Tucson, AZ, ban on ebikes riding the Loop

[Ken M]

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.

I do understand the current legislation standing of 3-class but honestly we all should keep in mind there has been no formal decision made by the CPSC on the petition. I have done my best to present what I feel are the compelling reasons they have to preempt including the fact that a troubling precedent is set if they don't (the interstate commerce laws were most likely violated). I was hoping for a fast decision either way but the longer it takes I just the think the great chances are they preempt (it's easy to just reject the rule making decision requested in the petition).

You mention a mountain of evidence to the contrary but there has been nothing presented but the existence of 3-class legislation being used by 28-32 states (not sure what the PFB count is right now). This Tuscon loop example illustrates the regulatory issues that still exist on ebikes.

 

[jabberwocky]

You mention a mountain of evidence to the contrary but there has been nothing presented but the existence of 3-class legislation being used by 28-32 states (not sure what the PFB count is right now). This Tuscon loop example illustrates the regulatory issues that still exist on ebikes.

The mountain of evidence is. can you name a single instance where a local/state level law on ebike access was overridden by the feds? Hell, can you even name a single instance where a federal agency even tried?

You keep saying "they can't do that", yet they keep doing it, and its enforced, and nobody at the fed level even makes a token attempt to stop them. At some point you just have to accept the reality that yes, they can do that. Then the fight can move to its proper venue (in this case Tucson County, the manager of the trail) and hopefully something can be done.

And yeah, there are of course still regulatory issues. There will be for the remainder of both our lifetimes, because there are still regulatory issues with non-electric bikes, and those have been around for over a century.

 

[J.R.]

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 .

First and foremost there are plenty of opportunities to address the people in charge of regulations. Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't take advantage of those opportunities. Most of these venues are managed by a state or county parks department or department of conservation and natural resources. Often there is an additional authority that that deals with management responsibilities other than regulations. They all have monthly meetings that allow public comment.

All it takes is for 2 people to decide to get physically involved. Once involved spread the word here and elsewhere and build on your numbers. Get people other than ebikers to attend and speak during public comment periods. Decisions on regulations happens at these meetings, not on the phone, not via email and not online in webinars. It takes time and devotion. It may take a year or more.

It's easy to say in a vacuum that these regulations are illogical, but at these regulatory meetings other users share their experience. Grandma walking her dog, mom with her three little ones. Mom and Dad with their child in a jogging stroller. Equestrians and their horses. Ebikers are a minority within the minority of cyclists. When these other users hear that ebikes are capable of 28 mph and more, grandma says no way, not on my path. When mom and dad hear throttle power ebikes can travel at 20 mph, they say no way not on my path endangering my toddler. These impassioned people attend meetings and their numbers are far greater than ours. They pay taxes too!

There is a compromise that's acceptable. It's still a difficult argument to make, but it can be done. Class 1 ebikes. I've said for years here what I don't like about the 3 class law, but for many the only acceptable compromise is class 1. No throttle and max assist of 20 mph. That's still too fast for many, that's why when a speed limit is posted it's usually 15 mph or less.

Most parks and outdoor venues are classed as use at your own risk. If all reasonable precautions are taken to minimize risks, the venue can't be sued. This was a big part of the research I did when trying to get local acceptance for ebikes. It's one of those things many never consider. Parks departments could be sued out of existence. Often Class 1 is the only compromise available. Even if its unenforceable, the authority can offer the defense that they made every effort to minimize risk. I can assure you that many regulatory authorities would ban all bicycles before they would accept Ken's proposal. Ken has no interest in hearing anyone's concerns and doesn't see the validity in compromise. He wants to use federal regulations as a club to beat people into submission. He doesn't understand that they can't submit. They answer to the people in their community. It's much easier to understand when you're involved in the community.

 

[Ken M]

The mountain of evidence is. can you name a single instance where a local/state level law on ebike access was overridden by the feds? Hell, can you even name a single instance where a federal agency even tried?

You keep saying "they can't do that", yet they keep doing it, and its enforced, and nobody at the fed level even makes a token attempt to stop them. At some point you just have to accept the reality that yes, they can do that. Then the fight can move to its proper venue (in this case Tucson County, the manager of the trail) and hopefully something can be done.

And yeah, there are of course still regulatory issues. There will be for the remainder of both our lifetimes, because there are still regulatory issues with non-electric bikes, and those have been around for over a century.

