Why not speed limits?
- Thread starter retire01022004
- Start date
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.
[/QUOTE]
It was a couple of years ago... I am solid on the 185 number, but it mat have been km/h instead of mph. It would make sense that it was a European model car so km/h would be the predominant measurement.
Whatever the speed, the sentiment of my post does not change. Even 185 km/h is seen as a ludicrous speed by most here in the states. I felt safer and saw fewer accidents during my months in Europe than I see in a day back home. We are too quick to blame speed as the primary cause when something goes wrong, when it usually is a contributing effect.
What's ironic about you joking around there are some posting on these forums that would like to see mandatory auto-brakes that prevent all bikes from exceeding 20mph even downhill.
jabberwocky
Well-Known Member
Can you link a single post by anyone suggesting anything even remotely like "all bikes should have auto brakes that prevent bikes from exceeding some speed".All those saying that assist should just shut off at 20mph are essentially saying that because they are saying that speed is too fast for most MUPs. I agree that 20mph is too fast for many paths and many conditions but I also know that the assist speed is not the major determinate of the top speed of a bike. Riders will always have to be cognizant of personal responsibility to ride at safe speeds when they can impact other's safety. Some can't seem to live with that and support bad ideas like assist cut-offs at speeds that any rider can achieve going down a 2% grade.
Why is pointing out facts so offensive to some? If I point out that pro riders are hitting speeds of 70mph on descents and that that just good road bike riders can average over 20mph for very long distances the people supportive of ebike class system and it's assist cut-offs attack me like I'm a social media nut bag.
I don't want LSEBs to be any faster than what was deemed completely acceptable by the House and Senate back in 2002 as the equivalent of other BIKES. That makes sense to me and it worked because bikes had been around for over 100 years and I would not classify them as a problem for humanity. I just hate that 5 or 6 people at PFBs created state legislation and used lobby money to promote a system they claim was needed and some riders drank that social media crap koolaid. Go ahead and attack me but those really paying attention will see right thru it all.
what do the house and senate know about ebikes?
not a whole lot. so what does it matter what they say or do?
my momma always said: Safety is as Safety does...
wanna go fast? buy a moped, and ride on the road. not the trails.
viva la 20mph limit!!!
mjeds
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
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.
[/QUOTE]
I suspect he meant 185kph not mph, as most cars are governed (I think around 120mph nowadays) 185kph is only 114mph. so that sounds about right if it was kph. I don't think there were any production cars used as crap box rentals that would do 185mph. Today most cars are governed not because of regulation, but because the cheap tires on them are not speed rated for anything above that, and certainly not 185mph Those types of tires cost several hundred to several thousand EACH, and you aren't finding those on your run of the mill rental cars.
The house and senate know even less about ebikes than most on this forum but the guy that wrote the federal definition was a PhD Electrical Engineer so all they had to do was vote yes which they did.
Few realize that the NHTSA was blunt about not wanting to transfer any vehicle to the CPSC that could travel faster than 20mph motor alone. So if Dr. Currie was no smarter than People for Bikes and those claiming People for Bikes drafted good state legislation he would have just written the definition with a 20mph assist cut-off. What he did was far more intellegent - he limited power above 20mph to what would sustain 20mph motor alone such that with rider effort ebikes could go faster. That provide the best performance a "low speed electric bicycle" was going to be allowed to go under CPSC control.
This is not about the desire to go "fast" as you say...it's about having an ebike with as much performance as is allowed by the federal definition. If "safety is as safety does" then riders just need to be aware of the riding conditions and trail speed limits.
FYI - the federal definition provides pretty much the same performance as a Class 3 ebike without the brain-dead cut off function that People for Bikes decided they wanted to bring here from Europe. NO ONE on this forum will ever convince me that an assist cut-off is as good as setting an assist limit above a specified speed. A rider doesn't experience that sensation of running into a wall when the assist cuts off. People on this forum have grown tired of me not giving much credit to their precious trail access that they believe was only achieved by the creation of Class 1. I understand they believe that but a LSEB as a bike provided that access long before Class 1 was ?brilliantly? defined by the intellectuals at People for Bikes.
