Why not speed limits?

[Ken M]

Wow, wrong on every level I support ebike access for all cycling infrastructure.

In every Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management document on the issue, all 3 classes are mentioned and explained, with special limitations on class 2. 1 and 3 specifically state are pedal assist only. Local land managers can ban them all, with reason. Seems precedent setting.

How could that be?! asks the CPSC

Cheer up! Ebikes have access to more riding venues than ever before

I'm for access to all cycling infrastructure for all compliant LSEBs. I think safe speed riding is the responsibility of the rider and the cut-off achieve nothing but providing some, like trail managers, peace of mind.

I think the reason the 3-class model has been viewed as universal and even controls compliance for sales is because no one is really paying attention. It's very much harmonized with Europe so it all just seems legit. Maybe I'm wrong but I believe an interstate commerce law was crossed when they states required the more stringent elements of the class system (speed cut-offs, ebrakes, speedometer, and even the stickers). I honestly believe the CPSC has to preempt because if they don't they may set a precedent that will prevent them from ever preempting any state unique product definitions (and that applies to all the safety agencies not just the CPSC). I knew nothing about any of this but I was frustrated that pretty much every compliant ebike I purchased (big brands like Izip, Haibike, and Polaris) that were compliant for use in Colorado before 3-class became illegal to be used on any public infrastructure after 3 class was adopted.

Here's a story I haven't detailed before. Colorado was the 2nd state to adopt 3-class legislation and it was done in less than 4 months (maybe 2) because it was a condition for Haibike to move it's US sales headquarters from California to Colorado. Ironically Colorado adopted the ?model legislation? requirement for ebrakes (brakes the prevent assist when a brake is applied that is not required by the CPSC). At that time I owned 2 Haibikes with original retail prices over $5,000 each that do not have ebrakes so they became illegal to ride in Colorado where Haibike is not located. That is what set me on this path because it was a crystal clear example of no one paying attention. The very sad part of this is that most ebikes being sold to this day in Colorado do not have ebrakes and the dealers are telling the customers they are buying a bike they can ride legally. They are riding ILLEGAL bikes and if they hit a pedestrian their ignorance of that fact will not protect them. I have also notified the CPSC of this situation with the intent of making them accountable since they can fix it with a preemption decision.

Instead of attacking me again please take the time to see if that story and information is accurate. How can one of the biggest brands in ebikes with drive systems from the biggest brands be selling ebikes that are not compliant to ride in any state that has a requirement for ebrakes (I know that Colorado, California, and Minnesota require them but haven't research that full adopted policy in all 28/29 3-class states). You may want to also see how Specialized is selling their top of the line class 3 electric road bike without a speedometer in all 50 states (sure seems like they know that 3-class does not control 1st sale compliance but that bike is not legal to ride in any 3-class state that adopted the speedometer requirement of the ?model legislation? which I think is most of the 28/29 states). Sure seems like 3-class is just a clusterfuck of errors but hey everyone loves it.

 

[JakEmAll]

Speed limit violation tickets do generate income. It'd suck, but it'd be as effective as other speed laws, imo.

 

[J.R.]

Speed limit violation tickets do generate income. It'd suck, but it'd be as effective as other speed laws, imo.

There's some logic in that until you realize the financial limitations of most authorities across the US. In my county there are 3 fulltime park rangers to enforce laws and regulations in 5000 acres of park and forest land. That includeds many MTB single track trails, a nearly 30 mile rail trail and an 8 mile trolley trail. The budget is tight now and it would take a lot of tickets to pay for speed control.

 

[JakEmAll]

There's some logic in that until you realize the financial limitations of most authorities across the US. In my county there are 3 fulltime park rangers to enforce laws and regulations in 5000 acres of park and forest land. That includeds many MTB single track trails, a nearly 30 mile rail trail and an 8 mile trolley trail. The budget is tight now and it would take a lot of tickets to pay for speed control.

There’s definitely some merit to your comment. I suspect that my solution will be more applicable to city and rural areas, not parks. In most of the US, tickets are an income source for local government.

