Yep, and they aren't looking to the feds for guidance.
Statement Regarding Potential CPSC Ebike Law Preemption of 3-class Legislation
- Thread starter Ken M
- Start date
Class 4 doesn't exist, as you surmised, it's just used as a placeholder for everything that isn't Class1-3
Hightail Electric Bikes
New Member
- Region
- USA
The bikes I import are "not for use on public roads" so not required to comply with FMVSS. And has been suggested, the bikes I will build here can be built the same way leaving it up to the end user to attempt to register if they want. Thank you for that input BTW. It is a consideration now to stay below the 5 BHP (3700W?) based upon this information. It's not a concern about power, moreso about torque. With single speed belt drive the ratio is difficult to achieve...but not impossible. Now I need to research Motor Driven Cycle restrictions so far as possible gears, whether they are allowed or not. As I stated previously, I have no agenda to get higher powered bikes on trails. The people who buy my bikes ride them elsewhere. Who wants to have a bike like that and putz around on crowded trails? Gimme some open space!...or a dirt road in middle Merica!
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
The director of the county parks department has been with the department for some ~40 years, I can't remember how long as director, but a long time. She was in charge of 5000+ acres of forest and parkland which includes 2 rail trails totaling more than 50 miles, park paths and many single track mtb trails. She made it clear at the outset ebikes were banned from all park land. In the end she voted to allow ebikes. She retired in 2020 and in an interview with our largest paper, she was asked about the things she was proud of during her tenure. She named 3 things, the second was the inclusion of class 1 ebikes.
Last edited:
I grew up riding motorcross dirt bikes all over the place (not really possible these days and I respect that) and then rode a 1983 Honda V65 Magna for many years until I finally decided that too many drivers just never see motorcycles. I had a friend making prototype ebikes like 15 years ago and while they were pretty cool the range was horrible so like many I didn't think they would be viable products until the battery issue could be solved. The range of ebikes is now "good enough" and will only get better with next generation batteries so I think the urban mobility potential is significant and only just being touched on in the US. Most ebikes I believe are still being bought for recreation, fitness and leisure use and only a few OEMs seem to have even tried to make a great "transportation-grade"ebike. I sent you an email via your website so hopefully we can have an off-line discussion. Thanks.
Why not just CPSC compliant ebikes? Class 1 is still not even recognized in 20+ states and from a 1st sale point of view they will likely be preempted. I do understand that it's great some ebikes were granted trail access but I think it's just some smoke and mirrors from PFBs that really wasn't needed.
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
Circular logic. I've told you about our state law. I posted about liability. I stated what we attempted to get included. It's called a compromise. It's also called states rights and the 10th amendment.
So PA essentially adopted the 2002 federal "low speed electric bicycle" definition in 2014 and called them "pedalcycles with electric assist. (PWEA_" Very cute, I sure some lawmakers were feeling really smart that they could invent a new name for the same thing federally defined 12 years earlier (apply for copyright). Lightning fast adoption rate that any state resident should be proud of. I wonder if ebikes were actually illegal prior to VEHICLE CODE (75 PA.C.S.) but we don't need to go backwards or it could take decades for PA to get caught up again.
So then along come the land managers and they look at the state law and freak out over the fact that it allows throttles. I can only imagine the horror they felt as no one should have to endure that suffrage (we should all pitch in and buy them the full video series of Duck Dynasty). I'm sure the stress of thinking about the massive trail damage and human carnage on the paths if they just accepted the states definition for trail use kept them up for weeks. Then one day, one of them thought wow "we just need to keep the throttles off our trails and everything will be alright"...and so the stage was set for the compromise and the PA Class 1 trail PWEA was defined and everyone had class 1 trail access. Happy ever after.
Ok, I'm sorry for dry humor but I didn't really absorb earlier that you did say that PA was not even a 3-class state. So did they really say in front of others that a 20mph pedalcycle was OK but a 20mph throttle-assist ebike was not. Did anyone asked the obvious physics questions as to how they are really different or did the echo chamber just engulf the room? Given that PA allowed the trail managers to define their own "legal ebike" for trail use maybe they can keep that in place even if the CPSC preempts the 3-class system in all 28 adopted states. Maybe the state should import the 250W 15mph EU ebikes just for trail use.
I understand it was a compromise and if everyone is happy with it I hope it doesn't change but my guess is it will change in the next year or two. Just a hunch.
Our country should be proud....while we are fighting over trail access China is moving fast forward on artificial intelligence, solid state batteries, quantum computers, etc.
So then along come the land managers and they look at the state law and freak out over the fact that it allows throttles. I can only imagine the horror they felt as no one should have to endure that suffrage (we should all pitch in and buy them the full video series of Duck Dynasty). I'm sure the stress of thinking about the massive trail damage and human carnage on the paths if they just accepted the states definition for trail use kept them up for weeks. Then one day, one of them thought wow "we just need to keep the throttles off our trails and everything will be alright"...and so the stage was set for the compromise and the PA Class 1 trail PWEA was defined and everyone had class 1 trail access. Happy ever after.
Ok, I'm sorry for dry humor but I didn't really absorb earlier that you did say that PA was not even a 3-class state. So did they really say in front of others that a 20mph pedalcycle was OK but a 20mph throttle-assist ebike was not. Did anyone asked the obvious physics questions as to how they are really different or did the echo chamber just engulf the room? Given that PA allowed the trail managers to define their own "legal ebike" for trail use maybe they can keep that in place even if the CPSC preempts the 3-class system in all 28 adopted states. Maybe the state should import the 250W 15mph EU ebikes just for trail use.
