Statement Regarding Potential CPSC Ebike Law Preemption of 3-class Legislation

Nutella

Active Member
I'm not a fan of the Class system primarily since the differences between all three classes are imperceptible to the naked eye and impossible to regulate. It makes legislators and land manager feel better by dictating which classes are allowed where, but IME, users just ignore it all and buy what they'd like and ride them whereever. I'd guess that half of the ebikes I see on MUTs aren't "legal" ebikes, yet it's working out ok. The two class system in Europe is much better I think, mostly because it's really just a single class, there are heavy fines for selling something that isn't legal, and it's low enough power that no one needs to police it.

Anyway, this is an interesting academic discussion, but the only thing I see affecting future access is riders behavior, not how you define what they are riding.

For the record, PFB only wants to sell bikes and is fully funded by the industry, no need to make donations. https://www.bicycleretailer.com/ann...uppliers-association-one-unified#.YHC2nehKhaQ
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
I'm not a fan of the Class system primarily since the differences between all three classes are imperceptible to the naked eye and impossible to regulate. It makes legislators and land manager feel better by dictating which classes are allowed where, but IME, users just ignore it all and buy what they'd like and ride them whereever. I'd guess that half of the ebikes I see on MUTs aren't "legal" ebikes, yet it's working out ok. The two class system in Europe is much better I think, mostly because it's really just a single class, there are heavy fines for selling something that isn't legal, and it's low enough power that no one needs to police it.

Anyway, this is an interesting academic discussion, but the only thing I see affecting future access is riders behavior, not how you define what they are riding.

For the record, PFB only wants to sell bikes and is fully funded by the industry, no need to make donations. https://www.bicycleretailer.com/ann...uppliers-association-one-unified#.YHC2nehKhaQ
Most think that the class system fixed a problem that didn't exist. 750W below 20mph and restricting power above 20mph was purposeful and was working great. Some powerful non-federally compliant ebikes were causing issues but that could have been resolved without creating a "class system." Leave it to an advocacy group to invent enforcement by stickers.
 

J.R.

Well-Known Member
Yep, the classes only opened up ~2 million acres of state land where I live that were closed to ebikes before. Land that all taxpayers in the state pay for and have a say in how it is used. Public meetings where all were welcome to express their opinions and concerns. Compromises were made by all... but that's not good enough. Let's go back to the old way where we ride in the street.

Here's the funny part, PA doesn't yet have the 3 class law. The 2014 law closely aligns with the CPSC definition, and it isn't working here. The law that banned all ebikes from paths, trails, MUP's. So the state uses the Class 1 description because its ubiquitous, but because the classes aren't codified in law, everywhere it states class 1 ebikes are allowed it has to define what a class 1 ebike is. That is likely to change, as the state legislature is debating the 3 class law now.

 

ngl

Member
Region
USA
City
Northern LP, MI
IMO the three class system is a unmitigated disaster, marketing applied to law instead of using some more sensible art as the basis for law, like oh, I dunno, physics. The difference between a class 1 and a 2 is basically who can ride the thing, so more or less codified discrimination against the disabled, that's just wonderful. The difference between 1&2 and 3 is a speed sensor limitation, which can and is being defeated by users on the 1's and 2's because it's a artificial distinction without a practical difference, which is not even available as a speed or access mode to disabled users at all. The ADA should sue the pants off these ebike companies, the AG's that adopted this legislation. The bike was a marvelous invention, and the ebike is a sea changing incremental improvement on that model that physically levels the playing field for *all* bicycle users young and old, able bodied or not. If the problem is speed, then make road style bikes, velomobiles, or basically anything that helps efficiency and saves energy illegal - or, perhaps more sensibly, put up speed limit signs and enforcement. If the problem is power or weight such as may be the case on soft trails, then a power or weight restriction makes *sense*. I seem to recall seeing weight restrictions on bridges for this reason. Logical. Fire the marketing director in charge of law writing and lobbying ;)

My personal feeling is that for an all age, all user, all access bicycle the power limit doesn't need to be so high. I think we can make do with a 2nd tier cyclist pedaling for us or along side us at 250-350w. The way the CPSC did that trick with the 20 mph power limit is basically low-key genius though, because it accounts for power to weight variations that would occur for bikes intended for users of heavier tricycles that may have balance issues, etc. I have throttle bikes, cadence sensor bikes, and now just got a torque sensor assist bike. I don't want or need a throttle and I can say that I vastly *prefer* the torque assist, it is the best freaking thing since sliced bread! But also, my legs work. If they didn't, and I was rendered a second class cyclist because of some lobby group that was high on their own supply, I'd be pissed.

