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

[Asher]

I read you 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.

Ken wants 'responsibility' to govern speeds. See his post.

 

[Asher]

1) I wouldn't call it a loss as much as it was a frustration. I detail this in the petition, but 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. 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 relm of those other problems.

Class 3s are legal in Colorado for road use...a throttle to 20 mph on a 28 mph assist ebike would make it illegal, which is dumb, but youve been asking for 28 mph assist on trails...

I never endorsed prohibition of alcohol or drugs or any vices.

 

[Ken M]

Ken wants 'responsibility' to govern speeds. See his post.

That is not what I've said...when there are trails/sidewalks with needs for say speed limits at 10-15 mph I certainly don't want the industry to have to produce models for that. I certainly expect someone that owns a Bugatti to drive it thru residential neighborhoods being "responsible."

No matter how many times I repeat you take the converstion in a different direction. I feel the federal definition makes much better sense than 3-class (creating 3 classes based on pedal-assist vs throttle-assist vs an extra 8mph before a cut-off of assist is just brain-dead in my opinion but maybe that's why so many in the US think it was responsible for driving the sales up as People for Bikes claims even though anyone with an understanding of the industry knows it was the Lithium Ion battery technology). The federal definition allows full power below 20 mph and then restricts power above 20 mph to keep speeds in the range bikes have historically been in. The federal definition is technically a much better way forward.

 

[john peck]

Class 3s are legal in Colorado for road use...a throttle to 20 mph on a 28 mph assist ebike would make it illegal, which is dumb, but youve been asking for 28 mph assist on trails...

I never endorsed prohibition of alcohol or drugs or any vices.

If anyone takes issue with my bike I will cite it as a personal mobility device

 

[PM Cycles]

This is a really good link to read - https://bikeportland.org/2010/08/26/e-bikes-the-law-and-you-38493
I believe that Oregon has some of the highest adoption of E-Bikes / per capita in the country, and they never adopted P4B Class. As well, Oregon allows 1000w, which the CPSC allows states to do because it is less stringent. Oregon has had E-Bike laws since 1997 - 5 years before the CPSC federal definition (see attached). They don't seem to have problems with E-Bikes on trails or sidewalks. In Oregon, it has been working fine for 25 years, 5X longer than the PFB Class even existed.

 

[john peck]

This is a really good link to read - https://bikeportland.org/2010/08/26/e-bikes-the-law-and-you-38493

I believe that Oregon has some of the highest adoption of E-Bikes / per capita in the country, and they never adopted P4B Class. As well, Oregon allows 1000w, which the CPSC allows states to do, if they choose to.

Hurray fur Orygun; there´s still a pay phone in Fossil, OR!

 

[PM Cycles]

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.

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

That's all @jabberwocky knows how to do. He is king of spinning things that have no relevance to what you claim.

 

[Ken M]

Class 3s are legal in Colorado for road use...a throttle to 20 mph on a 28 mph assist ebike would make it illegal, which is dumb, but youve been asking for 28 mph assist on trails...

I never endorsed prohibition of alcohol or drugs or any vices.

Geese Dude....let me spoon feed the details. The PIM Archer has a throttle-assist that provide assist past 20mph (close to 24mph) which is not class 2 compliant and can not be class 3. The Izip Express is a pedelec that provides assist to a higher speed than 28 mph (this model was used by the Los Angeles police department and the information I'm claiming can be verified). While the assist does not have a cut-off it is still challenging to ride at speeds above 28mph but it's still not a legal bike to use on any infrastructure in Colorado but it was totally OK when purchased. These are facts so don't dance around this. If you are going to challenge it, do so with rational information.

 

[PM Cycles]

Geese Dude....let me spoon feed the details. The PIM Archer has a throttle-assist that provide assist past 20mph (close to 24mph) which is not class 2 compliant and can not be class 3. The Izip Express is a pedelec that provides assist to a higher speed than 28 mph (this model was used by the Los Angeles police department and the information I'm claiming can be verified). While the assist does not have a cut-off it is still challenging to ride at speeds above 28mph but it's still not a legal bike to use on any infrastructure in Colorado but it was totally OK when purchased. These are facts so don't dance around this. If you are going to challenge it, do so with rational information.

There seems to be much confusion. Just so everyone knows, there really is not much difference between P4B Classes and the CPSC. They are very similar. Just that P4B broke it up into 3 parts to match the EU, which made sense at the time for suppliers to have one main standard for the EU and US. However, having lived in the EU, I can warn everyone, they love to tax/register EVERYTHING.

 

[PM Cycles]

Ken wants 'responsibility' to govern speeds. See his post.

You sound like you truly mean well and trying to understand. I just think the way Ken explains things seems to confuse people.

 

[Asher]

You sound like you truly mean well and trying to understand. I just think the way Ken explains things seems to confuse people.

If Ken had explained his post as, 'I don't like class 3 laws because they don't allow a throttle to 20 mph on a class 3 ebike' he would have found a lot more agreement. Instead he talks about why class 3s must have access to trails lol.

