Riders and lawmakers must understand the actual regulations and intent....

[David42000]

There are plenty of places where, if a jurisdiction was forced to accept vaguely limited ebikes if they allow bicycles, they would absolutely ban both. A lot of off-road trail is in that category. You simply don't realize how tenuous bicycle access is in a lot of places, because you've never done any actual advocacy.

Banning all bikes is political suicide. It is also likely to be unconstitutional under substantive due process considerations. Your history of bike advocacy could be put to good use with this subject matter because this is all about America's history and tradition of bicycle access and usage. One cannot simply snatch away something so ingrained into the American way of life because you got mad and decided you'd take the football home so nobody can play. Any magical thinking that is going on is right here because your fear is totally divorced from legal and political reality. Mine is grounded firmly in both. I do in fact realize access is tenuous. I wish you'd likewise understand the issues people in smaller towns and in rural areas have that are poorly governed by urban access problem-solving. This is not a one-size-fits-all problem. That's why I want you to hold the winning hand. I've never been an advocate? How would you know? In fact I have been a founder in two different advocacy groups that both suceeded to some extent.

What federal laws there are about ebike definitions just govern point of sale requirements. The CPSC says nothing about use regulations, and there are tons of products that are defined in that federal statute that various state/local jurisdictions easily ban for use purposes, and that has AFAIK never been legally challenged. The 10th amendment grants states a lot of power to handle their own affairs.

You'd better grasp my view if you fully understood that CSPC regulates point-of-sale to ensure fair trade in interstate commerce. That's the federal power being exercised, here. Their jurisdiction over product safety is secondary under the necessary and proper clause. My argument falls flat if everything about an e-bike was sourced in-state, manufactured there, and sold there.

I thank you for clarifying your position. Now I see the problem. Part of the difficulty here is terminology is all over the place. Let's distinguish two concepts of "use." One involves where one can ride or operate a motor vehicle, where they can use. (Limited access highways limited to high speed motor vehicles) (Bike trails limited to bicycles/e-bikes.) But this is actually an access issue. And it is complicated by the fact that many many trails are on federal lands, and that changes the question considerably because the feds are now in charge of their own usage and access. Use issues involve rider or driver conduct (Speed limit on the limited access highway based in voluntary compliance, not a speed governor cutoff on the vehicle that defines the vehicle class) (No passing, speed limit 15 m.p.h. on bike path), how they can use. You're conflating access with use. When I say "use" (and what the law means) I am talking about self-governed conduct.

I think the idea that someone will write a congressman and have them declare all the various state and local jurisdiction ebike use laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL and setup that legal fight to be absolute magical thinking.

Maybe you just woke up and hadn't had your coffee. Just a reminder, Congressmen do not strike laws down as unconstitutional, courts do, and they have the power to do things like declare state laws unconstitutional. Secondly, I do not have any dog in the fight for state bike/ebicycle usage as long as both are about rider conduct and not redefining the product to unfairly manipulate the market. Setting up the legal fight? All the laws have been in place for some time. I never said have your congressman declare all the ebike laws unconstitutional. Your reading comprehension is not my magical thinking, friend.

I push back on this magical thinking because I have a background in advocacy (I volunteered with the local IMBA affiliate for several years), I do care about access (I ride a class 3 e-gravel and a class 1 e-mtb and want to be able to ride them both everywhere I ride my non electrics) and I think its a way of thinking that is destructive to the actual advocacy work that needs to be done.

Yes, you are correct, you do not have much legal background and that leaves you very vulnerable to a particular activist lens that is result oriented and thinks being persuasive with rhethoric is better than arguments they don't understand. Until the class action lawsuits and antitrust actions start happening, then you clap yourself on the back for the attention your activism brought even though you actively fought the public knowledge that enables those kinds of actions. The political atmosphere favors it; the Trump administration is keen to uncover fraud of the Biden Administration, and antitrust problems abound with green incentives under the 3 class system incentive programs.

After all, why build relationships with managing agencies and other user groups and work to show we can be good co-users of various infrastructure if instead we can just wave our wands and force everyone to give us what we want instead?

I have my kids Harry Potter wand around here someplace. If it works, I'll abandon advocacy of a coherent legal strategy.

Nope, didn't work. Advocate relationships are incredibly important with managing agencies precisely because infrastructure is a key issue in urban areas and would be BETTER SERVED by focusing on rider conduct, driver education, safer infrastructure and proper public education instead of confusing those things by focusing on product classification, which is preempted by the CPSC and Congress. Your activism should be supplemented by concise and accurate legal knowledge, not opposed to it and thereby hampered by that lack of understanding.

