Why not speed limits?
- Thread starter retire01022004
- Start date
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:
I'm for access to all cycling infrastructure for all compliant LSEBs. I think safe speed riding is the responsibility of the rider and the cut-off achieve nothing but providing some, like trail managers, peace of mind.Wow, wrong on every level
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?!
Cheer up! Ebikes have access to more riding venues than ever before
I think the reason the 3-class model has been viewed as universal and even controls compliance for sales is because no one is really paying attention. It's very much harmonized with Europe so it all just seems legit. Maybe I'm wrong but I believe an interstate commerce law was crossed when they states required the more stringent elements of the class system (speed cut-offs, ebrakes, speedometer, and even the stickers). I honestly believe the CPSC has to preempt because if they don't they may set a precedent that will prevent them from ever preempting any state unique product definitions (and that applies to all the safety agencies not just the CPSC). I knew nothing about any of this but I was frustrated that pretty much every compliant ebike I purchased (big brands like Izip, Haibike, and Polaris) that were compliant for use in Colorado before 3-class became illegal to be used on any public infrastructure after 3 class was adopted.
Here's a story I haven't detailed before. Colorado was the 2nd state to adopt 3-class legislation and it was done in less than 4 months (maybe 2) because it was a condition for Haibike to move it's US sales headquarters from California to Colorado. Ironically Colorado adopted the ?model legislation? requirement for ebrakes (brakes the prevent assist when a brake is applied that is not required by the CPSC). At that time I owned 2 Haibikes with original retail prices over $5,000 each that do not have ebrakes so they became illegal to ride in Colorado where Haibike is not located. That is what set me on this path because it was a crystal clear example of no one paying attention. The very sad part of this is that most ebikes being sold to this day in Colorado do not have ebrakes and the dealers are telling the customers they are buying a bike they can ride legally. They are riding ILLEGAL bikes and if they hit a pedestrian their ignorance of that fact will not protect them. I have also notified the CPSC of this situation with the intent of making them accountable since they can fix it with a preemption decision.
Instead of attacking me again please take the time to see if that story and information is accurate. How can one of the biggest brands in ebikes with drive systems from the biggest brands be selling ebikes that are not compliant to ride in any state that has a requirement for ebrakes (I know that Colorado, California, and Minnesota require them but haven't research that full adopted policy in all 28/29 3-class states). You may want to also see how Specialized is selling their top of the line class 3 electric road bike without a speedometer in all 50 states (sure seems like they know that 3-class does not control 1st sale compliance but that bike is not legal to ride in any 3-class state that adopted the speedometer requirement of the ?model legislation? which I think is most of the 28/29 states). Sure seems like 3-class is just a clusterfuck of errors but hey everyone loves it.
Last edited:
J.R.
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Piedmont Highlands
There's some logic in that until you realize the financial limitations of most authorities across the US. In my county there are 3 fulltime park rangers to enforce laws and regulations in 5000 acres of park and forest land. That includeds many MTB single track trails, a nearly 30 mile rail trail and an 8 mile trolley trail. The budget is tight now and it would take a lot of tickets to pay for speed control.
There’s definitely some merit to your comment. I suspect that my solution will be more applicable to city and rural areas, not parks. In most of the US, tickets are an income source for local government.
Last edited:
Again...I am just stuck here wondering why we are concerned about trail speed enforcement when the impact of ebikes for urban mobility is so much more important (in my opinion).
Note: If they lack the ability to enforce a trail speed limit then how can then enforce the compliance of the ebikes themselves (i.e. if they are LSEB / Class 1 / Class 2 / Class 3 / off-road).
If a federally compliant LSEB is such a threat on trails then I can't help but think that any bike on that trail is also a treat but that is never discussed. What I think we ALL should be against is a handful of trail managers dictating the product definitions for the industry when I know for a fact they have NO DATA to support their opinions. I know most trail damage is due to erosion and the difference between a pedal-assist vs throttle-assist LSEB if ever studied would show it's not even a statistically significant difference via and study method that could be executed. They have no safety data either other than to say slower is safer which ignores that 99.9% of riders care about their own safety when riding and are not the trail speed demons that seem to come up in these debates frequently.
I would bet that 99% of ebike riders given a chance to ride a Federally compliant LSEB with governed powered above 20mph vs a 3-class compliant ebike with a cut-off at 20mph would pick the LSEB as the better tech implementation and yet the 1% that love the cut-off continue to support that implementation because a few trail managers are zealous about pedelecs with cut-offs.
The bigger picture is urban mobiliy as ebikes are the most efficient form of human transportation ever conceived...given that fact I don't care about what a few trail managers think. I just don't.
Last edited:
Similar threads
