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

[Ken M]

Oh. You asked for evidence. Bosch is the largest car parts producer in the world and can be financially impacted if the adoption rate of ebikes really takes off (I think they decided to make ebike and emoped motors just to have some control of that dial). About the time of the 3-class policy drafting Bicycle Products Supplier Association (BPSA) merged with People for Bikes. Larry Pizzi chaired BPSA (not exactly a bike advocacy group as far more interested in the industry financial strength which is fine but comes with baggage.

Bosch and a few other BPSA members committed upwards of $3 million in lobby money to get PFBs to push the 3-class legislation under the wrapped in a bow claims that it provided clarity to what an ebike was (really??) and improved safety (has anyone ever seen any safety data backing that up).

An executive of Bosch was in the meeting when the 3-class policy was being drafted by People for Bikes. That alone says regulatory capture. I'm sure they would have loved to have got 15mph assist limit and 250W power limit that they got in Europe (talk about neutering capability) but the legacy of the federal definition for 20mph and 750W would have cost them a lot more than $3 million to get changed.

 

[BlackHand]

I probably shouldn't engage but....

I really think your assertion that Bosch felt threatened somehow by ebikes in 2009 and that for some reason Bosch views the entire mobility sector as a zero sum game is just plain far-fetched. Do you not think it possible that Bosch wanted to diversify into a new market with expertise they already had when the bottom fell out of the automotive industry?

 

[Ken M]

I probably shouldn't engage but....

I really think your assertion that Bosch felt threatened somehow by ebikes in 2009 and that for some reason Bosch views the entire mobility sector as a zero sum game is just plain far-fetched. Do you not think it possible that Bosch wanted to diversify into a new market with expertise they already had when the bottom fell out of the automotive industry?

Why did Bosch contribute lobby money for the 3-class legislation?

Why wouldn't they just favor the federal definition (every ebike using their motors were compliant to the federal definition)? Class 3 is nothing but a programming change but the OEMs have large premiums for it and in Europe they require registration and insurance which is money into someone's pockets. That alone provides incentive for them to support a class system instead of one definition for an LSEB as a bike.

I never stated they felt threatened but having some control of a tech and policy that has the potential to get people out of cars is something that anyone in the auto business would want.

I have a contact that spends most of their time in China and he and others in the industry have always felt Bosch promotes ebike legislation that somewhat protects their auto parts business. Aren't they something like a $60 billion revenue company with 95%+ coming from car part sales?

 

[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?

There is something I want ebike riders to notice. HR727 in 2002 put "LSEBs" in the "Bike" safety regulation 1512 and have the full definition in the same definition section as other bike types. They didn't need to do that - the bill could have just as easily created a separate regulation just for ebikes. The fact they did that PROVES the intent that "LSEBs" were to be defined as just a "bike" and regardless what the states claim they can do with "use" regulations they are to be considered just a bike (they can not re-define what they are, yet many on EBR claim the states can do as they please).

This is also the best evidence I have that PFBs is influenced by the lobby money they get. Their primary policy for LSEBs should be that they are "use" regulated at a bike. Clearly the 3-class legislation was about parsing ebikes into "unnecessary" classes that would allow "use" regulation variation when the original federal bill was intended they be bikes. This just tells me that PFBs has less than ideal motives, but others will disagree. I know that I tried to discuss the regulations with them and there were totally unwilling to engage in that conversation (if you can't question an advocacy group they are not really an advocacy group).

 

[Dallant]

There is something I want ebike riders to notice. HR727 in 2002 put "LSEBs" in the "Bike" safety regulation 1512 and have the full definition in the same definition section as other bike types. They didn't need to do that - the bill could have just as easily created a separate regulation just for ebikes. The fact they did that PROVES the intent that "LSEBs" were to be defined as just a "bike" and regardless what the states claim they can do with "use" regulations they are to be considered just a bike (they can not re-define what they are, yet many on EBR claim the states can do as they please).

This is also the best evidence I have that PFBs is influenced by the lobby money they get. Their primary policy for LSEBs should be that they are "use" regulated at a bike. Clearly the 3-class legislation was about parsing ebikes into "unnecessary" classes that would allow "use" regulation variation when the original federal bill was intended they be bikes. This just tells me that PFBs has less than ideal motives, but others will disagree. I know that I tried to discuss the regulations with them and there were totally unwilling to engage in that conversation (if you can't question an advocacy group they are not really an advocacy group).

Speaking of lobbyists, it’s only fair we know who you are representing.

 

[Ken M]

Speaking of lobbyists, it’s only fair we know who you are representing.

