially when there is no data to prove throttle only bikes with the 20 mph limit do any more damage than a human powered bikes to the trails. The perception that if throttle bikes were allowed, that this would cause an inordinate amount of yahoos doing wheelies down the trails and running moms and pets over I think is propaganda...if it is said enough times people will begin to believe it. For the MTB'ers, saying "we were here first so get off my trails", well that was then. They don't own the land and frankly, they don't make the rules. I understand they want to protect what they believe is theirs but you can't stand in the way of progress. I think there is an adjustment period that once we're through it everyone will agree it was much ado about nothing. BTW, unless this changed within the last few weeks, just because the BLM has approved "ebikes" for trail use on federal land, that doesn't mean anything has changed on the ground. The land managers need to go through a process to open trails to ebikes (whichever trails the land manager chooses). This may or may not happen and if it does it could take months or years. So if someone is packing up their class 1 ebike and headed to the federal land trails thinking you're good to go you might be in for a surprise.
I understand the history--everybody wants to control who can use the trails. I wouldn't want any setbacks for ebike usage of these trails. The only difference between what I am saying and where we are now is I don't see why a 750W throttle bike limited to 20mph should not be allowed and why it should have a separate class--as the OP's original post was advocating. Beyond that, my main concern is, again, big picture stuff. The mass acceptance of ebikes for personal use beyond the 750W limit is being hindered greatly by the lack of comprehensive laws at the federal level (and thus state level). Like it or not, there is a wave of 2 wheeled EV's coming that are in the 3-8KW range that don't fit any of the current "classes". So it is why I proposed a class of motorbike that was not LSEB and not motorcycle...and this class encompasses all 2 or 3 wheeled motorized vehicles regardless of motor type or"style" (style meaning "moped", "scooter", etc). The differentiators are a combination of top speed and curb weight. Other factors would be related to the motorcycle regulations such as minimum seat height, lights (working brake lights, turn signals etc.) This is an important class of "motorbike" as they would be lighter weight yet fast enough to keep up with traffic. These types of bikes will be more approachable than full size motorcycles to the masses of people who do not want to go back to mass transportation. On the state level, likely these bikes will need to be registered and insured and the rider may need some type of endorsement on their drivers license. This is the class of bike that is currently the "wild west" due to the lawlessness.
I agree more money would be great. It's mind boggling how our government squanders it.

Calling this a 'trail issue' is a strawman arguement. Hundreds of thousands of people commute on trails; I commuted for years on a rail trail. I wrote this earlier in the thread:

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

It is a cycling infrastructure issue. It is an issue for anyone riding a bike or ebike anywhere automobiles do not.

 

[ngl]

