I just point out that a S-pedelec (same as a Class 3 definition) requires both insurance and registration in Europe. I simply think that having different classes provides a foothold for compulsory insurance and registration on class 3 as a starting point. Just common sense to me that the HR727 LSEB definition as same as a bike makes this much less likely (keep in mind this bill was passed by state house and senate representatives one vote short of consensus so why did the states feel so compelled to adopt 3-class legislation that was being pushed by money from the auto industry).For sure, but thats true on normal bikes too, and cyclists have never really had a need for specialized liability insurance. If you have renters or homeowners insurance it does sometimes cover personal liability.
I remain highly skeptical of this threads original premise that the 3 class law is some sort of backdoor way to force insurance on ebikes.
We can sit hear and butt heads on this but I'm just an advocate for the federal definition of a LSEB to be considered just a bike for use regulation by the states. That was the way it was for over 12 years before People for Bikes took that lobby money and draft legislation to push as if they wrote it to clarify and improve safety (nice soundbites but there was no safety data driving the need and 3 classes is not more clear than 1 class).
I have not had time to put out much information about the call with the CPSC on the petition. They would not make a rule making decision because they stated that an LSEB and the state 3-class ebike definitions are not same - in other words an LSEB still exists for legal sale and use as a bike and the 3-class definitions are a state product that manufacturers are free to make voluntarily (not being required for 1st sale by the CPSC because all 3-class are more stringent than the LSEB definition so they are compliant for sale).