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

[Ken M]

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.

Please Please Please read up on CPSC regulation and how they are chartered to ensure interstate commerce allows the same products to be sold in all 50 states. The states virtually always just adopt those definitions and establish "use" regulations if necessary which was the case with regular bikes and it worked just fine. States are not suppose do adopt more stringent regulations unless there is some truly exceptional reasons and still the federal safety regulation agencies can't just be ignored.

This effort in not about convincing the municipalities to accept the one definition...it's about hoping the CPSC tells them this is what a compliant LSEB is and it's defined as a bike. If they don't like that they can still ban use of all bikes but they will not do that or they'll be out of work.

You are making this far more complex than it is. This is something that the CPSC really should not have allowed to go this far but they typically only act if someone brings up a complaint which I have done.

 

[McApple]

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.

For me, the 20mph cutoff is important for bikes on multi-use trails. DW and I enjoy the rail trails in our area, we usually cruise around the 15mph range, encountering multiple groups going near twice that speed would be dangerous imo.

I have no problem with higher speed bikes on city streets and roadways, but I do feel that they should be licensed and have insurance, especially bikes used for commercial purposes.

 

[troehrkasse]

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

The threads have now been merged. Our moderation team is small, we don't create these threads, or have time to manually scrub each of the hundreds of threads created on EBR every day. If there's duplicate threads, feel free to tag me and request that they be merged and I'll make it happen

 

[Ken M]

For me, the 20mph cutoff is important for bikes on multi-use trails. DW and I enjoy the rail trails in our area, we usually cruise around the 15mph range, encountering multiple groups going near twice that speed would be dangerous imo.

I have no problem with higher speed bikes on city streets and roadways, but I do feel that they should be licensed and have insurance, especially bikes used for commercial purposes.

Why is that trail riders seem to want what they feel is right for trails to define ebike performance. The human scale transportation potential is far more important. Multi-Use Trails can have their speed limit which is typically set at 15mph but don't desire that the assist limit be set that low as it is in Europe.

 

[rayray]

One more test for everyone since it's fresh in the Washington State ebike law just discussed. They require a speedometer on Class 3 ebikes.

(3) "Class 3 electric-assisted bicycle" means an electric6 assisted bicycle in which the motor provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of twenty eight miles per hour and is equipped with a speedometer.

Is that requirement an impact on interstate commerce given the vast majority of other states (even most of the states that have adopted 3-class) do not have this requirement and CPSC certainly does not have this in their safety regulation for low speed electric bicycles. Washington could claim that it's a unique "use" law for their state but by including it in with the 3-class structure it clearly implies it must be on the LSEB prior to introduction into interstate commerce (even though the bike manufacturers don't want to make a special bike just for the uptight lawmakers in Washington STATE). What if Washington wanted integrated blinkers and brake light on ebikes sold in that state? Who complies with that (no one is actually allowed to alter the product prior to 1st sale in reality so there are some issues when states just wing it on what they want)? There is a process to get something important for safety on a product but just flipping a legislative lever at the state does not work given the supremacy clause of the constitution, especially on interstate commerce.

Yes, digging up a thread from last year…

My comments/questions are related primarily to Washington State law, as that’s where I reside. I keep reading, on this and other forums, as well as minimally-researched canned articles on attorneys’ websites, that a Class 3 ebike in Washington State MUST have a speedometer. However, I cannot find this clearly stated anywhere within the applicable law.

All I can find regarding Class 3 is “A bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 mph and is equipped with a speedometer.” Note that nowhere can I find code that states it MUST have a speedometer.

To me, it’s all about the proper use of grammar, so it would seem that the way it’s written, if a bike assists up to 28mph but doesn’t have a speedometer, it is unclassified. Can someone point to another clause that makes it clear, or can the legal experts on here tell me why I’m wrong regarding the grammar?

