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

[Ken M]

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

I was well aware that PFBs and BPSA merged - that's when I believe they went from advocacy focus to industry lobby focus.

Well bike insurance and registration happened in Europe on any ebike assisting faster than 15mph...and I don't think there was a big industry push back. My OPINION is that insurance is a lot less likely if there is only one ebike definition and it's intended to be treated same as a bike for "use" regulations. Based on my understanding of bike history there has been efforts to mandate insurance on bike riders and even registrations (that is my understanding but that was like 20 years ago I read that).

Have you read the congressional notes on HR727? Sure seems like they were talking about ebikes and bikes being same - same regulation (1512) and expected "use" regulations to be as a bike. The AG of Mississippi came to that same conclusion after reading the statutes so maybe that person is uninformed as well.

I'm going to say this again but it's also an opinion....I understand that states have "use" regulation rights but I'm not so sure that provides them them the right to define what a compliant ebike is because they do not own 1st sale. This is so fundamentally simple to to me but everyone seems to imply the states can each have their own unique definition of compliant ebike.

 

[J.R.]

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

I was well aware that PFBs and BPSA merged - that's when I believe they went from advocacy focus to industry lobby focus.

I wish you had researched and "educated" yourself before starting all this. You only like what you agree with and disregard anything that doesn't support your opinion.

As I've stated many times, I have my issues with P4B. But you criticize, complain and post opinions that have no basis in fact. I'm no expert on any of this; I believe I'm fairly well informed. P4B has been lobbying and advocating on behalf of the industry and cyclists since 1999. They get no public money, they have aligned with many advocacy groups, they get much of their funding from the industry and they do a lot of charitable work in support of cycling. Including work with disabled and handicapped cyclists. Regardless of any misgivings I have with P4B, American cyclists and ebikers would be much worse off if they didn't exist.

People For Bikes

"Launched in 1999 as Bikes Belong, PeopleForBikes includes both an industry coalition of bicycling suppliers and retailers, as well as a charitable foundation. Our foundation is where we house our major programs and engage individual members, affiliate organizations, and corporate sponsors. We provide a unified front for advocating for bicycling on a national level, a strategic center to ensure collaboration between each piece in the bicycling movement, and the ability to support local efforts through our financial, community and communication resources."

An associate organization: League of American Bicyclists, founded 1880

"League of American Bicyclists is the voice for cyclists at the national level, and organizes an annual National Bike Summit to bring professionals and advocates in Washington, D.C., together with government representatives. A major supporter of the event is the PeopleForBikes Coalition (renamed from Bikes Belong Coalition in 2013), a 501(c)(6) trade association for the bicycle industry which lobbies Congress for funds to build bicycle usage in the U.S. The Summit has attracted around 500 attendees in recent years (as of 2009). In addition to PeopleForBikes, LAB works in partnership with other organizations such as America Bikes ("leveraging federal transportation dollars for bicycling", primarily with PeopleForBikes money), the Alliance for Bicycling and Walking (lobbies for government money to encourage bicycle usage while receiving substantial industry funding), Federal Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), NCUTCD, and NCUTLO in order to "create a more bicycle-friendly America."

 

[Asher]

Well bike insurance and registration happened in Europe on any ebike assisting faster than 15mph...and I don't think there was a big industry push back.

So this is the extent of your proof that an industry lobby wants something that by all appearances would suppress sales of the very product that industry sells - that maybe there was no pushback, but you're not really sure, but you'd like to think so (because it comports with your views).

The reality: the European Cycling Federation is firmly against insurance requirements for 25 kph ebikes. It supports them for speed pedelecs, because it claims insurance is needed to make claims against other motorists in the event of a crash, and are not covered by existing forms of insurance. Speed pedelecs are motor vehicles in the EU, and so are regulated like one.

