California: AB-1096 to classify an "electric bicycle"

But, adding these amendments to the bill now at this late stage would probably kill it for the current legislative session, and I prefer to see this bill pass than to endure another year being treated legally as a "motorized bicycle" under current law. These amendments could be introduced in a future legislative session.
Click to expand...
On balance, this is a great step forward and nailing each step forward is key. Let's hope this becomes a first step in the evolution of e-bike and alternative zero emission modes of transportation friendly legislation.

Most of the ES community who want to run HP ebikes are always going to be outlaws. Being classified closer to mopeds is certainly a reasonable accommodation.
 
ARRGHHHH :evil:

Useless fluff limits without a specific (ASTM) standard to back it.

How will USA ever have quality bikes without adopting a proper product compliance standard.

....So you are required to wear a bicycle grade helmet when riding at moped speeds.....riiiiiiiight
 
21207.5. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other law, a motorized bicycle or class 3 electric bicycle shall not be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over the path or trail permits, by ordinance, that operation.

Bad, but:

(1) A “class 1 electric bicycle,” or “low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
(2) A “class 2 electric bicycle,” or “low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
(3) A “class 3 electric bicycle,” or “speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour, and equipped with a speedometer.

This is key. If you keep your ebike under 20mph, then you can have an electric motorcycle (with pedals) with max speed of 20mph (class 2). Also, Class 3 means that if you're a phantom pedaler, your motor can zip you up to 28mph and still be legal everywhere where bikes are allowed. Personally, I hardly ever NOT pedal.
 
Alan B said:
Any update on the status of AB-1096?
Click to expand...

Looks like it's working its way through the CA Senate.

You can check the bill's progress by clicking on the link to the CA legislature web site in the first message in this thread. Or click the link below:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1096
 
The ratings on electric motors are very slushy. Most hubmotors aren't really 1000W motors by conventional motor ratings, even though the company may rate it that way. The same motor can have ratings from 200 to 2000W depending on how you define the rating process. What really defines the power in the motor is the controller and battery, especially the battery voltage. In addition, the legal ratings are generally output power, so the input power to the motor is higher, and the advertised motor rating may be in terms of input power. During acceleration the power is also briefly higher than the continuous value. So the power fluctuates significantly and the ratings do also.

There are many advantages to using a motor with a higher rating but operated at a lower power level. Less heating, and higher efficiency are two examples. If the legal continuous output is 750W and the motor efficiency is 75% the input power would be 1000W, and during acceleration the input power might rise to 1500W or more for a brief time. The best way to control the power is to get a programmable controller and adjust it to have the desired acceleration, peak power and average power. During acceleration a hubmotor is less efficient at low speeds so even if input power is higher output power may still not exceed the desired 750W. Programming the controller is generally done offline using a PC and is not adjusted while the bike is operating. All controllers, whether programmable or fixed have firmware that controls their behavior. This is required for proper operation of brushless DC motors. Another alternative is to buy a controller that is factory set to the proper values.

So, to have a cool motor with long life, operating a motor at below labelled ratings is often a good choice. You do pay some penalty in size and weight but you generally gain in terms of efficiency and reliability.

Regarding the gearing, there is no need to restrict the gearing to avoid pedaling over 20 mph, the requirement is that the motor shut off when 20 mph is exceeded, which happens routinely on downhill grades where bicycles often reach 40-50-60 mph. To take advantage of the new 28 mph rules you may want to consider pedal sensing systems instead of throttles. The current legislative environment seems to prefer pedaling to throttle control.

As a side note I find requiring pedaling to be a reduction in safety, in the testing I have done pedaling at high speed reduces the stability and precision of bicycle control. When pedaling is stopped and throttle only control is used the rider can focus more on observing the road ahead and more precisely control the bicycle to avoid road surface variations and surface debris. Pedaling induces a slight wavering to the body and the bike, and the motion reduces the ability of the rider to see fine detail in the road ahead. My observation is that most bicyclists stop pedaling at high speeds on moderate descents when they could continue, but instead they focus on control. One might think they stop pedaling because they don't have to, but as their speed drops they resume pedaling even though they are still descending and don't need to pedal.
 
benend said:
I need to rethink my 1000W motor if it makes it a "Motorized Bicycle".
Click to expand...

