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

[Ken M]

Bosch et al and their manufacturing partners pretty much exclusively make make e-bikes without throttles.

They support a non-profit group that advocates for the separate classes, and that the class of bike they make be the class that has the least restrictive usage on the streets and trails of America.



Here's where I disagree. It's not the CLASS that matters, but how one rides it. If the environment (road, MUP, etc) has a set speed limit of 20mph, don't go faster than that.

I agree. It's sad that ebikers seem to have been spoon fed that the only way to control ebike speeds is via the cease of assist.

My petition for preemption would return the federal definition of a low speed electric bicycle as just a bike and the speed is limited via a power limit above 20mph (this will enable some good riders slightly better than than Class 3 speeds but that speed is still in the range that 99% of riders commonly hit (albeit typically on downhills but speeds upwards of 30mph is common for the vast majority of riders). The fact that average riding speeds are higher for ebikes is the merit of having assist to go uphill faster as most of us will not go any faster downhills.

 

[Ken M]

So if power and potential speed is irrelevant, you think that mups and bike paths should be open to motorcycles as long as they obey whatever speed limit is set? Under your logic, no issues with someone riding their sport bike down the local bike path, since we can just set a speed limit that people will obviously obey, and there will be no conflict issues?

Where do you come up with this stuff? A motorcycle is not a "bike" so they will not be allowed on a MUP or designated bike path. Please stop trying to make it sound like the 8mph delta from Class 1 to 3 is something that takes a bike path from safe to dangerous.

I would suggest reviewing what HR727 states is a "low speed electric bicycle." It's a far more elegant definition than the 3-class system with stickers. That definition was intended to keep compliant ebikes away from NHTSA regulations and also from being considered a motor vehicle - it was intended that they be just another type of bike to be state "use" regulated as a bike. That was working, still working in many states. 3-class did not make ebikes safer or add clarity and it did not provide a way to get trail access (that was just koolaid for those not really paying attention).

 

[m@Robertson]

I think you created this mess to keep yourself occupied. All this endless argumentation is a goal. See it all the time in my local area. Lots of retired folks with nothing to do so they drive the city planning commission insane with nonsense like this, argued passionately and endlessly.

 

[Ken M]

Pfft... don't put words in my mouth, when my earlier comments clearly don't reflect what you're projecting.

If YOU don't recall that, that's on you, because the whole thread still exists. As soon as I see classic deflection responsed, I take it as an indicator that reasonable discussion is becoming secondary to snark.

Of course YOU can, if you want, but that's nowhere near what I said earlier. Since when did even questioning People For Bikes' 3 class structure equal supporting a free-for-all?

CLASSIC use of the dogpiling technique, though.

Really like your comment that "when did even questioning People for Bikes 3 class structure equal supporting a free for all?" It's bizarre that if you point out any flaws in that system people imply you are for 100hp motorcycles riding down sidewalks...these people distract from the real discussion with hyperbola. Ignoring that 20+ states are essentially still using the 2002 federal definition of an ebike to base their "use/traffic" laws on without 3-class seems to be entirely forgotten. Those are not free-for-all states.

I could ask someone supporting 3-class why is a class 3 ebike that can not have a throttle required to only ride on streets and road side bike lanes that are essentially infrastructure that other vehicles are allowed throttles (and gas pedals which are essentially throttles). It's a minor point in the debate but it shows that 3-class was not really well thought out and was more about harmonizing with the EU than about effective US legislation of ebikes.

If the CPSC sticks to their position on states not requiring anything on a product that they regulate before it enters interstate commerce (they own 1st sale nationwide) then they will preempt 3-class with the federal definition and we'll revert back to a better regulation that will benefit the ebike market and even how they are "use" regulated.

 

[jabberwocky]

Pfft... don't put words in my mouth, when my earlier comments clearly don't reflect what you're projecting.

If YOU don't recall that, that's on you, because the whole thread still exists. As soon as I see classic deflection responsed, I take it as an indicator that reasonable discussion is becoming secondary to snark.

Of course YOU can, if you want, but that's nowhere near what I said earlier. Since when did even questioning People For Bikes' 3 class structure equal supporting a free-for-all?

CLASSIC use of the dogpiling technique, though.

You're the one who said: "It's not the CLASS that matters, but how one rides it. If the environment (road, MUP, etc) has a set speed limit of 20mph, don't go faster than that." I'm just wondering if you actually mean that capability (class) is irrelevant and we should just limit speed on ped/bike infra and let people ride whatever. You dodged the question, so I'll assume you do actually think some limits on capability are acceptable? In your mind, what limitation is acceptable for ebikes on detached ped/bike infrastructure like MUPs?

 

[jabberwocky]

I could ask someone supporting 3-class why is a class 3 ebike that can not have a throttle required to only ride on streets and road side bike lanes that are essentially infrastructure that other vehicles are allowed throttles (and gas pedals which are essentially throttles). It's a minor point in the debate but it shows that 3-class was not really well thought out and was more about harmonizing with the EU than about effective US legislation of ebikes.

All states already have an unlimited class of vehicle that can have throttle with no cap on speed and use all the same infrastructure as other vehicles that are allowed throttles. They are called motorcycles.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Moderators: Requesting this thread be closed.

 

[jabberwocky]

I think you created this mess to keep yourself occupied. All this endless argumentation is a goal. See it all the time in my local area. Lots of retired folks with nothing to do so they drive the city planning commission insane with nonsense like this, argued passionately and endlessly.

Yeah, I keep thinking "I'm pretty sure I've argued with this guy at every HOA meeting I've ever been at".

 

[Ken M]

I think you created this mess to keep yourself occupied. All this endless argumentation is a goal. See it all the time in my local area. Lots of retired folks with nothing to do so they drive the city planning commission insane with nonsense like this, argued passionately and endlessly.

There is a bit of a difference...those retired folks typically don't even have a point, just an opinion. I actually agree with what you wrote but I simply ask that you read the petition for preemption, HR727, 3-class legislation, and even some history of the CPSC before passing judgement that I'm just trying to create endless argumentation. There is very sound reasons we don't want every state trying to redefine products prior to introduction into interstate commerce (there actually is allowance for exceptions but I'm certain that does not include the subjective view of an advocacy group getting over $million to lobby a harmonizing 3 class system).

I live in Colorado and I think we were the 2nd state after California to adopt 3-class legislation. Went from draft to adoption in 4 months which is pretty fast. I did some basic history research on this and the reason was because Haibike told Colorado they would only move their US office here if 3-class was adopted. There was no discussion if needed or safer...it was entirely "legislative capture." While that is quite common it does not make it justified or right.

I'm more into the getting information out hoping people will spend the time to educate themselves to make informed decisions - I don't want anyone to just listen to me but they also shouldn't just get opinion confirmation from biased internet sources either. I'm a huge believer in ebikes because I know they can improve the health of many and get more people out of cars (we are better with legislation that provides the best path to increase adoption and I believe that a return to the 2002 federal definition is just better than 3-class...inform yourself and then make an independent objective decision).

Let me be clear. I'm don't care either way but I think a CPSC petition was inevitable. People for Bikes has stated their goal was to eventually have the federal / CPSC definition be changed to the 3-class system. That is fine but there are defined legal processes to do that - actually would have been better if they petitioned for exception from day one but they didn't do that. I believe the state adoptions were not getting much attention is because there was no critical review if 3-class was consistent with the federal definition (it's pretty clear it's not) because People for Bikes was claiming it was and the CPSC tends to sit back until someone requests them to review (I have done that .... I may be wrong but that is up to the general counsel at the CPSC to decide).

 

[Ken M]

Moderators: Requesting this thread be closed.

Why? This is a back-n-forth on essentially the federal definition vs 3-class which should keep civility.

 

[Ken M]

All states already have an unlimited class of vehicle that can have throttle with no cap on speed and use all the same infrastructure as other vehicles that are allowed throttles. They are called motorcycles.

Unbelievable. My point was that the class system requires class 3 ebikes to NOT have a throttle and yet they can only be ridden on infrastructure that allows mopeds and motorcycles that have throttles. If you find logic in that then we are not even from the same planet. It was a minutia point that was only intended to show a bit of ??? logic of the 3-class system.

 

[Ken M]

You use this plea all the time for every aspect of this topic, when in fact you've been presented with documented facts. You just don't like the facts and act as though they don't exist.

In reply to one of your previous posts on this topic about power and speed I wrote this reply:

As for how much power a cyclist can generate, a pro can generate 400 watts for an hour. He might have slight bursts of greater power, but can't maintain it. An average adult, of average fitness can generate 50 to 150 watts for an hour while cycling.

