Matt Gruber
1 MW
Saw a hard copy- the real 2007 law book.(invited cops over for a chat)
i could not believe my eyes
20 was too fast? now it is 10.
i could not believe my eyes
20 was too fast? now it is 10.
2007 FL law cuts e-bike max speed to 10 mph!
- Thread starter Matt Gruber
- Start date
Lessss
1 MW
Smells like a conspiracy to neuter an effective alternate transportation method to big oil.
Hmm looks like we need to dig up the email address of teh Florida representatives and start emailing and snailmailing.
Hmm looks like we need to dig up the email address of teh Florida representatives and start emailing and snailmailing.
Just want to highlight these two seemingly contradictory parts why the Fla. 10 mph law may not apply.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, low-speed
electric bicycles are consumer products within the meaning of
section 3(a)(1)[of the CPSA] and shall be subject to the Commission
regulations published at Sec. 1500.18(a)(12) and part 1512 of title
16, Code of Federal Regulations.
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 12988, the Commission states the
preemptive effect of this regulation as follows. Section 1 of the Act
provides that its requirements ''shall supercede 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)[the Commission's
regulations on bicycles at 16 CFR part 1512].'' Public Law No. 107-319,
section 1, 116 Stat. 2776.
So which is it, 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law', or does it supercede any more stringent State regulation? It seems the CPSC is claiming authority over ebikes for itself so the federal 20 mph max trumps Florida's 10 mph. Perhaps the precedent has yet to be established by someone taking it to court.
Of course since you didn't have any pedals your bike falls under this section.
The Commission's regulation at 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(12) makes the
determination that bicycles that do not comply with the requirements of
16 CFR part 1512 present a mechanical hazard within the meaning of
section 2(s) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). 15 U.S.C.
1261(s). The effect of this determination is that noncomplying bicycles
are "hazardous substances'' for purposes of section 2(f)(1)(D) of the
FHSA, and are also "banned hazardous substances'' pursuant to section
2(q)(1)(A) of the FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(D), 1261(q)(1)(A).
Since Fla. doesn't require pedals, that is less stringent so you should be ok all round. The thing with legal double speak is that it's full of terms such as 'for the purposes of this section' & 'notwithstanding' heaped on top with exemptions, exceptions, exceptions to exemptions, exemptions to exceptions, amendments & god knows what all. My impression is that laws are deliberately written as convoluted as possible so that with enuf money in the right lawyers pocket you can prove anything.
http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr03/low.html
[Federal Register: February 12, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 29)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7072-7073]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12fe03-3]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1512
Requirements for Low-Speed Electric Bicycles
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Public Law 107-319, 116 Stat. 2776 (the Act), enacted December
4, 2002, subjects low-speed electric bicycles to the Commission's
existing regulations at 16 CFR part 1512 and 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(12) for
bicycles that are solely human powered. For purposes of this
requirement, the Act defines a low-speed electric bicycle as ``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.'' Public Law No.
107-319, section 1, 116 Stat. 2776 (2002). The Commission is issuing
this immediately effective amendment to its requirements for bicycles
at 16 CFR part 1512 to promptly inform the public of the newly enacted
statutory requirement on low-speed electric bicycles.
DATES: This amendment is effective upon publication in the Federal
Register, that is, on February 12, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lowell Martin, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC
20207; telephone (301) 504-7628; e-mail lmartin@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 107-319 (the Act), enacted
December 4, 2002, amends the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15
U.S.C. 2051, et seq., by adding a new
[[Page 7073]]
section 38 establishing requirements for low speed electric bicycles.
Specifically, section 1 of the Act makes low-speed electric
bicycles subject to the Commission's existing regulations on bicycles.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, low-speed
electric bicycles are consumer products within the meaning of
section 3(a)(1)[of the CPSA] and shall be subject to the Commission
regulations published at Sec. 1500.18(a)(12) and part 1512 of title
16, Code of Federal Regulations.
Public Law 107-319, section 1, 116 Stat. 2776.
The Act defines the term ``low-speed electric bicycle'' as follows:
(b) for purposes 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.
Id.
The Commission's regulation at 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(12) makes the
determination that bicycles that do not comply with the requirements of
16 CFR part 1512 present a mechanical hazard within the meaning of
section 2(s) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). 15 U.S.C.
