Compulsory insurance "likely" on ebikes if 3-class becomes federal law

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Years of this and people providing proof to you, you haven't moderated in any way. You don't have discussions or debates, you read online and come to your own conclusions and you stick to your own thoughts no matter the proof provided.

You want more adoption of ebikes, yet you scare new ebikers like you did earlier in the thread. You aren't even involved on the local level to effect change for more access. Scare tactics don't motivate or inspire. It's starting from a negative viewpoint and when it's easily disproved you lose credibility.

Many of us are involved and have talked in person to legal experts. There's a massive difference between reading something online and discerning what is meant by a law and actually speaking to lawmakers to understand what a law means. You think you know what the letter and spirit of the law is, I know because I have talked to the lawmakers from both sides, pro and con.

I'm going to leave you to it on this thread to spin it the way you choose. I only posted here when I saw a new ebiker concerned with what you posted.

I would urge anyone with a stake in ebikes to get involved locally. That's where you can make the most difference. You can devote as much time to it as you want. An hour or two a few times a year is all that's needed to get your opinions heard by the powers that be. Two and a half years ago paths and trails banned ebikes statewide where I live. Now they are open as a result of local effort and engaging with lawmakers. We have more access today than most states in the country.

Ken, I hope you have a peaceful day.

Ride safe!
I didn't post this as a scare tactic. The insurance efforts in Europe are/were real so common sense would say they would love compulsory insurance on ebikes here. I know you don't believe 3-class legislation is a potential foothold for the insurance industry but I do not share that opinion. We can simply disagree but my providing the information is not a scare tactic....it's the truth and I think accurately reported by Bike Europe the bike industries largest publication.

You might think locally but the insurance industry just sees another potential cash cow nationally.

The information on the product definitions is from the NHTSA website....not something from an online source. I have learned not to trust much online information (confirmation bias is so easy to find online).
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Don't be obtuse. The model legislation is almost identical to the VA code. It uses the verbage "financial responsibility" to refer to insurance requirements, because that is how laws pertaining to insurance requirements are written. I've already shown this, with links to the code. Continuing to dance around this is just you not wanting to admit you were wrong.
C'mont you wrote you can read it here and pasted the link to the PFBs model legislation that clearly does not have an insurance exemption stated in the provision. It's not there. It may be in the VA law but not in the PFB's model legislation as you claimed it was. You make an incorrect statement....just admit it and stop digging a politician like hole for yourself.
 

jabberwocky

Well-Known Member
C'mont you wrote you can read it here and pasted the link to the PFBs model legislation that clearly does not have an insurance exemption stated in the provision. It's not there. It may be in the VA law but not in the PFB's model legislation as you claimed it was. You make an incorrect statement....just admit it and stop digging a politician like hole for yourself.
Financial responsiblity=insurance. Its right there in the model legislation. Stop being obtuse and admit you were wrong.
 

J.R.

Well-Known Member
Region
USA
Did I claim speed pedelecs were ripped from the ebike class in Europe? No I didn't. It's your lack of comprehension that probably scares more than just new ebikers.
I see you once again edited your post to add an insult after I hit the reply. Link to original. You do this everytime. You'll add edits in the night too, realizing that no one on the thread will go back to read what they already read. Cleanup on aisle 3.

Just so low and dishonest. Bye!

Edit to add/repair broken link.
 
Last edited:

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Don't be obtuse. The model legislation is almost identical to the VA code. It uses the verbage "financial responsibility" to refer to insurance requirements, because that is how laws pertaining to insurance requirements are written. I've already shown this, with links to the code. Continuing to dance around this is just you not wanting to admit you were wrong.
Me being obtuse??

You claimed an insurance exemption was in the PFBs model legislation and it's not. Obtuse is all the sidebar things you are claiming. I'm fine just letting this go and allowing others to decide for themselves if there is potential that compulsory insurance on ebike is more likely with 3-class legislation.
 

jabberwocky

Well-Known Member
Me being obtuse??