 

[Ken M]

There’s definitely some merit to your comment. I suspect that my solution will be more applicable to city and rural areas, not parks. In most of the US, tickets are an income source for local government.

Again...I am just stuck here wondering why we are concerned about trail speed enforcement when the impact of ebikes for urban mobility is so much more important (in my opinion).

Note: If they lack the ability to enforce a trail speed limit then how can then enforce the compliance of the ebikes themselves (i.e. if they are LSEB / Class 1 / Class 2 / Class 3 / off-road).

If a federally compliant LSEB is such a threat on trails then I can't help but think that any bike on that trail is also a treat but that is never discussed. What I think we ALL should be against is a handful of trail managers dictating the product definitions for the industry when I know for a fact they have NO DATA to support their opinions. I know most trail damage is due to erosion and the difference between a pedal-assist vs throttle-assist LSEB if ever studied would show it's not even a statistically significant difference via and study method that could be executed. They have no safety data either other than to say slower is safer which ignores that 99.9% of riders care about their own safety when riding and are not the trail speed demons that seem to come up in these debates frequently.

I would bet that 99% of ebike riders given a chance to ride a Federally compliant LSEB with governed powered above 20mph vs a 3-class compliant ebike with a cut-off at 20mph would pick the LSEB as the better tech implementation and yet the 1% that love the cut-off continue to support that implementation because a few trail managers are zealous about pedelecs with cut-offs.

The bigger picture is urban mobiliy as ebikes are the most efficient form of human transportation ever conceived...given that fact I don't care about what a few trail managers think. I just don't.

 

[AstroTurf]

Again...I am just stuck here wondering why we are concerned about trail speed enforcement when the impact of ebikes for urban mobility is so much more important (in my opinion).

Note: If they lack the ability to enforce a trail speed limit then how can then enforce the compliance of the ebikes themselves (i.e. if they are LSEB / Class 1 / Class 2 / Class 3 / off-road).

If a federally compliant LSEB is such a threat on trails then I can't help but think that any bike on that trail is also a treat but that is never discussed. What I think we ALL should be against is a handful of trail managers dictating the product definitions for the industry when I know for a fact they have NO DATA to support their opinions. I know most trail damage is due to erosion and the difference between a pedal-assist vs throttle-assist LSEB if ever studied would show it's not even a statistically significant difference via and study method that could be executed. They have no safety data either other than to say slower is safer which ignores that 99.9% of riders care about their own safety when riding and are not the trail speed demons that seem to come up in these debates frequently.

I would bet that 99% of ebike riders given a chance to ride a Federally compliant LSEB with governed powered above 20mph vs a 3-class compliant ebike with a cut-off at 20mph would pick the LSEB as the better tech implementation and yet the 1% that love the cut-off continue to support that implementation because a few trail managers are zealous about pedelecs with cut-offs.

The bigger picture is urban mobiliy as ebikes are the most efficient form of human transportation ever conceived...given that fact I don't care about what a few trail managers think. I just don't.

sounds like you work for...

peopleforbikes

 

[Ken M]

sounds like you work for...

peopleforbikes

To the contrary, I do not like what People for Bikes has done by pushing the state 3-class ebike legislation. I'm the one trying to get the CPSC to preempt that legislation because I think it was poorly conceived because it was intended to benefit a few large players (like Bosch) and eventually allow registration and insurance requirements on speed pedelecs / Class 3 ebikes as happened in Europe. There was zero merit to parsing the single class in the federal LSEB definition into 3 classes and the claims People for Bikes made about "clarity and safety" as just complete false claims for those that drink their koolaid. The elegance of the 2002 federal LSEB definition as a "bike" is best for the long term adoption of ebikes in the United States. State 3-class legislation should bother anyone that believes that ebikes could help with climate change and health efforts. When I read those claiming that class 1 is the only way ebikes were given trail access I just can't help but engage in the debate as that is pure nonesense.

