Why Class 3 is such bad legislation...

[Ken M]

I’m not wise enough to know exactly where to draw the line, but I think it’s reasonable to require licensure and insurance at some speed. It’s also probably reasonable that at some speed a two-wheel vehicle should be built to heavier and more durable standards than a Wal-Mart bicycle.
I suspect that anything that can roll with the flow of traffic on city streets should probably be licensed and insured. There are plenty of YouTube videos that illustrate the point pretty well.

One of the reasons why ebikes could become a popular transportation solution is because they can supplement a car without having additional license and registration costs. That is very very important because if they don't save someone money overall people will just continue to get in their 6000lb SUVs. I can honestly state that the auto industry is pushing the 3 class system to eventually push for registration and insurance requirements on Class 3 just as they did in Europe but everyone calls me a conspiracy theorist on that claim. They ignore that the largest auto parts company provided $3 million to People for Bikes to lobby the 3-class system state by state (I believe they even drafted the legislation for People for Bikes). I have tried to get everyone to support the federal definition in HR727 which was fine for over 12 years in all 50 states but many people then get into the states rights claims. In my opinion the feds define the "what" and the states control the "use" - the where, how, who, etc.

 

[tomjasz]

I'm checking my contents.
Good morning and good suggestion.
@tomjasz show us your trike build.

No.

 

[m@Robertson]

But, it is discouraged:

We live in California. Everything is discouraged.

Earlier in the thread it was pointed out that CA had finally gone from not-mentioning-it to specifically writing it into law so it is finally, expressly allowed. But its California (the land where it became against the law to use your windshield wipers without turning on your headlights), so there must be finger-wagging.

 

[macp]

Bit late to the party here but I often wonder as I watch another rider on a non assisted bike cruising at 17 - 18mph. Why in Europe we ebikers are restricted to 15.5mph. Another fellow brit posted that as the cyclepaths are shared with pedestrians. Then it is usually not safe to be doing 15mph. Or words to that effect. Well I for one on my 'chipped' bike exercise extreme caution when dealing with the great unwashed . Always sounding an alert at a good distance away. Most are wearing headphones however. So I give them as much space as possible. And ride by as slowly as is practicable. Having written all of that there are still the idiots riding like a bat out of hell. But then you could still do that on an 'acoustic' non assisted bike.

 

[circuitsmith]

My take: Guvmint should just post speed limits on shared use paths and forget about classifying e-bikes.
Give LEOs on e-bikes radar guns.
Cars and motorcycles that can go 100+ mph share the road with much slower city buses, work trucks etc. in, say, a 30 mph zone.
Nobody wastes effort sorting them out. We just hope most act responsibly.

 

[jabberwocky]

My take: Guvmint should just post speed limits on shared use paths and forget about classifying e-bikes.
Give LEOs on e-bikes radar guns.
Cars and motorcycles that can go 100+ mph share the road with much slower city buses, work trucks etc. in, say, a 30 mph zone.
Nobody wastes effort sorting them out. We just hope most act responsibly.

Should motorcycles be allowed on shared used paths as long as they obey the theoretical speed limit?

 

[J.R.]

My take: Guvmint should just post speed limits on shared use paths and forget about classifying e-bikes.
Give LEOs on e-bikes radar guns.
Cars and motorcycles that can go 100+ mph share the road with much slower city buses, work trucks etc. in, say, a 30 mph zone.
Nobody wastes effort sorting them out. We just hope most act responsibly.

My county doesn't have a police force, they have many thousands of acres of forest land and more than 200 miles of trails, including a destination rail trail nearly 30 miles long. They have 3 rangers. My Township, like others in the area, doesn't have a police department. The average law enforcement officer makes about 86k per year, plus benefits and retirement. Double that 86k. Add cars, buildings and equipment for a community that otherwise doesn't need police. Who pays to enforce bike speeds? Easier to just ban all bikes and ebikes. Not a desirable outcome. Communities won't pay for this.

 

[jabberwocky]

My county doesn't have a police force, they have many thousands of acres of forest land and more than 200 miles of trails, including a destination rail trail nearly 30 miles long. They have 3 rangers. My Township, like others in the area, doesn't have a police department. The average law enforcement officer makes about 86k per year, plus benefits and retirement. Double that 86k. Add cars, buildings and equipment for a community that otherwise doesn't need police. Who pays to enforce bike speeds? Easier to just ban all bikes and ebikes. Not a desirable outcome. Communities won't pay for this.

Right. The whole "there should be no limits on ebikes, just implement speed limits on paths to curb behavior" thing is basically "everyone else needs to spend enormous amounts of money and effort upending how things work so that I can do whatever I want". Its entitled and incredibly unrealistic to the point where I just assume people suggesting it have not even tried to think it through. I mean, it doesn't even work that well on roads, which have functioned that way for a century and have tons of dedicated resources (in terms of policing, construction standards, signage, etc). Around me, the vast majority of multi-use paths are operated by parks departments, which barely have the budget to maintain them.

