Why not speed limits?

My main effort has been to get more ebike riders to actually review the original federal regulation / definition of a "low speed electric bicycle" and decide if the intent of HR727 was for an LSEB to be simply considered a "bike." If so then the states should have just allowed them to be "use" regulated with the traffic laws for bikes that go back decades in most states. That is so fundamentally simple it makes profound sense but so many think that the 3-class system was essential to help convince local lawmakers to allow access. What should have taken place was for anyone attending those local meetings to ask why an LSEB would not just be considered a bike so they were allowed to go where other bikes could go.
 
is this thread still alive?

kill it before it breeds!!!

LOLz
You must love the 3-class system. Those assist cut-offs are really wonderful huh? Interesting that millions of riders purchased the speed hack devices to eliminate the 20mph cease of assist (keep in mind that the power of these ebikes really doesn't result in dramatically higher riding speeds but that is ignored entirely by people that love 3-class).
 
Last edited:
a stiff 500 dollar fine to those ebikes that go over 20 via assist.

a further 1000 dollar fine for those going over 20 on a shared trail!!!

and jailtime for those who cause accident or injury while traveling over 20 mph.
 
a stiff 500 dollar fine to those ebikes that go over 20 via assist.

a further 1000 dollar fine for those going over 20 on a shared trail!!!

and jailtime for those who cause accident or injury while traveling over 20 mph.

As long as thus applies to all trail users and not just the ebikes. The spandex clad racers are by far the fastest ones on the trails that I ride.

And be prepared for the chorus of folks that have already complained that speed limits do not work.
 
a stiff 500 dollar fine to those ebikes that go over 20 via assist.

a further 1000 dollar fine for those going over 20 on a shared trail!!!

and jailtime for those who cause accident or injury while traveling over 20 mph.
What state do you live in? Seems a bit egregious as I find it hard to believe there is a $1000 fine for going over 20mph on a shared trail. This just sounds like false information to keep people convinced that the 3-class system is essential to keep some ebikes under 20mph but the assist limits actually do not do that (just make it a bit harder to go over 20mph). Hey but there will always be information on the internet that provide bias confirmation.
 
What state do you live in? Seems a bit egregious as I find it hard to believe there is a $1000 fine for going over 20mph on a shared trail. This just sounds like false information to keep people convinced that the 3-class system is essential to keep some ebikes under 20mph but the assist limits actually do not do that (just make it a bit harder to go over 20mph). Hey but there will always be information on the internet that provide bias confirmation.
utopia...
 
utopia...
So you were joking about the large fines or is that what you would like to see happen?

You do understand that the assist cutting out at 20mph doesn't mean the rider can't go faster than 20mph on an ebike just like on any other bike. I think a lot of people on this forum assume the cease of assist limits the top speed of the ebike so I do try to dismiss this myth. Note: Now there will be some that will write that it's challenging for an average rider to sustain a speed over 20mph for long but I really don't grasp that point because it only proves that 20mph is not a product speed limitation. The cease of assist at 20mph is to create a faster class that will eventually require registration and insurance just as happened in Europe (will be too late after it happens because so many believe it just can't happen).
 
Last edited:
So you were joking about the large fines or is that what you would like to see happen?

You do understand that the assist cutting out at 20mph doesn't mean the rider can't go faster than 20mph on an ebike just like on any other bike. I think a lot of people on this forum assume the cease of assist limits the top speed of the ebike so I do try to dismiss this myth. Note: Now there will be some that will write that it's challenging for an average rider to sustain a speed over 20mph for long but I really don't grasp that point because it only proves that 20mph is not a product speed limitation. The cease of assist at 20mph is to create a faster class that will eventually require registration and insurance just as happened in Europe (will be too late after it happens because so many believe it just can't happen).
yes, see law/fine #2.

you should try to educate, rather than argue.

1 mph over 20 mph on a shared trail, see law/fine #2.

faster than 20 mph, oughta be classed as a moped and restricted from shared trail use. they should also be licensed and insured.
 
yes, see law/fine #2.

you should try to educate, rather than argue.

1 mph over 20 mph on a shared trail, see law/fine #2.

faster than 20 mph, oughta be classed as a moped and restricted from shared trail use. they should also be licensed and insured.
Huh, I think I've tried to educate as much as anything. I reference the federal definition in HR727, write about the actual congressional hearing notes, bring to light that the state legislation was backed by lobby money, etc. Of coarse this ends up being a debate / argument as there are some that favor the 3-class legislation and some that favor the original federal definition of LSEB as I do. It's just something that I hope gets decided via the petition I submitted to the CPSC (which gets attacked a one person crusade but I would rather have had millions signing it in support).
 
