Why not speed limits?

[J.R.]

Huh??? I'm not ranting. I just asked if you had a specific reason why the 3-class legislation should not be preempted?

I and others have tried to have rational discussions with you in the many threads you started on that question and you know it. No matter the proof and facts, you start over, acting as though the proof, facts or answers were never offered. You wonder why P4B won't talk to you? Because like regulators, land managers and legislators when studying the issue, P4B staff have computers and they all know how to use search. You're insulting members here, other cyclists, states you don't think have the right to govern their own land and P4B. You post conspiracy theories about Bosch, Larry Pizzi and P4B. Why would they speak to you? I read your Reddit, where in March it was posted 'a decision imminent. Within weeks, because they can move fast.'

Many times over the years I've shared with you how ebikers here have made a difference and I encouraged you to try to do the same in your community. That requires you to interact with people in person and it requires powers of persuasion in words and deeds. You can't type your way to a win on this.

I posted the facts of the interstate commerce clause and I provided links from legal scholars and past decisions from the supreme court. You choose to ignore all the facts. You choose to ignore state's have rights under the 10th amendment of the constitution. These things are settled law. You don't have the time, money or legal standing to take this where it needs to go to overturn it.

I feel bad posting this on someone else's thread, but any time a thread discusses speed, classes or access you post about your pet peeve. If you put the time and effort into ebike regs in your community, you might have been able to effect some change.

I've unsubscribed to your threads, this one is not your topic. You are ranting. I do not say that to insult you. From years of this, I can no longer parse my words.

If, as you say, you sent a petition to the CPSC, let that play out and we will see what we will see. If you are trying to garner support post filing the petition, that certainly was done in the wrong order. 'Act in haste, repent at leisure.'

 

[Ken M]

I and others have tried to have rational discussions with you in the many threads you started on that question and you know it. No matter the proof and facts, you start over, acting as though the proof, facts or answers were never offered. You wonder why P4B won't talk to you? Because like regulators, land managers and legislators when studying the issue, P4B staff have computers and they all know how to use search. You're insulting members here, other cyclists, states you don't think have the right to govern their own land and P4B. You post conspiracy theories about Bosch, Larry Pizzi and P4B. Why would they speak to you? I read your Reddit, where in March it was posted 'a decision imminent. Within weeks, because they can move fast.'

Many times over the years I've shared with you how ebikers here have made a difference and I encouraged you to try to do the same in your community. That requires you to interact with people in person and it requires powers of persuasion in words and deeds. You can't type your way to a win on this.

I posted the facts of the interstate commerce clause and I provided links from legal scholars and past decisions from the supreme court. You choose to ignore all the facts. You choose to ignore state's have rights under the 10th amendment of the constitution. These things are settled law. You don't have the time, money or legal standing to take this where it needs to go to overturn it.

I feel bad posting this on someone else's thread, but any time a thread discusses speed, classes or access you post about your pet peeve. If you put the time and effort into ebike regs in your community, you might have been able to effect some change.

I've unsubscribed to your threads, this one is not your topic. You are ranting. I do not say that to insult you. From years of this, I can no longer parse my words.

If, as you say, you sent a petition to the CPSC, let that play out and we will see what we will see. If you are trying to garner support post filing the petition, that certainly was done in the wrong order. 'Act in haste, repent at leisure.'

There are some facts that just get glossed over in this discussion. A Bosch executive was in the room with the small team at PFBs when they were drafting the "?3-class model legislation?." I simply find that a bit troubling given the fact they are the largest car parts producer in the world. I understand they may also be the largest ebike drive system producer but they would clearly have interest in keeping ebikes somewhat neutered such that not too many get out of cars (wouldn't they prefer that the ebike market be huge but only in the leisure and recreation use segments and not urban mobility that gets people out of cars). It's just business and anyone running a business would love to have some control of that. Not some nutty conspiracy theory (they provided the bulk of the lobby money to PFBs).

I do not remember your posts on the interstate commerce facts from legal scholars but I will search for them. I assume we both agree that we don't want every state having a different definition of what is a compliant ebike (like NY establishing that Class 3 is a throttle to 25mph - how can the manufacturers respond to having different specs from every state and then deal with land managers all wanting their own control of what is acceptable on the trails they manage).

My opinion is that the "Low Speed Electric Bicycle" as defined in HR727 was well thought out by a PhD Electrical Engineer who had a vision that they would be "use" regulated by all states as just a bike (as was the case for 12+ years and many still do). Tha was entirely ignored by PFBs in their effort to mimic the structure that Europe established with assist cut-offs that I have never heard a single rider claim they like. Do you really like an assist cut-off at 20mph? PFBs claims that 3-class was needed for clarity and safety. Have you heard any thing else from them? I haven't. Clarity - I have no idea how 3 classes can be more clear than one. Safety - A power limit that motor alone is limited to what would sustain 20mph with 170lb rider on level surface actually results in a typical top speed pretty much equivalent to that of Class 3 (anyone can run the simulations on Grin's website to verify that this is a true statement) so how is the class system any safer given the top assist speeds are pretty much the same?