Electric Bicycle (pedelec) Regulation

The bicycle is a wonderful thing. It doesn’t require a license plate, driver’s license, helmet, nor insurance. Riders travel on a healthy and environmentally friendly machine and have a freedom of choice that no other mode of transport offers. But sometimes there is a limit to its distance or to...

ecf.com

 

[jabberwocky]

So this is the extent of your proof that an industry lobby wants something that by all appearances would suppress sales of the very product that industry sells - that maybe there was no pushback, but you're not really sure, but you'd like to think so (because it comports with your views).

The strangest part about the whole "PFB is trying to backdoor insurance requirements" is that PFBs own model legislation specifically exempts all 3 classes from insurance requirements. I haven't checked every state that has adopted the 3 class system, but I spot checked a few (including my home state of VA) and it was adopted by all of them. So, sure, people could come back and try and require insurance on some or all classes of ebikes but it would require a change in the law (the law that PFB specifically pushes).

It doesn't even make sense by conspiracy-theory standards. As Asher notes, wheres the upside to either PFB itself or any of its industry sponsors? From what I see, the major manufacturers are pushing class 3s pretty heavily. Its not like Geico suddenly getting liability insurance money from me for my class 3 helps Yamaha or Giant.

 

[Ken M]

So this is the extent of your proof that an industry lobby wants something that by all appearances would suppress sales of the very product that industry sells - that maybe there was no pushback, but you're not really sure, but you'd like to think so (because it comports with your views).

The reality: the European Cycling Federation is firmly against insurance requirements for 25 kph ebikes. It supports them for speed pedelecs, because it claims insurance is needed to make claims against other motorists in the event of a crash, and are not covered by existing forms of insurance. Speed pedelecs are motor vehicles in the EU, and so are regulated like one.

Electric Bicycle (pedelec) Regulation

The bicycle is a wonderful thing. It doesn’t require a license plate, driver’s license, helmet, nor insurance. Riders travel on a healthy and environmentally friendly machine and have a freedom of choice that no other mode of transport offers. But sometimes there is a limit to its distance or to...

ecf.com

I said there was no push back on EU insurance requirements on speed pedelecs and you essentially confirmed that. We'er you trying to support my opinion on this?

 

[Ken M]

The strangest part about the whole "PFB is trying to backdoor insurance requirements" is that PFBs own model legislation specifically exempts all 3 classes from insurance requirements. I haven't checked every state that has adopted the 3 class system, but I spot checked a few (including my home state of VA) and it was adopted by all of them. So, sure, people could come back and try and require insurance on some or all classes of ebikes but it would require a change in the law (the law that PFB specifically pushes).

It doesn't even make sense by conspiracy-theory standards. As Asher notes, wheres the upside to either PFB itself or any of its industry sponsors? From what I see, the major manufacturers are pushing class 3s pretty heavily. Its not like Geico suddenly getting liability insurance money from me for my class 3 helps Yamaha or Giant.

I never said PFBs was trying to backdoor insurance (by the way the model legislation document section on insurance is not part of any state law....it's just a statement). All I have stated is an opinion that having class 3 ebikes provides a potential foothold for the powerful and greedy insurance industry to get in the door on ebikes as they did on speed pedelecs in Europe. I'm sure they didn't think it would happen in Europe but it did, so I'm just thinking that if we care about keeping the insurance industry away from ebikes we should consider having one definition for a "low speed electric bicycle" as a bike because then insurance executives have second thoughts about putting their hands in your pockets.

 

[Ken M]

I wish you had researched and "educated" yourself before starting all this. You only like what you agree with and disregard anything that doesn't support your opinion.

As I've stated many times, I have my issues with P4B. But you criticize, complain and post opinions that have no basis in fact. I'm no expert on any of this; I believe I'm fairly well informed. P4B has been lobbying and advocating on behalf of the industry and cyclists since 1999. They get no public money, they have aligned with many advocacy groups, they get much of their funding from the industry and they do a lot of charitable work in support of cycling. Including work with disabled and handicapped cyclists. Regardless of any misgivings I have with P4B, American cyclists and ebikers would be much worse off if they didn't exist.

