Transportation and Telecommunications

Senators consider updating bicycle definition

Riders of bicycles with electric motors would enjoy the same rights as traditional cyclists under a proposal heard by the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee Jan. 20.

Introduced by Papillion Sen. Jim Smith, LB95 would add electric-assist bicycles, or e-bikes, to Nebraska’s definition of bicycles. The new definition would include two- or three-wheeled vehicles that can be propelled by pedaling or by an electric motor no larger than 750 watts, producing up to one brake horsepower, with a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour.

Smith said Nebraska law does not clearly distinguish e-bikes from other motorized vehicles such as motorcycles or mopeds. He said the change is needed to ensure that riders of electric-assist bicycles be allowed to follow the same rules of the road and accepted on the same paths as traditional bicycles. Because e-bikes are attractive to older riders and those with health concerns, he said, the number of e-bike riders inevitably will increase.

“With an aging population that tends to be more active and health conscious, I anticipate e-bikes increasing in popularity,” Smith said.

Bill Moore, publisher of EV World, testified in favor of LB95. E-bikes present older riders the opportunity to stay active, he said, and the bill would enable them to legally access the same safe trails as traditional cyclists. Additionally, Moore said, Nebraska will benefit economically from increased e-bike sales and the resulting tourism when those riders vacation here.

“It’s good for the state and its citizens, for its physical and economic health,” Moore said.

John Winkler, representing the Nebraska Association of Resource Districts, also spoke in support of the bill, saying that e-bikes give people, especially handicapped and elderly citizens, increased options to experience the environment.

“It just allows more access for those folks,” he said. “It opens up our outdoors for more people to enjoy.”

No one testified in opposition to the bill and the committee took no immediate action on it.

Bookmark and Share
Share