I'm just an engineer that owned two federally compliant LSEBs that became illegal to ride in Colorado when the 3-class system was adopted. You can read about both of those turnkey brands and models in the petition. I called People for Bikes to ask questions and they pretty much ignored me and said they were the experts even though they could not explain how it happened and it happening to others to this day. No one cares to learn what is going on but they'll care when there is insurance and registration required on any ebike assisting past 20mph. Then they'll care but too late then.

 

[rawlus]

i think you are emotionally invested in this argument and that’s deeply influencing your ability to remain objective and stick to facts.

i realize you feel wronged by your state govt disallowing use of your bikes. but that sort of proves my point that states can act on regulating use without affecting the fed definition.

You trivialize the distinction between an emotorized bike and any manual bike but that distinction is the point. bikes with motors ARE different from bikes without. even if they are all bikes.

I’ve tried many time to have a rational discussion on this but i can’t keep wading through the same citations over and over with you reinforcing your interpretations of them.

it seems you’re wanting there to be a legal definition and use regulation that ignores the emotor and battery part of an ebike. i truly do not see that happening given the obvious distinction.

I'd prepare to get use to there being a permanent distinction between 100% human power bikes and motor assist bikes at the very least in terms of regulations on where and how they can be ridden snd operated and i cannot see the logic you’re suggesting that because both are held to the same safety standards of suitability and manufacturing that this then translates to how they are used and where they can be operated.

past precedent seems clear that states even cities can regulate what vehicles can operate on what ways and under what conditions. (edited for smartphone typos)

 

[Ken M]

Let me test your objectivity....

A class 3 ebike is compliant to the federal definition and I have that in writing from the CPSC (I agree that it is). Could not be sold as a compliant LSEB otherwise in any state. Class 3 allows up to 28mph assist.

Class 1 & 2 only allow up to a 20mph assist which is obviously more stringent than Class 3. Would you argue with that objectively so far?

The federal definition states that no state can have a more stringent definition of a LSEB that is regulated by the CPSC. So if class 1 & 2 are obviously more stringent than Class 3 they MUST also be more stringent than the federal definition given that Class 3 was determined to be compliant.

There is no way you can objectively argue against this, but would love to read it (what most do when pinned in a corner they say I'm being unpleasant on EBR Furums and just avoid addressing what was the context).

Please Please Please understand that "product specification/performance" and "use" regulations are mutually exclusive. The states have rights to use control....but the feds defined a LSEB as a bike so they logically must be allowed where bikes ride given then are a bike by federal definition. States were lobbied to create the classes because it limits the merits of LSEBs for urban mobility and it will enable future registration and insurance requirements like they did in Europe on speed pedelecs (people on this forum are naive if they don't think the insurance industry is always pushing for more mandatory insurance on anything possible).

I honestly believe most people struggle with separation of "product definition/compliance" and "use" regulations. States are not allowed to define a regulated product that is more stringent per the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of the US constitution. That is not something I made up, it that is the LAW but the feds need to have a formal rule-making request to act against a state(s).

You just wrote that bikes with motors ARE different from bikes without. So why didn't the CPSC create an new product regulation instead of lumping them in 1512? Simply stating that a LSEB is a bike is not complex english.... it says that compliant LSEB are bikes. Maybe you can tell where is HR727 or CPSC 1512 is says what you claim - that they are not.

 

[rawlus]

Let me test your objectivity....

A class 3 ebike is compliant to the federal definition and I have that in writing from the CPSC (I agree that it is). Could not be sold as a compliant LSEB otherwise in any state. Class 3 allows up to 28mph assist.

Class 1 & 2 only allow up to a 20mph assist which is obviously more stringent than Class 3. Would you argue with that objectively so far?

The federal definition states that no state can have a more stringent definition of a LSEB that is regulated by the CPSC. So if class 1 & 2 are obviously more stringent than Class 3 they MUST also be more stringent than the federal definition given that Class 3 was determined to be compliant.

There is no way you can objectively argue against this, but would love to read it (what most do when pinned in a corner they say I'm being unpleasant on EBR Furums and just avoid addressing what was the context).

Please Please Please understand that "product specification/performance" and "use" regulations are mutually exclusive. The states have rights to use control....but the feds defined a LSEB as a bike so they logically must be allowed where bikes ride given then are a bike by federal definition. States were lobbied to create the classes because it limits the merits of LSEBs for urban mobility and it will enable future registration and insurance requirements like they did in Europe on speed pedelecs (people on this forum are naive if they don't think the insurance industry is always pushing for more mandatory insurance on anything possible).

