If I remember the eBike correctly, it didn't have any acceleration power - what it did was maintain the speed that you pedaled it to. Am I correct?
FL
- Thread starter James912
- Start date
That is why I have a pickup truck !And that's why I ride a gas bike.
How you gonna carry an electric bike on your gas bike !
I know, I know, trailer !
Weird - now I have to track down whatever electric bike it was that was designed to maintain speed and not accelerate.
Here is one for sale near you. There are lots of them in Florida !
I have folding Lee Iacocca ebikes and they have VIN stickers on them too. I bought 2 at a yard sale for $75 and repaired the 10 year old Texaco nimh battery packs and they still work.
The temp sensors were bad in both packs and they would not charge.
I have about $80 in the folders and my wife and I love to ride them !
Electric Bike EV Global with Schwinn Trailer
Last edited:
First paragraph is right. We really don't know why yet, but it's pretty safe to assume that if the state could have gotten a conviction they would have.
Second paragraph indicates you still don't understand what self propelled means in this instance. It doesn't have anything to do with how the motor is started. It doesn't matter if it's pull start, or a monkey jumps out of your butt and starts it for you. What makes a vehicle self propelled is if it can drive off from a standing start under it's own power after the motor is already started.
This is just my opinion, but the reason I believe they made special laws for electric motor bicycles is because most of them are considered self propelled, and don't really need peddles, unlike a typical china girl. That would classify an ebike as a motor vehicle in most states.
That's the reason in a nut shell why a china girl is legal and a ebike needs special laws to make them legal. Ebikes have enough torque to start moving from a standing start, china girls do not.Heck no ! Instant torque. Rules 0 to 17mph !
An ebike is and example of self propelled, but a typical china girl is not.
Sure they do, rev it up and slip the clutch ?
How much do you weigh ?
You got it geared to go 40 ?
Last edited:
A china girl with stock parts cannot start from a stand still. PERIOD! We all know it, stop fighting over every little thing. Thats why they call them "bump start". People, this thread was to discuss about the laws that are in place over our contraptions. Stop bickering about b.s.
Last edited:
Just adding fuel to the flame here. I have a China Girl on my Dyno Roadster. I also have a centrifugal clutch which enables me to take off from a dead stop. It works just fine. Just in case someone wants to condemn me for it, here is the reason. I can't pedal a bicycle. Not even one that is 7' 10" long. My knees don't bend far enough. So, legal or not that is what I have and will continue to use.
Terry
Terry
Technically only the scrawniest 50 cc china girls with no performance enhancements would probably qualify as legal, but because of all the confusion about engine size, and the general legal confusion, stuff like a centrifugal clutch, and big motors with more power will probably be able to fall through the cracks for a while.
The why is still very important, and I'll explain why...
The reason is that this has happened before... The no information/pro sequi "decision" LAST TIME was because when the person was stopped, they had already hit the kill switch and were pedaling when they were stopped, so the prosecutor KNEW he couldn't win the case because the defendant wasn't under motor power when seen or stopped, hence the prosec didn't persue the case...
Well, technically speaking, a LEGAL Ebike MUST have a pedals and MUST have a PAS system (re: pedaling makes the motor go, NOT a throttle) that's why they say an electric "helper" motor, so no legal Ebike is a motor vehicle.
EVERY (gas) motor for a bike can be ridden from a dead stop after the engine is "engaged". I know that... I was being facetious.
And in terms of the Paula case, I would like to know the circumstances...
Was the motor running when she was stopped?
Was she pedaling when she was stopped?
Was she at a stop light? In a bike lane? Etc,etc..
Last edited:
Maybe everyone should get on the same page then
The contention is not whether the engine can be started from a dead stop but whether the bike can be driven off from a dead stop without pedaling.
As I have said repeatedly and been ignored repeatedly I do it all the time. So unless that means I have some special engines then the point is without merit
Secondly it has nothing to do with whether the bikes are considered self propelled or not. The bikes go without human or any other out side power, that makes them self propelled. All the laws referenced "once the drive system is engaged" If anyone can tell us how in the world something that moves under it's own power, once the drive system is engaged, does not qualify as self propelled please do.
Not why you want it to mean that or your opinion what you feel it means but give us some sort of valid scientific formula or theory of how something that is moving on it's own power could not be considered to be moving own it's own power
as to why the court did not get a conviction, it could be as simple as the court not seeing a value in pursuing the case.
Until we see the disposition of the case it's all invalid specualtion
If there is no information on the case, why did you makes the statement "since she proved they were not self propelled"?
This goes back to what I have been saying all along
things can not always be what you want to assume they are, sometimes things are just what they are no matter how many ways you try to skew them to be what you imagine they should be
let us know how this tactic works for you in court
I think you're confusing my statements with other peoples...
I haven't stated anything about the case as I am trying to find out the particulars myself.
No Sangese my comment was a response to two comments posted by James912. One saying that Paul Paxton proved her bike was not self propelled and therefore he would use the same defense and the next saying that there was no info on the case.
He is doing exactly what I am trying to keep people from doing, planning a legal defense based on the wishful thinking of someone trying to twist daydreams into a legal defense argument and putting those wistful theories out as scientific and legal fact.
He is doing exactly what I am trying to keep people from doing, planning a legal defense based on the wishful thinking of someone trying to twist daydreams into a legal defense argument and putting those wistful theories out as scientific and legal fact.
bugman, sang & i both have been saying the same thing. that there has been no proof of anything. including why the case was dismissed.
now we have someone that is trying to use a fact less defence & say they are going to use it for a legal offence.
(facepalm)
then you are arguing for the same thing we are & there was a miscommunication.
now we have someone that is trying to use a fact less defence & say they are going to use it for a legal offence.
(facepalm)
This is what we know from the news article.
Paxton fought the ticket and the 14th Judicial Circuit and won.
The defendant was operating a bicycle with a helper motor (gas powered)
This vehicle does not meet the legal requirement of a motor vehicle that would require her to have a valid Florida Driver’s License.
Not self propelled is the unstated reason. Embrace it, it's your ticket to freedom.
If this is true then I'm pretty sure at this point that all you guys in Florida have to do is challenge a no license, or no registration ticket for riding a china girl style motor bicycle, and you'll win. Most likely it will never come to trial, and instead will be dismissed without comment from now on.
Paxton fought the ticket and the 14th Judicial Circuit and won.
The defendant was operating a bicycle with a helper motor (gas powered)
This vehicle does not meet the legal requirement of a motor vehicle that would require her to have a valid Florida Driver’s License.
Not self propelled is the unstated reason. Embrace it, it's your ticket to freedom.
If this is true then I'm pretty sure at this point that all you guys in Florida have to do is challenge a no license, or no registration ticket for riding a china girl style motor bicycle, and you'll win. Most likely it will never come to trial, and instead will be dismissed without comment from now on.
Last edited:
exactly Sangese took my comment to James as a comment to him.
We are in agreement there is nothing but wishful thinking and supposition that would lead anyone to conclude that whether or not the bike is self propelled was the reason for the dismissal. To try to use that as the basis of a defense could wind up being expensive