I suspect he meant 185kph not mph, as most cars are governed (I think around 120mph nowadays) 185kph is only 114mph. so that sounds about right if it was kph. I don't think there were any production cars used as crap box rentals that would do 185mph. Today most cars are governed not because of regulation, but because the cheap tires on them are not speed rated for anything above that, and certainly not 185mph Those types of tires cost several hundred to several thousand EACH, and you aren't finding those on your run of the mill rental cars.
[/QUOTE]
I love that you bring up "governed" auto speeds because that is exactly what the federal definition established instead of a brain dead assist cut-off on a Low Speed Electric Bicycle. Everyone hammers me on this forum claiming I'm in favor on unrealistically fast ebikes being allowed everywhere a bike is allowed which isn't even close to reality. I'm in favor of governing power at 20mph to what would sustain that speed with the motor alone (no more) and they just allow rider effort to add to that speed. The problem is that people don't understand that the impact of aerodynamic drag which negates that assist quickly so the average top rider speed is about what a EU spec'd Class 3 or speed pedelec will do. People would rather hammer the messenger instead of actually listening to the message.
Did you see the comments a few above yours where the guy suggested auto-brakes. Maybe he was joking but there is an example for you. Some will support anything to keep all riders below 20mph.
I literally have a friend that never goes faster than 12mph because he's that scared of speed on a bike and he thinks no one should ever ride faster than him. I'm not joking about that. I have no issue if he wants to ride like a mamby pamby but to expect everyone to be limited to what he feels is safe is just a wrong mindset.
quoted for truth!!!
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
A simple search on the forum has you mentioning this 20 times:
Search results for query: Mississippi
electricbikereview.com
Actually the AG didn't publically state anything. Sheriff Dolph Bryan asked the AG about the legality of riding electric bikes. The question was answered by staff member James Dale in 2007! Again another opinion from an unelected beurocrat about ancient ebikes from 14 years ago and 8 years before any of the 3 Class laws were enacted. Hood's opinion today? Who knows, Hood is no longer the AG. They never commented on the federal definition.
Here's the funny part, the AG's office said:
"It is legal for a bicycle with motor attached to be ridden on the streets and highways in Mississippi. The authority creating the bike lanes would have the discretion to determine whether a bicycle with motor attached could be ridden on the bike lane."
How can that be?!
They have no right to say where people can ride! A bike is a bike! Beurocrats in a basement office in DC said so
Mississippi doesn't recognize the federal regs, doesn't recognize other state's 3 Class laws. As in most things states have rights. Another theory goes down in flames
Here's the entire document:
View Document - Mississippi Attorney General Opinions
I shouldn't care about this topic anymore, but someone is going to get a ticket or a bike confiscated following some of the advice offered here. Before legalizing ebikes on paths and trails here the criminal charge was trespassing and carried an $800 fine.
A simple search on the forum has you mentioning this 20 times:
Search results for query: Mississippi
Actually the AG didn't publically state anything. Sheriff Dolph Bryan asked the AG about the legality of riding electric bikes. The question was answered by staff member James Dale in 2007! Again another opinion from an unelected beurocrat about ancient ebikes from 14 years ago and 8 years before any of the 3 Class laws were enacted. Hood's opinion today? Who knows, Hood is no longer the AG. They never commented on the federal definition.
Here's the funny part, the AG's office said:
"It is legal for a bicycle with motor attached to be ridden on the streets and highways in Mississippi. The authority creating the bike lanes would have the discretion to determine whether a bicycle with motor attached could be ridden on the bike lane."
How can that be?!
Mississippi doesn't recognize the federal regs, doesn't recognize other state's 3 Class laws. As in most things states have rights. Another theory goes down in flames
Here's the entire document:
View Document - Mississippi Attorney General Opinions
govt.westlaw.com
I shouldn't care about this topic anymore, but someone is going to get a ticket or a bike confiscated following some of the advice offered here. Before legalizing ebikes on paths and trails here the criminal charge was trespassing and carried an $800 fine.
The opinion came from the Office of The Attorney General Jim Hood. Does is really matter if an assistant drafted it?
You so conveniently omitted the meat of the decision....Here's what is written:
In order to answer your questions it must be determined whether a bicycle with a motor attached is a “motor vehicle” or retains its designation as a “bicycle”.
*1 Section 63-3-103 of the Mississippi Code provides: “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle which is self- propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails. The term“motor vehicle” shall not include electric personal assistive mobility devices.“
*1 Viewing this definition with other statutes (I assume this implies the federal statutes were considered) relating to “bicycles” it appears that a bicycle with motor attached does not lose its identity as a bicycle and become a motor vehicle.
So yes bicycles are allowed on the streets of Mississippi as all other bikes are. I have said all along that states can ban all bikes but they can not parse legal riding status by bike type. In words, they can say that mtn bikes are allowed on a path and road bikes, or LSEBs, are not allowed.
That crap at the end about having an ebike confiscated and a fined $800 is really nice hyperbole given that most likely applies to being on an illegal ebike (ie one that is not federally compliant LSEB for sale in all 50 states).
I don't sit here and claim to KNOW exactly where the fed regulations end and the state rights to regulate use begins but I do know that 99% of the time the states accept the federal safety agency definitions of products and stick only to regulating their use. In other words, if the Feds say that a LSEB is same as a bike, then it should be state use regulated just as bike. That makes perfect sense to me. It does not make sense to me that they can parse what an LSEB into 3-classes because they do not have the authority to define what can be sold.
I asked the other 49 state attorney general offices to provide an answer to the same question on LSEBs as bikes and guess how many were willing to provide a comment or answer? NONE. Lawyers are taught to never give an opinion unless money is going into their pockets. That is why their professional has such a low regard in this country.
Last edited:
Answer me this JR.A simple search on the forum has you mentioning this 20 times:
Search results for query: Mississippi
Actually the AG didn't publically state anything. Sheriff Dolph Bryan asked the AG about the legality of riding electric bikes. The question was answered by staff member James Dale in 2007! Again another opinion from an unelected beurocrat about ancient ebikes from 14 years ago and 8 years before any of the 3 Class laws were enacted. Hood's opinion today? Who knows, Hood is no longer the AG. They never commented on the federal definition.
Here's the funny part, the AG's office said:
"It is legal for a bicycle with motor attached to be ridden on the streets and highways in Mississippi. The authority creating the bike lanes would have the discretion to determine whether a bicycle with motor attached could be ridden on the bike lane."
How can that be?!
Mississippi doesn't recognize the federal regs, doesn't recognize other state's 3 Class laws. As in most things states have rights. Another theory goes down in flames
Here's the entire document:
View Document - Mississippi Attorney General Opinions
I shouldn't care about this topic anymore, but someone is going to get a ticket or a bike confiscated following some of the advice offered here. Before legalizing ebikes on paths and trails here the criminal charge was trespassing and carried an $800 fine.
Why at the CPSC webinar at the end of last year did People for Bikes present 3-class legislation as "Voluntary?"
You don't think they realize the states have NO AUTHORITY to establish what is legal / compliant for 1st sale. The fact of the matter is the CPSC does not assess imported LSEBs based on compliance to 3-class. That is why there are still compliant LSEBs being imported and sold which are not legal to ride in the state they are purchased in and that is not a good thing (buyers have the right to know what they purchased is legal to ride in that state or not).
How can the top of the line Specialized class 3 road ebike be sold without a speedometer in all 50 states when some states require a speedometer on a class 3 ebike? Simple, it' because Specialized knows that the 3-class system has zero control of 1st sale. They only make the bike with a 28mph cut-off because that allows the same exact bike to be sold here as in Europe.
Last edited:
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
Yes, yes I conveniently omitted something. SMH! I included the entire document, unlike the 20 times you used it to make a point. You never mentioned how old it was, never posted a link and you continue to mischaracterize it as an opinion of an AG and a "review of the federal statutes". When you are referencing an AG's communications and you use the terms "review" and "opinion", those are definable legal terms. The document in question is not a legal review or a legal opinion. It's an archival document of a question from one law enforcement department to another. It wasn't even answered by the AG. It also wasn't a public statement, it was an intergovernmental communication.
Last edited:
Why is the age important? It was prior to the 3-class legislation so had to be referring to the federal statutes as the federal definition for LSEBs was the clear major statute in place at that time.
I believe a law professional asking the AG for a legal opinion is an official review and statement. Worse case, it's an opinion certainly more relevant than ours. The one confusing aspect is that the documents indicates that a compliant LSEB is a bike, yet it does imply local politicians still have say on usage but I believe that was referring to bikes in general.