I honestly believe most people struggle with separation of "product definition/compliance" and "use" regulations. States are not allowed to define a regulated product that is more stringent per the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of the US constitution. That is not something I made up, it that is the LAW but the feds need to have a formal rule-making request to act against a state(s).

You just wrote that bikes with motors ARE different from bikes without. So why didn't the CPSC create an new product regulation instead of lumping them in 1512? Simply stating that a LSEB is a bike is not complex english.... it says that compliant LSEB are bikes. Maybe you can tell where is HR727 or CPSC 1512 is says what you claim - that they are not.

CPSC dictates less than 20mph in their definition. So i’m not sure how i see a 28mph bike complying?

A bicycle is defined in §1512.2 as either (1) a two-wheeled vehicle having a rear drive wheel solely human-powered; or (2) a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph

 

[rawlus]

HR 727 stares the same

``(b) For the purpose of this section, the term `low-speed electric
bicycle' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable
pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose
maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a
motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20
mph.

 

[rawlus]

My armchair interpretation of this would be that “class 1&2“ ebikes would be compliant under the definition and that ”class 3” which are capable of higher speeds are not fully covered by this legislation.

given that innovation will drive improvements over time, the “class 3” definition may have arisen out of a need to “define or categorize” the exception, bikes that exceed the capabilities indicated in the statute.

So it could be that HR 727 and/or CPSC 1512 from which it derives it’s definition needs to be updated to both include a “class 3” type speed, or even revisit the “max speed” definition altogether to include higher speeds, higher wattage motors (if the authors of those statutes still believe that a higher wattage or higher max speed STILL constitutes it being essentially a bicycle, or define or state that ebikes which exceed the current max speed statement become some other designation under a different category (moped, motorbike, i don’t know but som other thing)….

i am not seeing in the published documents the dots connecting a class 3, max top speed 28+mph, motor wattage exceeding 750w still classified as a “bicycle”

 

[rawlus]

my gut sense is that much of this legislation and definition was written well before ebikes went mainstream and before the differences between them and human-powered bikes and the various levels of impact of those differences were fully understood.

my sense (and perhaps fear) is that opening this legal can of worms could result in a brand new definition, one which explicitly distinguishes between ebikes and human-powered bikes and creates an entirely separate and distinct classification which enables more precise and restrictive controls on ebikes SPECIFICALLY.

my fear is that ebikes, as they continue to trend towards e-scooter and e-motorcycle land in terms of motors, dual motors, top speeds, and equipment and components that are not traditionally of pedal-bike origin, that we could experience more challenges for access and use on public ways by a newer and more segmentint and stratifying definition.

 

[Ken M]

my gut sense is that much of this legislation and definition was written well before ebikes went mainstream and before the differences between them and human-powered bikes and the various levels of impact of those differences were fully understood.

my sense (and perhaps fear) is that opening this legal can of worms could result in a brand new definition, one which explicitly distinguishes between ebikes and human-powered bikes and creates an entirely separate and distinct classification which enables more precise and restrictive controls on ebikes SPECIFICALLY.

my fear is that ebikes, as they continue to trend towards e-scooter and e-motorcycle land in terms of motors, dual motors, top speeds, and equipment and components that are not traditionally of pedal-bike origin, that we could experience more challenges for access and use on public ways by a newer and more segmentint and stratifying definition.

First you have to understand the definition in HR727. It was written by a PhD electrical engineer that went from being a CEO of a defense contractor to believing in the potential of ebikes in his retirement years. The way he defined a LSEB had to satisfy the NHTSA that did not want ebikes going faster than 20mph motor alone (obviously if you have ridden bikes most of you life your life you know that without a motor riders can go faster than 20mph even if for only short distances (one of the best riders in the world sustained 33mph for 1 hour so just common sense says that the definition was not trying to prevent LSEBs from going faster than 20mph when motor and human power are combined).

The 20mph assist limit in the federal definition is for motor alone. The constraints of 170lb on a level service establishes a power limit that can continue at speeds above 20mph when the rider is provided the extra power to go faster. This is why the CPSC has clarified as why Class 3 / speed pedelecs are compliant. You must understand this going into a discussion about the regulations and very few do. Clearly the idea was to allow more power for utility below 20mph while limiting the power above twenty to keep LSEB in the historical speed range of bikes because the power limit is very much negated by air resistance above 20mph. In other words, it's also important to understand the physics as well.

With this accurate information in mind, Can you answer the question on if Class 1 & 2 are more stringent than the federal definition? Does the preemptive clause in HR427 restrict the state's rights to do that?