A 250 watt Euro spec ebike peaks between 500 and 600 watts. So an average adult ebike rider, with average skills has greater power and speed than a fit, experienced pro cyclist.

What is a good average wattage​

To add further content to the speed and power issue:

Average cycling speed for new and experienced cyclists

Average cycling speeds, for amateurs, enthusiasts and professionals, with guidelines and targets for all levels of cyclist

www.road-bike.co.uk

Even with equipment upgrades a cyclist cannot maintain speeds you suggest are common.

I need a bigger gear to go faster! (Probably not)

www.chainreaction.com

Experienced professional cyclists, at the peak of their mental and physical fitness cannot maintain the watts, power and speed of a 750 watt class 3 ebike. There are countless articles with empirical data on this topic.

I'm confused because the report on speed you linked to stated: "Plenty of cyclists can maintain 25+ mph over long distances, especially if conditions are flat or they are cycling in groups." That is essentially class 3 speed without a motor and no one is telling them they can't ride on a MUP because they are capable of going faster than 20mph.

 

[jabberwocky]

Unbelievable. My point was that the class system requires class 3 ebikes to NOT have a throttle and yet they can only be ridden on infrastructure that allows mopeds and motorcycles that have throttles. If you find logic in that then we are not even from the same planet. It was a minutia point that was only intended to show a bit of ??? logic of the 3-class system.

Thats not strictly true. Some infrastructure around here is open to class 3s but not to mopeds and motorcycles. The aforementioned W&OD is open to all 3 classes of ebikes as far as I know. NOVA parks doesn't limit by class but does say "please maintain speeds under 20mph" on their trails for motorized vehicles. https://www.novaparks.com/parks/was...rk/updates/change-to-regulations-to-allow-the
(this is obviously completely unenforced, since NOVA parks does not have the resources to do any sort of speed enforcement on their trails; it might come back to haunt you if you hit someone though).

 

[J.R.]

I'm confused because the report on speed you linked to stated: "Plenty of cyclists can maintain 25+ mph over long distances, especially if conditions are flat or they are cycling in groups." That is essentially class 3 speed without a motor and no one is telling them they can't ride on a MUP because they are capable of going faster than 20mph.

You are disingenuous in how you debate. You disregard facts you don't like and cherry pick things out of context. Not for the first time either.

I have tried to offer you information I am sure of as fact, after years involved in regulations for ebikes. I'm honest in my debating tactics and I've never insulted you in the years you've been pushing this narrative. Every time you revert to dishonest tactics. You are dangerous to the ebike cause; you spread falsehoods and lead some to think you know something about this issue. You do not. Your proposal has zero chance of succeeding. If it did, and it won't, hundreds of trails and paths would ban ebikes. I know this because I have been involved in winning access for ebikes. In PA and MD all paths and trails would immediately ban ebikes if they were forced to admit ebikes with throttles. That would be true for every trail and path across the country that limits access to class 1 only.

I'm never for shutting down honest debate, but I now see why someone is calling for this thread to be locked.

 

[Ken M]

Thats not strictly true. Some infrastructure around here is open to class 3s but not to mopeds and motorcycles. The aforementioned W&OD is open to all 3 classes of ebikes as far as I know. NOVA parks doesn't limit by class but does say "please maintain speeds under 20mph" on their trails for motorized vehicles. https://www.novaparks.com/parks/was...rk/updates/change-to-regulations-to-allow-the
(this is obviously completely unenforced, since NOVA parks does not have the resources to do any sort of speed enforcement on their trails; it might come back to haunt you if you hit someone though).

What is the point of not allowing a throttle on a class 3 ebike? It's not faster...it's not going to tear up the pavement...it's not more dangerous. You are apparently supporting that throttles do not belong on class 3 ebikes so I'm testing to see if you can actually provide any merit to that opinion. It's kind of time that you support your opinion instead of just attacking the opposing opinions.

 

[Ken M]

You are disingenuous in how you debate. You disregard facts you don't like and cherry pick things out of context. Not for the first time either.

I have tried to offer you information I am sure of as fact, after years involved in regulations for ebikes. I'm honest in my debating tactics and I've never insulted you in the years you've been pushing this narrative. Every time you revert to dishonest tactics. You are dangerous to the ebike cause; you spread falsehoods and lead some to think you know something about this issue. You do not. Your proposal has zero chance of succeeding. If it did, and it won't, hundreds of trails and paths would ban ebikes. I know this because I have been involved in winning access for ebikes. In PA and MD all paths and trails would immediately ban ebikes if they were forced to admit ebikes with throttles. That would be true for every trail and path across the country that limits access to class 1 only.