In the absence of any technical specification giving the conditions under which this power limit is measured I think it's safe to assume that this is a brake power limit, meaning that power is specified at the rear wheel. A motor rated "1000w" could produce more than that at the rear wheel, or less. Much depends on how conservatively or liberally the motor is rated, the design of the controller, and the duration over which the power is measured. There isn't a simple answer, even though the law suggests there might be.

If you install a Cycle Analyst V3 and program it to limit _input_ power (power drawn from the battery) to 1000 watts and a reasonably fast feedback so that peaks don't drift above that limit for more than a few seconds, then the power that reaches your rear wheel after accounting for system losses is probably close to 750 watts. If you want to be safe, you can program the CAV3 for 750 watts input power and can be assured that your rear wheel will never see the legal power limit. And, it may not be a bad idea to remove any marketing stickers on your equipment that make possibly exaggerated claims of power in excess of the legal limit.

The main concern by those involved in crafting this law is speed. If you are seen riding rudely, weaving around "slow-pokes" at 30mph on a trail or on the road faster than that, so that it's obvious to a bystander that you are exceeding the legal speed limit for the permitted class of e-bike on that facility, then you may find trouble. I doubt police are going to set up roadside dynamometer checks for e-bikes anytime soon.
 
Has anything changed with regard to the amount of wheels you can have?
What about having modes changing the ebike from category 2 to 3, for example?
 
California e-bike legislation headed to Gov. Brown's desk; industry ponders electric mountain bikes
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/nort...gov-browns-desk-industry-ponders#.VgmIRiuvN2O

In part:
The California Legislature a few days ago approved a measure that creates three classifications of e-bikes — separating pedal-assist bikes, or pedelecs, from throttle bikes, while legalizing "speed pedelecs" that can go up to 28 mph under motor assist.

The bill now goes to California Gov. Jerry Brown, who has until Oct. 11 to sign it into law.
Click to expand...

Near bottom of that article section "The dirt on e-MTBs", where "the soil impacts observed in this study were not greatly different from those of mountain bikes, and were much less than those associated with motorcycle use." Surprise! :oops:
 
Well worth noting, the new law does not mention power at all!

Though I may not agree with which classes are allowed where, this is what I have been thinking would be best for some time now.

Limit speeds, not wattage. This is what some e bikes need, such as pedicabs or ice cream vendors. They need power, but don't need 40 mph.

What I don't understand is why a bike that can be ridden without pedaling should be in a different class if the speed limit is the same. This is just pure discrimination against the unhealthy or disabled. I hope to see class one and class two allowed on all multi use trails, dirt or street, in any location.
 
It is worth noting that the US Federal laws specify "low speed electric bicycle" shall have working pedals, a power limit of 750w and power assist cut off at 20 MPH. At present California law allows 1000w, so this new law would harmonize with the Federal 750w limit. I puzzled about where the different Federal and State limits might lead to confusion, maybe in National Parks, at national border control points? Maybe it would not matter much.

This legislation seems to be guided by people who assume electric bikes are used mostly for pleasure, when in fact they have most impact when used for commuting. Less pollution and more exercise will help us all. If electric bikes are to be used for commuting, they need enough power to face headwinds and hills and keep up to speed with traffic, so a power limit is actually unsafe and totally arbitrary. Maximum speed only can be prudently regulated, but not power. Automobiles have no such limits on power, just speed, which is sensible.

I realize unlimited power is a concept that is beyond the scope of this proposed new law. It will be good to classify electric bicycles as electric bicycles, not motorized bicycles (which like mopeds are barred from most trails). Maybe this is a good step in the right direction, even though it is such a small step.

It could be that the auto lobby does not want this law to happen. GM was infamous for buying up many old electric trolley lines and closing them after WWII. They wanted to sell cars, never mind that trolleys were better in cities. Lobbying from the auto industry could be one reason this law keeps getting swatted down.
 
