How would you write ideal ebike regulations

[gogo]

The argument you concede in an initial compromise might be used later to vacate your position completely.

*Que The Beastie Boys song Fight For Your Right*

 

[speedmd]

The only way I see ebikes continuing to develop and become better is with no regulation. Regulation only limits our cause.

Amen brother! Why pick on cargo bikes with needless regs either! We need some air to work out the technology without a bunch of spineless nannies second guessing what is proper.

 

[dogman dan]

Re Y kicks comment about 500 pounds of cargo bike.

Mine weighs about 330 pounds including me, and up to 450 pounds fully loaded. Oddly enough, it feels a lot more stable at 30 mph than at 15 mph. Gyroscopic forces no doubt have a role there. It does feel pretty maxed out if I load it up really heavy. Since my bike has a reasonable performing suspension, it doesn't suffer from the problems most heavily loaded bikes have at 30 mph. It's not shaky, and nothing has ever broken on it after a few thousand miles of riding. But the frame is a lot stiffer than the typical alloy walbike. I ride it at 30 mph down washboard dirt roads all the time.

I just hate the idea of a law being written based on the performance of the worst bike on the road. But do agree that as much as I like a legal 30 mph in my state, something slower might be best. In this state at least, 25 mph is legal for a road crowded with toddlers playing ball in front of their house. So I see that as either safe for bikes and ebikes, or unsafe for all vehicles. I wouldn't mind a 15 or 20 mph speed limit at all, if it applied to all vehicles sharing the road with me. But it just seems dumb that the UPS box truck or a pedaled bike can haul ass down a road at 25, but an ebike would be limited to 15. I'll never grok that one.

NEV's have pretty sucky laws too, but they do make some sense. 25 mph top speed is common, but at least that is the same as all vehicles have in the neighborhood. They are banned from faster speed limit roads, which perhaps makes sense, but limits their utility a LOT. I sure hope they don't ban ebikes from all roads with a fast speed limit. That would eliminate any long trips between towns.

 

[LockH]

Ummm... Better not maybe confuse any old sailors, for whom "fast" might be something one does w/a device (often a "rope", watt maybe made with some natural fibre eg "hemp"), used to "make fast" something, eg another vehicle (perhaps called a "boat", or some "vessel", etc), and who, having made some such vehicle "fast" tied up, should be very surprised to see the thing moving anywhere else at all (with him not aboard).

So re Rule Three, instead of "Never travel fast", lets instead say NEVER exceed safe speeds.

Sorry if I confused any old sailors aboard here! So again:
(Rules for safe operation of any vehicle in public "space".)
RULE ONE (for vehicle operation in any atmosphere): NEVER DO HARM.
RULE TWO: NEVER TRUST (yourself, but especially not any other creatures, etc.)
RULE THREE: NEVER EXCEED SAFE VEHICLE OPERATING SPEEDS.

All aboard here on ES, with these rules so far?

 

[Falco]

RULE ONE (for vehicle operation in any atmosphere): NEVER DO HARM.
RULE TWO: NEVER TRUST (yourself, but especially not any other creatures, etc.)
RULE THREE: NEVER EXCEED SAFE VEHICLE OPERATING SPEEDS.

All aboard here on ES, with these rules so far?

I think rule 3 is made redundant by rule 1. If rule 1 is followed the rule 3 is a given.

 

[LockH]

I think rule 3 is made redundant by rule 1. If rule 1 is followed the rule 3 is a given.

Blimey Mate! (Not to be confused with a shipmate)

I do believe you are correct Sir! Perhaps we might add "See Rule One, above"?

So:
RULE ONE (for vehicle operation in any atmosphere): NEVER DO HARM.
RULE TWO: NEVER TRUST (yourself, but especially not any other creatures, etc.)
RULE THREE: NEVER EXCEED SAFE VEHICLE OPERATING SPEEDS. (See Rule One, above.)

And Rule Three may still need work? Some Gentlemen may confuse "safe" with sex at high speeds? How about:
RULE THREE: NEVER EXCEED *PRUDENT* VEHICLE etc. (see above etc.)

(I do hope some that for some that may enjoy eating prunes there is no confusion.) I DO know that "safe" is a relative term. My cousin could have noted "speed only when the coast is clear" (but he was a sailor too).

 

[LockH]

BTW... I had another cousin that enjoyed a slippery slope (but he was a snow skier). And making *MORE* rules he might have termed a "slippery slope" as well.

 

[LockH]

Ya know, I used to know a gal who absolutely *LOVED* it when I went fast (and when I went real slow). But sometimes, while driving a car, she *always* preferred she or I drove slower. I'm just sayin...