 

[Ken M]

If Ken had explained his post as, 'I don't like class 3 laws because they don't allow a throttle to 20 mph on a class 3 ebike' he would have found a lot more agreement. Instead he talks about why class 3s must have access to trails lol.

Honestly, I don't even like the idea of the 3 classes so how could I have ever a implied anything about class 3 access to trails. I think the fact that the federal definition allows a throttle on "low speed electric bicycles" (LSEB) to be a "bike" then I'm just supporting that as the law. A LSEB is a just a bike (not a motorized vehicle...just a bike) so if the trail managers want to ban all bike access they can but that would not happen as it hasn't happened in Oregon for 25 years or Mississippi for 20 years. These are facts dude so don't drink the fear koolaid that some in the industry want you to believe. Do some research and form independent opinions (don't even just take my word for it...see if what I'm saying is true but don't just take People for Bikes statements as true either).

PM Cycles pointed out that Oregon has essentially had the same state definition as the federal definition since 1998 - one class ebike as a bike for all use in the state. If I'm not mistaken they are the top ebike adoption state in the country and all local trail use is using that as their use rights so all this hype about getting rid of the class system will take away ebike trail access is just hyperbole.

Read the petition....read HR727 and the associated congressional notes...read about preemptive power of the CPSC and why it was granted by congress as federal enumerated right. I have nothing to do with any of this. I'm just the info messenger so I'm OK being the bad guy as getting people to really dig into the facts is very hard in the US these days when the entire internet is designed to feed our personal biases.

 

[kmccune]

If anyone takes issue with my bike I will cite it as a personal mobility device

John Peck you are the "pragmatic" Guy.
Tell you Folks what- do away with classes in USA and say ebikes are restricted to 30 Mph period and must obey posted speed limits on trail( How about it? as much as I love the EU, we are not a one-world government and the classes only confuse dimwitted people such as myself) I think the push for all the class nonsense was brought on by manufacturers for ease of marketing and maybe increase sales so some people would buy more than one ebike.

 

[jabberwocky]

If Ken had explained his post as, 'I don't like class 3 laws because they don't allow a throttle to 20 mph on a class 3 ebike' he would have found a lot more agreement. Instead he talks about why class 3s must have access to trails lol.

Yeah, I mean I’d agree with that. I don’t get the point of throttles, but I don’t really see their use on class 3 as an access issue (anywhere that’s ok with the higher speed bikes probably doesn’t care about low speed throttle use either). Or maybe do a class 4 that is pedal assist and throttle to 28mph. Or just admit you want a moped. Mopeds are cool.

All this dancing around one definition that doesn’t have a speed cap but is based on what a certain weight rider can go with a certain motor, it makes sense just let me get my excel spreadsheet to show you... I don’t really get, and nowhere in this thread has anyone made a compelling case for why it’s actually better.

 

[antboy]

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).

Actually I don't mind that idea at all. Just like on a pedal bike, the rider has to EARN the speed, as opposed to just hitting the dreaded wall.

 

[PM Cycles]

Yeah, I mean I’d agree with that. I don’t get the point of throttles, but I don’t really see their use on class 3 as an access issue (anywhere that’s ok with the higher speed bikes probably doesn’t care about low speed throttle use either). Or maybe do a class 4 that is pedal assist and throttle to 28mph. Or just admit you want a moped. Mopeds are cool.

All this dancing around one definition that doesn’t have a speed cap but is based on what a certain weight rider can go with a certain motor, it makes sense just let me get my excel spreadsheet to show you... I don’t really get, and nowhere in this thread has anyone made a compelling case for why it’s actually better.

Either that or you really never made an effort to even try to understand. Please remember we are all here for the same passion of E-Bikes. No one has the monopoly on the truth. So all this finger pointing is pretty counter productive. Let's all try and be a little more civil to one another (starting with myself).

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Either that or you really never made an effort to even try to understand. Please remember we are all here for the same passion of E-Bikes. No one has the monopoly on the truth. So all this finger pointing is pretty counter productive. Let's all try and be a little more civil to one another (starting with myself).

Y'know, I think I've tried to make an effort to understand the points advocated in this thread. And what I've understood I honestly haven't liked.

Any advocacy for a rule change is inevitably going to be political. Getting anything done politically is inevitably hard, and getting something done politically when the message and objectives behind it are difficult to understand is harder still. Actually, I'll make that even more explicit: getting anything done politically when the message and objectives aren't easily understood by a 5-year-old is pretty much impossible.

One person, or even many people with one viewpoint, is unlikely to advance any such rule change. In order to advance it you'll need to bring along a lot of other stakeholders with diverse viewpoints and explain clearly what is in it for them. It doesn't matter how brilliant the reasoning (or how just the cause) is, unless there is a large and diverse group advocating for the cause (whatever that cause might be) your advocacy will go nowhere.

It would help me a lot if there was a clear statement of what problem is being solved here. And how solving it will benefit me. From what I've seen and read the most likely result will be there will be fewer places I can ride my fully compliant class I e-bike.