Ken, I have low hopes that the law can or will be made sensible in any way at this stage with the big money behind creating a new bicycle class system of have's and have-not's, but good effort!
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
IMO the three class system is a unmitigated disaster, marketing applied to law instead of using some more sensible art as the basis for law, like oh, I dunno, physics. The difference between a class 1 and a 2 is basically who can ride the thing, so more or less codified discrimination against the disabled, that's just wonderful. The difference between 1&2 and 3 is a speed sensor limitation, which can and is being defeated by users on the 1's and 2's because it's a artificial distinction without a practical difference, which is not even available as a speed or access mode to disabled users at all. The ADA should sue the pants off these ebike companies, the AG's that adopted this legislation. The bike was a marvelous invention, and the ebike is a sea changing incremental improvement on that model that physically levels the playing field for *all* bicycle users young and old, able bodied or not. If the problem is speed, then make road style bikes, velomobiles, or basically anything that helps efficiency and saves energy illegal - or, perhaps more sensibly, put up speed limit signs and enforcement. If the problem is power or weight such as may be the case on soft trails, then a power or weight restriction makes *sense*. I seem to recall seeing weight restrictions on bridges for this reason. Logical. Fire the marketing director in charge of law writing and lobbying ;)

My personal feeling is that for an all age, all user, all access bicycle the power limit doesn't need to be so high. I think we can make do with a 2nd tier cyclist pedaling for us or along side us at 250-350w. The way the CPSC did that trick with the 20 mph power limit is basically low-key genius though, because it accounts for power to weight variations that would occur for bikes intended for users of heavier tricycles that may have balance issues, etc. I have throttle bikes, cadence sensor bikes, and now just got a torque sensor assist bike. I don't want or need a throttle and I can say that I vastly *prefer* the torque assist, it is the best freaking thing since sliced bread! But also, my legs work. If they didn't, and I was rendered a second class cyclist because of some lobby group that was high on their own supply, I'd be pissed.

Ken, I have low hopes that the law can or will be made sensible in any way at this stage with the big money behind creating a new bicycle class system of have's and have-not's, but good effort!
Thanks!!! Great job adding information that bolsters the argument against 3-class. It's funny that I had actually thought about the handicap thing but your point that trails banning class 2 is actually discrimination and that alone should get the CPSC to preempt. You are correct that throttle-assist ebikes are considered mobility for the handicapped (the ADA ensured that motorized support for the handicapped could use infrastructure like sidewalks and paths, but sadly these class 1 trail believers are not thinking about he handicapped having the same trail access they enjoy). The fact that a trottle-assist and pedal-assist limited to the federal definition will not have any difference on trail impact is pure common sense (but if common sense was in play we'd all know that most trail damage occurs from erosion due to story run off).

If you read the tread you will notice that no one wants to discuss the "physics" or the interstate commerce issues they just want to throw out the false narrative that they only thing that got them trail access is the creation of Class 1....they ignore that the latest DOI order declared all 3 classes to be OK on all national land (leaving the national forests which will adopt same. What created the land manager bias against throttles was the thought that LSEB with throttles were essentially the same as motorcycles which is far far far from reality.

I think you and I came to the same conclusion on the federal definition. I literally thought when I first read it that it was either written by a very smart techinical person or was blind luck. We'll it appears that a PhD electrical engineer was involved and the spec provides flexible power below 20mph and limits power (per the constraints) above 20 mph in a very elegant way such that LSEB remain in the historical 3-sigma range of bikes. You will find no one wants to discuss the physics they just want to tell you that land managers are sensitive people that will ban all ebikes from trails if we go back to one LSEB definition.

