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

[Ken M]

lots of mix of opinion and fact and intent in this post make it a bit hard to discern the objective, so correct me if i’m wrong but my summarization of this thread would be.

1. it’s already been determined by statute and law that a LSEB is a bicycle
2. we don’t regulate the speeds of regular bicycles, only the speeds of the roads/paths they may travel upon
3. we don’t regulate other (even motorized) transportation vehicles based on their potential for speed or lack thereof
4. So IF we agree an LSEB is a bicycle, and bicycles don’t have inherent speed limitations (the rider determines the speed they can go or the law of the road determines speed limits) then…
5. Imposing a 3 level classification assessment upon LSEB does not treat LSEBs as “Bicycles” under the common and standing definition.

My own editorial might be that should this issue be provoked, one consequence could be that LSEB are no longer considered the same as a bicycle and thus many of the current advantages of that association could be lost in favor of a new and separate definition and class for only ebiles which could then make then not permissible on paths intended for traditional bicycles, subject to different laws and rules for the road, subject to registrations or inspections like other 2-wheeled motorized conveyances, subject to helmet laws, etc.

I wonder if this is poking the bear and while well-intentioned (arguing the differences between the 3 ebike classes are not substantial enough to HAVE 3 classes and that the designation of those three classes is inconsistent with the spirit of bicycle definition and safety regulations), i wonder if it could result in a declaration that ebikes are absolutely NOT bicycles in any way and we lose a lot of accommodations we gladly receive by that current definition and status.

I have not seen this argument made from a perspective that an LSEB is an electric moped (instead of a bicycle) but that is also a potential outcome of this challenge, that they get measured as another two wheeled motorized vehicle and subject to those standards and statutes instead of bicycle standards and statutes.

i personally don’t think much about the 3 classes and don’t see those class definitions affecting my daily life today. but if the ebike were not considered a bicycle anymore, and classed with mopeds, motorbikes, or combustion motorized vehicles then that would have pretty catastrophic effects for me and my ebike in terms of liability, acccessibilty of places to legally ride and likely my personal safety in doing so.

So i may be a little confused about the end benefit to the consumer by removing the class designation…. as i don’t think it will be as simple as just striking the class designation and leaving everything else the same.

Do we really think a government agency will remove the class/speed designations but still keep the definition of an ebike as “it’s a bicycle”? I don’t think govt will do that, if there’s pre existing evidence that they’ve done anything close to that anywhere im open to being wrong. but my sense is opening that can of worms will only result in a more restrictive and detrimental definition for what an ebike is.

Please keep in mind the federal definition has almost 20 years of legacy with no issues (not one person in this tread of People for Bikes declares any issues). HR 727 passed in 2002 and it clearly states that an ebike compliant to the definition is to be considered a bicycle and not a motor vehicle. This was in effect very unusual because the NHTSA defined (and regulated) “motor vehicles” (and still does today) as a “vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways…” If you read the congressional notes of the discussion around the passing of HR727 the discussion was not ambiguous - a compliant "low speed electric bicycle" was being included in the CPSC safety regulations as a bicycle. While that is jurisdictional as some claim the definition was also a legit law per the bill. A state attorney general review the statute a few years ago and came to the same conclusion and that state "use / traffic" regulates LSEBs as a bicycles.

ALL 3 classes defined by the People of Bikes are compliant to the federal definition (they are videos of their regulatory experts claiming their goal was to have the classes consistent with the federal definition) but not all ebikes that are compliant to the federal definition are compliant to one of the 3 classes and that is where I think the bull in the china shops resides. The CPSC unequivacally (by constitutional decree via the interstate commerce clause) controls what is legal for 1st sale. That is the basis of my petition to the CPSC - the state legislation that is being pushed by PFBs as needed for clarification and improved safety (utter nonsense but plays well given our essentially dumbing down society) requires programming (cease of assists at either 20 or 28mph) and a speedometer on class 3 models that are not required by the CPSC. That is specifically more stringent than required by the CPSC so per the rare expressed preemption in HR727 (this has been used in only about 10 product definitions of the 10,000+ products that the CPSC safety regulates so it's supposed tell the states do not screw with this definition).

Many people on this forum have raised a false concern that they could loose trail riding if the class system is preempted but that is just their fear overriding their common sense.