You know, felony possession of drugs isn’t a prosecutable offense in this State, due to a court ruling regarding the wording of the law (and the Democrat-led legislature has failed to fix it after 14 months!). This is the same type of issue. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...rts-clearing-drug-convictions-refunding-fines

 

[BlackHand]

The must is in the paragraph before the 3 classes are defined:
"Electric-assisted bicycle" means a bicycle with two or three wheels, a saddle, fully operative pedals for human propulsion, and an electric motor. The electric-assisted bicycle's electric motor must have a power output of no more than seven hundred fifty watts. The electric-assisted bicycle must meet the requirements of one of the following three classifications:

 

[rayray]

The must is in the paragraph before the 3 classes are defined:
"Electric-assisted bicycle" means a bicycle with two or three wheels, a saddle, fully operative pedals for human propulsion, and an electric motor. The electric-assisted bicycle's electric motor must have a power output of no more than seven hundred fifty watts. The electric-assisted bicycle must meet the requirements of one of the following three classifications:

Well, it seems I need to work on my reading comprehension.

Thanks for the info.

 

[BET]

I don't even know what CPSC is and you don't seem interested in helping me out. So I will continue to ride my 2 different class 3 eBikes just like I have since 2016.

CPSC is US Consumer Product Safety Commission They set safety standards for products sold in the US.

 

[Ken M]

CPSC is US Consumer Product Safety Commission They set safety standards for products sold in the US.

They were formed with the power and responsibility to regulate interstate commerce as well (everyone should take the time to read their history). The problem is they have been neutered by corporations wanting to do was they please and they seem to ignore interstate commerce violations.

For example...New York defines a class 3 ebike as a throttle only to 25mph. Requiring a speedometer would be considered a more stringent safety standard than required by the CPSC but they are even ignoring this violation. Like pretty much all government agencies they don't do anything proactively and they think that works for them. NOT!

 

[Ken M]

For me, the 20mph cutoff is important for bikes on multi-use trails. DW and I enjoy the rail trails in our area, we usually cruise around the 15mph range, encountering multiple groups going near twice that speed would be dangerous imo.

I have no problem with higher speed bikes on city streets and roadways, but I do feel that they should be licensed and have insurance, especially bikes used for commercial purposes.

Most MUP have a 15mph speed limit so I'm confused how a 20mph assist cut-off on a Class 1 ebike ensure safe compliance. I rode over 12,000 miles in 2 years on an ebike and when on a MUP or sidewalk not once have I experienced some crazy fast biker flying thru pedestrians and putting anyone in danger and yet many toss out that possibility as fear for the masses.

You mention that bikes on the streets and roadways should be insured and registered but I would argue the risk liability for a bike on the street is far far far less than a bike on a MUP with people walking including children and elderly. On the street if a bike happened to hit a car and it was the riders fault (rarely is) the driver would be fine and the car would only have superficial damage that wouldn't even reach even a small insurance delectable.

 

[m@Robertson]

California shared use paths have a 20 mph speed limit. CA is where the 3-class system originated.

On multi-use paths in the Monterey Bay you see mostly analog riders flying thru pedestrians - your words but spot on - every single day. The main recreational path is used by commuters on their way to work. The scenic recreational riders are on rented ebikes and usually going more slowly, typically.

 

[Ken M]

California shared use paths have a 20 mph speed limit. CA is where the 3-class system originated.

On multi-use paths in the Monterey Bay you see mostly analog riders flying thru pedestrians - your words but spot on - every single day. The main recreational path is used by commuters on their way to work. The scenic recreational riders are on rented ebikes and usually going more slowly, typically.

3-class legislation was promoted by People for Bikes to California first - California did not draft that legislation text (most like a Bosch executive provided it to People for Bikes for many reasons I have brought up in other threads). It is simply not good legislation and it's not good for the future of ebikes either.

I don't understand why any biker would want to flying thru pedestrians on a MUP as that is dangerous for them as well as the pedestrians. I tend to think these statements are intended to get politicians to go after ebikes and ban them from MUPs with zero data showing any difference between traditional bikes and ebikes from a safety data point of view.