In the petition there is an example of a state asking for an advisory position on if they could require lights on a bike. The CPSC said yes but had to clarify later that only as a "use" requirement and that the lights could not be required on the bike prior to entry into interstate commerce. The CPSC agreed that the lights addressed a safety concern not actually addressed by the federal requirements but they still limited the state regulation to a "use" requirement. There is a difference.

Here's one of the problems right now that goes unrecognized because 3-class does not control what is legally sold in any state...the CPSC federal definition does. There are compliant LSEBs being sold in states that have adopted 3-class legislation that are not 3-class compliant. You can find many example on Alibaba and Amazon (this is added to the many ebikes sold prior to 3-class that are not 3-class compliant). The people buying these bikes think they are legal to ride but they are not. That to me is a problem that must be addressed because these riders can be liable for riding an illegal vehicle if they hurt someone. Law firms have brought this up in some ebike articles.

Currently PFBs is still riding the fence on 3-class legislation - they literally presented it at a recent CPSC EV Mobility webinar as a "volutary standard" the the industry has aligned to (the big players did line up because the structure was harmonized with the EU such that there was no real impact on them and the market size in Europe was much bigger so economies of scale with classes was already achieved). PFBs did add a throttle class because they knew that the federal definition allowed throttles while EU regulations did not.

So long as it even somewhat viewed a voluntary and the 3-class ebikes are compliant to the definition in HR727 (which they are) the feds have no reason to react. But in reality the 3-class ebikes must enter interstate commerce with the programming, labels, ebrakes, and speedometers. Someone had to file a petition for rule-making on this or the feds would not look into it.

I am not a legal expert but I do believe the expressed preemptive clause in HR727 (this is a very rare thing in product regulations and used like 10 times in over 10,000 product regulations) will kind of force the CPSC to preempt the 3-class legislation. This will have very little impact on the products because they can continue to be sold but the states will have to make room for LSEBs that are not compliant to 3-class which I believe will push the states to just "use / traffic" regulate all compliant LSEBs as bikes (one class that can be used wherever bikes are allowed which I think was clearly the intent of HR727 ... just want to congressional testimony and you will objectively come to the same conclusion.

State can still use regulate bikes but they can't parse classes or redefine an LSEB as not just a bike.

 

[jabberwocky]

In the petition there is an example of a state asking for an advisory position on if they could require lights on a bike. The CPSC said yes but had to clarify later that only as a "use" requirement and that the lights could not be required on the bike prior to entry into interstate commerce. The CPSC agreed that the lights addressed a safety concern not actually addressed by the federal requirements but they still limited the state regulation to a "use" requirement. There is a difference.

That isn't an access issue. So, no, you can't point at a single instance where a federal agency of any kind came in and overruled a local restriction on ebike access? Or attempted to? Even a strongly worded letter?

State can still use regulate bikes but they can't parse classes or redefine an LSEB as not just a bike.

You keep insisting this, but states have been doing so for a long time (even before 3 class was a thing) and I see zero effort spent on changing that. I mean, we live in a country where pot is federally illegal but states are legalizing it and the feds are largely doing nothing about it, and pot is something that has massive federal agencies behind it with highly funded enforcement arms. You really think the CPSC is actually going to try and pick a legal fight with almost every state in the country over the exact definition of an electric bike at point of sale? Really?

 

[Taylor57]

Has anyone ever heard of someone being cited on an ebike riding anywhere? I think here where I ride, law enforcement looks at ebikes the same as acoustic bikes. I have yet to see any signs anywhere I ride banning ebikes...

 

[Ken M]

First and foremost there are plenty of opportunities to address the people in charge of regulations. Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't take advantage of those opportunities. Most of these venues are managed by a state or county parks department or department of conservation and natural resources. Often there is an additional authority that that deals with management responsibilities other than regulations. They all have monthly meetings that allow public comment.

All it takes is for 2 people to decide to get physically involved. Once involved spread the word here and elsewhere and build on your numbers. Get people other than ebikers to attend and speak during public comment periods. Decisions on regulations happens at these meetings, not on the phone, not via email and not online in webinars. It takes time and devotion. It may take a year or more.

It's easy to say in a vacuum that these regulations are illogical, but at these regulatory meetings other users share their experience. Grandma walking her dog, mom with her three little ones. Mom and Dad with their child in a jogging stroller. Equestrians and their horses. Ebikers are a minority within the minority of cyclists. When these other users hear that ebikes are capable of 28 mph and more, grandma says no way, not on my path. When mom and dad hear throttle power ebikes can travel at 20 mph, they say no way not on my path endangering my toddler. These impassioned people attend meetings and their numbers are far greater than ours. They pay taxes too!

There is a compromise that's acceptable. It's still a difficult argument to make, but it can be done. Class 1 ebikes. I've said for years here what I don't like about the 3 class law, but for many the only acceptable compromise is class 1. No throttle and max assist of 20 mph. That's still too fast for many, that's why when a speed limit is posted it's usually 15 mph or less.

Most parks and outdoor venues are classed as use at your own risk. If all reasonable precautions are taken to minimize risks, the venue can't be sued. This was a big part of the research I did when trying to get local acceptance for ebikes. It's one of those things many never consider. Parks departments could be sued out of existence. Often Class 1 is the only compromise available. Even if its unenforceable, the authority can offer the defense that they made every effort to minimize risk. I can assure you that many regulatory authorities would ban all bicycles before they would accept Ken's proposal. Ken has no interest in hearing anyone's concerns and doesn't see the validity in compromise. He wants to use federal regulations as a club to beat people into submission. He doesn't understand that they can't submit. They answer to the people in their community. It's much easier to understand when you're involved in the community.

I honestly do understand compromise. I honestly did reach out to PFBs to discuss the issue I had with my Polaris and Izip Express going from legal to ride in Colorado to illegal after 3-class legislation passed. They essentially told me I was wrong but the bike specifications were available for verification even in the reviews on this site.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I can't think of another example of a mobility product that is safety regulated at the federal level where the states have not accepted the federal definition of the product and just "use / traffic" regulated based that definition. Was it really necessary to parse a 750W low speed electric bike definition with a clear power limit defined above 20mph per constraints into 3-classes? Or was it more about harmonization with Europe?

Note: I am well aware of the exception made for California to have a more stringent emissions requirement because they had serious local problems but they went about getting the exemption the right way.

Given that any road bike rider can easily achieve a speed of 28mph for a significant distance on a path the idea of someone claiming we can't have assists that fast on that path just doesn't resonate with me as logical. The path needs to have speed limits because limiting assist does not limit the speed capability of an ebike even though so many seem to think it does (it's like they think there are brakes applied at the assist limits of 20mph or 28mph).

My thought are MUPs and sidewalks probably should have bike/ebike speed limits of 15-20mph but that should not be used to establish the definition of compliance for an ebike because I don't think there is any question that the assist limits do impact the potential adoption rate of ebikes for urban mobility. I've seen the historical speed data on all bikes and it does prove / show that 95-99% of riders commonly hit speeds in the 28-32mph range (albeit on declines or short flat surface distances but that is still a historical speed for bikes that should not be ignore. The federal definition in reality did not change that because the power is limited "motor alone" at 20mph but so few understand what that means.

 

[George S.]

First and foremost there are plenty of opportunities to address the people in charge of regulations. Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't take advantage of those opportunities. Most of these venues are managed by a state or county parks department or department of conservation and natural resources. Often there is an additional authority that that deals with management responsibilities other than regulations. They all have monthly meetings that allow public comment.

All it takes is for 2 people to decide to get physically involved. Once involved spread the word here and elsewhere and build on your numbers. Get people other than ebikers to attend and speak during public comment periods. Decisions on regulations happens at these meetings, not on the phone, not via email and not online in webinars. It takes time and devotion. It may take a year or more.

It's easy to say in a vacuum that these regulations are illogical, but at these regulatory meetings other users share their experience. Grandma walking her dog, mom with her three little ones. Mom and Dad with their child in a jogging stroller. Equestrians and their horses. Ebikers are a minority within the minority of cyclists. When these other users hear that ebikes are capable of 28 mph and more, grandma says no way, not on my path. When mom and dad hear throttle power ebikes can travel at 20 mph, they say no way not on my path endangering my toddler. These impassioned people attend meetings and their numbers are far greater than ours. They pay taxes too!

There is a compromise that's acceptable. It's still a difficult argument to make, but it can be done. Class 1 ebikes. I've said for years here what I don't like about the 3 class law, but for many the only acceptable compromise is class 1. No throttle and max assist of 20 mph. That's still too fast for many, that's why when a speed limit is posted it's usually 15 mph or less.