People For Bikes

"Launched in 1999 as Bikes Belong, PeopleForBikes includes both an industry coalition of bicycling suppliers and retailers, as well as a charitable foundation. Our foundation is where we house our major programs and engage individual members, affiliate organizations, and corporate sponsors. We provide a unified front for advocating for bicycling on a national level, a strategic center to ensure collaboration between each piece in the bicycling movement, and the ability to support local efforts through our financial, community and communication resources."

An associate organization: League of American Bicyclists, founded 1880

"League of American Bicyclists is the voice for cyclists at the national level, and organizes an annual National Bike Summit to bring professionals and advocates in Washington, D.C., together with government representatives. A major supporter of the event is the PeopleForBikes Coalition (renamed from Bikes Belong Coalition in 2013), a 501(c)(6) trade association for the bicycle industry which lobbies Congress for funds to build bicycle usage in the U.S. The Summit has attracted around 500 attendees in recent years (as of 2009). In addition to PeopleForBikes, LAB works in partnership with other organizations such as America Bikes ("leveraging federal transportation dollars for bicycling", primarily with PeopleForBikes money), the Alliance for Bicycling and Walking (lobbies for government money to encourage bicycle usage while receiving substantial industry funding), Federal Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), NCUTCD, and NCUTLO in order to "create a more bicycle-friendly America."

Funny you mention educating myself on all this before starting all this. I read everything I could find on ebike regulations, I researched the history of the 2002 federal ebike definition including reading HR727 many times, reviewed congressional notes, I read multiple legal papers on interstate commerce laws, multiple documents on the preemptive powers of the safety agencies, and even researched why PFBs created and promoted the 3-class "model legislation," etc. Now did I spend time researching trail policies in PA? No I didn't as I just didn't view that as important as you do. I'm sorry but I just don't.

I understand that you view the 3-class legislation as vitally important for trail access in PA because class 1 is used by local trail managers for access even though the state hasn't even adopted 3-class. I'm not a legal expert but I find that very ???? policy.

I engaged in this effort because I bought and used 2 Colorado state law compliant ebikes that became illegal to ride anywhere in Colorado after 3-class legislation was passed. I reached out to PFBs and they essentially denied this was an outcome even though I provided them full disclosure on the bike brands and models. Now did that get me frustrated? Yes. It was clear to me they were not motivated to have effective ebike policy as much as they were driven by industry lobby money so I did the research and decided to file a petition for preemption of 3-class legislation because I believe it's clear it was a violation of interstate commerce law. You are not going to convince me I'm wrong by bringing up concerns about your trail access is PA and all the meetings you endured with trail managers to achieve a compromise. That is a nice story but honestly it's not relevant to the issues I raise in the petition. I do not desire any loss of trail access for ebikes - the fact that PA is not 3-class and yet you have trail access is actually proof that 3-class is not required for trail access....oh but I'm the one that didn't research or educate myself.

One last note....If PFBs would have simply promoted the federal definition for a "low speed electric bicycle" to be "use" regulated as a bike ebikers and the industry would be better off than what is present now (the recent DOI order mixing up the federal definition with 3-class is rock solid proof of the regulatory confusion caused by 3-class). Spend 10 minutes reading about Dr. Malcolm Currie and you decide if he is smarter than the people at PFBs that created 3-class. You will most likely conclude the federal definition is better - it's a PhD electrical engineer vs a few spandexters.

 

[J.R.]

Funny you mention educating myself on all this before starting all this. I read everything I could find on ebike regulations, I researched the history of the 2002 federal ebike definition including reading HR727 many times, reviewed congressional notes, I read multiple legal papers on interstate commerce laws, multiple documents on the preemptive powers of the safety agencies, and even researched why PFBs created and promoted the 3-class "model legislation," etc. Now did I spend time researching trail policies in PA? No I didn't as I just didn't view that as important as you do. I'm sorry but I just don't.