If you read my precedence in the petition for preemption it honestly does put the CPSC in a difficult spot - they have to preempt or just declare classes voluntary for use after 1st sale and that their definition of LSEB is to be considered a "bike" and states are still allowed to "use" regulate them as bikes (no differences between any other bike so the land managers will just have to live with that).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ngl

ngl

Member
Region
USA
City
Northern LP, MI
pfft that trail access thing, that's laughable on its very face. Land managers aren't stupid people, but they respond to the same thing legislators do in this country. Money and power. Big bike hires big lobby who has the connections to make stuff happen, end of story. Land managers got stroked off by the right people who were hired for decent sums of money because they have subject matter expertise in convincing people to do things. This is America, not some land of logic and reason :) Big bike wanted product tiering and wanted a opened market to sell that artificial limits crap into to protect profits and margins. Just like a good salesman at a dealership can sell some schmuck any old thing if they are good at thier job. The US citizens just ended up getting sold a jalopy by PFB and industry hires. I read a good bit of the thread but come on, this is is like wrangling cats if I ever saw it, people aren't going to agree, and it doesn't matter if they do or not... All that matters is $$$$.

If you want to beat industry at thier own game, you probably need the same tools, shrewd PR and lobbyists that can sell a Cadillac law to replace the jalopy law *and* beat the industry players over the head with well crafted bad press simultaneously to get them to back down and let the law serve the people of this country. If my knee blows out again and gets wobbly, I don't want to lose access to my rail trails simply because bike companies sponsored laws that make a bike I could ride while recuperating illegal on the trails. But, that doesn't fit the bike marketers paradigm, so it is what it is. If the wrong people get involved on the disability side they'd want to do some placard BS too, because who cares that most people don't have access to the healthcare needed for temporary disabilities and injuries to be deemed "official" as long as some mobility company can get their hand in the cookie jar. This country is for sale to the highest bidder, and this is the result.
 

Asher

Well-Known Member
Land managers got stroked off by the right people who were hired for decent sums of money because they have subject matter expertise in convincing people to do things.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Plausible to grease a few palms at the top. Not plausible to grease hands in every local nook and cranny. This isn't the car industry where even 0.1% of sales (~$500m) could fund a massive lobby.
 
Last edited:

Asher

Well-Known Member
IMO the three class system is a unmitigated disaster, marketing applied to law instead of using some more sensible art as the basis for law, like oh, I dunno, physics. The difference between a class 1 and a 2 is basically who can ride the thing, so more or less codified discrimination against the disabled, that's just wonderful. The difference between 1&2 and 3 is a speed sensor limitation, which can and is being defeated by users on the 1's and 2's because it's a artificial distinction without a practical difference, which is not even available as a speed or access mode to disabled users at all. The ADA should sue the pants off these ebike companies, the AG's that adopted this legislation. The bike was a marvelous invention, and the ebike is a sea changing incremental improvement on that model that physically levels the playing field for *all* bicycle users young and old, able bodied or not. If the problem is speed, then make road style bikes, velomobiles, or basically anything that helps efficiency and saves energy illegal - or, perhaps more sensibly, put up speed limit signs and enforcement. If the problem is power or weight such as may be the case on soft trails, then a power or weight restriction makes *sense*. I seem to recall seeing weight restrictions on bridges for this reason. Logical. Fire the marketing director in charge of law writing and lobbying ;)

The bike industry was and is against throttles, whether it has non-selfish reasons to be or not. Partly out of the belief that it elicits irresponsible behavior - but it's far from evident that would happen if vehicle weights and speeds are capped. Seems the issue was never studied or experimented on. The other reason is that if you allow throttles, you can sell a lot more than just bike-like vehicles, and the incumbent bike industry would necessarily lose market share to those selling pedal-free vehicles.


In Europe there's an ebike lobby, LEVA, that has almost no incumbent bike brands. Incumbents and new brands want very different things, and throttle are one of those schisms.

 
Last edited:

J.R.

Well-Known Member
Do you have any evidence for this?