Most parks and outdoor venues are classed as use at your own risk. If all reasonable precautions are taken to minimize risks, the venue can't be sued. This was a big part of the research I did when trying to get local acceptance for ebikes. It's one of those things many never consider. Parks departments could be sued out of existence. Often Class 1 is the only compromise available. Even if its unenforceable, the authority can offer the defense that they made every effort to minimize risk. I can assure you that many regulatory authorities would ban all bicycles before they would accept Ken's proposal. Ken has no interest in hearing anyone's concerns and doesn't see the validity in compromise. He wants to use federal regulations as a club to beat people into submission. He doesn't understand that they can't submit. They answer to the people in their community. It's much easier to understand when you're involved in the community.

I remember the 'good old days' when ebikes went 28 mph. But 5 years ago a battery was $1000 a kwh, and now it is 1/5 that. So 28mph was kind of worthless for 20 minutes of riding. Today, real world, you have 2 kwh packs and they are getting cheaper. Actually, the changing tech is pushing some people to build DOT motorcycles, what I always wanted. Very Light Motorcycles fairly close to bikes, but much huskier where it counts. High Voltage is a YT channel. The Inja is what people call an influencer. He does a lot of nifty stuff, like building a hefty e-motorcycle. But he's pretty good at fudging what an ebike is. If the idea of an ebike is something like this, they won't be allowed on MUP's. I'd say that makes sense. I don't know what is going on down there. I grew up in Pima County. I used to hang around with Huckleberry. If they are putting his name on stuff, we must be getting really old. I don't see how these issues go away. Even 20 mph ebikes are not a great mix with an MUP on Sunday, when the kids are out on their trikes or other toys. It's seems like no one is right, and everyone is a little bit right. So jam some folks into a meeting? The power bike folks should grow up and think of their products as motorcycles, but the ebikes are still hard to sort, even at legal limits.

 

[Ken M]

Has anyone ever heard of someone being cited on an ebike riding anywhere? I think here where I ride, law enforcement looks at ebikes the same as acoustic bikes. I have yet to see any signs anywhere I ride banning ebikes...

What you just wrote is true, but if someone is riding a non-compliant ebike and injures someone they could face serious liability consequences for riding what is essentially an illegal vehicle.

This is real and rider ignorance of that fact is not going to be a defense. This why the product definition and use regulations need to be clarified from the federal level down. Allow the feds to establish what is a compliant product via the safety regulations (they control 1st sale via the constitution) and the states then regulate "use" as is the case with other vehicles. eBikes are the only vehicle I can think of that has federal safe regulation and a definition yet the states decided to they wanted to redefine.

Note: the feds do not have a regulation for auto-cycles and you can find information online as the problems that is creating across the states that are defining them differently.

I remember the 'good old days' when ebikes went 28 mph. But 5 years ago a battery was $1000 a kwh, and now it is 1/5 that. So 28mph was kind of worthless for 20 minutes of riding. Today, real world, you have 2 kwh packs and they are getting cheaper. Actually, the changing tech is pushing some people to build DOT motorcycles, what I always wanted. Very Light Motorcycles fairly close to bikes, but much huskier where it counts. High Voltage is a YT channel. The Inja is what people call an influencer. He does a lot of nifty stuff, like building a hefty e-motorcycle. But he's pretty good at fudging what an ebike is. If the idea of an ebike is something like this, they won't be allowed on MUP's. I'd say that makes sense. I don't know what is going on down there. I grew up in Pima County. I used to hang around with Huckleberry. If they are putting his name on stuff, we must be getting really old. I don't see how these issues go away. Even 20 mph ebikes are not a great mix with an MUP on Sunday, when the kids are out on their trikes or other toys. It's seems like no one is right, and everyone is a little bit right. So jam some folks into a meeting? The power bike folks should grow up and think of their products as motorcycles, but the ebikes are still hard to sort, even at legal limits.

The feds have definitions for a Low Speed Electric Bicycle (compliance is supposed to be same as a bike), a Low Power Cycle (below 4 or 5 bhp but no assist speed limit but the power obviously limits the speed to a large degree), and then motorcycles (applies to both electric and Internal combustion).