You claimed an insurance exemption was in the PFBs model legislation and it's not. Obtuse is all the sidebar things you are claiming. I'm fine just letting this go and allowing others to decide for themselves if there is potential that compulsory insurance on ebike is more likely with 3-class legislation.

But it very clearly is. The model legislation is written to coordinate with existing state laws, which don't actually have an insurance requirement. They have a financial responsibility requirement, and insurance is a way to satisfy that. If you wanted to adopt legislation that exempted ebikes from insurance, you would say that all sections pertaining to financial responsibility don't apply. Which is literally what the PFB model legislation says.

Saying that it doesn't exempt ebikes from insurance because it doesn't have the word insurance in it is, at this point, being deliberately obtuse. Laws aren't written to satisfy internet cranks, they use specific terms that you need to learn the definition of. Financial responsibility is a legally defined term in the code of VA.

You were and are wrong. Your deliberate misunderstanding of the law doesn't change that.
 

rich c

Well-Known Member
ALL discussions about class systems and laws are all mute until your municipality institutes an enforcement program. In our area, no police departments have the personnel to stop bicycles for a dyno test for motor wattage, radar stations to check speed, nor see if you would have an insurance card.
 

tomjasz

Well-Known Member
Blather and conjecture all round. I’m firmly in the camp that believes the asshats on 29MPH and faster bikes will eventually draw attention and then the regulations will toughen and I expect some state like MA and their tough moped refs will spread through the eBike world. All the banter and opinions here will be moot. Will have little if any relevance.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
I see you once again edited your post to add an insult after I hit the reply. Link to original. You do this everytime. You'll add edits in the night too, realizing that no one on the thread will go back to read what they already read. Cleanup on aisle 3.

Just so low and dishonest. Bye!

Edit to add/repair broken link.
I edited the post but not the content you are claiming I changed. I edited the title by adding likely instead of making it sound certain. Clearly I just don't want there to be an easy foothold for compulsory insurance on ebikes which is something there should be universal agreement on (unless you work for an insurance company).
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
But it very clearly is. The model legislation is written to coordinate with existing state laws, which don't actually have an insurance requirement. They have a financial responsibility requirement, and insurance is a way to satisfy that. If you wanted to adopt legislation that exempted ebikes from insurance, you would say that all sections pertaining to financial responsibility don't apply. Which is literally what the PFB model legislation says.

Saying that it doesn't exempt ebikes from insurance because it doesn't have the word insurance in it is, at this point, being deliberately obtuse. Laws aren't written to satisfy internet cranks, they use specific terms that you need to learn the definition of. Financial responsibility is a legally defined term in the code of VA.

You were and are wrong. Your deliberate misunderstanding of the law doesn't change that.
I could be wrong but I believe if I hit someone's car on my ebike and it's my fault I am financially responsible for the damage even though insurance is not mandated. The financial responsibility is still on the rider even without compulsory insurance. That said, I do think the insurance industry efforts in Europe speak for themselves - they would like compulsory insurance on ebikes in the US. Why is saying that such a big no no?
 

jabberwocky

Well-Known Member
I could be wrong but I believe if I hit someone's car on my ebike and it's my fault I am financially responsible for the damage even though insurance is not mandated. The financial responsibility is still on the rider even without compulsory insurance. That said, I do think the insurance industry efforts in Europe speak for themselves - they would like compulsory insurance on ebikes in the US. Why is saying that such a big no no?
Sure, same as on a bike, or skateboard, or as a pedestrian. Stricter financial responsibility requirements on motor vehicles is a result of the fact that the damage they do is so much higher than lighter vehicles like bicycles.

Yeah, its within the realm of possibility someday someone may push for financial liability requirements on ebikes. Or all bikes. Laws can change. Absent some big catalyst I just don't see it happening in the US. Keeping track of the legal scene is literally why we have advocacy orgs like PFB (or WABA, or any other number of regional groups). Absent some sort of evidence that such a thing is being considered in any fashion in the US, going on about potential insurance requirements is simply fearmongering.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Years of this and people providing proof to you, you haven't moderated in any way. You don't have discussions or debates, you read online and come to your own conclusions and you stick to your own thoughts no matter the proof provided.

