Oregon - No ebiking with suspended drivers license?

[dougnutz]

His license was suspended 10 years ago. A license suspension does not make you ineligible for a license forever. He could get one if he wanted too.

I think your missunderstanding me. I don't agree with the cops, I'm just saying they are asserting that he isn't eleligable to ride the ebike, not that the ebike is illegal.

Police, meanwhile, say that because McClain’s license is suspended, it is illegal for him to ride the bicycle after turning on its motor

Assuming that he *could* get a new liscense since the suspension was a long time ago, he hasn't for whatever reason. Perhapse he is a "habitual violator" and can't get it reinstated. Or maybe he refuses out of spite. What ever the reason the police are using that point to ticket him, not the actual bike. I probably took them a while to figure out a way to "get him" but he seems to make sport out of harassing the police just as much as they harass him.

McClain has a long history of run-ins with Springfield police.

 

[Lessss]

Same here if you have a DUI conviction, They won't let you drive an ebike. There are some buried gotchas in criminal law that will supersede traffic laws.

 

[wesnewell]

Where's here? Fill in your location in your profile.

 

[REdiculous]

In Oregon you can get a DUI and go through diversion to keep your license if it's your first DUI. edit; apparently there's still a 90 day suspension on a diversion case but that's better than a year.

The guy in the story apparently had his license revoked for driving uninsured, "more than a decade ago", so he should be eligible for a license by now. If that's true then he was improperly cited.

 

[mdd0127]

The solution to this guy's whole problem is easy. The oregon law states that if a bike is powered by a human only, it is a bike.......so, if he hires a crackhead to pedal a generator to charge his batteries up at night, even though the bike has an electric motor, the power running the motor was generated by a human.....

They're going to have to get a lot more specific with these laws if they want to keep profiting from them.

 

[REdiculous]

The solution to this guy's whole problem is easy. The oregon law states that if a bike is powered by a human only, it is a bike.......so, if he hires a crackhead to pedal a generator to charge his batteries up at night, even though the bike has an electric motor, the power running the motor was generated by a human.....

They're going to have to get a lot more specific with these laws if they want to keep profiting from them.

:lol: ....

The solution to his problem is to prove his ebike is an ebike as defined by the state and to prove he is eligible for a driver's license. If he can do those 2 things the court pretty much has to side in his favor. That's it.

 

[Lock]

http://www.registerguard.com/web/ne...-vehicle-strickland-bicycle-electric.html.csp

The Register-Guard
http://www.registerguard.com/
No coasting on bicycle defense
A judge finds against an unlicensed man on a two-wheeled vehicle
By Jack Moran

The Register-Guard

Published: Friday, Jun 24, 2011 05:00AM

SPRINGFIELD — Springfield Municipal Judge James Strickland doesn’t know exactly what to call the two-wheeled vehicle that Paul McClain has been riding around town lately.

But he ruled Wednesday that it’s not an electric bicycle — which means McClain’s contention that state law permits him to ride the “conveyance” (Strickland’s term) while his driver’s license is suspended has become an irrelevant point in what initially appeared to be a potentially precedent-setting case in Oregon.

Strickland issued a written opinion to explain why he found McClain guilty of driving with a suspended license while riding a motorized two-wheeler along a Springfield street.

“Because the conveyance cannot be defined as a bicycle, it is a motor vehicle,” Strickland wrote.

And if it’s a motor vehicle — as opposed to an electric-assisted bicycle, which is typically treated like a regular bicycle under state law — McClain needs a driver’s license to operate it, the judge ruled.

Springfield police ticketed McClain six times earlier this year for driving with a suspended license after repeatedly finding him riding his motorized two-wheeler along city streets.

Initially, police did not characterize McClain’s vehicle — which more closely resembles a moped with pedals than a 10-speed — as anything other than an electric bicycle. They say it’s illegal for anyone to power up and ride an electric-assisted bike if he or she is ineligible for a driver’s license.

