Dave Rocks
Well-Known Member
- Region
- Canada
- City
- MISSISSAUGA
Get off the internet. Go ride. Have fun.
Statement Regarding Potential CPSC Ebike Law Preemption of 3-class Legislation
- Thread starter Ken M
- Start date
PedalUma
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Petaluma, CA
I will. Right now. With this t-shirt.
Attachments
It's actually pretty funny that both of us have been accused of supporting an unlimited speed capability for ebikes. I certainly don't and I love your statement that rider behavior is as important as class. Soooo true!
Our opinions differ a bit in that I think the top speed should be ?controlled? via a dynamic assist power above 20mph (to avoid cut-offs that result in human power more or less tapering down speed as wind resistance increases exponentially which is what has always controlled bike speeds).
Mr. Coffee
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- A Demented Corner of the North Cascades
jabberwocky
Well-Known Member
Ok. I think thats understandable at least (you think the class 3 cutoff is an acceptable cutoff for "still a bicycle", you just don't think that any ebike needs to be limited to less than 28mph then, if I understand you). I disagree that the the class 1 and class 3 split are cumbersome or not useful though. I do think that people who downplay the difference aren't considering the vast amount of bike infrastructure that isn't roads or under federal transportation jurisdiction (like, a great many multi-use paths are under regional park control, off road trails can be under local/county/state/federal park control, under the umbrella of fed agencies like BLM or Natl Forest System, etc). You're talking about huge numbers of "owners" of these various trails, and a great many will not accept bikes that assist to class 3 speeds (or have throttles like class 2s). Some may accept faster speeds on some of the trails under their control but not others.
Having classes broken out is useful when dealing with those situations.
You do understand that neither "minor" or major states have the open-ended rights to impact interstate commerce? What if every state had a different definition for an automobile or a prescription drug?...would that be good for business? I think the feds will take back control of the product definition and the states will have to go back to focusing on "use" regulations of bikes, but we'll see...I could be wrong. What is 100% certain is that the CPSC controls what is a 1st sale compliant ebike/bike - 3-class ebikes are compliant to the CPSC but not all CPSC compliant ebikes are compliant to 3-class which is an interstate commerce issue (unless I'm really off on my logic - I was hoping this thread would debate that and not trail access and what speed is safe to ride a bike at).
I don't have two EBR accounts and for the most part it's been anti-petition comments which is fine as I expected that (messengers always get hammered). "Three Class Standard".... I like that somewhat over-stated status.
McCorby
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
You are aware auto and motorcycle manufacturers have to produce vehicles that meet different US (and foreign) requirements? Mainly related to emissions regulations, such as California‘s CARB requirements. The car or motorcycle you purchase in California is not the same as the one you would purchase in say Illinois.....
Edit: Today this is less of an issue for cars, since most auto manufacturers now manufacture most of their cars to be CARB compliant. However this is not the case for motorcycles or small engine powered equipment.
Last edited:
The more stringent emission requirements was a very specific EXEMPTION granted because of extra ordinary health risks from smog in California. They worked with the manufacturers and NHTSA to have the more stringent requirements. That is actually the way it should be done and I believe that lead to that safety standard being federally universal.
I do not believe motorcycle manufacturers are subjected to different state requirement like the 3-class adopting states have done (NY has throttle to 25mph, Minnesota requires ebrakes, some require speedometer on Class 3, etc.). I have not really researched the federal and state moped regulations.
It's my understanding that the NHTSA and the UN/ISO committees are increasingly cooperating for one global automotive definition and regulations.
antboy
Well-Known Member
There we go!
I think I'd also be fine with a single class of 25mph, probably, but wouldn't opposed 28mph, especially since it would be pretty easy to ensure that in a 3 or 4 assist world, it would be easy to ensure a lower cutoff speed in all but a single mode.
Using MUPs as an example of not street riding, many have a speed limit of 15mph, or 25% slower than the current class 1. Clearly there is an expectation of riders to govern themselves accordingly, regardless of whether they're riding an e-bike or just a regular bike (or monowheel or whatever, but I digress). If a class 3 rider and a class 1 rider are cruising along, what does it matter that one CAN go faster, as long as they're actually not?
That's just one of the reasons why the PfB's class 1 vs class 3 system strikes me as arbitrary and cumbersome.
McCorby
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
Ken, you have skated around the concerns of many, that the elimination of the 3 class system will potentially result in municipalities and land managers banning all ebikes on bike trails, paths, and MUPs. Can you state for certain that this will not be a possibility? To me, it seems like you could care less either way.
jabberwocky
Well-Known Member
The problem is that 25mph may be fine for a lot of paved stuff, but its almost certainly too fast for mountainbike trails. Even 20mph is pushing it on singletrack. eMTB is gonna be a huge focus for advocacy in the future; at the moment it is by far the most limited for ebike access and is changing the slowest. That class 1 speed cap is super useful when you're pushing for access to singletrack...There we go!
