I thought it was obvious humor. I've been a hiker and a biker for many years...but I don't always assume it's the bikers causing the problems as some trail managers tend to believe.
Statement Regarding Potential CPSC Ebike Law Preemption of 3-class Legislation
- Thread starter Ken M
- Start date
Why are some claiming this is "my way." I'm just advocating going back to the federal definition what was Congressionally approved in 2002. Even PFBs lead state policy person states in that video that it defined a compliant ebike = bike. That was the basis for state "use" laws for 12+ years before 3 class adoption started but 20+ states still use the definition as such. It's not my way....it's a more time tested way then 3-class but everyone seems to think I've concocted this scheme to ruin good legislation.
Why not provide some insight into why you feel the 3-class system is better than the federal definition? So far all you have done is imply that it will be a bad thing if 3-class is preempted so maybe explain why you feel that way.
Note: it's purely subjective to say that all ebikes will be banned from trails as that simply is not true in the states still using the federal definition.
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
From your posts, I doubt you've ever been to a public meeting or debate over public land use as it relates to ebikes. Its true there are some hikers that hate every other group that use trails. There are also some hikers and bikers that hate horse riders. There are a lot of bikers, hikers and horse riders that hate ebikers. They often can be reasoned with. Mothers with children and seniors with pets are the biggest vocal group that don't want ebikes on trails. When they hear bikes capable of speeds greater than 20mph with throttles, it's too far for land managers to even attempt to justify it. Where ebikes have been allowed, they typically allow class 1 only. Often there are further stipulations like limiting weight to less than 100 pounds. PA has legalized class 1 ebikes on all state land, with a weight limit of 75 pounds. All hard fought for access.
It's really tricky to gain access against the wishes of Moms and pet owners. I've listened to their testimony, and its compelling. They pay taxes too and their numbers, along with cyclists and equestrians, are far greater than the numbers of ebikers.
Most public forums I've ever been too just tend to be rant sessions for people. It really does make me wonder how anything gets done. Maybe my concern is that it seems like this trail access debate is dominating the conversation of ebike regulations when I think the biggest impact they will have is on urban mobility which simply justifies not be neutered at 20mph (that said I think the 3-sigma typical top speed of all bikes in the 28-32mph is plenty fast for an effective solution).
I use to mtn bike so I do think a lot of the claims about emtn bikes causing more damage to the trails is hyperbola. When climbing which is where emtn bikes clearly out perform traditional mtn bikes I know the best riders never want to loose traction so that is not a likely scenario of increase wear to the trail. Coming downhill I've seen both mtn and emtn bikes slide the rear into corners and skid brake to deal with speeds so there isn't more speed or damage to trails on downhills. So where is the increased damage they keep bringing up.
I have worked on trail maintenance and everyone knows most trail damage is due to erosion and the impact of water on the trail after big rains (ie puddles become mud holes and then pot holes). I question this could really be studied objectively because whoever pays for the study is going to want a certain outcome of the study so I think it's actually more effective to reason it thru.
I understand mom's with kids and pets may be a vocal group but is there any data of accident rates increasing on trails between ebikes and hikers? This is data that should just simply be available if there are people being hurt by ebikes. Does anyone have this data as I would love to read it. Stories of a Yorkie being frightened by a passing ebike just don't resonate much...maybe someone just walking the other direction has same impact.
I understand all the voices out there but we have a federal law going back to 2002 which was adopted with the intent that compliant "low speed electric bikes" be considered the same as a bike for use. If that default is not working then lets fix but if it's just people saying the sky is falling then just give them more anti-depressant drugs. A "low speed electric bike" is probably not going to tear up the trails and my guess is there is no data showing significantly higher rates of hiker/walker injuries from ebikes.
john peck
Well-Known Member
So it would seem. (in my experience)
I think per federal definition a compliant low speed electric bicycle is same as a bike. So anyplace a bike is legal to ride so can a LSEB. States do not control what is sold as a bike so but they control "use" which I do not feel allows them to claim ebikes are not bikes given the federal definition. This is just my view but I think someone needs to push a court case to see how it ends.
john peck
Well-Known Member
I agree, but I just ride & don´t worry about the various local ordinances. No one around here seems to care.