Based on the research I did there was a Bosch (the largest auto parts producer in the world) present in the room when the 3-class system was being drafted. Now we can argue if Bosch has some incentive to have some control of the adoption rate of ebikes given that if ebikes become an urban mobility solution but it's only natural they would even though they are making ebike motors (that is less than 1% of their company revenue though).

Having classes in Europe allowed registration and insurance sneak in and be required on "speed pedelecs" and while some don't believe me that will happen in the US if the class system is not preempted (those are powerful lobby entities and they will get what they want if there is a foot hold created by Class 3. Better to keep all LSEBs as a bike because the legal history keep these roaches out of our pockets when we want to experience the merits of riding a LSEB as a bike.

By the way, you are correct that the best way to regulate speed is via limits on the various paths as we do with other vehicles - assist cut-offs are just ridiculous and probably originated from some marketing team that didn't understand the tech at all.

 

[m@Robertson]

Do we really think a government agency will remove the class/speed designations but still keep the definition of an ebike as “it’s a bicycle”? I don’t think govt will do that, if there’s pre existing evidence that they’ve done anything close to that anywhere im open to being wrong. but my sense is opening that can of worms will only result in a more restrictive and detrimental definition for what an ebike is.

In a nutshell, this simple two-line analysis is why this bear-poking business is such a mind-numbingly dumb idea. But the goal here is not about community benefit. Its about the craving of attention and approval.

I hope ebike riders in the future appreciate the effort I put into this...

Motive? There it is.

 

[Ken M]

In a nutshell, this simple two-line analysis is why this bear-poking business is such a mind-numbingly dumb idea. But the goal here is not about community benefit. Its about the craving of attention and approval.

Motive? There it is.

NO....I said that because I'm getting hammered as being somehow anti-ebike. Some have said I don't care about trail access (as if Class 1 is the magic mix that allowed any ebikes on trails).

As detailed in the petition I have two ebikes that were purchased legally (both were brand names ebike at the time - Polaris and Izip) and were compliant to ride where bikes could ride in Colorado. Then after Colorado passed 3-class legislation they were both illegal to ride anywhere in this state. I called the state AG office and People for Bikes to discuss how this could happen and I got a total run-around. If you have to have a motivation that is more accurate. I became angry that no one I talked to seemed to have a clue. I even talked with one of the 4 bill drafters and he agreed that the only reason Colorado pushed 3-class thru to fast was because it was a condition for Haibike to move their sales headquarters from California to Colorado. He said it probably needed someone technical on the team to review the impact of the bill but in reality People for Bikes should have done that before lobbying the states.

What motivation is there from anyone to not have the 3-class system preempted and just have compliant LSEB as defined by HR727 and in CPSC 1512 as bikes so that states use regulate them as such instead of parse them into classes so local yolkls that have no clue what they are doing flip coins and decide what trails get what class allowed.

I live 20 minutes from People for Bikes Boulder location. You would think they would be willing to discuss their 3-class legislation if I went there. When I called them they told me that they were the experts and I didn't know what I was talking about. They claimed I was making up both the Polaris Diesel and the Izip Express ebikes and yet both have been reviewed on this site. They don't want to talk about it because they know it's a violation of interstate commerce law and they are just hoping my petition does not result in preemption of that trashy policy (spandexters should not be drafting legislation...sorry but they shouldn't be).

 

[rawlus]

ah okay, now the monkey comes out of the sleeve.
people for bikes don’t want ebikes on bike trails.

call me a pessimist but i do not see a future where there will be an elimination of the classification of an ebike, and if the classification were removed then colorado and any other jurisdictions that now prohibit ebike classes from trails will not suddenly reverse their decisions just because the class system is removed. because i don’t think it was the class system in the first place that got them restricted. (the class system may have just been the most convenient definition at the time to say “these (e)bikes but not those (standard) bikes”)

my sense is colorado simply doesn’t want ebikes on public bike paths, for whatever reason, period. class or no class. remove the class system and they’ll just categorize them all together, “no ebikes of any kind on trail, period”…

i’ll concede the class system is arbitrary and not terribly meaningful and not terribly differentiating to warrant class-based restrictions. but if i don’t like oranges, calling them bananas won’t make me suddenly like them.

if i’m lactose intolerant to begin with, i don’t care of you name off 1% milk, 2% milk, half and half, who,e milk, heavy cream…. or if you just call them all dairy products. both categorization work and the people who want to restrict aren’t going to be persuaded in changing their minds just because you changed the definition. you’d have to change their minds with studies, research, facts that are compelling enough for them to believe that ebikes post no greater threat to humans, animals, other bikers. pedestrians, other traffic, humanity, the ecosystem, our ozone layer, our oceans .., than a regular bike.

I think we’ve gotten lucky that for the most part ebikes are still mostly viewed as bikes first and E second. but protesting the classifications to me shines a line on the FACT that ebikes are NOT bicycles (because they have a motor) and most motorized things in this world are regulated, controlled, the focus of legislators, etc.

im sort of in a “let sleeping dogs lie” mood about this…. not sure i want to really go overboard talking about motor power and top speeds and mods that can be done to improve performance and hacks and all that with government and cause-based orgs because that’s just handing them a gun and bullets to slay us with imho.

 

[rawlus]

is anyone from people for bikes even here in this forum?
what’s your take on this? doesn’t seem so anti-ebike at first blush.

PeopleForBikes | Every ride. Every rider. Join us.

PeopleForBikes is committed to improving biking for everyone. Learn more about our work and join our movement.

www.peopleforbikes.org

 

[Ken M]

ah okay, now the monkey comes out of the sleeve.
people for bikes don’t want ebikes on bike trails.

call me a pessimist but i do not see a future where there will be an elimination of the classification of an ebike, and if the classification were removed then colorado and any other jurisdictions that now prohibit ebike classes from trails will not suddenly reverse their decisions just because the class system is removed. because i don’t think it was the class system in the first place that got them restricted. (the class system may have just been the most convenient definition at the time to say “these (e)bikes but not those (standard) bikes”)

my sense is colorado simply doesn’t want ebikes on public bike paths, for whatever reason, period. class or no class. remove the class system and they’ll just categorize them all together, “no ebikes of any kind on trail, period”…

i’ll concede the class system is arbitrary and not terribly meaningful and not terribly differentiating to warrant class-based restrictions. but if i don’t like oranges, calling them bananas won’t make me suddenly like them.

if i’m lactose intolerant to begin with, i don’t care of you name off 1% milk, 2% milk, half and half, who,e milk, heavy cream…. or if you just call them all dairy products. both categorization work and the people who want to restrict aren’t going to be persuaded in changing their minds just because you changed the definition. you’d have to change their minds with studies, research, facts that are compelling enough for them to believe that ebikes post no greater threat to humans, animals, other bikers. pedestrians, other traffic, humanity, the ecosystem, our ozone layer, our oceans .., than a regular bike.

I think we’ve gotten lucky that for the most part ebikes are still mostly viewed as bikes first and E second. but protesting the classifications to me shines a line on the FACT that ebikes are NOT bicycles (because they have a motor) and most motorized things in this world are regulated, controlled, the focus of legislators, etc.

im sort of in a “let sleeping dogs lie” mood about this…. not sure i want to really go overboard talking about motor power and top speeds and mods that can be done to improve performance and hacks and all that with government and cause-based orgs because that’s just handing them a gun and bullets to slay us with imho.

The reason why "low speed electric bicycles" are primarily viewed as just "bicycles" is because of HR727 passed in 2002. I suggest everyone read that bill (just do a quick google search).

A PhD Electrical Engineer named Malcolm Currie that was CEO of Hughes aircraft and Delco Electronics, helped developed GPS, and even won a congressional award for contributions (ie he had a lot of political capital) developed an ebike in the late 1990s called the EV Warrior. Late in his career he apparently had a epiphany to develop an ebike for urban mobility but he realized that DOT/NHTSA requirement for rear view mirrors, horn, blinkers, etc. were a cost issue and also being classified as a motor vehicle would be a problem as well (registration, licensing, insurance). He lead the legislative effort with some politicians to get "low speed electric bicycles" away from NHTSA to the CPSC to be regulated as a "bike." This is history that few really know and my guess is no one at People for Bikes cared to research any of the history of the federal regulation and why it is far far more important than the 3-class system that has no technical merits whatsoever.