Plausible to grease a few palms at the top. Not plausible to grease hands in every local nook and cranny. This isn't the car industry where even 0.1% of sales (~$500m) could fund a massive lobby.
Correct. It isn't true. Land managers and regulators are the guy next door. They aren't politicians, many regulators are unpaid volunteers that love their neighbors and communities. These people don't have political aspirations of power. It's just your typical internet conspiracy theory.

As for the handicapped issue, many places offer permits. My county does. Of the first 6 applicants, 2 committed fraud and perjury. It almost derailed our campaign to open trails to ebikes. If it's not too onerous to apply for a parking permit, it's not onerous to apply for a ride permit.

As for the class law being an unmitigated disaster, that would mean there is nothing good as a result of the law. I believe I've provided more than enough proof that there's been a lot of good. More miles of open paths and trails for more ebikers.

Attend a few meetings to understand the people and regulations. The more people using public land, the more public money for infrastructure is spent. Managers have a vested interest in opening up public lands to more people.
 

Alaskan

Well-Known Member
If the objective is safety and a pace line of roadies in their clown suits can zip by pedestrians with their strollers and people walking dogs on a mixed use trail at 25+mph but someone in an ebike is limited to 20mph assist, what good is being accomplished?

The current class system is akin to making different roads available to different cars based on the number of cylinders in the engine or its horse power. This is clearly a ridiculous idea when a simple speed limit is easy to detect and enforce. The same should hold true for bicycles, ebikes or acoustic. This will make the job of enforcement much easier and actually do more to preserve everyone's safety.

And while they are at it, earbuds should be banned on all users of mixed use trails. I don't know how many times, I have hit my bell coming up behind a pedestrian with their earbuds cranked up and they have jumped the wrong way when they saw my shadow right behind them or finally heard my bell when I was ten feet behind and closing fast. I always slow to a crawl when there are dogs on a leash, especially the retractable type, parents with strollers or youngsters or even non-responsive pedestrians.
 

ngl

Member
Region
USA
City
Northern LP, MI
Do you have any evidence for this?

Plausible to grease a few palms at the top. Not plausible to grease hands in every local nook and cranny. This isn't the car industry where even 0.1% of sales (~$500m) could fund a massive lobby.
26 states passed 3 class legislation packages that were written directly by lobbyists, that's how laws get made whenever there is industry participation. It's not about quid pro quo corruption and never has been in the US, outside of several notable occurrences, at least at the national/state package level. The ideas didn't spring from grassroots bicyclists, that's fairly obvious. PFB is an astroturf just like any other, attending meetings at that level is a waste of time, it's just arm's length marketing/PR cover for plausible deniability and appearances. You pay for a legislation package, the interns at a K street outfit write it, and go use cachet to get it introduced, sponsored, and passed. The less public pushback the easier and cheaper it is, it's not often some cloak and dagger payoff schemes, because that's both risky and unnecessary in the US, corruption is legalized through PAC's and normal campaign contributions and above board service offerings and negotiating horse trades, on and on. It doesn't take that much money to get the ball rolling per state, you don't need to be the car industry. Usually you can get a state-level package started for a couple 10's of K, and then it's up to how much each vote costs, the less prickly the issue the cheaper it is... Even a company with a few thousand dollars to invest, it is often some of the best ROI to invest in a legislation package or buying a favorable pork rider. This is the entire reason elected officials at the state and federal levels spend most of their working hours dialing for dollars, those dollars all gets shuffled through the K street machine so you can buy stuff like this on an open market. It's not like any of this is a well kept secret. This is not like local politics, it's a pretty well oiled machine that basically supports a large part of the DC area economy. The only thing that probably beats K street for regional economic impact is probably the war machine. :)
 

Asher

Well-Known Member
If the objective is safety and a pace line of roadies in their clown suits can zip by pedestrians with their strollers and people walking dogs on a mixed use trail at 25+mph but someone in an ebike is limited to 20mph assist, what good is being accomplished?
Translation: let's multiply the number of people going at unsafe speeds. It will make the path more dangerous, but it won't be ableist! (Aside from people now needing lightning quick impulses to dodge higher speed crashes).