I understand it was a compromise and if everyone is happy with it I hope it doesn't change but my guess is it will change in the next year or two. Just a hunch.
Our country should be proud....while we are fighting over trail access China is moving fast forward on artificial intelligence, solid state batteries, quantum computers, etc.
Last edited:
Tahoe has proposed expanded trail access with good reasons.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...l-access-proposed-for-electric-bikes-at-tahoe
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...l-access-proposed-for-electric-bikes-at-tahoe
Nice but again they are claiming only class 1 ebikes will be allowed without any explanation why. Since some of these are trails are entirely national forest land you would think the federal "low speed electric bicycle" definition would be recognized for use on the trails. I think PFBs has done such a great lobby and publicity effort on the 3-class system that they have everyone koolaid drunk believing it legit law (when in fact on 9/15/2020 PFBs presented it to the CPSC as a voluntary system....tell that to the 28 states that adopted it into law).
Here is their exact presentation wording:
VOLUNTARY E-BIKE STANDARDS
» Three class state regulatory system:
» Clarifies an important ambiguity in federal product safety law, which does not specify a
maximum pedal-assisted motorized speed that e-bicycles may travel.
» Addresses and enables local government use regulation.
I'm bothered by this because this is not how they present 3-class on their website or during other presentations. But they know the CPSC owns the true legal standard for a "low speed electric bicycle" thru 1st sale / introdution into interstate commerce.
kmccune
Well-Known Member
It took Me about 15 minutes to decide would get killed quickly on a Motorcycle.( sorry about the grammer)
kmccune
Well-Known Member
Our Female "Rangers" seem sympathetic, on the other hand by conversing with them"I see no inclination to make waves"( I went pretty close to the top as well)
kmccune
Well-Known Member
Checked them out, pretty doggone awesome( would like the specs) one question ,"where does one get these "mag wheels"( sorry I am a young old man { as are so many hereabouts} and do not like to fiddle with things like spokes,) thank you.
Hightail Electric Bikes
New Member
- Region
- USA
The "mag wheels" are actually carbon fiber wheels and are optional on some of the Denzel models. Just installed a set on a Samurai for a customer. Really nice wheels, but pricey.
Attachments
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
PA is more open to ebikes than most states. Some do, some spin. Keep spinning your web.
I'm not sure if local officials / land managers can control "use" via a product definition that state law doesn't recognize. PA may be on shaky ground with that but not my concern for now.
Even People for Bikes says this: Cities generally align ordinances with state law
Keep in mind I've been totally upfront, honest, and open about why I sent the petition. I think a line was crossed but we are all free to form an opinion on that (I just don't think you or anyone should just base their opinion on isolated & subjective views on trail access ... i.e. you really can not be sure trail access is lost if the federal definition remains and 3-class is preempted).
I was poking fun at it all (some are uptight and questioning them just creates anger). I simply didn't realize that a state could not adopt 3-class legislation and yet local land managers could. Doesn't this tell you or anyone else how this does / could impact interstate commerce? If all these local "officials" adopt what they feel is an acceptable ebike we could end up with 100s of different definitions of compliance and an industry thinking the whole world had gone nuts.
Not sure if you noticed my earlier post on how PFBs presented 3-class legislation at a CPSC sponsored micromobility forum. The claimed it was a "Voluntary ebike Standard." I think they were hedging in case the 3-class system does end up getting preempted - they will claim the states adopted as law entirely on their own. I don't understand why someone at the CPSC would not consider the interstate commerce impact of 3-class state legislation during that presentation but PFBs was claiming they pretty much had the entire ebike industry only producing compliant ebikes to a voluntary standard (not true but if no one questions it I guess it is). Here's how they presented 3-class...
VOLUNTARY E-BIKE STANDARDS
» Three class state regulatory system:
» Clarifies an important ambiguity in federal product safety law, which does not specify a maximum pedal-assisted motorized speed that e-bicycles may travel.
» Addresses and enables local government use regulation.
Last edited:
kmccune
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
Asher
Well-Known Member
Why would P4B want that?
Really? They received over $1,000,000 in lobby money for the 3-class efforts so you don't think they would be happy to accept insurance lobby money to position class 3 as different enough from a "bike" to justify insurance.
Please take the time to research what happened in Europe because they decided to require both registration and insurance on speed pedelecs which are the same as US class 3.
Keep in mind that this is speculative but clearly having that separate mildly faster class provides a foothold for that kind of lobby effort in the US.
What I can not comprehend is why so many perceive the 3-class system added any value or safety vs the one federal definition of a "low speed electric bicycle" that is "use" regulated as intended would just be considered as any other bike. Oh I know everyone drinks the koolaid that ebikes have motors...and yes they do...but that does not mean they can not be use regulated as a non-motorized vehicle just like a bike (read the congressional notes from 2002...I keep encouraging everyone to get informed on this but they would rather be spoon fed what PFBs is telling them). Let's all just get informed and educated on all this as it is a bit complex.
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
You aren't informed. P4B and the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association are one in the same. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they advocated for insurance and registration. It's quite the opposite of what you suggest, they'd fight tooth and nail against it. The board is the industry. I provided you with this link months ago.
BPSA and PeopleForBikes boards vote to merge organizations
BOULDER, Colo. (BRAIN) — The boards of the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association and PeopleForBikes Coalition have each voted to merge the organizations. The merger must still be approved by a vote of all BPSA members.The two nonprofit trade organizations began discussing the merger about 18...
www.bicycleretailer.com