For over 12 years almost every state just recognized the federal definition or a definition less stringent as a "bike." It was working just fine. The issue was there were some earlier local laws in place about ebikes being consider motor vehicles and that is where the problems we see today really originated. People for Bikes thought class 1 ebikes could be promoted as a lesser evil to trail managers because they were pedelecs. It did flip the opinions of many local authorities and trail managers but they didn't all take the same path. The best path is just to treat LSEBs as bikes on all paths / trails / etc. and that is what the federal definition should provide (does provide in about 20 states that still recognize it over the 3-class nonsense).

We are talking about the power or a typical 2-slice toaster (750W) which is then limited above 20mph to what would sustain a 170lb rider on a level surface at 20mph. That in reality is virtually the same performance as a class 3 pedelec so the federal definition was not less safe as some claim just because it does not have a stated cease of assist at a set speed (a cease of assist is helpful for the brain dead to feel ebikes will not be too fast but the federal definition was a far better way to limit speed (a phd knew how to write the specification better than the spandexters at People for Bikes).

No one is going to loose access to any trail if the 3-class system is tossed in the garbage can with other bad legislation. The class bikes that were sold and still available will still be compliant but they will eventually go away as making one model will eventually just make more sense to the manufacturers. People just need to educate themselves so they are not just thinking with their egos or emotions on this subject.

 

[rawlus]

dude, i understand the history of how we got here. but i’d disagree that “no one will lose access by redefining ebikes”. access and trail/path closures is a thing and people LOVE to do it. Once it’s been restricted, RARELY does it reopen. I was an off-road Jeeper for decades, had to get out of due to loss of access to trails. did all the good stuff, worked with legislators, land owners, preservationists, conservationists, land managers, etc.

the thing to be worried about is when they stop referring to it as a bike at all and start referring to t as a motorized vehicle and you get lumped in with every other motor vehicle….

i get it that when your access is restricted you want to reverse that.
my belief is that if your access is restricted where you are, it has NOTHING to do with the 3 class system and has everything to do with those people who are making the restrictions targeting ebikes period.

I do not believe, as you suggest, that restrictions would have never happened had the 3 class system not come along. the 3 class system just happened to be the convenient scapegoat for the restriction, but they were probably going to do it anyway.

 

[rawlus]

also unless we are talking federal lands, federal stuff from the CPSC is irrelevant to the state, city, county and local legislators…. they will still do whatever they want and then some.

 

[Ken M]

dude, i understand the history of how we got here. but i’d disagree that “no one will lose access by redefining ebikes”. access and trail/path closures is a thing and people LOVE to do it. Once it’s been restricted, RARELY does it reopen. I was an off-road Jeeper for decades, had to get out of due to loss of access to trails. did all the good stuff, worked with legislators, land owners, preservationists, conservationists, land managers, etc.

the thing to be worried about is when they stop referring to it as a bike at all and start referring to t as a motorized vehicle and you get lumped in with every other motor vehicle….

i get it that when your access is restricted you want to reverse that.
my belief is that if your access is restricted where you are, it has NOTHING to do with the 3 class system and has everything to do with those people who are making the restrictions targeting ebikes period.

I do not believe, as you suggest, that restrictions would have never happened had the 3 class system not come along. the 3 class system just happened to be the convenient scapegoat for the restriction, but they were probably going to do it anyway.

No. The Polaris Diesel / PIM Archer ebike had a throttle that would provide assist past 20mph but was CPSC compliant so before Colorado adopted 3-class is was a compliant LSEB that could be ridden legally everywhere a bike was ridden. The Izip Express was a cadence-assist system that did not have any cease of assist so in reality it provided even some assist beyond 28mph (you can review the history of this ebike and find out it was actually used by the LA Police department and I believe they sold those to the public after they moved to a different model...even though they were not compliant to ride in California).

I still ride both bikes but obviously that comes with some increased liability risks because they are not 3-class compliant ebikes while still be 100% LSEB federally compliant. That is something PFBs denies exists but it just so happens to impact a lot of imported ebikes that are not programmed to the 3-class system (numbers are fewer now but you can still find some on Amazon and Alibaba).

I want to make this crystal clear. I believe that if a LSEB is defined federally as bike then it CAN NOT be redefined as something else by the states so they have to use regulate it will all bikes. They can still ban bikes from a trail but they can not ban ebikes and allow traditional bikes because LSEBs are defined as a bike. I think that is where there is confusion. While I am not a legal expert there is a state Attorney General that published this exact same opinion so that certainly gives it some credibility.