 

[Ykick]

Re Y kicks comment about 500 pounds of cargo bike.

Mine weighs about 330 pounds including me, and up to 450 pounds fully loaded. Oddly enough, it feels a lot more stable at 30 mph than at 15 mph. Gyroscopic forces no doubt have a role there. It does feel pretty maxed out if I load it up really heavy. Since my bike has a reasonable performing suspension, it doesn't suffer from the problems most heavily loaded bikes have at 30 mph. It's not shaky, and nothing has ever broken on it after a few thousand miles of riding. But the frame is a lot stiffer than the typical alloy walbike. I ride it at 30 mph down washboard dirt roads all the time.

I just hate the idea of a law being written based on the performance of the worst bike on the road. But do agree that as much as I like a legal 30 mph in my state, something slower might be best. In this state at least, 25 mph is legal for a road crowded with toddlers playing ball in front of their house. So I see that as either safe for bikes and ebikes, or unsafe for all vehicles. I wouldn't mind a 15 or 20 mph speed limit at all, if it applied to all vehicles sharing the road with me. But it just seems dumb that the UPS box truck or a pedaled bike can haul ass down a road at 25, but an ebike would be limited to 15. I'll never grok that one.

NEV's have pretty sucky laws too, but they do make some sense. 25 mph top speed is common, but at least that is the same as all vehicles have in the neighborhood. They are banned from faster speed limit roads, which perhaps makes sense, but limits their utility a LOT. I sure hope they don't ban ebikes from all roads with a fast speed limit. That would eliminate any long trips between towns.

I'm not picking on heavy cargo bikes but merely an observation that regular bike components don't seem up to handling extremely heavy weight and high speeds over rough roads. Powered or not, +500lb bike & rider speeding down a steep hill with inadequate brakes/tires should be just as much a "public safety concern" as eBikes.

A lot of this depends where it's being ridden as much as what's being ridden. Crowded path with pedestrian's 'completely different animal and requirements than hurtling along in heavy vehicular traffic with the likes of Oscar Grope in his Buick.

OP is trying to get some useful info and I do apologize for not being more helpful.

 

[LockH]

"OP is trying to get some useful info"...

Hey Master YP! Beyond titling this thread "How would you write *ideal ebike regulations*", in his (?) very first message he said "Essentially, we are in the Model T era of ebikes." Watt I personally might refute, as the motor and battery tech itself is pretty well know (and has been for a very long time). Perhaps by "Model T" era he was referring to the laws (regulations) so far in place.

He then goes on to tap about "the mess we have now." But maybe falls into the same old "trap", of "classifying" stuff.

But to maybe confuse things he says "The objective here is to keep it simple."

But to his credit he notes "I am asking for a serious exercise here with a realistic result." And in his last paragraph "how would you write a regulation for ebikes that was fair, universal and adoptable?"

Well, to my mind, "fair, universal and adoptable" might apply to ALL vehicles (and so all operators) covering all terrains.

Or is that maybe "too complicated" for some?

 

[LockH]

PS... One unwritten objective might be to cut all lawyers (their fees) out of the travel equation (But I am not sure who is worse, lawyers or accountants.)

 

[greenspark]

PS... One unwritten objective might be to cut all lawyers (their fees) out of the travel equation (But I am not sure who is worse, lawyers or accountants.)

Actually, in New Zealand, we have done exactly that. You cannot sue. Anyone who is injured in any sort of accident (including visitors) is covered by universal care, meaning all costs are paid by the Accident Compensation Commission. If you visited for a week, injured yourself for life and returned home, the state would pay you a life-long stipend as well as all the hospital bills. They reckoned the damages all occur in the first moment, why add to the cost by paying lawyers? As a result, when you come down, rent a car from Hertz and look for the liability insurance tick box, it ain't there.

And even with that, we have an ebike definition that needs help.

 

[LockH]

RULE ONE (for ANY vehicle operation in any atmosphere, aka "Space"): NEVER DO HARM.
RULE TWO: NEVER TRUST (yourself, but especially not any other creatures, etc.)
RULE THREE: NEVER EXCEED PRUDENT VEHICLE OPERATING SPEEDS. (See Rule One, above.)

Sooo... Any "Rules Number Four" out there?

...and we still might want to get back to training plus enforcement?

(And I once knew a grrrl named "Prudence". But she was too darned "fast" as well. Not driving or riding in a vehicle I mean.)