Glad to see California is getting this issue addressed. I had previously assumed California was at least as progressive as Oregon and have ridden on some Multi-use paths in California.

Good idea not to try to get the legislation changed near the end of the process. I moved to Eugene, Oregon 1 1/2 years ago and learned during the actual move that e-bikes were not allowed on Eugene's multi-use paths, at that time, the only city in Oregon with such an ordinance. Again, I had ridden on Eugene's paths a number of times, oblivious that I was illegal. But the change was in process and the City council changed the law about a year ago. I attended those meetings, and it came real close to being tabled because of issues raised about Segways (by a dealer), etc.
 
Yes, the flyweight motorcycles than have pedals are street illegal already.

I think has to have pedals is good. But I don't agree with have to be physically able to use pedals. As in pedelec with no throttle back up.

That's discriminatory against those who need assist the most. Many of us love to pedal what we can, but can't pedal much more than around the block continuously. So we need to be able to get home again without pedaling.

The only way to remove this discrimination against the handicapped is to allow class one and two on the same trails. If you do that, what's the point of two classes? Honestly, if they want to ride Moab by some claim that class one has less impact, I'd rather see all ebikes banned in Moab than to have the law discriminate against those who need the assist the most.

But bottom line is I do hope it does pass, because it sets a new standard that eliminates that silly watt limit stuff. Pedicabs need to be able to get up a hill, so 750w is not ideal for them. Besides, no damn way to enforce a watt limit so it's just silly.

All paved multi use trails should just have speed limits. 5 mph if the place is crowded, 20 mph if it's usually pretty empty.
 
Still kind of a moot point where I reside in CA since I've seen fewer than ten (think it's actually five) ebikes in thirty years of riding trails and bike paths out here, only one guy was riding off road.
Agree that mph is a much better way to regulate and PAS or throttle shouldn't matter.
Eventually it's imaginable that some ADA act will permit individuals with challenges (age being one?) to ride ebikes in what are now restricted areas.
The use of all bikes off road here is still being challenged by equestrians and sierra nuts. Most of these people are friendly when encountered on multi-use trails and a few not so much.
 
Hi Folks:

Governor Brown signed AB-1096 into law today.

https://calbike.org/governor_signs_bill_to_improve_e-bike_access/

To read the actual statute, changes to current law, history, analysis, and legislative intent, please click on the link below:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1096

Since California is a large potential market, it's likely that other states and countries will model their e-bike laws similarly.

The law will take effect on January 1, 2016.
 
I guess it's a step in the right direction.

Electric bikes are still prohibited on hiking trails unless specifically allowed by local ordinance. Around here, there aren't many trails they would be allowed on. Of course those local ordinances make no distinction between a gas powered bike and an electric bike.

Time to work on the local laws.
 
fechter said:
I guess it's a step in the right direction.

Electric bikes are still prohibited on hiking trails unless specifically allowed by local ordinance. Around here, there aren't many trails they would be allowed on. Of course those local ordinances make no distinction between a gas powered bike and an electric bike.
Click to expand...

Note: AB-1096 only allows e-bikes on bicycle-legal trails, not hiking trails, and only when local ordinance does not prohibit e-bikes on those bicycle-legal trails.

My understanding is that after January 1, 2016 electric bicycles (that satisfy one of the three Class definitions) are no longer considered under law as "motorized bicycles" or "motorized vehicles". So, current signage that bans "motorized bicycles" would not apply to electric bicycles. This was the main objective of AB-1096.

Any continuing ban of electric bicycles on a facility must be specifically enumerated in policy and posted signage.

fechter said:
Time to work on the local laws.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Not sure where you ride in the SF Bay Area. In the south bay Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District has recently and pro-actively added in their District Regulations a ban of electric bicycles on bicycle-legal trails, perhaps having gotten wind of AB-1096 or of reports from staff (rangers) of e-bikers using biking trails.