It's the 3-class system that has nothing stating that ebikes are a bike so it allows the banning of some or all classes. I have no idea why this is confusing to so many but the federal definition is far better if we want compliant ebikes to be treated exactly as a bike. That's what every rider of ebikes should want and stop being fooled by the marketing of People for Bikes. They were paid $millions in lobby money to promote the 3-class legislation (that money was provided with future expectations which I believe include registration and insurance on class 3 eventually which DID happen in Europe but everyone here just thinks that won't happen here).

 

[Ken M]

also unless we are talking federal lands, federal stuff from the CPSC is irrelevant to the state, city, county and local legislators…. they will still do whatever they want and then some.

You are wrong when it comes to control of what can be sold in all 50 states and what it is when it is sold and the FEDs state that a compliant LSEB is a bike. Simple

 

[rawlus]

You are wrong when it comes to control of what can be sold in all 50 states and what it is when it is sold and the FEDs state that a compliant LSEB is a bike. Simple

are you telling me certain ebikes cannot be sold in certain states? really?
are you arguing about what can legally be sold or arguing about access and fair use?

if you want to win people to your cause why not just use plain language instead of acronyms and buzzwords and citations? i still cannot follow what you’re specifically trying to accomplish for the benefit of riders by this removal of the 3 class system.

imagine you’re a cult leader and you’re trying to get us to join the cult.

 

[rawlus]

example i was making is that regardless if the feds approve ebikes for sale, and regardless if we have a 3 class system or no class system. and regardless if they are recognized as bikes or not.

states, counties, municipalities, cities, towns and other jurisdictions can make any law they damn please to restrict “motorized” bikes from whatever path trail or stretch they desire.

my argument is limiting use of bikes in certain wayfares has zero to do with the class system. if the class system didn’t exist there’d be something to replace it so they could establish a distinction between a motorized bike and a non motorized one. simple.

if your town, county or state decides to limit motorized bikes there’s zero CPSC is able to do about it.

i’m still not understanding what problem you’re trying to solve and how.

 

[Ken M]

are you telling me certain ebikes cannot be sold in certain states? really?
are you arguing about what can legally be sold or arguing about access and fair use?

if you want to win people to your cause why not just use plain language instead of acronyms and buzzwords and citations? i still cannot follow what you’re specifically trying to accomplish for the benefit of riders by this removal of the 3 class system.

imagine you’re a cult leader and you’re trying to get us to join the cult.

This is not a simple situation.

I did not write that certain ebikes can not be sold in certain states. I detailed how some CPSC / federal compliant LSEBs are sold in states that have adopted 3-class legislation that are not legal to ride in those states (keep in mind I'm saying that are not legal to ride because of 3-class policy but I don't think that policy has true legal standing because it violates interstate commerce clause). I can not say that in a more simple fashion. The CPSC as with the other federal safety agencies have control of compliance at 1st sale. This can be verified via just google searches (this is fact not opinion).

People confuse ebike definition and use. The feds define what is considered a safe product and can be sold in all 50 states (states can adopt their own definitions but they must be less stringent for obvious reasons - when a product is only sold in a specific state they can have a unique definition but I can think of single example of that). In theory and typically practiced states just adopt verbatim the federal definitions and stick to use regulation which with LSEBs/Bikes are traffic laws that go back decades (considered vehicles when on the roads essentially).

I have had hammered by a lot of people on EBR saying that states needed to define ebikes to enable them to have legit use laws and that is as gobbledygook as what comes out of most politicians mouths. That is BS in other words. The federal definition was fine and CPSC 1512 was adequate to ensure ebikes being sold in the US were safe (not that any two wheel vehicle is safe but I digress). If you read the BS on PFBs website they claim 3-class was needed for clarification that the federal definition lacked but I challenge you to find anything that was clarified. They just parsed the one definition into 3 goofy segments - as if a 20mph pedal-assist and throttle-assist are really different technically except in the mind of those that drink their koolaid and class 3 is the dumbest because that class can not have a throttle yet those ebikes are only allowed to be ridden on the street or road side bike lanes with all the cars and motorcycles that have throttles (that is irrational at best).