It's a real convenient claim that the establishing of class 1 ebikes opened up trail access but that is very loose argument. I think is was that it made some trail managers feel like they had control but nothing would have been different if all classes were permitted (funny the the DOI order established that as the default unless the local trail managers had DATA showing they needed to parse classes again).

I think what upsets some is that I really do try to stick to presenting facts. I do. I clearly have a strong opinion on the class system. I don't like it because I think it will allow for registration and insurance requirements on Class 3 just like they did on "speed pedelecs" in Europe. Many on these forums claim that will never happen but it will be too late to do anything after is does so best to eliminate their potential foothold which is Class 3.

While I may not be having a big impact on changing the minds of ebike riders I do seem more and more forum posts that are not favorable of the 3-class system and there absolutely was a survey conducing the that had 84% of nearly 750 riders saying they preferred the one-class Low Speed Electric Bike definition written by a PhD over the 3-class system invented by a few at PFBs being paid lobby money. Honestly which do you prefer?

I did post the petition I filed with the CPSC so anyone wanting to read it and decide for themselves can do that. I would be happy to discuss the information in that petition but some choose to claim I'm just on a crusade to hurt the ebike industry. Given that the original HR727 was written by a PhD engineer who was trying to start an ebike company and that's the regulation I support I have no clue how I could be perceived as being anti-ebike. I'm anti 3-class because it's not a good and not as good for the adoption of ebike for urban mobility where we really need them to have a bigger impact. A few more trails being opened really doesn't change anything but hey that's your focus.

 

[J.R.]

There are some facts that just get glossed over in this discussion. A Bosch executive was in the room with the small team at PFBs when they were drafting the "?3-class model legislation?." I simply find that a bit troubling given the fact they are the largest car parts producer in the world. I understand they may also be the largest ebike drive system producer but they would clearly have interest in keeping ebikes somewhat neutered such that not too many get out of cars (wouldn't they prefer that the ebike market be huge but only in the leisure and recreation use segments and not urban mobility that gets people out of cars). It's just business and anyone running a business would love to have some control of that. Not some nutty conspiracy theory (they provided the bulk of the lobby money to PFBs).

I do not remember your posts on the interstate commerce facts from legal scholars but I will search for them. I assume we both agree that we don't want every state having a different definition of what is a compliant ebike (like NY establishing that Class 3 is a throttle to 25mph - how can the manufacturers respond to having different specs from every state and then deal with land managers all wanting their own control of what is acceptable on the trails they manage).

My opinion is that the "Low Speed Electric Bicycle" as defined in HR727 was well thought out by a PhD Electrical Engineer who had a vision that they would be "use" regulated by all states as just a bike (as was the case for 12+ years and many still do). Tha was entirely ignored by PFBs in their effort to mimic the structure that Europe established with assist cut-offs that I have never heard a single rider claim they like. Do you really like an assist cut-off at 20mph? PFBs claims that 3-class was needed for clarity and safety. Have you heard any thing else from them? I haven't. Clarity - I have no idea how 3 classes can be more clear than one. Safety - A power limit that motor alone is limited to what would sustain 20mph with 170lb rider on level surface actually results in a typical top speed pretty much equivalent to that of Class 3 (anyone can run the simulations on Grin's website to verify that this is a true statement) so how is the class system any safer given the top assist speeds are pretty much the same?

It's a real convenient claim that the establishing of class 1 ebikes opened up trail access but that is very loose argument. I think is was that it made some trail managers feel like they had control but nothing would have been different if all classes were permitted (funny the the DOI order established that as the default unless the local trail managers had DATA showing they needed to parse classes again).

I think what upsets some is that I really do try to stick to presenting facts. I do. I clearly have a strong opinion on the class system. I don't like it because I think it will allow for registration and insurance requirements on Class 3 just like they did on "speed pedelecs" in Europe. Many on these forums claim that will never happen but it will be too late to do anything after is does so best to eliminate their potential foothold which is Class 3.

While I may not be having a big impact on changing the minds of ebike riders I do seem more and more forum posts that are not favorable of the 3-class system and there absolutely was a survey conducing the that had 84% of nearly 750 riders saying they preferred the one-class Low Speed Electric Bike definition written by a PhD over the 3-class system invented by a few at PFBs being paid lobby money. Honestly which do you prefer?

