https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle_laws#United_S...
CPSC rules stipulate that low speed electric bicycles are exempt from classification as motor vehicles providing they have fully operable pedals, an electric motor of less than 750W (1 hp), and a top motor-powered speed of less than 20 miles per hour (32 km/h) when operated by a rider weighing 170 pounds
You're right that Seattle should've taken the time to actually repeal the helmet law. Your comparison of riding helmetless while cycling compared to a motor cycle is a bit much though don't you think? Seat belt laws have much stronger evidence in their favor. Helmet laws are not a panacea for cycling safety and could actually be harmful to both cyclists and to the general population.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/06/02/why-helmets-arent-the...
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/11/10/more-evidence-that-he...
This anti VC angle you're taking is bizarre. How does increased access to transportation not benefit the public?
I don’t mind if investors make money. I mind when they circumvent our laws and endanger the public to do so.
I also admit to some ignorance about e-bikes which has now been cleared up by you and sibling commenters.
My comparison to motorcycle helmet laws and seat belt laws was just to reinforce that if we are going to selectively enforce the bicycle helmet law we should just repeal it because it’s clearly not as important as motorcycle helmets or car seat belts.
I have been following the story of bike share in Seattle. It's a shame that Pronto and Motivate lost the contract.
In Seattle you have to wear seatbelts in cars and helmets on motorcycles and bicycles. In the case of bike shares and e-bikes we seem to just ignore those rules. If we can ignore them in one case why not ignore them in all cases?
It strikes me as a double standard that benefits venture capitalists more than the public.