Road cyclists don't like to ride on crowded slow bike paths, and like to ride early for that reason.

This is clearly a ridiculous idea when a simple speed limit is easy to detect and enforce. The same should hold true for bicycles, ebikes or acoustic. This will make the job of enforcement much easier and actually do more to preserve everyone's safety.

Some 30% of car crash deaths are due to speeding. If there is a war on speeding, the law is utterly losing it. Such that Europe has passed mandates for new cars to have speed limiters. The notion that speed enforcement is easy is ludicrous when you look beyond the bike path. Just saying that if it comes down to speed enforcement, we're ****ed.

The saving grace here is that most people on bikes ride with a certain sense of respect, humility and frailty, that averts disaster. (The only time that I felt otherwise was in Amsterdam with slow moped riders barreling past cyclists in the bike lanes)

26 states passed 3 class legislation packages that were written directly by lobbyists, that's how laws get made whenever there is industry participation. It's not about quid pro quo corruption and never has been in the US, outside of several notable occurrences, at least at the national/state package level. The ideas didn't spring from grassroots bicyclists, that's fairly obvious. PFB is an astroturf just like any other, attending meetings at that level is a waste of time, it's just arm's length marketing/PR cover for plausible deniability and appearances. You pay for a legislation package, the interns at a K street outfit write it, and go use cachet to get it introduced, sponsored, and passed. The less public pushback the easier and cheaper it is, it's not often some cloak and dagger payoff schemes, because that's both risky and unnecessary in the US, corruption is legalized through PAC's and normal campaign contributions and above board service offerings and negotiating horse trades, on and on. It doesn't take that much money to get the ball rolling per state, you don't need to be the car industry. Usually you can get a state-level package started for a couple 10's of K, and then it's up to how much each vote costs, the less prickly the issue the cheaper it is... Even a company with a few thousand dollars to invest, it is often some of the best ROI to invest in a legislation package or buying a favorable pork rider. This is the entire reason elected officials at the state and federal levels spend most of their working hours dialing for dollars, those dollars all gets shuffled through the K street machine so you can buy stuff like this on an open market. It's not like any of this is a well kept secret. This is not like local politics, it's a pretty well oiled machine that basically supports a large part of the DC area economy. The only thing that probably beats K street for regional economic impact is probably the war machine. :)
Thank you for conceding my point and walking back your claims about direct bribes of land managers, and switching to a rather uncontroversial description of lobbying instead. :)
 

ngl

Member
Region
USA
City
Northern LP, MI
Sorry if you misinterpreted stroking off as bribes, that's not what I meant. They're just your run of the mill bureaucrats so they aren't really super legislatively important, but regional stuff like that is part of the reason you do astroturf so there's materials and talking points somebody can use to say the right talking points to the right people in boring meetings. It's always better when it comes from a concerned citizen. :)

edit: oh I just re-read what I wrote and a I put money and power right after the land managers and legislators comments, it is bad phrasing. The money and power thing is just what I meant about lobbying is all, pay for play turn key legislation and overnight citizen organizations to go with your industry association; PR, marketing, access and connections one stop shopping.
 
Last edited:

Asher

Well-Known Member
Sorry if you misinterpreted stroking off as bribes, that's not what I meant. They're just your run of the mill bureaucrats so they aren't really super legislatively important, but regional stuff like that is part of the reason you do astroturf so there's materials and talking points somebody can use to say the right talking points to the right people in boring meetings. It's always better when it comes from a concerned citizen. :)

edit: oh I just re-read what I wrote and a I put money and power right after the land managers and legislators comments, it is bad phrasing. The money and power thing is just what I meant about lobbying is all, pay for play turn key legislation and overnight citizen organizations to go with your industry association; PR, marketing, access and connections one stop shopping.
My favorite example is the industry is begging for a subsidy when there's already a shortage of bikes. If the bikes sell out with or without a subsidy, what is the point of the subsidy? (Letting the subsidy begin later, in 2022 or 2023 would fix this.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ngl

Ken M

Well-Known Member
If the land managers are just the people next door then just explain to them that an ebike with throttle is not the same thing as a 100 hp motocross motorcycle. There is not going to be any more damage to trails from a CPSC compliant "low speed electric bicycle" whether is a throttle-assist or pedal-assist. The fact that some disabled people would be able to enjoy the trails better on a throttle-assist then allow it. It's like the whole ebike industry has come down to appeasing land managers...that is exactly what is wrong with the 3-class system. It allowed parsing without any justification.