I did post the petition I filed with the CPSC so anyone wanting to read it and decide for themselves can do that. I would be happy to discuss the information in that petition but some choose to claim I'm just on a crusade to hurt the ebike industry. Given that the original HR727 was written by a PhD engineer who was trying to start an ebike company and that's the regulation I support I have no clue how I could be perceived as being anti-ebike. I'm anti 3-class because it's not a good and not as good for the adoption of ebike for urban mobility where we really need them to have a bigger impact. A few more trails being opened really doesn't change anything but hey that's your focus.

A Bosch executive was in the room with the small team at PFBs when they were drafting the "?3-class model legislation?."

There was a private in the room when Ike and Monty were discussing D Day. The private saved the world for democracy.

Could it be Bosch wanted to learn how to tune their bikes to meet new law? Could it be that P4B needed to understand from an expert how the different systems work? Your guess is a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless you weren't there.

I assume we both agree that we don't want every state having a different definition of what is a compliant ebike

It doesn't rise to the level to invoke the commerce clause. Proof previously provided.

My opinion is that the "Low Speed Electric Bicycle" as defined in HR727 was well thought out by a PhD Electrical Engineer who had a vision that they would be "use" regulated by all states as just a bike

Do you mean the engineer who owned an ebike company? No conflict of interest there Why is Bosch suspect, if the owner of iZip/Currie is not? You don't apply conspiracy theories fairly. If Larry Pizzi is so bad for ebiking, why did that iZip/Currie engineer hand pic Larry to take over the company when he retired?

It's a real convenient claim that the establishing of class 1 ebikes opened up trail access but that is very loose argument.

I was in the room. Not a convenient claim, its fact. Of course I might be a plant from Europe You don't understand, the tax paying citizens have a say in this, they attend public meetings and they speak their concerns. We have to compromise to get access. We aren't the only users of these public spaces. You'd learn a lot attending public meetings at the local level.

I think what upsets some is that I really do try to stick to presenting facts.

No you don't. What upsets people are the personal attacks, the circular logic, the strawman arguements. You ignore facts and other's opinions.

I don't like it because I think it will allow for registration and insurance requirements on Class 3 just like they did on "speed pedelecs" in Europe.

It's just as easy to say registration and insurance is imminent for all ebikes with only the CPSC definition as a guide. If they can all have throttles and they can all assist past 20 mph, there is little difference between ebikes and mopeds. Moped and scooter riders could easily make the argument they are treated unfairly. Very easy argument to make. How will class 1 emtb riders like that? I have provided you with proof that some states require moped registration and insurance, some don't. States rights.

absolutely was a survey conducing the that had 84% of nearly 750 riders

I gave you that link to the survey last winter. See one of your rambling threads. I have the PDF saved and you are cherry picking what suits you and mischaracterizing the study. I have seen you misuse the information several times.

 

[Ken M]

There was a private in the room when Ike and Monty were discussing D Day. The private saved the world for democracy.

Could it be Bosch wanted to learn how to tune their bikes to meet new law? Could it be that P4B needed to understand from an expert how the different systems work? Your guess is a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless you weren't there.


It doesn't rise to the level to invoke the commerce clause. Proof previously provided.


Do you mean the engineer who owned an ebike company? No conflict of interest there Why is Bosch suspect, if the owner of iZip/Currie is not? You don't apply conspiracy theories fairly. If Larry Pizzi is so bad for ebiking, why did that iZip/Currie engineer hand pic Larry to take over the company when he retired?


I was in the room. Not a convenient claim, its fact. Of course I might be a plant from Europe You don't understand, the tax paying citizens have a say in this, they attend public meetings and they speak their concerns. We have to compromise to get access. We aren't the only users of these public spaces. You'd learn a lot attending public meetings at the local level.


No you don't. What upsets people are the personal attacks, the circular logic, the strawman arguements. You ignore facts and other's opinions.


It's just as easy to say registration and insurance is imminent for all ebikes with only the CPSC definition as a guide. If they can all have throttles and they can all assist past 20 mph, there is little difference between ebikes and mopeds. Moped and scooter riders could easily make the argument they are treated unfairly. Very easy argument to make. How will class 1 emtb riders like that? I have provided you with proof that some states require moped registration and insurance, some don't. States rights.


I gave you that link to the survey last winter. See one of your rambling threads. I have the PDF saved and you are cherry picking what suits you and mischaracterizing the study. I have seen you misuse the information several times.

Apparently you think PFBs needed to be as secretive as Ike and Monty discussing D-day. Wow. Do you doubt that Bosch was there to influence? Then why did they provide lobby money to promote the adoption of 3-class state by state? Not a conspiracy...a fact. I believe Bosch was instrumental at getting the requirement for pedelecs only in Europe and the 25kph / 15mph assist limit (no surprise this created a huge market demand for the speed hack devices). That speed is OK for recreational and mtn bikes but really not going to be a great urban mobility solution to get people out of cars.