 

[markz]

Why speed restrict the ebikes? If they do it for ebikes, why not do it for vehicles as well, physically restrict every vehicle made to 60mph. Why not mandate it? EVERY VEHICLE? whether 20 years old or brand new. You get into a whole host of problems. Then what about the ShadeTree Mechanic who builds his own vehicles? Just post a speed limit and who ever breaks the law gets a ticket on an ebike. Makes sense. A bicycle by law is a vehicle and has to obey the laws of the road. Ebikes can and will be used for many different activities, such as cargo carrying, 2-person tandems etc. If you have a limit of 300W then you isolate and discrimate against a whole host of other people who like to carry more weight. I can just see it coming down the pipe, some sort of tax on every motorized bicycle. Perhaps even a registration cost with more money spent so the government can just spend spend spend and give themselves raises of 25% while the rest of us struggle and starve. I am getting really irritated now.

 

[greenspark]

Why speed restrict the ebikes?... I am getting really irritated now.

So far in this discussion, the arbitrary nature of watt limits has been shown to have different results based on different sized bikes and riders. Useful point. Also, in summarizing comments to date, most folks on this thread seem to favor speed limits because the basic bike was not engineered for the speeds that an add-on motor can effect.

At what speed is a normal bike with an electric motor not safe? For me and our rough winding roads, its about 32kph (20 mph). At 50 kph (30 mph) with my Mac 500/50v, it was clear that one rough patch of gravel and I would be tumbling off the road... even though I ride that road at 50k on my motorbike and in my Toyota in total comfort (and in my Alfa Spider race car at double that speed doing four-wheel drifts in total confidence).

I don't know your age, but perhaps you are too young to notice how many freedoms have been lost by regulation or lawsuits. When I was a kid, we had a dock down by the sea with a diving board on it. Any time day or night you could walk down and jump off. Now they have a locked gate that would look at home in Fort Knox and the diving board was removed because jumping off a dock into the water could be harmful to someone who jumped off without his nanny standing by. When cars first came out, people just bought and drove them on roads made for horses. Gradually, they became licensed, regulated, restricted to the point now that kids are not as interested in buying cars or learning to drive because they are all the same, utterly boring - the passion is gone. Soon, you can bet they will put transponders in cars that (a) read the speed limit and keep you there and (b) instantly emailing you a fine when you override the limiter, demanding payment by replying yes to the wireless computer hooked to the police, or if you refuse, it will shut the car down and call for a patrol car and tow truck... or maybe they won't even bother with the niceties... the Police computer will just take the money from your account, and call for a private contractor to clamp the car until you pay a ransom.

As we move into a world where everything will be electronically connected (for example, the papers tell me the NSA is reading this forum, and will record this posting as soon as I press Submit), there is a small window of opportunity to influence the rules written by the regulators. I don't like the rule makers, and yes they irritate me as well. So we can rant, we can write opinions that will not win, or we can engage in a serious discussion that analyzes this newly emerging technology (that is moving at a rapid pace), so when the regulators look for experts, they look to us, and not someone who has a pecuniary interest (such as helmet laws being pushed by helmet makers using flawed and emotive data).

Where you write "I can just see it coming down the pipe, some sort of tax on every motorized bicycle" that is exactly the point. I don't want to see that happen. We can lead, follow or get out of the way. I'm asking for leadership and trying to get some thinking going so we don't lose what we have. I agree 300W is a dumb rule.

What is a smart rule that let's us keep our freedom but realistically address real concerns about safety?

 

[Dauntless]

(15 U.S.C. 2085(b)), CPSC rules stipulate that low speed electric bicycles (to include two- and three-wheel vehicles) are exempt from classification as motor vehicles providing they have fully operable pedals, an electric motor of less than 750W (1 hp), and a top motor-powered speed of less than 20 miles per hour (32 km/h) when operated by a rider weighing 170 pounds. An electric bike remaining within these specifications will be regarded simply as a bicycle for purposes of federal law. Commercially manufactured e-bikes exceeding these power and speed limits are regulated by the federal DOT and NHTSA as motor vehicles, and must meet additional safety requirements. However, such requirements do not apply to e-bikes assembled from parts or kits by an individual. The use of home-built or kit-assembled e-bikes are instead governed by state and local laws, as federal law does not preempt state and local jurisdictions from enacting their own laws governing the operation of such vehicles on public streets and roadways. The legislation enacting this amendment to the CPSC is also known as HR 727.

Title 23, U.S. Code § 217(h)(4).Where federal funds have been used in the construction of bicycle or pedestrian paths, electric bicycles (defined as "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" (23 U.S.C. § 217(j)(2)) ) are permitted unless state or local regulations prohibit.