You want more adoption of ebikes, yet you scare new ebikers like you did earlier in the thread. You aren't even involved on the local level to effect change for more access. Scare tactics don't motivate or inspire. It's starting from a negative viewpoint and when it's easily disproved you lose credibility.

Many of us are involved and have talked in person to legal experts. There's a massive difference between reading something online and discerning what is meant by a law and actually speaking to lawmakers to understand what a law means. You think you know what the letter and spirit of the law is, I know because I have talked to the lawmakers from both sides, pro and con.

I'm going to leave you to it on this thread to spin it the way you choose. I only posted here when I saw a new ebiker concerned with what you posted.

I would urge anyone with a stake in ebikes to get involved locally. That's where you can make the most difference. You can devote as much time to it as you want. An hour or two a few times a year is all that's needed to get your opinions heard by the powers that be. Two and a half years ago paths and trails banned ebikes statewide where I live. Now they are open as a result of local effort and engaging with lawmakers. We have more access today than most states in the country.

Ken, I hope you have a peaceful day.

Ride safe!
Just so you know I have reached out to dozen of so called "legal experts" about ebike regulations. Almost every ebike regulation article published online by a lawyer I have either called or written to. Most seem to agree that there is a grey area between federal definition laws and state use laws but in general the states just accept the federal definitions and strictly stay to "use" regulations.

I don't claim to be a legal expert but when I read HR727 and it states that a LSEB is same as a bicycle and safety regulated as such then I take that literally. Therefore I think they must be state "use" regulated as just any other bike. There are plenty of legal comments about ebikes being more like a bike than a motor vehicle to justify what is stated in HR727. If LSEBs were "use" regulated as a bike then there is no merit to the 3-class system. I understand you believe it provided path and trail access in some local areas but I highly doubt they would have banned all bikes if LSEBs were treated as a bike for their use consideration. It's my opinion and why I think the 3-class legislation is not best for long term ebike adoption.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Sure, same as on a bike, or skateboard, or as a pedestrian. Stricter financial responsibility requirements on motor vehicles is a result of the fact that the damage they do is so much higher than lighter vehicles like bicycles.

Yeah, its within the realm of possibility someday someone may push for financial liability requirements on ebikes. Or all bikes. Laws can change. Absent some big catalyst I just don't see it happening in the US. Keeping track of the legal scene is literally why we have advocacy orgs like PFB (or WABA, or any other number of regional groups). Absent some sort of evidence that such a thing is being considered in any fashion in the US, going on about potential insurance requirements is simply fearmongering.
I hope you are right. I guess I lack trust that the insurance industry will not repeat their efforts in Europe here. Keep in mind they were successful getting compulsory insurance on speed pedelecs in Europe which are the equivalent to a Class 3 ebike here (that why I believe it's a potential foothold for them...I hope I'm dead wrong but I'm still hoping the 3-class legislation is preempted entirely).
 

J.R.

Well-Known Member
Region
USA
I don't claim to be a legal expert but when I read HR727 and it states that a LSEB is same as a bicycle and safety regulated as such then I take that literally. Therefore I think they must be state "use
I'm going to make a good faith effort to try to inform you.

You make the argument that the CPSC "owns the regulations for the first sale". You have to agree with that statement because you've said it for years. You say the CPSC has total control of the original sale and states can regulate use. And the sale of a LSEB is to be treated the same as a bike. A bike is a bike. Where does the CPSC state that the bikes cannot be divided for use regulations? I understand you don't think that makes sense. I understand you think they shouldn't be divided or separated into classes, but where does the federal government say they can't be divided into classes for use regulations? For that matter where does the federal government say it's against the law for a local municipal authority to say drop bar road bikes are banned from a bike path. It might not be fair, it might not be 'right', but what removes a local authority from the legal right to say what's allowed and what is not? If a majority of a community wants to restrict a path from certain vehicles, they can. We might not like it, but that doesn't make it illegal. Communities across the country ban skateboarding and skating on paths. Kick scooters are often banned. It's not illegal to divide, parse, class conveyance devices. Set aside all the things you say the 3 class law can't enforce, like speedometers, lights, throttle or whatever. For a minute we are just talking what is allowed access and what local authorities can and can't allow.
 

TrailSeeker

Active Member
Region
USA
I love reading these arguments. I think having a little back and forth is healthy, especially in educating the community on e-bike laws (even if they do change in the future).

I won't butt in anymore, but was curious - are you guys/gals all attorneys and/or work in the insurance industry 🤔? You all seem very informed on this stuff.

Please continue... I just wanted to know for reference (also I know these are public forums, so no harm done if you prefer not to say or would rather pm).

Thanks!
 

m@Robertson

Well-Known Member
Region
USA
The failure of the EU's ebike insurance attempt had nothing to do with the insurance industry and everything to do with the Commission responsible for making the recommendation doing what the EU does best - trying to regulate the bejesus out of everyday European life. Their recommendation was so out of touch with reality and what would have been the consequence of bringing the recommendation into law (They recommended ALL ebikes be required to carry insurance) that this was one of the few times the member states more or less universally opted out of accepting the recommendation and the matter died out.

To reinforce and restate: ALL THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY LOBBYING IN THE WORLD - assuming it existed which it did not - would have done nothing to enable acceptance of this proposed law.

Ebike insurance for L1e-B's (speed pedelecs) was a foregone conclusion as they are classed as mopeds, subject to Type Approval and many other things that, in that part of the world, put such an ebike into a whole different class of transportation device. Again nothing to do with the subject supposedly at hand.

More utter BS from @Ken M, who lives to peddle same.
 
Last edited:

m@Robertson

Well-Known Member
Region
USA
... we all know that the insurance industry loves compulsory coverage (they can say we are required to have our hands in your pockets).

I would prefer one federal definition for a LSEB as a bike to minimize any chance of compulsory insurance on ebikes. I'm fighting htat battle now because they will get what they want if 3-class becomes federal law.
As someone in the insurance industry (at the company level who has designed rate plans and rates, and has worked with all of the various states who individually regulate the industry), I can say this is complete nonsense. We HATE compulsory insurance because that means we have to give coverage regardless of the risk factors. We want to underwrite (judge) a risk (person and their usage/storage situation) and arrive at a price that is tailored to our risk. OR walk away because we can't help but lose big on bad-risk drivers.

Compulsory insurance has compulsory rates (to enable affordability) that prevents us from pricing to suit the risk. So we literally lose our ass on coverages of this type. Take automobile insurance as an example in the USA which is the sole form of compulsory vehicle insurance in this country. There is such a thing as the Assigned Risk pool. Lets say it costs $2000 a year to have a policy like that (which is about right here in California). With minimum liability limits of about $35,000 (California) to $75,000 in most states... you do the math and figure out how many policies it takes to pay off just one claim. This is why they call it "Assigned" risk because the state assigns each driver to a pool of all insurance companies... because otherwise we'd all run screaming in the other direction. So they hand a number to each company that is a quota the company must fill without argument.

We want nothing to do with it. Regulations out the wazoo for a whole new class of regulated product nobody knows how to price, and we already have ways to make money selling insurance people actually want.
 
Last edited:

Ken M

Well-Known Member
I'm going to make a good faith effort to try to inform you.

You make the argument that the CPSC "owns the regulations for the first sale". You have to agree with that statement because you've said it for years. You say the CPSC has total control of the original sale and states can regulate use. And the sale of a LSEB is to be treated the same as a bike. A bike is a bike. Where does the CPSC state that the bikes cannot be divided for use regulations? I understand you don't think that makes sense. I understand you think they shouldn't be divided or separated into classes, but where does the federal government say they can't be divided into classes for use regulations? For that matter where does the federal government say it's against the law for a local municipal authority to say drop bar road bikes are banned from a bike path. It might not be fair, it might not be 'right', but what removes a local authority from the legal right to say what's allowed and what is not? If a majority of a community wants to restrict a path from certain vehicles, they can. We might not like it, but that doesn't make it illegal. Communities across the country ban skateboarding and skating on paths. Kick scooters are often banned. It's not illegal to divide, parse, class conveyance devices. Set aside all the things you say the 3 class law can't enforce, like speedometers, lights, throttle or whatever. For a minute we are just talking what is allowed access and what local authorities can and can't allow.
Good question actually. The problem is dividing classes in such a way that they must be so configured prior to entry into interstate commerce. States have been allowed to require having a light installed for night riding and requiring helmets as deemed necessary. But the states were told they would be preempted if they tried to require lights to be installed on any/every bike prior to entry into interstate commerce. That makes sense to me because for 100+ years bikes haven't had the cost burden of requiring lights even though riding at night without a light is clearly more dangerous (the CPSC is not trying to entirely protect us from stupid behavior and bikes are obviously inherently dangerous only having 2 wheels in most designs).

