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

[Ken M]

having spent a lot of time in the netherlands, i’m not sure a faster ebike is really needed, transportation is predominantly bike not car, bike traffic is a real thing in city centers and there’s a lot of bike congestion so there’s not really much opportunity to go a lot faster than the speed everyone else is going. helmets are also frowned upon/not used so very fast speeds are probably less recommended.

Congestion is a mutually exclusive issue - obviously a 300mph Bugatti can only go as fast as the traffic flow in LA rush hour traffic. You seem to be suggesting that just because some cities have "bike congestion" we should set the assist limits at that lowest possible speed. Sorry but that makes no sense to me because the conditions are controlling the speed bikes can safety go. I have heard this argument many times and it's just not a relevant response in the topic of best regulation performance.

Some riders will have longer commutes and access to road side bike lanes or other infrastructure that would allow safe higher speeds than what is possible in the Netherlands cities. When there is congestion they will just have to slow to what is allowed by the conditions or actual speed limits of the infrastructure being utilized.

 

[rawlus]

not relevant to you, you mean.

 

[rawlus]

i do not personally see the fed definition and the 3 classification based on max speeds as mutually exclusive. they both seem to coexist in multiple states.

 

[Ken M]

not relevant to you, you mean.

So you seriously think we should establish ebike assist limits based on bike congestion in a city with one of the highest adoption rates in the world. That would be like do the same with cars based on congestion during rush hour in LA. Netherlands is known for being VERY FLAT overall and the cities are probably the flattest in the world so most people there don't need an ebike with typical riding speeds below 15mph / 25kph due to congestion. Honestly I just think your argument based on the Netherlands riding congestion lacks technical merit.

I could do something like that by saying power limit should be set by what it takes to sustain 15mph with a 200lb rider up the steepest street in San Francisco but I'm just pointing this out to prove a point.

 

[Ken M]

i do not personally see the fed definition and the 3 classification based on max speeds as mutually exclusive. they both seem to coexist in multiple states.

No body seems to understand this.... All 3 classes are compliant to the Federal Definition so they can co-exist but the adopting states require compliance to 3-class which federally compliant LSEBs are not. I provided a couple examples in my petition but my guess is no one comprehended the issue. The federal safety agencies control what is compliant for 1st sale so it is a problem that the 3-class states are essentially making many of those compliant products not legal to ride on any public infrastructure in those states. The worse part is the bike shops don't even know they are in some cases selling an ebike non-compliant for use in that state so the buyers are not aware of it. In my opinion that is just a ridiculous situation created entire by the 3-class legislation.

Look up the Izip Express on EBR and read the review. It has a cadence-assist drive system that has no assist cut-off which was legal when it was being sold. I have one and it provides assist past 30mph but it takes significant rider effort of coarse. This is still a federally compliant LSEB but it is illegal for use in any state with the 3-class legislation but I'd bet not one lawmaker or anyone at People for Bikes is aware of this. I tried to provide them the information but they were too busy telling me that they know everything to listen. Look up the bike on EBR and you can verify that what I just wrote is 100% true.

Note: The huge irony with the Izip Express is that I think Larry Pizzi was an executive with Izip when the Express was being sold. He doesn't even remember his own companies products once that lobby money flowed in.

 

[rawlus]

regulating speed of ebikes seems to be the objective of the 3 classifications and to make it easier for municipalities to then control speeds on certain ways using those classifications.

Absent the 3 class system municipalities i’d expect will want to seek a new way to retain this control.

While MPH/KPH speed limits are commonplace on most public roadways these days. bike paths tend not to have speed limit signs in my observation, and enforcement of speed limits requires manpower and tech (= $$$).

Currently class 3 seems to aim to attempt to limit speeds on ways by limiting the bike itself.
On roads with cars speed is limited by controlling the driver.

