Tucson, AZ, ban on ebikes riding the Loop

[Ken M]

I actaully think now this is just a mis-understood policy. I think the actual policy bans gas powered motorized bicycles and not compliant LSEBs.

Is there anyone that can confirm the PIMA County ban is truly directed to compliant LSEBs? A lot of people still consider an LSEB a motorized vehicle and that leads to regulation confusion.

 

[jabberwocky]

I actaully think now this is just a mis-understood policy. I think the actual policy bans gas powered motorized bicycles and not compliant LSEBs.

Is there anyone that can confirm the PIMA County ban is truly directed to compliant LSEBs? A lot of people still consider an LSEB a motorized vehicle and that leads to regulation confusion.

From the Pima County page on the loop (bolding mine):

Can I ride my motorcycle or electric bike on the Loop?​

No. The Loop is a multi-use path and is heavily used by pedestrians; therefore, for safety purposes, no motorized vehicles or devices are allowed. (ADA accessibility and official vehicles are exempt.)

The Loop moves between the city of Tucson, Marana, Oro Valley and unincorporated sections at various locations along the path. In September 2018, the city passed an ordinance, #11582, relating to electric bicycles. The ordinance permits riding an electric bicycle on shared-use paths under the jurisdiction of the city of Tucson. However, the sections of the Loop within the City of Tucson incorporated limits and in unincorporated Pima County are under the management authority of Pima County and the Pima County Regional Flood Control District and the use of electric bikes on the path is prohibited as declared on our Loop Guideline signage.

In addition, Arizona Revised Statute 28-819 addresses electric bicycles and electric standup scooters. It notes that an operator of an electric bicycle is granted all the rights and privileges and is subject to all of the duties of a person riding a bicycle. However, it also states that "A local authority or agency of this state having jurisdiction over a bicycle or multiuse path may prohibit the operation of a class 1 electric bicycle or class 2 electric bicycle on the path." That is what Pima County has chosen to do for the safety of all users.

Applying this guideline for all stretches of the Loop retains a level of needed consistency and promotes the safety and well-being of all users. Equally, for safety purposes, this guideline applies to any and all motorized or artificially-propelled devices (ebikes, scooters, hover boards, skateboards, etc.). Pima County is working toward proposing a comprehensive County Ordinance that would prohibit motorized vehicle or device use on any stretch of The Loop. Meanwhile, those who choose to violate the rule are at risk of being cited in violation of the current adopted Pima County Park Rule 1.070 (a Class 2 misdemeanor) and also knowingly accept the liability associated with any accident between a motorized vehicle or device user (illegal) and a non-motorized (legal) user of the Loop.

As is usually the case, the state laws that define electric bikes and allow their use have a carveout for local jurisdictions to override that, and they decided to do that in this case.

 

[jabberwocky]

Makes no sense that the city of Tucson defines all CPSC compliant ebikes as bikes and yet the PIMA county officials ignore that.

It looks like a MUP/rail trail, so while it runs through the city (which allows ebikes) it is managed by someone else (in this case the surrounding/adjacent county) who has decided not to allow them. Not an unusual situation. I can think of several MUPs near me that are similar. The W&OD, for example, is a popular rail trail near my house that runs through multiple counties/cities (Loudoun, Fairfax and Arlington Counties and the city of Falls Church) but is actually managed by NOVA Parks, which is a multi-county park agency that manages a lot of parkland in Northern Virginia.

Does anyone even understand how something like this happens? It's a if these decisions are made in a vacuum.

I can only speculate, but if the trail already has speed conflict issues and managers field a lot of complaints against "speeding cyclists" (they have a whole section in the FAQ about it, so it seems reasonably likely), saying "lets add bikes that have motors and go even faster" can seem like a bad idea and banning them saving yourself future headaches.

Or there is a local advocacy group (hiking, equestrian, cycling) that has influence that pushed for a ban. Or the person at the managing agency making the decision just hates electric bikes. Someone plugged into the local advocacy scene would probably be able to give a more comprehensive answer, but its likely a mix of things.

