Arizona Electric Bicycle Law changes (2017)

wturber said:

Yep. I'd buy or make a sticker that says 750W , put it on the motor, and point to it if questioned. Cops aren't going to test for wattage. That's one reason that having such technical requirements are bad law. They are impractical to enforce.

Click to expand...

Not if it becomes an issue; it's simplicity itself. The law changes a bit to require no more than 750 watts, and it holds the manufacturer responsible for ensuring that their bikes cannot exceed 750 watts. Then they require testing and registration of all ebikes, with periodic inspections to ensure no tampering. (Similar to how old emissions laws were enforced.) If you ride an unregistered ebike you go to jail.

It would, of course, behoove everyone to not let it get to that point.

billvon said:

If you ride an unregistered ebike you go to jail.

Click to expand...

Jail - Yeah right! frock that!

billvon said:

wturber said:

Yep. I'd buy or make a sticker that says 750W , put it on the motor, and point to it if questioned. Cops aren't going to test for wattage. That's one reason that having such technical requirements are bad law. They are impractical to enforce.

Click to expand...

Not if it becomes an issue; it's simplicity itself. The law changes a bit to require no more than 750 watts, and it holds the manufacturer responsible for ensuring that their bikes cannot exceed 750 watts. Then they require testing and registration of all ebikes, with periodic inspections to ensure no tampering. (Similar to how old emissions laws were enforced.) If you ride an unregistered ebike you go to jail.

It would, of course, behoove everyone to not let it get to that point.

Click to expand...

Right. Which is why I'd like to advocate sensible and practical e-bike laws. That should help it not become an issue.

wturber said:

Right. Which is why I'd like to advocate sensible and practical e-bike laws. That should help it not become an issue.

Click to expand...

Definitely.

The biggest threat to easy-to-use ebikes are people like the delivery ebike riders in Manhattan. They are under time pressure for deliveries, and thus you see them doing 30mph the wrong way down one-way streets, almost hitting pedestrians, dodging cops, cutting off cars etc. They are not the majority of ebikers, but they are the most visible; last time I was in NY they made up the majority of ebikers I saw (which is not the same as the total number of ebikers.)

This isn't entirely their fault. They are under pressure to perform; if they don't, then the job goes to someone who _is_ willing to do 30mph down a one way street the wrong way. Sensible (and evenly enforced) laws can help reduce their incentives to do that.

Sorry to dredge up an old thread, I haven't posted in a while.
I have ridden quite a number of "multipurpose paths" and most of them say motorized use forbidden but e-bikes are becoming more and more popular anyway; the way ebikes seem to get away with this is to look for the most part like a regular bike and not violate the park's rules, 20mph being a popular speed limit on bike paths.

As far as wattage limits go I couldn't care less if a bike is capable of 250 watts, 750 watts or 10 kilowatts in the exact same way that I couldn't care less if a car driving down the road is capable of 50, 200 or 1,000 horsepower so long as they drive respectfully. The major difference being that if you drive down a multipurpose path in a e-motorcycle/e-scooter you are just asking for trouble and perhaps that's where the wattage limit thing comes to play.

Looks like it is a done deal. The Arizona Legislature passed a slimmed down version of the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association three class system and the Governor signed it. Slimmed down because such things as age limitations and helmet requirements have been omitted. The 750 watt limit is now established. There are no explicit speed limits for the bikes themselves, but the electric motors are required to stop providing power once they reach either 20 mph or 28 mph. Pedelec only if your bike's motor provides power past 20 mph. I see this as creating an enforcement nightmare for police officers. There are no labeling requirements for bikes like mine. Police will have to actually test a bike to see what class it is. Even if the bike is labeled (required after Jan 1, 2019) there's no provision that makes modifying the bike illegal other than doing potentially prevents the bike from landing in a class. It's a handy-dandy piece of legislation for retailers though (who helped push it through). I believe the effective date will be 08/03/2018. (https://www.azleg.gov/general-effective-dates/)

The article:
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/north-america/2018/05/17/after-surprise-veto-arizona%E2%80%99s-governor-signs-3-class-e-bike-law#.WwpYMEgvxhE

The final marked legislation:
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/53leg/2R/proposed/S.2266WORSLEY.DOCX.htm

So, technically, it looks like my bike becomes illegal on 08/03/2018 (so does Amberwolf's trike - bummer). To be legal I'll have to limit my power down from the current 1150 or so to 750, make sure it cuts out at 28 mph, and remove the hand throttle. That's a bit of a bummer, but the positive side is that I can ride under power to 28mph without breaking the law and can ride down hills as fast as a dare (or within the posted speed limit) and still be legal.