I think I want some of whatever drugs you're on.

You could just read Lewis Carroll. but it is more fun on weed, I hear.

 

[jabberwocky]

Banning all bikes is political suicide. It is also likely to be unconstitutional under substantive due process considerations.

On roads, maybe, but on trails and such it happens all the time. National Wilderness still bans all bikes, and MTBers lose access to trail pretty regularly when land is put under wilderness protection (which is frustrating because MTB advocates have been put in the position of having to fight the protection of land in order to preserve longstanding access to trail systems). Locally there are several trail systems that are partially or entirely off limits to bikes. There are lots of trail systems (like the GW National Forest near me) that allow non-electrics but zealously ban ebikes.

You're welcome to make the argument that its somehow unconstitutional, but its been the norm for decades and I am not aware of any remotely successful legal challenges. The Appalachian Trail, for example, has been around for 50 years and has always banned bikes.

Maybe you just woke up and hadn't had your coffee. Just a reminder, Congressmen do not strike laws down as unconstitutional, courts do, and they have the power to do things like declare state laws unconstitututional. Secondly, I do not have any dog in the fight for state bike/ebicycle usage as long as both are about rider conduct and not redefining the product to unfairly manipulate the market. Setting up the legal fight? All the laws have been in place for some time. I never said have your congressman declare all the ebike laws unconstitututional. Your reading comprehension is not my magical thinking, friend.

Lawsuits don't happen in a vacuum, someone at the federal level would have to a: decide that state laws defining ebikes are in conflict with the statute, b: theres a legal justification to force the state to do what they want, and c: fight the various states to overturn their laws. I'm unclear how such a fight would benefit anyone who rides ebikes. I also see zero inclination from anyone to actually start that fight. I would argue thats because there isn't actually any legal argument to do so.

Advocate relationships are incredibly important with managing agencies precisely because infrastructure is a key issue in urban areas and would be BETTER SERVED by focusing on rider conduct, driver education, safer infrastructure and proper public education

Advocacy orgs do focus on all of those things. There are limits to how much that can do.

 

[RunForTheHills]

It costs millions of dollars to challenge a law and bring it before the Supreme Court to get it ruled unconstitutional. It doesn't get ruled unconstitutional just because you write your Congressman or make a Youtube video that nobody watches, because dry legal arguments don't go viral. If you were actually a paralegal, you would know that, but I suspect that you are just a sock puppet for Ken. You write in the same manner with the same voice.

 

[David42000]

On roads, maybe, but on trails and such it happens all the time. National Wilderness still bans all bikes, and MTBers lose access to trail pretty regularly when land is put under wilderness protection (which is frustrating because MTB advocates have been put in the position of having to fight the protection of land in order to preserve longstanding access to trail systems). Locally there are several trail systems that are partially or entirely off limits to bikes. There are lots of trail systems (like the GW National Forest near me) that allow non-electrics but zealously ban ebikes.

I'm sympathetic to your concerns. But your examples involve land belonging to the federal government. I explained that they have their own primary access and use jurisdiction. My arguments do not reach there and provide no relief. However, they are near bulletproof as applied to state action, and some state trail action might be actionable. You have no need to fear state action banning bicycles to solve e-bike problems. And you should not promote that fake fright that they'll take bikes and e-bikes alike from everybody if we don't settle down in order to exploit it to your more narrowed concerns. I've got no problem if you take your concerns about federal lands and ask the feds to allow 3 class implementation to make trail classification decisions more workable. Or something similar, 3 class has technical flaws like vague wattage standard.

You're welcome to make the argument that its somehow unconstitutional, but its been the norm for decades and I am not aware of any remotely successful legal challenges. The Appalachian Trail, for example, has been around for 50 years and has always banned bikes.

Yes, my argument doesn't apply to federal lands. If a state has a bike trail rule you think is unfair, especially if they receive any federal funding for the trail, my argument might help you get it changed. You don't go clobber the forest ranger with it. You take it to the state parks or whoever administers it, and/or, if necessary, state legislators. If you can work in the Americans With Disabilities Act, you're gold. But you're probably against the disabled ruining your trail, in some ways. A five hundred pound guy on a massive OPDMD (a lot would call an e-moto, and probably would be if not in disability use) does a lot of trail damage. It shoudn't necessarily be for disabled nature sight-seeing, but some trails could be made for that. I don't blame you, might be a good point. But fixes that solve your problems go a long way toward causing mine. Why can't I buy a bike that will get me and a load of groceries up a steep hill in a semi-rural small town where there is little traffic? Because the 3 class system is well attenuated for bike trail management? If my choice is 3 class or a car, I would have to buy the car because the 3 class does not do the jobs I need it for. I did work from my ebike and trailer, handyman services and yardwork. To replace a truck in my life, my e-bike has to do work. I'd appreciate some reciprocal concern for my issues, too, please.

