I’m internally laughing at the thought of calling an insurance agent to get a policy quote for an ebike, an object which: 1) does not have a VIN or even a standardized serial number structure, 2) has no precedence in the retail insurance market, meaning no “form” policies are available from any of the large insurance carriers, and 3) would require an entire new type of insurance policy to be approved by the New Jersey Division of Insurance. And unless that Division is somehow faster than the equivalent here in California, that would be a months-long process before any insurance policy could be issued for an e bike, of the sort that covers whatever NJ requires motor vehicles to have.

My point is, this is patently absurd and I would expect someone to make the legitimate argument that it’s impossible to comply with because no insurer in New Jersey will underwrite the necessary insurance policy.

As a related comparison in a very different field, in response to the gun violence epidemic, some municipalities in California enacted laws to mandate liability insurance for gun owners. Setting aside the legal challenges against these laws premised by US Const 2nd Amendment, one aspect which has not been substantially challenged is the availability of insurance. This is because such mandates can be met in two ways: a standalone gun liability policy, or as a rider to one’s homeowner or renter insurance policy. So from day 1, the law could be met through the rider process, since insurance riders extend coverage that the main policy already provides (ie liability coverage for third-party injuries at one’s home).

Whereas this NJ bill purports to require a motor-vehicle insurance policy but basically all “form” insurance policies use their own definition of motor vehicle – you can’t insure a motorboat using an automobile policy, after all. Unless NJ has some wonky insurance compared to California, I suspect that all NJ automobile policies cannot, by their own text, insure an ebike, without edits from the underwriting department of each insurer and from the state division.

There’s a good argument that when a law requires an impossibility, that law itself is invalid, rather than being allowed to function as an indirect ban on the topic being restricted. But this would only serve to rack up billable hours for lawyers to argue in court.

Bad bills should not be enacted in the first place, and this is definitely a bad bill, even without the insurance policy madness that would likely result.

instead of recognizing them as a safe, sustainable alternative to cars, the bill reclassifies them as ​“motorized bicycles” and imposes requirements usually reserved for motor vehicles. If signed into law, NJ would require operators of low-speed e-bikes to hold a driver’s license, register their bikes with the Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC), and carry insurance.

That’s just wild. As in: the legislators seem to have gone feral. Does anyone know their reasons, or does the mention of “lame duck” imply it slipped through something like the “washing up” at the end of a Westminster session, with the parties doing deals about what to pass unchallenged?

deleted by creator