I understand that you view the 3-class legislation as vitally important for trail access in PA because class 1 is used by local trail managers for access even though the state hasn't even adopted 3-class. I'm not a legal expert but I find that very ???? policy.

I engaged in this effort because I bought and used 2 Colorado state law compliant ebikes that became illegal to ride anywhere in Colorado after 3-class legislation was passed. I reached out to PFBs and they essentially denied this was an outcome even though I provided them full disclosure on the bike brands and models. Now did that get me frustrated? Yes. It was clear to me they were not motivated to have effective ebike policy as much as they were driven by industry lobby money so I did the research and decided to file a petition for preemption of 3-class legislation because I believe it's clear it was a violation of interstate commerce law. You are not going to convince me I'm wrong by bringing up concerns about your trail access is PA and all the meetings you endured with trail managers to achieve a compromise. That is a nice story but honestly it's not relevant to the issues I raise in the petition. I do not desire any loss of trail access for ebikes - the fact that PA is not 3-class and yet you have trail access is actually proof that 3-class is not required for trail access....oh but I'm the one that didn't research or educate myself.

Wow! What a spin. You are correct in one thing, we took actions that actually helped tens of thousands of cyclists. You are taking actions because you own 2 illegal ebikes. BTW that strawman will soon be too big to get out of the house. It's not just trails, its wherever bikes ride that cars do not. You know, where most cyclists prefer to ride.

 

[Ken M]

Wow! What a spin. You are correct in one thing, we took actions that actually helped tens of thousands of cyclists. You are taking actions because you own 2 illegal ebikes. BTW that strawman will soon be too big to get out of the house. It's not just trails, its wherever bikes ride that cars do not. You know, where most cyclists prefer to ride.

Aren't you spinning it by claiming trail doomsday if 3-class is preempted?

Since you are apparently claiming my petition is a "strawman" argument, tell me if you think 3-class programming and the sticker and speedometer requirement impact interstate commerce. That is the basis of this debate but it gets ignored by you claiming riders will loose trail access (that seems strawman to me because it's not likely).

My 2 now illegal ebikes are examples of a problem. There are likely 10s of 1000s of ebikes people are riding everyday that they think are compliant in the 3-class state they live in that are actually not compliant (ie illegal to ride on any public infrastructure and that is ignored). The Izip Express was an ebike used by the LA Police department and I think they sold them to the public after they moved on to another model and yet they are NOT compliant to the 3-class law in California - the police department was using an illegal ebike and my argument is strawman? Really? Or is it that you don't want to really look at any information that goes against what your opinion is? It's not just my 2 ebikes. I can go on Amazon right now and point out ebikes being sold that are not compliant in any 3-class state yet people are buying them and riding them thinking they are (you may even see a few on those PA trails you ride).

Why did the Mississippi AG conclude that the statutes define a "low speed electric bicycle" as being the same as a bike? Do you agree with that conclusion? I do.

 

[J.R.]

Aren't you spinning it by claiming trail doomsday if 3-class is preempted?

Since you are apparently claiming my petition is a "strawman" argument, tell me if you think 3-class programming and the sticker and speedometer requirement impact interstate commerce. That is the basis of this debate but it gets ignored by you claiming riders will loose trail access (that seems strawman to me because it's not likely).

My 2 now illegal ebikes are examples of a problem. There are likely 10s of 1000s of ebikes people are riding everyday that they think are compliant in the 3-class state they live in that are actually not compliant (ie illegal to ride on any public infrastructure and that is ignored). The Izip Express was an ebike used by the LA Police department and I think they sold them to the public after they moved on to another model and yet they are NOT compliant to the 3-class law in California - the police department was using an illegal ebike and my argument is strawman? Really? Or is it that you don't want to really look at any information that goes against what your opinion is?

