"STOP THE INSANITY"...?

He's an idiot. That part is being sold for a KLX650,the customer asked it that way, if he would of asked it for the kx65, I could see their point, I'd say it's fine to sell it.


Lack of interpretation of the law will make it worse than it is.

I believe it Dave O. since a few parts from an 85 can fit on a bigger bikes.

Prob got some dealers scared to death of being prosecuted even if it's on the up and up.

What I don't understand, why are there exclusions to this law (bicycles, sling shots, kites, sporting goods, R/C vehicles, musical equipment, ect....) but motorcycles and ATV's are not excluded.

Did the AMA fail us on this?

Does the SSA (Sling Shooters of America) have a bigger lobby than the AMA?

Can someone answer why this became public knowledge (MX websites) just a week ago?


BTW......I don't think there actually is a Sling Shooters of America.

Bicycles are included. Bike shops can not sell bikes to kids under 13 currently

Bullshit. Neither bicycles nor motorcycles are affected by the law.

Thats not what the lawyers at Honda and QBP think. If our main distributor tells me to pull the bicycles and product from our shelves, I believe them. We're all terrified of getting involved in fines when we are all already struggling.

I know the person and the shop this happened at. It is not BS.

I hope there are some clear lines in this regarding moto. I have known about the kids' product thing for a long while. I was fine with it being a felony for me to have a rummage sale, but WTF? Tomorrow, my boy is riding at the Sandbox Arena in New Richmond and per the law, he should not be?

The shop I bought some new gloves and a neck brace at today was still selling minibikes. I asked them about this and their response was "We don't think it applies to us."

Once enough people realize how asinine it is to write a law like this in such broad language, I think a lot of industries' lobbying bodies will get it changed or clarified.

The exclusion is for phthalates not for lead. so motorcycles could probably contain phthalates but lead isn't given an exemption so the point is mute, unless of course you have a motorcycle that doesn't contain lead in any accessable part--say all lead was limited to inner motor parts that a child couldn't touch.

So are you saying that the OEM lawyers are just being overly cautious?

If so, then the AMA should step in and call foul. Something stinks about all of this, it just doesn't make any sense.

It seems we're either getting screwed by this law, or the OEM lawyers, or the lack of support by the AMA. Either way we're getting screwed!

Wk, with all due respect, you are the only individual on the planet I have heard saying that motorcycles are exempt.

Not pointing any fingers, but I think the appropriate people at the AMA would be:


Vice President: Edward Moreland:
emoreland@ama-cycle.org
(Edward Moreland, AMA vice president for government relations)

Director of State Affairs: Sean Maher smaher@ama-cycle.org

To bad we have a list of parts we can't sell no matter what bike it is for.

If I go to order that part it will not allow me!

So he isn't an idiot just to clarify!

Kids under 13 actually walk into a dealer and plunk down 4 grand for a 85?

Im short. An 85 is almost too big for me. Can I buy one? Or am I not old enough?

They can't be sold period!!!!

If a part fits 15 other bikes but still fits a 13 and under motorcyle or atv it is on the shelf and can't be sold.

I think internal engine parts are exempt but everything else your SOL!

I call Bullshit! the klx 650 has a push/pull throttle a 65 only pull . The part numbers I find are different.

update from bicycleretailer.com

BETHESDA, MD (BRAIN)—The Consumer Product Safety Commission on Friday denied a petition to push back a rule that limits the amount of lead in children’s products, but a request for relief specific to the bicycle industry is still pending.

As part of the Consumer Product Safety Information Act, a strict new rule is scheduled to go into effect tomorrow that limits the amount of lead in children’s products, including bikes, to 600 parts per million.

The National Association of Manufacturers filed a petition last week asking the commission to stay the rule for six months due to the lead limit potential to “effectuate a massive economic dislocation.”

The Commission voted 2-0 against the request, saying it doesn’t have the authority to delay the effective date of a law and that Congress must make that decision.

However, that’s not the case with the BPSA request, said Bob Burns, head of BPSA’s legislative committee.

“The difference between the NAM petition and the BPSA petition is, first, the CPSC did not have the statutory authority to grant the NAM petition and it does have the statutory authority to grant the BPSA petition. Second, the BPSA petition is based on sound toxicology that any lead that may be present in a brass alloy on a children’s bike does not pose a danger of lead poisoning to a child. I believe the BPSA’s is the first petition to be filed with supporting toxicology,” Burns said.

Some components in children’s bikes like capped valve stems, contain lead in excess of 600 parts per million.

The BPSA is asking for temporary relief from the rule because the parts in question contain less lead that what’s permitted in the European Union’s RoHS Directive, which restricts the use of hazardous materials in electrical and electronic equipment.

Burns said he is cautiously optimistic that the Commission will OK the petition—on Friday it granted an exclusion for the electronics industry based on the same evidence the BPSA used—but doesn’t expect to have an answer by tomorrow’s deadline.

But, on Friday, the Commission issued its enforcement policy for the lead limits that should provide very helpful guidance to the industry as Tuesday’s deadline approaches, Burns said.

The policy says that the Commission will “accept a manufacturer’s determination that a lead-containing part on their product is inaccessible to a child and not subject to the new lead limits, if it is consistent with the Commission’s proposed guidance or is based on a reasonable reading of the inaccessibility requirement.”

The policy will stand until the Commission rules otherwise.

Also on Friday, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) introduced a bill that would delay the CPSIA for six months and allow small manufacturers to use testing and certification of lead levels from their component suppliers instead of paying for expensive third party tests. The Commission already pushed back the third party testing deadline by one year, to Feb. 10, 2010.

—Nicole Formosa

Can you expand/ confirm this?