 

[Ken M]

example i was making is that regardless if the feds approve ebikes for sale, and regardless if we have a 3 class system or no class system. and regardless if they are recognized as bikes or not.

states, counties, municipalities, cities, towns and other jurisdictions can make any law they damn please to restrict “motorized” bikes from whatever path trail or stretch they desire.

my argument is limiting use of bikes in certain wayfares has zero to do with the class system. if the class system didn’t exist there’d be something to replace it so they could establish a distinction between a motorized bike and a non motorized one. simple.

if your town, county or state decides to limit motorized bikes there’s zero CPSC is able to do about it.

i’m still not understanding what problem you’re trying to solve and how.

By definition a "low speed electric bicycle" is not a motorized vehicle (please read HR727. While I understand that it's conceptually hard for most to accept that a LSEB that actually has a motor is not a motor vehicle so the states can not claim it to be as such. I understand the local lawmakers sometimes have oversized egos but they can not redefine what a compliant ebike is and they are NOT MOTORIZED vehicles regardless of what they think.

I have had some claim that "not motorized" was only stated in HR727 for jurisdiction reasons to make it clear that LSEBs are not under NHTSA regulation but that again is nonsense because HR727 as a law put LSEBs under CPSC control in the first sentence of the bill so that so called jurisdiction clarification is on very week logical footing (I'm trying not to claim it's an asspull but it is). You assign jurisdiction at the federal level by saying what agency owns it not by saying it's not motorized so no long with NHTSA (it's a cute argument but meritless).

The intent of HR727 was to place LSEBs under CPSC safety regulation and define them as a bike. That benefits all ebike riders if it preempts 3-class and I hope the CPSC does just that to shut down the confusion of that legislation. How many of us think that stickers on a bike is the way to regulate what is compliant on certain paths (the people in the room that day were more interested in getting that lobby money from Bosch than they were about fixing anything wrong with the federal definition). Look up "regulatory capture" as that is exactly what PFBs was attempting. We should all want it shut down.

Note: by the way the state requiring stickers on an bike prior to sale that the CPSC does not require is a violation of interstate commerce laws that is specifically stated in federal agency policy but no one takes the time to know this.

The federal regulation of product definitions is a good thing. It allows economies of scale so the same products can be legally sold in all 50 states. No one should want every state to have definition / safety control of what can be sold because then every manufacturer would have to make 50 different version of essentially the same product just so state lawmaker egos could be catered to. One definition of a LSEB as a bike is a good thing. We had that for 12+ years and need to go back to it. No access will be lost because to ban LSEBs all bikes would need to be banned and the local politicians wouldn't last long with that attitude.

 

[rawlus]

done with this convo, you need to put on your listening ears instead of parroting the same thing over and over in every post. or telling everyone who has a question or a point of view they are wrong. you will likely get nowhere with this because you seem to lack the communication skills to gain empathy for a situation you are deeply passionate about.

take some deep breaths and pretend you’re telling your 90 year old grandma what this is all about and you really want her to understand it.

what is the actual problem you are trying to solve, in one sentence.

what is the desired outcome you seek, in one sentence.

leave out the rhetoric about what is gobbledegook and who’s egos are bruised and your opinion of what is BS and your opinion of ppl for bikes and so forth. you state opinions as fact which ruins any credibility you may have had, you’re ranting. take deep breaths.

 

[Ken M]

done with this convo, you need to put on your listening ears instead of parroting the same thing over and over in every post. or telling everyone who has a question or a point of view they are wrong. you will likely get nowhere with this because you seem to lack the communication skills to gain empathy for a situation you are deeply passionate about.

take some deep breaths and pretend you’re telling your 90 year old grandma what this is all about and you really want her to understand it.

what is the actual problem you are trying to solve, in one sentence.

what is the desired outcome you seek, in one sentence.

leave out the rhetoric about what is gobbledegook and who’s egos are bruised and your opinion of what is BS and your opinion of ppl for bikes and so forth. you state opinions as fact which ruins any credibility you may have had, you’re ranting. take deep breaths.

I would like the original federal definition in HR727 to define what a compliant ebike is for both sale and use (keep in mind it was NOT written by a politician but by a very intelligent guy that felt ebikes had a bright future as human scale transportation).

The intent of that original legislation was to establish regulatory attorney under the CPSC such that a Low Speed Electric Bicycle would be defined as just a bike such that states must use regulate a bike. I want that as the outcome as was the case for 12+ years prior to the efforts by People for Bikes pushing 3-class policy.