Enforcement is pretty much non-existant unless someone is riding recklessly but if you were to hurt someone on a non-compliant ebike that was say in a moped class the tort liability could be significant. But it is one of the reasons I would prefer to just see a return to the federal definition with the states accepting that for the "use" laws for bikes.
Asher
Well-Known Member
It was "humor" and it's also your sincere feeling on the matter. 'it's just a joke' is what people say when they're called out on their BS.
Class 3 was chosen for harmonization with s pedelecs, very likely. But if the bike lobby was so intent on harmonization, they would've picked 15 mph for class 1/2, to match Euro regs. Speed sells, and the bike lobby figured they could get away with a higher limit. Someone at Calbike, the state advocacy group, said they got to the bill too late and would've asked for a 15 mph limit for class 1 instead. Which would make a lot more sense for mtb applications. The 28 mph figure is dumb, but maybe, being 2 mph lower, it helped avoid licensing requirements on 30 mph mopeds.
You say you care about urban mobility, but theres nothing stopping people from using Class 3s on the road, for the most part, aside from some protected bike lanes that tend to suck anyway. Maybe in the future the situation on bike paths will get sorted out, but right now it's mostly a theoretical issue and no one is getting hurt.
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
Local governments control access to local public land use. Trails, multi use paths, bike paths, hike and bike trails, rail trails, canal towpath trails are very different than MTB trails and often have different regulations.
I prefer local government control of local land use and there are scores of higher court rulings, including the US Supreme Court that side with state's rights. This is settled law. I am able to effect change at the local level for land that is not federal. The last thing anyone wants is an unelected, beurocrat controlled agency in Washington DC making rulings about state and local land use. It's never going to happen. DC doesn't have the constitutional right to tell my state, or my county how to use their land. And if it were pushed through the courts, states would win. Read some of the Supreme Court's rulings on state's rights.
Not even sure what topic you are responding to. This petition thread is about a CPSC petition to preempt states defining a nationally sold product. It doesn't stop any local "use" control of the product. But if a "low speed electric bicycle" is defined as just a type of bike then it's "use" should be same as other bikes. If a bike is allowed then a "low speed electric bicycle is allowed. I think everyone forgets we are talking about a product with the power of an average 2-slice toaster so it's not much different than a bike that has been around for well locally "use" regulated for a very long time successfully. In summary, the CPSC has no control of use but they have the constitutional authority (supremacy clause and interstate commerce enumerated right) to regulate the product for 1st sale. I don't think we want a bunch of local land managers or even state defining products that are sold nationally.
Asher
Well-Known Member
"Let's let everyone ride like an Olympic cyclist at his absolute peak sprint, everywhere all the time, that changes nothing!"
Your posts are a nonstop cesspool of misunderstanding and obtuseness.
I suggested putting tread mills so hikers didn't need trail access....that was a joke. My point was to say that trail use should not be the primary concern...it's the smoke screen.
I am asking everyone to look at the bigger picture beyond just local trail access. What is far far far more important is that the federal definition for a "low speed electric bicycle" to have total acceptance as nothing more than a "bike" (absolute separation from being considered a "motor vehicle" - that means no goofy classifications based on motor performance). Read this article and understand that the insurance lobby has used the association of ebikes being motor vehicles to push REQUIRED INSURANCE on EU ebikes and they are trying to get that on all ebikes in EU. The insurance industry doesn't care about the benefits ebikes provide for urban mobility, health, climate change, etc.....all they care about it gutting everyone on a bike for more mandatory insurance. They will spend $billions buying off weak minded politicians. We NEED for the CPSC to preempt the class system because it opened a hook for the insurance industry and they will use it...believe me. Read this:
EC wants mandatory e-bike insurance - electrive.com
www.electrive.com
It is like pulling teeth to get people to just look up HR727 and understand their was a federal definition for "low speed electric bicycle" as a bike back in 2002. It may look like a goofy worded specification but it was actually very very logical as it was more about controlling power (a better way to control the top assisted speed of ebikes). The class system took the industry backwards but it's been "marketed" in many ways and one was convincing some that it's the only thing giving them trail access. There is NO reason the federal definition should be banned from trails even though it does allow throttles but anyone that truly understand controllers knows that configurations that require pedaling with a "boost button or lever" can be a pedelec even though it's closer to being just like a throttle-assist system.