Last edited:
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
Context is always important. When you don't post supporting documents and you get defensive when someone else does, you look dishonest with something to hide.
It made no mention of federal statutes. Not even alluded to. You should read Mississippi's bike/ebike/motorbike law. Not even close to what you want.
It just isn't a legal opinion or an official review. It doesn't even mention they reviewed federal law or regs. And it wasn't an official statement from the AG.
It doesn't imply it, it states it very clearly.
It doesn't come close to stating that.
The answer does more damage to your case than support it. Local jurisdictions can ban ebikes from bike lanes, while still allowing human powered bikes. You've been saying all along that if a jurisdiction wants to ban ebikes from paths, trails and lanes they would have to ban all bikes. Clearly they can ban ebikes. You can't support your claim, this document actually refutes your claim.
Ken, the whole circular nature of this is tiring. Seems like everyday is groundhog day and you start over. Take it as a win, lose or draw I don't care. If you had anything to support your claims, anything at all, it might be worthy of discussion. As it stands it is not.
jabberwocky
Well-Known Member
This. The crux of so many of Kens arguments is that because a fed agency says that [this definition of ebike] is a bike for safety/sale purposes, that nobody at any government level can ban ebikes without just banning all bikes. This is incorrect on every possible level. Even at the highest level of transportation governmental agency (which is effectively states), they can still decide whats allowed where at a more granular level than that. Even at the state level, the laws are written in such a way that localities have pretty broad latitude to decide where electric bikes are actually permitted. Usually the state law just says something like "For the purposes of [law section governing bike use on roads], an electric power-assisted bicycle shall be a vehicle when operated on a highway." It doesn't say they are bikes for all purposes, and doesn't force their acceptance everywhere bikes are permitted. It just allows their use on motorways.
In addition, VA has an additional section (§ 46.2-1051) that basically says that any governing body in the state can decide to ban ebikes (along with a variety of other vehicles like dirt bikes and atvs) anywhere within their jurisdiction.
You claim it's not a legal opinion and yet it has this in the top title section:
Office of the Attorney General
State of Mississippi
Opinion No. 2007-00602
1 November 26, 2007
That seems like it would be considered a legal opinion from his office. We can just agree to disagree on how "official" it is.
What statutes were reviewed? You don't think they reviewed the federal statutes? I think assuming they did is pretty sound logic (what other ebike statutes were there in 2007?) so we can just agree to disagree on that and I have nothing to hide.
My "opinion" is that the intent of HR727 was to establish that the LSEB was to be considered just another bike type and defined as such. If that was not the intent, congress would have created a new product and federal code of safety regulations and not just lumped LSEBs into part 1512 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations. They don't combine toasters in with chain saws in the same code of federal regulations for a reason so why put LSEBs in with bike safety regulations unless they are to be defined as a bike / considered just a bike. We can argue about this all day but I watched the congressional hearings and have read the notes and it just seemed clear to me what the intent was.
If you are correct it means a state could ban a road bike from a path and allow a mountain bike or say no trikes but all other bikes including ebikes allowed. I just don't think a state has that authority to parse a federally defined product like that but I have no clue if I'm right or wrong. But I do know that the 3-class regulation is an interstate commerce violation of HR727 because it is clearly more stringent so I hope the CPSC addresses that per my petition. I do kind of have a chip on my shoulder on this petition effort because enough have been very critical of the effort such that I would love to succeed at getting 3-class legislation preempted. I still believe the CPSC will have to preempt or loose that power from all the federal safety agencies (they will set a very bad precedent by not preempting especially when HR727 is one of less than 10 product definition bills of over 10,000 products regulated by the CPSC with expressed / explicit preemption clause. I think Dr. Currie was smart enough to know the rarity and the power of having that expressed preemption in the bill (he didn't want the states to mess with his legal definition of an LSEB as a bike. That is my opinion but seems pretty rational to me (I had no idea how rare expressed preemption was until I read a full legal review of that constitutionally granted power).
Last edited:
Funny your reference to § 46.2-1051 goes back to 1983 I believe when any bike with a motor was pretty much under NHTSA as a motor vehicle. That is one of the problems with states getting their ebike "use" regulations effective - they need to understand they are not "motor vehicles" even though bikes are considered a "vehicle" when on public infrastructure (including a road with a bike lane).
Last edited:
Similar threads