Don't we need some harmony between what is compliant for sale throughout the US and what is allowed for use by the states (the states still have the right to literally ban the use of any product defined by the feds)? It is my understanding that this is one of the reasons industry / business generally supported the creation of the safety agencies (to stop the practice of states having unique product definitions that could be sold legally). I believe PFBs is claiming NY is now a 3-class legislation state but it's my understanding their class 3 is a throttle bike limited to 25mph (that is actually compliant to the LSEB definition so long as the speed above 20mph is generated via rider power being additive to what would sustain a 170lb rider on a level surface at 20mph). The problem is that is a configuration that can only be provided priort to 1st sale (unless the OEMs want to allow customers the flexibility to program the assist algorithms after purchase (that isn't going to happen for warranty reasons and the liability is could place on the OEMs).

I was not going to submit a petition to the CPSC until I felt I had a good understanding of interstate commerce and federal and state regulatory standing along with a precedent decision. Honestly this was the document I read that I feel made it clear that the PFBs 3-class legislation was a violation of interstate commerce law. Honestly a great read given it's a legal document: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2262&context=vlr

You can verify the reasons given by PFBs for drafting and promoting the 3-class legislation (they claim for clarity and safety yet was there any safety data in 2016 on ebikes showing a higher degree of issues vs traditional bikes and clearly clarity claims have zero merit because going from one class/definition to 3 is clearly not more clear). They tend to now leverage one of your claims that the separation of throttle-assist from pedal assist class 1 ebikes provided all the trail access we enjoy. Sorry I just don't buy into that because I'm an engineer and there is no difference on a trail between a pedal-assist vs throttle-assist drive system (local trail manager perceptions because of past motor vehicles tearing up trails is a non-starter and lacks any technical legitimacy).

I don't view this a simple topic. I think the interpretation of the LSEB definition in HR727 is a bit complex because the NHTSA made it crystal clear they would not release ebikes from motor vehicle status unless motor alone speed was not over 20mph. So being a PhD electrical engineer Dr. Currie came up with a way to limit the motor power at 20mph and allow that power to remain assisting when the rider adds power to go faster than 20mph (the reason I claim that clearly class 1 and 2 are more stringent than the federal definition which the rare expressed preemptive clause in HR727 restricts).

I'm not by any means a constitutional scholar or legal expert but I do know that the federal government has the enumerated right to regulate interstate commerce. The vast majority of time the feds define a legal product for sale in all 50 states it legal to use (with use restrictions) in all 50 states. Right now a compliant LSEB can be sold in the 28+ states that have adopted 3-class legislation that is not legal to ride on any public infrastructure and I find that irrational in almost every way. I have a Polaris Diesel that was 100% federally compliant and legal to ride on Colorado infrastructure prior to 3-class and now it's not legal to ride because the throttle assists past 20mph but will only go faster than 20mph if I'm adding power (that allowed it to be federally compliant - I call one of the state lawmakers that drafted the Colorado bill and he was entirely unaware they did this and admitted they should have had at least one technical person on the committee (they just accepted that PFBs had done their homework....big mistake in my opinion).