You are right there is nothing stopping urban commuters from riding class 3 ebikes on the road (funny they can't have throttles on that road while mopeds and motorcycles can on that same road but I digress just to show how there was no intelligence utilized by those in the room creating the 3-class system) but mandatory insurance will come.
If I thought that a federally compliant "low speed electric bicycle" would be a potential threat on trails then maybe I wouldn't be so firm on saying we need to dump the class system. It will not be a problem on trails and keep that definition as just a "bike" should be far far more important to anyone that believes in ebikes. We don't want DOT/NHTSA / DMV / Insurance grabbing class 3 to create a new revenue stream because then they'll go for all classes (these groups don't look at value of anything...they just want the revenue). I just ask everyone to look at the big picture and one definition as a "bike" is important....more important than the fake fear of loosing access to a few trails.
That video is why I always refer to the power of 2-slice toaster. It's illustrates that even at the peak of human performance we don't have a lot of sustained power so limiting power at 20mph as the federal definition does limits the top speed inherently (far better than assist cut-offs per the 3-class system). That video does NOT support your opinion. There is another video of the hour challenge where a rider was able to sustain over 32 mph for 1 hr and yet some feel we must keep assist below 20 mph for "safety" even thought going downhill speeds over 30 mph are common.
You want to claim my posts are cesspools of misunderstanding. Have you ever looked up what a motor rating really means. I'm betting that you, like most, think the 750W rating of both the federal definition and the 3-class regulation is a power limit. Technically it's NOT regardless of what you think. I understand what it is but few will take the time to look into what a motor rating really means. I'm not going to try to educate everyone on this because they would just think I'm making it all up regardless of it being objective fact.
I have not suggested having ebikes flying around at 50mph under throttle alone. I have suggested we just accept the original 2002 HR727 definition of a "low speed electric bicycle" as a bike because it will benefit us all if we all stand behind it. If the CPSC preempts the 3-class non-sense it will be a good thing. You can cling to your compliance stickers if you want and keep drinking that koolaid.
Asher
Well-Known Member
You just sound like someone who doesn't have a goal, because you admit that there isn't much of a real world obstacle by current laws. What you really want is just to bray about doom and gloom. You're psychologically hooked on it. You can't wait for mandatory insurance to come so you have something else to attack. Except mandatory insurance isn't coming in the US, and you're just searching for something else to obsess over.
Why should we have any speed limits below 90 mph at all when a human powered vehicle has done 90?
What a single person can achieve under extremely rare conditions is completely irrelevant to deciding what sound protocol should be for roads generally. This is a point that continues to elude you.
I want to clarify something again. It seems crystal clear to me that that the federal definition limits dynamic power above 20mph to what can sustain a 170lb rider at 20mph on a level paved surface. It's no that mathematically difficult to determine that for most bikes that falls in the range of 300-350W of sustained power above 20mph that can combine with human power to achieve speeds above 20mph. What happens above 20mph is the exponential increase of aerodynamic drag become a significant power impact such that even with significant effort from an average rider the resulting speed would be no faster than a current 250W speed pedelec at 28mph. But there would be no abrupt cease of assist so it would feel to the rider like they are riding a normal bike but somewhat faster given the extra 300-350W allowed above 20mph.
Everyone just needs to read the federal definition and try their best to comprehend what the interpretation and intent is. The only prameter missing from the 20mph / 170 lb rider / Level Surface constraints is POWER and that is very easily determined given those constraints. It works brilliantly and was most likely written by Dr. Currie to allow a bit more speed above 20mph without the NHTSA wanting to keep ebikes classified as a motor vehicle. He knew for ebikes to thrive they needed be a consumer product. If everyone studies the history they would come to this conclusion. I think 3-class is not as good as what both regulated compliance and use of ebike before it just dropped in with lobby money behind it.
