• Kinglink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Technically the bill adds age restriction for Class 2 and class 3 not 1, but honestly, I kind of understand what they’re doing. Class 2 is powered with out pedaling, How that’s not a “Motorbike” is a weird determination. But I do question class 1 vs class 3 where 20 miles an hour is perfectly safe, and 28 is somehow dangerous is a weird line in the sand. And also the fact that anything over 28 … I mean doesn’t exist? I guess you can make unregulated bikes now!

    • litchralee@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      You are correct; that was an oversight on my part, and I’ve edited my comment to reflect the Oregon bill.

      IMO, the two-wheel continuum is getting muddied by these sorts of bills. As it stands in California, the spectrum starts with bicycles, then ebikes, then mopeds*, then motorbikes/motorcycles. And we have an increasing scale of regulation, requirements, and licenses when moving to toward the actual motor vehicles. This ascension currently makes sense to me.

      That class 3 is just shy of the moped with it’s 30 MPH (48 kph) limit is perfectly sensible to me, as is a helmet and age restriction. If we didn’t have a sliding spectrum, we’d basically be telling teenagers that they might as well go straight for mopeds or motorbikes, and that’s just opening a huge can of worms, public policy-wise.

      I didn’t do an exhaustive search of Oregon law, but I have to imagine an overpowered ebike would get categorized as a moped or motorbike, subject to all those laws and regulations.

      • BTW, mopeds in California are very OP. An M1/M2 license, one-time registration forever, can use bike lanes, no insurance requirement, and can do 30 MPH. Just wow.