The CPSC does have some flexibility on definition policy when a product is only used in a specific state or there are exceptional needs (like the California smog problem). What I found really interesting was just how rare the "expressed preemption" clause in HR727 is. You can verify this if you want but it's only been used like 10 times by the CPSC on over 10,000 regulated products (I understand they stopped using it years ago because the states found it over-bearing but I haven't done enough research on that). But bikes were one of the first products regulated by the CPSC and Dr. Currie sure seems to have had the political capital to have slipped that into HR727 in 2002 as a way to keep states away from trying to alter his definition for a compliant LSEB (he deserves all ebiker's respect because he was the reason ebikes were pulled for NHTSA and transferred to CPSC jurisdiction - that alone is huge moving forward because the motor vehicle requirement would impact ebike costs dramatically and kill adoption rate).

There are many many bike designs but so long as they comply with the basic definition they have been considered a bike for state use regulations going back many decades (when on the street or a designated bike lane traffic laws for motor vehicles are applied as part of state "use" requirements including speed limits).
 

J.R.

Well-Known Member
Region
USA
I'm going to make a good faith effort to try to inform you.

You make the argument that the CPSC "owns the regulations for the first sale". You have to agree with that statement because you've said it for years. You say the CPSC has total control of the original sale and states can regulate use. And the sale of a LSEB is to be treated the same as a bike. A bike is a bike. Where does the CPSC state that the bikes cannot be divided for use regulations? I understand you don't think that makes sense. I understand you think they shouldn't be divided or separated into classes, but where does the federal government say they can't be divided into classes for use regulations? For that matter where does the federal government say it's against the law for a local municipal authority to say drop bar road bikes are banned from a bike path. It might not be fair, it might not be 'right', but what removes a local authority from the legal right to say what's allowed and what is not? If a majority of a community wants to restrict a path from certain vehicles, they can. We might not like it, but that doesn't make it illegal. Communities across the country ban skateboarding and skating on paths. Kick scooters are often banned. It's not illegal to divide, parse, class conveyance devices. Set aside all the things you say the 3 class law can't enforce, like speedometers, lights, throttle or whatever. For a minute we are just talking what is allowed access and what local authorities can and can't allow.
I should add that no state that adopted the 3 class law has banned the sale of any ebike. You can buy any ebike you want in these states. The classes come into play when the rubber meets the public road.

If there are differences in what states require as standard equipment on public infrastructure, the most likely outcome is an addendum to state or federal requirements. For instance, can anyone argue a speedometer on a 28 mph bike is a bad thing? Unsafe? When the CPSC wrote those specs in 2002, ebikes had difficulty in reaching 15 mph. Local speed limits can be as low as 15 to 25mph. Makes sense to have a speedometer and the CPSC would likely adjust their specs. Other compromises would likely happen without anyone but manufactures knowing it.

The people makeup the federal and local governments. More states have 3 class than not. A few have no law and ebikes are motor vehicles. A few have a modified 2 class law. It'll be up to the feds to adjust and compromise with the majority of the country. If the feds make a good case about safety, I'm sure the states will compromise.

I have been involved in a couple political battles and this one is more evident than most that the will of the people are actually winning. People want ebikes and they want access. Spoiler alert: it's actually happening!
 

J.R.

Well-Known Member
Region
USA
Good question actually. The problem is dividing classes in such a way that they must be so configured prior to entry into interstate commerce. States have been allowed to require having a light installed for night riding and requiring helmets as deemed necessary. But the states were told they would be preempted if they tried to require lights to be installed on any/every bike prior to entry into interstate commerce. That makes sense to me because for 100+ years bikes haven't had the cost burden of requiring lights even though riding at night without a light is clearly more dangerous (the CPSC is not trying to entirely protect us from stupid behavior and bikes are obviously inherently dangerous only having 2 wheels in most designs).

Don't we need some harmony between what is compliant for sale throughout the US and what is allowed for use by the states (the states still have the right to literally ban the use of any product defined by the feds)? It is my understanding that this is one of the reasons industry / business generally supported the creation of the safety agencies (to stop the practice of states having unique product definitions that could be sold legally). I believe PFBs is claiming NY is now a 3-class legislation state but it's my understanding their class 3 is a throttle bike limited to 25mph (that is actually compliant to the LSEB definition so long as the speed above 20mph is generated via rider power being additive to what would sustain a 170lb rider on a level surface at 20mph). The problem is that is a configuration that can only be provided priort to 1st sale (unless the OEMs want to allow customers the flexibility to program the assist algorithms after purchase (that isn't going to happen for warranty reasons and the liability is could place on the OEMs).