1261(s). The effect of this determination is that noncomplying bicycles
are ``hazardous substances'' for purposes of section 2(f)(1)(D) of the
FHSA, and are also ``banned hazardous substances'' pursuant to section
2(q)(1)(A) of the FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(D), 1261(q)(1)(A). See
also, Forester v. Consumer Product Safety Com'n, 559 F.2d 774, 783-786
(D.C. Cir. 1977).
The amendment to Sec. 1512.2 of 16 CFR part 1512 promulgated today
incorporates the Act's definition of ``low-speed electric bicycle,''
thereby helping to inform the public of the statutory application of
part 1512 to low-speed electric bicycles.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
authorizes an agency to dispense with certain notice procedures for a
rule when it finds ``good cause'' to do so. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
Specifically, under section 553(b)(3)(B), the requirement for notice
and an opportunity to comment does not apply when the agency, for good
cause, finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' The requirement reflected in this
amendment is imposed by the Act and is not discretionary with the
Commission. Accordingly, the Commission hereby finds that notice and an
opportunity for comment on this amendment are unnecessary.
Section 553(d)(3) of the APA authorizes an agency, ``for good cause
found and published with the rule,'' to dispense with the otherwise
applicable requirement that a rule be published in the Federal Register
at least 30 days before its effective date. The Commission hereby finds
that the 30 day delay in effective date is unnecessary because the
requirement reflected in the amendment was imposed by the Act and is
not discretionary with the Commission.
Because this amendment incorporates a requirement mandated by
statute that is not discretionary with the Commission, and thus is not
subject to notice and comment, this rule is not subject to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. Because this
amendment incorporates a statutory requirement not subject to agency
discretion, it is not an agency action subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 12988, the Commission states the
preemptive effect of this regulation as follows. Section 1 of the Act
provides that its requirements ``shall supercede 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)[the Commission's
regulations on bicycles at 16 CFR part 1512].'' Public Law No. 107-319,
section 1, 116 Stat. 2776.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1512
Consumer protection, Hazardous substances, Imports, Infants and
children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission amends Title 16 of the
Code of Federal Regulation to read as follows:
PART 1512--REQUIREMENTS FOR BICYCLES
1. The authority citation for Part 1512 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 2(f)(1)(D), (q)(1)(A), (s), 3(e)(1), 74 Stat.
372, 374, 375, as amended, 80 Stat. 1304-05, 83 Stat. 187-89 (15
U.S.C. 1261, 1262); Pub. L. 107-319, 116 Stat. 2776.
Sec. 1512.2. [Amended]
2. Amend Sec. 1512.2, to revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a) Bicycle means:
(1) A two-wheeled vehicle having a rear drive wheel that is solely
human-powered;
(2) 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.
Dated: February 6, 2003.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 03-3423 Filed 2-11-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, low-speed
electric bicycles are consumer products within the meaning of
section 3(a)(1)[of the CPSA] and shall be subject to the Commission
regulations published at Sec. 1500.18(a)(12) and part 1512 of title
16, Code of Federal Regulations.
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 12988, the Commission states the
preemptive effect of this regulation as follows. Section 1 of the Act
provides that its requirements ''shall supercede 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)[the Commission's
regulations on bicycles at 16 CFR part 1512].'' Public Law No. 107-319,
section 1, 116 Stat. 2776.
So which is it, 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law', or does it supercede any more stringent State regulation? It seems the CPSC is claiming authority over ebikes for itself so the federal 20 mph max trumps Florida's 10 mph. Perhaps the precedent has yet to be established by someone taking it to court.
Of course since you didn't have any pedals your bike falls under this section.
The Commission's regulation at 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(12) makes the
determination that bicycles that do not comply with the requirements of
16 CFR part 1512 present a mechanical hazard within the meaning of
section 2(s) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). 15 U.S.C.
1261(s). The effect of this determination is that noncomplying bicycles
are "hazardous substances'' for purposes of section 2(f)(1)(D) of the
FHSA, and are also "banned hazardous substances'' pursuant to section
2(q)(1)(A) of the FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(D), 1261(q)(1)(A).
Since Fla. doesn't require pedals, that is less stringent so you should be ok all round. The thing with legal double speak is that it's full of terms such as 'for the purposes of this section' & 'notwithstanding' heaped on top with exemptions, exceptions, exceptions to exemptions, exemptions to exceptions, amendments & god knows what all. My impression is that laws are deliberately written as convoluted as possible so that with enuf money in the right lawyers pocket you can prove anything.
http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr03/low.html
[Federal Register: February 12, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 29)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7072-7073]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12fe03-3]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1512
Requirements for Low-Speed Electric Bicycles
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Public Law 107-319, 116 Stat. 2776 (the Act), enacted December
4, 2002, subjects low-speed electric bicycles to the Commission's
existing regulations at 16 CFR part 1512 and 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(12) for
bicycles that are solely human powered. For purposes of this
requirement, the Act defines a low-speed electric bicycle as ``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.'' Public Law No.
