Why not speed limits?

[J.R.]

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.

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.

 

[Ken M]

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.

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.

 

[J.R.]

Why is the age important? It was prior to the 3-class legislation so had to be referring to the federal statutes.

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.

I believe a law professional asking the AG for a legal opinion is an official review and statement.

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.

yet it does imply local politicians still have on usage.

It doesn't imply it, it states it very clearly.

the documents indicates that a compliant LSEB

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]

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.

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.

 

[Ken M]

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.

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).

 

[Ken M]

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.

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).

 

[Ken M]

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.

 

[AstroTurf]

is this thread still alive?

kill it before it breeds!!!

LOLz

 

[Ken M]

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).

 

[AstroTurf]

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.

 

[Widgets]

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.

 

[rawlus]

spandex bikers are the worst.

 

[Ken M]

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.

 

[AstroTurf]

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...

 

[Ken M]

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).

 

[AstroTurf]

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.

 

[Ken M]

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).

 

[AstroTurf]

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.

 

[Widgets]

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.

 

[Ken M]

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.