* * * United States Electric Bike Law (H.R. 727) * * *

[xyster]

Get this through your booze-soaked skull:
The "Ntl. law" is part of Consumer Product Safety Act... it adds ebikes as bikes for Commercial Practices:

TD's right. This horse has been flagellated to exhaustion. The law being discussed here provides no rights-of-use to the consumer. For the infinity-plus-nth time, here's the quote from Wikipedia (why don't you go correct this wiki entry if you're so sure it's in error, Safe?):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle_laws

In the United States of America, Congress has defined a low-speed electric bicycle as any bicycle or tricycle with fully operable pedals, an electric motor not exceeding 750 W of power and a top motor-powered speed not in excess of 20 miles per hour (equivalent to the Canadian 32 km/h). An electric bike or trike that meets these limitations is regarded as a bicycle [8] by Public Law 107-319.[9] This Law defines electric bicycles only for the purpose of Consumer Product Safety and does not allow for their use on roads. It is a safety criteria that manufacturers should use in building electric bicycles, which helps protect manufacturers from the threat of lawsuits from within states that attempt to legislate more stringent safety requirements.

These are Federal regulations that put control of monitoring the safety of electric bicycles into the hands of the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), which supersede any state law that is more stringent, but only regarding safety equipment required on electric bicycles and not regarding whether electric bicycles are street legal. The states still decide what vehicles are allowed to use the roads in their state.

The law:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=fubl319.107

 

[safe]

Whoever posted that onto Wikipedia used their own words and ideas and not the law. Here's what the actual law says:

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

While it's true that the approach is to reclassify this specific electric vehicle as a bicycle it does explicitly say that you CAN'T view the machine that it creates as a motor vehicle.

If something "isn't" a motor vehicle how can it at the same time be judged as a motor vehicle?

Wikipedia needs a CLEANUP or we need another expert in the law as a source. However, I do think that in the end this will come down to a challenge to the existing laws and the national law will be more or less the "template" that states and localities are expected to follow. Rebellion from the central authority (bad for us because this law represents electric bike freedom) will continue most likely.

 

[xyster]

The law states "For purposes of motor vehicle safety standards". More opinions to the same effect, the first statement straight from one of the horse's mouths:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/TSS_Field_Update_26_180953_7.pdf

Some retailers and operators of electric bicycles are under the misconception
that a federal law exempts these vehicles from applicable motor vehicle laws. They will cite Public Law 107-319,
which makes low speed electric bicycles consumer products rather than motor vehicles solely for the purpose of
manufacturing requirements and safety standards.
Contrary to the misconception of these retailers and operators, Public Law 107-319 has no effect on state laws or
local ordinances governing the use of vehicles on public streets and highways. The federal law is very clear on
this distinction.

http://www.electric-bikes.com/legal.htm

In 2001, the U. S. Congress passed Public Law 107-319 which exempts electric bicycles under 750 watts/20 mph from the definition of a motor vehicle only "For purposes of motor vehicle safety standards...", which means that the manufacturers of these bicycles don't have to meet federal equipment requirements, and are instead governed by the manufacturing requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Act. There is no mention of exemption from other federal, state, and local traffic laws, or exemption from the definition of a motor vehicle for other purposes.

 

[TylerDurden]

If something "isn't" a motor vehicle how can it at the same time be judged as a motor vehicle?

It depends on what purpose you are judging it for, sweet-pea...

As above "for the purposes of safety standards".

That means: an ebike is not a motor-vehicle for the safety standards in commercial practice.


An ebike can be considered a motor-vehicle by any state or local jurisdiction, for the purpose of traffic regulation and public safety.

 

[safe]

Public Law 107-319 has no effect on state laws or
local ordinances governing the use of vehicles on public streets and highways. The federal law is very clear on this distinction.

The law does not change whether a road allows bicycles or does not allow bicycles. This is true. But if existing laws allow bicycles and you bring a conforming electric bike into the same place it should be allowed based on this law. The federal law doesn't change anything but reclassify certain electric vehicles as bicycles. No local laws are otherwise changed. (and if the local law is weirdly written so as to somehow ban conforming electric bikes then you have a potential to challenge it) The law is limitied in it's reach, but that doesn't mean it's intent isn't to reach further than it can legally be defined. Everything is done one step at a time.

