NEW JERSEY LAW DEFINES E-BIKES AS MOTOR VEHICLES
By Steve Bina
You may have heard about New Jersey legislation concerning the use and regulation of electric bicycles in the state, specifically New Jersey Senate Bill S-4834. This was signed into law by then-Governor Phil Murphy on the final day of his administration. In case you haven’t heard about this, let me recap.
The new law expands the definition of “bicycles” that are to be regulated as motorized vehicles in New Jersey. The bill amends all current New Jersey law, expanding the classifications of e-bikes to include a pedal bicycle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that would provide assistance when the rider is pedaling, or using just a throttle to propel the bicycle. In other words, Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes are now part of a single category that includes products capable of speeds in excess of 20 m.p.h. and what is referred to as e-motos. This overrides the common definition of what the industry recognizes as Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes.
By designating all pedal bicycles with electric motors as motorized bicycles, an owner or operator will be required by provisions in the law, including but not limited to insurance, registration, and a license to operate. The law allows a six-month grace period to achieve these things.
The law requires an operator to be 17 years old and possess a valid driver’s license with a class designation to operate a motorized bicycle. If a person is under the age of 17 but at least 15 years old, they may operate a motorized bicycle if in possession of a valid motorized bicycle license.
There are other significant impacts of this new law, but the most far-reaching is lumping Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes, as defined by CPSC 16 CFR 1512.2, along with all out-of-class electric bicycles and e-moto products into a single class. This New Jersey law happened because a couple of deaths occurred in the district represented by the State Senate President Nick Scutari. “The dramatic increase in the use of e-bikes has created greater dangers for their operators, other motorists, and pedestrians,” according to Scutari.
There has been a continuing debate in the industry about what is an out-of-class e-bike, i.e., Class 3 e-bikes. Is it a bicycle? An e-moto? As noted above, CPSC 16 CFR 1512.2 does not recognize what is commonly referred to as a Class 3 e-bike as a bicycle. One of the largest industry trade groups has been arguing that the regulation of out of class product should be left up to individual jurisdictions. A number of states have passed regulations addressing out-of-class e-bikes. One concern voiced in this Reporter is that such an approach could lead to multiple definitions of out-of-class product and inconsistent usage requirements. This new law takes that to a new level, but does just the opposite. It redefines in-class product into a single group and applies all of the usage requirements to Class 1 and 2 products.
The problems with this legislation are two-fold.
First, this legislation sets a precedent that other jurisdictions could emulate. This is a template that other states may use to regulate the use of ALL e-bikes, regardless of power rating and/or the speed that can be attained. The issue of safety to both the riders and others is not unique to New Jersey. As other states contemplate how they can regulate use, limits, and operator requirements, it’s likely they will look to other states to understand what has already been codified. Who knows, the New Jersey law might only be the starting point for another state’s legislation, requirements, and restrictions.
An equally troubling aspect of the New Jersey law is that it was passed in the first place and came as an unpleasant surprise to most of the industry. The three major bicycle associations, PeopleForBikes (PFB), the National Bicycle Dealers Association (NBDA), and The League of American Bicyclists (LAB), were seemingly caught by surprise not only by the content of the legislation, but also by the speed at which it became law. Now that the law has been passed, the same three associations are marshalling their individual efforts to urge either repeal or amendment of the law.
The success of these efforts, both in repealing or amending the law, will likely hinge on a coordinated approach from those three associations. The industry appeared to be in disarray relative to this legislation initially, since no one was able to lobby effectively. It’s conceivable that the legislators drafting this bill did not know or understand the differences in e-bike classes, hence all types were deemed equally dangerous. Without an aligned program to present to a legislative body, the language inserted in this legislation happened without input from industry sources. That may have left those drafting the legislation thinking the bicycle industry either did not have a position or thought the draft language was acceptable
For legislators and/or the public to get behind changing the law to redefine e-bikes back to the initial CPSC definitions and reduce the requirements for ownership and operation will necessitate an industry-wide alignment addressing the core issues. This will likely center around the differences between Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes versus the more powerful and faster out-of-class products. Alignment on this issue, especially, is likely to be necessary to move forward with an amendment to the legislation.
There may have to be some compromise required on licensing and training for out-of-class products to differentiate them from the less powerful e-bikes, too. How this will play out over the next few months remains to be seen. But without coordination and alignment, the danger will be the associations sending a mixed message, and any amendments will be worse than the current legislation.
Contact Steve Bina: steve@humanpoweredsolutions.com