I'm never for shutting down honest debate, but I now see why someone is calling for this thread to be locked.

That was a quote from the link you sent....very confused how that can be disingenuous but whatever.

You are only speculating that ebikes will be banned from trails if the 3-class system is preempted. I don't know the trail access status in all the states that have not adopted 3-class but my guess is they have more open access to ebikes than those that have 3-class. If they allow access to federal definition compliant "low speed electric bicycles" as "bikes" then I don't think PA and MD would immediately ban ebikes if 3-class if preempted (they'll be too busy trying to figure out what went wrong with 3-class).

Honestly have you read the petition, HR727, and some information on how the CPSC is mandated to have preemption rights. This is not disingenuous but I'm asking you and others to review this legal history information on Preemption: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2900&context=vlr

 

[antboy]

You're the one who said: "It's not the CLASS that matters, but how one rides it. If the environment (road, MUP, etc) has a set speed limit of 20mph, don't go faster than that." I'm just wondering if you actually mean that capability (class) is irrelevant and we should just limit speed on ped/bike infra and let people ride whatever. You dodged the question, so I'll assume you do actually think some limits on capability are acceptable? In your mind, what limitation is acceptable for ebikes on detached ped/bike infrastructure like MUPs?

Wow.

Let me rephrase it then... "Rider behaviour is JUST AS relevant as class." Does that help?

Since I've previously stated that I support having a cap on pedelec speed that's slower than urban speed limits, there's no need on your part to assume that my statement suggests I think it's okay to ride Harley Davidsons on a MUP.

If there was a single pedelec speed of 25mph, but a MUP is limited to 15mph, anyone riding over 15mph would be in violation, whether they're using an electric motor OR their legs. And don't pretend that pedal cyclists NEVER go faster than posted limits in such cases. I see it every day here in Toronto.

Does that help? Sheesh.

 

[antboy]

Good point.

But 1,500 horsepower Bugatti Chiron that's capable of 300mph is completely legal to be driven alongside with 95 horsepower Ford Escort, provided that you're driving it responsibly.

It's actually a TERRIBLE point because @jabberwocky is incorrectly assuming I support having no speed limitations on pedelecs, when previous posts of mine clearly state otherwise.

My only point of differentiation is that I think that I think PfB's Class 1 and Class 3 distinction is cumbersome and leads to patchwork legislation at the state and local level, and a single pedelec speed would be clearer, and fall more in line with the CPSC definition that Ken is talking about.

 

[Ken M]

That kind of question, the person who wrote that on legislation can answer.
I'm sure he/she had their own logic, and we can only speculate but I'm guessing maybe by adding a requirement of pedal effort, that made it a "bicycle"?

There actually is a fairly reasonable answer...I just wanted to see if anyone thought it thru. The NHTSA was unflexing in their position that max speed motor alone was 20mph to transition "low speed electric bicycles" to the CPSC. Therefore, to have any assist beyond 20mph the rider must be pedaling such that motor and rider produce the higher speed. That said, People for Bikes states in a video it was to harmonize with what was sold in Europe so I don't think they knew the significance of the 20mph handoff condition back in 2002 (few do). In reality the federal definition wording was done in such a way as to avoid an rigid speed cut-off without getting the NHTSA to say no to the handoff to the CPSC (that was actually some good technical writing in my opinion but few understand the 170 lb & level surface constraints...not that anyone even reads the federal definition for a LSEB.

 

[PedalUma]

That kind of question, the person who wrote that on legislation can answer.
I'm sure he/she had their own logic, and we can only speculate but I'm guessing maybe by adding a requirement of pedal effort, that made it a "bicycle"?

Two quick things: 1) It does not matter what 24 minor States do. Why? Because the County of Los Angeles has twice the population of the State of Nebraska and LA has better conditions for riding bikes. Marketers know this. Bike culture states with population will drive the market and others will adopt the standard. 2) It looks like one person has two EBR accounts and has been playing ping-pong with himself to try to dominate this dialog.
My vote is for the Three Class Standard.

Aside: Would you rather collect a royalty of 1% of every electric bike dollar spent in LA County or 2% of every electric bike dollar spent in Nebraska plus collecting 2% of every surfboard sold in Nebraska?