Here's what I really think. I honestly do think the people in that room didn't fully understand the federal definition. I think they believe it defined a cut-off at 20mph because it appears that in 2012 someone did ask the CPSC for clarification on if motor and human power could combine to provide a faster speed (this was to allow the Class 3 or harmonization with the speed pedelec in Europe). Nothing wrong with that and the CPSC did provide clarification that the 20mph was for motor alone and that limited assist beyond 20mph was allowed so long as that power could not sustain the ebike faster than 20mph motor alone (that was required by the handoff from the NHTSA if anyone cares to review the history). This is probably why PFBs feels they got clarification that helped the industry but in fact the definition clearly stated that via the constraints if someone was techinical enough to read and comprehend what Dr. Currie wrote.

The engineer that owned the ebike company (EV Warrior / Dr. Currie) was instrumental at getting the LSEB away from NHTSA to the CPSC - I think this was far more important than parsing classes after that successful effort. The NHTSA did not want anything faster (motor alone) than 20mph to be a consumer "bike" product so Dr. Currie re-wrote their definition very elegantly such that motor and human power could combine to enable a bit higher speed (the motor alone power is limited to what can sustain 20mph if anyone really cares to take the time to interpret the definition).

I going to bring up something that you and probably no one at those public meetings comprehends or ever brought up. A motor rating of 750W is nebulous for a reason. Dr. Currie knew that some ebikes like cargo bikes would benefit from higher power below 20mph so he used motor rating in the definition instead of peak drive system power. A motor could be rated at 750W using a test defined with higher temps such that at typical operating temps the power delivered from the controller could be 2000W and still be 100% compliant. Do those trail managers and local politicians know that a 2000W 20mph class 1 pedelec is actually compi ant for use on their trails? I'm guessing they don't ... oh but they slam me as the messenger explaining to them what the technical difference is between motor rating and peak drive system power that a PhD electrical engineer would easily understand. I can guarantee a 2000W 20mph pedelec will tear up the trails a lot more than a 750W throttle model that they were so adamantly against being on their trails. I have restrained from bringing this to light because I don't want those trail managers to use it against ebikes....as I know they will if they learn the tech.

Say what you want about me but my goal is to truly bring clarity to this and to give LSEBs the best possible chance for wide adoption for urban mobility. The 3-class system did not even consider that and that is why I'm critical of those in that room that day. I talked with one of them and they told me my 25mph assist throttle Polaris Diesel was a class 3 ebike - so much for how much they even understood their own system. I had to tell them they limited throttle ebikes to 20mph via a class 2 designation. She has since left PFBs so you may be able to figure out who that was.

As for a potential violation of the interstate commerce laws, I'm still hopeful the CPSC protects their LSEB definition because clearly the class system if "more stringent" which is expressly prohibited by the preemptive clause in HR727. Think of it this way. The CPSC has stated that all 3 class do fall within the federal definition (already recognizing all are more stringent). Obviously, Class 1 and 2 are more stringent than class 3 because of the lower assist speed specified so logically class 1 and 2 are unquestionably more stringent than the LSEB definition of HR727. I do have some understanding that there are exceptions to interstate commerce law but I don't think the class system rises to any significant level of importance to allow the adopting states to have a more stringent definition than in HR727.

If they don't preempt the CPSC faces a bigger issue....they will establish a precedence that they ignored an expressed preemption clause (which has only been used on approx 10 products in over 10,000+ they manage - do some research if you don't believe me) so state lawyers will use that in future cases to do state consumer product definitions as they please. I think the CPSC will understand they have to preempt even if that means slapping down the bad class 3 ebike law in 28 states greedy enough to take some of that lobby money. If they don't preempt I'll present the petition to national news services - the states will then own the definitions of consumer products without any concern of the constitution's interstate commerce law.

 

[J.R.]

Apparently you think PFBs needed to be as secretive as Ike and Monty discussing D-day

Do you understand what an analogy is? Do you understand sarcasm? You read things in statements that just aren't there. Not even alluded to.

Do you doubt that Bosch was there to influence?

The point is we don't know and until we do know it's just your conspiracy theory.

Then why did they provide lobby money to promote the adoption of 3-class state by state? Not a conspiracy...a fact.

Again not a fact. The Bicycle Products Supplier Association (BPSA) donated a lot of money to People for Bikes before they merged. P4B does more than lobby, they have a charitable foundation. I provided detail information and links to you before. No donations are broken down as to how the money from each donation is spent. You can read the financial reports.

handoff from the NHTSA

Power grab. It's in the NHTSA archives.

The engineer that owned the ebike company (EV Warrior / Dr. Currie) was instrumental at getting the LSEB away from NHTSA to the CPSC -

Malcolm Currie, PhD. Yes, Malcolm, an old beurocrat from the Nixon administration would know how to do a power grab.