The basic question:

I think the ONLY way they'll ever rate electric bikes is "Watts." We're not really going to have effective laws on these bikes until it's federal law and prevents the adventurers in the individual state legislatures from pushing their own petty fantasies.

I think the laws on the gas engine bikes in California are fairly good, electric should match:

An electric bike without a license, maybe in the 1,000-1,200watt range. This would make the 20mph/32kph reasonable. This will be a small enough bike people can pick it up to put on the rack on the bus, but would still get you several miles, up hills, etc. I've heard some discussion of what it is now, usually people are saying in the 750-900watt range. Gas footboard gopeds (Made to stand on) are essentially motorcycles in California, a motorized skateboard is illegal because there's no handlebars as on a footboard scooter, while the up to 500watt (That I know of) electric footboards are unregulated. If someone made his own 3,000watt footboard scooter, he'd probably be fine, at least legally. Not sure I'd want to ride that.

An electric moped should be under 2,250watts, which would about match what the 50cc 2 cycle mopeds are doing. May or may not reach 30mph/48kph. The stock gas moped I'd say is that 3hp, doing that. Dang, as many as half the mopeds around me are in the hands of the AFFICIONADO, they get the 88cc kit and some of them crack 50mph/80kph. But you leave that out when figuring laws, you just make the stock electric moped match the stock gas moped. When the owner replaces his 48v/48a controller with 72v/60a to keep up with the gas mopeds, that has nothing to do with the original laws.

And it should be illegal for elected officials to vote on the laws and be involved in any way in the creation of. In fact I'd write the legislation calling for imprisonment of any politician who insisted on involving his ignorance in. . . .

. . . .I'll bet you were enjoying that as much as I was.

Bill Clinton at the 2011 Davos conference was speaking of people in politics who only work on grabbing and hanging onto power, at the expense of accomplishing anything meaningful or even good. They all squirmed, waiting for him to get off that subject. We'll never see these 'Good' bike laws.

Only fools ride motorbikes and mopeds on busy streets in snow and ice.
You're making this too difficult.

No, FOOLS make things too difficult, by doing things like riding in crowds on the snow and ice. Because these fools do that, the power grabbing politicians will insist on punishing all the people who DON'T! Being ". . . . focused on the line that separates. . . ." is being blindly political. Proper laws are supposed to be based on the reality of the situation, as people here keep mentioning. They'll enforce the speed limit, as well as confiscate anything that doesn't seem to be intended to stay at the speed limit.

Sooo... Any "Rules Number Four" out there?

How about the Zeroth rule: You break 1-3 to reduce the harm.

 

[LockH]

"Why speed restrict the ebikes?"

Ummm... Is it possible maybe some here can't read (Rules one or two or three)? The "restrictions" are on the *operator*. NOT the *vehicle*.

"Just post a speed limit..."

Oh. Great. So, who posts the signs? And do any of these "limits" EVer change anywhere, or at any time?

"I am getting really irritated now."

As far as I know, EVerybuddy reading/writing in this thread is REALLY IRRITATED (with speed "limits" and power "limits"). Perhaps it will always be that we humans (?) will exist in an environment watt keeps CHANGING around us?

 

[Falco]

PS... One unwritten objective might be to cut all lawyers (their fees) out of the travel equation (But I am not sure who is worse, lawyers or accountants.)

Actually, in New Zealand, we have done exactly that. You cannot sue. Anyone who is injured in any sort of accident (including visitors) is covered by universal care, meaning all costs are paid by the Accident Compensation Commission. If you visited for a week, injured yourself for life and returned home, the state would pay you a life-long stipend as well as all the hospital bills. They reckoned the damages all occur in the first moment, why add to the cost by paying lawyers? As a result, when you come down, rent a car from Hertz and look for the liability insurance tick box, it ain't there.

And even with that, we have an ebike definition that needs help.

I cant believe that. People have zero liability when it come to driving over there. That means i can hire a car over there and crash into someone and they can't sue me? Sounds like a scary place to me.

 

[LockH]

"...basic bike was not engineered for the speeds that an add-on motor can effect."

Ummm... So, how to write "regulations" to protect others from the "not too bright"??? Perhaps their missing toe/digit might be a clue (to them and to all others)?


"At what speed is a normal bike with an electric motor not safe?"

See Rule One.


"... how many freedoms have been lost by regulation or lawsuits."

Well DUHHH!


"What is a smart rule that let's us keep our freedom but realistically address real concerns about safety?"