I’m not sure i want a system where the bike rider is being limited. it feels like a costly and inefficient approach that will end up being paid for by fees, taxes, and other costs imposed on the rider.

i personally do not see a future scenario where we go back to before ebikes went mainstream and society at large just letting ebikes go whatever speed the builder decides and the rider chooses.

since your bikes are all class 3 and prohibited in your municipality (from your earlier posts) why aren’t you just working to get class 3 bikes approved in your municipality? why are you seeking to make this a federal case?

making change and impact at a local level is usually easier and more effective.. find 100 locked-out class 3 bike riders near you, in your community, try not to overwhelm your local leadership with the phd engineering and other crap you post here.

talk to them like human beings, refrain from the condescension and enemy language you use here, build friendships and shared vision.

don’t demonize others who don’t have the exact view you do. maybe don’t drink coffee or energy drinks that day. just be patient, listen WAY more and talk way less.

identify the common ground and be compromise focused. loom for the solution you can all live with. be less black/white on issues. be a good person. respect others. take deep breaths.

at the end of the day these are all “first would problems”. less than 1% of the worlds population can appreciate the irony of the whole situation. we are not curing cancer here.

part of the reason perhaps your cause isn’t getting the traction you think it deserves might be because not many are in your situation or feeling the pain you are. most here are just riding their ebikes it seems. you may need to look harder for people who feel shut out or shut down just like you are.

 

[Ken M]

regulating speed of ebikes seems to be the objective of the 3 classifications and to make it easier for municipalities to then control speeds on certain ways using those classifications.

Absent the 3 class system municipalities i’d expect will want to seek a new way to retain this control.

While MPH/KPH speed limits are commonplace on most public roadways these days. bike paths tend not to have speed limit signs in my observation, and enforcement of speed limits requires manpower and tech (= $$$).

Currently class 3 seems to aim to attempt to limit speeds on ways by limiting the bike itself.
On roads with cars speed is limited by controlling the driver.

I’m not sure i want a system where the bike rider is being limited. it feels like a costly and inefficient approach that will end up being paid for by fees, taxes, and other costs imposed on the rider.

i personally do not see a future scenario where we go back to before ebikes went mainstream and society at large just letting ebikes go whatever speed the builder decides and the rider chooses.

since your bikes are all class 3 and prohibited in your municipality (from your earlier posts) why aren’t you just working to get class 3 bikes approved in your municipality? why are you seeking to make this a federal case?

making change and impact at a local level is usually easier and more effective.. find 100 locked-out class 3 bike riders near you, in your community, try not to overwhelm your local leadership with the phd engineering and other crap you post here.

talk to them like human beings, refrain from the condescension and enemy language you use here, build friendships and shared vision.

don’t demonize others who don’t have the exact view you do. maybe don’t drink coffee or energy drinks that day. just be patient, listen WAY more and talk way less.

identify the common ground and be compromise focused. loom for the solution you can all live with. be less black/white on issues. be a good person. respect others. take deep breaths.

at the end of the day these are all “first would problems”. less than 1% of the worlds population can appreciate the irony of the whole situation. we are not curing cancer here.

part of the reason perhaps your cause isn’t getting the traction you think it deserves might be because not many are in your situation or feeling the pain you are. most here are just riding their ebikes it seems. you may need to look harder for people who feel shut out or shut down just like you are.

Assist limits really don't regulate the top speed an ebike will achieve so not sure I get your point. As for a single definition as a bike do you recall any issue that was relevant justifying the push for the 3 class system (keep in mind it's just 8mph differentiation with both assist limits being within the typical riding speed of most road bikes. Nothing about it makes sense or was justified. I know you can be critical of me but have you noticed anyone that doesn't like the idea of dumping 3-class providing and supporting information. All the do is criticize the messenger which is this case is me.

It really doesn't make much sense to work locally to get use allowance for class 3 ebikes while I'm subsequently claiming the 3-class legislation is an interstate commerce violation that should be preempted.

I tend to think bike / ebike speeds are moderated for the simple fact that accidents typically injure the rider most frequently. There is also some trails with speed limits so there is no reason speeds can't be enforced like that just as we do with cars. I think bike speeders will be much more rare than speeders in automobiles.

I never said all my ebikes are Class 3. I purchased all my ebikes prior to the 3-class system gaining much momentum so they were sold as federal definition compliant. Whenever you tell People for Bikes that the assist speed is over 20mph they just say it's a class 3 which is not the case with Polaris Diesel or the Izip Express.

