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

J.R.

Well-Known Member
So PA essentially adopted the 2002 federal "low speed electric bicycle" definition in 2014 and called them "pedalcycles with electric assist. (PWEA_" Very cute, I sure some lawmakers were feeling really smart that they could invent a new name for the same thing federally defined 12 years earlier (apply for copyright). Lightning fast adoption rate that any state resident should be proud of. I wonder if ebikes were actually illegal prior to VEHICLE CODE (75 PA.C.S.) but we don't need to go backwards or it could take decades for PA to get caught up again.

So then along come the land managers and they look at the state law and freak out over the fact that it allows throttles. I can only imagine the horror they felt as no one should have to endure that suffrage (we should all pitch in and buy them the full video series of Duck Dynasty). I'm sure the stress of thinking about the massive trail damage and human carnage on the paths if they just accepted the states definition for trail use kept them up for weeks. Then one day, one of them thought wow "we just need to keep the throttles off our trails and everything will be alright"...and so the stage was set for the compromise and the PA Class 1 trail PWEA was defined and everyone had class 1 trail access. Happy ever after.

Ok, I'm sorry for dry humor but I didn't really absorb earlier that you did say that PA was not even a 3-class state. So did they really say in front of others that a 20mph pedalcycle was OK but a 20mph throttle-assist ebike was not. Did anyone asked the obvious physics questions as to how they are really different or did the echo chamber just engulf the room? Given that PA allowed the trail managers to define their own "legal ebike" for trail use maybe they can keep that in place even if the CPSC preempts the 3-class system in all 28 adopted states. Maybe the state should import the 250W 15mph EU ebikes just for trail use.

I understand it was a compromise and if everyone is happy with it I hope it doesn't change but my guess is it will change in the next year or two. Just a hunch.

Our country should be proud....while we are fighting over trail access China is moving fast forward on artificial intelligence, solid state batteries, quantum computers, etc.
PA is more open to ebikes than most states. Some do, some spin. Keep spinning your web.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
PA is more open to ebikes than most states. Some do, some spin. Keep spinning your web.
I'm not sure if local officials / land managers can control "use" via a product definition that state law doesn't recognize. PA may be on shaky ground with that but not my concern for now.

Even People for Bikes says this: Cities generally align ordinances with state law

Keep in mind I've been totally upfront, honest, and open about why I sent the petition. I think a line was crossed but we are all free to form an opinion on that (I just don't think you or anyone should just base their opinion on isolated & subjective views on trail access ... i.e. you really can not be sure trail access is lost if the federal definition remains and 3-class is preempted).

I was poking fun at it all (some are uptight and questioning them just creates anger). I simply didn't realize that a state could not adopt 3-class legislation and yet local land managers could. Doesn't this tell you or anyone else how this does / could impact interstate commerce? If all these local "officials" adopt what they feel is an acceptable ebike we could end up with 100s of different definitions of compliance and an industry thinking the whole world had gone nuts.

Not sure if you noticed my earlier post on how PFBs presented 3-class legislation at a CPSC sponsored micromobility forum. The claimed it was a "Voluntary ebike Standard." I think they were 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 would not consider the interstate commerce impact of 3-class state legislation during that presentation but 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.
 
Last edited:

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Why would P4B want that?
Really? They received over $1,000,000 in lobby money for the 3-class efforts so you don't think they would be happy to accept insurance lobby money to position class 3 as different enough from a "bike" to justify insurance.

Please take the time to research what happened in Europe because they decided to require both registration and insurance on speed pedelecs which are the same as US class 3.

Keep in mind that this is speculative but clearly having that separate mildly faster class provides a foothold for that kind of lobby effort in the US.

What I can not comprehend is why so many perceive the 3-class system added any value or safety vs the one federal definition of a "low speed electric bicycle" that is "use" regulated as intended would just be considered as any other bike. Oh I know everyone drinks the koolaid that ebikes have motors...and yes they do...but that does not mean they can not be use regulated as a non-motorized vehicle just like a bike (read the congressional notes from 2002...I keep encouraging everyone to get informed on this but they would rather be spoon fed what PFBs is telling them). Let's all just get informed and educated on all this as it is a bit complex.
 

J.R.

Well-Known Member
.I keep encouraging everyone to get informed
You aren't informed. P4B and the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association are one in the same. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they advocated for insurance and registration. It's quite the opposite of what you suggest, they'd fight tooth and nail against it. The board is the industry. I provided you with this link months ago.

 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
You aren't informed. P4B and the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association are one in the same. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they advocated for insurance and registration. It's quite the opposite of what you suggest, they'd fight tooth and nail against it. The board is the industry. I provided you with this link months ago.

I was well aware that PFBs and BPSA merged - that's when I believe they went from advocacy focus to industry lobby focus.

Well bike insurance and registration happened in Europe on any ebike assisting faster than 15mph...and I don't think there was a big industry push back. My OPINION is that insurance is a lot less likely if there is only one ebike definition and it's intended to be treated same as a bike for "use" regulations. Based on my understanding of bike history there has been efforts to mandate insurance on bike riders and even registrations (that is my understanding but that was like 20 years ago I read that).

Have you read the congressional notes on HR727? Sure seems like they were talking about ebikes and bikes being same - same regulation (1512) and expected "use" regulations to be as a bike. The AG of Mississippi came to that same conclusion after reading the statutes so maybe that person is uninformed as well.

I'm going to say this again but it's also an opinion....I understand that states have "use" regulation rights but I'm not so sure that provides them them the right to define what a compliant ebike is because they do not own 1st sale. This is so fundamentally simple to to me but everyone seems to imply the states can each have their own unique definition of compliant ebike.
 

J.R.

Well-Known Member
I keep encouraging everyone to get informed on this but they would rather be spoon fed what PFBs is telling them). Let's all just get informed and educated on all this

I was well aware that PFBs and BPSA merged - that's when I believe they went from advocacy focus to industry lobby focus.
I wish you had researched and "educated" yourself before starting all this. You only like what you agree with and disregard anything that doesn't support your opinion.

As I've stated many times, I have my issues with P4B. But you criticize, complain and post opinions that have no basis in fact. I'm no expert on any of this; I believe I'm fairly well informed. P4B has been lobbying and advocating on behalf of the industry and cyclists since 1999. They get no public money, they have aligned with many advocacy groups, they get much of their funding from the industry and they do a lot of charitable work in support of cycling. Including work with disabled and handicapped cyclists. Regardless of any misgivings I have with P4B, American cyclists and ebikers would be much worse off if they didn't exist.

People For Bikes

"Launched in 1999 as Bikes Belong, PeopleForBikes includes both an industry coalition of bicycling suppliers and retailers, as well as a charitable foundation. Our foundation is where we house our major programs and engage individual members, affiliate organizations, and corporate sponsors. We provide a unified front for advocating for bicycling on a national level, a strategic center to ensure collaboration between each piece in the bicycling movement, and the ability to support local efforts through our financial, community and communication resources."

An associate organization: League of American Bicyclists, founded 1880

"League of American Bicyclists is the voice for cyclists at the national level, and organizes an annual National Bike Summit to bring professionals and advocates in Washington, D.C., together with government representatives. A major supporter of the event is the PeopleForBikes Coalition (renamed from Bikes Belong Coalition in 2013), a 501(c)(6) trade association for the bicycle industry which lobbies Congress for funds to build bicycle usage in the U.S. The Summit has attracted around 500 attendees in recent years (as of 2009). In addition to PeopleForBikes, LAB works in partnership with other organizations such as America Bikes ("leveraging federal transportation dollars for bicycling", primarily with PeopleForBikes money), the Alliance for Bicycling and Walking (lobbies for government money to encourage bicycle usage while receiving substantial industry funding), Federal Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), NCUTCD, and NCUTLO in order to "create a more bicycle-friendly America."
 

Asher

Well-Known Member
Well bike insurance and registration happened in Europe on any ebike assisting faster than 15mph...and I don't think there was a big industry push back.

So this is the extent of your proof that an industry lobby wants something that by all appearances would suppress sales of the very product that industry sells - that maybe there was no pushback, but you're not really sure, but you'd like to think so (because it comports with your views).

The reality: the European Cycling Federation is firmly against insurance requirements for 25 kph ebikes. It supports them for speed pedelecs, because it claims insurance is needed to make claims against other motorists in the event of a crash, and are not covered by existing forms of insurance. Speed pedelecs are motor vehicles in the EU, and so are regulated like one.

 
Last edited:

jabberwocky

Well-Known Member
So this is the extent of your proof that an industry lobby wants something that by all appearances would suppress sales of the very product that industry sells - that maybe there was no pushback, but you're not really sure, but you'd like to think so (because it comports with your views).
The strangest part about the whole "PFB is trying to backdoor insurance requirements" is that PFBs own model legislation specifically exempts all 3 classes from insurance requirements. I haven't checked every state that has adopted the 3 class system, but I spot checked a few (including my home state of VA) and it was adopted by all of them. So, sure, people could come back and try and require insurance on some or all classes of ebikes but it would require a change in the law (the law that PFB specifically pushes).

It doesn't even make sense by conspiracy-theory standards. As Asher notes, wheres the upside to either PFB itself or any of its industry sponsors? From what I see, the major manufacturers are pushing class 3s pretty heavily. Its not like Geico suddenly getting liability insurance money from me for my class 3 helps Yamaha or Giant.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
So this is the extent of your proof that an industry lobby wants something that by all appearances would suppress sales of the very product that industry sells - that maybe there was no pushback, but you're not really sure, but you'd like to think so (because it comports with your views).

The reality: the European Cycling Federation is firmly against insurance requirements for 25 kph ebikes. It supports them for speed pedelecs, because it claims insurance is needed to make claims against other motorists in the event of a crash, and are not covered by existing forms of insurance. Speed pedelecs are motor vehicles in the EU, and so are regulated like one.

I said there was no push back on EU insurance requirements on speed pedelecs and you essentially confirmed that. We'er you trying to support my opinion on this?
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
The strangest part about the whole "PFB is trying to backdoor insurance requirements" is that PFBs own model legislation specifically exempts all 3 classes from insurance requirements. I haven't checked every state that has adopted the 3 class system, but I spot checked a few (including my home state of VA) and it was adopted by all of them. So, sure, people could come back and try and require insurance on some or all classes of ebikes but it would require a change in the law (the law that PFB specifically pushes).

It doesn't even make sense by conspiracy-theory standards. As Asher notes, wheres the upside to either PFB itself or any of its industry sponsors? From what I see, the major manufacturers are pushing class 3s pretty heavily. Its not like Geico suddenly getting liability insurance money from me for my class 3 helps Yamaha or Giant.
I never said PFBs was trying to backdoor insurance (by the way the model legislation document section on insurance is not part of any state law....it's just a statement). All I have stated is an opinion that having class 3 ebikes provides a potential foothold for the powerful and greedy insurance industry to get in the door on ebikes as they did on speed pedelecs in Europe. I'm sure they didn't think it would happen in Europe but it did, so I'm just thinking that if we care about keeping the insurance industry away from ebikes we should consider having one definition for a "low speed electric bicycle" as a bike because then insurance executives have second thoughts about putting their hands in your pockets.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
I wish you had researched and "educated" yourself before starting all this. You only like what you agree with and disregard anything that doesn't support your opinion.

As I've stated many times, I have my issues with P4B. But you criticize, complain and post opinions that have no basis in fact. I'm no expert on any of this; I believe I'm fairly well informed. P4B has been lobbying and advocating on behalf of the industry and cyclists since 1999. They get no public money, they have aligned with many advocacy groups, they get much of their funding from the industry and they do a lot of charitable work in support of cycling. Including work with disabled and handicapped cyclists. Regardless of any misgivings I have with P4B, American cyclists and ebikers would be much worse off if they didn't exist.

People For Bikes

"Launched in 1999 as Bikes Belong, PeopleForBikes includes both an industry coalition of bicycling suppliers and retailers, as well as a charitable foundation. Our foundation is where we house our major programs and engage individual members, affiliate organizations, and corporate sponsors. We provide a unified front for advocating for bicycling on a national level, a strategic center to ensure collaboration between each piece in the bicycling movement, and the ability to support local efforts through our financial, community and communication resources."

An associate organization: League of American Bicyclists, founded 1880

"League of American Bicyclists is the voice for cyclists at the national level, and organizes an annual National Bike Summit to bring professionals and advocates in Washington, D.C., together with government representatives. A major supporter of the event is the PeopleForBikes Coalition (renamed from Bikes Belong Coalition in 2013), a 501(c)(6) trade association for the bicycle industry which lobbies Congress for funds to build bicycle usage in the U.S. The Summit has attracted around 500 attendees in recent years (as of 2009). In addition to PeopleForBikes, LAB works in partnership with other organizations such as America Bikes ("leveraging federal transportation dollars for bicycling", primarily with PeopleForBikes money), the Alliance for Bicycling and Walking (lobbies for government money to encourage bicycle usage while receiving substantial industry funding), Federal Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), NCUTCD, and NCUTLO in order to "create a more bicycle-friendly America."
Funny you mention educating myself on all this before starting all this. I read everything I could find on ebike regulations, I researched the history of the 2002 federal ebike definition including reading HR727 many times, reviewed congressional notes, I read multiple legal papers on interstate commerce laws, multiple documents on the preemptive powers of the safety agencies, and even researched why PFBs created and promoted the 3-class "model legislation," etc. Now did I spend time researching trail policies in PA? No I didn't as I just didn't view that as important as you do. I'm sorry but I just don't.

I understand that you view the 3-class legislation as vitally important for trail access in PA because class 1 is used by local trail managers for access even though the state hasn't even adopted 3-class. I'm not a legal expert but I find that very ???? policy.

I engaged in this effort because I bought and used 2 Colorado state law compliant ebikes that became illegal to ride anywhere in Colorado after 3-class legislation was passed. I reached out to PFBs and they essentially denied this was an outcome even though I provided them full disclosure on the bike brands and models. Now did that get me frustrated? Yes. It was clear to me they were not motivated to have effective ebike policy as much as they were driven by industry lobby money so I did the research and decided to file a petition for preemption of 3-class legislation because I believe it's clear it was a violation of interstate commerce law. You are not going to convince me I'm wrong by bringing up concerns about your trail access is PA and all the meetings you endured with trail managers to achieve a compromise. That is a nice story but honestly it's not relevant to the issues I raise in the petition. I do not desire any loss of trail access for ebikes - the fact that PA is not 3-class and yet you have trail access is actually proof that 3-class is not required for trail access....oh but I'm the one that didn't research or educate myself.

One last note....If PFBs would have simply promoted the federal definition for a "low speed electric bicycle" to be "use" regulated as a bike ebikers and the industry would be better off than what is present now (the recent DOI order mixing up the federal definition with 3-class is rock solid proof of the regulatory confusion caused by 3-class). Spend 10 minutes reading about Dr. Malcolm Currie and you decide if he is smarter than the people at PFBs that created 3-class. You will most likely conclude the federal definition is better - it's a PhD electrical engineer vs a few spandexters.
 
Last edited:

J.R.

Well-Known Member
Funny you mention educating myself on all this before starting all this. I read everything I could find on ebike regulations, I researched the history of the 2002 federal ebike definition including reading HR727 many times, reviewed congressional notes, I read multiple legal papers on interstate commerce laws, multiple documents on the preemptive powers of the safety agencies, and even researched why PFBs created and promoted the 3-class "model legislation," etc. Now did I spend time researching trail policies in PA? No I didn't as I just didn't view that as important as you do. I'm sorry but I just don't.

I understand that you view the 3-class legislation as vitally important for trail access in PA because class 1 is used by local trail managers for access even though the state hasn't even adopted 3-class. I'm not a legal expert but I find that very ???? policy.

I engaged in this effort because I bought and used 2 Colorado state law compliant ebikes that became illegal to ride anywhere in Colorado after 3-class legislation was passed. I reached out to PFBs and they essentially denied this was an outcome even though I provided them full disclosure on the bike brands and models. Now did that get me frustrated? Yes. It was clear to me they were not motivated to have effective ebike policy as much as they were driven by industry lobby money so I did the research and decided to file a petition for preemption of 3-class legislation because I believe it's clear it was a violation of interstate commerce law. You are not going to convince me I'm wrong by bringing up concerns about your trail access is PA and all the meetings you endured with trail managers to achieve a compromise. That is a nice story but honestly it's not relevant to the issues I raise in the petition. I do not desire any loss of trail access for ebikes - the fact that PA is not 3-class and yet you have trail access is actually proof that 3-class is not required for trail access....oh but I'm the one that didn't research or educate myself.

Wow! What a spin. You are correct in one thing, we took actions that actually helped tens of thousands of cyclists. You are taking actions because you own 2 illegal ebikes. BTW that strawman will soon be too big to get out of the house. It's not just trails, its wherever bikes ride that cars do not. You know, where most cyclists prefer to ride.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Wow! What a spin. You are correct in one thing, we took actions that actually helped tens of thousands of cyclists. You are taking actions because you own 2 illegal ebikes. BTW that strawman will soon be too big to get out of the house. It's not just trails, its wherever bikes ride that cars do not. You know, where most cyclists prefer to ride.
Aren't you spinning it by claiming trail doomsday if 3-class is preempted?

Since you are apparently claiming my petition is a "strawman" argument, tell me if you think 3-class programming and the sticker and speedometer requirement impact interstate commerce. That is the basis of this debate but it gets ignored by you claiming riders will loose trail access (that seems strawman to me because it's not likely).

My 2 now illegal ebikes are examples of a problem. There are likely 10s of 1000s of ebikes people are riding everyday that they think are compliant in the 3-class state they live in that are actually not compliant (ie illegal to ride on any public infrastructure and that is ignored). The Izip Express was an ebike used by the LA Police department and I think they sold them to the public after they moved on to another model and yet they are NOT compliant to the 3-class law in California - the police department was using an illegal ebike and my argument is strawman? Really? Or is it that you don't want to really look at any information that goes against what your opinion is? It's not just my 2 ebikes. I can go on Amazon right now and point out ebikes being sold that are not compliant in any 3-class state yet people are buying them and riding them thinking they are (you may even see a few on those PA trails you ride).

Why did the Mississippi AG conclude that the statutes define a "low speed electric bicycle" as being the same as a bike? Do you agree with that conclusion? I do.
 

J.R.

Well-Known Member
Aren't you spinning it by claiming trail doomsday if 3-class is preempted?

Since you are apparently claiming my petition is a "strawman" argument, tell me if you think 3-class programming and the sticker and speedometer requirement impact interstate commerce. That is the basis of this debate but it gets ignored by you claiming riders will loose trail access (that seems strawman to me because it's not likely).

My 2 now illegal ebikes are examples of a problem. There are likely 10s of 1000s of ebikes people are riding everyday that they think are compliant in the 3-class state they live in that are actually not compliant (ie illegal to ride on any public infrastructure and that is ignored). The Izip Express was an ebike used by the LA Police department and I think they sold them to the public after they moved on to another model and yet they are NOT compliant to the 3-class law in California - the police department was using an illegal ebike and my argument is strawman? Really? Or is it that you don't want to really look at any information that goes against what your opinion is?

Why did the Mississippi AG conclude that the statutes define a "low speed electric bicycle" as being the same as a bike? Do you agree with that conclusion? I do.
You are building a strawman whenever you make the claim that others are talking about trails. It is a fallacy. You know very well I'm not making a trails argument. You do like to mischaracterize things I write to spin it to fit your web. I never said it was doomsday; I don't use phrases like that, that's your spin. Why not just make your argument and leave other's statements stand on their own. I don't need someone coming behind me and saying 'in other words...'
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
You are building a strawman whenever you make the claim that others are talking about trails. It is a fallacy. You know very well I'm not making a trails argument. You do like to mischaracterize things I write to spin it to fit your web. I never said it was doomsday; I don't use phrases like that, that's your spin. Why not just make your argument and leave other's statements stand on their own. I don't need someone coming behind me and saying 'in other words...'
I never brought up trail access and I would prefer that it never entered this forum topic. I would prefer to just answer questions on the Petition for Preemption of the 3-class state legislation. I really do want to have good exchanges on this subject because I think the very idea of filing a petition with the CPSC can be mis-characterized very easily. I trust that they'll make a decision based on laws that govern interstate commerce. They must also balance the impact if they are not consistent with past decisions which is why I included what I felt was a precedence statement on an earlier decision with bike regulations.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
The strangest part about the whole "PFB is trying to backdoor insurance requirements" is that PFBs own model legislation specifically exempts all 3 classes from insurance requirements. I haven't checked every state that has adopted the 3 class system, but I spot checked a few (including my home state of VA) and it was adopted by all of them. So, sure, people could come back and try and require insurance on some or all classes of ebikes but it would require a change in the law (the law that PFB specifically pushes).

It doesn't even make sense by conspiracy-theory standards. As Asher notes, wheres the upside to either PFB itself or any of its industry sponsors? From what I see, the major manufacturers are pushing class 3s pretty heavily. Its not like Geico suddenly getting liability insurance money from me for my class 3 helps Yamaha or Giant.
All I have said is that having a class 3 provides a potential foothold for insurance to get some revenue from ebikes. They did do it in Europe so it's not a crazy conspiracy theory. While I know the bike community would not want that the insurance execs sure would.
 

J.R.

Well-Known Member
I never brought up trail access and I would prefer that it never entered this forum topic.
I don't think you understand what a strawman arguement is.

From wikipedia (could come from anywhere of hundreds of places)

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of the argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

I make the statement that the classes have given legislators, regulators and land managers an option to open up public lands, paths and trails. I've explained all the off street venues this involves, and given direct examples of them that have opened up to class 1. I have explained that throttles were considered and rejected. You just target the word trails and repeat it over and over. You don't argue the actual point. Then when challenged you ask "how do you know ebikes will be banned from trails?" Which I've explained dozens of times. It's a diversion tactic and it truly is circular logic.

You keep saying trail access. In just this thread alone here's the search results for how many times you mentioned 'trails'. 5 pages.

I know exactly the argument you are trying to make. I've heard it for 8 years. Back then I actually agreed with some of the points. I know people that carried photo copies of the CPSC HR727 around. States do have rights on these issues. P4B isn't the enemy here. I'm a bit baffled why anyone would want to turn over local control of any of this to a small group of beurocrats in DC. You do understand HR727 was a resolution that did not get read and voted on as a stand alone bill by a majority US Congress? It was written by beurocrats and shoved through with a bunch of papers. Several resolutions passed without due process. No state in the country will give up control of their own land to DC. It's not in the Purview of the CPSC to control use access to a rural trail in Montana or Pennsylvania or anywhere else. Take away the option of class 1 and access is gone.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
I don't think you understand what a strawman arguement is.

From wikipedia (could come from anywhere of hundreds of places)

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of the argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

I make the statement that the classes have given legislators, regulators and land managers an option to open up public lands, paths and trails. I've explained all the off street venues this involves, and given direct examples of them that have opened up to class 1. I have explained that throttles were considered and rejected. You just target the word trails and repeat it over and over. You don't argue the actual point. Then when challenged you ask "how do you know ebikes will be banned from trails?" Which I've explained dozens of times. It's a diversion tactic and it truly is circular logic.

You keep saying trail access. In just this thread alone here's the search results for how many times you mentioned 'trails'. 5 pages.

I know exactly the argument you are trying to make. I've heard it for 8 years. Back then I actually agreed with some of the points. I know people that carried photo copies of the CPSC HR727 around. States do have rights on these issues. P4B isn't the enemy here. I'm a bit baffled why anyone would want to turn over local control of any of this to a small group of beurocrats in DC. You do understand HR727 was a resolution that did not get read and voted on as a stand alone bill by a majority US Congress? It was written by beurocrats and shoved through with a bunch of papers. Several resolutions passed without due process. No state in the country will give up control of their own land to DC. It's not in the Purview of the CPSC to control use access to a rural trail in Montana or Pennsylvania or anywhere else. Take away the option of class 1 and access is gone.
I have never suggested the federal government should have control of bike/ebike "use" regulation in any state. But you and others seem to be saying that states should be allowed to define what is a compliant ebike for 1st sale or a product already regulated by a federal agency. I think there is some confusion as to what "IS" the product and the "USE" of that product when it comes to ebikes. Sure PFBs can "claim" the 3-class definitions were needed for "use" because the federal definition was ambiguous and didn't specify a top speed (limiting power above 20 mph does just that but PFBs claims otherwise). Does that make it true? My guess is the PFBs team was not technical enough to understand the power limit per the constraints or they just wanted to create a false narrative for the classes.

How are some states still using the federal definition for a "low speed electric bicycle" as just a bike for "use" coming up on 20 years later? Why are the "use" regulations in those states working without classes?

I suggested a reason as to throttle-assist likely viewed by some as irrefutably a motor vehicle so they don't want them on trails. I have not doubted your claims that "class 1" provided an option to open up public lands. I have questioned the logic of thinking that a federally compliant "low speed electric bicycle" is so different from "class 1" such that access should be denied if the 3-class system is preempted. The DOI order 3376 says that all classes are allowed by default so that is clearly some shock-waves in the public land access debate (some are claiming the DOI Secretary doesn't even have the authority to make that decision but I'll stay out of that debate).

My argument is not a local argument at all. I'm questioning that the states can impact interstate commerce by requiring class programming, sticker, and speedometer on ebikes prior to 1st sale. I believe that PFBs THOUGHT 3-class was consistent with the federal definition but they should have got an advisory response from the CPSC prior to promoting the "model legislation" to the states. I'm not a lawyer or legal professional but technically there is no argument that the federal definition and 3-class are consistent given those 3 elements just mentioned. I do believe there is very good chance the CPSC will preempt the 3-class legislation....or they will have to adopt it via a congressional vote which will cause future issues with the preemptive power of the CPSC (they have to be consistent or they have future legal problems). If they decide to accept 3-class as the federal compliance defintion (something that PFBs has stated was their long term goal) then land managers will have Class 1 as a rock solid product definition.
 
Last edited: