Chair Abreu asks about transition away from >20 mph devices

I know that the administration shares my goal of getting fast, dangerous devices off our streets.

According to the recently released Vision Zero Reimagined report, one of the administration's micromobility priorities is to transition New Yorkers and delivery workers away from devices capable of traveling more than 20 miles per hour.

My first question is, and this is for Department of Transportation, do you think that any citywide effort to transition away from the use of devices capable of going faster than 20 miles per hour would have to involve

an eventual ban on the operation of Class 3 e-bikes in New York City?

Thank you, Chair.

So I guess I would start by pointing out that there are devices, two-wheel devices capable of going over 20 that already are legal in our city, like mopeds.

They're regulated differently.

So I think, like I mentioned earlier, we want to look at a more holistic approach to how we classify, and honestly, a simpler and clearer approach, because as you mentioned,

visually or even just otherwise, right, even the chart in my testimony, it's complicated.

So as we mentioned in Vision Zero Reimagined, we do want to pursue state legislation that would clarify it.

But in the meantime, we feel that restricting the sale and rental of Class 3 e-bikes makes a lot of sense to help transition.

So an eventual banning on Class 3 is not something that the admin is willing to do.

I mean, I've heard from advocates 20 is plenty.

These devices go up to 25 miles per hour, the legislation being considered.

Would have an eventual transition away for two years, which is normally the life of a ban.

I understand you're pursuing state legislation, which if we went through state legislation, it would require a class three device to be registered.

Is that correct?

If they were to be changed, yeah, in that way.

So is it fair to say the administration supports registration of Class 3 bikes pursuant to state legislation?

I think there's a lot of discussions.

I mean, that is the movement.

If you do Class 3, it would have to be registered.

If I may, there's a lot of discussions with stakeholders, legislators, advocates, and analysis, frankly, to understand what's the best approach.

I'm not suggesting a specific approach.

I was just giving the example that Class 3 e-bikes are only one piece of the puzzle.

But, you know, certainly we want an approach that puts safety front and center.

That would be the number one priority, and that would drive it.

I think we're still, you know...

With the specific bill, I think we would need more time to analyze the specifics, connect with stakeholders, and understand the impacts because the impacts would be significant.

And even if we were to assume that these, even if, just for the sake of argument, if the administration did support a class three registration pursuant to state legislation, these devices,

cannot be registered because they have no VIN numbers.

Do you recognize that?

Yeah, this would be a more comprehensive change to regulatory structures.

So given that difficulty, if we are saying that we need to transition away from devices that are 20 miles per hour, is the administration willing to leave anywhere between 60,000 to 100,000

class 3 bikes on our streets even though they're dangerous?

No, we absolutely support the intent to cycle those out of the market.

Well, the intent is to ban them within an eventual time period that actually works.

That gives enough workers the time to save for a new bike, but also making sure that we're getting these dangerous devices off our streets.

And if 20 is plenty, is the mayor's position that 25 is plenty?

So I think I think you're gonna say 20 is plenty 20 is plenty we do support the intent I think these are the kinds of discussions we'd like to have with the council and with other stakeholders before I turn over my colleagues for questions I know there have been you know conversations about