I honestly feel that is best for all ebike riders and the future adoption and usage rate of ebikes (the guy that wrote that definition was profoundly intelligent and the definition provides benefits for cargo / utility bikes under 20mph while allowing some limited assist above 20mph for effective commuting on ebikes).

I do get frustrated because I feel there are people painting my effort as anti-ebikes or not caring about trail access for ebikes. That's not accurate. While I do tend to view the major benefit ebikes can provide is for urban mobility I do understand that some riders really focus on leisure and recreational riding so any chance of loss of trail access instantly impacts their opinions. Not for a second do I think trail access will be more limited if the federal definition is established as preempting the 3-class legislation adopted by I think 28 states.

I had no knowledge of the right of any citizen to file a petition with the CPSC until I researched the regulations and history of events. I felt is was a long shot but given that an expressed preemption clause is only in about 10 of the 10,000 CPSC regulated products policy I do believe that almost mandates the CPSC to act as requested. To not preempt per the petition request could be a precedent that they will never be able to preempt any state interstate commerce violation in the future. I'm not a lawyers but I do know law is very respectful of precedent decisions.

 

[Ken M]

done with this convo, you need to put on your listening ears instead of parroting the same thing over and over in every post. or telling everyone who has a question or a point of view they are wrong. you will likely get nowhere with this because you seem to lack the communication skills to gain empathy for a situation you are deeply passionate about.

take some deep breaths and pretend you’re telling your 90 year old grandma what this is all about and you really want her to understand it.

what is the actual problem you are trying to solve, in one sentence.

what is the desired outcome you seek, in one sentence.

leave out the rhetoric about what is gobbledegook and who’s egos are bruised and your opinion of what is BS and your opinion of ppl for bikes and so forth. you state opinions as fact which ruins any credibility you may have had, you’re ranting. take deep breaths.

Hopefully my answers are considered sincere.

Let me ask you a question: Do you think that People for Bikes had purely positive intentions for the ebike industry when the drafted the 3-class legislation?

Their main claims seem to be it was needed for improved clarification and safety but I have never heard anyone echo that or agree with that. There was a EU harmonization element with the Class 3 matching the cut-off speed of 28mph but given the CPSC clarification in 2012 that constrained (by the 170lb and level surface) assist could continue higher than 20mph so long as the higher speed was the result of rider effort (ie they have to be pedaling which does leave open ghost pedaling if power is not constrained as stated).

Last question: If a LSEB is defined as a "bike" then why would anybody be concerned about loosing trail access if the 3-class system is preempted? I don't think local lawmaker or trail manager is going to ban access to "bikes" where already allowed just because the federally compliant LSEB is to be considered a bike for their use regulations.

 

[Ken M]

Some think I'm nuts to interpret HR727's intent to define a compliant "Low Speed Electric Bicycle" as just a bike (he claims that it was just a jurisdiction consideration for the safety regulations to apply but the word "classify" is out of sorts if it was only jurisdictional). Keep mind the bill itself was drafted to transfer jurisdiction to the CPSC so they could have created a new product regulation just for ebikes but didn't. Here's a paragraph from an article written back in 2002 when the bill had passed the House and was being considered by the Senate. The fact that it adds that it would help the states adopt consistent [use] standards for them also supports the idea that they expected the states to treat LSEBs as a bike.

Last month, Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, introduced a House bill that would transfer the jurisdiction over electric bicycles with a maximum speed of 20 m.p.h. to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which handles bicycle safety. The bill would effectively classify them as bicycles, rather than motorized vehicles, and would help states adopt consistent standards for them, like where they can be ridden and minimum age requirements for riders. The bill was passed in the House and is being considered in the Senate.

 

[rawlus]

Hopefully my answers are considered sincere.

Let me ask you a question: Do you think that People for Bikes had purely positive intentions for the ebike industry when the drafted the 3-class legislation?

Their main claims seem to be it was needed for improved clarification and safety but I have never heard anyone echo that or agree with that. There was a EU harmonization element with the Class 3 matching the cut-off speed of 28mph but given the CPSC clarification in 2012 that constrained (by the 170lb and level surface) assist could continue higher than 20mph so long as the higher speed was the result of rider effort (ie they have to be pedaling which does leave open ghost pedaling if power is not constrained as stated).