 

[Ken M]

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

There are some at People for Bikes that must be reading these forums but they will not comment on the 3-class legislation probably because they are instructed not to because of legal concerns.

The legislation is not so much anti-ebike as it is about neutering potential a bit and hanging out class 3 ebikes as a separate entity to eventually require registration and insurance on. Now everyone says that is a ridiculous claim but that is exactly what happened in Europe.

There never was a regulation clarity or safety issue driving the need to have ebike Classes. That was total koolaid put out by People for Bikes because they were being paid lobby money to promote the class system (does that sound like an advocacy group only interested in what is best for ebikes?????).

 

[Ken M]

Larry Pizzi chaired the drafting of what People for Bikes calls their "model 3-class ebike legislation" (fancy words for a legislative capture effort). The US actually had the best legislation on ebikes in the world from 2002 and it clearly defined a compliant Low Speed Electric Bicycle as just a bike (that was so states would just use regulate them as a bike using the regulations for bikes that had been in place for decades). Here's what he said:

"In 2002 they were able to effectively get some legislation passed, and a bill signed into law that defined what a low-speed electric bicycle was. It moved from being under the guides of NHTSA to being under the guides of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and it was defined within the definition of a bicycle."

I can not emphasis enough to everyone that cares about the future adoption of ebikes to express support fo the original federal definition. The 3-class legislation is going to result in insurance and registration requirements on class 3 ebikes (killing their potential) and the tech will be stuck with ridiculously stupid assist cut-offs to control speed.

 

[Dallant]

Hey moderators! How many threads about the same topic are you allowing? Give us a break!

 

[Ken M]

Hey moderators! How many threads about the same topic are you allowing? Give us a break!

You once commented that no one knows or cares about what a Low Speed Electric Bicycle is even though it's the definition of what is legal for 1st sale in all 50 states.

Why would the limit INFORMATIONAL posts and not the "pictures of your ride" posts? Information harms no one and I've done my best to provide an accurate accounting of the regulatory history so riders can decide if important to keep the original definition or support the 3-class legislation from People for Bikes. When I find something like that statement from Larry Pizzi I'm going to post it because it proves what I've been saying ... that a compliant LSEB was to be use regulated as a bike. This is important for best future adoption of the tech for human scale transportation. We need ebikes to get more people out of cars and the 3-class legislation was intended to limit that (I know people don't believe that but if they studied the history they would understand the regulatory capture effort by People for Bikes and how much money they received to do it).

Isn't it strange that no one from People for Bikes has even chimed in on one of these posts. I've been prodding them to defend the "3-class model legislation" and they will not even comment (that should tell you something).

 

[Dallant]

You once commented that no one knows or cares about what a Low Speed Electric Bicycle is even though it's the definition of what is legal for 1st sale in all 50 states.

Why would the limit INFORMATIONAL posts and not the "pictures of your ride" posts? Information harms no one and I've done my best to provide an accurate accounting of the regulatory history so riders can decide if important to keep the original definition or support the 3-class legislation from People for Bikes. When I find something like that statement from Larry Pizzi I'm going to post it because it proves what I've been saying ... that a compliant LSEB was to be use regulated as a bike. This is important for best future adoption of the tech for human scale transportation. We need ebikes to get more people out of cars and the 3-class legislation was intended to limit that (I know people don't believe that but if they studied the history they would understand the regulatory capture effort by People for Bikes and how much money they received to do it).

Isn't it strange that no one from People for Bikes has even chimed in on one of these posts. I've been prodding them to defend the "3-class model legislation" and they will not even comment (that should tell you something).

Yeah. Same s*it over three threads that you have a woody for and nobody else does. And you aren’t a lobbyist? Go ride your ebike!

 

[rawlus]

where is it we would express support? what exactly are you asking of this community. your posts are not informational at all. they are largely personal rants that question the intelligence of ebike owners and riders. so you’re not batting 100 on making friends and luring people to your cause.

 

[Ken M]

No I question that people that care about the future of ebikes are not paying attention. The 3-class legislation was paid for by companies that had incentive to slow the adoption of the technology or to give them a competitive advantage.

Funny you say my posts not information yet I've provided the history of the regulations down to the person that wrote or chaired the team drafting them. Mine are not personal rants....yours are because not once have you referenced something of merit and we all have opinions. I do my best to include the background to support my opinion.

Even you agreed that insurance requirements on Class 3 ebikes are likely in the future. That alone will be $billions out of pocket of us riders and I'm trying to prevent that.....and I'm the bad guy. Wow.