Why did the Mississippi AG conclude that the statutes define a "low speed electric bicycle" as being the same as a bike? Do you agree with that conclusion? I do.

You are building a strawman whenever you make the claim that others are talking about trails. It is a fallacy. You know very well I'm not making a trails argument. You do like to mischaracterize things I write to spin it to fit your web. I never said it was doomsday; I don't use phrases like that, that's your spin. Why not just make your argument and leave other's statements stand on their own. I don't need someone coming behind me and saying 'in other words...'

 

[Ken M]

You are building a strawman whenever you make the claim that others are talking about trails. It is a fallacy. You know very well I'm not making a trails argument. You do like to mischaracterize things I write to spin it to fit your web. I never said it was doomsday; I don't use phrases like that, that's your spin. Why not just make your argument and leave other's statements stand on their own. I don't need someone coming behind me and saying 'in other words...'

I never brought up trail access and I would prefer that it never entered this forum topic. I would prefer to just answer questions on the Petition for Preemption of the 3-class state legislation. I really do want to have good exchanges on this subject because I think the very idea of filing a petition with the CPSC can be mis-characterized very easily. I trust that they'll make a decision based on laws that govern interstate commerce. They must also balance the impact if they are not consistent with past decisions which is why I included what I felt was a precedence statement on an earlier decision with bike regulations.

 

[Ken M]

The strangest part about the whole "PFB is trying to backdoor insurance requirements" is that PFBs own model legislation specifically exempts all 3 classes from insurance requirements. I haven't checked every state that has adopted the 3 class system, but I spot checked a few (including my home state of VA) and it was adopted by all of them. So, sure, people could come back and try and require insurance on some or all classes of ebikes but it would require a change in the law (the law that PFB specifically pushes).

It doesn't even make sense by conspiracy-theory standards. As Asher notes, wheres the upside to either PFB itself or any of its industry sponsors? From what I see, the major manufacturers are pushing class 3s pretty heavily. Its not like Geico suddenly getting liability insurance money from me for my class 3 helps Yamaha or Giant.

All I have said is that having a class 3 provides a potential foothold for insurance to get some revenue from ebikes. They did do it in Europe so it's not a crazy conspiracy theory. While I know the bike community would not want that the insurance execs sure would.

 

[J.R.]

I never brought up trail access and I would prefer that it never entered this forum topic.

I don't think you understand what a strawman arguement is.

From wikipedia (could come from anywhere of hundreds of places)

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of the argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

I make the statement that the classes have given legislators, regulators and land managers an option to open up public lands, paths and trails. I've explained all the off street venues this involves, and given direct examples of them that have opened up to class 1. I have explained that throttles were considered and rejected. You just target the word trails and repeat it over and over. You don't argue the actual point. Then when challenged you ask "how do you know ebikes will be banned from trails?" Which I've explained dozens of times. It's a diversion tactic and it truly is circular logic.

You keep saying trail access. In just this thread alone here's the search results for how many times you mentioned 'trails'. 5 pages.

Search results for query: Trail

electricbikereview.com

I know exactly the argument you are trying to make. I've heard it for 8 years. Back then I actually agreed with some of the points. I know people that carried photo copies of the CPSC HR727 around. States do have rights on these issues. P4B isn't the enemy here. I'm a bit baffled why anyone would want to turn over local control of any of this to a small group of beurocrats in DC. You do understand HR727 was a resolution that did not get read and voted on as a stand alone bill by a majority US Congress? It was written by beurocrats and shoved through with a bunch of papers. Several resolutions passed without due process. No state in the country will give up control of their own land to DC. It's not in the Purview of the CPSC to control use access to a rural trail in Montana or Pennsylvania or anywhere else. Take away the option of class 1 and access is gone.

 

[Ken M]

I don't think you understand what a strawman arguement is.

