By Pat Cunnane
With my morning coffee — my routine includes checking my texts, WhatsApp, and WeChat to see if anything urgent happened over night — then I read a few daily news emails a quick look at Bicycle Retailer to see if there were any new posts. I try to stay away from social media. But yesterday — I noticed an industry rift was bubbling out into the open.
The issue — and different points of view — is over e-bikes, and the three-class system developed and adopted by more than 40 states.
I have some very strong opinions on many things — especially things that affect my livelihood — and specifically threats to the bicycle business where I've been lucky enough to find things to do for the past 50+ years that pay me.
I'm used to dealing with threats in an evolving business environment that often have disadvantaged the industry like de minimis, Prop 65, (301, 232, 122 and more 301 tariffs) and for the last 8 months the New Jersey e-bikes legislation — but the list goes on and on.
What I see bubbling now is more insidious than these outside threats to our business. And I've seen it only a few times before — two in the 1990s when the industry split over its own trades show — BIO and the dominate trade show Interbike. And again, later that decade over imposing dumping duties against China. Looking back, it is difficult to see if the prevailing party was best for the industry – but it was clear the divide was not productive.
And I'm afraid here we are again. This time we are arguing about what an e-bike is and the three-class system that was developed by industry people donating their time. This work was done under the umbrella and protection of the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association (BPSA) and then carried forward by PeopleForBikes after it merged with BPSA. This was a process that was inclusive, methodical and slower than many folks had hoped. But it worked.
When this process started e-bikes were not the driver for the industry that they are today. And now the threats to that part of our business are real — sales of e-bikes in New Jersey are way off — ask any dealer. And these threats are coming for the most part from well-intentioned people who see with their own eyes what they think is an e-bike or groups of kids going too fast and operated recklessly. Sometimes after school — finally we have kids riding to school on bikes and it has in many areas become a bad thing.
As an industry we should put aside what divides us and talk about what we agree on. I think we can agree on these things:
- The major problems that people see are not caused by e-bikes that meet CPSC's definition of an e-bike
- And they are not caused by a Class 3 e-bike that requires pedal assistance to exceed 20 mph.
The problem has two main causes:
- Bikes that fall outside on class 1 and 2 and have a throttle that can go faster than 20 mph — and often much faster like 40 or 50 miles per hour — with incredibly fast acceleration. The industry is often calling these e-motos or out-of-class products. But most people can't tell the difference and just see an "e-bike."
- Riders who are riding recklessly, speeding, weaving, ignoring stop signs and red lights — laws that are already enforceable — but are not being enforced.
What it seems like our industry should agree on is:
- Low Speed Electric Bikes are defined and regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
- More than 40 states have accepted and integrated into their definitions the Class 3 definitions created and advocated for by the bicycle industry for the bicycle industry.
What we have is infighting that is hurting us when we advocate against bad laws. And it hurts when advocating for more places to ride and for more enforcement of traffic laws. And it hurts when we are advocating against laws like the one in New Jersey that have added costs and hurdles to dealers selling e-bikes that will not in any way solve the problems the law was intended to solve.
My ask is simple: Let's have Industry agreement on the following (at a minimum):
- Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes are regulated by CPSC and should require no additional regulations than any other bikes. (Note that municipalities can already require registration and set speed limits and limits on where bicycle use is allowed / not allowed.
- Class 3 is included in the definition of a bicycle in 40+ states, some of whom require registration and insurance (as was the case in New Jersey).
This should be agreed to by People for Bikes, NBDA and if possible, endorsed by the League of American Bicyclists.
After all we are experts! When we are asked for solutions, we should all start from the same foundational definitions.
And let's have our individual companies — brands and retailers fight out the best products ideas — if you don't want to design or sell class 2 products — don't. If you don't want to design or sell class 3 products — don't.
Let's work together to keep bikes that don't fit our categories out of our category – and when possible out of the market, or properly regulated as eMotos and/or motor vehicles.
If respected bike people don't agree — we lose. We don't need to agree on everything but let's agree on the minimum and protect the fastest growing segment in our industry that is bringing back riders and bringing in new riders — let's protect their access to a bike and their access to use it.
Patrick J. Cunnane is advisor to Hyper Bicycles, founder of Stoker Strategies, a consulting business helping business leaders with their businesses. He has decades of experience as a CEO and has been active on trade issues for the past 35 years, including testifying to the USTR on the 301 Tariffs and de minimis.
The discussion he references in the first two paragraphs of this OpEd took place on the Cycling Industry Recovery Facebook group.