 

[m@Robertson]

3-class legislation was promoted by People for Bikes to California first - California did not draft that legislation text (most like a Bosch executive provided it to People for Bikes for many reasons I have brought up in other threads). It is simply not good legislation and it's not good for the future of ebikes either.

I don't understand why any biker would want to flying thru pedestrians on a MUP as that is dangerous for them as well as the pedestrians. I tend to think these statements are intended to get politicians to go after ebikes and ban them from MUPs with zero data showing any difference between traditional bikes and ebikes from a safety data point of view.

My statement still holds as-written: CA is where the 3-class system originated. The machinations of its creation are irrelevant to the present discussion; only to the axe you never spare an opportunity to grind.

The bikers want to fly thru pedestrians because they are on their way to work and pedestrians are a clueless, wandering impediment (this is a tourist town so lots of aimless walkers admiring the scenery and observing little else). Its not uncommon to see riders almost brushing walkers who are ignoring the posted places where pedestrians are supposed to remain in order to allow bicycle traffic thru. Very annoying if you are treating the path as a roadway. Originally the city council banned ebikes as a response but since the problem persisted because they were attacking the wrong culprits, the ban is now completely ignored and ebikes are the dominant form of wheeled transportation in that corridor despite the ordinance, which even the ebike-riding police that now ride the area on occasion ignore.

 

[Ken M]

My statement still holds as-written: CA is where the 3-class system originated. The machinations of its creation are irrelevant to the present discussion; only to the axe you never spare an opportunity to grind.

The bikers want to fly thru pedestrians because they are on their way to work and pedestrians are a clueless, wandering impediment (this is a tourist town so lots of aimless walkers admiring the scenery and observing little else). Its not uncommon to see riders almost brushing walkers who are ignoring the posted places where pedestrians are supposed to remain in order to allow bicycle traffic thru. Very annoying if you are treating the path as a roadway. Originally the city council banned ebikes as a response but since the problem persisted because they were attacking the wrong culprits, the ban is now completely ignored and ebikes are the dominant form of wheeled transportation in that corridor despite the ordinance, which even the ebike-riding police that now ride the area on occasion ignore.

I believe the "machinations of it's creation" do matter because People for Bikes claimed the reasons they promoted the 3-class system was for safety and clarity and neither were true. I just want riders to know that the 3-class state legislation pushed by People for Bikes was a lobby money funded effort of regulatory capture with the goal to keep ebikes as leisure and recreation oriented and less compelling to get people out of cars for urban mobility. My goal has never been anything but wanting to see the brightest possible future for ebikes because they are the most efficient way for anyone to go from point A to B. HR727 is a better way to regulate what a compliant ebike / Low Speed Electric Bike - this is pretty obvious because no one at People for Bikes will engage in this debate.

 

[m@Robertson]

So, once again, you are trying to dredge up a dead thread so you can keep going on and on (and on) about this topic that you work so hard to try and drum up interest in.

 

[Ken M]

So, once again, you are trying to dredge up a dead thread so you can keep going on and on (and on) about this topic that you work so hard to try and drum up interest in.

I think interest is increasing given that the LEVA is pushing to go away from their 2-class system and add allowance for throttles. They want one legal ebike to 50kph that allows them to be effective transportation. We are also seeing how it's not going to be possible to enforce the 3-classes with stickers when the drive mode can simply be changed by the rider anytime.

 

[Kayakguy]

I would be interested to see what an attorney who specializes in such issues thinks of this statement. I'd be even more interested in hearing from people actively involved in advocacy for bicycles about what they think of it.

My own guess is that this statement is unlikely to accomplish anything at all, and if it does accomplish anything it is unlikely to benefit e-bikers.

In the unlikely event that a ruckus was produced, I think the end result would be that regulation of e-bikes would be disconnected from CPSC and move to DOT (probably NHTSA). Again, I find it hard to imagine that many of us would find our lives improved by that change.