Actually, after reading the law changes again, I see that a hand throttle is not specifically excluded for Class 3. The requirement is that the motor only provides power while the rider is pedaling. So a hand throttle that works in addition to the pedelec would be legal. That's the main way I use mine anyway, as a boost to the pedelec. Can a Cycle Analyst be configured such that the hand throttle only works while pedaling and is non-functional when the cranks are stationary? Also, I can imagine creating a bike that switches from Class 1 mode to Class 3 mode. If I make switching not possible while riding, then I think that would be legal. The reason is that the wording of the law is that the bicycle "ceases to provide power" past a certain speed - which would be true. I couldn't be legally convertible from Class 2 because the wording says "... and that is not capable of providing assistance ..." A convertible bike would arguably be capable of providing assistance past 20 mph even if it was currently not configured to do so. But a convertible configuration mode bicycle would, actually "cease to provide power" once it reached 20 mph in Class 1 mode as required by law and couldn't do otherwise so long as it is not possible to switch configurations while riding. But aside from the legal definition, in the unlikely event that it came down to it with the local police you could demonstrate that the bike was limited per the law. Behaving reasonably, of course, makes the need for such a demonstration pretty unlikely. So these musings are about 50% mental exercise and 50% a matter of "just in case there's confusion for the next few years after the new laws go into effect." Why does this matter? Because Class 3 e-bikes are prohibited from certain kinds of paths such as multi-use paths. I've used my bike illegally on such paths in the past with no hassles primarily because I do the common sense thing and slow down so that my riding is safe for the given conditions and persons I'm sharing the path with.Again, its a matter of common sense courtesy.

I am curious if existing bikes would be "grandfathered" in, without a specific clause about that?

If not, there might quite a few retail-sold bikes (or built from retail-sold kits) that don't meet the new specs and would have to be modified.


BTW, this bit in that article

“This bill is a critical step for Arizona in clarifying the law surrounding the use of e-bikes, and will encourage the safe use of e-bikes by providing clear rules with respect to how they must be equipped and operated,” she added

Click to expand...

is silly, because all of that was already clear with the existing law. Just didn't have a power limit.




Personally, I doubt that enforcement is going to care about power levels as long as they are ridden safely and within the law.

If I end up having to limit mine to 750w, well, it's going to piss off a bunch of drivers out there, and make it a lot less safe to ride anywhere, simply because of acceleration times (and if there is any wind, because 750w isn't even enough to go 20MPH in still air on the trike because of it's lack of aero).

I have the CAv3.1 already on there and setup, so just have to connect the throttle to it, then the rightside system will all be under it's control for PAS and throttle, so by itself it would be max of 750w. Can't connect the leftside system until I can design and build the electronics to keep throttle usage independent so I can still steer via throttle to make tighter turns, yet still allow the CA to limit things to a total of 750w.

I have no idea how to do that yet. Can't use two separate CAs because that won't limit to a total of 750w automatically between whichever motors are being used, unless both CAs use the same single shunt, so they can each see the total power. But how they will be able to regulate when each has no feedback to the other besides that.... Moot as I don't have a second working v3 CA anyway (just an old 2.3-something).

I agree. The new laws are no more clear than the old ones. In fact, since they are more complicated, there is more room for ambiguity - my musing about a bike that is easily convertible between classes is one example.