I think I'd also be fine with a single class of 25mph, probably, but wouldn't opposed 28mph, especially since it would be pretty easy to ensure that in a 3 or 4 assist world, it would be easy to ensure a lower cutoff speed in all but a single mode.
Using MUPs as an example of not street riding, many have a speed limit of 15mph, or 25% slower than the current class 1. Clearly there is an expectation of riders to govern themselves accordingly, regardless of whether they're riding an e-bike or just a regular bike (or monowheel or whatever, but I digress). If a class 3 rider and a class 1 rider are cruising along, what does it matter that one CAN go faster, as long as they're actually not?
That's just one of the reasons why the PfB's class 1 vs class 3 system strikes me as arbitrary and cumbersome.
You'd be surprised how few MUPs have speed limits. Even the ones that do rarely advertise it (you have to dig through a website to find the official speed limit, which says its more CYA than something that they intend on enforcing). Its not something that a lot of managing agencies have had to deal with in the past, not just because ebikes weren't on the scene, but cycling just wasn't as popular as it is now 10-15 years ago and the wheels of government turn slowly.
PM Cycles
Member
- Region
- Other
" It looks like one person has two EBR accounts and has been playing ping-pong with himself to try to dominate this dialog."
Who is the conspiracy theorist now @PedalUma?
. Carl Jung calls that "projecting".
PedalUma
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Petaluma, CA
It can take years to build good trails and running overweight an overpowered bikes on them is destructive of everyone else's fun. By applying the class system we can avoid the backlash against all electric bikes.
These are some of the best trails in the world: https://www.mtbproject.com/directory/8011956/downieville
PM Cycles
Member
- Region
- Other
It sounds like you are talking about offroad mode bikes? You are equating "illegal" offroad mode E-Bikes with legal compliant E-Bikes. No one is if favor (including me) of offroad / overpowered E-Bikes tearing around public trails 45mph like a dirtbike (unless on their own private land). If an E-Bike doesn't comply with the Federal definition, it's not a "BIKE", and therefore not allowed on public infrastructure or trails - PERIOD (some risk it). The Class Table is pretty much identical to the CPSC federal definition. Nothing will change, this is all about who controls what requirements are on first sale of the E-Bikes. The land managers should fine/ban riders on E-Bikes that are not compliant. This whole debate about trail access is nonsensical. The CPSC E-Bikes will be very close (almost identical) to the same power as Class 1/2. The reasoning behind having a throttle, was so to allow people who are not as strong or old to enjoy E-Bikes and get outside exercising. A throttle on a CPSC E-Bike is no more powerful than just riding a Class 2 with throttle. I think you have become very confused. If you go to PFB website they state that their definition matches the CPSC - which is true, except for the speedometer, sticker, and speed cut off. The CPSC allows an E-Bike to behave like a "normal" bike after 20mph. That's really the only difference. The CPSC standard allows you to MAINTAIN 20mph (NOTE - MOTOR POWER DOESN'T INCREASE PAST 20MPH. YOU MUST PEDAL YOURSELF IF YOU WANT TO GO FASTER), while the Class Table CUTS the power at 20mph so you hit that stupid wall. And when you pedal past 20mph, because of the motor resistance, you typically end up cruising around 24mph on average (but you are pedalling hard), which I believe is about the same speed as a regular bike (without a motor). Personally - I usually ride around 18mph, but sometimes it's fun to go a little faster, but then you have to pedal extra hard. What are you not understanding? So technically since CPSC doesn't really have Class 3, this definition is in favor of protecting trails since it's slower than Class-3. EIther way, it's stupid because you can just go buy a sticker on E-Bay and make it whatever you want!
Last edited:
Why why why why does everyone assume that if the assist goes to 20, or 25 or 28 mph that means everyone automatically rides at that top assist speed all the time. As many have pointed out that some claim emtn bikes shouldn't even assist 20 mph. What ever happened to people taking some responsibility to ride at speeds safe for the trail they are on. It's like too many people want the land managers to be in charge of the top speed all ebikes can assist to and they are the least likely to know anything about the tech and it's merits.
Land managers have always had to deal with speeds long before ebikes hit the trails. I remember riding back in the '80s and crazy guys were easily hitting speeds well over 30 mph on downhill trails. Everyone is harping on me that I don't care about trail access and I most certainly do, but if trail managers and retired people walking their pets are going to pust for ever lower assist speeds then at some point you just have to say NO and let them just ban all bike access because they will never stop whinning.
