Above photo: A bicycle food delivery worker rides his e-bike through heavy snow, Feb. 1, 2021, in the Soho neighborhood of New York. Robert Bumsted / AP.
New Jersey’s new law effectively banning e-bikes misses the mark on the challenges of electric micromobility.
It’s also bad for the entire country.
Last month, in reaction to several high-profile fatal crashes, outgoing New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy passed the country’s strictest law on e-bike use. The law, which reclassifies e-bikes as vehicles, amounts to an effective ban on e-bikes. Starting in July, all e-bike riders in the state will be required to have a licence and registration, and most will also need an insurance policy. Riders aged 14 and under will be banned from using e-bikes altogether.
The new law highlights growing tension between pedestrians, motorists, lawmakers and cyclists. It also misses the mark on the root causes of the e-bike “crisis” in the Garden State. And worse still, it sets a significant policy precedent for state and local leaders across the country, underscoring the need to “get this right.”
As we look toward the new Sherrill administration, we need to rethink this heavy-handed regulatory approach and recalibrate our strategy to focus on the structural deficiencies that put us here: a severe lack of infrastructure with capacity to meet unprecedented bicycle ridership, lax enforcement, and a regulatory system designed to sell products rather than ensure safety.
Inadequate infrastructure and regulation
E-bikes have achieved something advocates have dreamed of for decades: a tangible mode shift. More people than ever are leaving their cars at home.
But this boom means that we now have unprecedented volumes of bicycles on roadways, and even sidewalks that were never designed to accommodate multimodal transportation or recreation. This surge in ridership has changed the calculus for city planners, policymakers and law enforcement. Bike lanes can no longer be viewed as speculative traffic engineering experiments, but instead essential components of a modern roadway and more complete transportation network.
Yet, in most American cities and towns, infrastructure remains sparse and disconnected. Instead of building better streets, policymakers have rushed to regulate with a series of moderately enforceable half measures.
Hastily slapping rules on a technology that isn’t fully understood — without addressing the infrastructure deficit — has created a landscape of confusion and inconsistency for everyone, including law enforcement. It is easy enough to stop a rider on a sidewalk, but the nuance of speed limits or battery certifications is lost without specialized equipment or, worse yet, stop and frisk-style profiling.
Do police pull over cyclists on carbon pedal bikes exceeding 25 mph? Do law enforcement officers even know the difference between the various e-bike classifications – or what constitutes an illegal bike or battery?
The current legal landscape is a confusing mess because we are trying to regulate behavior without providing the space, support and oversight for that behavior to exist safely.
Industry standard vs. common-sense classification
In retrospect, the three-tiered classification system for e-bikes which has been widely adopted in statehouses and communities across the U.S. was put in place too fast and without sufficient public education, law enforcement input and public agency guidance.
Even before the pandemic, global bicycle industry interests spent millions of dollars creating alliances with bicycle advocates and lobbyists to adopt this cookie-cutter, three-class system. Here’s a quick breakdown:
- Class 1 e-bikes require pedaling to operate, at speeds no greater than 20 miles per hour
- Class 2 e-bikes are fully controlled via throttle, requiring no pedaling to operate, at speeds no greater than 20 miles per hour.
- Class 3 e-bikes operate at higher speeds up to 28 miles per hour. Inexplicably, they generally don’t have throttles, while the slower Class 2s do.
This framework doesn’t make much sense. That’s partly because it was designed to drive sales, without much thought given to safe implementation that assures adequate local government buy-in and oversight.
Proper regulation starts with correct classification, and we need to be honest about the hardware: A throttle-controlled machine that functions without pedaling — a Class 2 e-bike — is fundamentally different from a bicycle. Attaching pedals to a low-speed moped simply makes it a moped.
Class 2 e-bikes now account for by far the highest share of all e-bikes sold in the United States. That’s largely because the industry-sponsored classification system essentially uses a redundant pedal drive chain to create a regulatory loophole – one that allows retailers to sell electric mopeds to unlicensed users of all ages, with a thin or even nonexistent law enforcement or public educational framework.
Moving forward
New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s administration now has an opportunity to rethink the e-bike paradigm and lead the way in a country uncertain about this emerging mode. So, how do we fix this?
First, the governor should incentivize communities across the state to double down on multimodal infrastructure, replacing intermittent and unconnected bike lanes with robust networks of safe routes for bicyclists (and walkers).
Second, policy makers in Trenton and beyond must rethink the three-tiered classification system.
What we know today as a class 1 e-bike – which provides motorized assistance to a users’ pedaling – should remain within a bicycle classification, and be treated as such in all instances. Class 2 e-bikes, however, should not be considered bicycles. To be clear, throttled e-bikes shouldn’t be illegal, but instead require a distinct pathway to ownership.
As for class 3 e-bikes, any vehicle that can sustain speeds close to 30 miles per hour is a moped, and should be treated as such. Where regulation leads industry will necessarily follow, and prioritizing Class 1 e-bikes will increase product demand.
Finally, New Jersey should follow the example set by many cities and states by instituting incentives to proactively expand access to safe, accessible pedal assist e-bikes.
Public subsidies to, especially low-income individuals, have proven tremendously popular and highly successful across the U.S., Canada and Europe. Some of the most successful examples of micromobility incentive programs in the U.S. include Denver’s e-bike rebates, Propel ATLin Atlanta and WE-Bike in Washington State among more than 100 others across the country. Even more incentive programs are in the works, such as New York City’s recently published ‘Ride Clean New York’ Program Plan.
The e-bike revolution is here, and it offers a cleaner, more efficient way to move. But until we demand accountability from the industry, educate local regulators and law enforcement, and build the infrastructure to support this emerging mode, we will continue to see ‘chaos’ on our streets and anger among various elements of the public.