Class 4 is a lame attempt to throw everything on two wheels with a motor over the 750W limit into one category as if to say "I only care about riding on trails so anything over 750W doesn't matter". It is one of the first points I was trying to make...you need to step back form the thing that you are so intensely focused on and see the bigger picture and re-envision a system for the situation today and into the future...not the situation related to trail access only. I can't bring myself to apologize for calling a bike with a motor a "motorbike". It just makes too much sense. What is in a word anyway?
For that matter what is a Moped? Look it up, state by state, and you will see numerous definitions. Same with Scooter. Personally I don't have much stake in the whole trail issue, which by the way is one small part of the topic, perhaps not the main topic (although that's fine if that's what is important to you--we all have our "main concerns"). I'm OK with 20mph limit on bikes that can be allowed on federal land trails designated for bikes. But I fail to see why someone with a physical disability that does not allow them to pedal sufficiently should be discriminated against especially when there is no data to prove throttle only bikes with the 20 mph limit do any more damage than a human powered bikes to the trails. The perception that if throttle bikes were allowed, that this would cause an inordinate amount of yahoos doing wheelies down the trails and running moms and pets over I think is propaganda...if it is said enough times people will begin to believe it. For the MTB'ers, saying "we were here first so get off my trails", well that was then. They don't own the land and frankly, they don't make the rules. I understand they want to protect what they believe is theirs but you can't stand in the way of progress. I think there is an adjustment period that once we're through it everyone will agree it was much ado about nothing. BTW, unless this changed within the last few weeks, just because the BLM has approved "ebikes" for trail use on federal land, that doesn't mean anything has changed on the ground. The land managers need to go through a process to open trails to ebikes (whichever trails the land manager chooses). This may or may not happen and if it does it could take months or years. So if someone is packing up their class 1 ebike and headed to the federal land trails thinking you're good to go you might be in for a surprise.
I understand the history--everybody wants to control who can use the trails. I wouldn't want any setbacks for ebike usage of these trails. The only difference between what I am saying and where we are now is I don't see why a 750W throttle bike limited to 20mph should not be allowed and why it should have a separate class--as the OP's original post was advocating. Beyond that, my main concern is, again, big picture stuff. The mass acceptance of ebikes for personal use beyond the 750W limit is being hindered greatly by the lack of comprehensive laws at the federal level (and thus state level). Like it or not, there is a wave of 2 wheeled EV's coming that are in the 3-8KW range that don't fit any of the current "classes". So it is why I proposed a class of motorbike that was not LSEB and not motorcycle...and this class encompasses all 2 or 3 wheeled motorized vehicles regardless of motor type or"style" (style meaning "moped", "scooter", etc). The differentiators are a combination of top speed and curb weight. Other factors would be related to the motorcycle regulations such as minimum seat height, lights (working brake lights, turn signals etc.) This is an important class of "motorbike" as they would be lighter weight yet fast enough to keep up with traffic. These types of bikes will be more approachable than full size motorcycles to the masses of people who do not want to go back to mass transportation. On the state level, likely these bikes will need to be registered and insured and the rider may need some type of endorsement on their drivers license. This is the class of bike that is currently the "wild west" due to the lawlessness.
I agree more money would be great. It's mind boggling how our government squanders it.

Beyond the HMI interface issue with the microcontroller for sub-750w bikes (throttle vs. pedal sensors), I don't get why they current motorcycle regulations aren't good enough for the >1hp bikes. You can just title it or issue a MCO for a motorcycle as a manufacturer for anything with greater power, just like they do for 49cc scooters on up. Moped regs are such an oddball that really only seems to exist at the state level for under 16's to be able to get a 30mph vehicle to go work a job, it can't have a gearshift in most states, etc - just an oddball relic of a system.

CSC for instance does the scooters and motorcycles in the 1.5-3.5kw range and they just meet the federal safety standards and title them as you would anything else from the gas world 49cc on up, which should be good enough and is fully comprehensive in all 50 states. Unless I'm missing something else? https://cscmotorcycles.com/buy-a-bike/electric-scooters/ I got my motorcycle license at 16, so I think that's normal and attainable in states that allow driver's license at 15-16.

 

[Ken M]

I just find it interesting how a few only thinking about trail access are driving the merit narrative of the 3-class legislation - a few trail managers are impacting the potential of LSEBs being great urban mobility as a bike. No data on trail damage or safety, yet it's tossed out with claims trail access will be lost if 3-class is preempted and the federal definition of a LSEB that worked for 12+ years is re-adopted. Is there anyone that can get a trail manager to actually provide input as to why they only feel class 1 should ever be on a trail.

 

[jabberwocky]

Beyond the HMI interface issue with the microcontroller for sub-750w bikes (throttle vs. pedal sensors), I don't get why they current motorcycle regulations aren't good enough for the >1hp bikes. You can just title it or issue a MCO for a motorcycle as a manufacturer for anything with greater power, just like they do for 49cc scooters on up. Moped regs are such an oddball that really only seems to exist at the state level for under 16's to be able to get a 30mph vehicle to go work a job, it can't have a gearshift in most states, etc - just an oddball relic of a system.