We won't fix the political system but maybe the CPSC will preempt the brain-dead 3-class system and we can see how well just going back to the one federal definition of a LSEB as a bike works out. It will be just fine even if a few land manager's feeling are hurt. They'll get over it. Boohoo.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Translation: let's multiply the number of people going at unsafe speeds. It will make the path more dangerous, but it won't be ableist! (Aside from people now needing lightning quick impulses to dodge higher speed crashes).

Road cyclists don't like to ride on crowded slow bike paths, and like to ride early for that reason.



Some 30% of car crash deaths are due to speeding. If there is a war on speeding, the law is utterly losing it. Such that Europe has passed mandates for new cars to have speed limiters. The notion that speed enforcement is easy is ludicrous when you look beyond the bike path. Just saying that if it comes down to speed enforcement, we're ****ed.

The saving grace here is that most people on bikes ride with a certain sense of respect, humility and frailty, that averts disaster. (The only time that I felt otherwise was in Amsterdam with slow moped riders barreling past cyclists in the bike lanes)


Thank you for conceding my point and walking back your claims about direct bribes of land managers, and switching to a rather uncontroversial description of lobbying instead. :)
You must be aligned with People for Bikes because any aspect mentioned that shows a flaw with the 3-class legislation you counter. I really wonder if that 30% of car crash due to speeding claim as that could be just going to fast for the conditions. Then you make it sound like bike paths are already requiring "lighting quick impulses to dodge high speed crashes." I rode over 5,000 miles last year and didn't experience anything like that.

The idea of the federal definition preempting the state 3-class will not result in crazy fast speeds. I would prefer to debate the merits of each policy and my guess is that most riders would prefer just one definition for a compliant LSEB. If the class system is adopted by the CPSC we will eventually see insurance and registration required on class 3 (that happened in Europe so it's easy to conclude the insurance companies will want it here and they have tons of money to buy that into law).

My view is that all states should just revert back to using the federal definition and just consider it same as a bike and just use the bike "use"/traffic laws that have been used for decades successfully. The idea we needed 3-class because some people had a bias against throttle-assist is ludicrous. We have other mobility devices that are using throttle and ebikes with a throttle can are pedals most of the time but limiting the power at 20mph ensures they remain in traditional bike speed range. The federal definition address the higher than 20mph but limiting power to what sustains power so in reality the federal definition allows typically 100W more power than the EU spec speed pedelec ebikes already. We don't need any more alarmist ringing a fake bell.
 
Last edited:

Ken M

Well-Known Member
I'm not a fan of the Class system primarily since the differences between all three classes are imperceptible to the naked eye and impossible to regulate. It makes legislators and land manager feel better by dictating which classes are allowed where, but IME, users just ignore it all and buy what they'd like and ride them whereever. I'd guess that half of the ebikes I see on MUTs aren't "legal" ebikes, yet it's working out ok. The two class system in Europe is much better I think, mostly because it's really just a single class, there are heavy fines for selling something that isn't legal, and it's low enough power that no one needs to police it.

Anyway, this is an interesting academic discussion, but the only thing I see affecting future access is riders behavior, not how you define what they are riding.

For the record, PFB only wants to sell bikes and is fully funded by the industry, no need to make donations. https://www.bicycleretailer.com/ann...uppliers-association-one-unified#.YHC2nehKhaQ
The main issue with the EU regulations is that the power is too low for any practical utility / cargo ebikes. The US federal definition is very elegant such that it allows more power below 20mph such that very effective utility ebikes are possible while limiting power above 20mph (per the constraint of 170lbs on level surface) to allow commuting speeds in the 24-30mph range for most riders that can add a sustained 100-200W. The definition for a "low speed electric bicycle" was intended to keep them as a bike for use...that intent is crystal clear in the congressional notes but very few read that (I'm sure the land managers never have).