107-319, section 1, 116 Stat. 2776 (2002). The Commission is issuing
this immediately effective amendment to its requirements for bicycles
at 16 CFR part 1512 to promptly inform the public of the newly enacted
statutory requirement on low-speed electric bicycles.
DATES: This amendment is effective upon publication in the Federal
Register, that is, on February 12, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lowell Martin, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC
20207; telephone (301) 504-7628; e-mail lmartin@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 107-319 (the Act), enacted
December 4, 2002, amends the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15
U.S.C. 2051, et seq., by adding a new
[[Page 7073]]
section 38 establishing requirements for low speed electric bicycles.
Specifically, section 1 of the Act makes low-speed electric
bicycles subject to the Commission's existing regulations on bicycles.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, low-speed
electric bicycles are consumer products within the meaning of
section 3(a)(1)[of the CPSA] and shall be subject to the Commission
regulations published at Sec. 1500.18(a)(12) and part 1512 of title
16, Code of Federal Regulations.
Public Law 107-319, section 1, 116 Stat. 2776.
The Act defines the term ``low-speed electric bicycle'' as follows:
(b) for purposes 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.
Id.
The Commission's regulation at 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(12) makes the
determination that bicycles that do not comply with the requirements of
16 CFR part 1512 present a mechanical hazard within the meaning of
section 2(s) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). 15 U.S.C.
1261(s). The effect of this determination is that noncomplying bicycles
are ``hazardous substances'' for purposes of section 2(f)(1)(D) of the
FHSA, and are also ``banned hazardous substances'' pursuant to section
2(q)(1)(A) of the FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(D), 1261(q)(1)(A). See
also, Forester v. Consumer Product Safety Com'n, 559 F.2d 774, 783-786
(D.C. Cir. 1977).
The amendment to Sec. 1512.2 of 16 CFR part 1512 promulgated today
incorporates the Act's definition of ``low-speed electric bicycle,''
thereby helping to inform the public of the statutory application of
part 1512 to low-speed electric bicycles.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
authorizes an agency to dispense with certain notice procedures for a
rule when it finds ``good cause'' to do so. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
Specifically, under section 553(b)(3)(B), the requirement for notice
and an opportunity to comment does not apply when the agency, for good
cause, finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' The requirement reflected in this
amendment is imposed by the Act and is not discretionary with the
Commission. Accordingly, the Commission hereby finds that notice and an
opportunity for comment on this amendment are unnecessary.
Section 553(d)(3) of the APA authorizes an agency, ``for good cause
found and published with the rule,'' to dispense with the otherwise
applicable requirement that a rule be published in the Federal Register
at least 30 days before its effective date. The Commission hereby finds
that the 30 day delay in effective date is unnecessary because the
requirement reflected in the amendment was imposed by the Act and is
not discretionary with the Commission.
Because this amendment incorporates a requirement mandated by
statute that is not discretionary with the Commission, and thus is not
subject to notice and comment, this rule is not subject to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. Because this
amendment incorporates a statutory requirement not subject to agency
discretion, it is not an agency action subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 12988, the Commission states the
preemptive effect of this regulation as follows. Section 1 of the Act
provides that its requirements ``shall supercede 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)[the Commission's
regulations on bicycles at 16 CFR part 1512].'' Public Law No. 107-319,
section 1, 116 Stat. 2776.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1512
Consumer protection, Hazardous substances, Imports, Infants and
children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission amends Title 16 of the
Code of Federal Regulation to read as follows:
PART 1512--REQUIREMENTS FOR BICYCLES
1. The authority citation for Part 1512 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 2(f)(1)(D), (q)(1)(A), (s), 3(e)(1), 74 Stat.
372, 374, 375, as amended, 80 Stat. 1304-05, 83 Stat. 187-89 (15
U.S.C. 1261, 1262); Pub. L. 107-319, 116 Stat. 2776.
Sec. 1512.2. [Amended]
2. Amend Sec. 1512.2, to revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a) Bicycle means:
(1) A two-wheeled vehicle having a rear drive wheel that is solely
human-powered;
(2) 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.