Theres definitely a weird subclass of vehicles now that have way too much power to be treated as a bike on public land, but manufacturers of said vehicles don't want to take the effort to get them up to snuff with motorcycle regulations. So they are sold with either an easily bypassed 20mph limit or just listed as "for off road use only". At the moment they are too niche to really impact much but its probably going to be an issue that needs dealing with in the future.

 

[Ken M]

Calling this a 'trail issue' is a strawman arguement. Hundreds of thousands of people commute on trails; I commuted for years on a rail trail. I wrote this earlier in the thread:

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

It is a cycling infrastructure issue. It is an issue for anyone riding a bike or ebike anywhere automobiles do not.

Most of those "trails" are not under the control / jurisdiction of park trail managers. Most of those are urban infrastructure that has always been open to bike use and should allow LSEBs as a bike. It will not cause any issues. I understand that trail managers are anti-throttle but they are one minor opinion and they should have to prove the damage and safety claims they toss out as reasons throttles are bad.

 

[Ken M]

Theres definitely a weird subclass of vehicles now that have way too much power to be treated as a bike on public land, but manufacturers of said vehicles don't want to take the effort to get them up to snuff with motorcycle regulations. So they are sold with either an easily bypassed 20mph limit or just listed as "for off road use only". At the moment they are too niche to really impact much but its probably going to be an issue that needs dealing with in the future.

Those are not compliant LSEBs that should be "use" regulated as bikes. That issue will be resolved via just a bit of enforcement of what is a legal LSEB (ie enters interstate commerce as compliant) and liability risks will just keep 99% off urban infrastructure.

 

[ngl]

Theres definitely a weird subclass of vehicles now that have way too much power to be treated as a bike on public land, but manufacturers of said vehicles don't want to take the effort to get them up to snuff with motorcycle regulations. So they are sold with either an easily bypassed 20mph limit or just listed as "for off road use only". At the moment they are too niche to really impact much but its probably going to be an issue that needs dealing with in the future.

That's not niche though, that's a category that has existed since well before I've been alive at least. Kids usually start out on dirtbikes and ATV's in that multi-HP power class from ages 7-8 on up. So for the offroad thing, I think it's covered fully too, there is already consumer safety and VIN number systems for that class of vehicle.

 

[jabberwocky]

That's not niche though, that's a category that has existed since well before I've been alive at least. Kids usually start out on dirtbikes and ATV's in that multi-HP power class from ages 7-8 on up. So for the offroad thing, I think it's covered fully too, there is already consumer safety and VIN number systems for that class of vehicle.

Oh, I understand that and agree. I'm just saying there are some manufacturers who are piggypacking onto the ebike system to sell things that should just be handled like any other motorcycle, but don't come with a VIN and aren't really marketed as motorcycles.

A bit of an aside to the main discussion (obviously the multi-thousand watt bikes aren't ebikes under any definition) but as someone who wants to see ebike access expand they do make me a bit nervous, because regulation tends to be reactive and one idiot hitting someone on a trail on one of these and then claiming they thought ebikes were fine could throw a wrench in a lot of access discussions.

 

[Hightail Electric Bikes]

Calling this a 'trail issue' is a strawman arguement. Hundreds of thousands of people commute on trails; I commuted for years on a rail trail. I wrote this earlier in the thread:

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

It is a cycling infrastructure issue. It is an issue for anyone riding a bike or ebike anywhere automobiles do not.

I never said this was a trail issue...just the opposite...I'm saying it is WAY more than just a trail issue. I never said all ebikes should fall under the same category...I proposed 4 categories for ALL motorized bikes (ANY motor type). I think I may be the only one here that sees there are bikes with motors that are not electric and separating electric from ICE and making laws that don't consider them together is narrow sighted and counter productive. By my proposal a 49cc ICE pit bike/scooter/moped would be considered the same as a 750W ebike with a throttle. Not what anyone wants to hear as no one wants noisy ICE bikes on trails. This can be easily addressed by land managers simply saying no ICE bikes allowed. No one would have a problem with that. But from a Federal law legal point of view these should all considered together and categorized together. That way you don't need two or more sets of ambiguous laws for no reason. Although an influx of steam engine/electric/ICE bikes with pedals and switchable motor powers from China would be interesting to see.
Your point about the infrastructure is true. It is why I envisioned two classes of LSEB's (which aren't really necessarily electric BTW)....because 20 mph is fast enough for the trails...but not fast enough for commuting in rural areas and on city streets without a motorcycle endorsement on your license. But anyway, my main point is if we ignore the mess that is already existing with the whole moped/scooter thing and add to it with a 3 class ebike thing we aren't really advancing anything...we're only propagating more confusion.

 

[J.R.]

I never said this was a trail issue...just the opposite...I'm saying it is WAY more than just a trail issue. I never said all ebikes should fall under the same category...I proposed 4 categories for ALL motorized bikes (ANY motor type). I think I may be the only one here that sees there are bikes with motors that are not electric and separating electric from ICE and making laws that don't consider them together is narrow sighted and counter productive. By my proposal a 49cc ICE pit bike/scooter/moped would be considered the same as a 750W ebike with a throttle. Not what anyone wants to hear as no one wants noisy ICE bikes on trails. This can be easily addressed by land managers simply saying no ICE bikes allowed. No one would have a problem with that. But from a Federal law legal point of view these should all considered together and categorized together. That way you don't need two or more sets of ambiguous laws for no reason. Although an influx of steam engine/electric/ICE bikes with pedals and switchable motor powers from China would be interesting to see.
Your point about the infrastructure is true. It is why I envisioned two classes of LSEB's (which aren't really necessarily electric BTW)....because 20 mph is fast enough for the trails...but not fast enough for commuting in rural areas and on city streets without a motorcycle endorsement on your license. But anyway, my main point is if we ignore the mess that is already existing with the whole moped/scooter thing and add to it with a 3 class ebike thing we aren't really advancing anything...we're only propagating more confusion.

I didn't say that you stated that all electric bikes should fall under one category, I was restating just what a trail actually is in this issue. The common refrain has resurfaced throughout this thread that it's a trail issue.

Most of those "trails" are not under the control / jurisdiction of park trail managers. Most of those are urban infrastructure that has always been open to bike use and should allow LSEBs as a bike. It will not cause any issues. I understand that trail managers are anti-throttle but they are one minor opinion and they should have to prove the damage and safety claims they toss out as reasons throttles are bad.

Most are governed and maintained by the parks departments, where they are located. Rail trails, canal towpaths, bike and hike trails, cycle paths, multi use paths are all controlled by parks departments or their equivalent in the department of conservation and natural resources. If you go to a few meetings you'll understand the governing bodies. The only item not included are bike lanes and even some of those are the parks department purview.

 

[ngl]

I never said this was a trail issue...just the opposite...I'm saying it is WAY more than just a trail issue. I never said all ebikes should fall under the same category...I proposed 4 categories for ALL motorized bikes (ANY motor type). I think I may be the only one here that sees there are bikes with motors that are not electric and separating electric from ICE and making laws that don't consider them together is narrow sighted and counter productive. By my proposal a 49cc ICE pit bike/scooter/moped would be considered the same as a 750W ebike with a throttle. Not what anyone wants to hear as no one wants noisy ICE bikes on trails. This can be easily addressed by land managers simply saying no ICE bikes allowed. No one would have a problem with that. But from a Federal law legal point of view these should all considered together and categorized together. That way you don't need two or more sets of ambiguous laws for no reason. Although an influx of steam engine/electric/ICE bikes with pedals and switchable motor powers from China would be interesting to see.
Your point about the infrastructure is true. It is why I envisioned two classes of LSEB's (which aren't really necessarily electric BTW)....because 20 mph is fast enough for the trails...but not fast enough for commuting in rural areas and on city streets without a motorcycle endorsement on your license. But anyway, my main point is if we ignore the mess that is already existing with the whole moped/scooter thing and add to it with a 3 class ebike thing we aren't really advancing anything...we're only propagating more confusion.

Oooh I gotcha. 49cc would be above the 1hp/750w limit and motorized bicycles were already a federal/state legal thing before ebikes existed en masse. The original intent of the old motorized bicycle laws which afaik the CPSC and first ebike laws sprang from was having a motor that has the same or less peak hp than a human adult can produce at peak (~1hp) and hence no age restrictions or licensure would be necessary, which is where the 750 watt limit in the US originated. Normally the sub-1hp kits were just about 19-20cc to produce the right power output. I'm not sure if they still make any road legal 2 strokes for bicycles, but who would care as they really suck!

 

[Ken M]

I never said this was a trail issue...just the opposite...I'm saying it is WAY more than just a trail issue. I never said all ebikes should fall under the same category...I proposed 4 categories for ALL motorized bikes (ANY motor type). I think I may be the only one here that sees there are bikes with motors that are not electric and separating electric from ICE and making laws that don't consider them together is narrow sighted and counter productive. By my proposal a 49cc ICE pit bike/scooter/moped would be considered the same as a 750W ebike with a throttle. Not what anyone wants to hear as no one wants noisy ICE bikes on trails. This can be easily addressed by land managers simply saying no ICE bikes allowed. No one would have a problem with that. But from a Federal law legal point of view these should all considered together and categorized together. That way you don't need two or more sets of ambiguous laws for no reason. Although an influx of steam engine/electric/ICE bikes with pedals and switchable motor powers from China would be interesting to see.
Your point about the infrastructure is true. It is why I envisioned two classes of LSEB's (which aren't really necessarily electric BTW)....because 20 mph is fast enough for the trails...but not fast enough for commuting in rural areas and on city streets without a motorcycle endorsement on your license. But anyway, my main point is if we ignore the mess that is already existing with the whole moped/scooter thing and add to it with a 3 class ebike thing we aren't really advancing anything...we're only propagating more confusion.

The 2002 federal definition of a LSEB as a bike was just fine. It was not confusing and allowed up to 20mph motor alone (so NHTSA as ok with an LSEB not being considered a motor vehicle and they were OK with human power adding a bit more speed which is what does allow ebikes to be compelling urban mobility). Under that 20mph motor alone umbrella electric scooters, hoover boards, and skateboards can also be consumer products allowed where bikes are allowed. So simple and elegant.

A 49cc ICE ?moped?will easily surpass 20mph and even 30mph (I believe some 49cc 2-stroke motors can generate upwards of 8hp). Putting pedals on them really should not provide a legit claim to be a bike. I do agree there are a lot of EVs coming that will be in this catagory but they should not be considered LSEBs or motorcycles. The new Sonders Metacycle is a good example a sub-motorcycle class that will be great for urban mobility but they do not belong on highways or interstates. Given that vast array of opinions at the state level it would be great if NHTSA would just define these EVs and essentially dictate that the states ONLY have the rights to establish the "use" laws just like they should be limited to for LSEBS (we simply do not want each state to define a different product such that manufacturers have to comply with ridiculous minor differences like NY creating a Class 3 ebike with throttle-assist to 25mph for no reason). I do agree that in this class both EVs and ICEs need to be "use" acceptable and have less regulatory burden vs a motorcycle. For example I think California has a long term registration for these at less than $20 for many years and Colorado has a $5.85/yr registration (these all these vehicles to be registered via the VIN system but low cost burden encourages their use when a LSEB is not adequate).

Motorcycles - again just higher power than the ?moped/class? just outlined but higher performance and regulated just as motorcycles are now.

I want LSEBs to remain with CPSC and get rid of 3-class legislation as it has no merit - trail managers will just have to accept throttles and DMV and insurance companies will never get their arms around speed pedelecs like they did in Europe (totally ruining the savings and congestion reduction potential of speed pedelecs).

 

[jabberwocky]

Most are governed and maintained by the parks departments, where they are located. Rail trails, canal towpaths, bike and hike trails, cycle paths, multi use paths are all controlled by parks departments or their equivalent in the department of conservation and natural resources. If you go to a few meetings you'll understand the governing bodies. The only item not included are bike lanes and even some of those are the parks department purview.

Same around me. Bike lanes in the immediate DC metro might be under the control of whatever agency manages the road they are a part of (which itself varies a lot), but almost all off street stuff is under the jurisdiction and control of some park department. Could be a local agency like NOVA parks or Montgomery County Parks, could be a state agency like Virginia State Parks or Maryland Department of Natural Resources, or could be a Federal agency like the National Forest system. And "trail" in this context encompasses stuff from wide paved trails that you could drive a car down all the way to mountain singletrack that you need to be in shape to even hike up.

 

[Hightail Electric Bikes]

Beyond the HMI interface issue with the microcontroller for sub-750w bikes (throttle vs. pedal sensors), I don't get why they current motorcycle regulations aren't good enough for the >1hp bikes. You can just title it or issue a MCO for a motorcycle as a manufacturer for anything with greater power, just like they do for 49cc scooters on up. Moped regs are such an oddball that really only seems to exist at the state level for under 16's to be able to get a 30mph vehicle to go work a job, it can't have a gearshift in most states, etc - just an oddball relic of a system.

CSC for instance does the scooters and motorcycles in the 1.5-3.5kw range and they just meet the federal safety standards and title them as you would anything else from the gas world 49cc on up, which should be good enough and is fully comprehensive in all 50 states. Unless I'm missing something else? https://cscmotorcycles.com/buy-a-bike/electric-scooters/ I got my motorcycle license at 16, so I think that's normal and attainable in states that allow driver's license at 15-16.

Getting a motorcycle license is a big detractor. In CT for example, a two day course is required to get an motorcycle endorsement to ride anything over 50cc. The courses fill up fast especially weekend courses. You shouldn't need a motorcycle endorsement to ride a 1000W ebike. That's just ridiculous. The course is done with 250cc motorcycles that weigh 1.5-2 times what a heavier ebike weighs. You have to learn to shift motorcycle gears and other non related things.

It is why I proposed a motorbike classification for light motorbike that would be for motor driven cycles with top attainable speed of say 40-50 mph and maximum curb weight of 175 lbs (for example). Higher power "ebikes" could fit in this class and the states could determine if registration, insurance and motorcycle endorsements are required. Likely, it would force states to create abbreviated safety courses for this class of bike which would be a good thing. More people would do it knowing it wasn't a full motorcycle safety course especially if it were a 4-6 hour course vs. two full days. Again, this would encompass all motor driven cycles in that classification regardless of motor type or bike style (moped, scooter etc.)

 

[Ken M]

Same around me. Bike lanes in the immediate DC metro might be under the control of whatever agency manages the road they are a part of (which itself varies a lot), but almost all off street stuff is under the jurisdiction and control of some park department. Could be a local agency like NOVA parks or Montgomery County Parks, could be a state agency like Virginia State Parks or Maryland Department of Natural Resources, or could be a Federal agency like the National Forest system. And "trail" in this context encompasses stuff from wide paved trails that you could drive a car down all the way to mountain singletrack that you need to be in shape to even hike up.

C'mon seriously...you seem to be claiming all urban streets are under the jurisdiction of the park system. That is simply false!

 

[Asher]

Yes P4Bs is a lobby group and they will be happy to see insurance and registration put on speed pedelecs just like what happened in Europe. I don't want to see that happen so would just like to see the federal definition recognized for the state "use" regulations.

Which insurers are part of P4B? If P4B exists to sell new bikes, why would it want to increase prices on them through insurance mandates?

 

[ngl]

Getting a motorcycle license is a big detractor. In CT for example, a two day course is required to get an motorcycle endorsement to ride anything over 50cc. The courses fill up fast especially weekend courses. You shouldn't need a motorcycle endorsement to ride a 1000W ebike. That's just ridiculous. The course is done with 250cc motorcycles that weigh 1.5-2 times what a heavier ebike weighs. You have to learn to shift motorcycle gears and other non related things.

It is why I proposed a motorbike classification for light motorbike that would be for motor driven cycles with top attainable speed of say 40-50 mph and maximum curb weight of 175 lbs (for example). Higher power "ebikes" could fit in this class and the states could determine if registration, insurance and motorcycle endorsements are required. Likely, it would force states to create abbreviated safety courses for this class of bike which would be a good thing. More people would do it knowing it wasn't a full motorcycle safety course especially if it were a 4-6 hour course vs. two full days. Again, this would encompass all motor driven cycles in that classification regardless of motor type or bike style (moped, scooter etc.)

I don't see any reason why >1hp road motorcylces or scooters would need another class just to avoid a two day safety course or a basic license test requirement. If the other big *49cc scooter manufacturers thought it was a problem, they'd probably have proposed it already. I think Honda, Yamaha, Vespa are probably happy with it, but if you really want a special new class for those, that's who will pay for it if they want it. I think they already sell well enough that they don't care to pay for a new law, though.

 

[Ken M]

I don't see any reason why >1hp road motorcylces or scooters would need another class just to avoid a two day safety course or a basic license test requirement. If the other big *49cc scooter manufacturers thought it was a problem, they'd probably have proposed it already. I think Honda, Yamaha, Vespa are probably happy with it, but if you really want a special new class for those, that's who will pay for it if they want it. I think they already sell well enough that they don't care to pay for a new law, though.

In most states there already is a class between LSEB and motorcycles. The performance range varies a bit which maybe justified that NHTSA step in with a definition so states can decide how they want to "use" regulate. When states define the product they tend to be ass-pulls in all directions so the manufacturers can not simply make a compliant product that is legal in all states (that is the main reason I filed the petition for preemption that started this whole tread).

 

[Ken M]

Which insurers are part of P4B? If P4B exists to sell new bikes, why would it want to increase prices on them through insurance mandates?

I didn't make that claim. I don't think it's a secret that insurance companies love insurance mandates and they will lobby to get any new product they can achieve that on. In Europe they were successful in getting speed pedelecs to require insurance and registration so I think it's very very plausible they will try to do that on Class 3 ebikes here in the US if the 3-class system legally stands / expands. With one federal definition for a LSEB that is "use" regulated by the states as a bike there isn't really much of a chance for the greed of the insurance industry to get a foothold to monetize bikes. Please let's not argue the virtues of the insurance industry and that they would never try to monetize class 3 / speed pedelec ebikes (insurance industry executives would sell their 1st born to monetize anything with mandatory policies...sorry but that is a universal truth).

 

[ngl]

In most states there already is a class between LSEB and motorcycles. The performance range varies a bit which maybe justified that NHTSA step in with a definition so states can decide how they want to "use" regulate. When states define the product they tend to be ass-pulls in all directions so the manufacturers can not simply make a compliant product that is legal in all states (that is the main reason I filed the petition for preemption that started this whole tread).

Wouldn't a federal NHTSA definition just be a carbon copy of the motorcycle regs but just add a hp limit to the definition, like 1-3hp? What mandatory safety features would be worth leaving off to save a few bucks on a smaller engine motorcycle or scooter? If a manufacturer isn't driving the legislation for profit to open up some new and profitable segment, I dont' see any likely push behind the idea. if it's 1-3hp only to cover this gap, who is the market? Bicycles already do the speed limit in 25mph zones, and the next zone is usually 35 mph, which is covered by the 49/50cc segment. A special class for the rare 30mph zone?