mrbill
10 kW
Folks:
I know this forum is read internationally, but readers in the state of
California (USA) should be aware that a bill is working its way through
the legislative process that changes the legal treatment of electric
bicycles in the California Vehicle Code.
http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB2173/2013
Text of bill:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_2151-2200/ab_2173_bill_20140319_amended_asm_v98.htm
The good:
The change allows by default operation of electric bicycles on bicycle
and multi-use paths and trails unless otherwise posted by the local
governing authority. Current law forbids operation of "motorized
bicycles" on paths and trails, unless a local governing authority
allows, and makes no distinction between electric bikes and ICE-driven
bikes, classifying them both as "motorized bicycles".
The bad:
a) Maximum output power is reduced from 1000 to 750 watts. This change
is not unreasonable given that many states have the same limit. I
program my bikes with a power limit of 1000 watts (drawn from the
battery), which gives approximately 750 watts at the driven wheel, after
system losses are accounted for.
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.
An 80-lb limit will be difficult to achieve for certain trikes,
recumbent bikes, velomobiles, cargo bikes, and bikes using high-capacity
batteries for extra range, e.g. Yours Truly, or users who may still be
using older, less energy-dense batteries than the latest lithium.
A low weight limit also creates a disincentive for manufacturers to
build bikes sturdy enough to accommodate heavy riders, "profile
customers" for ebikes. I'm puzzled as to why this was slipped into the
bill and why 80 lbs. was chosen. I have written the bill's sponsor,
Asm. Stephen Bradford, to show my overall support but also to advocate
for removing this restriction.
But, as a practical matter equipment restrictions that require special
equipment to assess are difficult to enforce since most police and park
rangers won't be carrying around scales, dynamometers, or other testing
equipment to enforce "low-speed electric bicycle" equipment restrictions
(unless they're engaged in a special enforcement action, usually in
reaction to complaints from the public).
Just getting the law to grant permission by default at the state level
for electric bike riders to use paths and trails without being hassled
by The Man or The Woman is the big win, in spite of the additional
vehicle code tinkering and the creation of new restrictions in response
to imagined ills that legislatures can't seem to keep themselves from
making.
There are other changes that affect manufacturers and dealers that you
can read about in the bill's text.
Feel free to send your comments to Asm. Bradford or to the
Transportation Committee Chair, Bonnie Lowenthal. They both take
comments through their legislative web sites.
http://asmdc.org/members/a62/
http://asmdc.org/members/a70/
I know this forum is read internationally, but readers in the state of
California (USA) should be aware that a bill is working its way through
the legislative process that changes the legal treatment of electric
bicycles in the California Vehicle Code.
http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB2173/2013
Text of bill:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_2151-2200/ab_2173_bill_20140319_amended_asm_v98.htm
The good:
The change allows by default operation of electric bicycles on bicycle
and multi-use paths and trails unless otherwise posted by the local
governing authority. Current law forbids operation of "motorized
bicycles" on paths and trails, unless a local governing authority
allows, and makes no distinction between electric bikes and ICE-driven
bikes, classifying them both as "motorized bicycles".
The bad:
a) Maximum output power is reduced from 1000 to 750 watts. This change
is not unreasonable given that many states have the same limit. I
program my bikes with a power limit of 1000 watts (drawn from the
battery), which gives approximately 750 watts at the driven wheel, after
system losses are accounted for.
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.
An 80-lb limit will be difficult to achieve for certain trikes,
recumbent bikes, velomobiles, cargo bikes, and bikes using high-capacity
batteries for extra range, e.g. Yours Truly, or users who may still be
using older, less energy-dense batteries than the latest lithium.
A low weight limit also creates a disincentive for manufacturers to
build bikes sturdy enough to accommodate heavy riders, "profile
customers" for ebikes. I'm puzzled as to why this was slipped into the
bill and why 80 lbs. was chosen. I have written the bill's sponsor,
Asm. Stephen Bradford, to show my overall support but also to advocate
for removing this restriction.
But, as a practical matter equipment restrictions that require special
equipment to assess are difficult to enforce since most police and park
rangers won't be carrying around scales, dynamometers, or other testing
equipment to enforce "low-speed electric bicycle" equipment restrictions
(unless they're engaged in a special enforcement action, usually in
reaction to complaints from the public).
Just getting the law to grant permission by default at the state level
for electric bike riders to use paths and trails without being hassled
by The Man or The Woman is the big win, in spite of the additional
vehicle code tinkering and the creation of new restrictions in response
to imagined ills that legislatures can't seem to keep themselves from
making.
There are other changes that affect manufacturers and dealers that you
can read about in the bill's text.
Feel free to send your comments to Asm. Bradford or to the
Transportation Committee Chair, Bonnie Lowenthal. They both take
comments through their legislative web sites.
http://asmdc.org/members/a62/
http://asmdc.org/members/a70/