Last question: If a LSEB is defined as a "bike" then why would anybody be concerned about loosing trail access if the 3-class system is preempted? I don't think local lawmaker or trail manager is going to ban access to "bikes" where already allowed just because the federally compliant LSEB is to be considered a bike for their use regulations.

Do you think that People for Bikes had purely positive intentions for the ebike industry when the drafted the 3-class legislation?

What evidence exists for me to believe otherwise? They seem to have dedicated resources in their website for ebikes and seem to be involved in ebike legislation that could result in tax credits benefitting ebike owners so i’m not seeing the anti-ebike perspective you seem to have.

.

Last question: If a LSEB is defined as a "bike" then why would anybody be concerned about loosing trail access if the 3-class system is preempted? I don't think local lawmaker or trail manager is going to ban access to "bikes" where already allowed just because the federally compliant LSEB is to be considered a bike for their use regulations.

I am not sure why you believe that if the 3-class definition goes away that lawmakers will just forget that ebikes have motors and standard bikes don’t. ebikes will most likely be redefined in the absence of the 3-class definition rather than default to a “bike” definition.

when i say this im not talking about what CPSC does, that to me has zero relevance to trail access…. CPSC doesn’t regular use, their focus is QC and manufacturing, etc. access and access restrictions will continue at the local level and it won’t make any difference what CPSC defines as a bike…. every major city already sees issues regarding standard vs motorized bikes and has some form of regulation - removing 3-class won’t change that. it’s essentially a strike through of “3-class” and a pencil in of “motorized bike”

maybe you can share why you think an ebike will reside in anonymity as merely a “bike” if the 3-class classification is removed. do you think the average person thinks an ebike is merely a bike? why do we even have the terms ebike and LSEB if it’s just a bike?

 

[Ken M]

What evidence exists for me to believe otherwise? They seem to have dedicated resources in their website for ebikes and seem to be involved in ebike legislation that could result in tax credits benefitting ebike owners so i’m not seeing the anti-ebike perspective you seem to have.

.


I am not sure why you believe that if the 3-class definition goes away that lawmakers will just forget that ebikes have motors and standard bikes don’t. ebikes will most likely be redefined in the absence of the 3-class definition rather than default to a “bike” definition.

when i say this im not talking about what CPSC does, that to me has zero relevance to trail access…. CPSC doesn’t regular use, their focus is QC and manufacturing, etc. access and access restrictions will continue at the local level and it won’t make any difference what CPSC defines as a bike…. every major city already sees issues regarding standard vs motorized bikes and has some form of regulation - removing 3-class won’t change that. it’s essentially a strike through of “3-class” and a pencil in of “motorized bike”

maybe you can share why you think an ebike will reside in anonymity as merely a “bike” if the 3-class classification is removed. do you think the average person thinks an ebike is merely a bike? why do we even have the terms ebike and LSEB if it’s just a bike?

Typically the states accept the product definitions laid out by the federal agencies because having the same products sold nationally makes pretty good sense. There are some rare exceptions and compromises made like the serious smog health risks that California experienced that allowed them to have more stringent emissions for a while (I think eventually all of us benefited from that cleaner emissions effort).

As for a LSEB being a bike....a recumbent is a type of bike....a road bike is type of bike...a fixie...a trike...a mountain...a gravel. We accept them them being use regulated as a "bike" so why not a LSEB. Please don't say because there is motor on an ebike. There is but it does not change how it is product defined.

Attorney General Jim Hood clarified that bicycle with a motor attached to it does not satisfy the definition of “motor vehicle.” It has a motor as you say but this AG seems to be just fine accepting that an LSEB is a bike and is use regulated as a bike. There is no problems in his state with them being use regulated as a "bike" so why can't we accept the federal definition (essentially one class of LSEB as a bike).

I think there are pockets of local politicians and land managers that just can let go that in 2002 a LSEB went from being a "motor vehicle" to being defined and regulated as a bike. Have you read HR727?

I know that states like to think they have a lot of leway when it comes to product definitions and regulations but they don't. The supremacy clause of the constitution combined with the enumerated responsibility of the federal government to regulated interstate commerce grants the federal agency the right to kill 3-class with a sentence. They should do that just based on cease of assists, stickers, and speedometer requirement on class 3 (none of which is required in CPSC 1512 so they are clearly more stringent and HR727 clearly states that is preempts any state policy that is more stringent (especially when dealing with the same parameter as addressed in 1512).