I was not going to submit a petition to the CPSC until I felt I had a good understanding of interstate commerce and federal and state regulatory standing along with a precedent decision. Honestly this was the document I read that I feel made it clear that the PFBs 3-class legislation was a violation of interstate commerce law. Honestly a great read given it's a legal document: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2262&context=vlr

You can verify the reasons given by PFBs for drafting and promoting the 3-class legislation (they claim for clarity and safety yet was there any safety data in 2016 on ebikes showing a higher degree of issues vs traditional bikes and clearly clarity claims have zero merit because going from one class/definition to 3 is clearly not more clear). They tend to now leverage one of your claims that the separation of throttle-assist from pedal assist class 1 ebikes provided all the trail access we enjoy. Sorry I just don't buy into that because I'm an engineer and there is no difference on a trail between a pedal-assist vs throttle-assist drive system (local trail manager perceptions because of past motor vehicles tearing up trails is a non-starter and lacks any technical legitimacy).

I don't view this a simple topic. I think the interpretation of the LSEB definition in HR727 is a bit complex because the NHTSA made it crystal clear they would not release ebikes from motor vehicle status unless motor alone speed was not over 20mph. So being a PhD electrical engineer Dr. Currie came up with a way to limit the motor power at 20mph and allow that power to remain assisting when the rider adds power to go faster than 20mph (the reason I claim that clearly class 1 and 2 are more stringent than the federal definition which the rare expressed preemptive clause in HR727 restricts).

I'm not by any means a constitutional scholar or legal expert but I do know that the federal government has the enumerated right to regulate interstate commerce. The vast majority of time the feds define a legal product for sale in all 50 states it legal to use (with use restrictions) in all 50 states. Right now a compliant LSEB can be sold in the 28+ states that have adopted 3-class legislation that is not legal to ride on any public infrastructure and I find that irrational in almost every way. I have a Polaris Diesel that was 100% federally compliant and legal to ride on Colorado infrastructure prior to 3-class and now it's not legal to ride because the throttle assists past 20mph but will only go faster than 20mph if I'm adding power (that allowed it to be federally compliant - I call one of the state lawmakers that drafted the Colorado bill and he was entirely unaware they did this and admitted they should have had at least one technical person on the committee (they just accepted that PFBs had done their homework....big mistake in my opinion).



The CPSC does have some flexibility on definition policy when a product is only used in a specific state or there are exceptional needs (like the California smog problem). What I found really interesting was just how rare the "expressed preemption" clause in HR727 is. You can verify this if you want but it's only been used like 10 times by the CPSC on over 10,000 regulated products (I understand they stopped using it years ago because the states found it over-bearing but I haven't done enough research on that). But bikes were one of the first products regulated by the CPSC and Dr. Currie sure seems to have had the political capital to have slipped that into HR727 in 2002 as a way to keep states away from trying to alter his definition for a compliant LSEB (he deserves all ebiker's respect because he was the reason ebikes were pulled for NHTSA and transferred to CPSC jurisdiction - that alone is huge moving forward because the motor vehicle requirement would impact ebike costs dramatically and kill adoption rate).

There are many many bike designs but so long as they comply with the basic definition they have been considered a bike for state use regulations going back many decades (when on the street or a designated bike lane traffic laws for motor vehicles are applied as part of state "use" requirements including speed limits).
I anticipated some if that in my answer above. Sellers can sell and buyers can buy those bikes in 3 class states. It's the same for motocross motorcycles. An urban dweller can buy a motocross bike with nowhere to legally ride it. You haven't refuted my post. No commerce issue involved. People actually buy things that are regulated or banned in the future. They maybe legal in the next county or state, yet banned for use for some. You can buy it, but you need a privately owned place to use it. Ken, I know you don't like it, but it's not illegal. The will of the people.