Lawsuits don't happen in a vacuum, someone at the federal level would have to a: decide that state laws defining ebikes are in conflict with the statute, b: theres a legal justification to force the state to do what they want, and c: fight the various states to overturn their laws. I'm unclear how such a fight would benefit anyone who rides ebikes. I also see zero inclination from anyone to actually start that fight. I would argue thats because there isn't actually any legal argument to do so.

But you don't really understand law....State attorneys general can look into antitrust issues, too, they are duty bound to protect their consumers. But you're right, the people in power must be approached. it won't happen by thinking about it.

Advocacy orgs do focus on all of those things. There are limits to how much that can do.

I'm not sure why you find that opinion meaningful when you don't understand the legal problem. I was suggesting that you focus on those things, since you're the advocate oriented guy.

 

[David42000]

It costs millions of dollars to challenge a law and bring it before the Supreme Court to get it ruled unconstitutional. It doesn't get ruled unconstitutional just because you write your Congressman or make a Youtube video that nobody watches, because dry legal arguments don't go viral. If you were actually a paralegal, you would know that, but I suspect that you are just a sock puppet for Ken. You write in the same manner with the same voice.

KEN does not write like this (Context, Jabberwocky throwing Quixotic smartsy comments around):

"As if any rational person would expect me to take you seriously. I see you have chosen the path of..... FUN!!!
Mine command unto thee, most worthy surrogate leader, thou namedest Jabberwocky Focke-Wolfe¡ Quoteth I. "¡Arre! Rocinante!" Sadly, perhaps "¡Quieto! Rocinante," in your worldview.

wait...yeah you almost got me with a real zinger...just kidding... name calling is the only distraction you got, good friend? Left flank, 45 battles won, war lost. I promise you my camp is honorable and your surrender will be treated with dignity, evidence of windmill defense: not mentioned in official reports.

Part 1, Chapter XX "As it is so, Sancho, and as Rocinante cannot move, I am content to wait till dawn smiles upon us,...""

Ken most certainly does not write like that.
But accusations of sock puppetry are inevitable from people who could not maintain conversation on the subject matter and start in with the ad hominems. Boring.

PeopleForBikes makes YouTube videos that no-one watches, or at least get zero likes. Why do they do it? Writing Congressmen is about stopping the Safe Speeds Act in Congress, or causing an antitrust investigation, not about getting a law ruled unconstitutional. Any point in video making would not be in hopes of becoming an influencer. Just to be able to point to concise, correct information. Law does not have to be dry and boring, not everyone is stuck with Al Gore's sense of tone and inflection or lack of humor, and a number of YouTube lawyers are known for being able to work a warm friendly and sometimes fuinny tone into it. You have no business deciding whether I can make information entertaining. In fact, I have given serious consideration to it and have written some pretty hilarious satires. I've played in rock bands and played roles on the stage. I'm no entertainment dullard and have good presence. The reason humor isn;t very prevalent in the profession is becasue it is dangerous if it falls flat. Best not to risk it, and it's generally seen as unprofessional unless it is highly crafted. That is not easy to do, although Lawyers for the Onion told the Supreme Court that they were Latin dorks and pulled it off beautifully:

"Tu stultus es. You are dumb. These three Latin words have been The Onion’s motto and guiding light since it was founded in 1988 as America’s Finest News Source, leading its writers toward the paper’s singular purpose of pointing out that its readers are deeply gullible people.The Onion’s motto is central to this brief for two important reasons. First, it’s Latin. And The Onion knows that the federal judiciary is staffed entirely by total Latin dorks: They quote Catullus in the original Latin in chambers. They sweetly whisper “stare decisis” into their spouses’ ears. They mutter “cui bono” under their breath while picking up after their neighbors’ dogs. So The Onion knew that, unless it pointed to a suitably Latin rallying cry, its brief would be operating far outside the Court’s vernacular." amicus brief in Novak v. City of Parma.

And yeah, I know things like that because I am a paralegal.
Tu stultus es.