He became friends with Larry Pizzi in 1995 and because Larry was a bike company executive, Malcolm pitched his bike to Larry.

I going to bring up something that you and probably no one at those public meetings comprehends

You are insufferable and condescending. You don't know anything about what I know because you don't listen. I publically debated the person that wrote our state 2014 ebike law. He was against ebikes on paths and trails. His side lost.

my goal is to truly bring clarity

My goal is to keep moving forward, to keep the access we worked so hard to gain and not go back to an unworkable and dated regulation passed in 2002 that saw ebikes banned on most off road paths and trails just a few years ago. A law passed when there were a few ebikes with SLA batteries and brushed hub motors that could barely go 15 mph for 12 miles like the one Malcolm had when the regs passed.

I read everything I could to prepare arguments to fight bans. I wasn't searching for confirmation of what I believed. I read things I disagreed with, I confirmed some things I knew. I've never been completely in agreement with the 3 class law and some of the things I thought I knew to be correct 7 years ago turned out to be wrong. I learned and I evolved.

I'm done here. It's become another CPSC "Dr." Currie thread.

 

[jabberwocky]

My goal is to keep moving forward, to keep the access we worked so hard to gain and not go back to an unworkable and dated regulation passed in 2002 that saw ebikes banned on most off road paths and trails just a few years ago. A law passed when there were a few ebikes with SLA batteries and brushed hub motors that could barely go 15 mph for 12 miles like the one Malcolm had when the regs passed.

I read everything I could to prepare arguments to fight bans. I wasn't searching for confirmation of what I believed. I read things I disagreed with, I confirmed some things I knew. I've never been completely in agreement with the 3 class law and some of the things I thought I knew to be correct 7 years ago turned out to be wrong. I learned and I evolved.

Kens unrelenting obsession with this is amusing (or would be if he didn't pollute every thread that mentions speed or class with it), but the whole "we need to go back to 2002!" thing is probably the funniest part of his whole argument. Ebikes, as they are now, were not a thing in 2002. It would be like obsessively arguing we need to go back to 1905 laws for cars. Things are slightly different in 2021 than they were in 2002. My town (population ~42k) almost certainly has more electric bikes in it now than the entire USA had in 2002, and they go much further and much faster. Northern Virginia is pretty advanced and progressive for bike infrastructure, but ebikes were not allowed on any of the paved trails around here until 2019. Pretending things were perfect and amazing under the 2002 regs is just... a view untainted by contact with reality, lets say.

 

[Ken M]

Do you understand what an analogy is? Do you understand sarcasm? You read things in statements that just aren't there. Not even alluded to.

The point is we don't know and until we do know it's just your conspiracy theory.


Again not a fact. The Bicycle Products Supplier Association (BPSA) donated a lot of money to People for Bikes before they merged. P4B does more than lobby, they have a charitable foundation. I provided detail information and links to you before. No donations are broken down as to how the money from each donation is spent. You can read the financial reports.

Power grab. It's in the NHTSA archives.

Malcolm Currie, PhD. Yes, Malcolm, an old bureaucrat from the Nixon administration would know how to do a power grab.

He became friends with Larry Pizzi in 1995 and because Larry was a bike company executive, Malcolm pitched his bike to Larry.

You are insufferable and condescending. You don't know anything about what I know because you don't listen. I publically debated the person that wrote our state 2014 ebike law. He was against ebikes on paths and trails. His side lost.


My goal is to keep moving forward, to keep the access we worked so hard to gain and not go back to an unworkable and dated regulation passed in 2002 that saw ebikes banned on most off road paths and trails just a few years ago. A law passed when there were a few ebikes with SLA batteries and brushed hub motors that could barely go 15 mph for 12 miles like the one Malcolm had when the regs passed.

I read everything I could to prepare arguments to fight bans. I wasn't searching for confirmation of what I believed. I read things I disagreed with, I confirmed some things I knew. I've never been completely in agreement with the 3 class law and some of the things I thought I knew to be correct 7 years ago turned out to be wrong. I learned and I evolved.

I'm done here. It's become another CPSC "Dr." Currie thread.

Forget all that give me your opinion on these elements:

- Do you think a power limit at 20mph is a better product solution vs. an assist cut-off? Which would you prefer as an ebike customer?

- Should an bike advocacy organization engage in lobbying a policy that was never really drafted by a wide group of bike advocates?

- Do you those in that room at PFBs were really focused on drafting legislation that was better then the existing LSEB definition or cared more about apparent structural harmonization with Europe ebike regulations?