There is no mention of exemption from other federal, state, and local traffic laws, or exemption from the definition of a motor vehicle for other purposes.

The law makes no mention because it doesn't attempt to reach into the state and local laws. But if the federal government says that a certain motor vehicle has been moved over into the bicycle category then you have a strong case in court to fight the local law that might currently have a problem with conforming electric bikes.

This federal law is a PRECIDENT after all... (it gets the ball rolling)

 

[safe]

An ebike can be considered a motor-vehicle by any state or local jurisdiction, for the purpose of traffic regulation and public safety.

They can do this and this will set up a situation where you can challenge and ultimately change the law because the precident has been established by the federal government that the conforming electric bike is NOT a motor vehicle at it's point of creation. It is up to the local courts to update their laws (through people making challenges) so that the intent of the law gets fully realized.

If "bubba" the sheriff wants electric bikes banned then they stay banned... but in a more sophisticated town the people will find a way to get their freedom.

 

[xyster]

Then, Safe, why don't you write to the Michigan State Police to correct (in your mind) their misconception regarding the law's application. Their phone number and email is below.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/TSS_Field_Update_26_180953_7.pdf

 

[safe]

Think of the absurdity of the situation:

Conforming Electric Bike is created and judged to be a legal bicycle.

Electric Bike is sold over the internet.

Buyer takes their new vehicle onto the street.

Local laws change the classification of the Electric Bike from bicycle to motor vehicle.

Buyer now must fight to regain his bicycle classification or move to a different state or locality.

 

[safe]

Then, Safe, why don't you write to the Michigan State Police to correct (in your mind) their misconception regarding the law's application.

Sounds like Michigan rejects the intent of the law and has decided not to accept any challenges related to it. This is bad news for anyone living in that state because they will probably be the last people to have the ability to ride electric bikes without hassles.

Every state and locality will either fight (like Michigan) or accept the intent of this law. As a precident this provides a good foundation but the "battles" are far from won.

All change takes time... (it's a long war)

 

[xyster]

Think of the absurdity of the situation:

Conforming Electric Bike is created and judged to be a legal bicycle.

Electric Bike is sold over the internet.

Buyer takes their new vehicle onto the street.

Local laws change the classification of the Electric Bike from bicycle to motor vehicle.

Buyer now must fight to regain his bicycle classification or move to a different state or locality.

Yes, it's absurd. It's particularly absurd that ebike's not meeting the definition under the cited public law are classified as "hazardous substances". The absurdity is practically proof to me that government has once again got its fat, dirty, hairy arm with misshapen nails stuck in the cookie jar, never to be willingly extracted for proper cleaning and trimming.

But that's exactly what this law appears to be...

 

[safe]

It would be interesting to find out if there was a recent challenge in Michigan that was lost by the Electric Bike side. That's what it looks like by the wording of that announcement. How much do you want to bet that some left wing radical type with bad manners and poorly conceived logic went into court and pissed everyone off and now for Michigan they hate electric bikes and all the "weirdo's" they think they represent.

I can see it now:

Radical: "Your god damn pig cop gave me a ticket on my electric bike that is supposed to be free you asshole judge."

Judge: "Better keep your attitude in line or you will get thrown in jail for contempt."

Radical: (spits on floor) "frock you asshole! You're just part of the 'machine' that represses the blah, blah, blah... blah, blah, blah... blah, blah, blah..."

...and on an on.

 

[TylerDurden]

Think of the absurdity of the situation:

Conforming Electric Bike is created and judged to be a legal bicycle.

Electric Bike is sold over the internet.

Buyer takes their new vehicle onto the street.

Local laws change the classification of the Electric Bike from bicycle to motor vehicle.

Buyer now must fight to regain his bicycle classification or move to a different state or locality.

Emptor Caveat.