There's an old saying: Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Ken M]

There's an old saying: Be careful what you wish for.

Let me point out some things that may convince you. All ebike / LSEB riders would benefit from just dumping 3-class legislation and accepting HR727 LSEB as a bike which is what was intended. Something everyone must keep in mind is that the feds control what is compliant for 1st sale and this makes great sense because no manufacturer wants to make different versions of a product for every state (there have been some exceptions allow like the needed emissions requirements in California).

Most states require a class 3 ebike to have a speedometer which is not required by HR727 so the CPSC does not require one prior to sale on any LSEB. Note: in my opinion that is a more stringent requirement that should be an interstate commerce violation but if the states define an ebike separately it's OK. Check out the Specialized Turbo Creo (one of the top class 3 ebikes from a major bike OEM) and you'll notice it does not have a speedometer and can be sold legally in every state. It's actually 100% compliant to HR727 so the CPSC has no issue with it but the states that require a speedometer might, but guess what they don't control what is legal for sale so they can only require it to be added for "use." How many riders do you think know they are supposed to install a speedometer to ride legally? How many police know those bikes are supposedly illegal to ride in states that have adopted 3-class? How many shops are allowing customers to test that ebike not realizing they are allowing them to ride an illegal ebike. But it's a compliant LSEB that can actually be ridden legally as a bike (my opinion based on what the CPSC stated and what HR727 states). Keep in mind that one of the changes that took place when ebike jurisdiction was moved from the NHTSA to the CPSC was the removal of the requirement to have rear view mirrors and all 50 states were OK with that.

Dr. Currie's congressional testimony can be viewed by you and everyone on eBR and everyone that wants to judge my claims should do so. He obviously wanted the legislation that he was pushing to pull jurisdiction of ebikes away from the NHTSA to the CPSC so they established a rather strange description of the product as an "low speed electric bicycle" and wanted it to be "use" regulated by the states as a bike. I have personally talked with the lawyer that worked with Dr. Currie for 5+ years to get HR727 passed (it was no small effort and we riders should respect what they accomplished and not be brainwashed by People for Bikes and the 3-class jibberish...again my opinion). I have a copy of some legal paperwork from their effort that their intent was that an LSEB would be the equivalent of a bicycle and not just for the safety regulations but allowed to be used as a bicycle (we have had very well establish traffic / "use" laws for bicycles for decades so we didn't need People for Bikes to push what they claimed was necessary clarification legislation and improved safety (they have no data supporting their safety claims so we should all ignore that).

BIG IMPORTANT NOTE: HR727 passed one vote short of full congressional approval (the states all spoke in 2002 that a compliant LSEB was OK as a bike). Why then did the states allow People for Bikes to lobby to get the 3-class system approved state by state. A true advocasy group would have just lobbied to make sure it was clear that a compliant LSEB was treated same as a bicycle (something they often say they want for all 3-classes but we federally had that for over 10 years before 3-class was brought by the largest auto parts producer in the world to People for Bikes).

Why are ebikes with programming to allow switching between class 1, 2, 3 and even off-road allowed to be legally sold as compliant to HR727? Because they are federally compliant LSEBs but most would argue that 3-class legislation was never intended to allow this but hey the states do not control 1st sale so they are left to figure out how to enforce with those stupid stickers. Good luck with that states. Again no clarity was created with the 3-class legislation while HR727 was crystal clear all the way back to 2002...over 10 years before the 1st state adopted 3-class legislation.

 

[The Brick]

All bike riders, no matter what they ride, would benefit by having no legislation, no laws, no rules and no regulations.

 

[Ken M]

All bike riders, no matter what they ride, would benefit by having no legislation, no laws, no rules and no regulations.

I certainly did not suggest that. I just voice my support for HR727 that a compliant LSEB is just the equivalent of a bike for use regulations by the states. No product sold or used in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) is without some regulations. I have no idea if you were just trying to be funny or just attacking my post. I suggest you read HR727 and maybe some information on it's history if you don't think my entry was accurate.