- Do you really think it was a power grab by the CPSC or someone using their political capital to achieve a transfer of ebikes from an agency that would have left them defined as a motor vehicle forever knowing that would help the future adoption rate and cost of ebikes? To be honest I think it's amazing that a defense contractor CEO would even give a crap about the future or ebikes but I think Currie actually cared about the potential of human scale transportation.

Note: I think Currie was smart enough to know how to get this done early before ebikes were really even on regulatory radar. He was a corporate CEO so I would not consider him the typical bureaucrat but he did lead a defense firm so certainly was well versed on how the system operates (would not have been able to do what he did otherwise).

I may have been condenscending in some of my forum responses but I've taken more shots than anyone and tried to remain focused on providing information so others can form their own opinion.

 

[jabberwocky]

I just don't get this focus in Class 1 - 3 and throttles. The issue is speed! Makes no difference if ebike, pedal bike, gasoline motor bike, runner or whatever. The main concern is speed and potential accidents with walkers, joggers and pedal bikers and others on the trail or roadway.
My automobile has a top speed of 154 mph. However, I can use it on any public roadway - as long as I adhere to the posted speed. Sometimes it's 70mph and other times 15mph.
The trail I often use in PA has a posted speed limit of 18mph. What difference does it make what class my bike is or whether it has a throttle - as long as I adhere to the posted speed limit?

To answer the OPs post, it comes down to what you're asking for access to and the managing agencies resources. Your average MUP, rail trail, etc is generally managed by a park department, or sometimes a local town/municipal agency of some sort. If they have a speed limit (many do not), its almost certainly CYA, not something that is actively enforced in the manner we expect on roadways. Historically, trails for human powered vehicles are self regulating to a large extent because theres simply a limit to how fast a human can travel under their own power.

So now we, electric bike advocates come into the picture and want access. This will be the first user group using a vehicle with a motor on the trail. You attend a public meeting, meet with the trail manager, whatever. Their first question is "how fast do these go?". Which of these is likely to be the stronger argument:
"It doesn't matter, the trail has a speed limit you can just enforce!"
or
"Legally the motor assists to Xmph, at which point it stops providing assistance. Above that speed, electric bike riders are in the same boat as any other cyclist."

In short, the reason ebikes have speed cutoffs instead of relying on agencies to create and enforce speed limits is because argument A is going to get you laughed out of the building, and argument B is something you can successfully argue.

 

[Ken M]

Kens unrelenting obsession with this is amusing (or would be if he didn't pollute every thread that mentions speed or class with it), but the whole "we need to go back to 2002!" thing is probably the funniest part of his whole argument. Ebikes, as they are now, were not a thing in 2002. It would be like obsessively arguing we need to go back to 1905 laws for cars. Things are slightly different in 2021 than they were in 2002. My town (population ~42k) almost certainly has more electric bikes in it now than the entire USA had in 2002, and they go much further and much faster. Northern Virginia is pretty advanced and progressive for bike infrastructure, but ebikes were not allowed on any of the paved trails around here until 2019. Pretending things were perfect and amazing under the 2002 regs is just... a view untainted by contact with reality, lets say.

You are simply wrong. A LSEB being "use" regulated as a bike is better even if the idea came from someone prior to 2002. That was the intent of the federal statute and it was clearly stated in the congressional testimony.

So 12 years passed and all PFBs could come up with was establishing assist cut-offs at 20 and 28mph. Wow...that is really moving the ball forward in a profound way. Are there not some local jurisdictions that still declare LSEBs as motor vehicles? Doesn't seem like everyone is aware that in 2002 they were defined as not being motor vehicles.

 

[Ken M]

To answer the OPs post, it comes down to what you're asking for access to and the managing agencies resources. Your average MUP, rail trail, etc is generally managed by a park department, or sometimes a local town/municipal agency of some sort. If they have a speed limit (many do not), its almost certainly CYA, not something that is actively enforced in the manner we expect on roadways. Historically, trails for human powered vehicles are self regulating to a large extent because theres simply a limit to how fast a human can travel under their own power.

So now we, electric bike advocates come into the picture and want access. This will be the first user group using a vehicle with a motor on the trail. You attend a public meeting, meet with the trail manager, whatever. Their first question is "how fast do these go?". Which of these is likely to be the stronger argument:
"It doesn't matter, the trail has a speed limit you can just enforce!"
or
"Legally the motor assists to Xmph, at which point it stops providing assistance. Above that speed, electric bike riders are in the same boat as any other cyclist."

In short, the reason ebikes have speed cutoffs instead of relying on agencies to create and enforce speed limits is because argument A is going to get you laughed out of the building, and argument B is something you can successfully argue.

A LSEB is federally defined to not be a motor vehicle so how is that some local trail managers cling to the idea they are?

Are there not some MUPs that have stated to speeds of 15mph? If so, why isn't a 20mph cease of assist considered too fast?