Here's an analogy you might understand:

Beer is a legal consumer good, regulated by federal law for "commercial purposes".

Like an ebike, each state can regulate beer's public use:
in the street
on the sidewalk
on a highway
in a park
by children
by adults

You can argue all you want about beer "being legal" by federal law, but you won't get farther than fines, court-costs and possible jail-time.

 

[Matt Gruber]

good analogy TD.
with the confusion, one can "beat the rap" as judges havent heard the e-bike argument a million times.(like with beer)
armed with this one can
1. play dumb 1st cop stop. say u won't ride it again, sorry officer i didn't know.
2. 2nd stop, show cop copy of law that seems to side with u.
3. make legal argument in court.
sorry judge i didn't know it doesn't apply here. i won't ride it again.
that's lots of riding; i rode 2.5 years and i didn't know the facts at all.

 

[Stevil_Knevil]

I like the beer analogy TD.

Just for reference, this is how the California DMV classifies both types of motorized bicycles; those with - and without pedals - in its Vehicle Code..

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc406.htm

Motorized Bicycle

406. (a) A "motorized bicycle" or "moped" is any 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 which produces less than 2 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.

(4) Every manufacturer of motorized bicycles, as defined in this subdivision, shall provide a disclosure to buyers that advises buyers that their existing insurance policies may not provide coverage for these bicycles and that they should contact their insurance company or insurance agent to determine if coverage is provided.

(c) The disclosure required under paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) shall meet both of the following requirements:

(1) The disclosure shall be printed in not less than 14-point boldface type on a single sheet of paper that contains no information other than the disclosure.

(2) The disclosure shall include the following language in capital letters:

"YOUR INSURANCE POLICIES MAY NOT PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE USE OF THIS BICYCLE. TO DETERMINE IF COVERAGE IS PROVIDED YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY OR AGENT."
Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 804, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996. Supersedes Sec. 2, Ch. 342.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ride Bikes. Drive Culture. -S

 

[TylerDurden]

Ouch. That Cali law is a mess. How do they expect any reasonable person to understand that? (A and B... A or B? )

I appreciate the insurance notification tho.

:?

 

[xyster]

Ouch. That Cali law is a mess. How do they expect any reasonable person to understand that? (A and B... A or B? )

No reasonable person can understand most laws as they're written. That's why we have so many attorneys in this country. :lol:

 

[safe]

Here's an analogy you might understand:

Beer is a legal consumer good, regulated by federal law for "commercial purposes".

Like an ebike, each state can regulate beer's public use:
in the street
on the sidewalk
on a highway
in a park
by children
by adults.

This analogy might be pretty good place to start. The federal law essentially says that a certain product is "okay" if it passes certain conformity standards. If a bicycle is allowed someplace then this special category of "product" should be allowed in the same place because at it's point of creation it's given the same legal definition. (in our case it's defined as a "bicycle")

So to extend this analogy....

If beer is like a bicycle, then wine is like a conforming electric bike. If you are allowed to drink beer someplace and in certain conditions then you should be able to drink wine in the same place. You should not exclude the wine drinker because the issue is whether alcohol is allowed or not. If alcohol is NOT allowed then beer AND wine are BOTH not allowed.

Make sense?

The federal law can't intervene in the local laws about the use of alcohol, but they can make a statement that beer and wine are considered the same thing in their eyes. If the local law makes a specific attack on the wine drinker (maybe "bubba" only likes his budweiser) then the federal law could potentially be used to make a challenge. However, if the local laws hold up your only recourse would be to appeal to a higher court. (which they can decide to simply "not hear" and in effect your attempt at changing things has then failed)

Agreed?

(of course this actually gets us to things like liquor licenses and whether a bar can sell beer, wine and hard liquor. Often such subtle distinctions are made)

 

[Matt Gruber]

bike=beer/wine
e-bike=weed.

feds say weed is legal.

states define weed in law book, even how much THC it can have as per federal law.

most states don't allow weed at this time, and arrest weed riders.
:lol:

 

[safe]

bike=beer/wine
e-bike=weed.

feds say weed is legal.

states define weed in law book, even how much THC it can have as per federal law.

most states don't allow weed at this time, and arrest weed riders.
:lol:

I agree if by "bike=beer/wine" we were talking about "bicycle + conforming electric bike" and "e-bike=weed" being the equal of any electric bike that does not conform to "pedals/750 watt/20 mph". The electric bike that has no protection at all is the MOST vulnerable. The slim protection that the new law gives is not much to go on, but it's the only protection that we have right now.