 

[AstroTurf]

To the contrary, I do not like what People for Bikes has done by pushing the state 3-class ebike legislation. I'm the one trying to get the CPSC to preempt that legislation because I think it was poorly conceived because it was intended to benefit a few large players (like Bosch) and eventually allow registration and insurance requirements on speed pedelecs / Class 3 ebikes as happened in Europe. There was zero merit to parsing the single class in the federal LSEB definition into 3 classes and the claims People for Bikes made about "clarity and safety" as just complete false claims for those that drink their koolaid. The elegance of the 2002 federal LSEB definition as a "bike" is best for the long term adoption of ebikes in the United States. State 3-class legislation should bother anyone that believes that ebikes could help with climate change and health efforts. When I read those claiming that class 1 is the only way ebikes were given trail access I just can't help but engage in the debate as that is pure nonesense.

behold pfb has spoken...

 

[Ken M]

behold pfb has spoken...

Considering your comments such as "manually powered bikes should be limited to 20 mph on shared trails. ebikes designed to go over 20 mph via the motor should require licensing, and insurance" sounds much more like a PFBs advocate than anything I have ever posted on EBR. I wonder if you are sometimes just joking around but not that easy to pick up.

I will be crystal clear ... I think the 3-Class state legislation being promoted and pushed by People for Bikes is simply very bad legislation for the future of ebikes in the US. The federal definition did not need any additional clarity or class parsing.

 

[AstroTurf]

Considering your comments such as "manually powered bikes should be limited to 20 mph on shared trails. ebikes designed to go over 20 mph via the motor should require licensing, and insurance" sounds much more like a PFBs advocate than anything I have ever posted on EBR. I wonder if you are sometimes just joking around but not that easy to pick up.

I will be crystal clear ... I think the 3-Class state legislation being promoted and pushed by People for Bikes is simply very bad legislation for the future of ebikes in the US. The federal definition did not need any additional clarity or class parsing.

so says you...

who are you that any should listen?

what have you done to further your cause? (other than pollute this forum)

seriously, get out there and do something, then report back on what you have done. (in the real world)

until then, you are like a broken record...

signed, Jim

 

[Ken M]

so says you...

who are you that any should listen?

what have you done to further your cause? (other than pollute this forum)

seriously, get out there and do something, then report back on what you have done. (in the real world)

until then, you are like a broken record...

signed, Jim

Nice guy.

I did a lot of research into the regulations and I've done my best to communicate that information you say go out and do something....I wonder how many people without any professional legal assistance actually submit a petition to the CPSC. Being critical of this effort is a lot easier than trying to effect this change.

I remember your comment that insurance and registration requirements on Class 3 ebikes are inevitable so just have a check ready. Do you think that is a popular opinion with the readers of this forum. My efforts to get 3-class state legislation preempted is in large part driven by the assumption that will happen unless that state legislation is preempted. My goals are aligned with what I believe is best for current and future ebike riders. Yet you want to make me out to be the bad guy.

Have you read the Petition I posted in another thread for all to read? I'm hiding nothing about my efforts and it was a lot of work to research what was needed and to draft that document. I truly believe all ebike riders will benefit if the CPSC defends their LSEB definition.

Why not engage with me if you think I made some mistakes in the petition? I was hoping more would care about the regulations as they do impact the future adoption of ebikes.

 

[AstroTurf]

Nice guy.

I did a lot of research into the regulations and I've done my best to communicate that information.

I remember your comment that insurance and registration requirements on Class 3 ebikes are inevitable so just have a check ready. Do you think that is a popular opinion with the readers of this forum. My efforts to get 3-class state legislation preempted is in large part driven by the assumption that will happen unless that state legislation is preempted. My goals are aligned with what I believe is best for current and future ebike riders. Yet you want to make me out to be the bad guy.

Have you read the Petition I posted in another thread for all to read? I'm hiding nothing about my efforts and it was a lot of work to research what was needed and to draft that document. I truly believe all ebike riders will benefit if the CPSC defends their LSEB definition.