Not to mention that paths exist in the first place because pedestrians and cyclists want a place where they don't have to share space with motor vehicles. If your solution is to bring the joy of roads to paths (vehicles with unlimited power and hope that enforcement and human behavior will keep issues from arising), I suspect there will be a little pushback.

 

[circuitsmith]

Easier to just ban all bikes and ebikes.

On paper, where you are, that could work okay for an e-biker.
Since there's essentially no enforcement you can just ride sensibly and stay under the radar.

My county doesn't have a police force, they have many thousands of acres of forest land and more than 200 miles of trails, including a destination rail trail nearly 30 miles long.

Wash. DC area has a lot of paved trails through urban and suburban neighborhoods.

Should motorcycles be allowed on shared used paths as long as they obey the theoretical speed limit?

Straw man. Where I am at least gas powered vehicles (excepting park workers of course) are already banned from virtually all multi-use trails.
You try to win an argument by portraying your opponent as an extremist. I will only say you're mistaken.

If your solution is to bring the joy of roads to paths (vehicles with unlimited power and hope that enforcement and human behavior will keep issues from arising), I suspect there will be a little pushback.

Stupid people with find ways to do extreme & stupid things no matter how much government might try to regulate.

 

[jabberwocky]

Straw man. Where I am at least gas powered vehicles (excepting park workers of course) are already banned from virtually all multi-use trails.
You seem to be trying to portray me as an extremist. I will only say you're mistaken.

Bikes that can assist over 28mph or with motors over 750w are also already banned because they aren't considered ebikes. You said we should change that and toss the definitions and enact speed limits on paths and make law enforcement regulate behavior. I'm asking if that extends to traditional motorcycles. A Ducati is perfectly capable of riding at 15mph or whatever speed limits you'd set and doesn't take up a much different footprint than your average ebike, so if "Guvmint" should just stay out of saying whats allowed, why wouldn't motorcycles be ok? Whats the dividing line? If its just power source, would something like a Zero SR/S be ok? If not, why not?

Stupid people with find ways to do extreme & stupid things no matter how much government might try to regulate.

Sure, some people do stupid things, but that doesn't mean that regulations are futile.

 

[tomjasz]

hope

 

[J.R.]

On paper, where you are, that could work okay for an e-biker.
Since there's essentially no enforcement you can just ride sensibly and stay under the radar.

I understand your first argument, people bring up the car comparison all the time. That's where the strawman enters the conversation. Don't be surprised if you get a strawman argument in reply. Taking that sentence you quoted is out of context. In the nine years I've owned and ridden ebikes I have taken part in successfully overturning ebike bans. I've seen it firsthand, not just where I live, statewide and parts of 2 other states. The first reaction to any controversy is to ban them all. It's really easy to enforce a ban, law enforcement sits at a trailhead or crossroads near a path or trail and any and all ebikes get nabbed. NYC has been very successful doing this; mountains of ebikes confiscated and sent to the landfill. Riders ticketed and fined.

When ebikes were banned I didn't fly under the radar; I, and several others went to local meetings of regulatory agencies and worked to overturn the bans. Getting caught riding results in a criminal charge of trespassing and carries a fine just under $900. DC would likely confiscate the ebike like many northeast cities. I have ridden bicycles in DC and Baltimore. They can't afford to police ebikes either. Strangely enough the class system actually gives cover to illegal ebike riders. Cops can't tell the difference between the classes and some will slip through.

I've seen a lot of changes in nine years. Big changes are again happening. Non UL listed bikes are being banned, police and rangers are getting training about ebikes and local and state governments are getting complaints from other trail and path users.

Lots of great ebikes out there! Whenever anyone asks me what ebike should they get, I usually say get a legal one for where you most often intend to ride. I am very selfish in all this; I ride in many states and I just want my favorite destinations to remain open to all legal ebikes. Abusing the privilege will get it all shut down.

 

[circuitsmith]

NYC has been very successful doing this; mountains of ebikes confiscated and sent to the landfill. Riders ticketed and fined.

Never e-biking in New York? I can live with that.

DC would likely confiscate the ebike like many northeast cities.

The streets here are full of electric ride-share bikes.
When they take those off the streets, then I'll worry.
Police here are kinda busy dealing with 14 y.o. carjackers.

 

[m@Robertson]

NYC has been very successful doing this; mountains of ebikes confiscated and sent to the landfill. Riders ticketed and fined.

NYC's ebike ban caused great public outcry, and despite vocal and strident support from many in local government, including the mayor and high ranking police administration... was rescinded.

It was arguably the most visible failure of a municipal government to regulate behavior supported by the general public - despite the government's best attempts - in decades.

 

[None]

I commute in NYC metro since 2013.
Regardless of regulations, there will always be riders that will operate beyond reasonable speeds, take unnecessary risks or even just endanger others without consideration.
If government gets involved it's big government interfering or controlling private citizens;
if government don't get involved it's incompetence.
Like guns don't kill people, people kill people, right?

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Under that logic, why would we have any laws or any government regulation at all? Is that what people are seriously arguing for?

Just trying to understand. I could understand that you consider regulations inappropriate in this case, largely because you bear the costs but none of the benefits.