I think what happened was that local jurisdictions prior to the transfer from the NHTSA had ebikes defined as motor vehicles and remnants of that mentality still exist in some locations. I still see some comments on EBR claiming LSEB are motor vehicles. They can't accept they are now defined as not being a motor vehicle .... a LSEB is defined as a BIKE in HR727 which placed that definition in part 1512 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations. A state AG reviewed the statutes and publically stated his opinion was that an LSEB was to be use regulated just like any other bike. That's one opinion but the highest level an opinion has been legally published so it matters. The local land managers in fact should just accept that or push the issue above the state level. I'm trying to end the debate by just getting the CPSC to preempt the more stringent state class 3 legislation for being a violation of interstate commerce and the expressed preemption in HR727.

It's not everyday that a nobody like me can file a petition that has a chance to overturn 28 states with poorly conceived legislation. I believe it will be a record that could get me is some educational law books. Not why I'm doing it....I just think it's bad legislation and bad for ebike adoption in general. Do I think the federal definition could be improved? Yea, but not really if the NHTSA expectation motor alone LSEBs can not exceed 20mph - the definition stretches that expectation as far as it can by allowing rider and that motor power level to combine for some added speed above 20mph but that is enough to make ebikes very effective urban mobility (the 15mph cut-offs in the EU are under pressure as being too slow and will likely change if they want more people out of cars).

 

[Mr. Coffee]

This discussion, like all discussions on this topic, is just morally exhausting. Even when I don't participate the thread titles make me tired.

 

[J.R.]

Forget all that give me your opinion on these elements:

- Do you think a power limit at 20mph is a better product solution vs. an assist cut-off? Which would you prefer as an ebike customer?

- Should an bike advocacy organization engage in lobbying a policy that was never really drafted by a wide group of bike advocates?

- Do you those in that room at PFBs were really focused on drafting legislation that was better then the existing LSEB definition or cared more about apparent structural harmonization with Europe ebike regulations?

- Do you really think it was a power grab by the CPSC or someone using their political capital to achieve a transfer of ebikes from an agency that would have left them defined as a motor vehicle forever knowing that would help the future adoption rate and cost of ebikes? To be honest I think it's amazing that a defense contractor CEO would even give a crap about the future or ebikes but I think Currie actually cared about the potential of human scale transportation.

Note: I think Currie was smart enough to know how to get this done early before ebikes were really even on regulatory radar. He was a corporate CEO so I would not consider him the typical bureaucrat but he did lead a defense firm so certainly was well versed on how the system operates (would not have been able to do what he did otherwise).

I may have been condenscending in some of my forum responses but I've taken more shots than anyone and tried to remain focused on providing information so others can form their own opinion.

So sorry, I've created a forum filter for my personal view. I don't know what you posted because I can no longer see these words or phrases.

• Human scale transportation
• LSEB
• Dr.
• Currie
• CPSC
• Harmonization

Unfortunately your reply looks to me like a jumble of scrabble tiles.

Have a nice day

 

[Ken M]

So sorry, I've created a forum filter for my personal view. I don't know what you posted because I can no longer see these words or phrases.

• Human scale transportation
• LSEB
• Dr.
• Currie
• CPSC
• Harmonization

Unfortunately your reply looks to me like a jumble of scrabble tiles.

Have a nice day

Wow.... you should work at PFBs as they don't like Dr. Currie or LSEB definition either.

 

[jabberwocky]

A LSEB is federally defined to not be a motor vehicle so how is that some local trail managers cling to the idea they are?

This sums up the problem with engaging you. You have zero understanding with how the government fundamentally works around these issues. A fed agency saying "for safety purposes these are not motor vehicles" does and means nothing when you're talking to your local county park department. You cling to this idea that some fed agency definition just solves everything and nobody can argue with it and it is now forced on every level of government from the states down to counties down to towns and all branches therein. That is not reality. It doesn't resemble reality. It doesn't resemble reality out of the corner of your eye in bad lighting during a dust storm.

Are there not some MUPs that have stated to speeds of 15mph? If so, why isn't a 20mph cease of assist considered too fast?

Some managing agencies do consider it too fast. Hence access still not being universal.

 

[Ken M]

This sums up the problem with engaging you. You have zero understanding with how the government fundamentally works around these issues. A fed agency saying "for safety purposes these are not motor vehicles" does and means nothing when you're talking to your local county park department. You cling to this idea that some fed agency definition just solves everything and nobody can argue with it and it is now forced on every level of government from the states down to counties down to towns and all branches therein. That is not reality. It doesn't resemble reality. It doesn't resemble reality out of the corner of your eye in bad lighting during a dust storm.



Some managing agencies do consider it too fast. Hence access still not being universal.

I accept I could be wrong but why then did the Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood publicly state after review the federal statutes that he determine that the intent was for a LSEB to be just a bike?

