The E-Bike Problem Is Real.

A recent PublicSource article examined how municipalities across the Pittsburgh region are responding to the growth of e-bikes and other electric mobility devices. The article accurately captured why I opposed the ordinance recently considered in Mt. Lebanon: although the public concern is legitimate, the ordinance would not have addressed the bulk of the problem residents are experiencing.

That debate also points toward a larger issue. Pennsylvania does not simply need a better definition of an e-bike. It needs a fundamentally more modern way of regulating mobility.

Our laws continue to divide vehicles according to categories developed around particular technologies: bicycles have pedals, motorcycles have two or three wheels, cars have four wheels, scooters have a particular physical configuration, and electric devices are classified according to whether their motors provide assistance or independent propulsion.

That system may have worked when the distinctions among these devices were obvious. It works much less effectively today.

Manufacturers are producing e-bikes, e-motos, scooters, one-wheels, cargo bikes, low-speed vehicles and other devices that combine features from multiple traditional categories. Some look like bicycles but can travel at motorcycle speeds. Some have pedals that provide meaningful propulsion; others have pedals largely to fit within a statutory definition. Some are lightweight and relatively slow. Others are heavy, powerful and capable of causing significant harm in a collision.

The market will continue to evolve. The law cannot be rewritten every time someone changes the number of wheels, moves the throttle, adds nominal pedals or develops a new propulsion system.

Instead of asking primarily what a device is called, Pennsylvania should ask what level of risk it creates.

That risk is driven principally by two factors: how much mass is moving and how fast it is capable of moving. Those factors affect both the danger to the operator and the danger imposed on pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.

A lightweight device traveling at a modest assisted speed presents one level of risk. A substantially heavier device capable of traveling 30 or 40 miles per hour presents another. A passenger vehicle weighing several thousand pounds and capable of highway speeds presents a far greater risk. These vehicles should not be governed by identical requirements, but they should be understood as points on the same mobility continuum.

Cars belong in this discussion too.

Too often, debates about e-bikes and scooters begin from the assumption that conventional automobiles are the normal form of transportation and that every newer device is an unusual exception requiring a separate set of restrictions. That approach obscures the basic public-safety question. Every vehicle creates risk based on its operating mass, speed, maneuverability, braking capability and the environment in which it is used.

A modern framework should classify vehicles according to those characteristics rather than relying predominantly on the number of wheels or whether the vehicle is human-powered, motor-assisted or fully self-propelled.

Pennsylvania’s current e-bike definition illustrates the limitations of the existing approach. State law defines a pedalcycle with electric assist partly by requiring two or three wheels of a specified size, operable pedals, a weight of no more than 100 pounds, a motor of no more than 750 watts and a maximum motor-powered speed of 20 miles per hour. Other sections of the Vehicle Code use different combinations of wheels, seats, pedals, horsepower, transmission type and maximum design speed to distinguish motorcycles, motor-driven cycles and motorized pedalcycles.

These distinctions are increasingly difficult for consumers, police officers and local governments to interpret. More importantly, they do not always correspond cleanly to the actual risk presented by the device.

As PublicSource reported, electric motorcycles that look similar to bicycles may travel from 30 miles per hour to nearly 100 miles per hour. Some exceed the statutory limits for e-bikes but do not fit comfortably within the Commonwealth’s existing classifications. PennDOT’s position is that vehicles not authorized by the Vehicle Code cannot lawfully operate on public roads, but that does not produce a clear or easily enforceable framework for residents deciding what to purchase or officers encountering a device in use.

A risk-based framework would begin with measurable operating characteristics.

The Commonwealth could establish tiers based on the vehicle’s mass and maximum assisted or design speed. Those tiers could then determine appropriate safety requirements, such as:

• where the device may operate;

• whether the operator must wear a helmet;

• minimum operator age;

• required lighting, reflectors and braking capacity;

• whether training or a license is necessary;

• whether registration and insurance are appropriate;

• whether the vehicle may use sidewalks, shared paths, bike lanes or general traffic lanes; and

• what authority municipalities have to establish lower operating speeds in parks, business districts or other sensitive locations.

The precise thresholds would require engineering, safety and transportation analysis. The important policy choice is to regulate according to capability and risk rather than continually inventing new legal categories for each product that reaches the market.

This would also produce more rational rules.

A device light enough and slow enough to interact safely with pedestrians might be permitted in certain shared spaces, regardless of whether it has two wheels, three wheels or some future configuration. A heavier and faster device might be restricted to bike facilities or roadways. A device approaching motorcycle capability would be subject to motorcycle-like equipment, licensing and insurance requirements, regardless of whether the manufacturer installed pedals or marketed it as an e-bike.

The same principle should influence how we regulate automobiles. A large, heavy vehicle poses a different danger to people outside it than a smaller, lighter vehicle traveling at the same speed. Road design, speed limits, licensing standards, vehicle-safety requirements and enforcement priorities should reflect the risks vehicles impose on others, not only the protection they provide to their occupants.

This broader framework explains why I opposed Mt. Lebanon’s proposed ordinance.

The documented concern was unsafe conduct: speeding, failing to yield, operating inappropriate devices in public spaces and placing pedestrians or riders at risk. But the ordinance focused on one legally defined category of vehicle operating primarily on municipal property. It would have imposed a 15-mile-per-hour limit on an e-bike while leaving a conventional bicycle traveling at the same speed outside that particular provision. It would have regulated the device rather than consistently regulating the risky behavior.

PublicSource reported that none of the e-bike-related safety incidents identified in Mt. Lebanon would have been prevented by the proposed ordinance. Most e-bike activity in the community occurs on streets, where municipal authority is constrained by state law. Passing a narrow park ordinance might demonstrate that government recognizes the issue, but it would not resolve the structural problem.

Local government still has a role. We can enforce existing laws, establish appropriate rules for municipally owned property and invest in education.

I am encouraging the Municipal Manager to identify increased and ongoing funding, in partnership with the Mt. Lebanon School District, for comprehensive safe-mobility education. That education should include walking, bicycles, e-bikes, scooters, emerging mobility devices and automobiles. Students should understand speed, visibility, yielding, helmet use, distracted operation and the responsibilities that come with operating any vehicle in a shared environment.

We should all also call on the Pennsylvania General Assembly to modernize the Vehicle Code. But the legislature should resist the temptation merely to add several more device definitions to an already fragmented system.

A three-tier e-bike classification may provide greater clarity than Pennsylvania’s current definition, and pending proposals demonstrate that lawmakers understand the need to act. But a framework built only around today’s version of the e-bike may soon face the same limitations as the law it replaces. PublicSource notes that lawmakers are currently considering both a three-class e-bike proposal and a broader study of the Commonwealth’s definitions.

The legislature would be wise use that opportunity to think more fundamentally.

We do not care about the number of wheels for its own sake. We do not care whether a motor assists the rider or provides all of the propulsion merely as a matter of terminology. We care because a vehicle’s size, mass and speed determine what can happen when something goes wrong.

The objective should not be to develop a perfect legal definition for every device currently on the market. The objective should be to establish safety standards that remain coherent as mobility continues to change.

Regulate the risk, not the label.

---

Andrew Flynn

Andrew Flynn writes about public leadership, fiscal stewardship, and the systems communities rely on to function well. He is a commissioner in Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania, works in public finance, and serves as a volunteer firefighter and EMT. Browse the Writing section for more articles, or visit Meet Andrew to learn more.