We aren't curing cancer...you are right about that...so that is why I would ask why a bike advocacy group would take lobby money that was intended to dismantle a previous and better definition of a compliant ebike.

I have already said that most are not aware of the regulations and will not care to worry about a registration and insurance requirement on ebikes until it happens and then it's too late. Elimination of 3-class will prevent any chance of that happening because the long legacy of bikes being left alone from those requirements.

 

[rawlus]

i’d disagree, i think elimination of the 3 class system will have the opposite effect and result in far more scrutiny and far more stringent requirements and regulations being issued. because that is sort of the way the world actually works these days. im merely stating an opinion.

what’s your response to the rest of my reply to you? why is it that you are not organizing locally and trying to obtain local relief and local access and then built up in those achieve,ents with a national push? surely your local legislators who benefit directly from your taxes and votes would be more open to listening to a rational argument no?

 

[rawlus]

and if your bikes aren’t class three, then you should have no problem riding them just about anywhere. right?

 

[Ken M]

and if your bikes aren’t class three, then you should have no problem riding them just about anywhere. right?

Please read as I have explained this and even asked you to read about the Izip Express.

My Polaris Diesel is 750W but has a throttle assist that functions up to about 25mph. It's fully compliant to the federal LSEB definition and it was compliant to ride in Colorado before 3-class went into effect. Per 3-class no throttle assist ebike can assist past 20mph. I didn't stop ridding it but it's stupid that a brand name ebike became non compliant for use in any state adopting 3 class legislation.

The Izip Express is another ebike I own and it is a cadence-based pedal-assist system that has not cut-off at all. It simply allows the 750W motor to provide as much performance as possible but in reality it's only marginally faster than a typical class 3 ebike (I don't even like referring to an ebike as a class 1, 2, or 3 because I view the regulation as having no real legal standing but it's the only way to communicate the issue). This ebike was used by the LA Police for a couple years and I believe they sold their use one to the public (my guess is they weren't telling the buyers the were not legal to ride on any public infrastructure in California because I believe 3-class had been adopted a bit earlier.

I'm again going to say these are not class 3 ebikes and they are 100% compliant to the federal definition. They are both verifiable models and specifications so I can't just make this up.

 

[Ken M]

and if your bikes aren’t class three, then you should have no problem riding them just about anywhere. right?

I ride them as I want but they are not legal to ride in Colorado because they fit in none of the class designations and yet are fully compliant with the federal definition. This really isn't that hard to understand - the federal definition does not require assist cut-offs which are the most brain-dead way to utilize programmable controller technology we have available. Even back in 2002 Currie wouldn't have specified that method because he was technical enough to know how it would feel riding. Have you heard anyone say good things about the way the assist just drops off when you get to 20mph on a Class 1 ebike. I'm sorry but there is no other way to put this but it's a dumb way to address speed and that is being nice.

Very few understand the elegance of Currie's federal definition. He allowed plenty of power below 20mph and then limited power above 20mph to what would sustain 20mph with a 170lb rider on a level surface. That means to go 21 mph the rider just needs to provide the watts to get that extra 1mph. But anyone that understand aerodynamics and it's exponential increase understands that the extra human power needed to add a lot of speed above 20mph goes up quickly. The physics pretty much assure that a federally compliant ebike will be fastest (as has always been the case) when going downhill. Cutting assist at 20mph does not prevent fast speeds going down hill so what really is it's purpose except to create a Class 3 for future registration and insurance as they did in Europe. Anyone that thinks these multi-$billion dollar industries don't want in ebike rider pockets doesn't understand the greed insurance companies possess.

 

[Ken M]

and if your bikes aren’t class three, then you should have no problem riding them just about anywhere. right?

Please read as I have explained this and even asked you to read about the Izip Express.

My Polaris Diesel is 750W but has a throttle assist that functions up to about 25mph. It's fully compliant to the federal LSEB definition and it was compliant to ride in Colorado before 3-class went into effect. Per 3-class no throttle assist ebike can assist past 20mph. I didn't stop ridding it but it's stupid that a brand name ebike became non compliant for use in any state adopting 3 class legislation.