 

[v_tach]

What new law?

 

[safe]

What new law?

Public Law 107-319, 116 Stat. 2776

107TH CONGRESS H.R.727

To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide that low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products subject to such Act. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT. 1

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

LOW-SPEED ELECTRIC BICYCLES
SEC. 38. (a) Not withstanding any other provision of law, low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products within the meaning of section 3(a)(1) and shall be subject to the Commission regulations published at section 1500.18(a)(12) and part 1512 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations

(b) For the purpose of this section, the term low-speed electric bicycle means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.

(c) To further protect the safety of consumers who ride low-speed electric bicycles, the Commission may promulgate new or amended requirements applicable to such vehicles as necessary and appropriate.

(d) This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements referred to in subsection (a)

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

Passed the House of Representatives March 6, 2001.

So it's not exactly "new" but it's the newest and most significant law in that the federal government is for the first time getting involved in establishing how electric bikes will be classified. It only applies to the creation of the bike, not how it's enforced after sale and in use. It basically says that at the point of creation a "pedals/750w/20 mph" bike is recognized as a "bicycle" by the federal government. Later when this bike hits the road it will encounter resistance to it's classification by local authorities... but that's just how the game is played. :wink:

 

[v_tach]

Thats not new.

 

[safe]

Thats not new.

2001 is a long time ago now. But in the sense that things happen slowly in the law this is relatively new. It's really the legal landmark where for the first time the federal government even made a comment about how it thinks electric bikes should be classified.

What might be the next step?

The intention of the law was to allow manufacturers to be able to make and sell their electric bikes in accordance with the law and be able to get them used in the entire United States. There will likely be pockets of resistance around the country who will hold onto their local customs and reject the federal classification, but hopefully those will be rare. (Florida and Michigan sound like two cases as examples)

I personally live in a state (Missouri) where the laws are much, much more generous and they allow all the way up to three horsepower in the motor, no pedals required and a top speed of 30 mph. So in my case the federal classification would actually be more restrictive.

 

[xyster]

The intention of the law was to allow manufacturers to be able to make and sell their electric bikes in accordance with the law and be able to get them used in the entire United States.

We have a very different take on lawmakers' intentions in this case. Looks to me like they intended to set upper limits on ebike power and speed, not open the door for ebikes on the road -- which appears to be the purview of the states (up to the point Congress wishes to leverage federal transportation funds) and is not addressed by this amendment to the Consumer Protections Act (or whatever it's called). Any ebike not meeting their definition is classified as a hazardous substance. This Law provides the reasonable consumer no benefits, just more roadblocks to buying an unmodified, high power ebike.
The intent may be to prevent the uneducated or reckless consumer from purchasing an unexpectedly powerful product, dangerous when not used sensibly. But I'm not an uneducated or reckless consumer, few of us here are, and so the effect is to pre-suppose misuse of a generally benign product by all consumers. As far as protecting me from other people's potential misuse of high-power ebikes -- jerk drivers and inattentive drivers are far more of a practical concern; some kids are very reckless on their un-powered BMX bikes as it is. I already have one mother, I don't need another.

 

[v_tach]

There will likely be pockets of resistance around the country who will hold onto their local customs and reject the federal classification, but hopefully those will be rare. (Florida and Michigan sound like two cases as examples)

Florida? Have you not made any effort to read anyone else's post's other than your own? Florida's Statutes regarding electrically powered assisted bicycles reflects your precious Federal Code closely. I might add the Florida Statute was in place before the Federal Code.

Florida is an electrically power assisted bicycle friendly State and I've got plenty of friends that ride them trouble free and have for years.