From wikipedia (could come from anywhere of hundreds of places)

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of the argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

I make the statement that the classes have given legislators, regulators and land managers an option to open up public lands, paths and trails. I've explained all the off street venues this involves, and given direct examples of them that have opened up to class 1. I have explained that throttles were considered and rejected. You just target the word trails and repeat it over and over. You don't argue the actual point. Then when challenged you ask "how do you know ebikes will be banned from trails?" Which I've explained dozens of times. It's a diversion tactic and it truly is circular logic.

You keep saying trail access. In just this thread alone here's the search results for how many times you mentioned 'trails'. 5 pages.

Search results for query: Trail

electricbikereview.com

I know exactly the argument you are trying to make. I've heard it for 8 years. Back then I actually agreed with some of the points. I know people that carried photo copies of the CPSC HR727 around. States do have rights on these issues. P4B isn't the enemy here. I'm a bit baffled why anyone would want to turn over local control of any of this to a small group of beurocrats in DC. You do understand HR727 was a resolution that did not get read and voted on as a stand alone bill by a majority US Congress? It was written by beurocrats and shoved through with a bunch of papers. Several resolutions passed without due process. No state in the country will give up control of their own land to DC. It's not in the Purview of the CPSC to control use access to a rural trail in Montana or Pennsylvania or anywhere else. Take away the option of class 1 and access is gone.

I have never suggested the federal government should have control of bike/ebike "use" regulation in any state. But you and others seem to be saying that states should be allowed to define what is a compliant ebike for 1st sale or a product already regulated by a federal agency. I think there is some confusion as to what "IS" the product and the "USE" of that product when it comes to ebikes. Sure PFBs can "claim" the 3-class definitions were needed for "use" because the federal definition was ambiguous and didn't specify a top speed (limiting power above 20 mph does just that but PFBs claims otherwise). Does that make it true? My guess is the PFBs team was not technical enough to understand the power limit per the constraints or they just wanted to create a false narrative for the classes.

How are some states still using the federal definition for a "low speed electric bicycle" as just a bike for "use" coming up on 20 years later? Why are the "use" regulations in those states working without classes?

I suggested a reason as to throttle-assist likely viewed by some as irrefutably a motor vehicle so they don't want them on trails. I have not doubted your claims that "class 1" provided an option to open up public lands. I have questioned the logic of thinking that a federally compliant "low speed electric bicycle" is so different from "class 1" such that access should be denied if the 3-class system is preempted. The DOI order 3376 says that all classes are allowed by default so that is clearly some shock-waves in the public land access debate (some are claiming the DOI Secretary doesn't even have the authority to make that decision but I'll stay out of that debate).

My argument is not a local argument at all. I'm questioning that the states can impact interstate commerce by requiring class programming, sticker, and speedometer on ebikes prior to 1st sale. I believe that PFBs THOUGHT 3-class was consistent with the federal definition but they should have got an advisory response from the CPSC prior to promoting the "model legislation" to the states. I'm not a lawyer or legal professional but technically there is no argument that the federal definition and 3-class are consistent given those 3 elements just mentioned. I do believe there is very good chance the CPSC will preempt the 3-class legislation....or they will have to adopt it via a congressional vote which will cause future issues with the preemptive power of the CPSC (they have to be consistent or they have future legal problems). If they decide to accept 3-class as the federal compliance defintion (something that PFBs has stated was their long term goal) then land managers will have Class 1 as a rock solid product definition.

 

[J.R.]

I'm questioning that the states can impact interstate commerce

That's been addressed. I could pick any 2 states where products are either different or available for sale in one and not the other. Products regulated by the CPSC or one of the other alphabet agencies.

Pennsylvania vs California. Things I can buy that Californians cannot; either not at all or in a very different form. Let's call the latter different programming and stickers.

Cars and pickups
Space heaters
Kerosene heaters
Gasoline powered lawn equipment
Hair dryers
Paint
Stain
Household cleaning chemicals
Boats
Outboard motors
Snowmobiles
Motorcycles
Hunting knives
Firearms
Power tools
Fireworks
A variety of children's products
Vaping products
Mercury switches (thermostats, etc.)
A variety of cosmetics

Not to mention the variety of foods!