Huh, I think I've tried to educate as much as anything. I reference the federal definition in HR727, write about the actual congressional hearing notes, bring to light that the state legislation was backed by lobby money, etc. Of coarse this ends up being a debate / argument as there are some that favor the 3-class legislation and some that favor the original federal definition of LSEB as I do. It's just something that I hope gets decided via the petition I submitted to the CPSC (which gets attacked a one person crusade but I would rather have had millions signing it in support).
aint happenin bro...

just get out yer checkbook an write the insurance company a big ole fat one.
 
yes, see law/fine #2.

you should try to educate, rather than argue.

1 mph over 20 mph on a shared trail, see law/fine #2.

faster than 20 mph, oughta be classed as a moped and restricted from shared trail use. they should also be licensed and insured.

So manually powered bikes that go faster than 20 mph on shared trail are also prohibited and licensed/insured as a moped?

They are the fastest vehicles on the shared use trails in my area.
 
So manually powered bikes that go faster than 20 mph on shared trail are also prohibited and licensed/insured as a moped?

They are the fastest vehicles on the shared use trails in my area.
For some reason virtually everyone that supports the 3-class legislation thinks the only bikes achieving 20mph are ebikes. It's almost bizarre how that ignorance still exists. Oh and lets not forget that a 20mph pedal-assist does less damage to a trail than a 20mph throttle assist ebike. I really enjoy that that one as it's a favorite of the local land managers and those not willing to ask them for data supporting that assumption.
 
So manually powered bikes that go faster than 20 mph on shared trail are also prohibited and licensed/insured as a moped?

They are the fastest vehicles on the shared use trails in my area.
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.
 
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.
You'll be a popular rider preaching the insurance requirement opinion. Let me guess you work in the insurance industry so you would love the new revenue stream.

As for limiting speed on shared trails....the problem is that an assist cut-off doesn't know what kind of trail you are riding. You suggesting that "manually powered" bikes be limited to 20mph on shared trails. Guess what that is called a speed limit and totally different than the assist limits on 3-class defined ebikes.

There are still 20+ states that have not adopted the meritless 3-class legislation promoted by People for Bikes. Those states essentially leverage the federal definition for LSEBs from 2002. So for almost 20 years they have not had an assist limit speed (power is limited above 20mph which doesn't allow much higher speeds) so you are suggesting that all those CPSC compliant LSEBs/Bikes require insurance. Wow.....that is an extreme position you are taking that I don't think will be popular with any cyclist.
 
Last edited:
So manually powered bikes that go faster than 20 mph on shared trail are also prohibited and licensed/insured as a moped?

They are the fastest vehicles on the shared use trails in my area.
AstroTurf has to work in the insurance industry given the promotion of insurance on any bike capable of 20+ mph which is pretty much any bike given the impact of gravity going down even a mild slope.

I have pointed this out before but a rider without motor assist was able to average over 33mph for an hour. It's one of the reasons I do not rationally understand those that feel that any ebike with assist beyond 20mph is just too fast to be legally ridden on most public land and infrastructure. I again have to say I'm not in favor of ebikes that does not comply with the federal definition of a LSEB to be allowed on public land and infrastructure as a bike. I believe by law the states can not have a more stringent product definition for an LSEB - interstate commerce for 1st sale is simply the domain of the federal safety agencies and not the states (except under special circumstances).
 
Hmm, the EBIKE act. HR 1019, repeats the now well established definitions of class 1,2,3. Now that we have a Senate version being introduced, perhaps you should be addressing the sponsors of these bills on what constitutes an ebike, but I think you are too late.

agreed, if passed this act will essentially drive the adoption of the 3 class system as identification of ebikes and their relative capabilities but more importantly will likely end the CPSC definition for practical purposes related to operation and use and the restrictions on use. it just makes it too convenient and logical for municipalities to use the same 3 classification system when managing access to shared use ways for them to even consider any other approach to managing access.
 
Hmm, the EBIKE act. HR 1019, repeats the now well established definitions of class 1,2,3. Now that we have a Senate version being introduced, perhaps you should be addressing the sponsors of these bills on what constitutes an ebike, but I think you are too late.


I don't believe HR1019 has passed and I sent information to the proposing senators that the CPSC federal definition still controls what is legal for 1st sale in all 50 states so I have no idea how the 3-class system can be referenced in the final bill but I guess will see. Personally I think it will just create more confusion but it's pretty clear that already exists. Are they really going to not allow the tax credit to anyone buying a compliant LSEB in the 20 + states that don't recognize 3-class for their "use" regulations.

Does anyone have an update on the status of this bill? Before it was planned to be put to vote I did notify the sponsors. It was pulled but I have no information on if that was related to what I sent them. I like to think it did because 3-class has nothing to do with what is a compliant ebike for 1st sale in the 50 states (the problem is no one is really paying attention because ebikes are popular politically so not much scrutiny of the bill is my opinion).

Can anyone dispute what definition control 1st sale???
 
Last edited:
Back