Mr. Coffee
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- A Demented Corner of the North Cascades
On the whole insurance thing...
The only really plausible mandatory insurance requirement would be for liability insurance. It is very hard to get a direct quote for such insurance because most bicycle and e-bike oriented policies are focus on theft insurance, which can be quite expensive depending on where you live and how spiffy your bike is.
From experimentation on velosurance my best guess is that liability insurance for an e-bike would cost on the order of $3-$5 per month in most locations. This makes sense because an e-bike isn't that heavy and can't go particularly fast, so is much less likely to cause serious injury or damage to others.
So the people talking about $50/month (or more) mandatory insurance for e-bikes do not know what they are talking about. At all. And $5/month, even multiplied by millions of e-bikes, isn't that big a market to the insurance companies and it is hard to imagine them being all that passionate about it. In fact, I suspect that if there was a mandatory liability insurance requirement for e-bikes in the states the challenge would be finding insurance companies who wanted to bother with selling it. You'd probably get it as a rider on your homeowner's or auto insurance if it was even available.
The only really plausible mandatory insurance requirement would be for liability insurance. It is very hard to get a direct quote for such insurance because most bicycle and e-bike oriented policies are focus on theft insurance, which can be quite expensive depending on where you live and how spiffy your bike is.
From experimentation on velosurance my best guess is that liability insurance for an e-bike would cost on the order of $3-$5 per month in most locations. This makes sense because an e-bike isn't that heavy and can't go particularly fast, so is much less likely to cause serious injury or damage to others.
So the people talking about $50/month (or more) mandatory insurance for e-bikes do not know what they are talking about. At all. And $5/month, even multiplied by millions of e-bikes, isn't that big a market to the insurance companies and it is hard to imagine them being all that passionate about it. In fact, I suspect that if there was a mandatory liability insurance requirement for e-bikes in the states the challenge would be finding insurance companies who wanted to bother with selling it. You'd probably get it as a rider on your homeowner's or auto insurance if it was even available.
antboy
Well-Known Member
I can't speak for @PM Cycles but it's pretty easy to see how having local jurisdictions legislate based on PfB's two separate classes (20mph PAS/no throttle vs 20mph PAS/with throttle) is a large financial benefit for Bosch (using Bosch as the catch all for Bosch, Shimano, Yamaha, Brose, and the bike manufacturers that use said motors) et al).
I think PfB's advocacy of 3 classes is cumbersome. Why have a distinction between class 1 and class 3, for example?
Under pedal assist pick a top speed and that's it. Many adults can maintain a sustained speed of over 20mph (sustained defined as 1.6 km or 1 mile flat), so why the artificial limit? MAYBE 28mph is too fast, but 20mph is certainly strikes me as too slow for some.
Maybe have a second class if a (speed limited) throttle is introduced, even if the throttle's max speed is slower than the PAS system, as there is a real, tangible difference between the feeling of riding under throttle, and riding under your own power, even if assisted by a motor. I don't think anyone would argue that.
Funny....my goal was spelled at the start of this thread. I just asked the CPSC to consider preempting the 3-class legislation because it seems clear that it violates their position on not impacting interstate commerce. You can read it or just ignore it but that is/was my goal and I do believe it is best for the ebike industry in general (keep in mind this was the law in all 50 states for 12+ years and still is in 22 states so I'm not like some crazy rebel troublemaker).
I do not use complete outlier performance to justify capability of ebikes. There are STUDIES showing the 3-sigma riding speeds of bike riders going back decades. That is data that matters and it just happens to show that most riders will ride occasionally at top speeds around 30mph. I like the idea of limiting power at 20mph so I'm not suggesting 90mph ebike assist speeds so I do not understand your point. I use extreme examples to prove that a power limit at 20 mph is not extreme and yet you seem to interprete that as I'm trying to justify extreme assist speeds. Never did I say or imply that. Comprehension is important in a discussion.