“My thinking is that if he’s not pedaling it, it becomes a motor vehicle under the statute,” Springfield police officer Brian Gay said Thursday.

State law defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle “that is self-propelled or designed for self-propulsion.”

McClain believes another statute supports his position. During a June 7 trial in municipal court, his defense argument centered on a law that says an “electric-assisted bicycle shall be considered a bicycle, rather than a motor vehicle … except when otherwise specifically provided by statute.”

Since a person doesn’t need a license to ride a regular bicycle, McClain said he shouldn’t need one to ride his two-wheeler.

But Strickland’s ruling doesn’t attempt to clarify that issue. State Driver and Motor Vehicles spokesman David House said Thursday that it remains a legal gray area.

Strickland’s decision boils down to this: He wrote that “factory specifications” indicate McClain’s vehicle is capable of traveling faster than 20 mph, and that it had a missing pedal when he was stopped and ticketed in one instance. Therefore, it doesn’t meet the state’s legal definition of an electric-assisted bicycle, the judge said.

The law defines an electric-assisted bicycle as a vehicle that “is incapable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of greater than 20 mph on level ground” and “has both fully operative pedals for human propulsion.”

McClain, 41, presented evidence at his trial that his two-wheeled vehicle could not exceed 20 mph.

However, according to a manufacturer’s description, the vehicle that McClain purchased earlier this year states that it can travel as fast as 23 mph. The description also claims that the “all electric moped is classified as an ‘electric bicycle’ — you do not need to register or carry a driver’s license to operate it.”

Telephone and e-mail messages to the California-based manufacturer, Electric Wheels, were not returned this week.

In his ruling, Strickland referenced a slightly different Electric Wheels model that is capable of traveling 21 mph. Gay presented Strickland with details of that model during McClain’s trial, when the officer suggested that McClain’s vehicle may not meet the legal definition of an electric-assisted bicycle.

Strickland found McClain guilty of one count of driving with a suspended license and wrote that he would convict him in the other five cases if McClain does not appeal his conviction to Lane County Circuit Court. If there’s no appeal, Strickland said he would reduce McClain’s fine, which currently stands at $472.

But McClain on Thursday said he does plan to appeal. “Of course I will. I think I’m right,” he said.

In that event, Strickland said he will not rule on the other cases until the appeal is resolved.

Last week, Judge Gary Carl found McClain guilty in a separate case in Lane Justice Court in which McClain was ticketed by a county sheriff’s deputy for driving with a suspended license while aboard the two-wheeler. Carl said his reasons for convicting McClain in the case matched Strickland’s.

McClain said his driving privileges were revoked more than a decade ago after he was convicted of driving a car without insurance. He says he has no immediate plan to try and get his license reinstated.

Copyright © 2011 — The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA

 

[gogo]

Hmm, so his conveyance is configured from the factory to be able exceed 20 MPH on motor power alone on level ground, and therefore cannot be classed as an electric-assisted bicycle?

The judge is basing his ruling on a manufacturer's undocumented claim that the ebike is capable of exceeding the allowed speed by 15% (or 5%) even though there is no claim by the cops that it did. Sounds shakey to me.

 

[justadad1957]

i think a key factor may have been a missing pedal
besides an additude problem with the cops
there is a very slight diferance in the laws in oregon and here in iowa

Iowa Laws Pertaining to Bicycles

321.1(40)(c) Definitions – Bicycle
c. "Bicycle" means either of the following:
(1) A device having two wheels and having at least one saddle or seat for the use of a rider which is propelled by human power.
(2) A device having two or three wheels with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than seven hundred fifty watts (one horsepower), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden, is less than twenty miles per hour.