Dated: February 6, 2003.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 03-3423 Filed 2-11-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
Lessss
1 MW
I sent of this email
http://www.floridabicycle.org/whoweare.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Les
To: mighkw@spammersdie.net CHANGED from earthlink
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Florida imposees 10 mph limit on bicycles!!!
The 2007 law book limits electrically assisted bicycles( used by commuters who don't want to shower at work, and people with disabilities) to 10 mph in Florida.
We all know that electrically assisted bicycles are fster than non assisted bicycles rigth!?!??
This is a very sneaky way to impose a 10 mph limit on all bicycles.
What, were bicycles associations asleep when this was enacted?!?!?!
Smells like big oil bribery to sabotage bicycling and especially electrically assisted bicycling.
http://www.floridabicycle.org/whoweare.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Les
To: mighkw@spammersdie.net CHANGED from earthlink
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Florida imposees 10 mph limit on bicycles!!!
The 2007 law book limits electrically assisted bicycles( used by commuters who don't want to shower at work, and people with disabilities) to 10 mph in Florida.
We all know that electrically assisted bicycles are fster than non assisted bicycles rigth!?!??
This is a very sneaky way to impose a 10 mph limit on all bicycles.
What, were bicycles associations asleep when this was enacted?!?!?!
Smells like big oil bribery to sabotage bicycling and especially electrically assisted bicycling.
Lessss
1 MW
Got a response. The FBA is only aaware of the 2006 definition. I gave him a link to the other topic. Let's see if we can get some reinforcements sent in!
xyster
10 MW
Lowell said:
Two of those tiny 400W Tongxin hubmotors, one front, one rear, with lithium batteries and controller in a backpack or small bag would be about as stealth as it gets. I've thought about this configuration for a light, road racer ebike later.
I recall seeing a stealthy semi-bent bike on Power Assist. It had a rear hubmotor hidden in a disk wheel, and the bottom part of the seat looked sorta like a car seat. The batteries were hidden there, but I think it was lead. The whole was wired so cleanly that even knowing I was looking at a PA bike, I had to look twice. I don't think I would have guessed it had I not known, so it really is doable.
The disk wheel looked out of place by me, what with the thick seat and no fairings or nothing. With lithium, the seat could have been a lot stealthier, also a front fairing and/or tailbox would have made the rear disk fit right in.
Power assist bikes were either not legal, or not allowed on bike paths where the owner lived. But it seems his bike worked well for him.
BTW, bicycling clubs and such can be really hostile to ebikes. Over here I think it was Vélo-Québec, who wanted ebikes limited to 20km/h...
The disk wheel looked out of place by me, what with the thick seat and no fairings or nothing. With lithium, the seat could have been a lot stealthier, also a front fairing and/or tailbox would have made the rear disk fit right in.
Power assist bikes were either not legal, or not allowed on bike paths where the owner lived. But it seems his bike worked well for him.
BTW, bicycling clubs and such can be really hostile to ebikes. Over here I think it was Vélo-Québec, who wanted ebikes limited to 20km/h...
I'm hoping that shafty Schwinn will become more than just vapourware.
It's been like a year that their hubmotor lineup has been up on their website.
They've cut the number of models offered in half since their 2006 catalog & still no reviews or any place to actually buy one.
It's been like a year that their hubmotor lineup has been up on their website.
They've cut the number of models offered in half since their 2006 catalog & still no reviews or any place to actually buy one.
Bike lanes encourage clueless riders to do dangerous things like riding in door zones, staying too far to the right so cars don't see them, sometimes thay have things like blind 90° curbs, or they just disappear, ect... As far as bike paths go, they're not roads but linear parks with a trail in it. Some of them are really just wide sidewalks marked for bicycles, with stops every 200m. Cars don't expect vehicular traffic on a sidewalk, they often don't see you if you use these paths. These installations frequently don't follow basic road design stuff, for example there's one bike lane close to my place that continues straight, but does so by passing to the right of right turning traffic... So really these lanes and paths are appropriate for pedestrian usage rather then vehicular traffic.
Vélo-québec is the organism that makes the bike path design guide that is used by cities in québec. Their guide has lead to things like the above design failures. Last time I checked their webpage, it said that cyclists should ride in door zones(!) and suggested that 15-20km/h is a more reasonable speed for bikes anyways in the city... Truth be told, if you were to ride a bike on some of the installations approved by their design recommendations at more then 20km/h, then you really are going too fast...