I would be more charitably inclined towards this effort if an attorney involved in consumer products law and individuals involved in access issues for bikes and e-bikes had weighed in and were positive about it. The sense I've gotten is that effort is just too difficult for the people advocating for this and such people wouldn't understand what is being advocated here anyway. Which doesn't impress me at all.

What I am left with is that while I do not doubt the technical brilliance and likely merits on a purely technical basis, this whole thing makes no sense at all either from a business standpoint or a political standpoint. So it is unlikely to go anywhere constructive.

 

[PM Cycles]

Actually I don't mind that idea at all. Just like on a pedal bike, the rider has to EARN the speed, as opposed to just hitting the dreaded wall.

Exactly, if you have a throttle OR pedelec on the CPSC definition it doesn't provide more power than needed to maintain 20mph. I'm not sure why so many people are talking about legal E-Bikes throttling up to 30+mph??? I honestly believe people are confusing offroad E-Bikes which are not allowed on infrastructure or trails with legally compliant CPSC E-Bikes. Additionally Oregon has had state E-Bike laws since 1997 (and refused to adopt the 3-Class - what does that tell you?). Oregon has the highest adoption rate in the country. It was congressman Earl Blumenauer who I believe helped write the CPSC federal definition - he is a true visionary. Recently, he sponsored a bill for rebates on E-Bikes, but withdrew his support (someone warned him...lol) when PFB drafted the law so that ONLY states that had adopted the 3-Class would receive the rebate (again - shady business by P4B), it was their last effort to try and FORCE all the other 22 states to comply. I imagine, once all the P4B laws are preempted you will see the bill be reintroduced so that ALL states qualify for the rebate. So all you people in those 22 states should message congressman Blumenauer and thank him.

The federal HR727 was partly based on the state laws in Oregon. If it has worked so good in Oregon, it makes sense to adopt that standard in all states. The 3-Class only added confusion in interstate commerce (additional requirements), created legislative confusion and is leaving the door wide open for insurance and registration on Class 3 - just like what happened in Europe. I think many people are refusing to admit this, because they are entrenched into their positions. I'm wrong all the time about many things, that's how you learn and develop. It's okay to be wrong and confused, these laws can be complicated and hard to comprehend.

 

[PM Cycles]

Y'know, I think I've tried to make an effort to understand the points advocated in this thread. And what I've understood I honestly haven't liked.

Any advocacy for a rule change is inevitably going to be political. Getting anything done politically is inevitably hard, and getting something done politically when the message and objectives behind it are difficult to understand is harder still. Actually, I'll make that even more explicit: getting anything done politically when the message and objectives aren't easily understood by a 5-year-old is pretty much impossible.

One person, or even many people with one viewpoint, is unlikely to advance any such rule change. In order to advance it you'll need to bring along a lot of other stakeholders with diverse viewpoints and explain clearly what is in it for them. It doesn't matter how brilliant the reasoning (or how just the cause) is, unless there is a large and diverse group advocating for the cause (whatever that cause might be) your advocacy will go nowhere.

It would help me a lot if there was a clear statement of what problem is being solved here. And how solving it will benefit me. From what I've seen and read the most likely result will be there will be fewer places I can ride my fully compliant class I e-bike.

I would be more charitably inclined towards this effort if an attorney involved in consumer products law and individuals involved in access issues for bikes and e-bikes had weighed in and were positive about it. The sense I've gotten is that effort is just too difficult for the people advocating for this and such people wouldn't understand what is being advocated here anyway. Which doesn't impress me at all.

What I am left with is that while I do not doubt the technical brilliance and likely merits on a purely technical basis, this whole thing makes no sense at all either from a business standpoint or a political standpoint. So it is unlikely to go anywhere constructive.

Yes, we all have our own path. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

 

[Ken M]

Actually I don't mind that idea at all. Just like on a pedal bike, the rider has to EARN the speed, as opposed to just hitting the dreaded wall.

Yea! That's the right interpretation. The bike can get you up to 20mph (on a level surface rider / total weight isn't a huge factor in how much dynamic power is needed to sustain 20mph) and any additional speed is earned by rider effort. Just eliminating "the wall" has merit but some in this thread seem to love that so much that they must be making a living from it.

I've also noticed that most people seem to think that all pedelecs / pedal-assist systems are the same. Some use just cadence as an on/off for full power per the level you set, some use just cadence as an assist-assist variable (this tends to mimic a throttle as you can remain in 1st gear and just vary the assist by crank rpm), some use tongue/cadence/speed/gear/heart-rate variable into a program to determine the assist. I don't have any issue with these assist systems but I tend to favor the simplicity and full rider control of the assist that a throttle provides (I tend to think that there is NO WAY some programmer can write the perfect assist program that provides me the assist I want in all situations ... I know their egos tend to make them think they can as I've talked to a few and all believe they can solve the worlds issues with code).

What I really don't like is that so many associate a throttle-assist ebike as being a motor vehicle even though they think a pedal-assist ebike with the same power as a bike. That is essentially non-nonsensical but in the trail management world I guess it gives them a way to have some say as to what is ridden on their trails. I hope we return to the federal definition just to eliminate that parsing of nothing.