The Izip Express is another ebike I own and it is a cadence-based pedal-assist system that has not cut-off at all. It simply allows the 750W motor to provide as much performance as possible but in reality it's only marginally faster than a typical class 3 ebike (I don't even like referring to an ebike as a class 1, 2, or 3 because I view the regulation as having no real legal standing but it's the only way to communicate the issue). This ebike was used by the LA Police for a couple years and I believe they sold their use one to the public (my guess is they weren't telling the buyers the were not legal to ride on any public infrastructure in California because I believe 3-class had been adopted a bit earlier.

I'm again going to say these are not class 3 ebikes and they are 100% compliant to the federal definition. They are both verifiable models and specifications so I can't just make this up.

 

[Ken M]

You mentioned consensus. I can't remember who conducted the survey but 748 bikers were asked about ebike legislation/regulations and 84% stated that they preferred to have one definition for a compliant ebike as a bike. I think most see the class system as nonsense. These days that is a huge majority for any survey.

What if that definition is a bike with a PAS system where the motor is cutoff at 20MPH?

I would guarantee you that any rider that rode both a cut-off programmed ebike and then a governed power ebike per the CPSC definition they would choose the later 100% of the time. Assist cut-offs are brain dead tech given the capability of micro-controllers. That alone should have everyone on this forum supporting my efforts but I get hammered constantly by those claiming I'm trying to harm the industry.

Why would they change the federal definition that has existed for nearly 20 years just because some people think there should be a cut-off (a very technically poor way to address speed concerns) at 20mph?

Dr. Currie understood the merits of governing the power above 20mph to avoid ridiculous assist cut-offs. That is way smarter and I wish others would take the time to actually read HR727 and understand it.

Somehow People for Bikes convinced a lot of ebike riders that cut-offs are the best way to control ebike speed and trying to reverse the influence of that koolaid is not easy.

 

[Gordon71]

I would guarantee you that any rider that rode both a cut-off programmed ebike and then a governed power ebike per the CPSC definition they would choose the later 100% of the time. Assist cut-offs are brain dead tech given the capability of micro-controllers. That alone should have everyone on this forum supporting my efforts but I get hammered constantly by those claiming I'm trying to harm the industry.

Why would they change the federal definition that has existed for nearly 20 years just because some people think there should be a cut-off (a very technically poor way to address speed concerns) at 20mph?

Dr. Currie understood the merits of governing the power above 20mph to avoid ridiculous assist cut-offs. That is way smarter and I wish others would take the time to actually read HR727 and understand it.

Somehow People for Bikes convinced a lot of ebike riders that cut-offs are the best way to control ebike speed and trying to reverse the influence of that koolaid is not easy.

Maybe because the old term "speed kills" comes into play. When more and faster bikes hit the roads there will be more accidents and the faster the bike is going the worse the outcome of those accidents will be. Whenever a product leads to deaths and injuries is when the regulations start to happen. There's no need for a bike to go that fast. If you ride to get to work leave a little earlier.

 

[Ken M]

Maybe because the old term "speed kills" comes into play. When more and faster bikes hit the roads there will be more accidents and the faster the bike is going the worse the outcome of those accidents will be. Whenever a product leads to deaths and injuries is when the regulations start to happen. There's no need for a bike to go that fast. If you ride to get to work leave a little earlier.

I have no idea how many times I have explained this. The federal definition is NO FASTER than Class 3 because of the way power is limited.

The physics of this are basic. At 20mph the power is limited to that level (ie what would sustain 20mph) which is typically around 300-350W (below the peak power of most speed pedalecs / class 3 models). If you run simulations with typical rider input with that power provided by the motor the typical top commute speed will be from 24 to 28mph. That is not a "speed kills" scenario (pretty much same result as class 3) but those that don't understand this will hyperbole. One definition is better than 3 and I can guarantee insurance will hit class 3 if PFBs is successful at it's regulatory capture game.