Undoing it is gonna take some locals to step up and do the work to change minds.

 

[rawlus]

don’t they know the CPSC says a bike is a bike? Don’t they know the lawmakers are spandex weenies who don’t know anything? I suspect people for bikes is behind all of this….

 

[Ken M]

The PIMA Path restrictions sure seem to be focused on "motorized" bikes which by fed./state/city definition compliant ebikes are not. I don't think any CPSC compliant ebike is banned from that path. Maybe some think they are but I don't see anything explicit in the local regulation that makes it so.

The fact that FAQ states that electric bicycles are not allowed is NOT the law. That was likely written by someone with little real knowledge of the regulation that was asked to generate an FAQ section for the local website. That has no merit to what is the actual regulation.

 

[Ken M]

From the Pima County page on the loop (bolding mine):



As is usually the case, the state laws that define electric bikes and allow their use have a carveout for local jurisdictions to override that, and they decided to do that in this case.

This is just an FAQ.... the answer has no legal standing. What matters is the language of the actual laws and everyone seems to be just interpreting at will.

Can I ride my motorcycle or electric bike on the Loop?​

 

[Ken M]

don’t they know the CPSC says a bike is a bike? Don’t they know the lawmakers are spandex weenies who don’t know anything? I suspect people for bikes is behind all of this….

The feds are not the "spandex weenies" (I typically use the more common term "spandexters") - I believe that term is typically reserved for those at People for Bikes that love their 3-Class model legislation. But even People for Bikes has many statements on their site saying a bike is a bike - they just didn't stand behind that when they parsed the classes for no tangible reason.

 

[J.R.]

Is calling it "nonsensical" policy really going to hurt an effort to change it? Any effort to get it changed is by default saying that is how it is viewed by those promoting the change. By now there is plenty of awareness of ebikes and their close similarity to traditional bikes that these policies shouldn't happen. My view is that compliant LSEBs are defined as a bike. That is what the federal definition has been since 2002 so it's time to expect the states and local governments to accept that or they should do the work to change it.

You do as you always do. You edited your posts after I commented about you calling people dumb, and yet you couldn't even get it all. You only need to see the time of my post and the time of your edits. Really sad. If I was a local to this trail I'd be seriously concerned about the message you left to officials. You can't edit that.

Most of these managers and advisory board members are volunteers. They are the same people that are at every volunteer event, picking up trash, planting trees, working with the scouts erecting picnic tables. They love the land and these public spaces. They aren't just banging away on a keyboard in the basement. These are the people building a legacy for the community that will be enjoyed by our children, grandchildren and their children. Massive projects like this path don't just happen, they don't maintain themselves. They require an army of volunteers and a boatload of donations. I know because I'm involved and I have met them.

All your spin and conspiracy theories are seriously tinfoil hat territory. Get out of the basement and meet these people.

 

[Sparky731]

You do as you always do. You edited your posts after I commented about you calling people dumb, and yet you couldn't even get it all. You only need to see the time of my post and the time of your edits. Really sad. If I was a local to this trail I'd be seriously concerned about the message you left to officials. You can't edit that.

Most of these managers and advisory board members are volunteers. They are the same people that are at every volunteer event, picking up trash, planting trees, working with the scouts erecting picnic tables. They love the land and these public spaces. They aren't just banging away on a keyboard in the basement. These are the people building a legacy for the community that will be enjoyed by our children, grandchildren and their children. Massive projects like this path don't just happen, they don't maintain themselves. They require an army of volunteers and a boatload of donations. I know because I'm involved and I have met them.

All your spin and conspiracy theories are seriously tinfoil hat territory. Get out of the basement and meet these people.

Agree, J. R. The best way to effect change is from within. Volunteering is the most gratifying way to do so. Every time I ride the many magnificent trails, paths and byways available to us bike junkies, I say a genuine thank you to all who have made them, maintain them and continue to build new ones. Let’s all do our share.

 

[Ken M]

You do as you always do. You edited your posts after I commented about you calling people dumb, and yet you couldn't even get it all. You only need to see the time of my post and the time of your edits. Really sad. If I was a local to this trail I'd be seriously concerned about the message you left to officials. You can't edit that.

Most of these managers and advisory board members are volunteers. They are the same people that are at every volunteer event, picking up trash, planting trees, working with the scouts erecting picnic tables. They love the land and these public spaces. They aren't just banging away on a keyboard in the basement. These are the people building a legacy for the community that will be enjoyed by our children, grandchildren and their children. Massive projects like this path don't just happen, they don't maintain themselves. They require an army of volunteers and a boatload of donations. I know because I'm involved and I have met them.

All your spin and conspiracy theories are seriously tinfoil hat territory. Get out of the basement and meet these people.

Never did get your answer on if you work at People for Bikes. It's a yes / no question.

Do I think it would be dumb if some counties around the Pima loop have actually banned compliant ebikes? Yes I do and I see not a single person on this thread supporting the opposite view. So it would be good policy if they writers picked up trash, planted some trees, installed some picnic tables? No, bad policy is bad policy and it can sometimes come from really good people but in isolation a few counties banning all ebikes from a paved MUP like this is "dumb" ... I don't have a better word to use. But like I have written, I think the ?ban? is just a mis-interpretation of the policy because someone views the FAQ as legit law.

When I lived in Boulder Colorado I did a lot of volunteer work on trail maintenance (was probably 90% erosion issues and not caused by bikes vs hikers or horse riders). I would still be doing that but at 60 I spend more time riding urban commute infrastructure so I care more about ebike utility for transportation than I worry about if acceptable to some local trail manager that has the power to ban all bikes if there is really a safety concern). I respect that trail managers have concerns about ebike speeds but there are simply better ways to deal with that concern than assist cut-offs as advocated by People for Bikes. I don't find much merit in the trail manager argument that ebikes allow bikers to achieve a higher average speed when all bikes going down even a mild slope can significantly exceed 20mph. I fine if someone calls me dumb but I'm expressing my views and I hope 3-Class does get preempted by the CPSC (anyone that cares about the future of ebikes for urban mobility should).

Why don't you and I openly debate the merits of the HR727 LSEB definition vs the People for Bikes 3-Class policy?

 

[Sparky731]

The first one who gets stopped and/or ticketed for riding your ebike vs an acoustic bike on ANY trail (trail pass permits not withstanding), please raise your hand!

 

[Ken M]

The first one who gets stopped and/or ticketed for riding your ebike vs an acoustic bike on ANY trail (trail pass permits not withstanding), please raise your hand!

I agree..... but the absence of enforcement should not be viewed as an invite to ride "illegally." The liability of hurting someone on an illegal / non-compliant ebike can put all your assets at risk - essentially it's no different than driving an illegal / unregistered vehicle.

This risk also applies to excessive speeding on trails if a speed limit is posted. So many on these forums keep praising the Class 1 assist limit of 20mph as being the reason they are allowed on many trails but the assist limit does not prevent the ebike from going faster and there are liability risks to going faster. That is why MUP path speeds are best controlled via speed limits....they may be lax to enforce them but the liability that comes with riding too fast or on an illegal ebike is self-regulating for most of us rational riders. Some people think the only way to control it all is by wrapping their arms around the 3-class legislation which I am a broken record on saying it's nonsensical legislation and will eventually lead to insurance and registration requirements on Class 3 ebikes as happened in Europe (it's guaranteed to happen in my opinion but it's just an opinion....European riders didn't think it would happen there and now that it's in place it's very hard to remove because the insurance lobby has cash flow to finance the lobby efforts to pay off the law makers. Now Europe is stuck with 15mph assist cut-offs even though they need more people out of cars. I'm not allowed to call the EU law makers dumb, so I'll just say they really weren't clear headed when they wrote their ebike laws.

 

[jabberwocky]

This is just an FAQ.... the answer has no legal standing. What matters is the language of the actual laws and everyone seems to be just interpreting at will.