Just a sampling across a broad spectrum, the list just goes on and on and on. States requiring different specs or having different regulations or not allowing the sale of some products is as old as the country.

Some light reading:

https://dtsc.ca.gov/what-are-the-safer-consumer-products-regulations/

Recent legislation and regulations | Consumer products law blog

www.consumerproductslawblog.com

"The Supreme Court has held that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce."

"From 1937 until 1995, the Supreme Court did not invalidate a single law on the basis of the Commerce Clause."

Not because cases were not filed, it's just really rare that it can be proven that a state law has a substantial economic impact.

Requiring different tuning and stickers is not onerous; it doesn't prevent the sale of the bike, it can be done and the seller passes the minor costs on to the consumer. Happens all the time. Things often cost more in states that have different regulations. If ebikes ever get big enough, I expect to see some states really crack down on bikes they deem illegal. There's a lot that I don't like about it, but there's that pesky 10th amendment.

 

[Ken M]

That's been addressed. I could pick any 2 states where products are either different or available for sale in one and not the other. Products regulated by the CPSC or one of the other alphabet agencies.

Pennsylvania vs California. Things I can buy that Californians cannot; either not at all or in a very different form. Let's call the latter different programming and stickers.

Cars and pickups
Space heaters
Kerosene heaters
Gasoline powered lawn equipment
Hair dryers
Paint
Stain
Household cleaning chemicals
Boats
Outboard motors
Snowmobiles
Motorcycles
Hunting knives
Firearms
Power tools
Fireworks
A variety of children's products
Vaping products
Mercury switches (thermostats, etc.)
A variety of cosmetics

Not to mention the variety of foods!

Just a sampling across a broad spectrum, the list just goes on and on and on. States requiring different specs or having different regulations or not allowing the sale of some products is as old as the country.

Some light reading:

https://dtsc.ca.gov/what-are-the-safer-consumer-products-regulations/

Recent legislation and regulations | Consumer products law blog

www.consumerproductslawblog.com

"The Supreme Court has held that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce."

"From 1937 until 1995, the Supreme Court did not invalidate a single law on the basis of the Commerce Clause."

Not because cases were not filed, it's just really rare that it can be proven that a state law has a substantial economic impact.

Requiring different tuning and stickers is not onerous; it doesn't prevent the sale of the bike, it can be done and the seller passes the minor costs on to the consumer. Happens all the time. Things often cost more in states that have different regulations. If ebikes ever get big enough, I expect to see some states really crack down on bikes they deem illegal. There's a lot that I don't like about it, but there's that pesky 10th amendment.

The states can ban the "use" of all bikes. I believe that when a product is defined and regulated by a safety agency such as the CPSC or NHTSA the states are not just free to change it as they please. For example, some just can't decide to require special class programming on an ebike, especially when based entirely on subjective desire (there must be objective safety reasons or that product is only used in that state..

Give me an example of a regulated product that a state has change for commerce in their state. Don't bring up the California emissions example as that was an exceptional situation where public health was a serious problem and not based on some land managers thinking a throttle will do more trail damage.

 

[J.R.]

The states can ban the "use" of all bikes. I believe that is a product is defined and regulated by a safety agency such as the CPSC or NHTSA the states are not just free to change it as they please like require special class programming on an ebike, especially when based entirely on subjective desire.

Give me an example of a regulated product that a state has change for commerce in their state. Don't bring up the California emissions example as that was an exceptional situation where public health was a serious problem and not based on some land managers thinking a throttle will do more trail damage.

You need to find the products and circumstances that support your opinion, not the other way around. The laws and regulations exist, you need to prove them wrong or illegal. It will take court action to change it. They aren't guilty until proven innocent. On top of that you want to cut out pressidance setting examples because you don't like them. It doesn't work that way. You can't just say that's a safety or health issue, that's an exceptional circumstance they don't apply.