LSEBs were release from the NHTSA to the CPSC in 2002 and allowed to be regulated via the same safety requirements as a bike and HR727 stated they are not motor vehicles and are defined the same as a bike. That was not confusing but the remnants of ebikes being considered motor vehicles still exist in some states and even in the minds of those of us that love ebikes. They are not motor vehicles (so how can they be 3-class parsed based on motor performance?) and should be "use" regulated as bikes by the states (it is nonsense to say parse based on an 8mph difference and even goofier to parse by pedal-assist and throttle-assist). That was the intent based on all the research I did. I don't really care that some local regulators (that did no research and in some cases don't even like bikes on public infrastructure) think that 3-class saved the day (it didn't and it only made things far more confusing and leads to a thread like this where one MUP loop around a city has multiple ebike use limits. I'm sure ebike riders are riding the full loop because no one is going to write a ticket unless they are endangering pedestrians.

 

[Taylor57]

What you just wrote is true, but if someone is riding a non-compliant ebike and injures someone they could face serious liability consequences for riding what is essentially an illegal vehicle.

This is real and rider ignorance of that fact is not going to be a defense. This why the product definition and use regulations need to be clarified from the federal level down. Allow the feds to establish what is a compliant product via the safety regulations (they control 1st sale via the constitution) and the states then regulate "use" as is the case with other vehicles. eBikes are the only vehicle I can think of that has federal safe regulation and a definition yet the states decided to they wanted to redefine.

Note: the feds do not have a regulation for auto-cycles and you can find information online as the problems that is creating across the states that are defining them differently.

The feds have definitions for a Low Speed Electric Bicycle (compliance is supposed to be same as a bike), a Low Power Cycle (below 4 or 5 bhp but no assist speed limit but the power obviously limits the speed to a large degree), and then motorcycles (applies to both electric and Internal combustion).

LSEBs were release from the NHTSA to the CPSC in 2002 and allowed to be regulated via the same safety requirements as a bike and HR727 stated they are not motor vehicles and are defined the same as a bike. That was not confusion but the remnants of ebikes being considered motor vehicles still exist in some states and even in the minds of those of use that love ebikes. They are not motor vehicles (so how can they be 3-class parsed based on motor performance?) and should be "use" regulated as bikes by the states. That was the intent based on all the research I did. I don't really care that some local regulators (that did no research and in some cases don't even like bikes on public infrastructure) think that 3-class saved the day (it didn't and it only made things far more confusing and leads to a thread like this where one MUP loop around a city has multiple ebike use limits. I'm sure ebike riders are riding the full loop because no one is going to write a ticket unless they are endangering pedestrians.

So is my Frey CC that will go 38 throttle only, and my Espin Sport that will do 25-27 throttle only illegal bikes?

 

[J.R.]

Given that any road bike rider can easily achieve a speed of 28mph for a significant distance

The best, most fit riders in the world in the Tour de France average 25 to 28 mph on the flat, while drafting in a peloton.

Prior to Colorado passing their 3 class law, most municipalities banned the use of assist on any off road venue. Use the search here, we had many discussions in 2015/16. Read the old municipal laws. I have. The silly thing was you could ride your ebike OFF power. Read the threads from that time frame. I just did again today.

As for interstate commerce, I'll just paste what I wrote before that you ignored:

Ken M said:
I'm questioning that the states can impact interstate commerce

That's been addressed. I could pick any 2 states where products are either different or available for sale in one and not the other. Products regulated by the CPSC or one of the other alphabet agencies.

Pennsylvania vs California. Things I can buy that Californians cannot; either not at all or in a very different form. Let's call the latter different programming and stickers.

Cars and pickups
Space heaters
Kerosene heaters
Gasoline powered lawn equipment
Hair dryers
Paint
Stain
Household cleaning chemicals
Boats
Outboard motors
Snowmobiles
Motorcycles
Hunting knives
Firearms
Power tools
Fireworks
A variety of children's products
Vaping products
Mercury switches (thermostats, etc.)
A variety of cosmetics

Not to mention the variety of foods!

Just a sampling across a broad spectrum, the list just goes on and on and on. States requiring different specs or having different regulations or not allowing the sale of some products is as old as the country.

Some light reading:

https://dtsc.ca.gov/what-are-the-safer-consumer-products-regulations/

| Consumer products law blog​

www.consumerproductslawblog.com
"The Supreme Court has held that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce."

"From 1937 until 1995, the Supreme Court did not invalidate a single law on the basis of the Commerce Clause."

Not because cases were not filed, it's just really rare that it can be proven that a state law has a substantial economic impact.