Can I ride my motorcycle or electric bike on the Loop?​

As is often the case with MUPs, it appears to basically be managed as a local (county) park. So its not really a "law" thing, the rules are what the local managers say they are, and they are free to prohibit things that are perfectly legal elsewhere. As has been explained to you, like, a billion times at this point, local management of land/park resources is the norm in the US. Every state law I've seen defining and legalizing ebikes (3 class or not) still has a "local jurisdictions can ban these" carveout.

 

[rawlus]

As is often the case with MUPs, it appears to basically be managed as a local (county) park. So its not really a "law" thing, the rules are what the local managers say they are, and they are free to prohibit things that are perfectly legal elsewhere. As has been explained to you, like, a billion times at this point, local management of land/park resources is the norm in the US. Every state law I've seen defining and legalizing ebikes (3 class or not) still has a "local jurisdictions can ban these" carveout.

indeed and it’s not merely a carve out for ebike prohibition, it’s a carveout for all sorts of using…. disallowing swimming at beaches for whatever reason, prohibiting bikes, ebikes, horses, pedestrians, etc. we have entire beaches closed here all the time for nesting shorebird seasons…. the country is built upon the idea that the people who live there have input on the rules at a very local level as opposed to a federal rule…. this was a reaction to british rule back in the day.., so while feds make some laws, states can make others, communities others still and even neighborhood groups, HOAs, etc can even further regulate if they so choose. The CSPC is NEVER consulted in any of these things because frankly, it has nothing to do with them. CPSC has zero jurisdiction in these matters,

and it seems to work.

 

[Ken M]

indeed and it’s not merely a carve out for ebike prohibition, it’s a carveout for all sorts of using…. disallowing swimming at beaches for whatever reason, prohibiting bikes, ebikes, horses, pedestrians, etc. we have entire beaches closed here all the time for nesting shorebird seasons…. the country is built upon the idea that the people who live there have input on the rules at a very local level as opposed to a federal rule…. this was a reaction to british rule back in the day.., so while feds make some laws, states can make others, communities others still and even neighborhood groups, HOAs, etc can even further regulate if they so choose. The CSPC is NEVER consulted in any of these things because frankly, it has nothing to do with them. CPSC has zero jurisdiction in these matters,

and it seems to work.

I agree with both you and Jabberwocky but you both miss the point that the feds define what is legal for sale in all 50 states. They constitutionally own interstate commerce. There are rules to what the states can do when trying to define a product that is already regulated by the safety agencies.

The vast majority of the products we buy in this country are defined by the feds and the states and local municipalities control "use" of those products. My opinion is that the the local government agencies do not have the power to just change whatever specs they want on a regulated product. We are not really talking in the same context.

Per your opinions a county could ban motorcycles from 400 to 600cc and allow below and above that and I don't think they can. I think they have to accept the feds definition of what a motorcycle is and decide if they are legal to use in that county or state. They can ban them all but my guess is that would result in a big election shake-up like banning all bikes would.

 

[Phil Agur]

Recently Kyle Chittock of Bolton Ebikes recorded a video describing the ebike ban Pima County have on the Chuck Huckleberry Loop, 136 miles of paved shared use paths and bicycle lanes that encircles Tucson, AZ. The local ban is despite Arizona having adopted the People for Bikes model ebike legislation that permits Class 1 and 2 ebikes to ride wherever pedal bicycles can ride. I have visited the Tucson area twice in recent years where my aunt lives on a senior retirement community, and I have observed how battery electric vehicles are very popular among seniors and the disabled in her community, and among students on the University of Arizona campus downtown, to get around for fitness, recreation, and transportation. If you feel so moved please consider offering feedback on the ebike ban using this form.

We did not keep our eBike laws compatible with decades of civil engineering applied during the creation of multi-use trails. The clash this creates surfaces in multiple jurisdictions across the country. If you told most of the multi-use trail riders here's a class eBike that will always be allowed we'd move to that. Now someone looking to start riding multi-use trails walks into an eBike store and they are likely to walk out never knowing the type designation of their eBike. Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 all fall outside what a civil engineer would consider appropriate. Oddly the Euro 250 watt 25 KPH does not.