This is compounded by bikes being required by law to use bike lanes when present (though not bike paths). So reading between the lines, I think they wanted to mask their design failures by crippling ebikes. Instead, the way things worked out is that there's an exception allowing not using bike lanes if you ride a power-assist bike, rather a compelling reason to ride one by me...
So that's my theory behind the 20km/h thing, and from the pictures I see, bike specific installations in other places seem to be comparable...
Vélo-québec is the organism that makes the bike path design guide that is used by cities in québec. Their guide has lead to things like the above design failures. Last time I checked their webpage, it said that cyclists should ride in door zones(!) and suggested that 15-20km/h is a more reasonable speed for bikes anyways in the city... Truth be told, if you were to ride a bike on some of the installations approved by their design recommendations at more then 20km/h, then you really are going too fast...
This is compounded by bikes being required by law to use bike lanes when present (though not bike paths). So reading between the lines, I think they wanted to mask their design failures by crippling ebikes. Instead, the way things worked out is that there's an exception allowing not using bike lanes if you ride a power-assist bike, rather a compelling reason to ride one by me...
So that's my theory behind the 20km/h thing, and from the pictures I see, bike specific installations in other places seem to be comparable...
Mathurin said:
In Florida (and most states) vehicles cannot operate under motorized power on any sidewalk or path (even if they simultaneously human powered).
The CPSC regulates what can be sold to the public, NOT how or where such things can be used. That is regulated and enforced by state and local governments. I have no idea what CPSC's rationale is for a 20 mph limit on motorized bicycles other than to be consistent with the Uniform Vehicle Code, which is what most states follow.
Lesss wrote: "Got a response. The FBA is only aware of the 2006 definition. I gave him a link to the other topic. Let's see if we can get some reinforcements sent in!"
As I wrote to Les, there are no 2007 statutes yet because the bills passed this spring have not yet gone into effect. There were no bills changing the definition of "bicycle;" I kept track of bicycle-related bills during the session. So, I have no idea where this mythical 10 mph limit is coming from. Perhaps the ultimate argument is that the officer would not recognize it as a bicycle since it did not have pedals (which I think is not unreasonable), but even then there are street legal electric scooters.
Mighk Wilson
Board President
Florida Bicycle Association
Mighk said:
I would like to hear your view as to what's so unreasonable about a hobby horse, the worlds first form of bicycle.
Also can anyone explain what's the point of having a law that sez you can buy a legal product but essentially are unable to use it anywhere? For hanging on a wall as art?
That's like the prostitution law in Canada. There is no law outright prohibiting it. Just laws that prohibit everything else that's assosciated with it like communicating for the purposes of.
The CPSC reg may not provide a winning argument, but perhaps it will serve as a mitigating one. That you were taking your guidance from that & that you didn't intend to scoff the law. Judges are big on intent. If he asks then why didn't you also comply with the pedals, then point out the part about less stringent requirement, i.e. Fla. doesn't require pedals. It can't hurt to put it out in front of a judge along with your other legal points to see if he shoots it down like Mighk sez.
Lessss
1 MW
Hey matt if you talk to the cops again see if you can photograph that 2007 lawbook or get your own copy. Something is really starting to smell here.
Matt Gruber
1 MW
i took a real careful look at the page, looking for signs of tampering, looked legit
cops didn't mention 10 mph to me, and when i saw it and gasped, they said it wasn't important(in my case).
the cover said 2007 on it and it looked brand new.
thanks to everyone for helping!
cops didn't mention 10 mph to me, and when i saw it and gasped, they said it wasn't important(in my case).
the cover said 2007 on it and it looked brand new.
thanks to everyone for helping!
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh said:
I didn't say I thought a hobby horse was unreasonable. I said I thought it was reasonable that an officer -- who probably knows nothing of the history of bicycles -- would not see such a device as a bicycle.
>>Also can anyone explain what's the point of having a law that sez you can buy a legal product but essentially are unable to use it anywhere? For hanging on a wall as art?<<Again>>The CPSC reg may not provide a winning argument, but perhaps it will serve as a mitigating one.<<
The CPSC is not really relevant to this case. Florida traffic law does not refer to the CPSC. What matters is Florida law and how it's being interpreted.