321.1 Definitions of words and phrases.(90)(a) Vehicle
Vehicle does not include: a. Any device moved by human power.

in iowa if they have pedals
and can be human powered
and cant go over 20 elec only
then they are not a vehicle
and then do not need insurance
hence no lie needed

but in his case in oregon he is screwed
bicycles are human powered only
any assist and its a vehicle
which then requires at least the ability to obtain a lie
i hate sideing with the 5o
but i cant imagin riding my ebike with a missing pedal even tho i could
in iowa i might be able to get a good lawyer to say
he just won the ebay auction for a new set of pedals and he has the ups tracking number
he wont ride a broken ebike to work again
lol

 

[REdiculous]

but in his case in oregon he is screwed
bicycles are human powered only
any assist and its a vehicle

Wrong. You can ride electric bikes in Oregon no problem. Oregon has a definition for "electric bike" that his bike doesn't meet, according to the manufacturer, so they're saying his bike is a motor vehicle and that he needs a license for it (etc).

What's interesting to me, from the Oregon definition of "electric bike"...

(5) Is equipped with an electric motor that:
(a) Has a power output of not more than 1,000 watts; and
(b) Is incapable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of greater than 20 miles per hour on level ground.

"b" isn't saying the the speed limit is 20mph or that the motor can't help beyond 20mph. It's saying the motor, alone, can't propel the bike beyond 20mph on level ground. I never noticed this before but that wording could probably be used to make a much faster ebike. :wink:

To nail him for the pedal thing is kinda stupid but you have to have "operative pedals" with an 's'. I've ridden with a missing pedal on a regular bike before - it works to some degree but that's an "operative pedal" without the 's'.

 

[scotticeberg]

I guess I won't be moving to Oregon ever.

On the other hand, this is an issue I would have little problem going to jail for.

 

[Rifle]

Well, this was anti-climactic.

 

[dougnutz]

I not surprised that the judge took the easy out and ruled on the bike not the law. Based on the fact that the manufacturer claims more than 20 mph, and to be perfectly honest, wasn't designed to be pedaled. I bet it would have been a totally different storey if the bike actually looked like a bike. Before I get flamed for what it looks like... I think the decision was based on the spec. My bike doesn't meet the spec either but I don't think any cop, or judge, would even think to check because it looks like a bike not a scooter.

 

[tuxman]

How stupid is this guy?

Looks like a moped... rated above 20mph...missing a pedal. He is about 6 citations stupid it seems.

 

[ptd]

Anyone here seen HR 727?

SECTION 1. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT.
The Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘LOW-SPEED ELECTRIC BICYCLES

‘‘SEC. 38. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, lowspeed electric bicycles are consumer products within the meaning of section 3(a)(1) and shall be subject to the Commission regulations published at section 1500.18(a)(12) and part 1512 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations.
‘‘(b) For the purpose of this section, the term ‘low-speed electric bicycle’ means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.
‘‘(c) To further protect the safety of consumers who ride lowspeed electric bicycles, the Commission may promulgate new or amended requirements applicable to such vehicles as necessary and appropriate.
‘‘(d) This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements referred to in subsection (a).’’.

SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS.
For purposes of motor vehicle safety standards issued and enforced pursuant to chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, a low-speed electric bicycle (as defined in section 38(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act) shall not be considered a motor vehicle as defined by section 30102(6) of title 49, United States Code.

Approved December 4, 2002.

Imo, the oregon (or any) DMV (department of MOTOR VEHICLES) is overstepping their jurisdicition in requiring a license for a something that isn't a motor vehicle. Granted, there still needs to be governance concerning operation of A vehicle on public highways, but that's probably already covered in a subsection for bicycles in the vehicle code.

They're trying to say, oh, it's a special kind of bicycle, but imo HR 727 says no, it's JUST a bicycle.

So, if it's JUST a bicycle, isn't the state law requiring “elegibility for a license” more stringent? I'm not positive, but I don't think the feds require any “eligibility for a license”. Which brings up another point, would any law requiring you to be at least 16 also be “more stingent”? How about requiring a helmet? What about restricting use on paths and such? Could this be argued as superseding city ordinaces as well? Not that you couldn't restrict travel on a path, just that you shouldn't be able to differentiate between a bicycle and a “low speed electric bicycle”.

To me, at the end of the day, it's JUST a bike. It goes the same speed as if I pedaled it (I can actually go substantially faster), and it weighs about the same, maybe 10% more. If I want to hop it up, with a bigger motor, then sure, call it a motor vehicle, and require whatever you want, if not, please stop ordinancing me to death, and leave me and my constitutional rights to the pursuit of happiness alone.

 

[REdiculous]

So, if it's JUST a bicycle, isn't the state law requiring “elegibility for a license” more stringent? I'm not positive, but I don't think the feds require any “eligibility for a license”.

The "more stringent" part only applies to the definition of electric bike. Sorry, but each state is free to say you have to be a 150yr old white male in order to ride an ebike on public roads/trails ... they can out-right ban them from public roads/trails if they want.

 

[ptd]

Red, I kind of see your point, but I also don't...

To me, the definition IS the key, if the spirit of it is meaning JUST a bike. The feds say that it isn't a motor vehicle, but what about even motorIZED vehicle. I think the spirit of the law is worded to suggest that the characteristics of the low speed electric bicycle, and a bicycle, are the same, and therefore considered, the same. So it bothers me that you could discriminate against it, and impose additional regulations on it, if it behaves just like a non motorized version. Now that I think about it, california should just repeal 406b. It is virtually the same as HR 727, and DMV (or any state, county, or city agency, for that matter) has no place regulating a bicycle that is not a motor vehicle, other than the standard vehicle code. I guess i'm just annoyed that a lseb (low speed electric bicycle) would get classified as even a motorIZED vehicle.

I get, that if the state said you had to have dual disk brakes, but the feds say you just need some kind of brakes, then you just need some kind of brakes, but it says this “section”, which would be 38 a b c and d. I take this to mean that if the state limits wattage to 500, it is superseded by the federal standard of 750. As a side note, I live in california, where it's 1000 watt, so 1000 watt and it's still a low speed electric bike? Just curious, although methinks i'll stick with 750.

The real difference is the possible form of propulsion, but if the performance is the same, does it really matter how you get it? One COULD say the same for gas, but there are a few major differences (like sound and heat). But that makes me wonder about something else. Say I have a gas engine, powering a generator, recharging the battery while I ride. Is the gas engine just an alternative form of fuel, as opposed to a form of propulsion? I think so, but, explaining THAT one to the cops might be an exercise in futility methinks. I guess I want it to be the outcome, that matters. Does it matter if I drive a porsche or a prius, no, it's obeying the speed limit that matters, right?

Another difference would probably be the duration of ride. With electric, you're likely to ride more, hence more congestion, perhaps. Which would have an impact in terms of traffic (which would lead to a more than linearly increase in accidents), and surface degredation (which would lead to a linear increase in maintenance). I suppose you might also say that more batteries constitutes a slightly increased risk to the environment, but I think that's a pretty weak case. These increases (congestion, and environmental hazard) really pertain only to recreational areas. If you're considering a more realistic case, like commuting, or general transportation, it would seem to me that these costs (congestion, accident damages, and road deterioration) would DROP substantially.

and sorry, a state can PROPOSE a bill, saying “you have to be a 150 yr old white male in order to ride an ebike on public roads/trails”, but I think you and I both know what the outcome is there, be real. So many red flags would go up, you'd think you were at a communist rally. Age discrimination, race discrimination, sex discrimination, that bill goes down faster than the $1000 prostitute they had last night. And then there's the recall... (not because of the prostitute, mind you, but that's not going to help)

Btw, this mcclain character, needs a new lawyer. I bet dollars to donuts there's a fineprint in the bikes description that says top speed is dependant upon riders weight, grade, rider's input, etc etc etc. it could be argued that the 23 mph is achieved, say, going downhill. Not a strong argument, but probably enough for reasonable doubt, and/or, it puts the cops in the position of having to prove otherwise.

And operative pedals (plural) could be succesfully argued as discrimination against the handicapped, or at the very least, nothing more than a fix it ticket, not a reclassification of vehicle type of thing.

And ps, how do you possibly read oregons 5b as anything other than “greater than 20 mph” red? I mean, sure, it's not as explicit as our code here in california (both should just say “making any contribution to” instead of propelling), but it seems pretty obvious what the spirit is.

 

[gogo]

To me, the definition IS the key, if the spirit of it is meaning JUST a bike. The feds say that it isn't a motor vehicle, but what about even motorIZED vehicle. I think the spirit of the law is worded to suggest that the characteristics of the low speed electric bicycle, and a bicycle, are the same, and therefore considered, the same.

I think the states decide what is a motor vehicle. In Iowa they have defined bicycles as not vehicles. Electric bicycles, however, are a subset of the bicycle classification and can be separately regulated.

I interpret the Iowa laws to allow electric bicycles (as a subset of "bicycle") on paths were "motorized vehicles" are disallowed. A municipality would have to specify "electric bicycles" separately from "motorized vehicles" if they want to disallow them.

 

[oatnet]

His license was suspended 10 years ago. A license suspension does not make you ineligible for a license forever. He could get one if he wanted too.

I wondered that too... I'd think after a decade he would be "eligible". Maybe there is a process he needs to go through, or maybe some other convictions keep it from being released.

"McClain has a long history of run-ins with Springfield police."

That quote says a lot more is going on than just the ebike - maybe the police are dicks, maybe this guy is a crackhead burgler, maybe both. The earlier mention of "Springtucky" puts ideas into my mind.

But these damn crappy scootery looking "ebikes" piss me off. They keep making us look bad, like the lady in NJ thing ( http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26763) that Lock also brought to us , and they are going to ruin it for everyone - our ebikes will be cast into the same net of laws these incidents will create. The best thing any of us can do for the hobby is make our bikes stealthy, IMO.

 

[REdiculous]

The feds say that it isn't a motor vehicle

No, they say, with respect to the motor vehicle safety standards, it isn't considered a motor vehicle. That just means ebikes aren't held to the same safety standards as other motor vehicles, like motorcycles or mopeds...so if you buy a pre-made ebike it doesn't have to come with a horn, DOT approved tires or turn signals, or other safety features that would normally be required on a 'similar' motor vehicle. That's all that is. (IANAL)

... but I think you and I both know what the outcome is there, be real.

My point was that the states can propose/make rules for ebikes if they want to keep them off their roads/paths. They may not say "you have to be a 150yr old white male" but they might as well since the result (ban!) is (/can be) the same. Go ride an ebike in NY.

Another difference would probably be the duration of ride. With electric, you're likely to ride more, hence more congestion, perhaps. Which would have an impact in terms of traffic (which would lead to a more than linearly increase in accidents), and surface degredation (which would lead to a linear increase in maintenance).

Ride duration should be reduced since you can get from A to B faster than a pedal-only bike (in theory - lycras may still beat you). You may ride more often, I'll give you that. For left-hand turns ..you're allowed to sit in the turn lane on a bike.. you'd be quicker through the intersections and you can more closely match regular traffic speeds (I'd imagine 30mph is average city traffic speed after stops/starts, school zones, etc) so you should impact traffic less overall. Surface degradation should be pretty minimal since McFatty on a mountain bike can easily weigh 400lbs - adding 50lbs of electric gear isn't gonna make much difference there - and cars/etc will wear the roads sooo much faster in comparison...when they resurface the roads they often have to touch up the bike lanes anyway.

And ps, how do you possibly read oregons 5b as anything other than “greater than 20 mph” red? I mean, sure, it's not as explicit as our code here in california (both should just say “making any contribution to” instead of propelling), but it seems pretty obvious what the spirit is.

The spirit of the law is pretty meaningless to every cop I've ever talked to..lol. It definitely should not say "making any contribution to"....there should be no 5b, or there should be no 5a; having both is f*ing retarded and overly restrictive. Anyway...

Propel is defined as "drive, push, or cause to move in a particular direction, typically forward". #5 is all about the motor, so I read it as, the motor by itself can not be capable of propelling the bike beyond 20mph, however, [consult your lawyer] it may be able to assist beyond 20mph as long as when you stop pedaling it can no longer propel you beyond 20mph. Seems pretty clear to me.

That said, 5b uses the word "capable" so now I challenge you to show me a 1000w motor that is "incapable" of propelling a bike beyond 20mph. Keep in mind that it says nothing about the configuration of the ebike, #5 only speaks to the motor, so as long as I keep it within 1000w I'm free to gear and volt it as I want....I think any motor above about 500w should be "capable" of more than 20mph.

 

[ptd]

[[Page 116 STAT. 2777]]

a low-speed electric bicycle (as defined in section 38(b) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act) shall not be considered a motor vehicle as
defined by section 30102(6) of title 49, United States Code.
§ 30102. Definitions
(a) General Definitions.— In this chapter—
(1) “dealer” means a person selling and distributing new motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment primarily to purchasers that in good faith purchase the vehicles or equipment other than for resale.
(2) “defect” includes any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.
(3) “distributor” means a person primarily selling and distributing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.
(4) “interstate commerce” means commerce between a place in a State and a place in another State or between places in the same State through another State.
(5) “manufacturer” means a person—
(A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or
(B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.
(6) “motor vehicle” means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. (7) “motor vehicle equipment” means—
(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;
(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or
(C) any device or an article or apparel (except medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner) that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury, or death.
(8) “motor vehicle safety” means the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.
(9) “motor vehicle safety standard” means a minimum standard for motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance.
(10) “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands.
(11) “United States district court” means a district court of the United States, a United States court for Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, and the district court for the Northern Mariana Islands.

Not a lawyer either (and not a fan of the profession, I think shakespeare had it right, and getting rid of them would probably get rid of all the politicians and lobbyists at the same time) but I think this is pretty definitive about whether or not it's a motor vehicle. I read it as (6) should be amended to read “(6)“motor vehicle” means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line, or low speed electric bicycles.” If it were as you said, I think they would have referenced 30102(8) or 30102(9). I hadn't looked this deep into it though, so thanks for making me dig.

I know you were being overdramatic with 150 yr old thing, just couldn't resist the jokes that popped into my head at the time. And I think we need to think of them as OUR roads, not theirs. Agree with you about NY, it's happening in china too, evidently because of a rising death toll, but I don't think that's the case with NY, although traffic congestion is probably just as concentrated, and we all know that frustrated kids crammed in a cage don't tend to play well together. The thing I don't understand is why they ban the bikes instead of the cars, but maybe it's just going to take time. I would think it'd just be a case of gradually making bike lanes bigger and bigger, and you're right, get the speed to 30, to match traffic.

My point about duration of ride was with strictly with respect to recreational activities and pathways, as I intend on using many paths intended for non motor vehicle operation, in particular, forest service roads.

Thanks for the elaboration on the 5b thing, I hadn't seen that angle, but with respect to propelling, if you're going over 20, and the motor is getting power, isn't it, at least “in part” (ie, where do you read, “by itself”), propelling the vehicle? I totally agree with you on the retarded restrictive point. For me, I don't see how hp has anything to do with it, except maybe acceleration, but we don't see any restrictions like that on cars, do we? I mean, they tell us efficiency is important, they pass legislation to marginally improve it, but heaven help the little guy that actually succeeds at it (without, or maybe in spite of, their “best efforts”, which are a joke).

I'm gunna say that any motor above even 100w could be made to go 20, just not for very long (ok, it might take too long to get to 20, and melt in the process, but I bet luke could push 300 watts through a 100w motor for 45 seconds and do it, just so he could taunt the lawmakers, lol). And you could make any motor not exceed 20 by just gearing it down hugely (which happens to be what i want for hill climbing). It gets to me, cause I could use the extra power in the mountains, not to speed, just to get up some insane grades. Just say 20 (or 25 or 30) and leave it at that. It's not like cops are going to know whether or not a motor's been hopped up, or realize the effect of extra cooling. They DO have radar though, so just give us a ticket if we break the law, same as cars, and eliminate the control, and the ordinance, altogether.

 

[REdiculous]

but I think this is pretty definitive about whether or not it's a motor vehicle.

No doubt, if your ebike fits the definition then it's not a motor vehicle. The problem this guy had was that the manufacturer claimed the bike could do 23mph so his bike is a motor vehicle as far as the judge is concerned. I did a poll not too long ago basically asking whether or not your bike is legal....about 2/3 of the people that voted ticked the "illegal" or "legal-ish" box and some of the people that ticked the "legal" option weren't being honest ("Legal; I've got a '250w' sticker" = dishonest vote).

My point about duration of ride was with strictly with respect to recreational activities and pathways, as I intend on using many paths intended for non motor vehicle operation, in particular, forest service roads.

You could just as easily take up space walking or riding a bike on the path so I don't see this as an issue. On a regular bike I used to be able to bike for 8 hours in a day but I can't really do that with my ebike (home-made pos trailer w/ SLAs) so the duration has actually gone way down for me...I don't want to pedal around an extra 55lbs so when the battery goes, I'm headin' home.

Thanks for the elaboration on the 5b thing, I hadn't seen that angle, but with respect to propelling, if you're going over 20, and the motor is getting power, isn't it, at least “in part” (ie, where do you read, “by itself”), propelling the vehicle?

That's the million dollar question; Does 5b mean "in part" or "by itself"? It'd have to get tested in court to know for sure.

The way I read it, the "natural" motor-only speed can't be more than 20mph on level ground. There's nothing about the motor assisting beyond that, so I'm thinking maybe there's a loophole...maybe. But now that you mention it, I also see where "in part" makes sense as an argument; if the motor is assisting then it's partially responsible for propelling the bike beyond 20mph.

I'm gunna say that any motor above even 100w could be made to go 20, just not for very long (ok, it might take too long to get to 20, and melt in the process, but I bet luke could push 300 watts through a 100w motor for 45 seconds and do it, just so he could taunt the lawmakers, lol). And you could make any motor not exceed 20 by just gearing it down hugely (which happens to be what i want for hill climbing).

At best, 5b is worded poorly. It says nothing about the specific configuration, just the motor, which is where I'm seeing the problem. Take the gearing and implementation out of the equation and there's no useful motor out there that's incapable of propelling a bike beyond 20mph on level ground.....gear it properly and you probably could use a 100w motor to hit 21mph and even if it melted some seconds after reaching speed the motor could still be considered capable.

Just say 20 (or 25 or 30) and leave it at that.

A horse can hold 30mph for a fair distance, right?...that seems like a fair top speed to me, but then I don't make the rules so we're stuck w/ BS.

Anyway...I feel bad for the guy with the scooter-looking "almost an ebike" even though he sounds like a jackass.

 

[allen_okc]

i used to live in roseburg oregon, but now i live in oklahoma city - the laws here are pretty much about the same...

in a case with motor assisted bicycles here in oklahoma, it would need a transmission to call it a moped which requires a tag and insurance but no drivers license - anything lower such as a motor assisted bicycle is legal as long as you do not exceed 25 mph and dont ride on a street posted higher than 35 mph...

but in his case, the law is out to get him simply because there is something about him they dont like...

 

[sangesf]

He's had Problems with the law before...
He actually won a case against the SAME judge that found him guilty in this case...

The guy's problems are...
1.) One of his pedals was broken (so there was no way he could pedal)
2.) The manufacturer state's 23mph top speed.
3.) He's been a thorn in the side of the law for a little while..

My questions are....
1.) What bicycle are they speaking of specifically? Where are these specs and what webiste is it?
2.) In the article it state's that he was able to "prove" his bike had a top speed of 20.. How did he prove that?

 

[Lock]

http://www.registerguard.com/web/ne...lain-court-vehicle-judge-springfield.html.csp

Electric bicycle rider guilty

Paul McClain is convicted of driving with a suspended license

By Karen McCowan
The Register-Guard
Published: (Wednesday, Aug 24, 2011 10:00AM) Today

A visiting circuit court judge on Tuesday upheld a Springfield Municipal Court decision that Paul McClain was guilty of driving with a suspended license when he rode a motorized bicycle along a Springfield street in March.

Senior Judge Raymond White agreed with Municipal Judge James Strickland’s June ruling that the battery-assisted two-wheeler that McClain rode on March 24 qualified as a motor vehicle — in part because one of its pedals was missing that day. White also reduced McClain’s fine for the violation from $472 to $354.

The retired Jackson County Circuit Court judge confined his ruling to the particulars of that case, however. That means he set no legal precedent for a larger question untested in Oregon courts: When does a battery-assisted bicycle become a motor vehicle?

One state law defines a motor vehicle as a one “that is self-propelled or designed for self-propulsion.” But another law defines an electric-­assisted bicycle as one “incapable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of greater than 20 mph on level ground” and having “both full operative pedals for human propulsion.” Such devices are treated as regular bicycles under state law, according to state Driver and Motor Vehicles spokesman David House. He has said the seemingly contradictory statutes create “a gray area” in Oregon law.

White is hearing local cases this week because of judicial vacancies on the Lane County Circuit Court. Three new judges will be sworn in next month to replace three who retired earlier this year.

As occurred in June’s Municipal Court trial, McClain and police presented conflicting evidence about whether his conveyance is capable of traveling faster than 20 mph. Springfield police officer Michael Massey, who cited McClain on March 24, said he took photos of the vehicle showing decals labeling it as a particular model. Police presented evidence of a product manual for that model stating that it is capable of traveling “up to 21 mph,” Massey said.

But McClain again asserted that his two-wheeler is actually a different model, and presented a product manual for that version stating that it could only go to 20 mph.

As he did in June, McClain represented himself in court Tuesday, engaging the judge in a bold manner. This time, he focused on the fact that White considered and did not reject his assertion about the vehicle’s top speed. White also commented that McClain was not driving a car with a suspended license.

“So, according to your ruling, it’s not illegal for me to ride my bike with two operational pedals, since you believe it couldn’t go faster than 20 miles an hour?” asked McClain.

White did not answer that question directly. But he warned McClain that his limited ruling “is not immunity” from future citations.

Despite that warning, McClain told a reporter outside the courtroom that he intended to resume riding the device Tuesday afternoon.

White’s ruling probably throws back to Springfield Municipal Court the task of sorting out when a battery-­assisted vehicle is a two-wheeler and when it is an electric bike. Since March 24, police have stopped McClain five other times for traveling on the vehicle without a driver’s license. McClain, 41, lost his license a decade ago for driving a car without insurance.

When Strickland found McClain guilty in connection with the March 24 citation, he postponed ruling on five similar citations for operating the vehicle pending the results of the Circuit Court appeal.

But those cases could also be resolved without a precedent-setting ruling on the speed at which a battery-assisted two-wheeler becomes a motor vehicle.

Springfield police say that, regardless of speed, it’s illegal for someone with a suspended license to power up and ride an electric-assisted bike.

“The bottom line is, he has a suspended license,” Massey said. “Driving is a privilege, not a right, and he lost that privilege.”

McClain has a long history of run-ins with Springfield police. Last year, the medical marijuana user argued that a police officer improperly cited him on a drug possession charge after he carried a bag of pot into the Springfield Justice Center. The charge ultimately was dismissed by a Springfield Municipal Court judge. McClain later agreed to a $7,500 settlement in the case that allowed the city to deny any wrongdoing.