 

[Ken M]

We did not keep our eBike laws compatible with decades of civil engineering applied during the creation of multi-use trails. The clash this creates surfaces in multiple jurisdictions across the country. If you told most of the multi-use trail riders here's a class eBike that will always be allowed we'd move to that. Now someone looking to start riding multi-use trails walks into an eBike store and they are likely to walk out never knowing the type designation of their eBike. Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 all fall outside what a civil engineer would consider appropriate. Oddly the Euro 250 watt 25 KPH does not.

Wow. So you make it sound like the only way ebike engineering can be brought in-line with decades of civil engineering of multi-use paths is to neuter ebikes to the EU 250W and 15mph. There is no reason a CPSC compliant LSEB can not be ridden safety on a multi-use path just as traditional bikes can be. 99% of riders understand that when there are pedestrians using the same path you must ride at a safe speed for yourself and for them. People don't usually walk much faster going down a hill but bikes (both electric and non) can go much faster so that is a risk not addressed at all by your suggestion to go with EU performance limits on ebikes.

Note: I'm no fan of the 3-class legislation...in my opinion the definition in the 2002 HR727 for a "Low Speed Electric Bicycle" (LSEB) is a better specification (one class with power limited above 20mph per the constraints).

For the most part the EU separated out lower speed ebikes and speed pedelecs so they could extract registration and insurance fees from speed pedelec riders and it's hurt the adoption rate or urban mobiliy ebikes in Europe.

I would like to hear one civil engineer explain why a CPSC compliant LSEB is not appropriate for a paved surface multi-use path. You make some interesting claims but they have no basis in reality.

There will always exist a "risk" of biker and pedestrian safety issues on multi-use paths and slowing ebikes is not going to do anything to solve that (keep in mind most good road bike riders can sustain over 30mph for at least some reasonable distance).

Are you a local trail manager trying to defend local decisions on a path like the loop that make no sense?

 

[TrailSeeker]

I really like both arguments here... This is classic state rights vs big government intervention.

I want to say that I see both sides of the coin - and the ebike community needs to grow in order to force municipalities to make consequential decisions on this issue. For now, numbers are too low (though growing fast) for city officials to prioritize this issue.

Outreach is important, for more long-term success and to promote growth. But as far as regulations are concerned - I think push back is important in order for officials to value our side of the story. A lot of times officials go with the "path of least resistance".

My arguments would be why they ban skateboards but not regular bikes? And then use that same logic to ask why they think an ebike is so different from a bicycle.. it sounds like they have a lot of bias in what they decided to allow and have never had experience with most of these...if you can make them see the fallacy of a blanket term, and how it actually discriminates against ebike users, it would force some debate. I don't think it will change anything though - but might lead to some compromise.

Also, the biggest hole in their argument is we are banning ebikes everywhere, because it's consistent more or less. This doesn't pass the safety litmus test - if they are allowing ebikes now in Tucson. They are saying 2 contradictory statements.. how can ebikes be safe to use here in the city but not on the city's bike path? Why are we applying city laws in bits and pieces?? It's not a very sound reason to forgo their own city laws allowing bikes in the tuscon city, just to keep "consistency" with a completely different city's law... how does that equate to safety?

Edit: I just wanted to say that it's ultimately In their jurisdiction and as the owners they have the right to make the bylaws to these things. But my point is we need to show them that they can't hide with a PR "it's safer" campaign. We have to require more dialog with them so that they know there is enough of an ebike lobby to warrant a debate. Otherwise, we will sadly loose the local / state / and national conversation on this issue.

Edit 2: sorry last one. I wanted to say as ebikes gain traction and more people become familiar with them (similar to what was shared above) - that also will help our case in showing how FUN and SAFE ebikes are .

 

[Ken M]

I really like both arguments here... This is classic state rights vs big government intervention.