I think it was Tekletik who wrote an excellent post outlining the rationale behind these laws. That made it pretty clear to me that these Peopleforbikes.org laws are mostly about smoothing the way for the retail selling of ebikes. There is very little consideration given to the enforcement side of the rules. As with most bike laws we can reasonably expect continued confusion, misinterpretation and misapplication of these laws. So yeah, this bit, "This bill is a critical step for Arizona in clarifying the law surrounding the use of e-bikes, and will encourage the safe use of e-bikes by providing clear rules with respect to how they must be equipped and operated,” is pretty much baloney.

But the bill doesn't seem bad for me. I expect that from a practical standpoint it will be better overall than the current law since it eliminates the current 20 mph speed limit - which is silly when you consider coasting down hills and that a fit cyclist can easily exceed that speed. So the way I ride now is perfectly legal from the standpoint of directly observable riding behavior. The only issue is whether my equipment meets the technical specification - a question that is unlikely to get asked.

BTW, I dug into my LCD documentation and found that my controller can be configured so the throttle only works when the pedals are moving. And, of course, it can impose motor assist speed and power limits. I could make my bike fully compliant with a few minutes of changing settings. And changing the motor assist speed limit threshold is a top level setting that is easy to get to. Something I could probably do in less than a minute if I ever need to be Class 1.

I think if I were in your situation, I'd just keep doing what you are doing until and unless you get hassled. Staying under 20 mph will hopefully do that for you.

That's what I will be doing--except that I will still work on developing the stuff necessary to convert it to the way I need it to operate.

Otherwise if I do have to do it, it could take me months (or more) to work it all out, and in the meantime I would have to walk (hobble) everywhere, in the summer heat. I wouldn't survive that very long. Or I'd have to swap out the motor wheels on the trike for regular ones (to remove the drag of the motors) and take the heavy battery out, and pedal the trike around at a few MPH (at best) for the short distances of a few hundred yards at a time I'm likely to be able to manage.


Alternately, I could take the leftside motor off (since itw ould only be contributing drag and not power, and if questioned about it, would simplify if it isn't there) and leave just the rigthside system that's already setup to be controlled by the CA. Would need to find a rim and spokes to build the wheel from.


I'm sure there's other alternatives I haven't had time to think of yet...but preparing for the worst-case ahead of time is a better idea than just going on la-de-da-de-da and assuming it will never happen.

I don't plan on doing anything different. My usual ride, the "assist bike" more or less, complies w/ class 1 anyhow.
Even cruising on ,my faster bike @ 25 mph, I've never had a cop even given me a second look.
Here in Tucson, Spookys (gas eng. powered bikes) predominate and I think I can judge any law enforcement attitude changes by how they deal w/ them.
I don't quite understand what the law is concerned w/ them, but most of the Spookys here cruise in the high 20's mph and you can hear them a mile away.
I just can't believe if we are both doing the same speeds, but I'm doing it dead silence, that the cops would single me out.

For the "spooky"s, the law used to be the same as electric, except they had a cylinder bore size limit.

Now, they still have the same limitations (the law for those did not change at all, other than to specifically exclude electrics from that section of the law), while electrics have the one class with higher speeds (but more restrictions in other ways).

BTW, one side effect of the exclusion of electrics from that section is that now they are *not* motorized bicycles, so technically any signage/etc excluding motorized bicycles from an area no longer applies to electrics. (I had to re-add the strike-thrus of "electric" so if I missed any let me know and I'll go back and fix it).

28-2516. Motorized gas powered bicycles or tricycles; definition

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title:

1. A certificate of title is not required for a motorized [strike]electric or[/strike] gas powered bicycle or tricycle.

2. Registration is not required for a motorized [strike]electric or[/strike] gas powered bicycle or tricycle.

3. Vehicle license tax is not imposed on a motorized [strike]electric or[/strike] gas powered bicycle or tricycle.

4. A motorized [strike]electric or[/strike] gas powered bicycle or tricycle is exempt from the provisions of section 28-964 relating to required equipment on motorcycles and motor-driven cycles and from the provisions of title 49, chapter 3, article 5 relating to vehicle emissions inspections.

5. A driver license is not required to operate a motorized [strike]electric or[/strike] gas powered bicycle or tricycle.

6. A motorized [strike]electric or[/strike] gas powered bicycle or tricycle may use rights‑of‑way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles.