Why not engage with me if you think I made some mistakes in the petition? I was hoping more would care about the regulations as they do impact the future adoption of ebikes.

this forum is not the place to even begin to address the changes you want.

go find them (the places), apply yourself (learn the system), and check back in with your results in six months.

until then... Broken Record.

 

[Ken M]

this forum is not the place to even begin to address the changes you want.

go find them (the places), apply yourself (learn the system), and check back in with your results in six months.

until then... Broken Record.

Was never expecting to address the changes on the EBR forums but I did think there would be more interest in the regulatory history and why the 3-Class state legislation may not be what it has been claimed to be.

While no one believes there is a conspiracy the fact that an executive with the largest car parts producer in the world was in the room with People for Bikes when the draft of the 3-class legislation was being written in my opinion is just simply wrong on many levels. I understand that is how business is done these days (corporations want to control the legislation that impacts them) but it does piss me off an an engineer that the most efficient form of transportation ever created is most likely being neutered to restrain the adoption rate.

I think your comment on insurance is dead on - it happened in Europe on the speed pedelec / Class 3 equivalent ebikes so it's most likely part of the plan here as well. That alone is worth my time to push for for the preemption - it will save ebikers $billions long term.

 

[mschwett]

… You may want to also see how Specialized is selling their top of the line class 3 electric road bike without a speedometer in all 50 states (sure seems like they know that 3-class does not control 1st sale compliance but that bike is not legal to ride in any 3-class state that adopted the speedometer requirement of the ?model legislation? which I think is most of the 28/29 states). Sure seems like 3-class is just a clusterfuck of errors but hey everyone loves it.

this is curious to be sure, but they offer a <$100 handlebar display which remedies the omission, and are in the process of rolling out a new top tube display which includes a permanently on speedometer, perhaps to better align with the requirements in California. not confirmed yet if the 2022 creo will have it, but it’s in several other bikes already.

 

[Ken M]

this is curious to be sure, but they offer a <$100 handlebar display which remedies the omission, and are in the process of rolling out a new top tube display which includes a permanently on speedometer, perhaps to better align with the requirements in California. not confirmed yet if the 2022 creo will have it, but it’s in several other bikes already.

I brought up the lack of a speedometer on this model to illustrate the bizarre situation - the CPSC controls controls compliance thru 1st sale such that the 3-class legislation has essentially no legal standing for what is sold in the 50 states yet the states that have adopted 3-class legislation regulate "use" with it. Sadly I get hammered by some on this forum for just mentioning clear facts like this.

I am a broken record on this....3-class legislation as pushed by People for Bikes is a poorly conceived legislative model and the industry would be far better served if they would have just promoted the idea that the federal definition of a LSEB as a bike in all 50 states which is what the intent of the 2002 HR727 bill was. Some on this forum insist that the only reason they can ride their ebike on some trails managed by "anti-throttle zealot trail managers" is because of the existence of Class 1.

 

[rawlus]

yes you are a broken record on this. im beginning to think it is a clinical mental disorder.

 

[Ken M]

yes you are a broken record on this. im beginning to think it is a clinical mental disorder.

No....Just think it makes sense to put some time into this effort. Personally I think it's better to think independently than to be just believe the claims on 3-class.

 

[Ken M]

Even 20mph assist limits are too fast for some people. This is from an article in Outdood Magazine:

"I also have my concerns about motor-powered mountain bikes: specifically, while 20 miles per hour might be an acceptable speed limit for urban use, it’s nearly double that of an elite athlete climbing on a singletrack and probably should be dialed back to prevent inevitable conflict with hikers and equestrians. "

Given that gravity will always be the major factor in the fastest riding speeds I think we should realize that the assist cut-offs are simply a bad way to regulate speed. Riders just have to be expected to ride at safe speeds and/or obey posted speed limits.

 

[AstroTurf]

put the needle on the record...

 

[Ken M]

put the needle on the record...

One thing is clear is that I do try to put supporting information, that I had nothing to do with, out there for everyone to consider. It's much easier to just complain.