I have seen no notification added at trail entrances, and I believe this is a requirement of administrative law before a citation can stick in court. But, one can still be expelled by an official from an area or facility if one is found in violation of regulation found in the document below, even if that regulation is not posted:

http://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/District_Regulations.pdf

MROSD have established a policy consistent with ADA to allow ebikes on bicycle trails where the user claims an ADA exception. I suspect that the idea is to keep "irresponsible kids" with e-bikes off the trails but to allow "grandma and grandpa" who are not seen as a threat. But what about e-bikers who aren't obviously very old or young and irresponsible yet have some health reason for riding e-bike? Policy invites arbitrary enforcement and harassment in the form of being stopped, questioned and judged on the spot by park rangers or police as to whether or not they satisfy the exceptions.

http://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Policy_4.10_Other_Power-Driven_Mobility_Devices.pdf

East Bay Regional Park District and various county park districts may have similar policies. I am told by CalBike that California State Parks already ban e-bikes on bicycle trails, although I could not find it in their policy documents when I searched over a year ago.

Boards of most land management districts tend to frown on the idea of traveling trails on anything other than one's own two feet or upon the back of a beast of burden. It's been an uphill battle to open access in some areas to bicyclists. With regard to "other power driven mobility devices" the ADA is forcing their hand.
 
I live in Marin County, where there are lots of trails open to bicycles. The Open Space District prohibits "Motorized Bicycles" on the multi-use trails, which presently includes electric bikes. After passage of this bill if my bike is no longer considered a motorized bicycle, then it may allow me to use them. That would be great.

There are a few trails I go on anyway and so far nobody has given me a hard time about it. I always ride really slow. The speed limit on multi-use trails is 10 mph in most areas.

One thing that makes me mad is the ones who are a real safety threat are those lycra guys that speed on the trails, not electric bikes. The speed limit should be enforced for both electric and pedal powered bikes.
 
fechter said:
I live in Marin County, where there are lots of trails open to bicycles. The Open Space District prohibits "Motorized Bicycles" on the multi-use trails, which presently includes electric bikes. After passage of this bill if my bike is no longer considered a motorized bicycle, then it may allow me to use them. That would be great.

There are a few trails I go on anyway and so far nobody has given me a hard time about it. I always ride really slow. The speed limit on multi-use trails is 10 mph in most areas.

One thing that makes me mad is the ones who are a real safety threat are those lycra guys that speed on the trails, not electric bikes. The speed limit should be enforced for both electric and pedal powered bikes.
Click to expand...

Officials are most concerned about the "lycra guys that speed on the trails" bringing e-bikes to the trails. I agree that speeding and recklessness no matter the manner of conveyance should be banned. But, enforcement of speeding or reckless behavior is difficult to undertake, requiring setting up speed traps with radar guns and the like. MROSD actually did this for a while about 20 years ago when bicycles were first allowed on the trails and conflicts between users erupted.

Enforcement of illegal possession is much easier. And, if you ride really slow, you're an easier catch. All that's required is for an official to observe someone possessing the banned item, even if you're not even using/riding it. Possession implies intent to use, or so the thinking goes.

Marin County Open Space recommends visitors contact someone in their office for information on "Other Powered Mobility Device" use on district trails. I could find no formal policy document or list of rules and regulations online, but I suspect their stance on the issue is similar to MROSD's.

It's a good idea for anyone (in the USA) who rides an e-bike due to a medical condition and intends to ride in an area where bicycles are allowed but e-bikes are banned to become familiar with ADA guidelines on Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices:

http://www.ada.gov/opdmd.htm
 
Good tip. If anyone ever questioned me I could claim my bike is a "Other Powered Mobility Device" because I'm old and have bad knees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
CA DMV classification of electric vespa-looking thing
Replies
7
Views
425
offGridDownUnder
O
e-beach
‘A Dangerous Combination’: Teenagers’ Accidents Expose E-Bike Risks' A New York Times Article
2 3
Replies
72
Views
6,222
nicobie
nicobie
D
US National Parks Electric Bicycle Policy Memorandum
Replies
11
Views
1,029
999zip999
999zip999
K
How do different countries set laws for electric skateboards? - UK, US, Singapore, Australia, and so on.
Replies
1
Views
1,325
amberwolf
amberwolf
M
28MPH pedelec in semi-separated bike lane in California?
Replies
1
Views
673
dogman dan
dogman dan
Back
Top