7. A motorized [strike]electric or[/strike] gas powered bicycle or tricycle is not subject to chapter 9 of this title.

B. This section does not prohibit a local authority from adopting an ordinance that regulates or prohibits the operation of motorized [strike]electric or[/strike] gas powered bicycles or tricycles, except that a local authority shall not adopt an ordinance that requires registration and licensing of motorized [strike]electric or[/strike] gas powered bicycles or tricycles.

C. For the purposes of this section, "motorized [strike]electric or[/strike] gas powered bicycle or tricycle":

1. Means a bicycle or tricycle that is equipped with a helper motor that has a maximum piston displacement of forty-eight cubic centimeters or less, that may also be self-propelled and that is operated at speeds of less than twenty miles per hour.

2. Does not include an electric bicycle."

Click to expand...

Electrics usage (also another section specifically excludes electric bicycles from being "vehicles", in case signage excludes vehicles):

67. 68. "Vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, excluding electric bicycles and devices moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.

Click to expand...

28-819. Electric bicycles

A. An operator of an electric bicycle is granted all the rights and privileges and is subject to all of the duties of a person riding a bicycle. Except as otherwise provided in this section, an electric bicycle is subject to the same provisions of this title as a bicycle.

B. An electric bicycle is not subject to the provisions of this title relating to certificates of title, registration, vehicle license tax, driver licenses or vehicle insurance.

C. Beginning January 1, 2019, manufacturers and distributors of electric bicycles shall apply a label that is permanently affixed, in a prominent location, to each electric bicycle. The label shall contain the classification number, top assisted speed and motor wattage of the electric bicycle and shall be printed in at least nine‑point bold type.

D. A class 1 electric bicycle or a class 2 electric bicycle may be used on bicycle and multiuse paths. A local authority or agency of this state having jurisdiction over a bicycle or multiuse path may prohibit the operation of a class 1 electric bicycle or class 2 electric bicycle on the path.

E. A class 3 electric bicycle may not be operated on a bicycle or multiuse path unless it is within or adjacent to a highway or roadway or unless the local authority or agency of this state having jurisdiction over the path allows the operation.

Click to expand...

BTW, there is a specific definition of "manufacturer" in this section that does not include anyone except those making motor vehicles, trailers, and semitrailers, so I don't know that section C above can use that word without redefining it:

34. 35. "Manufacturer" means a person engaged in the business of manufacturing motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers.

Click to expand...

amberwolf said:

Electrics usage (also another section specifically excludes electric bicycles from being "vehicles", in case signage excludes vehicles):

67. 68. "Vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, excluding electric bicycles and devices moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Electric bicycles weren't "vehicles" according to existing AZ law either.

67. "Vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, excluding devices moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.

So I routinely ignore such signs when I run across them. The reality is that city ordinances may override the AZ statutes, but I figured I'd at least have a good reason to give to a police officer or judge if I were stopped - especially if the sign didn't also contain a reference to an ordinance. And that issue still exists once this changed AZ law goes into place. It will still be important to know local ordinances.

The effective date for laws passed in the 53rd Regular Session of the Arizona Legislature is today. They have not updated the onllne Arizona Revised Statutes yet, but here's a link to the changes that affect e-bikes that are now in effect.

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/53leg/2R/proposed/S.2266WORSLEY.DOCX.htm

https://www.azleg.gov/general-effective-dates/

Do they say that pre-existing bikes must be modified to meet the new rules?

Alan B said:

Do they say that pre-existing bikes must be modified to meet the new rules?

Click to expand...

No, but that is implicit in the way the statutes are written. Everything is present tense. "ELECTRIC BICYCLE" MEANS A BICYCLE OR TRICYCLE THAT IS ..."

The only portion concerned with the past or the future is the section that give manufacturers and distributors until Jan. 1, 2019 to comply with labeling rules. That, of course, means that older bikes have no labeling requirements.

