Reading this, I’m reminded of a comment – maybe EFF, Mike Masnick, or Ken White? – that laws named after victims tend to be knee-jerk, simplistic, “do something now!” responses to complex issues that rarely address the underlying issues. So-called apostrophe laws; Wikipedia has a list of such legislation, and they’ve been discussed in legal literature (PDF). This bill appears to be one such example.
On one hand, the bill modernizes the legal status of electric bicycles, by removing an older definition that was more akin to what we’d call an electric moped, replacing it with the three-class system that most states and the federal government use. In that regard, this is identical to the bill in neighboring California in 2015 that removed the second definition of “motorized bicycle” in CVC 406b and introduced the three-class system.
On the other hand, this bill adds an age restriction for class 1 and 2 ebikes, something which California did not introduce – although the thought keeps floating around our Legislature now.
There are many solutions which are easy, simple, and wrong. I do not foresee the onslaught letting up, so it’s important to stay on top of upcoming legislation, support your local bicycle advocates, and contact your representatives regularly.
Technically the bill adds age restriction for Class 2 and class 3 not 1, but honestly, I kind of understand what they’re doing. Class 2 is powered with out pedaling, How that’s not a “Motorbike” is a weird determination. But I do question class 1 vs class 3 where 20 miles an hour is perfectly safe, and 28 is somehow dangerous is a weird line in the sand. And also the fact that anything over 28 … I mean doesn’t exist? I guess you can make unregulated bikes now!
You are correct; that was an oversight on my part, and I’ve edited my comment to reflect the Oregon bill.
IMO, the two-wheel continuum is getting muddied by these sorts of bills. As it stands in California, the spectrum starts with bicycles, then ebikes, then mopeds*, then motorbikes/motorcycles. And we have an increasing scale of regulation, requirements, and licenses when moving to toward the actual motor vehicles. This ascension currently makes sense to me.
That class 3 is just shy of the moped with it’s 30 MPH (48 kph) limit is perfectly sensible to me, as is a helmet and age restriction. If we didn’t have a sliding spectrum, we’d basically be telling teenagers that they might as well go straight for mopeds or motorbikes, and that’s just opening a huge can of worms, public policy-wise.
I didn’t do an exhaustive search of Oregon law, but I have to imagine an overpowered ebike would get categorized as a moped or motorbike, subject to all those laws and regulations.
BTW, mopeds in California are very OP. An M1/M2 license, one-time registration forever, can use bike lanes, no insurance requirement, and can do 30 MPH. Just wow.
Reading this, I’m reminded of a comment – maybe EFF, Mike Masnick, or Ken White? – that laws named after victims tend to be knee-jerk, simplistic, “do something now!” responses to complex issues that rarely address the underlying issues. So-called apostrophe laws; Wikipedia has a list of such legislation, and they’ve been discussed in legal literature (PDF). This bill appears to be one such example.
On one hand, the bill modernizes the legal status of electric bicycles, by removing an older definition that was more akin to what we’d call an electric moped, replacing it with the three-class system that most states and the federal government use. In that regard, this is identical to the bill in neighboring California in 2015 that removed the second definition of “motorized bicycle” in CVC 406b and introduced the three-class system.
On the other hand, this bill adds an age restriction for class
1 and2 ebikes, something which California did not introduce – although the thought keeps floating around our Legislature now.There are many solutions which are easy, simple, and wrong. I do not foresee the onslaught letting up, so it’s important to stay on top of upcoming legislation, support your local bicycle advocates, and contact your representatives regularly.
Technically the bill adds age restriction for Class 2 and class 3 not 1, but honestly, I kind of understand what they’re doing. Class 2 is powered with out pedaling, How that’s not a “Motorbike” is a weird determination. But I do question class 1 vs class 3 where 20 miles an hour is perfectly safe, and 28 is somehow dangerous is a weird line in the sand. And also the fact that anything over 28 … I mean doesn’t exist? I guess you can make unregulated bikes now!
You are correct; that was an oversight on my part, and I’ve edited my comment to reflect the Oregon bill.
IMO, the two-wheel continuum is getting muddied by these sorts of bills. As it stands in California, the spectrum starts with bicycles, then ebikes, then mopeds*, then motorbikes/motorcycles. And we have an increasing scale of regulation, requirements, and licenses when moving to toward the actual motor vehicles. This ascension currently makes sense to me.
That class 3 is just shy of the moped with it’s 30 MPH (48 kph) limit is perfectly sensible to me, as is a helmet and age restriction. If we didn’t have a sliding spectrum, we’d basically be telling teenagers that they might as well go straight for mopeds or motorbikes, and that’s just opening a huge can of worms, public policy-wise.
I didn’t do an exhaustive search of Oregon law, but I have to imagine an overpowered ebike would get categorized as a moped or motorbike, subject to all those laws and regulations.