The commerce clause doesn't protect businesses, segments of industries or individuals. It's meant to protect the US economy against protectionism and substantial economic threats. Requiring programming and stickers isn't substantial, doesn't prevent the sale and isn't a threat to the economy.

Don't bring back the bike is a bike argument. (More circular logic) A truck is a truck, yet state and local governments can regulate the roads they can drive on. They can regulate size, weight and noise (engine brakes), they can regulate how many axles. They can also permit vehicles on their roads that the Feds say are not road worthy. Let's call all these exceptions: special programming and stickers.

Post in thread 'Statement Regarding Potential CPSC Ebike Law Preemption of 3-class Legislation' https://electricbikereview.com/foru...tion-of-3-class-legislation.41792/post-410115

 

[Ken M]

You need to find the products and circumstances that support your opinion, not the other way around. The laws and regulations exist, you need to prove them wrong or illegal. It will take court action to change it. They aren't guilty until proven innocent. On top of that you want to cut out pressidance setting examples because you don't like them. It doesn't work that way. You can't just say that's a safety or health issue, that's an exceptional circumstance they don't apply.

The commerce clause doesn't protect businesses, segments of industries or individuals. It's meant to protect the US economy against protectionism and substantial economic threats. Requiring programming and stickers isn't substantial, doesn't prevent the sale and isn't a threat to the economy.

Don't bring back the bike is a bike argument. (More circular logic) A truck is a truck, yet state and local governments can regulate the roads they can drive on. They can regulate size, weight and noise (engine brakes), they can regulate how many axles. They can also permit vehicles on their roads that the Feds say are not road worthy. Let's call all these exceptions: special programming and stickers.

Post in thread 'Statement Regarding Potential CPSC Ebike Law Preemption of 3-class Legislation' https://electricbikereview.com/foru...tion-of-3-class-legislation.41792/post-410115

I'm just going to allow the CPSC to make the decision. I think the petition speaks for itself.

You need to keep "product defintion" and "use" separated...they are mutually exclusive things.

When the AG of Mississippi decided a "low speed electric bicycle" was just a "bike" for use regulations was that "circular logic?" I was not involved with that decision.

 

[J.R.]

I'm just going to allow the CPSC to make the decision. I think the petition speaks for itself.

You need to keep "product defintion" and "use" separated...they are mutually exclusive things.

When the AG of Mississippi decided a "low speed electric bicycle" was just a "bike" for use regulations was that "circular logic?" I was not involved with that decision.

Missippippians decided for Mississippians. That's the way it's supposed to work. I don't know anything about that case. I tried to encourage you long ago to get involved in your local community where you could make a real difference. I appreciate one thing here and that's your passion.

 

[Ken M]

Missippippians decided for Mississippians. That's the way it's supposed to work. I don't know anything about that case. I tried to encourage you long ago to get involved in your local community where you could make a real difference. I appreciate one thing here and that's your passion.

It was not a case - it was a sheriff asking the AG for an opinion on ebike use regulations. The Mississippi AG read the federal statutes and concluded the intent was for "low speed electric bicycles" to be just considered a bike. The state then has the right to regulate bikes as they always have. I give that significant merit because I could get no other state AG to go on the record with an opinion. It's a simple question - is a HR727 compliant LSEB intended to be "use" regulated as a bike? If not why put the definition in CPSC 1512? The CPSC could have created a new product regulation specifically for ebikes but obviously the consensus in 2002 was that they were very well aligned with traditional bikes and could be defined and safety regulated as a bike.

I do not think the states should have the power to define the products that are sold in the US. If they are going to rely on the CPSC to regulate safety of bikes then why not just accept the definition as well? To my knowledge all 50 states rely on the CPSC 100% for ensuring safe ebikes are sold (i.e. none have their own safety regulation of bikes or ebikes).