A recent bill proposal in Oregon has sparked debate and confusion regarding the classification and regulation of electric bicycles (e-bikes). The bill, Senate Bill 471, seeks to restrict the use of Class 3 e-bikes on sidewalks, bike lanes, and bike paths, but it has been met with criticism and concern from e-bike users and advocates. Senator Floyd Prozanski, who introduced the bill, has now admitted that using “Class 3” to define the issue was a misnomer, highlighting a broader misunderstanding of e-bike technology and usage.
Understanding E-bike Classifications
To understand the controversy surrounding Senate Bill 471, it’s essential to clarify the different classes of e-bikes. Oregon, like many other states, has adopted a three-class system for categorizing e-bikes, based on their motor assistance capabilities:
Class 1 E-bikes
These e-bikes provide assistance only when the rider is pedaling and cease to provide assistance when the bike reaches 20 mph. Class 1 e-bikes do not have a throttle.
Class 2 E-bikes
These e-bikes have a throttle and a motor that can propel the rider up to 20 mph, with or without pedaling.
Class 3 E-bikes
Class 3 e-bikes provide assistance only when the rider is pedaling and stop assisting when the bike reaches 28 mph. These e-bikes do not have a throttle and are often referred to as “speed pedelecs”.
The key differences between these classes lie in their maximum assisted speeds and the presence or absence of a throttle. Class 3 e-bikes, with their higher speed, have become the focal point of the proposed legislation.
The Controversy Surrounding Senate Bill 471
Senate Bill 471 aims to add “Class 3 electric assisted bicycle” to an existing law (ORS 814.210) that regulates the use of mopeds. This would effectively prohibit Class 3 e-bikes from operating on sidewalks, bike lanes, and bike paths. The bill also seeks to remove right-of-way protections for Class 3 e-bikes in bike lanes, meaning that if a car fails to yield to a Class 3 e-bike rider in a bike lane, the e-bike rider would not have legal protection. This proposed change has sparked considerable opposition from e-bike users and industry professionals.
Concerns About the Bill
Several concerns have been raised regarding Senate Bill 471:
- Misunderstanding of Class 3 E-bikes: Many argue that the bill reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Class 3 e-bikes and their users. Unlike mopeds, Class 3 e-bikes require the rider to pedal and do not have a throttle, which means they cannot be propelled without human power.
- Impact on E-bike Users: If passed, the bill would severely restrict where Class 3 e-bike riders can travel, forcing them onto roads with higher speed limits and greater traffic. This could make them more vulnerable to accidents and discourage the use of e-bikes as a mode of transportation.
- Difficulty in Enforcement: It would be challenging for law enforcement to distinguish Class 3 e-bikes from Class 1 and 2 e-bikes since the difference is based on the motor’s performance.
- Lack of Clarity: The bill does not address the core issue of unsafe riding practices, and instead targets a specific type of e-bike, regardless of rider behavior.
- Economic Impact: Bike shop employees and customers have expressed concern that this bill could make Class 3 e-bikes less useful.
Senator Prozanski’s Acknowledgment
In an interview, Senator Prozanski admitted that using “Class 3” in the bill was “a misnomer”. He stated that the bill was inspired by his observations of “motorized vehicles” on multi-use paths and that his primary concern is with vehicles that do not require human power. He stated that he has observed people using e-bikes in a way that concerns him.
Despite acknowledging the misnomer, Senator Prozanski has continued to express concerns about the use of motorized vehicles on paths, indicating that his focus remains on addressing the broader issue of inappropriate vehicle use.
The Path Forward
The acknowledgment by Senator Prozanski that “Class 3” was a misnomer is significant as it suggests that the bill might be revised or reconsidered. The primary issue is the safe use of shared paths and roadways. Rather than focusing on a particular class of e-bikes, the following measures might be considered:
- Focus on Speed: Implementing universal speed limits for all bicycles on shared paths and bike lanes could address safety concerns more effectively.
- Enforce Safe Riding Practices: Instead of banning a particular type of e-bike, laws should target unsafe riding practices, regardless of the vehicle type.
- Education and Awareness: Increase education about safe e-bike operation and encourage responsible riding behavior.
- Task Force for Recommendations: The state could establish a task force to recommend laws regarding electric bikes, scooters, and mopeds.
- Public Engagement: Engaging the public through surveys and public hearings can lead to a more informed decision-making process.
E-bike Laws in Oregon
Oregon has been at the forefront of adopting laws that encourage the use of e-bikes, making it a great location for both enthusiasts and those considering e-bikes as a more environmentally friendly alternative for transportation. Here are some key points from Oregon’s regulations:
- No License Required: In Oregon, e-bikes are classified as “electric assisted bicycles” and are regulated similarly to traditional bicycles. This means that there is no need for registration, licensing, or insurance.
- Motor Power: E-bikes must have a maximum motor output of 1000w, and be propelled by human power through pedals and not exceed a speed of 20 mph to be regulated as a bicycle.
- Where You Can Ride: E-bikes are allowed on bike paths. However, they are not allowed on sidewalks, which ensures the safety of both pedestrians and riders.
- Age Restrictions: In Oregon, anyone 16 years or older can ride any class of e-bike. However, those under 16 are not allowed to ride an e-bike without a driver’s license or permit.
- Helmet Laws: There is not a statewide helmet law for e-bikes, although it is recommended for riders to wear one for their safety.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding Senate Bill 471 highlights the complexities of regulating new technologies. While the concerns raised by Senator Prozanski regarding safety on shared paths are valid, targeting Class 3 e-bikes may not be the most effective way to address these issues. A more nuanced approach that focuses on speed, safe riding practices, and public awareness is needed to create a safe and inclusive environment for all types of bicycle users. The acknowledgment that using “Class 3” was a misnomer is a step in the right direction. The public needs to stay informed and engaged to ensure that any new legislation effectively addresses safety concerns without unduly restricting the use of e-bikes.