I understand the complexity of the government power distribution but the legal arguments I've read sure seem to point that the federal safety agencies control what is compliant thru 1st sale as a baseline minimum via the commerce clause which is a federal enumerated right. I think this is actually a popular concept as it does enable product harmonization for economies of scale (ie same products are compliant for sale in every state). On products like bikes the federal definition typically controls compliance and the states focus on "use" regulation.

I fully agree that a state or local municipality has the power to ban all bikes from any path but I do question if they can say ban say a mountain bike from a path that allows road bikes. I think they have to use regulate what is defined as a compliant bike as a bike and not parse by the local view of what is an acceptable bike.

Right now in Colorado our 3-class regulation requires electric cut-off brakes or something that ensures motor power is not allowed while braking. I have both a Haibike model with a Yamaha drive system and one with a Bosch drive system and both do not have ebrakes (if I'm at a stop light with the brakes applied and I put torque into the crank the motor provides power while the brakes are applied). The CPSC does not require ebrakes so these are sold legally here but in reality I'm not riding a legal compliant bike here and Haibike's US sales headquarters is in Colorado. How does this happen? Because the 3-class system was not thought out. Seems to me it only works if the 3-class system is adopted at the federal level to control 1st sale compliance and use compliance as they simply are not the same thing. I think California and Minnesota also require ebrakes on all ebikes.

What I don't understand is that everyone seems to take offense to bringing this up? I have no clue if I'm right but there certainly seems to be a problem that is being ignored (just blaming lack of enforcement is not the right answer).

 

[Ken M]

This sums up the problem with engaging you. You have zero understanding with how the government fundamentally works around these issues. A fed agency saying "for safety purposes these are not motor vehicles" does and means nothing when you're talking to your local county park department. You cling to this idea that some fed agency definition just solves everything and nobody can argue with it and it is now forced on every level of government from the states down to counties down to towns and all branches therein. That is not reality. It doesn't resemble reality. It doesn't resemble reality out of the corner of your eye in bad lighting during a dust storm.



Some managing agencies do consider it too fast. Hence access still not being universal.

'Do you have any local trails you could provide the names and locations of so I could verify this information? I think the DOI order 3376 addressed a lot of this but would like to see if there are examples where that is not the case.

 

[rawlus]

yet another thread Ken has ruined.

 

[Ken M]

yet another thread Ken has ruined.

It's about Speed Limits which is obviously a question of speed limits vs assist limits. I'm pretty sure all / most of the early responses were about ebike regulations and the wide variety of opinions on them. Not sure how I can ruin the thread on the subject I tend to engage on and a lot are interested in. Obviously on this subject everyone seems to question the regulations but some love the 3-class system and some like me not so much.

 

[TS25]

I could be wrong, but you hear about people driving 200 mph on the Autobahn in Germany.

200 mph = 320 km/h. There ain't many cars or motorbikes capable to go that speed. So only very few people can drive that on the Autobahn in Germany if it's an empty road and early Sunday morning.
A number of car producers limited their cars to 250 km/h by voluntary agreement and so is my V8 BMW MY2000. Derestricted it would run app. 270 km/h. No need for that as I let it run above 140 mph (220 km/h) only for short time on an almost empty Autobahn. Only very few BMW car models can run 185 mph+ (300 km/h +) so I doubt this, especially for 1989 and 1999:
[QUOTE = widgets in #098 [/quote]
In 1989 and 1999 I could only get my 4 cylinder rental car to 185 mph. The BMWs would pass me like I was standing still.

 

[TS25]

It happens. If you take part in an accident and you drove over 140 km/h (and are still alive), you are automatically guilty there. Once, I was picked up by a company car (actually, a cab on a contract) in Ruhrgebiet. The driver was going at 180 km/h on the Autobahn. At 140 km/h he took the steering wheel in both hands. I was scared but the guy was a professional.

There is a recommended max. speed of 130 km/h on the German Autobahn. About 1/3 of the German Autobahn is even limited to a lesser max. speed of 120 km/h or 100 km/h. Dense traffic limits your speed as well especially on Autobahn with only two lanes.
If you exceed the recommended max. speed of 130 km/h and are involved in a car accident, you aren't automatically "guilty".
But if you can't succeed in proving that you couldn't have avoided the accident travelling no more than 130 km/h then the risk of using your car would lead to your responsibilty for at least 1/3 of the consequences of damage even if someone jumped from another lane into your (left) lane in front of you. It's unlikely that you could successfully prove that.
So responsible driving on the Autobahn means adjust your speed to the conditions and that's what most drivers do. Free speed on the Autobahn is a myth. And it might be history soon.

So if you @Stefan Mikes are looking for a real scary speed ride on the Autobahn you better call me up soon.