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

[Asher]

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.

Your whole thread is about allowing 28 mph capable ebikes everywhere.

 

[Ken M]

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.

Yes. Mandatory "liability" insurance is the only plausible requirement as that is what is required now for other motor vehicles. It would not be $3-$5 / month if required (that's pricing if not required which keeps the current voluntary policies aggressively priced). Let's just all agree we don't want to open the door for insurance companies to have a chance at making liability insurance of bikes mandatory (they are succeeding in Europe so don't assume it's not possible here....we are taking about insurance companies so don't consider them to be like a friendly neighbor).

 

[jabberwocky]

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.

How does having two separate classes (with and without throttle) financially benefit Bosch?

Having a distinction between class 1 and class 3 gives advocates an option in places where managers and/or users are unwilling to accept bikes that assist to almost 30mph (just like the distinction between class 1 and class 2 gives advocates an option where managers and/or users are ok with with assisting to 20mph but do not want to allow throttle). The battle for ebike access is mostly happening on infrastructure that was never designed with powered vehicles in mind (be it MUPs, off road trails, bike lanes, etc). I own a class 3 and it is definitely not appropriate for some bike infrastructure, but is probably ok on others.

 

[McCorby]

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.

If your “crusade” is successful, I fear it will result in many local/city land managers deciding to all out ban ebikes on bike trails, paths and MUPs, versus limiting access to class 1 bikes. Please step back and consider all potential outcomes of what you are petitioning for.

 

[Ken M]

Your whole thread is about allowing 28 mph capable ebikes everywhere.

Wow....we had that capability even before ebikes existed. I will again state that a bike rider averaged over 32mph for 1 hour without a motor. Can we stop making it sound like someone hitting a top speed of 28mph is always going to ride at that speed and put everyone at risk. The top potential speed is not how people behave...do any of use drive our cars around at the top capable speed all the time so why so frequently does that seem to be what people think ebike riders do. It's like a hysteria takes over if someone says it should be OK for an ebike to assist past 20mph.

 

[jabberwocky]

Yes. Mandatory "liability" insurance is the only plausible requirement as that is what is required now for other motor vehicles. It would not be $3-$5 / month if required (that's pricing if not required which keeps the current voluntary policies aggressively priced). Let's just all agree we don't want to open the door for insurance companies to have a chance at making liability insurance of bikes mandatory (they are succeeding in Europe so don't assume it's not possible here....we are taking about insurance companies so don't consider them to be like a friendly neighbor).

Its worth noting that PFBs model legislation specifically exempts all classes of ebikes from any insurance requirement.

 

[Ken M]

If your “crusade” is successful, I fear it will result in many local/city land managers deciding to all out ban ebikes on bike trails, paths and MUPs, versus limiting access to class 1 bikes. Please step back and consider all potential outcomes of what you are proposing.

Please read HR727 that I support going back to (I had nothing to do with that bill but I like it a lot better than 3-class). It states that a compliant "low speed electric bicycle" is to be considered a "bike." In other words if a trail manager felt that "low speed electric bicycles" were a threat on the trails they manage they would simply need to ban ALL bikes from that trail. I think the risk of that is very very low and the risk of allowing federally compliant ebikes on trails is very very low vs just class 1 now.

 

[Ken M]

Its worth noting that PFBs model legislation specifically exempts all classes of ebikes from any insurance requirement.

Unless codified into the state law that means nothing. As far as I know, none of the 28 adopting states did.

 

[jabberwocky]

Wow....we had that capability even before ebikes existed. I will again state that a bike rider averaged over 32mph for 1 hour without a motor. Can we stop making it sound like someone hitting a top speed of 28mph is always going to ride at that speed and put everyone at risk. The top potential speed is not how people behave...do any of use drive our cars around at the top capable speed all the time so why so frequently does that seem to be what people think ebike riders do. It's like a hysteria takes over if someone says it should be OK for an ebike to assist past 20mph.

This argument is hugely disingenuous. Sure, very fit riders are capable of riding at speeds comparable to a class 3 (or even faster). You are talking about a tiny, tiny percentage of riders though, and it takes a large amount of seat time to get to the point where sustaining 25+mph is possible. I know people who race at a cat1 level, and getting to that level takes a lot of time and training. And guess what? I can still dust most of them on my class 3 on most strava segments.

Average speeds will be inarguably faster on an assisted bike, all things being equal. Pretending otherwise is simply arguing in bad faith.

 

[john peck]

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.

The chances of my bike injuring someone are miniscule compared to the odds of being injured by a driver.
Wishing to remain alive & healthy has made me a very cautious rider. I very much favor the fed definition.
WA. has been voted the most bike friendly state several times in a row & has recently passed laws that
prove it.

 

[jabberwocky]

Unless codified into the state law that means nothing. As far as I know, none of the 28 adopting states did.

Yeah, ok, but the model legislation is what PFB is pushing states to adopt.

EDIT: My home state of VA adopted the insurance exemption straight from PFB:
http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/46.2-904.1 (section B).

 

[McCorby]

Please read HR727 that I support going back to (I had nothing to do with that bill but I like it a lot better than 3-class). It states that a compliant "low speed electric bicycle" is to be considered a "bike." In other words if a trail manager felt that "low speed electric bicycles" were a threat on the trails they manage they would simply need to ban ALL bikes from that trail. I think the risk of that is very very low and the risk of allowing federally compliant ebikes on trails is very very low vs just class 1 now.

You honesty believe local municipalities/land managers won’t have the ability to restrict eBike access on these trails, paths, and MUP’s?

 

[Ken M]

If your “crusade” is successful, I fear it will result in many local/city land managers deciding to all out ban ebikes on bike trails, paths and MUPs, versus limiting access to class 1 bikes. Please step back and consider all potential outcomes of what you are proposing.

"Crusade?" That's funny. It's not a proposal, it's a petition to have the CPSC review 3-class legislation. It's not up to me and it was most likely inevitable that someone file a petition for this review. We will end up with far too many state specific definitions that manufacturers will have to deal with - NY went with throttle to 25mph, Minnisota requires ebrakes, some require speedometers, etc. I don't think anyone is really paying attention. Bikes have been federally defined from before 1978 so the states going in other directions and claiming it's "use" needed is just brain-dead.

 

[McCorby]

"Crusade?" That's funny. It's not a proposal, it's a petition to have the CPSC review 3-class legislation. It's not up to me and it was most likely inevitable that someone file a petition for this review. We will end up with far too many state specific definitions that manufacturers will have to deal with - NY went with throttle to 25mph, Minnisota requires ebrakes, some require speedometers, etc. I don't think anyone is really paying attention. Bikes have been federally defined from before 1978 so the states going in other directions and claiming it's "use" needed is just brain-dead.

Fixed, thanks!

 

[Ken M]

You honesty believe local municipalities/land managers won’t have the ability to restrict eBike access on these trails, paths, and MUP’s?

Have you read HR727 and the congressional notes. While it's an opinion, the intent sure seems to have been to keep the federal definition of a low speed electric bicycle same as a bike (like a recumbent, mtn bike, road bike, trike, etc.) and definitely not considered a motor vehicle. I think all ebike riders benefit if that is what controls ebike compliance and just give the states that product for "use" regulations (don't allow the states to adopt 3-class or redefine as NY and Minnesota have done).

 

[Asher]

This argument is hugely disingenuous. Sure, very fit riders are capable of riding at speeds comparable to a class 3 (or even faster). You are talking about a tiny, tiny percentage of riders though, and it takes a large amount of seat time to get to the point where sustaining 25+mph is possible. I know people who race at a cat1 level, and getting to that level takes a lot of time and training. And guess what? I can still dust most of them on my class 3 on most strava segments.

Average speeds will be inarguably faster on an assisted bike, all things being equal. Pretending otherwise is simply arguing in bad faith.

Precisely. And even those people only do it all geared up with a niche enthusiast bike, shoes and underwear, steps which 95%+ of people will never take, they aren't doing it on their grocery runs with saddlebags in tow.

A lot of people have this fatal inability to see how something being merely possible (but rare) and probable makes all the difference. Even engineers evidently lol.

 

[Asher]

Wow....we had that capability even before ebikes existed. I will again state that a bike rider averaged over 32mph for 1 hour without a motor. Can we stop making it sound like someone hitting a top speed of 28mph is always going to ride at that speed and put everyone at risk. The top potential speed is not how people behave...do any of use drive our cars around at the top capable speed all the time so why so frequently does that seem to be what people think ebike riders do. It's like a hysteria takes over if someone says it should be OK for an ebike to assist past 20mph.

Also, 30% or so of car crash deaths would be eliminated if cars obeyed speed limits. Europe is mandating speed limiters on new cars in the future.

Citing the current system as a role model with 40k deaths per year and far more per capita than Europe is conceding ignorance of or indifference to mass death, neither an endearing basis for argument.

 

[PM Cycles]

Your whole thread is about allowing 28 mph capable ebikes everywhere.

OH Wow. You really are confused.

 

[kmccune]

Its pure speculative in the sense that I have close friends who have been in trail advocacy for decades who have talked directly with land managers and been told straight out that any sort of throttle assist bike is a hard no. Mountainbikers have been fighting being lumped in with dirtbikes and atvs and the like for decades when it comes to access, so pushing to allow bikes that you don't even have to pedal just isn't going to happen. The nice thing is that people pushing for access can say "allow class 1" (which almost all e-mtbs are anyway) and its an easier sell. No throttle, limited to 20mph; getting people to try one and most of them come away saying "thats close enough to normal MTBs that I'm ok with that".

The worry with trail access is less trail impact (which is sort of a worry since ebikes will be a bit heavier and go a bit faster but not generally seen as significant) and more user conflict, which is already a hot button issue even before you put a motor into the mix. Trail managers (and people who have been doing traditional advocacy for a long time) are coming around on the idea that class 1 bikes are generally ok where normal bikes go, but you come back and say "actually they will go faster and have throttles" and that changes to an absolutely not. Fucking hell, even class 1 has been an endless struggle in some of the trails around here (VA state stuff is still entirely off limits; I'm limited to county parks in VA). Increasing speed and adding throttle to the "what we have to allow" list will not help that.

The Federal stuff is off limits as well.I have talked to the Rangers in the Government office and wrote a letter to the head of operations.
Ebikes fine where other motorized vehicles are allowed, Hiking and horse trails NO!( ever seen how much damage Horses can do to land? Makes absolutely no sense to me and they will not even allow human powered MTBs on some fire trails.
I tried to get permission to help create some MTB trails, to no avail, I have basically given up.

 

[jabberwocky]

Precisely. And even those people only do it all geared up with a niche enthusiast bike, shoes and underwear, steps which 95%+ of people will never take, they aren't doing it on their grocery runs with saddlebags in tow.

A lot of people have this fatal inability to see how something being merely possible (but rare) and probable makes all the difference. Even engineers evidently lol.

I actually tested my class 3 against some popular local strava segments (recreated as ebike segments) back when I first got it, and my times would have easily taken a KOM on every one of them without even using max assist. Some of them have thousands of riders and the leaderboard is full of extremely fast and fit locals.