Oregon Senator Floyd Prozanski plans to withdraw a controversial bill that would have banned a popular type of electric-assisted bicycle from bike lanes and paths.
Advocates with The Street Trust met with Sen. Prozanski on Friday and they say he’s agreed to drop the bill.
Senate Bill 471 caught cycling and safe street advocates by surprise when it was introduced last month. It sought to prohibit Class 3 electric bicycles from bike-specific infrastructure and would have made them legally akin to mopeds and motorcycles. Class 3 e-bikes have no throttle, can have maximum speed of 28 mph (from the motor) and the motor only works when the rider is pedaling.
In an interview with BikePortland in January, Prozanski said he and his riding buddies saw many people riding motorized vehicles (which may or may not have been e-bikes) on bike paths without regard for Oregon law or for the safety of others. He then acknowledged the use of “Class 3” in the bill language was incorrect.
Local nonprofit advocacy organization The Street Trust (TST) published an article earlier this month that said Prozanski’s bill threatens, “to saddle e-bikes with unnecessary restrictions rather than advancing policies that make streets safer.”
Here’s more from The Street Trust’s article:
Instead of reactionary regulations, Oregon must implement expert-driven policies developed by stakeholders across sectors — public agencies, industry leaders, and community advocates who understand the realities of how people move using small things with wheels, aka micromobility.
The regulatory focus should be on operator behavior and vehicle speed in shared spaces, and avoiding arbitrary restrictions based on vehicle type which are hard to discern, let alone enforce.
We need clear, enforceable rules that ensure e-scooters and e-bikes remain accessible, while protecting riders and other road users from the risks of higher-speed motorcycles, mopeds, and illegally modified “e-bikes”.
The article was written by Cameron Bennett, a TST board member and policy lead for the group’s Oregon Micromobility Network project. Bennett was also at the meeting with Senator Prozanski last week where they discussed concerns about the proposed legislation.
In a phone call with BikePortland today, Bennett said Prozanski has agreed to they are happy with the outcome now that the bill will not move forward. “We’re excited to have the Senator’s support in our ongoing education efforts around e-bikes, instead of working against us,” Bennett said.
This isn’t the first time Senator Prozanski has proposed a bike-related bill that was ultimately withdrawn after widespread criticism. In 2008 he filed a bill that would have made Oregon’s helmet law apply to all ages of riders. That bill met with fierce opposition from cycling advocates and Prozanski scrapped it a few weeks after it appeared on BikePortland.
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.
Good move! (to withdraw the bill). But it’ll be back – right after some dude going 30 mph on an e-bike kills an old lady.
Next time get some expert advice from the cycling community before mooting a bill.
Cool, then let’s ban cars and trucks
Problem is that the “cycling advocates”– who are actually social justice and climate advocates first, cycling maybe a distant third priority– will drown out the opinions of people who actually ride bikes, and the conversation will become a mess of identity politics and cringeworthy anti-capitalist rhetoric.
I don’t share your pessimism, Jordan. People can do more than one thing at a time.
I’ve seen this a lot, and its not quite true for a lot of class 3 ebikes (fuzzy definition, state by state, etc).
Many Class 3 ebikes do have a throttle, however it only propels the bike to 20 mph.
In order to go past 20 and up to 28 mph, you must pedal assist.
Frankly this seems like a better classification to me, it seems weird that a class 3 has less features than a class 2..
And many of those throttled class 3 bikes can very very easily be modified to eliminate that restriction, allowing them to achieve 28mph or higher on throttle only.
The Class system is nonsensical when we are trying to classify bikes based on easily modified attributes. Maybe we should classify them based on weight and motor size instead?
Sounds like Farley’s kind of senator. Shame on them.
Gas powered mopeds that go 30mph aren’t allowed in our bicycle facilities, so I don’t know why vehicles that are essentially the same but electric powered should be allowed either.
This conflict will only continue as long as “cycling advocates” continue to simp for the electric motorcycle industry.
Jordan,
Ten years ago I was in the “anti-e-bike camp.” There was no valid reason to own one. I commuted for years day and night and in the rain. I rode multiple centuries. I rode the STP in one day. I rode across the country unsupported.
I’m in my mid 70’s and am not as strong as I was. I bought an e-bike to continue to ride with my friends. I use the electric assist sparingly – mostly on the hills. I don’t think you would even notice if you and I were on a group ride.
At the lowest power setting the e-bike motor gives me an assist of about 3 mph. At the highest a boost of about 9 mph. I have to pedal to get any assist. It is NOT an electric motorcycle.
If I’m not allowed on bicycle facilities, as you propose, I would be required to “take the lane” on Ross Island Bridge or Hawthorne or Burnside or Morrison to get downtown. Does that make any sense at all?
Maybe you will think differently in 40 or 50 years.
E-bikes are mopeds by definition and should be required to be licensed and insured like any motor vehicle.