Requiring different tuning and stickers is not onerous; it doesn't prevent the sale of the bike, it can be done and the seller passes the minor costs on to the consumer. Happens all the time. Things often cost more in states that have different regulations. If ebikes ever get big enough, I expect to see some states really crack down on bikes they deem illegal. There's a lot that I don't like about it, but there's that pesky 10th amendment.

 

[J.R.]

I remember the 'good old days' when ebikes went 28 mph. But 5 years ago a battery was $1000 a kwh, and now it is 1/5 that. So 28mph was kind of worthless for 20 minutes of riding. Today, real world, you have 2 kwh packs and they are getting cheaper. Actually, the changing tech is pushing some people to build DOT motorcycles, what I always wanted. Very Light Motorcycles fairly close to bikes, but much huskier where it counts. High Voltage is a YT channel. The Inja is what people call an influencer. He does a lot of nifty stuff, like building a hefty e-motorcycle. But he's pretty good at fudging what an ebike is. If the idea of an ebike is something like this, they won't be allowed on MUP's. I'd say that makes sense. I don't know what is going on down there. I grew up in Pima County. I used to hang around with Huckleberry. If they are putting his name on stuff, we must be getting really old. I don't see how these issues go away. Even 20 mph ebikes are not a great mix with an MUP on Sunday, when the kids are out on their trikes or other toys. It's seems like no one is right, and everyone is a little bit right. So jam some folks into a meeting? The power bike folks should grow up and think of their products as motorcycles, but the ebikes are still hard to sort, even at legal limits.

Ah, yes the good ol' days in 2014, when we were just having fun here flying under the radar. Good to hear from you, George. They (regulators) know who we are now

 

[TrailSeeker]

MUP's

Is this what you mean by MUPs?

MUP Central 2021 - League of Michigan Bicyclists

Feb. 27 update on 2021 LMB tours: LMB has decided to postpone our 2021 tours to next year. Our board and staff have shared many conversations and explored several scenarios. In the end, we came to the difficult decision that we are not confident we will be able to offer a safe and enjoyable...

www.lmb.org

Also what are dots?

Sorry I'm a newbie. Thanks

 

[J.R.]

Is this what you mean by MUPs?

MUP Central 2021 - League of Michigan Bicyclists

Feb. 27 update on 2021 LMB tours: LMB has decided to postpone our 2021 tours to next year. Our board and staff have shared many conversations and explored several scenarios. In the end, we came to the difficult decision that we are not confident we will be able to offer a safe and enjoyable...

www.lmb.org

Also what are dots?

Sorry I'm a newbie. Thanks

MUP = multi use path
DOT(s) = department of transportation(s)
nothing to be sorry for. There's so many abrievations and acronyms.

 

[jabberwocky]

Has anyone ever heard of someone being cited on an ebike riding anywhere? I think here where I ride, law enforcement looks at ebikes the same as acoustic bikes. I have yet to see any signs anywhere I ride banning ebikes...

Yes, I know of a few. Mostly people riding non-compliant ebikes on singletrack. It does happen, but its not common.

Is this what you mean by MUPs?

MUP=multi-use path. Kind of a catch all term for off-road paths that are open to cycles and pedestrians. They vary from lightly used nature paths to heavily traveled rail trails and urban commuting paths.

 

[Taylor57]

Yes, I know of a few. Mostly people riding non-compliant ebikes on singletrack. It does happen, but its not common.



MUP=multi-use path. Kind of a catch all term for off-road paths that are open to cycles and pedestrians. They vary from lightly used nature paths to heavily traveled rail trails and urban commuting paths.

Just curious, what is singletrack?

 

[Dewey]

Has anyone ever heard of someone being cited on an ebike riding anywhere?

I don't know about citations for riding on trails where there is a local ban on ebikes but it used to happen all the time on streets in New York City with NYPD enforcement and ebike confiscations targeted at food delivery riders before they legalized Class 1-3 ebikes last year - at least I thought the official street harassment had gone away until I read this Streetsblog article from 2 months ago about selective enforcement on streets in tonier New York neighborhoods requested by individual Community Boards or Business Improvement Districts. There remains a controversial ebike ban on the Hudson River Greenway demanded by certain members of the Hudson River Park Trust who regard ebikes as motor vehicles.