The problem here is that so many have been brainwashed to believe that the only reason they can ride a trail is due to the 3-class system. Marketing koolaid is very effective on some and they are passionate about it.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Yep, the classes only opened up ~2 million acres of state land where I live that were closed to ebikes before. Land that all taxpayers in the state pay for and have a say in how it is used. Public meetings where all were welcome to express their opinions and concerns. Compromises were made by all... but that's not good enough. Let's go back to the old way where we ride in the street.

Here's the funny part, PA doesn't yet have the 3 class law. The 2014 law closely aligns with the CPSC definition, and it isn't working here. The law that banned all ebikes from paths, trails, MUP's. So the state uses the Class 1 description because its ubiquitous, but because the classes aren't codified in law, everywhere it states class 1 ebikes are allowed it has to define what a class 1 ebike is. That is likely to change, as the state legislature is debating the 3 class law now.

Why does it seem that the DOI and most states are just moving to allow all CPSC compliant LSEBs (that covers all the classes) anywhere where traditional bikes are allowed. That was the intent of the original fed bill in 2002 so maybe people are finally getting around to reading it instead of freaking out that there is a toaster power motor on a bike.
 

J.R.

Well-Known Member
Why does it seem that the DOI and most states are just moving to allow all CPSC compliant LSEBs (that covers all the classes) anywhere where traditional bikes are allowed. That was the intent of the original fed bill in 2002 so maybe people are finally getting around to reading it instead of freaking out that there is a toaster power motor on a bike.
They aren't and I know because I have spoken to regulators, land managers, legislators and law enforcement. You are making the same assumptions I made in 2014. You need to attend some public meetings and speak to trail and path authorities to understand what is allowed in each locale. Trails and path authorities that haven't specifically stated and codified in regulation/law almost universally will tell you they aren't legal. This I know is fact.

I did more than just read laws and opinions to come up with an opinion. You need to do the leg work.

You make a lot of assumptions of this issue. Like the Oregon case, you are incorrect about so many things. But you're so closed minded on all this.

 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
They aren't and I know because I have spoken to regulators, land managers, legislators and law enforcement. You are making the same assumptions I made in 2014. You need to attend some public meetings and speak to trail and path authorities to understand what is allowed in each locale. Trails and path authorities that haven't specifically stated and codified in regulation/law almost universally will tell you they aren't legal. This I know is fact.

I did more than just read laws and opinions to come up with an opinion. You need to do the leg work.

You make a lot of assumptions of this issue. Like the Oregon case, you are incorrect about so many things. But you're so closed minded on all this.


I do not understand how ebikes can be considered "non motorized vehicles" and "motorized vehicles" at the same time. I'm pretty sure this all originates from pre-2002 when the NHTSA defined ebikes as motor vehicles and remnants of that still exist. I don't know the timeline of when you were talking to the regulators, land managers, legislators, and law enforcement but my guess is most of them were not really up to date on the regulations (how many of them had even read HR727 and/or the congressional notes?).

I tried to find anything on ebike status in Oregon in Chapter 736 of the OARs and didn't find clarification. I will look again later but I know there are remnants that still declare ebikes as motor vehicles but in general those are being cleaned up.

Maybe I'm totally lost on this but I'm not close-minded. I see a DOI order 3376 that essentially combines the federal definition with the 3-classes (tells me that even the top people at the DOI are pretty much not paying attention as those are not the same) yet the default "use" treats all compliant ebikes as just bikes unless a process is followed that requires proof of issue to not use the default. That should address a big part of your concerns about ebike access. As for private lands banning ebikes that is entirely allowed but I think those trails are pretty rare and not really something we want controlling the definition of a compliant ebike.

I know there were some trails with bans on "motorized vehicles" which were making claims that included ebikes but one by one those are opening up as the people in charge actually read the statutes. I will explore the current status in Oregon because that is probably the most relevant given they use the federal definition.
 
Last edited: