California: AB2173 to classify a low-speed electric bicycle

[Dauntless]

If you're under 1,000 watts that's not required.

I believe if you travel over 30mph, you fall into the moped category, necessitating the license plate (and all that goes along with it)...Could be wrong, though.

It's over 20mph you have to register as a moped, you're not allowed to go over 30mph registered as a moped. A 500 watter usually will struggle to get close to 20mph.

 

[onlineaddy]

But that 20 mph limit is including human pedal power! That's quite a low limit and silly, because one can pedal over 20 mph without a motor.

 

[Hasaf]

But that 20 mph limit is including human pedal power! That's quite a low limit and silly, because one can pedal over 20 mph without a motor.

It doesn't limit the bike to 20mph, it limits the motor assist to 20 mph, if you can pedal faster nothing prevents that. In all, it looks like they copied the text form existing legislation; because I know I have seen that wording somewhere else. Most of it looks like they copied the C.P.C. regulations.

(2) Is incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour on a paved level surface, when powered solely by a motor when ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds.

(3) Is incapable of further increasing the speed of the device when human power is used to propel the device faster than 20 miles per hour.

Personally, I dislike the Helmet rule.

(1) A person shall not operate a low-speed electric bicycle unless the person is wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards described in Section 21212.

Two reasons, first Helmets do not work well on a Velomobile with a hood (roof), second, I am currently in China and have just gotten out of the practice of wearing a helmet.

 

[Barnfresh]

As of the 4/29/14 amendment, AB2173 has been gutted of all changes making CVC 406.(b) "low speed electric bicycle" and any of the proposed laws pertaining to weight, power and speed that went along with it. The only apparent change is to 406.(a) “motorized bicycle” or “moped” part which now allows a motor that produces less than 4 gross brake horsepower. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2173

 

[oatnet]

As of the 4/29/14 amendment, AB2173 has been gutted of all changes making CVC 406.(b) "low speed electric bicycle" and any of the proposed laws pertaining to weight, power and speed that went along with it. The only apparent change is to 406.(a) “motorized bicycle” or “moped” part which now allows a motor that produces less than 4 gross brake horsepower. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2173

Nice! The crap is gone, and as a bonus, mopeds can pull up to 3kw now...

-JD

 

[cal3thousand]

Now THIS sounds more like it

 

[mrbill]

Nice! The crap is gone, and as a bonus, mopeds can pull up to 3kw now...

Read it again!

The big win with the proposed legislation is that it would open up access to bike paths and trails to electric bicycles by default. The increased power limits that are already impractical to enforce are a very small bone thrown to the ebike community. It will be much simpler to assess visually whether a cyclist on a bike path is riding a bicycle with a motor, any kind of motor, by examining the bicycle for the presence of a motor. And don't count on your hub motor being overlooked.

Please note the following document:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml#

Author's proposed amendments: The author has indicated his intent to amend the bill in committee to strike provisions related to redefining lower-speed motorized bicycles as "low- speed electric bicycles" and allowing low-speed electric bicycles to be operated on all bicycle trails and pedestrian and equestrian trails. This would leave provisions related to amending the definition of a motorized bicycle or moped to allow for increased horsepower.

With the latest changes, the current law (CVC Sec. 21207.5) stands that bans by default electric bicycles from bike paths and trails, making no distinction between them and ICE-assisted bicycles or scooters up to (now) 4 brake hp.

Looks like the scare tactics of the opposition (e.g. the straw-man argument that adult bicyclists ride on average 12.8mph vs. all ebike riders ride always 20mph on paths) has spooked the bill's sponsor (Bradford).

This is a lost opportunity for the electric bicycle community.

 

[argggh]

The problem is not electric bikes on bike paths. The problem is pedestrians on bike paths. Pedestrians already have sidewalks and running tracks and hiking trails of all kinds where they are not required to yield for anyone and no vehicles can go. There should be a place where electric bicycles can go without having their presence challenged.

 

[mrbill]

The problem is not electric bikes on bike paths. The problem is pedestrians on bike paths. Pedestrians already have sidewalks and running tracks and hiking trails of all kinds where they are not required to yield for anyone and no vehicles can go. There should be a place where electric bicycles can go without having their presence challenged.

I agree in concept. The problem is that most paths are "multi-use". Few paths are dedicated only to bicycles. Some of the newer paths have striping to help keep peds and bikes separate,

http://mrbill.homeip.net/albums/devilsSlide.2014.04.16/single-image/20140416-DSC05115-photo.html#anchor

but compliance appears to be optional.

Perhaps the next time an "electric bike" bill is advanced through the legislature, a different tack should be taken.

Define an electric bicycle according to the definition given in U.S. Code Title 23 Section 217(j)(2):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/217

"The term “electric bicycle” means any bicycle or tricycle with a low-powered electric motor weighing under 100 pounds, with a top motor-powered speed not in excess of 20 miles per hour."

and then simply add that the operator of an electric bicycle that meets this definition shall have all of the rights and responsibilities of the operator of a bicycle propelled exclusively by human power.

Keep it simple, easy to understand, and consistent with the federal standard. Although the speed limit is too low in my opinion, the E.U. has the right idea. Without nationwide consistency electric bicycle riders will be operating under a legal cloud in too many situations.

 

[Barnfresh]

Looks like AB2173 is a done deal. The bill has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown and will go into effect Jan 2015. Change to CVC 406a will double the maximum allowable power output, from 2hp/1491w to 4hp/2982w

http://asmdc.org/members/a62/news-room/press-releases/horsepower-limit-raised-for-electric-scooters-and-mopeds

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2173

 

[fechter]

Well, I won't be an outlaw anymore (almost).
It is really confusing the way it is written though:

SECTION 1.
Section 406 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
406.
(a) A “motorized bicycle” or “moped” is a two-wheeled or three-wheeled device having fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power, or having no pedals if powered solely by electrical energy, and an automatic transmission and a motor that produces less than 4 gross brake horsepower and is capable of propelling the device at a maximum speed of not more than 30 miles per hour on level ground.
(b) A “motorized bicycle” is also a device that has fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power and has an electric motor that meets all of the following requirements:

(1) Has a power output of not more than 1,000 watts.

(2) Is incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour on ground level.

(3) Is incapable of further increasing the speed of the device when human power is used to propel the motorized bicycle faster than 20 miles per hour.

So is it 4 horsepower or is it 1000W? Is it 20mph or is it 30mph? Both are "motorized bicycles".

I think it's still technically illegal for me to ride on most of the trails around here also. That's the thing I'd like to change. 10mph speed limit is fine on the trails.

 

[Barnfresh]

Confusing yes but to wrap your head around it you have to break CVC 406 down into 2 separate codes, A & B.

406(A) 30 mph motorized bicycle (think electric scooter & Moped laws) - This is where the change from 2 to 4 hp was made.

406(B) 20 mph motorized bicycle (think e-bike & bicycle laws) - no change to existing law

Hope this helps.

 

[oatnet]

Well, I won't be an outlaw anymore (almost). It is really confusing the way it is written though:
So is it 4 horsepower or is it 1000W? Is it 20mph or is it 30mph? Both are "motorized bicycles".

I think it's still technically illegal for me to ride on most of the trails around here also. That's the thing I'd like

406(a) requires an "M"(motorcycle) endorsement on your license, registering and insuring your "moped"' (which might require turn signals) but you can use almost 3kw and do 30mph.

406(b) IIRC only requires the rider to be 16, and the ebike have pedals, so no registration or insurance - but then you have the 1,000w/20mph limit.

You can ride a 406(b) on bike trails UNLESS there is a local ordinance against motorized vehicles. I'd like to see one of these local ordinances come up through the courts, and hear the arguments of how this does harm. They can't argue noise or pollution anymore, with an electric drivetrain. They can't argue speed - I see Lycras doing well in excess of 20mph on bike trails every day. They can't argue weight - no matter how heavy the ebike and rider, I could put someone heavier on a regular bike to outweigh them. They can't argue momentum - gonna make hills illegal? :lol:

Edit: thanks Barnfresh for pointing out that I had a and b reversed

 

[mrbill]

You can ride a 406(a) on bike trails UNLESS there is a local ordinance against motorized vehicles.
[...]