I want to say that I see both sides of the coin - and the ebike community needs to grow in order to force municipalities to make consequential decisions on this issue. For now, numbers are too low (though growing fast) for city officials to prioritize this issue.

Outreach is important, for more long-term success and to promote growth. But as far as regulations are concerned - I think push back is important in order for officials to value our side of the story. A lot of times officials go with the "path of least resistance".

My arguments would be why they ban skateboards but not regular bikes? And then use that same logic to ask why they think an ebike is so different from a bicycle.. it sounds like they have a lot of bias in what they decided to allow and have never had experience with most of these...if you can make them see the fallacy of a blanket term, and how it actually discriminates against ebike users, it would force some debate. I don't think it will change anything though - but might lead to some compromise.

Also, the biggest hole in their argument is we are banning ebikes everywhere, because it's consistent more or less. This doesn't pass the safety litmus test - if they are allowing ebikes now in Tucson. They are saying 2 contradictory statements.. how can ebikes be safe to use here in the city but not on the city's bike path? Why are we applying city laws in bits and pieces?? It's not a very sound reason to forgo their own city laws allowing bikes in the tuscon city, just to keep "consistency" with a completely different city's law... how does that equate to safety?

Edit: I just wanted to say that it's ultimately In their jurisdiction and as the owners they have the right to make the bylaws to these things. But my point is we need to show them that they can't hide with a PR "it's safer" campaign. We have to require more dialog with them so that they know there is enough of an ebike lobby to warrant a debate. Otherwise, we will sadly loose the local / state / and national conversation on this issue.

Edit 2: sorry last one. I wanted to say as ebikes gain traction and more people become familiar with them (similar to what was shared above) - that also will help our case in showing how FUN and SAFE ebikes are .

We need the federal definitions for products so we can buy say a car in one states and it's legal to drive in all / most states. The state do own "use" rights but we do not want them controlling 1st sale or we could end up with 50 different definitions of what a bike / ebike is (ie different assist and power limits, some states requiring a horn or lights and other not installed by the manufacturer at 1st sale, etc.).

Bikes were one of the very first products regulated / defined by the CPSC. The states have always just stuck to "use" / traffic regulating bikes. Years ago some states tried to require lights to be installed on all bikes prior to entry into interstate commerce. The CPSC informed the states that they would preempt any effort to require lights at 1st sale but they informed the states they could require lights as a use requirement for night riding. This should help everyone understand the problem with the 3-class legislation. It has 4 requirements prior to entry into interstate commerce (programming to set assist limits, class labeling, ebrakes, and speedometers on class 3) which are not CPSC requirements and they own compliance for 1st sale. People for Bikes and the states went about this all wrong in my opinion and the 3-class legislation should be preempted. It's complex only because some want to make this another battle of fed vs state rights but on products the feds were granted a constitutional enumerated right to control interstate commerce so there really should be no debate.

The worse part of all this in my opinion is that 3-class legislation claimed to provide clarity and improved safety vs the HR727 definition of a compliant "low speed electric bicycle" (LSEB) which is fundamentally not true (where is the data to make these claims and just look at the subjective way states go about use allowance of the classes). An LSEB is defined in HR727 (a federal law bill) as a just a bike so in my opinion it should be "use" regulated by the states as a bike (they are specifically not a motor vehicle so parsing by motor performance makes no sense even though they do clearly have motors).

Very few people will take the time just to review the actual regulations and only read the opinions (which is what I'm presenting here) but I do make an effort to inform people what the actual regulations are.

The state, city, and local jurisdiction still allows them ban the use of all bikes on specific paths but I don't think they can ban ebikes while allowing non-ebikes. An LSEB is a bike by federal definition.

 

[jabberwocky]

The state, city, and local jurisdiction still allows them ban the use of all bikes on specific paths but I don't think they can ban ebikes while allowing non-ebikes. An LSEB is a bike by federal definition.

The fact that you can still argue this with a straight face despite the absolute mountain of evidence to the contrary is pretty impressive at this point.