Nonetheless, I'll be re-labeling my DD hub motor as 702 watts which is the nominal rating of my controller (13 amps) multiplied by the 54 volts that I run the motor at. This, of course is to aid LEOs in coming to a reasonable conclusion regarding the legality of my bike. The wording regarding motor wattage is vague, ill-defined and open to interpretation. So I'm going to do my bit to help out.

24. "ELECTRIC BICYCLE" MEANS A BICYCLE OR TRICYCLE THAT IS EQUIPPED WITH FULLY OPERABLE PEDALS AND AN ELECTRIC MOTOR OF LESS THAN SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY WATTS AND THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CLASSES:

What the heck does "... an electric motor of less than seven hundred fifty watts" mean?

http://www.ebikes.ca/learn/power-ratings.html?SID=918e6882e19fafa9b4f576387cd7c676

Thanks Justin! :^)

Vehicle and many other laws are changed frequently without there being a requirement for older vehicles to be modified to suit. Casual reading of law produces many misunderstandings.

Perhaps we should all start putting "Manufacturer's stickers" on our ebikes to state the date they were made electric. They should not be required to conform to laws made after they were converted. California had a 1000W rule before the new 750W Class system, for example, and no PAS or throttle requirements.

"Grandfathering" is something I've seen done in various laws, but I don't know if it's an automatic process if not specifically excluded by a new law or new version of a law, or if it requires a specific "grandfather clause" in the new law or new version thereof.

Alan B said:

Vehicle and many other laws are changed frequently without there being a requirement for older vehicles to be modified to suit. Casual reading of law produces many misunderstandings.

Click to expand...

Sure. Sometimes things get "grandfathered." There just isn't any indication of that being the case here. In fact there are clear indications that it isn't the case.

I'm not sure why you might think I'm reading these laws casually. I've actually gone over them many times and have done so fairly critically. The bulk of these 2018 changes are directed at defining what an electrical bicycle is and what it is not. So you'd think that if they wanted to make some some date-based exceptions that they would spell them out fairly clearly - which they did with the labeling requirements. But there's nothing like that in the statute changes that define an electric bicycle.

BTW, in Arizona, not only is a bicycle not a motor vehicle, it's not even a vehicle.

By casually, I mean without the training and experience of a lawyer. Many things have different meaning in legalese. My apologies if you have legal training.

Ex post facto law is prohibited by the constitution (and I realize that's not what would apply here), I see from a 30 second internet search, but I'm no expert on this. I just don't see that a new law suddenly makes all the previously manufactured products illegal. That would not work. The new laws cannot reasonably be written to take all the old law, and case law into account. So that must be handled elsewhere in the system. Of course this must all be basic lawyer training, but we seem to not be hearing from experts. Of course if not charging for their time they probably are unlikely to comment.

Unless the new law specifically states that all ebikes manufactured prior must be confiscated at the local police station, the new law just doesn't cover them, they are outside the scope of the law. It only affects manufacture and sale after the date it goes into effect.

Of course if you choose to "remanufacture" your ebike you could make it fall under the new law, I would think, but why is there a requirement to?

Do you put new smog equipment on your car every few years to meet the new smog laws?

AFAIC it is every citizen's obligation to disobey unjust laws. No motorized vehicles are held to similar ridiculous standards that are imposed on ebikes in much of the world. This singling out of the most efficient form of land transport devised by man is ludacris.

Alan B said:

By casually, I mean without the training and experience of a lawyer. Many things have different meaning in legalese. My apologies if you have legal training.

Click to expand...

Well, I think that is a very poor use of the word "casual." And in the course of our 25 years running our studio we've had very mixed results with lawyers and their actual understanding of the law. I think their biggest value is often their understanding of the nitty gritty workings of the legal systems and not the law per se.

Alan B said:

Ex post facto law is prohibited by the constitution, I see from a 30 second internet search, but I'm no expert on this. I just don't see that a new law suddenly makes all the previously manufactured products illegal.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make the old products illegal. It may or may not change their transportation classification though. And doing so is not ex post facto law making. The laws merely apply to what you operate on public roads and paths as of August 3, 2018. They have no effect on what you did prior to that. These laws are not ex post facto. Just because some activity was once legal does not mean it will always be legal. It is fundamental that we are allowed to review and change our laws - applying new standards and discarding old ones.

Alan B said:

That would not work. The new laws cannot reasonably be written to take all the old law, and case law into account. So that must be handled elsewhere in the system.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it work? Again, just saying it won't work doesn't make it so. You seem to be thinking that new law must be made perfectly consistent with old law. While I think that is a laudable goal, it is also simply not always going to happen. That's the reality that courts and lawyers struggle with all the time. That said, these new AZ electric bicycle laws do a fairly good job of addressing possible ambiguities with other classes of transportation. They include five specific exclusions to reduce or eliminate possible confusion.

Of course, we should hope that new law does not introduce new ambiguity and does not contradict other laws. But the reality is that laws often include ambiguity and contradiction. That's a good part of why we need lawyers. It is also evidenced by our Supreme court having dissenting opinions in about half of their decisions.

Alan B said:

Unless the new law specifically states that all ebikes manufactured prior must be confiscated at the local police station, the new law just doesn't cover them, they are outside the scope of the law. It only affects manufacture and sale after the date it goes into effect.

Click to expand...

That's absurd. Did you even read the law? I don't think you did or you probably wouldn't have said this. None of what you said above follows logically from the changes in the law. The core of the new law is to create a new definition - "electric bicycle" that did not exist before. If your ebike doesn't fall under the new definition then it will almost surely fall under one of the old ones. And depending on how it is equipped, it will be either a moped, a motor driven cycle, or a motorcycle.

Alan B said:

Of course if you choose to "remanufacture" your ebike you could make it fall under the new law, I would think, but why is there a requirement to?

Click to expand...

There's only a requirement if you want your ebike to be treated as an electrical bicycle under the law.

Alan B said:

Do you put new smog equipment on your car every few years to meet the new smog laws?

Click to expand...

New smog laws typically refer to specific years of manufacture and usually specifically exclude older model years. So no, you generally don't have to retrofit your vehicle. But at least some states have implemented retrofit requirements for certain commercial diesel vehicles. I'm not sure about the EPA and Federal requirements. But I do know that the EPA has created hugely expensive (and questionable) retrofit requirements on a number of coal generating stations. Requiring retrofit to comply with new standards is hardly unheard of. But that's beside the point. there are no such requirements or exclusion in the new these new Arizona laws.

Well Amberwolf,

If you were ever to be hassled about power , with all the work you have done and can do... would it just be easy to make your trike into a moped or motorcycle ?
There would be an inspection and reg fees and insurance and the cost of all the lighting/turn signals / stop lights / horn, etc .

But here in California, the Registration fee for a moped is real cheep as well as insurance. ( For Full Coverage for my Full Size 600cc Supersport motorcycle , insurance is only about $ 360 a year , although my age and clean driving record keeps it that low cost )
For a moped it would be a fraction of that cost.

California already had electric bicycle definitions before this law, with higher power limits.

In California mopeds need to have DOT tires and rims, and need a certificate of origin, and need to meet many requirements like turn signals, horn, DOT headlights, drivers license, insurance, registration, etc. They cannot use bike lanes or paths or trails. They are forced to go 30 mph max, and where do you ride it on a 50 mph highway that has a bike lane? You can't use the bike lane, and you can't use the traffic lane safely. The side of the road is the bike lane so there is no safe place left.

The ebike is a very special classification, the moped is a very restricted vehicle.

My example of making something into a moped is just for someone who builds more of a go to work vehicle like what amberwolf has made. Good to know about the DOT Tires though.
Here in California you can make your own Motorcycle / Car, etc . I forgot the way to go about it , but a custom vehicle can be come a legal vehicle here if you do put all the necessary parts onto it.
You might even be able to make your own NEV ( Neighborhood Electric Vehicle ) and get it legally registered.
The city of Palm Desert many years ago made it legal to call a Golf Cart with turn signals / lights , horn , etc. , ... a NEV.
and drive it on all streets within that city, as long as it did not drive more than 35 mph.
More and More Cities are adopting the same laws/ordinance so that more people can get out of and lessen the driving of Gas/Diesel vehicles.