>>Fla. doesn't require pedals<<
True, but we have to return to the "reasonableness" test. Does the owner of this "electric hobby horse" actually use his feet to propel his vehicle? (And I don't mean push for a few steps then let the motor do the rest; I mean paddle the ground continuously. Using one's feet for just starting up is akin to a moped, in which the purpose of the pedals is just to get the vehicle moving. Mopeds are simply not geared to be pedaled continuously.) If the vehicle is not capable of being propelled continuously by human power then I don't think it qualifies as a bicycle. Once it goes beyond the realm of being a bicycle I'm not really qualified to comment as to whether it's street legal, but I CAN tell you it can't be used on a sidewalk or path.
Mighk
Lessss
1 MW
There is no requirement for continuous human input. It would be used in starting and in assisting going up hills.
WELCOME TO THE BOARD Mighk!
WELCOME TO THE BOARD Mighk!
Lessss said:
The statutory definition says, "every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor..." Sure, you could say such locomotion is "a combination of human power and an electric helper motor," but that doesn't meet the "if it quacks like a duck" test to me.
Look, I'm all for people using whatever reasonable means they can fashion to get around that cuts down on automobile use. For instance, I think the low-speed vehicle law prohibiting NEVs and such vehicles from using roadways with posted speeds higher than 35 mph is wrong. (And that's not a "big oil conspiracy," it's a "traffic engineers and legislators who hate anything that slows down cars 'conspiracy'."
I suggest your group should be working the legislature to get the laws changed so many of these various motorized scooters, go-peds, etc. have access to the roadways (as long as they meet some reasonable performance measures for braking and steering).
Mighk
I spend a fair amount of time in Tallahassee during the legislative session and I get all the agendas and schedules. I cant find anything regarding any changes relating to bicycle use other than an update to add info about helmet law from this last session.
However anything passed in session would now officially be law though it sure would seem awfully quick for a publication. It only takes 10 days following legislative presentment during session to allow the Governor to act against. If he doesn't within that time period, its law. Sometimes new legislation comes with a specific date as for from this time forward that may be beyond the 10 days.
I just searched the entire House and Senate database and cant find anything that amends 316.003 (2).
2006 statute
316.003 (2) BICYCLE.--Every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels. The term does not include such a vehicle with a seat height of no more than 25 inches from the ground when the seat is adjusted to its highest position or a scooter or similar device. No person under the age of 16 may operate or ride upon a motorized bicycle.
However anything passed in session would now officially be law though it sure would seem awfully quick for a publication. It only takes 10 days following legislative presentment during session to allow the Governor to act against. If he doesn't within that time period, its law. Sometimes new legislation comes with a specific date as for from this time forward that may be beyond the 10 days.
I just searched the entire House and Senate database and cant find anything that amends 316.003 (2).
2006 statute
316.003 (2) BICYCLE.--Every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels. The term does not include such a vehicle with a seat height of no more than 25 inches from the ground when the seat is adjusted to its highest position or a scooter or similar device. No person under the age of 16 may operate or ride upon a motorized bicycle.
Lessss
1 MW
combination
Going up a hill using both electric motor and striding is a combination. Combination doesn't by definition mean at the same time. def One or more elements selected from a set
His vehicle is legal as the law is worded.
If there has been no amendment of the law, and that 10mph limit is in the book then it is either an eggregous misprint or it is indeed an intimidation tactic.
Going up a hill using both electric motor and striding is a combination. Combination doesn't by definition mean at the same time. def One or more elements selected from a set
His vehicle is legal as the law is worded.
If there has been no amendment of the law, and that 10mph limit is in the book then it is either an eggregous misprint or it is indeed an intimidation tactic.
Matt Gruber
1 MW
Can i be charged with a violation of a DEFINITION?
chapter 316.003 contains definitions only!
i am charged with criminal 320.01 no reg.
I am about to write a letter to the chief asking for proof that any e-bike, NO VIN, requires a tag.
.
i hope the 10mph is a misprint. the place to look to verify what i saw is the library or a police station book, not the web. If some or all the books are misprinted, some cops may attempt to enforce it.
thanks again for all your help. this is taking too much time!
chapter 316.003 contains definitions only!
i am charged with criminal 320.01 no reg.
I am about to write a letter to the chief asking for proof that any e-bike, NO VIN, requires a tag.
.
i hope the 10mph is a misprint. the place to look to verify what i saw is the library or a police station book, not the web. If some or all the books are misprinted, some cops may attempt to enforce it.
thanks again for all your help. this is taking too much time!
Similar threads