 

[rawlus]

i don’t really think Ken has any idea the difference between fact and opinion, nor the difference between a definition about safe manufacture of a product for retail and the applicable/allowable use of that product. or the legal precedence of states rights over fed guidelines.

most states have unique motor vehicle inspection laws with specific requirements those states themselves define and enforce for both safety and emissions reasons.

these are not governed at the national level despite these vehicles themselves being manufactured to some common denominator standard set by DOT, NHSTA and others.

these are facts in evidence. it is our reality. it is not debatable or disputable.

both the fed and state/local statutes work in concert together. they are not mutually exclusive. each deals with different objectives, one about consistency and quality in manufacturing to give a level of confidence for the buyer about expectations on quality and safety among other criteria. at the state level it’s partially about what the state has decided it deems appropriate, and they get to determine conditions around use as well.

ken has yet to respond to these universal facts. endlessly bleating his opinion that the definition he prefers should be the sole law on record. it factually is not. the world and the situation is factually not how he describes it, wants it or prefers it. it never was and it never will be.

we’ve yet to hear him make any statements in consideration of these facts. (it’s not even evident that he reads any responses on this topic in their entirety. instead scanning for trigger words and then coltibg and pasting the same manifesto he’s always posted) it is the epitome of ignoring reality to further a biased agenda. I don’t believe Ken is interested in any genuine discourse or discussion on the issue nor is he at all open to the opinions of others.

as has been stated exhaustively in dozens of threads over and over again. access is managed at the local level. the fight is about specific trails and paths in specific places with specific interested parties anointed to set policy. gaining access to a trail is often about combing those local e future who control access to grant it.

there will NEVER be a scenario where fed authorities will be the sole decision maker for ebike access to specific travel ways. this is also factual in the sense that our governance on these matters is constructed in a way that local paths are not within any federal jurisdiction as it relates to access (other than paths specifically under federal jurisdiction) and in those cases where the feds HAVE been leading with regulating use, they also have opted for 3 class designations as the model for articulating access and permitted use and have specifically NOT adopted the “all bikes are equal” definition.

there ARE a few jurisdictions that do not yet draw a distinction between ebikes and regular bikes with regard to access and permissible use but they are a shrinking minority and not indicative of the trend.

Ken won’t address any of these facts. he will restate his opinion that that the CPSC defined an ebike as a bike and therefore it cannot ever be defined otherwise. this argument lacks merit as the CPSC lacks any jurisdiction whatsoever on paths and trails, traffic or permitted use and states rights. this is also a fact.

I wonder if ken has requested the CpSC to enforce their definition of an ebike as a bike and initiate action against all the towns, states, counties snd other trail managing bodies to force the acceptance of their definition towards permitted use and access and what the CPSC response was to him. Surely if the CPSC has the INTENTION of their safety classification and requirements to serve as definitions for access and use they’d be INCENSED right now at states and trail managing entities defying their authority and “making up their own rules” as Ken would characterize it.

So Ken, what does CPSC have to say about trail managers determining and setting requirements around permitted use, access, speeds, and other trail and operator requirements? The answer to this question from your friends at CPSC could put this entire discussion to rest with a sense of finality.

If you believe CPSC has some jurisdiction and they have spoken through their definition then what are they doing about enforcing it? a lack of any enforcement action would lead me to the conclusion that they stipulated they DO NOT have jurisdiction or that they choose not to address it.

either way their silence will be a confirmation and acceptance of local jurisdictions deciding at the local level what is suitable for the locals.

 

[J.R.]

Has anyone ever heard of someone being cited on an ebike riding anywhere? I think here where I ride, law enforcement looks at ebikes the same as acoustic bikes. I have yet to see any signs anywhere I ride banning ebikes...

When ebikes were banned from our local trails and paths, rangers setup at trailheads to prevent entrance and gave warnings to riders. That has changed and class 1 are now legal. There's a thread that riders reported this.

On state owned trails and paths here, class 1 are also allowed. Rangers have a database of ebikes, they know the bikes that are class 1. They've been checking bikes all summer long. Again this has been reported here on the forum.

We have more access to riding venues than most states, but access is class 1 only.

 

[rawlus]

back on topic. ebike prohibitions or limitations on use on shared trails is largely about perceptions and concerns of either local authorities or the community of trail users or both.

the path to regaining or establishing more access or more ideal riding conditions will be a grassroots effort of education, listening and responding to concerns and being in a position to compromise as the “shared” nature of these trails implies if not requires compromising.

waving an abstract and out of context document from the CPSC will do nothing for ebikes except potentially make the situation more contentious and divisive.

we’ve seen great reports of opening access and improving access in other threads here and none of them began with the CPSC definition. correct me if i’m mistaken.