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.
Why not speed limits?
- Thread starter retire01022004
- Start date
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:
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).
harryS
Well-Known Member
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.
Text - H.R.1019 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): E-BIKE Act
Text for H.R.1019 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): E-BIKE Act
www.congress.gov
rawlus
Active Member
- Region
- USA
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.
Text - H.R.1019 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): E-BIKE Act
Text for H.R.1019 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): E-BIKE Actwww.congress.gov
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.
Text - H.R.1019 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): E-BIKE Act
Text for H.R.1019 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): E-BIKE Actwww.congress.gov
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:
Yes it's a FEDERAL tax credit and the federal definition for a compliant ebike is owned by the CPSC. They define what is compliant for 1st sale and they don't care if it's a 3-class product or any other model so long as it complies with their definition.
What is ironic about that is that if all 3 classes are just ridable as a bike then the parsing of the classes has no merit. That has been one of my primary complaints about that state legislation especially when People for Bikes, who drafted the legislation, actually had the recommendation on their website for a while recommending states to allow all 3 classes as just a bike on all trails and infrastructure (that was removed because someone there must have realized how silly that looked - create 3 class and then tell all states they should be "use" regulated the same. Obviously it's legislation that just was not well thought out by a very small group of people.
Looks like the Titanic or same ending.
I can not emphasize enough how important it is that class 3 ebikes only have pedal-assist systems because a throttle in bike lanes and on roads would just be too dangerous given that motorcyccles and mopeds using that infrastructure have them. When you see logic like that ... it's a ship that should be sunk.
Oh, and let's not forget the logic of separating two classes based only on pedal-assist or throttle-assist with the only justification being that a handful of trail managers think throttle-assist ebikes do more damage to trails that have no data to back up their opinion. We complain about legislators not thinking laws thru but the class system came from a bike advocacy group that didn't think anything thru because lobby money was on the table.
I can not emphasize enough how important it is that class 3 ebikes only have pedal-assist systems because a throttle in bike lanes and on roads would just be too dangerous given that motorcyccles and mopeds using that infrastructure have them. When you see logic like that ... it's a ship that should be sunk.
Oh, and let's not forget the logic of separating two classes based only on pedal-assist or throttle-assist with the only justification being that a handful of trail managers think throttle-assist ebikes do more damage to trails that have no data to back up their opinion. We complain about legislators not thinking laws thru but the class system came from a bike advocacy group that didn't think anything thru because lobby money was on the table.
Last edited:
It that Trail Manager Don Quixote saving the trails with the class system and preaching the virtues of class 1 only?
I think you know that the class system was poorly conceived and entirely unnecessary but you must have been involved with it's creation or promotion so you just can't consider it should be tossed out. No one technical would consider assist cut-offs as a good way to address top bike speed concerns. I'm sorry there really is no nice way to say that differently. It denies much better tech ways to address speed such as the definition from 2002 that governs power above 20mph. Amazing that an engineer was more enlightened than those at People for Bikes that wrote the class system more than 10 years later (maybe they should have considered having an engineer in that room).
Last edited:
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
I am the boogeyman! Boo!
I actaully wasn't trying to be funny or mean. I really do want to know if you are associated with People for Bikes. I suspect that some of those sending anti-petition comments are representatives at People for Bikes that don't want to engage in a real debate on 3-class vs the federal definition. Technically there really is not merit to slicing the federal definition into sub-set classes to satisfy a few trail managers that don't want to learn about the tech.I am the boogeyman! Boo!
jabberwocky
Well-Known Member
"People disagreeing with me online are secret agents of the shadowy world of bike advocacy" certainly seems much more likely than "your ideas aren't as popular as you think and/or you aren't a very effective advocate for them".
Last edited:
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
You are paranoid. You accuse people of being in the insurance industry and people seriptisiously posting for P4B. You aren't paying attention to previous posts. You don't want open discussions, you only want to preach the word... your word. That's why I switched to humor. Because it's all become silly to me. It's really not a good idea to try and demonize people. When you resort to making it personal, you've lost the argument.
Paranoid?? I just asked if you work for PFBs as it's just a bit odd that no one from that organization has entered a single post on EBR on the speed limits vs cut-offs / petition / 3-class vs Fed definition / etc. I'm not paranoid ... I'm just curious why and wondering if they post anonymously. You could just write yes or no.
Is it paranoid to ask why PFBs presented 3-class legislation as industry "voluntary" at a recent CPSC webinar they participated in? You can listed to the presentation on CPSC's website. Do the 28 states that have adoption 3-class consider it "voluntary" compliance?
I do tend to think that anyone wanting required insurance on bikes or LSEBs has to work in that industry. Do you know any bike riders that are in favor of mandatory insurance on bikes?
Once insurance enters an industry the injury chasing lawyers follow. That is just a simple truth.
Your arguments against the preemption have almost exclusively been focused on the assumption that trail access will be lost even though the recent DOI order default position is that all compliant LSEBs are allowed anyplace a tradition bike is permitted. I would be happy to debate if that is relevant and over-rides some of the local trail managers of federal land. I think it does. If the feds wanted LSEBs "use" treated differently by the states vs a bike they could have just left them under NHTSA and there would be no question they are not a "bike."
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
Wow, wrong on every level
I support ebike access for all cycling infrastructure.In every Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management document on the issue, all 3 classes are mentioned and explained, with special limitations on class 2. 1 and 3 specifically state are pedal assist only. Local land managers can ban them all, with reason. Seems precedent setting.
How could that be?!
asks the CPSCCheer up! Ebikes have access to more riding venues than ever before
Last edited:
Similar threads
