People for Bikes Presents 3-Class as "Voluntary" to the CPSC

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Not sure how many noticed that PFBs presented 3-class legislation at a CPSC sponsored micromobility forum as a "Voluntary ebike Standard." I think they are hedging in case the 3-class system does end up getting preempted - they will claim the states adopted as law entirely on their own. I don't understand why someone at the CPSC did not consider the interstate commerce impact of 3-class state legislation during this presentation but claiming it's voluntary was deceptive. PFBs was claiming they pretty much had the entire ebike industry only producing compliant ebikes to a voluntary standard (not true but if no one questions it I guess it is). Here's how they presented 3-class...

VOLUNTARY E-BIKE STANDARDS
» Three class state regulatory system:
» Clarifies an important ambiguity in federal product safety law, which does not specify a maximum pedal-assisted motorized speed that e-bicycles may travel.
» Addresses and enables local government use regulation.

This legislative capture effort by PFBs (more of an industry lobby group now than a bike advocacy organization) should not be viewed as a good way forward for the ebike industry. I hope more ebikers speak out.

I want to point out the two lies of the last 2 bullets. There was/is no ambiguity in the federal product definition on maximum pedal assisted speed because it was crystal clear that the assist power was limited above 20mph per constraints which makes for a much more natural speed control than the cease of assists defined by 3-class (we all need to understand this is a lie). The last bullet states 3-class "enables local government use regulation. Now this is simply an out-fight LIE that should upset everyone. The states have had the right to regulate vehicle use, including bikes and ebikes, long before 3-class legislation was created by People for Bikes (they want us to drink their koolaid and I can't just sit here and not speak out when a so called bike advocacy group out-right lies to everyone).
 
Last edited:

Cowlitz

Well-Known Member
How about starting writing with a definition of acronyms? I understand PFB, as it is in the title, but not the CPwhatever.
 

Ebiker01

Well-Known Member
How about starting writing with a definition of acronyms? I understand PFB, as it is in the title, but not the CPwhatever.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Thanks. I just thought that was a common acronym with the ebike crowd given that is where compliance regulation lies.

I started this tread because I feel it's very very puzzling that PFBs literally presented their 3-class policy legislation as "voluntary." I very much think that they understand that they, nor the states, have legal power to require the bike industry to ship 3-class compliant bikes for 1st sale. When a product is federally regulated the states can no longer define what a compliant product is. If anyone reads the history of the CPSC they will understand why this is important as interstate commerce is a federal enumerated right via the constitution.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Moving in the right direction !

This actually happened back in 2002 but there were a lot of states that had remnants of NHTSA's desire that ebikes be considered motor vehicles. When "'low speed electric bicycles" were passed to CPSC along with the modified definition they were no longer motor vehicles but some people at local levels just can't let go of the past.

One of my biggest ????s is how People for Bikes parses the classes based on motor performance and speed when by definition there really isn't a motor. I understand that seems nonsensical but LSEBs are not motor vehicles and there should be no indication that is not full regulatory reality. Trail managers should not be saying pedal-assist OK and throttle-assist not OK because they are to be USE regulated as a bike. So many have a hard time with this but this is what would be best for anyone that ever buys and rides an ebike but some refuse to even consider what "non motorized" should really mean.