I do care about trail access but I don't think the ebike industry should be held hostage by land managers handing out bike passes per what they think is acceptable. I have done some trail maintenance and plenty of trail riding and I know that most of the damage to trails will always be erosion. I would love to see any data that says otherwise so until some is presented I'm just not going to give much credibility to claims that compliant ebike do appreciably more damage to trails than traditional mtn bikes. The other claim usually tossed out is that there is/will be more accidents / injuries if the ebikes are allowed higher assist than 20mph. Do we know this or is this just a hunch? My way of thinking is that it only matters if a fast ebiker hurts someone else so that is the data I would like to see (if a biker crashes and hurts themselves going too fast can't we all agree that is natural selection at work). This is being objective and fair - I'm not going to just drink their koolaid claims...no one should.
I see the federal definition of a "low speed electric bicycle" as a bike because that is WHAT IT SAYS. I have been crystal clear on why I feel that benefits the entire bike industry and if some land managers have a huge issue with that definition then maybe they should look for a different line of work. I am getting frustrated that there is so much speculation and claims that 3-class opened-up access and then I read the recent DOI order 3376 and it pretty much says all compliant ebikes have access to any trail a bike is allowed and don't have access where bikes do not. Now I still don't like that they are still implying a compliant ebike is not the equivalent of a bike but that takes time to understand because you have to get them to read HR727, the congressional notes, and an attorney general opinion (only one has made a formal statement on this - I sent letters to every state AG office encouraging them to assess the statutes and make a public statement but that actually takes some courage and/or some political money or pocket cash).
Last edited:
Asher
Well-Known Member
1. It's 10+ pages in and Ken still can't explain what he's lost due to the class regulations, for the urban riding he claims to care most about. Indeed he's more or less conceded as much
2. When someone talks about 'individual responsibility' as a model for enforcement when systemic controls are far more effective, they are ignorant that there is a better option, or more likely, they simply want the ability to break the rule at will, and enable others to do so. Ultimately, this 'responsibility' mindset is from lackeys of industry making harmful products that know their profits come from mass irresponsibility. Alcohol, junk food, unruly driving, smoking, self-destructive gambling... Not that I'm saying these things ought to be banned per se, but individual responsibility has never been an effective response to reducing their harms en masse. And that's why industry, merchants of vice, promote individual responsibility as a social solution, because it doesn't work. If it did, their profits would shrink.
Sometimes individual responsibility is the only option. I did trash cleanup of a trail today for instance, and I don't see much of an alternative to individual responsibility to keeping it clean. But much of the time, that's not the case, as with the vices mentioned earlier.
In matters of traffic and cycling, the same predatory obstruction comes from people touting driver education as an alternative to better bike infrastructure. (I think driver education is almost always a failure because it's difficult to change drivers already on the road, plus much of the driver failures are for doing things already covered by existing education, eg merging lanes safely, so more of the same is a fake solution)
Last edited:
kmccune
Well-Known Member
1) I wouldn't call it a loss as much as it was a frustration. I mentioned this in the petition - I own two ebikes (Polaris/PIM Archer & Izip Express) that were legal to ride in Colorado when purchased (ie compliant per CPSC) but illegal (for use) now that 3-class was adopted. Now I understand enough of the law that that got me researching the regulations to see how this could happen. I don't think it was intended but it indicated that not a lot of thought went into the process (no public review, no discussions, etc.). I did reach out to PFBs on this and they essentially told me they were the legislative experts and I was wrong (even told me a throttle-assist past 20mph is a class 3). To this day you can buy ebikes that are compliant to CPSC and not compliant to 3-class but no one pays attention. Many of those buyers have no clue they ebike they just purchased may not be compliant for use in their state. We'll if my petition is successful they'll be some review as to why they didn't pay attention.
Systematic controls like prohibition and the drug war? Those were horrific failures. I do agree that "individual responsibility" isn't a fix all but c'mon we are essentially talking about and 8mph difference in ebike speed so probably not in the realm of those other problems.
Last edited:
PM Cycles
Member
- Region
- Other
I read your post Asher, and can you please explain further in detail? I have no idea what you are implying. Your points have nothing to do with anything - WHAT the heck are you talking about....lol
? Are you actually reading anything other people are writing? Is your logo a reference to this movie? That's about as relevant to any of your posts you have responded to so far. Alcohol, fast food, vices, merchants, social solution, trash cleanup, predatory obstruction, lackeys, driver education (you mean rider?), self destructive gambling, fake solutions? What? Please break down each point in detail so we can all understand this. Is there merging lanes now on trails? So now we shouldn't educate because it's always a failure? I don't know about anybody else, but that made no sense to me at all. It was like listening to a politician deflect because they have no valid response. Please clarify Asher. What are you actually trying to say in these 10 pages of responses you have been involved in. This thread has become the Dracula Musical. . It seems like we are going in circles.
Last edited:
