The Oregon Legislative session is in its infancy but we’ve already got a few bills worth tracking. Chief among them is a bill from Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) that could have a massive impact on the thousands of people who ride Class 3 electric bicycles in Oregon.
Senate Bill 471 would prohibit the use of Class 3 e-bikes on sidewalks, bicycle lanes and bicycle paths. Specifically, it would add “Class 3 electric assisted bicycle” to an existing law (ORS 814.210) that regulates the use of mopeds on sidewalks, bike lanes and bike paths.
Class 3 e-bikes have motors that assist the rider up to 28 mph and they don’t have throttles. They’re very common and popular. I prefer Class 3 e-bikes because I like having the extra speed and power when I want it. Of my three e-bikes, two of them are Class 3 (a Specialized Vado (above) and a Riese & Müller Carrie). Oregon went to a three-class categorization system for e-bikes in the 2024 legislative session. The other two classes have top speeds (from the motor) of 20 mph. Class 1 has no throttle and electric-assist up to 20 mph, Class 2 has a throttle and a motor that can propel the rider up to 20 mph.
SB 471 would push the legal definition of Class 3 e-bikes closer to that of a moped, and in some legal contexts, would no longer consider Class 3 e-bikes to be “bicycles” at all. In Section 2 of the bill text, the proposed change would remove Class 3 e-bikes from the right-of-way protections afforded to bicycles in ORS 811.050 — meaning that people on Class 3 e-bikes would not have legal protection against a car user if that car user failed to yield to them in a bike lane.
Another change SB 471 seeks to make is an addition to ORS 814.430 (“Improper use of lanes”) that would give a Class 3 e-bike rider the legal right to use a bicycle lane or bicycle path, “only when the bicycle is powered exclusively by human power.”
How a law enforcement officer or judge could determine whether or not the motor was being used is unclear. Also unclear is the motivation behind this bill and what problem Senator Prozanski seeks to fix with these changes.
One lawyer and bicycle law expert I shared the bill language with said, “Removing right-of-way protection for Class 3 e-bikes in bike lanes, regardless of rider speed, has big implications for liability determination. And regulating based on e-bike class, rather than speed, is such an imprecise way to do it. How many people ride e-bikes they don’t realize are Class 3, and wouldn’t have the right-of-way in bike lanes under this bill, even if they’re only riding 15-20mph?”
Sen. Prozanski is no stranger to bike issues. He championed Oregon’s bicycle passing law in 2007 that is still on the books today (inspired by seeing a friend of his be hit and killed while bicycling) and he played a big role in getting Oregon’s “Idaho Stop” law in the books.
I’ve reached out to Sen. Prozanski’s office to learn more about SB 471 and will share more as the session moves forward.
UPDATE, 10:45 am on 1/15: House Rep Dacia Grayber responded to our post on Bluesky last night saying, “Yeah just going to put it out right here I’ll fight this one. The only way my Class 3 goes that fast is pedal- assisted, and pushing me out into Barbur traffic instead of the bike lane isn’t going to solve anything. This feels like a very narrow view – I’ll reach out to Prozanski to learn more.”
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
If this law goes into effect is there even a way to get across the bridge from Vancouver to Portland on a Class 3 Bike? In addition, I can see quite a few drivers who are not aware of this law getting road rage at what they see as the arrogant cyclist riding in the road instead of using the bike lane. Speed limits seem to fix the whole thing. If it has two wheels and it has pedals or not if it is going 20 mph or less I don’t see the problem.
As the manager of The eBike Store (est. 2008), I feel compelled to respond to Oregon Senate Bill 471, introduced by Eugene Senator Prozanski, which seeks to ban Class 3 pedal-assist e-bikes from bicycle lanes and equates them with mopeds. This proposal reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Class 3 e-bikes and their users. The majority of our customers who purchase Class 3 e-bikes ride at speeds between 8–17 mph for most of their trips. While these bikes are capable of reaching speeds up to 28 mph with pedal assist, responsible riders adjust their speed to suit their surroundings.
I regularly advise customers on the importance of riding appropriately and courteously, particularly in shared spaces. This bill represents yet another example of legislating machines instead of behavior. Reckless or harmful behavior—regardless of the type of vehicle—should be the focus of enforcement efforts, not blanket restrictions on a specific class of e-bikes.
When I ride my own Class 3 e-bike, I find that bike lanes are often unsuitable for sustained speeds over 20 mph, and I naturally adjust my riding to ensure safety and harmony with other users.
The comparison of Class 3 pedal-assist e-bikes to mopeds is both lazy and inaccurate. Unlike mopeds, Class 3 e-bikes require active pedaling to engage the motor, making them distinctly different in function and purpose. Additionally, the portion of SB 471 that prohibits Class 3 e-bikes from sidewalks is redundant, as dangerous behavior in these spaces is already addressed under existing laws.
Instead of imposing blanket bans on certain types of e-bikes, policymakers should focus on education, enforcement of existing laws against reckless behavior, and fostering a culture of mutual respect among all road and trail users. Class 3 e-bikes are an essential tool for sustainable transportation, and overly restrictive legislation risks undermining their potential to reduce traffic congestion and emissions.
If this is the case, and I have no doubt that it is, why would anyone ever purchase a Class 3 ebike in the first place, and not a Class 1? Why even sell Class 3 ebikes?
I typically use one of the lower assist modes on my Class 3 Vado, which is just enough to prevent sweating like a pig but still gets me to my destination at the same speed as if I were working hard. Sometimes on smooth ground or downhills that small assist can get me beyond what would be the 20mph limit of a class 1 or class 2 ebike. And if bike infrastructure does disappear and I have to ride in traffic, I appreciate having the option to turn up the assist to try and stay safe among other vehicles. But regardless, the speed I choose to go is entirely based on my surroundings and safety.
After way over 30 years of year round bike commuting in the redneck heaven of The Midwest, I can tell you that the faster you ride, the harder it is to pass you. You do get harrassed more tge faster you ride. Yes, there was a timexwhen I could ride with traffic on my custom racing bike. If you cannot continuously ride 5 over the limit, where even The NHTSB says the average person drives, they will feel you are holding them up.
There are so many different reasons for buying a bike! The look, the component build, the fit.
Class only tells you TWO things: What type of assist it is and at what speed the assist cuts out.
That’s It!
The class does not determine the motor power, price, accessories or even what speed it will go. Maybe they want help going up “that hill” and the bike that they really like and checks all of Their boxes happens to be a class 3. So What?
Not all bikes are created equal. My class 3 is light weight and the motor is as well. It isn’t limited to 19 mph. Most e-bikes , if geared well, travel comfortably at 22-25 mph. At least Specialized and Gazelle e-bikes do.
I highly suggest riding a few different one and find out for yourself…. Or do you not like fun?
I have a Class 1 ebike and am quite happy to keep it well below 15 mph.
So from the responses, the purpose of Class 3 is the option to go fast, a bit like a cherry red mid-life crises sports car – we are simply replicating the demands of the car world with ebikes. I find that sad and depressing.
Riding a bike at 22-26mph is totally not comparable to a mid-life crisis sports car. If you’re plenty happy at <15mph, fine. You do you. As Bryan D mentioned, most people riding class 3 bikes don’t often use the upper end of the speed range, but if they do to keep up with traffic, or even to have fun (fun is allowed on bikes, that’s what makes them great), so be it. Nothing sad or depressing about that.
I ride my class 3 ebike to work everyday, even in the winter. I can tell you in the morning, there is hardly another soul on the Springwater Corridor trail. I go as fast as the bike will go, because it’s cold outside and I need to get to work. It’s not about a mid-life crisis, it’s about getting to work in 30 minutes, versus 50 minutes.
Partly because the same bikes get sold to many people in different places. But if I could just choose class-1 or class-3 and everything else were the same, one answer is: sometimes the rider is in a situation to be in traffic, there’s no bike lane or path, and getting to 25mph or so is really helpful when trying to get through that section and not get drivers extra angry.
Also, some people have like 10-mile+ commutes, and having 20% of the time be around 23mph or 24mph actually makes a difference. But class-1 would be *okay* still. So, I don’t think sticking to class-1 is crazy or anything. There are just reasons class-3 is nice even for people who mostly do class-1 level riding.
Ya it is called freedom
The main reason for me is because my bike is a car replacement which means sometimes I have to take it places where the bike infrastructure ends since I don’t have the option to drive. In those instances being able to go faster makes me feel a lot safer, but the rest of the time I ride it with minimal assist and it just feels like a slightly easier normal bike that goes normal bike speeds. Banning my class 3 bike from paths would make me seriously consider buying a car again.
I totally agree. I’m 60yrs old and enjoy riding paved paths and respectfully slow down for oncoming walkers. I ride 15 to 20 mph. Most of the time and when I ride faster it is safe and not congested around others. The idea of regulating ps3 bikers along with moped style riders is absurd. Someone is allways out to spoil the fun. Get a life, get outside and get off your couch. Thank you.
Truth, and it is still WAY too fast to be riding on basically glorified sidewalks. If HE admits to doing 20mph, imagine how fast his customers are going while approaching a small child that might wander in front of them. 15mph is too fast to be passing anyone. Imagine how fast they have to be riding to average 17.
“majority of our customers who purchase Class 3 e-bikes ride at speeds between 8–17 mph for most of their trips”
Calling BS on this one. I regularly see class 3s going full speed down Springwater. Let alone where’s your data source?
“Class 3 e-bikes require active pedaling to engage the motor, making them distinctly different in function and purpose.”
The riders I have spoken with say they move the pedals a little to keep the motor engaged at top speed.
Springwater and other trails like that are for human powered recreation not for someone to commute to work on their coal powered bicycle.
How do you know they are class 3? What’s your data source? Did you stop them and check the class sticker on their bike, or just assume because of their speed?
I would be willing to bet money that the vast majority of the bikes you see flying down the Springwater aren’t class anything, they’re likely illegal bikes that don’t fit the regulations at all.
I work next to the entrance of the Springwater Corridor and watch bikes and behavior there every work day, most of the day. I don’t see class 3 bikes speeding very often. And yes, I can at least ID if it is Class 1, or 3 by how the bike performs. A Class 3 bike by definition requires pedaling for the motor to turn on. The moment one stops pedaling, the motor turns off and the bike will slow down just as any human-powered pedal bike would. It’s the unregulated, throttle-operated bikes that are most often the ones speeding past others unsafely. And, the Springwater IS indeed a transportation corridor, it was established as that way back when.
I fully agree with the E-Bike Store employee about the misunderstanding of what Class 3 bikes can and can’t do In fact, I’m growing tired of people calling out Class 3 or any Class 1, 2 or 3 ebike and trying to regulate them based on misunderstanding of what they do. If someone is zooming past you and they are not pedaling, that’s NOT a Class 3 bike. It’s either a Class 2 or it’s an unregulated bike and not legally a bike. There are many of the later being sold and misrepresented as bikes. That’s far more of a problem than Class 3 bikes on bike paths. Those bikes usually have little aftermarket support AND they are the ones with Li-Ion battery safety issues. The lack of regulation on those IS a huge problem and where our dear legislators should focus their attention.
I’ve said it before BUT bikes without motors also go faster than 20mph, can zoom past others, etc. Meanwhile, I use a Class 3 instead of a car, for all of the reasons other posters have mentioned, and I frequently am passed by road bikes while riding on the Springwater, and am always careful with speed and passing distance. I know many other Class 3 riders who are similar in their riding style. So, again the analogy of, are we regulating autos that can go 120mph and prohibiting them from areas where slow speeds are required? No, we don’t do that. But, why do we need to do that to e-bike riders? It doesn’t make sense.
Whenever I meet a person of bad nature
Who is overwhelmed by negative energy and intense suffering,
I will hold such a rare one dear,
As if I had found a precious treasure.
Thank you, we’ll put
I thought it was already illegal for any eBike to ride on a sidewalk.
yeah sort ofyes they are. But this would extend it to bike lanes and paths.Sort of? That seems dangerously unclear.
I think it’s just straight-up illegal. Not sure where any murkiness comes from.
yeah sorry for that. I don’t think that law is good either FWIW. A bike with a battery is for all intents and purposes exactly the same as a bike without one, the only difference is what the user has potential to do. It’s not good that folks with e-bikes can’t ride on sidewalks. That law makes no sense and shouldn’t exist IMO. The world is burning and we have something that should be encouraged and embraced in every way and yet we have folks who want to regulate it to death will ill-informed laws while people who drive dangerous vehicles run amok. It’s just lazy lawmaking imo.
I’ve almost been hit while walking on a sidewalk by an e-bike far more than I have by a car, and e-bikes are heavier and generally going faster than the typical casual bike rider.
One problem with this entire conversation is how the term “e-bike” is so often misused — even by police agencies who should know better. Not all “e-bikes” are created equal and they run a very wide gamut — from motorcycles to just regular commuter bikes that never go over 15 mph.
I’d propose calling class 1 e-bikes “bikes” and class 3 e-bikes “mopeds” and continue calling class 2 e-bikes “e-bikes”.
I propose eliminating the “class 1” and “class 3” designations. If you have to pedal to make it go, it’s an ebike. If you have a throttle, it’s a moped. The law already puts a power limit at 1000W. Most ebike motors have a nominal 250-350W motor, which a well trained rider can put out no problem.
Restricting pedal assist ebikes by speed or where they can ride just punishes the mostly honest folks just looking for a better way to get around. There’s no reason why a mom or dad on a cargo bike shouldn’t be able to keep up with traffic on a 25mph street. The most egregious behavior is usually on Surrons and other 3kW-10kW high power throttle machines, which are already illegal off of private property. We’d do better to communicate and enforce that these are not ebikes and are not legal.
How many watts does the rider of a class 3 ebike have to put out to go 28mph? If it is less than 200w, that is not a bike anymore, it is a moped.
I have the most powerful motor Specialized offers and I’ve got to work pretty hard to maintain 28 mph. IIRC the 2.2 motor offers 560w peak.
Math checks. The 2.2 motor is 565W peak, 250W continuous. Depending on your riding position and what tires you’re running, you’d probably be contributing at least 200W, but more likely 250-350W or so with your legs, which would feel somewhere between “working pretty hard” and “OMG please make the hurting stop” for most riders.
Not even close. Doing a little analysis on gribble.org’s calculator, I’d estimate that most ebikes would require around 750W (combined motor and legs) to maintain 28mph. 200W from the legs plus 250W from the motor would likely propel most ebikes at around 23mph. 250W alone would be around 18mph. This is why the 20mph limit on Class 1 ebikes is extremely frustrating for people capable of adding 200W or so to the system with their legs. Rather than be able to cruise along at the speed of traffic, the motor will start to cut in and out, creating a pretty awkward ride. Add in that cars are still going to try and pass you while your motor is cutting in an out, and the whole thing is pretty unpleasant. Again, the most egregious behavior, and the actions that might actually have a chance at endangering anyone else, are typically from people riding machines that are ALREADY ILLEGAL, not from people riding pedal assist bikes with proportional power response.
Showing my work: I took the default values (based on traditional road bikes and riding position), and multiplied the frontal area by 1.3 (30% increase) for a change from an aggressive road bike position to an upright position typical for most ebikes. I also added 20% to the drag coefficient as most ebikes and their riders (usually in plain clothes) are not as aerodynamic as a typical road bike setup. I (conservatively) doubled the rolling resistance coefficient to account for the slower rolling touring tires typically found on ebikes vs road tires (check bicyclerollingresistance.com if you disagree).
https://www.gribble.org/cycling/power_v_speed.html?units=imperial&rp_wr=175&rp_wb=50&rp_a=7.15&rp_cd=0.756&rp_dtl=2&ep_crr=0.01&ep_rho=0.076537&ep_g=0&ep_headwind=0&p2v=250&v2p=28
This checks with my personal experience riding an analog Bullitt and an electric Tern. I happen to have very recent power data from workouts on the analog Bullitt (gotta get it in when I can). As an example, I did an slight uphill sprint on NE 53rd from NE Everett St to make the light at Glisan. I hit a peak power of 1032W, average of 452, and managed an average speed of 15.6mph up the slight grade. For a flatter example, I rode through a flat 0.5mi section of Ladd’s addition at 343W, for a whopping 16.1mph.
I have no problem sharing bike paths or bike lanes with any Class 3 level ebikes as defined by the current law. I really think the we’d be better off letting the watts do the talking, and remove the arbitrary speed limits on pedal assist bikes.
Also, keep in mind that pedal assist ebikes use torque and cadence sensors to vary the motor output proportionally to the rider’s input. This is what makes them actually nice to ride. The level of “boost” you select changes the curve, but you don’t just get max power by tapping on the pedals. If you did, the ride experience would be pretty awful and unsafe. Even lower-end control systems will feel pretty jerky and uncomfortable compared to a nice Bosch or similar system.
Wattage equals speed only with crappy 90’s era and over powered hub motors (common today). At 15mph 85% of your energy is overcoming aero drag on an e-bike or traditional. Duck down out of the wind and easily pick-up 2mph with no additional effort. There are plenty of 250 watt motors that will go 28mph.
I don’t have a watt meter on my Class 3 bike, but I was a bike racer once upon a time so I can compare the effort to get to and hold 28mph on a Class 3 (on a flat surface) to riding all out in a race. It’s roughly the same. Less than a field sprint effort but far more effort than a spirited ride. I would say, it feels pretty easy to get to and maintain 24mph, but effort gets progressively harder as you go faster – just like a non-motorized bike. So, it is rare for Class 3 riders (those who are not fit young bike racers) to hit and maintain 28mph for much distance unless aided by gravity (ie. going downhill).
If automobiles have taught us anything, it is that indeed we cannot be trusted to obey the law. ALL those responding here in support of Class III bikes talk about going 17-20mph. That is way too fast for riding on something that is little more than a glorified sidewalks. With so many weighing 80#’s, with the best brakes being built for <30# mtbs and tiny, skilled riders. E-bikes and most of their riders are not.
Class 3 bikes are NOT mopeds – the motor only assists the rider when they are pedaling. The same is true for Class 1.Here’s how the classes are defined:
Class 1 – pedal elec – must pedal for motor to work. Motor assist capped at 20mph. Some muscle power required.
Class 2 – has a throttle. Motor assist capped at 20mph. No muscle power required.
Class 3 -pedal elec – must pedal for motor to work. Motor assist capped at 28mph. Some muscle power required.
Unregulated -Any two wheeled, motorized rig with a throttle that has no speed cap or a speed cap higher than 28mph. No muscle power required.
Human-powered/analog/unmotorized – no speed cap, must pedal to move, all muscle power
So, based on those definitions, would you still call a Class 3, and not a Class 1 a moped?
There are tons of places that a bike may need to use a sidewalk to operate safely. Our bike infra network is not developed enough to avoid this. If you ride an ebike, you are still confronted with these issues. If you bike kids around on an ebike, you definitely don’t want to take chances with sketchy car lanes.
As a pedestrian, I really don’t want to share the sidewalks with a full-family e-bike. Sorry, I don’t think that’s a reasonable (or safe) imposition.
And I really hope that you sidewalk-ride extra carefully — driveways pose a great danger for sidewalk bike riders. Personally, I wouldn’t expose my family to that.
I see you are imagining sidewalks that narrowly suit your concern trolling.
If you think I am concerned trolling, I’m guessing you very rarely walk anywhere where people bike ride on the sidewalks. It’s not super common around here, but it is super dangerous when people do it.
I think you are concern trolling because you are picking out unique examples to blanket a wide range conditions that people on bikes have to deal with. My designated “safe route to school” for biking includes sidewalks. It also includes a steep hill that few parents at my kids school could bike their kids up without e-assist.
Our bike network is a rando patchwork held together by string and chewing gum and you believe a simple minded, one-size-fits-all law makes biking better, by eliminating some of the riders who are doing the most to keep cars off the roads.
No — I believe a simple minded on-size-fits-all rule (no biking on sidewalks) would make walking better. It would not make biking better.
True in some areas and not in others. There are times when there are gaps in bike lanes where there are sidewalks with no people on them while the adjacent roadway is suicidal. No perfect solution, but the fact is that in many instances biking on sidewalks is totally safe, plus is the difference between someone making a decision to bike from point A to B. There are many places that I bike to, but would have driven to if it were not for a short section of sidewalk riding.
To every rule there are exceptions.
The general rule* that riding on the sidewalk is asshole behavior does not mean there will never be times when it is not. I do it myself on occasion, but because I know that when I do I’m being an asshole, I do everything I can to mitigate my impact (such as dipping into the street when I pass people).
If you approach sidewalk riding with the attitude of “it’s all good, bruh”, you are likely to have a different impact on other people than if you recognize (and care) that you are imposing and potentially threatening to other people there.
*That’s my general rule, at least. There seems to be a lot of “it’s all good” folks here who have a different view, who seem awfully defensive when I criticize sidewalk riding.
Who said “it’s all good bruh?” Your quotation marks. Some straw person I guess.
Sidewalk riding is an expedient people take to put public safety in their own hands instead of at the mercy of whatever power addled person comes along. I don’t pretend to speak for everyone but as a matter of course I give way in the many places where bike routes are choked into the same bit of pavement that serves pedestrians.
In the past I have ridden the sidewalks to cross the I-84 gap on NE MLK and Grand at times when traffic was heavy and I couldn’t catch a break. Pedestrians are not uncommon, see above. I haven’t done that for many months because there’s a whole new bridge nearby.
The Grand Avenue overpass happens to be the place where a person driving a pickup clipped my bag with their right hand mirror, in full daylight, the only time in my life that has happened.
I’ve taken a fall to avoid a pedestrian crossing against a signal at meth speed and would do the same again without thought.
The people who think riding on the sidewalk is fine and don’t appear to realize they are imposing the same power dynamic on other people that they complain about with cars on the street.
If that isn’t you, then it isn’t you.
You never know, maybe Watts takes the family out for walks on the Halsey overpass. Gotta have hobbies…
Great picnic spot!
And as a bike rider I don’t want to share the road with cars going thirty plus miles an hour with no bike infrastructure.
See how this works.
Yes, I see how this works. Your concerns are more important than those of others.
If you need to use a sidewalk, walk your bike.
So Watts, what do you think of places where PBOT and ODOT have intentionally put bikes on sidewalks? Come out to SW Capitol Hwy. You’ll see an especially treacherous sidewalk between Barbur and Taylors Ferry, marked for both peds and bikes, where cars come shooting out of the parking lot at Barbur World Foods. I’ve almost been taken out several times there, yet that is the PRESCRIBED cycling location – what some really smart road engineers came up with as the best place for bikes.
Where bikes are directed to use the sidewalk then yes, I guess you should ride there.
You mean obey ORS 814.410 1(d)?
Yeah, I’d say that’s appropriate for anybody on a sidewalk going above walking speed, bike, ebike, hoverboard or just a fast runner (my brother used to run 10-12mph on training runs).
I mean don’t do anything that would make people walking on the sidewalk feel at any risk. Sure, you would never do that, but a lot of people do.
As a pedestrian, bike-rider and car-driver, when riding my bikes, I don’t want to share the roads and streets with a full-family motor vehicle. Sorry, I don’t think that’s a reasonable imposition.
Absolutely true and this is from a guy that runs an e-bike exclusive shop
I don’t see how something that weighs 2 to 3 times more and can and often does go significantly faster is “all intents and purposes” exactly the same. My class 2 electric Big Dummy is much different than my touring bike, and I use it for significantly different purposes.
Good.
Bikesmotorcycles that go 28mph have no business operating in the same spaces as human powered vehicles.Vehicles that weigh more than 4,000 lbs and can go 100mph have no business operating in the same space as vehicles that weigh less than 100 lbs.
Absolutely. Cars should not be driving in the bike lane.
Which is why there are laws prohibiting cars from driving in the bike lane, on bike paths, etc.
This law would make it where bikes that have the capacity to go 28mph, but in reality rarely, if ever, travel at that speed will have to travel in the lane with 4,000- 30,000 lbs vehicles that routinely travel 10mph above posted speed limits.
Importantly from my view, they wouldn’t be allowed on the bike path, where we know full well there would never be enforcement of a speed limit. Of course, people are idiots, so they would still ride them on the bike path at excessive speeds, so then they are rolling the dice of life altering litigation in the event something bad happens. It is interesting that the cars on the street are bad for class 3 e-bikers, but class 3 e-bikers are just supposed to be par for the course on the multiuse paths.
So now those people with class 3 e-bikes who would like to ride 15mph on the bike path like a normal person will be forced to ride in the road with 40mph traffic just because their bike is capable of 28mph if they were to pedal as hard as they could in max assist mode. Why not just limit them at 15 or 20mph and let them share the path? If I were forced to make that choice I’d just go back to driving.
I ride one of these “motorcycles”. I beg you to see how amazing e bikes are for getting people who aren’t athletes to ride instead of drive. We’re not dangerous. We’re toting our groceries and running errands just like you. We’re way greener, quieter, slower, and aware of our surroundings than motorcycles or cars.
I agree, Courtney, but if you can go over 20 mph and accelerate to that speed in seconds, I’d argue you are more like a motorcycle than a bike, and you probably belong in the so-called “travel lane” (where cars and trucks are), though I am fine with you using the mobility (bike) lanes if no one else is in them.
In Eugene, at least, class 3 e-bikes are considered motor vehicles.
https://www.eugene-or.gov/4665/E-Bikes
I would bet real money that if you saw Courtney riding her e-bike, you would not characterize it this way! I’m sorry if that sounds personal- it’s just that we’ve all seen aggressive riding on e-vehicles and I think we associate that riding with “class 3,” or “e-bikes,” when a lot of the worst riding is on “electric bikes” that exist outside the Class system, driven by young men who bought the “bike” online for thrills that are cheaper and less regulated than motorcycles.
I think that *these* individuals on *these* bikes create the vast majority of negative interactions, and that when we read about e-bike regulations, we mistakenly associate this with the regulated classes of e-bikes as discussed in this article.
If I hadn’t inadvertently bought a Class 3 bike myself, I might not have any sense of how normally these bikes appear.
The average e-bike rider I see out in the wild, as would be captured in Prozanski’s bill, is a relatively sedate person commuting or running errands.
As many of the e bike riders here have commented, my bike may be able to get up to 20mph, but it takes several seconds just like a normal bike. It’s just a normal bike that’s 25 pounds heavier (plus maybe all the cargo we love to carry haha), and requires less effort to pedal. We not only need the bike lane, but it increases bike infrastructure usage, which is good for all of us to advocate for more bike infrastructure.
If you can get to 20mph on flat ground in “seconds”, you may be exerting 300W, wow so much power, such great responsibility.
You don’t NEED to ride over 20mph. Most MUPs are very reasonably limited to 15mph. E-bikes were meant to make traditional cycling easier, more convenient and accessible, not faster.
Something to consider. Many road cyclists can go 30+ on their non electric road bikes.
Been in and around the business over 50 years. This is simply not true. Very very short periods, not miles, highly skilled and fit cyclists, on extremely expensive bikes, can go those speeds. We are putting folks, many of whom haven’t even on a bike in decades, mostly older (sorry, at 68 my reflexes aren’t the same as when I rode fast in my 20’s & 30’s) on bikes that often weigh three times as much, but with the same or inferior brakes. Usually these have flat out crappy tires that dive in stopping and squirm in turning. Add to that off road suspensions, poorly designed for off-road control and they become a very real danger.
This makes sense since they really are more like a moped than a bike.
It’s fine with me folks want to motor around town, but just because a person identifies as a bicyclist doesn’t mean they always are one.
I disagree Watts. It is a terrible idea and it should not pass. Regulating based on Class definition is a horrible idea. We should regulate based on behaviors and speeds.
This smacks of being anti e-bike IMO. Class 3 bikes are absolutely nothing like a moped because they don’t have a throttle. I can go 28 on my class 3 bike and I can go 28 on my gravel bike. So what’s the difference?
(*comment edited to delete false reference to a 20 mph speed limit for bikes in bike lanes. not sure why I had that in my head!*)
If you can do 28 mph on a gravel bike on flat ground, I’d be very impressed… most people can’t.
If you really believe in behavior-based limits, would you support motorcycles using bike lanes if they keep to the bike lane speed limit? Why draw the line at class 3 bikes, and not at class 1 or class 2, which are less problematic?
All this supports my contention that the lines between different types of vehicles are blurry and getting blurrier.
Nope. Because they are large, loud and smelly.
And yes, lines between vehicles are getting blurry. I agree! Which is why trying to come in with new laws that feebly try and make them less blurry is just wasting time while the world burns. This would not add any clarity and would only add more confusion and unintended consequences.
Agreed, though the odor and noise impact is not much reduced if they ride a couple of feet to my left (and they can in fact ride closer than they could in-file). But does sound like you would support electric motorcycles using bike lanes for slow-riding; they are quiet and odorless, and may not weigh much more than a loaded bikefeits.
Here’s one that weighs 244 lbs (first link I found, so there are probably lighter ones); if we don’t care about capabilities, then the only real objection would be aesthetics.
https://maeving.com/pages/maeving-rm1-electric-motorcycle
As I processed my feelings and thoughts on this, I came to an insight:
I don’t want full-blown e-moped small-motorcycle riders (or those unicyclists) to get killed because they are in traffic with today’s crazy oversized pickup trucks and such. A lot of the issue is simply how insanely dangerous today’s automobiles have become (though they have always been bad).
If we could have lanes for faster-heavier bicycles (motorcycles are bicycles!) and lanes for medium-slow-light bicycles, that would solve everything. And those lanes should be *separated* from heavy automobiles and pedestrians. That’s the real answer.
The problem is that we have such limited pathetic options for everyone who isn’t inside a giant metal box, and so we’re left debating the conflicts within that.
We need a “love” button.
The difference is that you can’t travel CONSISTENTLY at 28 mph on your gravel bike. Yes, you can go that fast downhill but almost never on flats and certainly not uphill. The sheer speed of the Class 3 bike makes it different, I would argue.
But I’m with you that police should enforce the speed and the behavior, not the equipment.
I absolutely agree with you that police should enforce the speed and the behavior, not the equipment.
And I do want to address that first note about consistency. I absolutely can’t travel at 28 mph on my class 3 ebike at 28 mph, either. Just because it has pedal-assist to that limit doesn’t mean that it is going that fast pretty much ever. I have a tern quick haul. I go 7 to 10 on a steep uphill. I go 12 to 20 on flat. On a steep downhill, I have reached speeds of 30, but that is also true of my road bike. The advantage of the ebike is in the effort I’m expending. My speed isn’t that different. Maybe other class 3s are different, but then catagorizing my ebike in with the motorcycle-things I see sometimes is a huge mis-classification.
Sounds like your class-3 e-bike is really a class-2 e-bike (if it can’t go over 20 mph on level ground).
The Class distinctions are basically meaningless here: the motor on my class 3 bike is not powerful enough to speed me up past 20mph, even though, legally, it could take me up to 28mph.
The regulations do not reflect the bikes available in the market, which is one reason why these conversations are so circular and frustrating!
Fred, you don’t know your class system yet.
Class 1 pedal assist up to 20 mph.
Class 2 Throttle assist up to 20 mph
Class 3 Pedal assist from 1 mph up to 28 mph. If you don’t pedal, you coast.
another reason Class based laws are not good is that no one understands them. This will be unenforceable to the point of being pointless, it will confuse e-bike users, hurt bike shops, and so on so forth.
Exactly! That’s clearly demonstrated by the proposed bill and many of the comments to this post.
I don’t blame Fred or anyone else: the Class system is garbage that does not represent the variety of street-legal and -illegal electric powered wheeled vehicles!
Class 2 bikes have throttles, perhaps you mean Class 1? And the Tern Quick Haul can go 28mph, BUT as noted before, it takes a great deal of effort to go 28mph. BUT it is not so hard to get 21, 22, -24 mph for a stretch. That allows any Class 3 rider to get out of the way quickly or to do more vehicular cycling when road conditions get dicey.
Not on flat ground for very long, not up a hill, not quickly from a stop and definitely not without years and years and years of training your fitness and bike handling skills are you going 28mph on a gravel bike. So, big difference.
The idea that someone who was previously cosplaying as a couch cushion and is now going 28mph on the Springwater and someone riding a bike themselves going that fast are the same thing is not even a logical argument.
PS, I was just trying to make a point. Obviously I’m aware of the nuances and differences here. And from your comment it feels like to me you are more concerned with who’s allowed to go fast and who isn’t. And I think that strikes at why I am so opposed to this type of legislation. It is mainly about gatekeeping and not about safety or bike lane/bike path conditions. Again, there are just as many close passes and assholes on carbon fiber racing bikes as their are on class 3 e-bikes.
Yes, I am more concerned with inexperienced people having access to speed via an ebike than I am willing to entertain the thought that 28mph is equivalent regardless of experience.
Call it gatekeeping or whatever, but the conditions on the bike paths were far better prior to ubiquitous usage of ebikes, one wheels things and scooters.
If you are concerned about inexperienced people having access to bikes that go “fast” take a look at the issue of 2-wheel contraptions being sold as bikes but that don’t fit into the 3 class system. Many have no speed cap, or caps well above 28mph, they are also ALL throttle operated. That combination makes them far more dangerous than a class 3 bike that has no throttle and will slow quickly if the rider stops pedaling. So much safer than a throttle-activated ebike that can surge forward or get activated by accident.
I could not go 28mph for very long on my class 3 e-bike and I absolutely could not hit 28mph going uphill on it no matter what I do. Just because that’s the maximum allowed by the governor doesn’t mean it’s the actual traveling speed of the bike.
The issue is I bet you can’t tell a class 3 bike, they blend in. The people zipping around on throttle power and no regard for others is the issue. Those are all classes 2 bikes. So it doesn’t address the issue at all.
So any vehicle in the bike lane as long as they go under certain speed?
The vehicles I find most incompatible with others in bike lanes are the one-wheels. Are those considered bikes at all? If so, which class? I think regulating behavior is the only path forward
So the problem is speed, right? My e-bike has a throttle and pedals (with torque sensor!) but I don’t think it goes over 20 mph (I haven’t tried to go faster), so it must be a Class 2 e-bike.
I agree that it’s really crazy to make equipment the basis of enforcement. There are SO MANY overpowered cars out there but no one is trying to ban THEM. Instead we prescribe speed limits and enforce those, so why wouldn’t that work with e-bikes also? Police can measure the speed of anything.
Part of the problem here is licensing: if bikes were licensed, as motorcycles are, then it would be easier to say which ones can be on the road or in mobility lanes (thanks, JM), which can’t etc.
“There are SO MANY overpowered cars out there but no one is trying to ban THEM.”
No one is trying to ban class 3 e-bikes either, and overpowered cars are already prohibited from driving in the bike lane.
Oh wait… Did I just fall for another troll post?
Probably. 🙂
This bill would be more like limiting all cars with more than 30 horsepower to freeway travel only. 30 horsepower is more than enough to maintain city travel speeds and many cars are built with no speed governor and a speedometer that goes to 150mph! Clearly that must be unsafe anywhere except the freeway, and for that matter what freeway allows for 150mph travel? Obviously they must be traveling at 150mph all the time since that’s the maximum, right? Too bad for all those drivers who thought they were just getting a vehicle to get them around town while following the laws, huh?
Cars are proof enough that we cannot be trusted to obey the law. The former owner of our shop stood behind my policy of Class I only conversions, but then pressured me to build a thoroughly illegal bike because he would be tge exception that would never use it (he rides WAY too fast on a Class I!).
Please, don’t advocate bringing the chaos of the streets o to our trails, lanes and MUPs.
This is incredibly regressive and frustrating. I emailed the Senator and expressed opposition to this bill. I suggest you do the same. And I reminded him that the real issue making our streets unsafe is not class 3 e-bike users, but the oftentimes distracted drivers who operate their large vehicles at high rates of speed.
I had the same thought. If our legislators were guided by data, they would be asking:
What is causing the most deaths on the road?
Oh! – it’s not e-bikes, it’s cars and trucks!
Then they would address the conditions for those vehicles. But that’s not what they do.
Primarily extreme speeding and drunk driving; things we have laws against and arrest people for.
Actually – motor vehicles are causing the most deaths on the road. No one can speed or drive drunk without one.
Actually, people are causing the most deaths on the road; no vehicle can move without one (and in San Francisco, the vehicles that can drive without people are much safer than those with human drivers, supporting the idea that it’s people that are the problem).
2nd amendment supporters have been saying this for years. That Ford Lightnings or any other EV of similar tonnage haven’t had people clamoring to outlaw them or the parent company sued in the wake of the slaughter shows either a high level of hypocrisy amongst the population or perhaps an inability to think things through. Inanimate objects (well, other than radioactive ones anyway) don’t kill, it’s always been people doing it to ourselves.
We have laws against speeding and drunk driving, but speeding results in a citation and arrests for drunk driving are very rare.
I haven’t seen Portland police doing a traffic stop in years. We have near zero enforcement.
Oregon arrested 11,961 people for DUI in 2022 (I think), representing 12.4% of all arrests in the state, so the notion that arrests for that are rare is false.
https://www.safehome.org/resources/dui-statistics/
While going 10 over the limit will get you a citation, extreme speeding is often considered reckless driving, which is a Class A misdemeanor.
We all know that Wheeler stopped enforcement for a time, but the traffic division has been reconstituted.
Watts: “the notion that arrests for that are rare is false.”
Okay. Let’s do the math.
12000 DUI arrests; 30 billion total miles driven annually in Oregon.
That works out to 1 DUI arrest per 2,5 million miles driven.
12000 arrests; 365 days per year; 36 Oregon counties works out to less than 1 DUI arrest per day per county on average.
DUI arrests are not rare; they are extraordinarily rare.
Claim: arrests for drunk driving are very rare. Fact: 1 in 8 people arrested for any reason at all are arrested for drunk driving.
Another fact: DUI arrests per mile driven is a ridiculous metric.
There are so many things on the road that don’t even adhere to the rules of any class. I’ve seen several advertised as “class 3 with optional throttle”. Yeah, no, that’s just a moped now.
There are legit bike companies that offer a throttle for a Class 3 bike. Going over 20 requires you to pedal. Essentially a hybrid Class 2 and 3.
https://www.specialized.com/us/en/globe-throttle/p/220823?color=361640-220823&searchText=98922-5841
No, there are not. Class 3 does not allow a throttle, and class 2 does not allow 28 mph. They are mutually exclusive categories; that was my whole point.
According to the product description, the Globe bike is not Class 3. It says.
“This plug-in throttle mounts next to your HMI on your Globe bike and allows you to motor up to 20mph without needing to pedal. Need to go faster? Pedal assist will still be there to give you a boost to 28mph after the throttle reaches its limit.”
A bike with a speed cap of 20 mph is Class 1. There is NO class for a class 1 bike with a throttle add-on that goes to 28mph. THIS IS NOT A CLASS 3 BIKE!
E-bikes are essentially programmable. A person can look at the hardware and speculate about the limitations of a bike but without consulting an expert that is more or less a matter of opinion. If the speed of a bike has been measured at some margin over 20 mph, fine.
This is a crazy bill. We let car drivers operate large vehicles capable of going 100 mph (at up to 10 mph over the posted limit) without consequences for themselves. There’s no limit on the power or acceleration of a motor vehicle unless a traffic officer makes a subjective decision that a driver has been imprudent.
This is another example of a law that is either unenforceable or else will be sporadically enforced at the discretion of a police officer. At that point the burden of proof is on the bike rider, in a court run by people with very little information or experience.
Post a 20 mph limit in bike lanes. Nobody will ever get a ticket but at least we can name a boundary for acceptable behavior. On a shared path when pedestrians are present a lower limit might be a good idea. Perhaps 12 mph?
“Post a 20 mph limit in bike lanes. Nobody will ever get a ticket but at least we can name a boundary for acceptable behavior. On a shared path when pedestrians are present a lower limit might be a good idea. Perhaps 12 mph?”
THIS. But it has to be enforced, or it’s meaningless.
Sounds like we would need to have a speedometer on all bikes, whether electric or acoustic.
For most of us, 20 mph on a bike is a full sprint (downhills in high gear excepted). Many bike riders never hit 20, and most e-bikes indicate speed on the display.
Most people ride about 12-15 mph on the flat. I believe the ETA estimates on Portland way finding signs assume an average of 12 mph.
A person who encounters a pedestrian on a narrow way will be going about 12 if they sit up and stop pedaling for a few strokes.
12 mph is way too fast. 5 mph on a path shared by pedestrians. That’s the speed limit in most campgrounds where pedestrians share the road. You get hit by a bike at 12 mph and you will likely need medical treatment. If you come around a corner with a group of pedestrians blocking the path its unlikely you will be able to stop at 12 mph.
On the other hand, I don’t think 20 mph limit in the bike lane on a 45 mph street is appropriate. There are plenty of people who can sustain higher speeds than that on a road bike. Particularly downhill.
The problem with e-bikes is that anyone can sustain that speed with little effort and limited cycling experience. You have people who haven’t been on a bike in 30 years cruising along at 20 mph on their rental bike.
A 5mph speed limit on a multi-use path is an insane idea. That’s just banning bikes, no one rides that slow.
Also, I’ve ridden multi-use paths all my life on bikes and have never once gotten into the situation you described. Not saying it doesn’t or can’t happen, but most normal bikes with tuned brakes can stop very quickly, and if sight lines are obscured to the point you imply, then there should be a huge warning or some kind of infrastructure to slow riders down, not a punitively slow speed limit on the entire path.
I’d say 15 mph is a good speed limit for bikes on flat terrain on a wide multi-us path
Simply not true. Most e-bikes are garbage. I work on them every day. An 89# bike, with brakes designed for a high end mtb (most are WAY below that), cannot make a panic stop like a <30# traditional bike. I have worked on many that literally cannot stop. They can o ly slow tge bike, but they are pushing 100#+, 1500-3k watts and capable of 45mph. These are not uncommon. It is sad our under funded CPSC isn't stopping these at import.
I think this conversation relates to shared bike/hike trails. Syclists I encounter on the few trails they are allowed in Forest Park are often super resentful to encounter me and my daughter. I get the frustration of trying to stop or dodge a hiker when flying down a muddy trail (forest lane 5). On my side, it is pretty startling and dangerous for a bike come flying at me without any ability to stop or avoid me and without enough warning to jump off the trail. Fortunately it has been just close calls and nasty remarks, but it highlights what a terrible job PP&R has done to set expectations. Bikes need to limit their speed to be able to stop or yield to hikers. The real solution is separate, bike only trails whcih I 100% support. For bike lanes, the expecation needs to be clear that if you ride a motorized vehicle in the bike lane, you need to to yield to non-motorized bikes and you need to monitor your speed be able to stop/yield if you encounter a bike
What is wrong with this bill?
It does not ban e-bikes at all. If I was in good enough shape to ride my bike 20-25mph, I would be taking the full lane. Why would anyone who could go that speed continuously want to be in the gutter or car zone?
If you have an e-bike that is capable of 20-28mph, why does this bill affect you?
There are plenty of roads in the wider metro area with 3-4 lanes of auto traffic, a 40mph speed limit and a couple of narrow bike lanes. When I have to ride one of these roads, I’m happy to cook along at 28mph on my pedal-assist ebike and reduce the closing speed of traffic behind me, and keep pace when it’s a little busier and autos slightly slower. These also happen to be roads where I hardly ever encounter other cyclists (electric or otherwise.)
Riding my Class 3 ebike on neighborhood greenways in central Portland or on the Esplanade, I usually keep it around 18mph, no faster than I’d be on my road bike.
Just because a vehicle can go X speed doesn’t mean the user is irresponsible.
Maybe instead of trying to regulate behavior by proxy with a Class 3 ebike ban we can instead get to the heart of the matter and place a 25mph speed limit on bike lanes and a 15-20mph limit on paths, and then enforce statutes that regulate behavior within a context rather than a blanket ban which decontextualizes the actual use of the vehicles in question.
The reality is that if the Esplanade is filled with people going 20 mph on their bikes then it is no longer a safe space for pedestrians. An occasional lone rider is one thing, multiple groups riding along at 20 mph is entirely different.
The assumption here is that the issue is e-bikes or bikes. But the larger issue for sidewalks and shared paths is bikes and pedestrians. And if there really is no difference and the conflict becomes sufficient, you ban bikes entirely.
“And if there really is no difference and the conflict becomes sufficient, you ban bikes entirely.”
I think this is a good point: it’s probably why bikes (of all kinds) are not allowed to ride on downtown sidewalks, while no regulation is imposed on sidewalks outside of downtown.
The assumption is that the number of people walking on downtown sidewalks, (and the potential number of people crowding bikes onto those sidewalks) is so great that crowding would itself make riding those sidewalks unsafe. East side sidewalks are less crowded; while riding on one might be bad form, it’s not been a priority to make that activity illegal.
And that’s where I think we should draw the line: when there are consistently so many pedestrians that riding there would be nonsensical.
I think you can thought-experiment yourself into a world in which the Springwater (or other MUPs) becomes so crowded that it would be unsafe for bikes of any kind, but that’s not the case currently.
As a practical matter, when I have to commute on Saturday mornings, I avoid the Springwater, because I find it crowded to the point of inconvenience. Conversely, when I ride home from work on a rainy weeknight, I may pass only a few campers carting loads of firewood. Now, if you think that current state justifies a ban on e-bikes (or bikes in general), we have a different tolerance for this kind of user conflict.
Please email PP&R about the Green Loop planning that is happening now. They are planning to run primary cycling routes through the center of parks. They are in complete denial about the reality of bike lane/bike route usage today. The path geometry and the mixing of pedestrians and cyclists is a recipe for uncomfortable and unsuccessful places and routes for all users
My e-bike has a throttle that I rarely use. The bike is capable of perhaps 30 mph on the flat but it doesn’t handle well at that speed and range is reduced quite a bit so I don’t go there. Strictly speaking it might be a class 3 since the speed seems like the more important criteria, but a person who follows me around would never know that.
The definitions are nonsensical because so many bikes exist that don’t conform to any particular class. Legislating around the squishy e-bike classes is futile.
If we had a fully built out network of useful bike priority routes I think it would be sensible to limit speed, weight and size on shared paths.
Any single rider machine that weighs 244 pounds at the curb is a motorcycle. Also: Roger Geller, bless your heart, a bunch of dogleg greenways is not a capable transportation system.
If you have a throttle it is NOT class 3! And yes, I would know as it is easy to spot a throttle-powered bike. Class 3 bikes require the rider to pedal for the motor to work. If the rider stops pedaling /coasts, the bikes slows down in the same manner as a non-assist bike.
You can easily kill or mangle someone crashing into them at 20 mph.
And the thing about e bikes is, the rider can sustain these speeds with very little physical effort
Is it really a good idea to allow vehicles such as e bikes to travel that fast on bike paths?
No, it’s not a good idea to allow ANY bike to travel fast, run stop lights, or merge into traffic without looking, etc. I have had more people on non-assist bikes come close to hitting me in those situations than those on e-assist. The issue is not with the bike but with rider behavior!
Does it make sense to you that if i’m traveling at fifteen miles per hour on my class three e bike in a bike lane and a car hits me, that the car should not be held liable at all simply because my bike is capable of hitting 28mph with the motor?
No , it doesn’t seem to make sense. I think that means its likely that aspect of the bill will be changed. It appears to be an artifact of trying to equate mopeds and class 3 e-bikes.
SO MUCH e-bike policy discourse would be cleared up if the class system weren’t garbage!
I’d like to see you ride 20-25mph on Lombard taking up a full car lane while ignoring the bike lane to your right and tell me if that felt safe to you. The bike lane on most of that road isn’t safe either but sharing the car lane on that road is a certain death trap even on a class 3.
Rather than each municipality trying to regulate e-bikes, it seems that a statewide consideration is in order. Such a consideration would require standardization of different classes of e-bikes, clarify where and when the fastest class is inappropriate, and consider requiring testing and user permits for any vehicle capable of exceeding a specific speed. I’d also like to see clearer and better enforcement.
I think a national standard for what constitutes a moped versus a bicycle — including clearer gradations of expectations and rules for various types of e-bikes — would be ideal.
I also think it will not happen anytime soon.
I’ve been startled — and three times, almost hit — by electric scooters and e-bikes whose users could not control them safely at speed, or who did not give right of way to someone who was walking. I know I’m not alone in my concerns. Now that I am walking a lot more and riding a bike a lot less, I’d rather not share the sidewalk with someone on a vehicle capable of going almost 30 mph. If permitting and certifying the fastest e-bikes and scooters would make sidewalks safer for walkers, then I’m in favor of that. I don’t think I’m being unreasonable.
COTW!
Does it justify putting people in danger of being hit by a CAR? If more bike lanes were constructed, they wouldn’t feel the need to ride on the sidewalk. Even if they were riding recklessly, that’s a skill issue. The rest of the state shouldn’t have to be put under a control of a nanny state regulation. Why not enforce speed limits on bike lanes instead of flipantly banning things. We know how that worked during alcohol prohibition.
Our traffic laws in general are defective in not clarifying the respect that larger, more powerful vehicles should display toward more vulnerable users. People in cars or on whatever kind of bike need to give space to people walking.
Commercial drivers have stricter rules but all vehicle operators should take more responsibility for their actions. It’s odd that we often behave better on a ski slope than we do at the wheel of a car or in charge of a bike.
I am sure that motorists will be excited for everyone who owns a class 3 bike to be riding in the motor vehicle lane instead of the bike lane. Class 3 bikes “can” go 28 mph but anyone acting like that is the normal travel speed has likely not ridden one and I foresee a lot of increase in intermodal conflict if folks actually were to start obeying such a law.
“Class 3 bikes “can” go 28 mph but anyone acting like that is the normal travel speed has likely not ridden one…”
Yeah, my Vado is supposedly a Class 3 e-bike, but it doesn’t have a very powerful motor, so I’ve never gotten it up to 28mph, unless while going downhill. I’d probably be going that fast on an acoustic bike anyway!
Professional bicyclists , if I am not mistaken can peddle 28 mph. I do not like the bill. If it is about how people conduct themselves with a bicycle that is one thing…jay walking was made legal in California…with one caviot?spelling…a police officer has the disciplinarian say as to whether the jay walking was safe. It he/she says it is/was insafe then a fine could be given.
How many professional cyclists are riding on the Springwater MUP on a given Monday?
Jaywalking in Oregon isn’t really a thing either, crossing the street mid block just requires you to yield to vehicles, see ORS 814.040 In other words, if it is safe to cross the street, you can do it. The one big exception is you have to obey “don’t walk” signs in a crosswalk even if nobody is around, (ORS 814.010) However if you literally move 20 feet away from the intersection you aren’t in a crosswalk anymore…
It is in Portland:
16.70.210 Must Use Crosswalks.
No pedestrian may cross a street other than within a crosswalk if within 150 feet of a crosswalk.
That’s extremely fast, like an elite athlete on a carbon frame bike. At that speed you can’t stop reasonably and if you hit someone or something you’re toast.
Even 20 mph is screaming fast for most people, and very hard to sustain. 15 is a reasonable bike speed limit tbh.
But I think people should be able to safely commute with an e bike, and I hope it can be sorted out, since it means less cars on the road and that’s a win for everyone.
I usually ride at 12 mph on my e-bike. It’s annoying b/c I can’t really go faster, even if I peddle like crazy, and on downhills the thing rolls to about 15 mph but then some kind of internal resistance kicks in. I suppose it’s the ideal e-bike for people who are concerned about speed.
You may be the slowest e-bike rider in the city.
Sounds like a UK standard 25 kph limit. My e-Brompton has it.
I’m not an elite athlete and I can do that on my recumbent on flat ground without too much trouble.
Wow!
Anyone who is pedaling at 28 mph in a bike lane should have their bike license revoked.
Pro cyclists are freakishly skilled. They can maintain those speeds only for short periods, on extremely expensive and capable bikes that weigh a 3rd of a comparable Class III e-bike. They are riding on well groomed, closed courses and only with other freaks of nature. The average speed of the winner of The last 3 TDF was 24mph (this includes many passes multiple bikes per rider and a super aero time trial). Even so, every decade at least one is killed. It makes no sense for old facts like me to, with awful reflexes, be turned loose on essentially glorified sidewalks with pedestrians at speeds great cyclists struggle to maintain.
I can’t wait to be going 15 miles an hour on my class 3 E bike in a bike lane, getting hit by a car, nearly die and not being able to get any compensation for that injury.
So just
It seems like this law would also need adjustments to ensure Class 3 ebikes have the same protections as the other vehicles described below:
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.440
YES
I don’t think that’s how it works. When there is a crash, responsibility is assessed, and damages are portioned out accordingly. If a car hits you in the bike lane, I can’t see how you would be judged to be at fault, even if your bike were not supposed to be there.
Maybe you have a particular scenario in mind that doesn’t occur to me, but how would you be held at fault if a car were driving in the bike lane?
You would be judged at fault because you were riding where you weren’t allowed to be and thus were behaving unexpectedly. You “should” have been riding in the car lane in that scenario where supposedly the car would have seen you more easily. Since you were the one breaking the law you are now at fault automatically for any accident you’re involved in while riding your bike in the bike lane.
Are you quite sure that’s how civil liability works?
What does this mean? Does it mean the Class 3 bike doesn’t have the right-of-way?
Or does it mean it has it, but that the driver who hits them should have yielded, but there’s no penalty for not yielding? Or is it that the driver “failed to yield” but didn’t have to yield?
Does it require that a driver has to know if a bike is a Class 3 bike or not, in order to determine who has the r.o.w.? Like you said, some Class 3 bike RIDERS don’t even know what a Class 3 bike is.
I’m guessing the law means the Class 3 bike rider still has the right-of-way, but if they get hit then they can’t blame the driver who didn’t yield the right-of-way, which really means the bike rider DIDN’T have the right-of-way….
What if the rider was using electric power and shouldn’t have been in the bike lane? What if they were using human power? Does knowing which was the case have an impact on this law? Does it mean a Class 3 rider using human power–so riding legally in the bike lane–doesn’t have legal protection against a car hitting them?
And remember that for a law to work, everyone from the bike rider to the driver to the cop to the insurance company to the court all have to have the same interpretation, or it’s a mess.
Seems confusing.
Wow, I just looked up my wife’s e-bike from a major bike company. Nowhere on the website is the “class” specified. This did not come up when we were looking at bikes. I finally found a review site that says that it is a class 3.
It looks like a bike.
I have ridden this bike on turbo mode and have never come close to 28 mph. At best, I have hit 23 mph with effort to see how fast I could go. Usually, when fully powered, it travels around 20 mph. She rarely rides it on turbo and probably never goes faster than 16-18 mph. However, we chose this type of bike so that we could do some longer rides together, like highway 30, Marine drive of Columbia river hwy at a sustained 20mph when I am riding a non ebike for exercise.
This bill and the pearl-clutching about class 3 e-bikes in these comments proves that people have fixed images of what they think these definitions mean that are exaggerated and actually far from reality.
“Seems confusing.”
It absolutely does seem confusing, for all the reasons you listed. It is also confusing that people are manufacturing low-powered motorcycles that look like bicycles (only vaguely in some cases), but are heavier and can travel much faster. It is confusing that the people who ride these vehicles think they’re bicycling. It is confusing that some of the riders feel they should have every right to operate their vehicles on the sidewalk.
It is highly probable that things will get even more confusing in the future as manufacturers iterate and figure out what people will buy, extending capabilities, and making more weird shit like one-wheelers.
If you read the statue it isn’t really that confusing. If someone is riding in the bike lane you can’t pull in front of them. But its not clear what is being changed so that vehicles would have to yield to mopeds but not class 3 e-bikes.
I just read the statute and it IS that confusing.
It basically takes several of the laws regulating riding bikes, and adjusts each section in regard to Class 3 bikes.
The section you quoted is the current law requiring drivers to yield to people in bike lanes. The proposed law states that Class 3 bikes are not “bicycles” for the purposes of this section if using assisted power, so to me that means a driver does NOT have to yield to them. That means a driver could guess wrong and not yield to say, a Class 3 bike being pedaled, and hit them. Could it also mean a driver might not yield to an assisted Class 3 bike, and kill them? Driver then wouldn’t be liable, but rider would be dead.
Also, it states (per the article) that you can’t ride a Class 3 bike in a bike lane unless you’re using human power only. If you use any assist, you have to move out of the bike lane. It looks like if you ride a Class 3 bike without assist outside an available bike lane, you’re violating the law (but I’m not certain). If that’s true, you might have to be constantly moving in and out of the bike lane if you don’t always use assist.
For that matter, it looks possibly like if you’re outside a bike lane using assist, but not using ENOUGH assist, you could be violating the requirement to use the bike lane, even though you’re not eligible to use it using ANY assist.
I might know more if I really scrutinized the wording, but my impression now is there’s some good intentions and good outcomes within the regulations, but there are also confusing parts and parts that will have unintended bad outcomes.
I’d love seeing a lawyer’s view.
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Measures/Overview/SB471
(click on “TEXT” for pdf of regulations)
My class 3 bike has three different power settings, and I doubt that I could even reach 20mph on a flat with the two lower settings (it honestly feels slower than any of my normal bikes, *unless* it’s on its highest setting).
Since the programming for maximum assist speed is just the difference between Class 1 and Class 3, it makes me think that a person could just ride a Class 3-capable bike on a Class 1-setting and ride legally. In which case you’d have to look at a black box recorder to know whether or not a person was breaking this new law or not.
Which just goes to show that the distinctions in the current class system are so arbitrary that it would folly to base this kind of law on them!
That’s why the behavior itself (one’s location, speed, presence of pedestrians, etc) is the critical factor, and should rightfully be the subject of any legislation.
This law, that would ban me, a ebike commuter in her 40’s, from using a bike lane would absolutely decimate my ability to bike to work. My tern quick-haul may have the theoretical ability for pedal assist up to 28 miles per hour, but I NEVER go that fast. My usual speed, bicycling at a normal pace, is between 12 and 20 mph. I would be very interested to see how Senator Prozanski would feel about me bicycling in front of him, taking a full car lane, going 17 miles an hour, dropping down to 7 to 10 on an uphill, when there is a perfectly good bike lane right next to us. That is essentially what he is telling me to do.
He should get on a class 3 ebike like mine and see how it feels. It is a bicycle. We as a state should be supporting more people with bodies of all sizes and ages to feel free to move around cheaply, safely, and sustainably. This bill is a huge step backwards.
Thank you for letting us know about this bill. I will be writing some letters.
No it doesn’t. It would mean you would have to ride a different ebike, one that only went 20 mph.
I am not sure the bill is a good idea as it stands, that is why the legislature holds hearings. But the idea that somehow there are people who “need” a bike that can go 28 miles per hour is just not true.
I don’t think being in your 40’s or being a commuter have anything to do with it. If a person was in their 70’s and riding to the grocery store it would be different?
A young guy who lives on my street has a Mustang GT500 with 1000 (!) horsepower. Yep – every time that kid eases out of his parents’ driveway, he commands one thousand horses to do his every bidding. I hear him racing around at night, revving those thousand horses.
I’m going to write to Floyd Prozanski and ask him to compel my neighbor to get rid of his Mustang and buy a Fiat Topolino, with 8 hp.
That’s essentially what you are saying here. Doesn’t it make more sense for Erin to ride in the mobility (bike) lane and be ticketed when she exceeds the speed limit?
There are plenty of people who think we should regulate the huge trucks company’s are selling because they are killing pedestrians and anyone else they hit. If that mustang is hit by one of those big trucks its going to get flattened. But we still don’t let it stay safer by driving on the sidewalk or mixed use trails, even at low speeds.
That Mustang is already prohibited from driving in the bike lane. That rule is based on capability, not behavior.
Also, there is no proposed ban on Class 3 e-bikes, nor compelled downsizing.
That’s exactly what would happen if this law passed — since the only way to tell what class of e-bike someone is riding is by how they behave, if you dial it back a bit, you could continue riding in the bike lane.
I have a joint condition that would make it deeply painful to commute the whole 17 miles to work one-way on a regular road bike. However, you have a fair point that I could purchase a Class-1 ebike. But since I ride my class 3 at very safe speeds, I believe that I should not have to. And then what happens when a year or two goes by and they try to make the same absurd laws about Class-1 ebikes? Ebikes allow accessibility to biking that we as a society should value. (This is Erin, btw. I’m on a different device, so we’ll see if it recognizes me)
It would only decimate your ability ride to work if you are unwilling to violate dumb laws that are essentially unenforceable.
I agree with you as far as everything that happens before a crash. But, if the e-bike rider has a collision with a motor vehicle at a trail crossing and the insurance company lawyers research the bike and find that the rider was not using the path in accordance with current law, they are screwed.
Oregon is hellbent on making otherwise law abiding citizens criminals between bike and concealed carry laws being proposed.
100lb vehicles capable of 28mph should be treated as mopeds.
I think ORS 811.440 should be modified to allow these to be protected in bike lanes, though. But they should not be on the MUPs.
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.440
Can you give an example of a class 3 ebike that weighs 100 pounds? I have a class 3 ebike and it is a model with 2 batteries for increased range, yet it is still far lighter than 100 pounds. Maybe there is a long john model that would be class 3 but I think most if not all of those that I have seen have the motors that are limited to 20mph and thus are not class 3.
They are advertising this as having both Class 2 and Class 3 modes:
https://ebikeescape.com/ride1up-revv-1-drt-review/
91lbs.
Yeah, but the Prodigy from the same Ride1Up company is class-3 and is 58lbs. And stylistically, these are quite different bikes.
Maybe there’s some sense in distinguishing, but this is analogous to being mad that there are aggressive-styled trucks and SUVs on the roads.
A regular-looking bike is indeed different from a fat-tire moped-style heavy bike. And a giant lifted pickup truck is different from a sedan.
And it feels way more stressful to drive around those oversized trucks, just as its more stressful to be on a bike path with aggressive heavy style ebikes. Even still, we would live in a dramatically safer and better world if the people who like these aggressive stylings focused on the ebikes and not the trucks. Legislation should focus on the biggest dangers.
Realistically, that same near-100lb ebike is still about the same in class-2 or class-1 in terms of being a heavy aggressive bike. The class is not the defining feature that should be emphasized here.
It says that it will go 34 mph with throttle only, this is not a class 3 bike by Oregon’s definition for a number of reasons.
If the manufacturer says it’s Class 3, then for all practical purposes, it is Class 3, regardless of what the law says.
Actually, just having a “Class 3” sticker would probably be enough.
That is not how laws work, if it was you could make a class 3 bicycle sticker and attach it to a monster truck and drive it up and down the springwater legally. The state has clearly defined 3 classes of electric bicycle and as I kind of knew would be the case the vehicle that was posted in response to my request for a single example of a bike that would be classified as class 3 under Oregon law and weigh over 100 pounds was met with a vehicle that does not meet the definition of any class of ebike in Oregon.
No, it is not how laws work, but it is how enforcement of laws works. Your truck scheme obviously wouldn’t work because a truck cannot be confused for a small electric motorcycle. But if you cannot distinguish a Class 3 bike from one that is more powerful in the field, you’ll have to rely on the manufacturer’s assertion, which you might look up, or, more likely, you’ll trust what is printed on the product. This isn’t CSI, it’s a super low grade bike trail infraction.
How many cops have a field-portable e-bike capabilities-based classification determination system with them when they’re patrolling a bike trail? None of them do.
Look at that. I’ve convinced myself a classification-based exclusion is utterly unenforceable. And since it seems unlikely that cops will enforce speed limits on bike trails, we should probably just accept the fact that anything goes out there, regardless of what the law says.
My class 3 weighs 34 lbs and the battery is enclosed within the frame.
It sounds like we need more classes, and that bike sounds more like my class 1 e-bike. What kind of range are you getting at 28mph with a bike that weighs just 34lbs?
I’m going to give Senator Prozanski the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that he is trying to make bike paths and bike lanes safer for people riding non-electric bikes and pedestrians.
I have two class 3 ebikes, and they are totally different. One does not have a throttle and only goes about 24mph at full speed. The other has a throttle which cuts out at 20 but can easily go 28 with the pedals. It weighs over 100 lbs and is very much like a moped. The fact that these two bikes are both in the same category points to an error in the classification system. Perhaps he could start there.
Maybe there needs to be a “class 4” for these moped-style bikes that have throttles and higher speed capability.
I agree with Jonathan that it makes more sense to regulate behaviors rather than equipment. They could put a speed limit of 20mph on bike paths and bike lanes. If you want to go faster than that, maybe ride in the street. I usually do that on my “moped-style” bike, especially if the speed limit is 25 mph or lower which is the case with many streets in Portland. I actually do feel safer riding in the middle of the road rather than the bike lane.
As this bill has been described in seems like it may reduce annoyances for some people, but at the cost of putting some E-bike riders at much greater risk. It would likely result in more collisions, injuries and fatalities for some E-bike riders. Why would you want to do that?
I think the focus should be on addressing climate change and figuring out how to make it easier for people to use electric bikes, not more difficult.
Oregon ebike classification says that class 3 ebikes do not have a throttle.
Bjorn, if the throttle cuts out at 20mph then it complies with the law. There are thousands of bikes designed this way. The only way you can exceed 20 is by using pedal assist. The classification system is silly anyway. Could you imagine classifying cars that way and then regulating them based on what classification they are in?
I guess we will see how it gets interpreted in the long run but that does not appear to be how the state is interpreting it on this website where they specifically say that class 3 ebikes under the new Jan 1 2025 rules do not have a throttle on the handlebars: https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/prp/pages/prp-rule-2024-ebikes.aspx
Yes, I read the law and I think your interpretation is the correct one. Thanks for the clarification.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tmguide/tmg_2013/vehicle-types.cfm
Cars fall into class 2. Pickup trucks (the F150 is the best-selling motor vehicle in the US) are class 3. Regulations differ between Classes 2 and 3. My household has one Class 2 vehicle, and one Class 3 vehicle. We also have a Class 2 e-bike and a Class 3 e-bike.
No one has proposed how you will “regulate behavior”. Speed cams on the Springwater trail and sidewalks? If you read the comments here, its pretty clear that self-regulation is not going to work.
What’s there to propose Ross? That’s already how a lot of laws work. For drivers we have laws like “reckless driving” “Careless driving” “exhibition of speed” and stuff like that. We need police to have very clear and workable directives, not wonky policy laws that they will never know well enough to enforce. I’d be happy to have enforcement on the Springwater that focused on “reckless cycling” “careless cycling” and excessive speeding. Those things are very easy to see and comprehend and therefore would be followed by more people and enforced by more officers.
I think that if police officers used bikes they would be more effective, and I’d be ok with seeing them on trails from time to time.
At present Portland police appear to be using bikes as auxiliaries to motor vehicles. Also, current police doctrine seems to require responding to any conflict with numerical superiority and that’s going to be hard to achieve on the Springwater trail, for example. Any bike patrols would be widely separated and motorcycle officers aren’t always available.
I’ve seen motorcycle traffic officers running sidewalks back in the CM days and wouldn’t care to import that energy into a shared path.
Until we have some kind of sea change in policing I think we’ll have to rely on social pressure and consensus building to regulate bike infrastructure and shared paths. There will be some scoffers.
Police will probably be limited to a little gate keeping and maybe the occasional targeted operation if there’s a cluster of complaints.
Or don’t work.
Have you noticed how well speed laws are enforced? Or the requirement that vehicles (including bicycles of all kinds) yield to pedestrians. Cyclists are generally better than motorists, but there is no real enforcement for either one unless someone gets hit. I have had police cars fail to yield.
Ross, you seem to have a pretty dim view of human nature. The vast majority of people I see are respectful and kind. The ones who aren’t are a small minority. Designing laws that punish and endanger the majority of people in an attempt to control a small minority? Meh.
So we don’t really need laws that require motorists to yield for pedestrians or to bikes in bike lanes. People are “respectful and kind” and will always considers others safety and comfort? And we don’t have to set legal standards for those that don’t.
No, I don’t. I think part of laws is that they establish community standards and most people then adapt to those standards. Thus most motorists speed, but they don’t drive 50 down a residential street.
The issue here is what environment is needed for a path shared by pedestrians and cyclists and how to preserve the environment. Pedestrians can’t really share an environment with large numbers of people traveling 20 mph. Its very similar to how motorists have claimed control of city streets.
This all reminds me of the mountain bike access wars. There could be an angry letter writing campaign, news articles, and concerned non-profits all up in arms about people riding bikes on trails.
Meanwhile, a few miles away, a company would be cutting a clear cut for an LNG pipeline, with far less hue and cry.
I think it’s all well and good to be advocates for pedestrian safety… but while ever-larger fossil-fueled autos are killing more and more people, and while carbon emissions continue their increase,
it’s insulting to me that any Oregon state legislator would spend their time making it *more* dangerous for me to ride my bike to work.
My average speed for my 7+ mile commute is about 17 miles an hour. Cars are killing people. My bike is not.
Yes its very similar. But what does a mountain bike endangering hikers have to do with clearcuts?
Try walking. Apparently its outrageous for legislators to worry about pedestrian safety. Its really the same argument motorists make about bike lanes.
What does this have to do with cars? The conflict here is with other people who are walking and riding bikes. Those have a LOWER carbon footprint than your e-bike and are safer as well.
I can spell out my mountain bike analogy more clearly for you:
When environmentalists (including activists, organizations, and legislators) focus on valid but low-consequence conflict between recreational groups, the opportunity cost of that effort is reduced focus on high-consequence issues.
Low consequence conflicts between recreational groups includes that between hikers and mountain bikers, as well as pedestrians and e-bike riders (though I’m not a recreational e-bike rider, myself).
The high-consequence issues that lose focus are things like clear-cutting, LNG pipelines, mining, as well as pedestrian deaths due to larger, faster cars.
Unless there’s some special loophole for legislators in the space-time, it makes no sense to spend time trying to remove legal protections for someone riding an e-bike in a bike lane, when the clear fatal danger to pedestrians comes from automobiles! Or, in the case of my analogy, why are environmentalists wasting time on small potatoes like mountain bike access, when they should be focusing efforts on suburban sprawl, clear-cutting, etc?
You made an analogy about e-bikes>pedestrians = cars>bikes. I don’t disagree that there is some parallel there! However, in terms of annual fatalities, there’s no comparison: e-bikes may very well be annoying and scary to pedestrians, but cars are deadly to pedestrians. Do I need spell that out more clearly?
If you provide me with evidence that our legislators’ time is infinite, or that there actually is a scourge of bike-on-pedestrian fatalities, I’m open to changing my mind!
When cyclists focus on preventing efforts to protect pedestrians the opportunity cost of that effort is reduced focus on high-consequence issues created by motorists and unsafe streets.
I think you underestimate the consequences of mountain bikers trying to share trails with hikers. There is a reason that we have whole areas dedicated to mountain biking trails designed for that purpose and no one is allowed to hike on them.
I estimate the consequences of mountain biking on trails to be very, very high actually. The social dynamics are of an existing user group accommodating a new user group, in a time of declining land manager budgets, trail closures due to wildfire and lack of maintenance, and increasing population. Of course that would have consequences!
For one thing, the presence of people riding bicycles on trails caused a split within the outdoor recreation community, which would otherwise have been more united for public access and against resources extraction.
And another thing:
The Class system is utter garbage. My class 3 bike has such a small motor that it’s maxed out WAY before I reach 28mph. It just doesn’t have the wattage to add any speed, but the size of motor doesn’t have any legal relevance!
Also, the dudes riding around on giant wheeled bikes that look like motorcycles, with their feet up, don’t necessarily count as class 3 because class three isn’t allowed to have a throttle!!!
The system makes NO SENSE. I almost don’t blame Prozanski, because while it looks like he’s trying to target the worst offenders (the Class with the largest Arabic numeral), I think a lot of us regular riders would agree that the worst behavior often comes from people on *throttled* bikes, who are riding as if they’re on a motorcycle. That’s Class 2!!!!
(Or if the throttle-controlled bike in question is not limited to 20mph, it’s a kind of bike not even included in this class system, and this escaping his proposed law.)
Why not write a bill that actually codifies meaningful distinctions in this new field?
The presence of throttles seems like a good line in the sand for me. Anything with a throttle is a moped, and anything without is a bike.
Yes, there will be some grey areas, but you can always remove a throttle from your bike if you want to legally ride on a MUP. The pedalec system still functions and will get you up to speed while you are pedaling.
I too would probably be satisfied with a bike lane speed limit and ban of throttle bikes on MUPs, and worry less about legal class.
The motor size isn’t really the bottleneck preventing you from reaching that speed. It’s one or both of the number/type of mosfets in your controller and its internal shunt resistor, and the voltage of your battery pack. Motors can generally handle and convert much more electrical power than they are fed. (Which is why the regs are kind of silly when they talk about motor power handling.)
I had to look up the term mosfet!
There has to be a better way to regulate MUP speed than these regulations.
As a generalization, I agree that the worst offenders (least safe practices around other users) are the Class 2 riders. I’ve had plenty of wide-tired, throttle-controlled bikes blow past me (rider/driver not pedaling) on the Springwater Corridor while I’m riding along in no-assist or eco mode on my Class 3 bike. It appears under the proposal, that “rider” and his bike would be allowed on the paths and bike lanes, but I would not be.
As much as I don’t like sharing a crowded car free path at rush hour with people on e-bikes moving too fast with no regard for safety or etiquette, this bill is asinine. Let the class 3 e-bikes ride where they need. I think better outreach and user education could go a long way. Instead they should crack down on the dipshits ripping the multi-use paths on Surrons capable of hitting 70mph and other literal electric motorcycles. I see it every day and it drives me absolutely crazy.
Yikes I love riding my e bike around town instead of driving. Sad that people hate that.
I feel conflicted about the whole thing. I am super in favor of anything that gets folks out of cars. I also feel unsafe at times on bike paths with some of the newer bikes. It’s a combination of size, speed, and lack of pedaling and I don’t have a great way of classifying other than it feels closer to a motorcycle bearing down on you than it does to a bike. There are some factors there to categorize, but yeah the lines are getting blurrier.
The bikes they’re trying to ban require you to pedal and don’t have a throttle.
“It’s a combination of size, speed, and lack of pedaling and I don’t have a great way of classifying other than it feels closer to a motorcycle bearing down on you than it does to a bike.”
This is a very real and very valid concern! I think the bill in questions fails to address that concern, unfortunately.
The ambiguous nature of the current regulatory structure creates a reasonable assumption that all such bikes are Class 3; however, the worst offending bikes and riders are not on class 3 bikes (which legally have no throttle, and only provide power when pedaled). My Class 3 bike has a small enough motor and battery that people often don’t realize it’s actually an e-bike.
Better regulation would both define these bikes more sensibly and regulate noxious, anti-social behaviors.
Agree. Current classifications and the bill are not really getting it right. Not sure how to capture exactly what I’m seeing out there without causing new grey areas
The unfortunate reality of ebike legislation, as with many things, is that a few bad apples ruin things for everyone. A few dingys riding recklessly on throttle based ebikes cause issues and suddenly opponents can use those few examples to instill fear and push restrictions.
It is worth noting, class 3 bikes can have a throttle, but throttle only riding is limited to 20mph max (like a class 2) the higher speed is supposed to be on pedal assist only.
Ebikes can’t be regulated in the ways we’re used to doing for international combustion vehicles. It is easy for a small electric motor to output well north of 1k watts (most ebike motors could given the right controller) and speed limiters are often easy to defeat, or non-existent in the case of many diy ebikes.
Personally, I actually support throttle bans on ebikes as that is where I tend to see more issues arise. With a throttle there is less of a physical sensory connection to how fast you are going vs having to pedal faster and faster but I think it is a fools errand to try to regulate ebike speed limiters or power limiters. It would be much more effective to regulate behavior in certain areas with things like speed limits and path designs that regulate speed (in much the same way we regulate speed of automobiles).
I think most people can picture the “ebikes” that really are mopeds designed to be ridden on throttle only and typically maintaining higher speeds, unfortunately those are not sufficiently different from more pedal oriented bikes in an objective sense that can be written into a law.
Since it is incredibly easy and common to modify these bikes so they can be throttle controlled well above the 20mph Class 3 limit, the class system is basically useless.I like the idea of setting a distinction at throttle vs. no throttle. There are very few bikes capable of 28mph pedal assist that do not also have throttles. The worst offenders are using throttles, so let’s go after the throttles. The throttle on a class 3 pedelec can always be removed to bring it into compliance for MUPs.
There are a lot of 28 mph pedal assist bikes without throttles. Check out any major bike company website. They may be one of the leading higher end products. And many people, especially e-cargo bike riders just use the throttle to get the bike rolling from a stop. It is very helpful and probably safer for the rider to cross a street in a timely manner.
I agree that addressing the throttle is an important component of regulating this kind of bike, and that its presence really changes the dynamic of riding.
However…
“There are very few bikes capable of 28mph pedal assist that do not also have throttles… The throttle on a class 3 pedelec can always be removed to bring it into compliance for MUPs.”
By definition, a Class 3 bike is not allowed to have a throttle! So such a bike you are describing is not a Class 3 bike. It’s not your fault- these classifications are just garbage at this point.
But the throttle is super-helpful on an e-bike b/c you can “feather up” your speed from a dead stop and get stabilized faster, which is hard for less-skilled cyclists to do.
I don’t see why the throttle has anything to do with this conversation at all. Anyone who has ridden any two-wheeled vehicle with a motor knows that the peddles are mostly decorative – the motor is doing 90% of the work, which is why people like e-bikes.
“Anyone who has ridden any two-wheeled vehicle with a motor knows that the peddles are mostly decorative – the motor is doing 90% of the work, which is why people like e-bikes.”
Your experience on e-bikes must be very different from mine, because my Class 3 e-bike will not move an inch if I do not pedal it: it has no throttle.
It’s also programmed to provide no more than 100% of the wattage than I produce. In other words, if I manage to produce 250 watts, the bike produces 250 watts. That’s 50% of the work.
There’s such a variety of e-bikes that it can be confounding to any generalization!
Both my Class 1 commuter e-bike and Class 2 cargo bike feel more like 50/50. Now granted, I am a stronger rider, but I don’t think 90% is accurate outside of the Class 3 zone.
And if 90% is true, it begs the question: why not just ride an electric motorcycle? It really feels like many people are skirting regulation with “e-bikes” that are actually just motorcycles with pedals for decoration. That’s basically what you are saying here, and I suspect that is why this entire topic (and the proposed legislation) are being discussed.
Yes! We need better definitions to regulate this issue.
I need my throttle because my knees can no longer take pedaling from a dead stop. No throttle means no biking means driving, since walking or standing on concrete hurts my knees worse. But many throttle riders do drive like assholes on the Springwater, especially north of Oaks Park.
The throttle distinction is not enough. Many of these bikes can also be ridden in pedal assist mode, but they often lack a torque sensor to determine the rider’s effort. All a rider needs to do is move the pedals around, not even fast enough to engage the chain drive, and the bike will provide full “assist.”
You would need to ban throttles, while also requiring torque sensors, in order for this to be effective. Torque sensors are usually contained within the bottom bracket assembly, and therefore invisible unless the bike is disassembled.
Another instance in which the lack of up-to-date regulation is confounding the issue!
Exactly right. The generic pedal assist sensors can easily amount to just a throttle with your legs and feet. You put in 10 W to get to the next magnet, you get out 2000 W. Heck, just take off your chain and make the threshold like 0.001 W.
It appears to me that the legislature has already “tackled” this issue. They passed a law last year that took effect on Jan 1. It explicitly defines a Class 3 ebike as “providing assistance only when the rider is pedaling”. I had no idea! Sounds like they just made half of the ebikes in Oregon “out of class” or effectively illegal. What a bunch of idiots. It’s HB 4103 if you want to look it up.
By the same logic proposed in this bill (and it’s proponents), we should also ban lycra-wearing cyclists riding carbon fiber road bikes from bike lanes and paths. They’re just as capable of riding dangerously fast as someone on a class 3 ebike.
(I say this as someone who occasionally wears lycra to ride and once regularly rode a carbon fiber racing bike.)
Speed shouldn’t be reserved just for the athletically gifted.
With so many options for going fast in this world, I find this an odd statement.
Which is why the responsible ones who ride that fast don’t ride on shared use paths. There are actually a limited number of people capable of riding that fast on a bike. Anyone can ride that fast on an ebike and if that becomes the standard speed on bike paths, multi-use paths and bike lanes they are no longer going to be usable by anyone else.
While there may be an increased risk of collision with fast bikes, there is also a commensurate decrease in risk of being hit by a car. The fact is that the more bikes, slow or fast, on any given stretch of road, the more motorists are paying attention. Same holds true with more pedestrians. Whether a pedestrian or bicyclist, the real danger is not fast bikes, but cars. The proposed law will do more harm than good.
We are missing an opportunity here. The real problem is that it isn’t safe for people to operate their motorized bike in the street with other motor traffic. We need to reduce the speed limit on streets to 15 mph and have e-bikes take the lane. That would make everyone safer and maybe actually get us to “zero” deaths.
When bikes were first introduced in the horse and buggy era they were seen as dangerous because they went so much faster than other traffic. Riding a horse at 20 mph through town would have been considered extremely reckless, much less a wagon. Frankly, the idea that pedestrians should have to look out for traffic moving at 20 mph on a “mixed use” path is ridiculous.
I would happily cede my ground, and never ride on the Springwater ever again, if the City would create well-paved, car-free, pedestrian-free routes from Milwaukie to Portland. 🙂
I just want to get to work without having a truck guy roll coal on me, or a kid in a souped-up Honda revving his engine at me when I take the lane, or a distracted person on a phone t-bone me at a four-way stop.
This is one of those ways in which natural allies (alternative transportation users) are pitted against each other by the unquestioned dominance of car-brain.
Isn’t that what bike lanes are? I think this is correct. Instead of demanding the right to terrorize pedestrians and slow bicyclists by turning multi-use paths into high speed corridors, people should focus on getting appropriate infrastructure for e-bike speeds.
Well if you have a class 3 e-bike then the bike lanes wouldn’t be for you either if this proposed bill were to pass. Since MUPs are the gap-fillers when we don’t have safe and connected bike lanes, even if bike lanes were allowed for class 3 in this bill (they’re not) this bill effectively bans class 3 bike owners from safe travel through the city regardless of their speed and behavior.
Which MUPs are you thinking of that have no good on-street alternative for a vehicle traveling 25 mph?
Another one of your classic dishonestly loaded questions. I’m not talking about a vehicle traveling 25mph on the path, I’m talking about a vehicle with a speed governor limit of 28mph that is traveling 15mph on the path.
A car driving on a city street doesn’t go 100mph because that’s its max speed, and we don’t ban them from the streets because of that maximum speed capability. People are able to modulate their speed to the situation regardless of what number is on the class sticker on their bike.
You claimed that MUPs were “gap fillers” in an incomplete network. I asked for an example, and you accused me of asking a dishonest and loaded question?
I consider myself a generally smart person, but I just don’t understand this exchange.
And yes, people are able to modulate their speed and behavior. If they did that a bit more, perhaps no one would care what sort of motorized vehicle they were riding in the bike lane.
The dishonest part in your loaded question was assuming that the bike would be traveling at 25mph by default simply because of its classification. Your question is like asking “if there’s traffic on the highway, which neighborhood street is a good alternative for a car traveling 65mph?”
I don’t want to go 25mph on my class 3, I just want to be able to ride 12-15mph on the Springwater to Milwaukee but also have the extra reserve if I’m forced to share the road with cars when out in East Portland. I don’t want to be forced to share the road with cars at all times simply because my bike is capable of doing that occasionally.
If I had a class 1 then those rare occasions where that extra speed reserve is needed around cars would be a little bit more dangerous and stressful. I don’t have the option to just drive to those places so a class 3 has been a huge benefit for a car replacement bike. At no point have I been forced to travel 25mph on the Springwater just because my bike could do that.
Where did I even hint at this when I asked where the gaps were? I was thinking from the point of view of a regular bicyclist who goes 15MPH on a good day. Many of us have already stopped using the bike paths for reasons well discussed elsewhere, so it’s surprising that you claim you can’t reasonably get around without them, even on a powered vehicle.
Please re-read my comments above, and make sure you understand what I was asking.
I think you need to re-read your own comment to understand what you actually asked, and maybe work on your communication if that’s not what you intended.
Let’s lower the bar. What MUPs don’t have usable alternatives for regular bicycles, or e-bikes ridden the way you want to ride?
What gaps do the MUPs fill?
So… if this passes, I’m just supposed to ride my class 3 ebike in the middle of 52nd avenue along with speeding cars doing 40? This one is terrifically inappropriately targeted and punitive.
No you are supposed to buy an ebike appropriate to your use. One result of stranger regulations would be to discourage people from buying over-powered bikes that are going to travel at inappropriate speeds. If we had done that with automobiles the world would be a better place.
So, if I am riding a Class 3 E-bike that, in reality, travels around 22-24 mph with a tail wind on Marine Drive or similar highway with a shoulder that has been vaguely deemed a bike lane, I am supposed to avoid the bike lane and ride with the Semis and monster trucks going 60 mph?
Prozanski is using his bike cred for political points, while undermining biking.
It’s a speed thing really. You want to limit speeds in cycle lanes to no more than 20mph. How do you achieve that? You put in speed bumps.
Mexico worked this out a long time ago. No point having cops there with radar guns issuing fines that don’t get paid. Speed bumps mean if you speed you destroy your vehicle. Add a bit of gravel to a bike lane and you’ll hurt yourself too. PFS
PBOT already has that part covered.
Adding literal obstacles to our bikeways will not increase bike mode share!
LOL if it were only true
The main street near my house is 20 mph posted, with many speed bumps. Though some do slow down, the majority that I’ve seen easily go over the speed bumps at 35-40 mph not caring one bit about their vehicles. No specific demographic, young and old, fancy cars and beaters.
I just don’t get how they treat an extremely expensive investment of theirs.
With some effort, on flat ground I can pedal my non electric bike up to 30 mph… so maybe bicycles shouldn’t be allowed in bike lanes.
What about cars that are going 50mph in a 25mph zone.. we should limit and or ban cars from neighborhoods and restrict them to highways only.
Just going to write Prozanski’s response for him:
I appreciate everyone’s interest… blah, blah
As an avid cyclist who cares deeply… bluh, bloppity, blah
Safety is my top priority…. blahty, bah, blah
I felt that is was time to start this important conversation with this proposed legislation.
I will be working with stakeholders to get this right over the coming legislative session.
…I don’t care how you do it, find me someone who was injured by an ebike right now!!! Wait, is this thing still on?
Just for comparison class 3 e-bikes were illegal in NYC for a long while, despite their being adopted and essentially taking over the market for deliveristas. Most of the delivery workers had class 3s, and almost all deliveries were via e-bike. That really transformed the delivery of goods, particularly via app services (as well as the infra needed for so many e-bikes). Some restaurants are mostly e-bike storage and battery charging. Different world.
Since nearly all deliveries in NYC are via e-bike now, it was an economic necessity to legalize them (in the city only). There has always been a lot of pressure from constituents to “clamp down” on e-bike users, which has painted the deliveristas as almost renegade status by some. And safety is a real issue sometimes. Cars kill +40k people per year, and e-bikes a few, so they should not be equated. But that also certainly doesn’t absolve someone using an e-bike recklessly and killing someone in Central Park.
Hochul recently proposed to re-classify class 3 as >100lbs, which if you think about it for a second, it would be like a frame made of lead or something (it just doesn’t exist). My beef is that Cuomo, Hochul, Adams etc typically target the delivery workers for fines and not their employers. Hochul also is throwing around a proposal for speed limits for e-bikes. I can get on board with a 20mph speed limit, particularly in places with lots of peds. I also worry about how it’s going to be enforced. Some of the separated bike lanes in Manhattan, particularly on the avenues, have been widened for faster travel and higher numbers of people on bikes. Would speed cameras for bikes solve this? I’m not sure.
Add a water bottle and it’ll exceed 100 lbs:
https://freegobikes.com/collections/on-sale/products/freego-shotgun-f3-pro-max-2640wh-electric-bike-dual-battery-motor
So no it doesn’t exceed 100lbs. The one bike you could find that’s not at all representative of the average Class 3 e-bike doesn’t exceed 100 lbs. It’s not even a legal Class 3 e-bike in this state. This bill isn’t directed at this bike or other dangerous “e-bikes” that are really motorcycles.
Why do you insist on posting all this nonsense here it adds nothing to the conversation?
Who said representative or average? The post I was responding to made a claim that a 100lb class 3 e-bike doesn’t exist. It does. Even if you reject my 99lb example, Chris I presented a 108lb example.
I think it’s important to understand what vehicles are out there when discussing the proper policy for them. Especially when the context was policy for e-bikes greater than 100lb, as was the case in the parent post.
Why exactly is this nonsense? I think you just don’t like me.
From the specs on the link you provided:
Weight: 49kg (108lb)
We have 100lb “class 3” ebikes with throttles out on the road already. It’s weird that people here seem to think they don’t exist.
https://www.amazon.com/WINDONE-E2-Removable-All-Terrain-Suspension/dp/B0D3PKS773/ref=sr_1_8?crid=3E8H5ORYFPPQI&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.5mPHgWR_k1qe0EJku5WrIvYvnfNDkfELSOw-ImUD3TufEZmYv9WNyrV6E9uQgVw_PDcU6AyZ1xZWbW8cp5GavdZ-TbPELjrRv3KCPLX11vhPKGxO-2Iv3F9FazNBdYqt5s_G2pcOwJP3L-28sSSPOW3sCBnHOkamtcKomgDio0DvpUmOlnVOyyfSUXXRbC4xYCavANPNB5ne0DKmuH42n4O2vLfRIpjozo-xgSJqor0.1TH_1HNlgI38TdEF2xmoWMtiuJQIsQV1tgG2K-V0cKc&dib_tag=se&keywords=28mph%2Bebike&qid=1737003295&sprefix=28mph%2Bebik%2Caps%2C281&sr=8-8&th=1&psc=1
My understanding of e-bikes is pretty limited to delivery workers, which are a very specific type, usually fairly cheap and Chinese made. I’m sure there are some exceptions. That amazon link showed 42kgs or 93lbs.
TBH I am not sure if weight, speed, age of rider etc should be a part of the laws, but there has certainly been a crack down on poorly made batteries in NY due to their tendency to start fires in businesses overnight. Low hanging fruit like that is a no brainer. Other crack downs based on ebike class were just a way for then mayor DeBlasio to scapegoat deliver workers (who tend to own their own bikes), and had a negligible effect on the businesses that employed them or overall safety.
Yes get those high speed e-unicyclists alongside 50mph semi trucks where they should be.
If anybody wants to temper their FEELINGS about MOTORCYCLES with some MATH, you need 850W to do 28mph on flat ground sitting upright on a hybrid/mountain bike. We’re talking sub-1-hp vs ~30hp for the most basic motorcycle. Ridiculous comparison. Stop fighting over scraps of sidewalks, and definitely don’t ask parents to merge their cargo bike into the five lanes of 45mph car traffic because you think biking their kids to school with the aid of what is roughly a cordless power drill is “cheating”. :facepalm:
https://ebikes.ca/tools/simulator.html?motor=MBBS02&mid=true&gear=1&batt=B5216_GA&axis=mph&tr=11&tf=52
I don’t think people are upset about a few bakfiets with kids on the Springwater. It’s stuff like this:
https://www.amazon.com/WINDONE-E2-Removable-All-Terrain-Suspension/dp/B0D3PKS773/ref=sr_1_8?crid=3E8H5ORYFPPQI&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.5mPHgWR_k1qe0EJku5WrIvYvnfNDkfELSOw-ImUD3TufEZmYv9WNyrV6E9uQgVw_PDcU6AyZ1xZWbW8cp5GavdZ-TbPELjrRv3KCPLX11vhPKGxO-2Iv3F9FazNBdYqt5s_G2pcOwJP3L-28sSSPOW3sCBnHOkamtcKomgDio0DvpUmOlnVOyyfSUXXRbC4xYCavANPNB5ne0DKmuH42n4O2vLfRIpjozo-xgSJqor0.1TH_1HNlgI38TdEF2xmoWMtiuJQIsQV1tgG2K-V0cKc&dib_tag=se&keywords=28mph%2Bebike&qid=1737003295&sprefix=28mph%2Bebik%2Caps%2C281&sr=8-8&th=1&psc=1
Marketed as a Class 2/3 and easily purchased by most people looking for commuting alternatives to a car. Coming to a MUP near you at 28mph.
LoL, check your math against the graph I posted. 750W “moped” with a 620Wh battery and fat tires might sustain 500W and reach 25mph with a tailwind plus effort. The danger on the springwater sidewalk will be from the people in lycra passing the person riding that eBike. Numbers mean things.
So why not propose a speed limit that actually changes the behavior you don’t like instead of just banning the parents with their class 3 bakfiets because it has the wrong numbered sticker on it?
So you want police enforcing speed limits on the bike paths now?
No more than the people supporting this bill want police at the entrance of every bike path checking e-bike class stickers.
But if people think fast e-bikes on paths is enough of a problem to introduce legislation about it then a speed limit is more effective at solving the actual problem and less harmful than just blanket banning bikes with a class 3 sticker regardless of their speed and behavior.
Initially, I was really upset because bikes tend to be fixed as class 1 2 or 3. But if the result would be that an easy-enough setting could be done to make a class 3 bike be class 1, I wouldn’t mind quite as much.
I think this betrays the real problem. I don’t think if all the class 3s were adjusted to the 20mph limit of class 1s that the issue would disappear. The heaviest, aggressive bikes going 20mph and ridden recklessly would still be obnoxious.
All in all, I’d rather have ebikes terrorizing pedestrians who very rarely actually get hurt rather than massive loud pickup trucks terrorizing and more-often actually hurting and killing people. So, my view is all about: what would the person be doing otherwise? It’s a win any time people get out of automobiles and onto bikes.
I think speed limits on bike paths and some law-enforcement cyclists would be worth trying. Making class-3 ebikes be considered like old gas-powered mopeds is stupid though.
One thing this conversation has made me realize is how few of us non-motorized bicyclists are left. When I ride, I don’t feel much community with people riding motorized vehicles around me, and this conversation has made me feel somewhat demoralized about riding altogether.
Widespread motorization has changed what it means to ride bikes, and it suddenly doesn’t seem as fun anymore.
Yes, now I can pick up dinner on my bike and choose to just use it for transportation only and not to make it a workout. Taking away that option wouldn’t make me take a regular bike and come back all sweaty and tired, I’d just drive instead.
Exactly… low effort is one reason why people like motor vehicles.
And I should be able to ride my motor assisted pedal bicycle at 15mph in a safe bike lane to pick up that take-out even if it has a class 3 sticker on it. It’s not endangering anyone and it’s replacing car trips.
I agree you should, and if everyone with such a bike did that, no one would have proposed a new law.
But to me, replacing a trip that might be made in a motorized vehicle with one made on a smaller motorized vehicle is only a minor victory.
I disagree. I am not able to own an electric car at my current residence so if I could not ride my bike then I would be driving an internal combustion car. This is true for many (most?) people who rent. Replacing a 2000lb+ ICE vehicle with a 50lb vehicle that’s 50% human power and 50% electric is a big win.
Why not? (not arguing that you should — I don’t have one either)
Also, this conversation is somewhat theoretical; if you are riding reasonably, as you say you do, then no one is going to bother you regardless of what the law says.
“Widespread motorization has changed what it means to ride bikes, and it suddenly doesn’t seem as fun anymore.”
Thank you for naming the elephant in my room.
I am regularly passed by folks on e-bikes, and if they would give me reasonable passing distance and a reasonable audible warning that doesn’t scare me off my saddle, I’d be more comfortable with it. But the majority give me neither, and it’s getting harder for me to feel okay about being slow and fully human-powered.
It gets more demoralizing when I make such observations and other bicycle riders tell me I need to “get faster,” “toughen up,” or “get an e-bike.”
With a starting price in the thousands of dollars, a weight too heavy for me to lift onto a bus rack, and a lack of truly secure indoor storage space, I’m simply not going to switch to an e-bike, and I shouldn’t be ridiculed for my choices. I was commuting by bicycle before the majority of commenters here were old enough to ride a two-wheeler, and I started riding for transportation long before it was cool or even socially acceptable.
I’ve paid my bicycle dues.
The rest of you can give me a little respect for paving the way for your current bike geekery — or at least give me a break.
You most definitely deserve that respect, as well as the audible warning and safe passing speed and distance. If these noxious behaviors become *more* commonplace because of e-bikes, that’s a damn shame.
The greater majority of us that ride the large 100 pound + e bikes are more observant and respectful that the spandexed road bike morons. They blow through lights nearly hitting people but get a free pass cause their a “bicycle” while we can be pulled over ticketed or have or bike taken simply for existing. Thank goodness police are reasonable and I’ve had no issues but im respectful of people when riding in congested areas and keep it below 28.
You make it sound like you have to try to keep “keep it under 28”. Why is that?
I’m lucky if I can hit 20mph on a MUP with my road bike, and both my e-bikes are pedal assist only and cut off at 20mph. It seems like your perspective is a bit skewed because you’ve become accustomed to traveling over 30mph on your motorcycle.
One more thing to add here. This discussion reminded me of this incident:
https://bikeportland.org/2023/01/10/bike-on-bike-collision-on-sellwood-bridge-path-leads-to-serious-injury-369086
It seems that this legislation is directly targeting situations like this. If Class 3 e-bikes were banned from sidewalks and enforced, this injury crash would not have occurred.
First off, that situation would have been death if there were an automobile involved. The worst cases with bikes are less catastrophic, and anything pushing bikes to be with automobiles is worse rather than better for safety overall.
But more importantly, there’s no reason to think that the difference between class-1 and class-3 is what would make any difference in that sellwood bridge crash. It’s decently likely they were only going 20mph or less anyway (and was the bike even class-3 at all?). A head-on collision with an ebike going 20mph is the same whatever its class rating. I doubt someone on the bridge on a class-3 at night would be maxing out their speed. 28mph feels crazy in that sort of narrow area, nobody would normally do that.
The most troubling part of this legislation and the debate that has played out is our collective approach to hyper-regulating biking compared to vastly under-regulating driving.
I agree that there are annoying and sometimes dangerous behaviors in bike lanes or on MUPs that are worsened by speed. I would love for this not to happen, and if there was legislation, or infrastructure changes or some method of enforcement that could pinpoint and curtail this behavior, I would be 100% in favor. But the legislation proposed by Prozanski clumsily targets a behavioral outlier in a way that would have a much greater negative impact on people behaving responsibly. It would have a much greater negative impact on local bike shops who are competing against much worse online options. It would be a legislative shank in the economically displaced Portlander, who now has to commute from Outer Portland. And, it would catch many people who don’t really care when the e-assist cuts out but just wanted a more powerful bike that they thought would help them get up a hill or carry groceries. In this case, the law is based on technical specifications that are not necessarily tied to that behavior or the real bad actors. It is a clumsy cudgel, that shows no concern for collateral damage to biking as transportation.
On the other hand, there is no legislation being introduced to target the most egregious car and truck attributes that have well-documented, fatal consequences. Speed limiters, size constraints, limits on infotainment, even basic infrastructure modifications are not mentioned out of fear that there may be some minor inconvenience, real or only perceived, for the median driver. State legislators turf this to federal agencies knowing nothing will be done. But there is no turfing for bikes. Once again, we hyper-regulate bikers to account for outliers while we greatly under-regulate drivers to protect and promote driving. The reason is obvious, it is easier to pick on a small group and a small economy, for political points; and exploiting the ignorance of the electorate is all to easy with rage-bait aimed at pre-existing prejudices, like the “rule-breaking, out of control, cyclist.”
Prozanski has failed to help people biking, but perhaps more importantly, he has failed to be a competent legislator.
comment of the week!
Yea SD, well said. I have seen crackdowns on a very specific group of people who happen to use e-bikes, and that e-bike was their means of supporting themselves and their families.
Last year when the city council in NY proposed to license plate e-bikes the head of the DOT Ydanis Rodriguez responded with something I think was pretty spot on:
IF we want to make streets safer for everyone, redesigning the streets and monitoring speed (behavior) regardless of mode, are both really objective and effective means to do so.
COTW!!!!
Congrats. You just nailed it.
I have a total of 18,000 miles on my two ebikes. One is Class 3 and the other is out of class now. If I were to follow these new laws, my only real option would be to use public transit or to drive my gas-powered automobile.
I don’t understand the logic of these legislators, other than they are reacting to a death of a teenager in Bend who was riding an ebike. So now they are creating a series of highly-reactive laws rather than stopping to actually think and consider what effect these laws will have on automobile alternatives. Unfortunately legislators are often reactive and they do stupid things just to show the public “see – things are being done! That boy did not die in vain”. sigh….
We should be regulating behaviors and not bikes.
What if the e-bike was turned off? What if it was being ridden below 20 mph? What if no one else is around?
Speeding dangerously around other people is very different than riding fast in a bike lane that has no other bikes or humans in it (see: suburban arterials most of the time).
so more cops on the MUPs, pulling cyclists over for going too fast?
This is all because of that Youtuber provacateur Velly-Ray tearing-ass around the eastside terrorizing the homeless on a class 3 e-bike ain’t it??
That’s interesting… he has lots of video of him riding a class 3 bike on Portland streets (and, sadly, on the sidewalks), and gives a sense of what 25mph looks like under real conditions.
Spoiler: it’s faster than I’d want to go, but he does just fine.
“How many people ride e-bikes they don’t realize are Class 3, and wouldn’t have the right-of-way in bike lanes under this bill, even if they’re only riding 15-20mph?””
To be fair (regardless of this proposal being good or bad), anyone who buys an e-bike should be familiar with the 3 e-bikes classes. Even if it’s their first time purchasing one, it’s not a valid excuse to not have at least some knowledge at this point. It’s 202 FFS. Due diligence.
Meant to say 2025.
Anyone buying after the turn of the year, yeah, but up until two weeks ago, the ebike class system didn’t even exist in Oregon. You didn’t need to know classes because it either was or it wasn’t. Any “class 3” ebike in Oregon was not an “electric assisted bicycle” at all and therefore could not enjoy the same benefits. So I suppose they should know better for the same reasons they should have known better last year that they were buying a moped.
feels like another old biker that does not like ebikes making a bill to stop something he does not like or understand
This could happen when a driver sees a Class 3 bike rider riding 15mph slower than traffic in the vehicle lane adjacent to an empty bike lane:
Driver: “Get the %^&@ out of my lane! Use the bike lane!”
Class 3 bike rider: “I’d like to but I’m not allowed to”.
Driver: “Oh my goodness! I see now your’e on a Class 3 bike using electric assist! I can’t believe I missed that! I thought it was a Class 2! I’m sorry. Please forgive me!
LOL. Pretty much. It’s like a Mel Brooks movie or something.
Is this a data driven piece of legislation? Has there been a study that showed that there have been more crashes involving class 3 pedal assist e-bikes? If not, this seems like a solution in search of a problem.
It also seems like a recipe for disaster.
We have been warned for at least three years these things were coming. WE did not do enough to exert appropriate peer pressure to resist 1k+ watt bikes. Poor weight to braking performance, poor trail etiquette and speeding in general has brought this on. Automobiles are proof we cannot be trusted to behave and there is no political will to cut dangerous bikes off at import.
E-bikes were homolgated to make traditional cycling easier, more convenient and accessible, not faster. The average speed of the winner of The last three TDF was 24mph. Our bikes aren’t that quality or weight. Neither are ww or our bike handling skills.
With torque sensing being so affordable, there really is no longer any reason to have a throttle. This is as the the three largest and fastest growing e-bike markets have already found. Set sensitive enough, a press on the pedals is all we need. Persons with special needs can apply for a prominently displayed waiver or use other alternatives. Heck, riding with motorized traffic is really only a problem because of our absurd urban speed limits and lack of law enforcement.
“regulating based on e-bike class, rather than speed, is such an imprecise way to do it.”
Beyond “imprecise” it is absurd.
Can you even imagine if this were applied to motor vehicles? Effectively every vehicle sold today is capable of achieving over 100 mph. And every speed limit we have is below that. Perhaps we should consider keeping certain high-speed-capable vehicles off of any city street, and allow them only on the freeway.
As with all these new laws, they are solidly motonormative.
This is a rider behavior issue, not a pedal assist bicycle issue! I have seen just as many non-motorized bicycle riders barrelling down a multiuse path, bike path, etc., in an unsafe manner, passing people from behind going over 20 mph without any warning! Has the Department of Transportation tracked crashes of non-motorized bicycles for comparison to e-bike bicycles? I thought Oregon was progressive in supporting elelctric transportation versus gas vehicles. There are many older folks buying e-bikes to commute to work who wouldn’t otherwise ride because of hills and lack of energy. I have another rant with terminology. Electric bicycles (e-bikes) are not to be confused with emotos (small motorcycles with electric motors). The term “full throttle” which has been used doesn’t distinguish between the two.
The whole discussion on e-bike power is just stupid! Do we limit the horsepower of automobiles or motorcycles? It’s the user, not the vehicle. Similiar to guns. It’s not the gun, it’s the user. Why not focus on education, speed limits and signing on multiuse paths, and some sort of required registration that requires a class to educate riders? Banning the use of a non poluting mode of transportation that is fun and usefull is un-american! So much for “Free America”…
Because with cars and guns, we’ve demonstrated that those methods are utterly inadequate.
And anyway, no one is talking about a ban.