This is incorrect.

There is no default allowance for 406(a) or 406(b) "motorized bicycle" use on bike trails or paths in California. Unless the trail runs in or adjacent to a roadway or specifically permits such use (e.g. is signed indicating such), "motorized bicycles" such as e-bikes are BANNED by default from bike trails and paths.

This default ban is what an earlier version of AB2173 was to have lifted by classifying a "low-powered electric bicycle" distinct from a Sec. 406 "motorized bicycle".

The allowance of more power for a moped is an insignificant "win" for e-bikers since the power limit is seldom if ever enforced. E-bikers were screwed when the bill was quickly and quietly amended in committee shortly before voting to allow the continuance of the current law where e-bikers are banned by default from trails and paths. Much easier for law enforcement to ascertain whether a bike has a motor on it than to measure its power or maximum speed.

CVC Sec. 21207.5 is still in force:

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21207_5.htm

21207.5. Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other provision of law, no motorized bicycle may 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 such path or trail permits, by ordinance, such operation.

 

[fechter]

OK, thanks for the clarification.

For the 4hp 'moped' you are supposed to get the moped plates, have a class M license etc.

I wish there was a way to get ebikes legal on the trails by default. I have no clue how you get something like this before the legislature. Great project for some political science students.

 

[PeteB]

More crap California goody two shoes laws to end up sweeping, the nation when other states take notice of its revenue... Californians vote for these goofs and then flee the state..California has the highest percentage of exodus in the the country.HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA!What's left of it

 

[mrbill]

I wish there was a way to get ebikes legal on the trails by default. I have no clue how you get something like this before the legislature. Great project for some political science students.

It starts with bending the ear of a sympathetic legislator. But it succeeds upon applying grease to the right skids. The recent bill in its original form had the backing of major players in the e-bike industry, including Shimano, Currie, Pedego, and others, but I suspect that the forces opposing any relaxation of the "no motorized bikes" on paths and trails had more money and influence behind their position.

It is a slightly uphill battle to overcome the mental image of a "motorized bike" that conjures up the offensive, noisy, smelly ICE kits slapped onto beach cruisers and city bikes being ridden with apparent recklessness by teenage boys. The fact that e-bikes are ridden quietly by a different kind of rider without producing an odor gets lost in the distinction between electric and internal combustion. As far as the law is concerned, they're both treated with equal disdain.

The e-bike industry will need to press their case collectively for amending existing law. Mere letters of support may not be sufficient. I believe that will occur when the market for e-bikes is such that investing sufficient monetary resources toward advancing enlightened policy through the legislative process to align law with reality is seen as a good business investment. This will eventually be done, even in California.

 

[Dauntless]

California has the highest percentage of exodus in the the country.

Oh no, there's all kinds of illegals coming in. Believe me, it just gets more and more crowded here, more and more stealing and burglaries, more and more welfare receiptitents rioting because they want more.

 

[mrbill]

Here is Bicycle Retailer's take on why AB2173 failed to bring California e-bike law into consistency with federal law.

https://calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/Bicycle-Retailer-June-1-article-on-e-bikes.pdf

 

[Chalo]

b) Maximum weight is specified as 80 lbs. (36kg). This change is more
problematic.

First of all it's the lowest weight limit of any of the states that
specify a weight limit. Texas, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey specify 100
lbs. (45kg), and other states have no limit.

I live in Texas, and while my current e-bike conforms with the limit, in the past I've had e-bikes that weighed as much as 120 lbs. all up. (Yes, lead batteries.)

I am prepared to make the case in court if necessary that an e-bike's batteries are not part of its weight limit any more than a rider and his snacks are part of the UCI bike weight minimum. That component of the gross weight can vary from trip to trip, with the same bike. It can also be carried on the rider's body.