Well, there are only three "smart rules" so far?


"How about the Zeroth rule: You break 1-3 to reduce the harm."

HUH??? Rule One? DO NO HARM. ("No" in this context means ZERO. So, is "negative harm" good? It nEVer has occurred to me where some harm less than zero might be "good". Most folks perhaps assume EVen then *word* "harm" is not a good thing.)

 

[LockH]

"Sounds like a scary place to me."

Maybe only if YOU visit there? A missing finger would make a great souvenir of the trip eh? (Might be hard to pick your nose though, and a reminder for the rest of your life, to you and to others. Maybe just NOT rent a car while visiting there?

 

[LockH]

"I think the laws on the gas engine bikes in California are fairly good."

Dunno about CA, but one recent report:
"With the number of U.S. motorcyclist deaths jumping 78% to 5,154 in 2007 from 2,897 in 2000."

And by another estimate, the pop in the USA grew from about 282 million folks in the year 2000 to maybe about 301 million persons in 2007 (only about a 7% increase).

Seen here, from 2006:
http://www.mic.org/news072006.cfm

In part:

Sales Background
In 2005, motorcycle and scooter sales topped the one-million level for the third straight year, high marks last seen during the 1970s. The MIC lists 1973 as the zenith for annual motorcycle sales, when Americans bought more than 1.5 million bikes. Sales for 1979 topped the one-million mark, then cooled in the 1980s and early 1990s. Motorcycling began its 13 years of increasing success back in 1993, with sales growing every year since.
1999 - 546,000
2000 - 710,000
2001 - 850,000
2002 - 936,000
2003 - 1,001,000
2004 - 1,063,000
(U.S. New Unit Motorcycle Sales.)

So, not from 2000 to 2007, but from 1999 to 2004, a maybe 95% growth in sales?

But I am curious? Exactly watt constitues a "reasonable" numbers of traffic injuries and deaths?

 

[Falco]

"Why speed restrict the ebikes?"

Ummm... Is it possible maybe some here can't read (Rules one or two or three)? The "restrictions" are on the *operator*. NOT the *vehicle*.

"Just post a speed limit..."

Oh. Great. So, who posts the signs? And do any of these "limits" EVer change anywhere, or at any time?

"I am getting really irritated now."

As far as I know, EVerybuddy reading/writing in this thread is REALLY IRRITATED (with speed "limits" and power "limits"). Perhaps it will always be that we humans (?) will exist in an environment watt keeps CHANGING around us?

I find it quite amusing reading this thread. lots of people here want others to impose limits on themselves and others so they have can have a percieved feeling of safety. This forum started with getting the knowledge out there on how to build a effecient and sustainable form of transport that could change the world for the better. I hope that continues.

 

[speedmd]

At what speed is a normal bike with an electric motor not safe? For me and our rough winding roads, its about 32kph (20 mph). At 50 kph (30 mph) with my Mac 500/50v, it was clear that one rough patch of gravel and I would be tumbling off the road... even though I ride that road at 50k on my motorbike and in my Toyota in total comfort (and in my Alfa Spider race car at double that speed doing four-wheel drifts in total confidence).

I don't know your age, but perhaps you are too young to notice how many freedoms have been lost by regulation or lawsuits

Hi Greenspark

You keep going back to the gravel / rough road analogy and do not see that it is identical to weather conditions effecting safety. You know the road, so what is not safe about traveling at a safe speed for your less than suitable bike and your wish to keep your shorts dry. If I wanted to build a normal looking bike with a touch of length here, and a touch of angle there and fitted it with great tires, stellar suspension, balanced it perfection so it rode near identical to your dirt moto, this law would prevent it from going above 20 mph? Talk about buzz kill! I think it is your last words I copied above that sum up best what is most dangerous to innovation. 20 mph rules would just be unproductive to the technology IMO. If I were a oil company, I would be pushing for it.

 

[LockH]

Yah. Plus 1 on watt speedmd said.

"You know the road..."

My problem perhaps is I very often DON'T "know the road" (or how other animals, etc travelling on it might behave?). Between moving around (eg 12 diff houses/homes before I left my parents home at 17yo, and many, many more moves since then). Throw our (?) environment into the mix (I do wish it would settle down, and not keep changing, but so far no luck)... Well, it very often can make travel "awkward" (EVen just on foot).

 

[speedmd]

Hi LockH

Well, it very often can make travel "awkward" (EVen just on foot).

"Interesting" is the word I would say. Same old, same old road needs some interest to keep you awake in life. Without it, let the lawyers and politicians run it on autopilot.