The one factor that will continue to provide the most speed for biking is going down a hill. Gravity is a huge power factor but that gets ignored constantly (they literally hit upwards of 70mph during the professional bike races going down hills and most everyday riders are probably hitting 30mph+. It's frustrating when people only look as the assist as a speed factor when it's not even the biggest one.

 

[Gordon71]

I have no idea how many times I have explained this. The federal definition is NO FASTER than Class 3 because of the way power is limited.

The physics of this are basic. At 20mph the power is limited to that level (ie what would sustain 20mph) which is typically around 300-350W (below the peak power of most speed pedalecs / class 3 models). If you run simulations with typical rider input with that power provided by the motor the typical top commute speed will be from 24 to 28mph. That is not a "speed kills" scenario (pretty much same result as class 3) but those that don't understand this will hyperbole. One definition is better than 3 and I can guarantee insurance will hit class 3 if PFBs is successful at it's regulatory capture game.

The one factor that will continue to provide the most speed for biking is going down a hill. Gravity is a huge power factor but that gets ignored constantly (they literally hit upwards of 70mph during the professional bike races going down hills and most everyday riders are probably hitting 30mph+. It's frustrating when people only look as the assist as a speed factor when it's not even the biggest one.

I think I once hit 25mph going down a hill and that was scary fast on a bike. I usually pump my brakes going down hills. If I wanted to go fast on two wheels I would have kept my motorcycle.

 

[McApple]

I think I once hit 25mph going down a hill and that was scary fast on a bike. I usually pump my brakes going down hills. If I wanted to go fast on two wheels I would have kept my motorcycle.

I've hit over 50mph, once. At that speed, if you have a reflector attached to your spokes, the rpms are enough to throw your wheel out of balance and your handlebars will start to shudder, you will feel a similar vibration through your seat, as the rear wheel is also out of balance. It is then that you realize, if for any reason, you have to swerve, or stop quickly, you are going to crash.

 

[Ken M]

I think I once hit 25mph going down a hill and that was scary fast on a bike. I usually pump my brakes going down hills. If I wanted to go fast on two wheels I would have kept my motorcycle.

So if no bike or ebike speed is limited going down a hill why is it so important to have a 20mph cut-off when I explained how poor that methods is. Safe speeds are most regulated on bikes just because riders are vulnerable so anyone with a brain is not going to be going stupid fast regardless of assist. Keep in mind, I've only suggested we riders support the federal definition over the poorly conceived 3-class system.

 

[antboy]

Maybe because the old term "speed kills" comes into play. When more and faster bikes hit the roads there will be more accidents and the faster the bike is going the worse the outcome of those accidents will be. Whenever a product leads to deaths and injuries is when the regulations start to happen. There's no need for a bike to go that fast. If you ride to get to work leave a little earlier.

I think this is where things get lost in translation.

The idea of governing speed, as I understand it (and Ken can correct me if I'm wrong) is that once you hit approx 20mph, the motor gradually lowers the amount of assist until you hit 25-28mph. This is all based on level surfaces and IIRC a 170lb average rider's input.

This would end up being MORE restrictive than a current "Class 3" because of that "motor of diminishing returns", as opposed to the hard cutoff currently felt in a "Class 3" bike.

The LSEB definition just strikes me as a cleaner definition, and something that makes more sense for the end user as well.

Discussion of downhill is irrelevant, because it's possible, and actually easy in some cases, to exceed the speed of the motor's top speed, so the rider would be getting no input anyway.

Throttles would still be limited to 20mph, though that's up to the e-bike manufacturer to include.

 

[rawlus]

I’ll stipulate that the LSEB definition is simpler, less restrictive and easier. that’s not my argument.

my sense is that in a post-3 class definition world i don’t really see municipalities going back to the original LSEB definition at all in the face of booming ebike business, increasing speeds, increasing incidents and/or injuries between ebikes and others etc.

i don’t ever see really laws reverting backwards. in the absence of the existing 3 class system i’d expect some other system that distinguishes ebikes from other bikes to be promoted and i’m concerned that new stuff would be worse than what we have today.

TL/DR i’m not convinced we can just make it go away and municipalities across the USA will just revert back to what is essentially no regulation whatsoever.

i’m not asking for regulation, i’m concerned about more.