Tucson, AZ, ban on ebikes riding the Loop

[Ken M]

It's been awhile since anyone has mentioned the Loop in Tucson. Several websites state that you can ride ebikes on the Loop. That is partially true. A radio station posted online that Arizona passed House Bill 2266 that states that electric bikes will be treated the same as a normal bicycle and therefore they can be used on the Loop. Not so fast.

Here is the AZ HB 2266 posted below:

Read the blue highlighted portions regarding the classification of ebikes. Read the yellow highlighted portion that states that a local authority or agency of the state having jurisdiction can prohibit the use of ebikes on a shared use path. Another member posted that portions of the Loop do allow ebikes. Basically the Canyon del Oro section and the Marana section North of Ina (Road or Street?) allow ebikes. Hopefully the county will change it's view for the rest of the Loop in the near future.

https://electricbikereview.com/foru...op-an-ebike-tour-destination-heres-why.46594/

This is exactly why the 3-class system is a joke. It allows every county to have a different view of what is a "use" legal ebike.

HR727 defines a "low speed electric bicycle" as same / equivalent to a bike and it passed a federal law just one vote short of complete consensus (keep in mind these are state representative votes). Someone needs to ask these county officials why they have a problem with the federal definition of an LSEB as a bike give the near unanimous congressional vote. I'd bet most of the local officials have never heard of HR727 read it and most have probably never ridden an ebike either.

The typical process for product safety and use regulation is that the feds define the product (the "what" is legal for sale in all 50 states) and the states own "use" (the where, when, by whom and constraints like insurance and registration but not the allowance to redefine the "what" is legal for sale or use). The state did not need to redefine what an LSEB is - it's supposed to be the same as bike and allowed whereever bikes are allowed. If a county doesn't think bikes or safe on a trail or path then ban all bikes. Simple enough and it would work. Where allowed just have speed limits on bikes if there is a need to ensure safety when the path is mixed use and has pedestrians. Allow all bikes on streets but insist that they don't impact the flow of faster traffic. Can there ever be common sense expected from local representatives?

 

[Rickman1]

You are talking about the government and politicians. Common sense does not apply. As far as the 'Loop' goes I think it's more of a 'who has more power/authority', i.e., city, county or state. Muscle flexing.

 

[Ken M]

You are talking about the government and politicians. Common sense does not apply. As far as the 'Loop' goes I think it's more of a 'who has more power/authority', i.e., city, county or state. Muscle flexing.

It's becoming clear that eventually this debate will have to be settled in federal court. I just think if the 2002 HR727 intended LSEBs to be the same as a bike (defined as such) then I don't think the states can redefine given that the Feds absolutely own what is legal for sale so LSEBs were being sold and ridden legally in all the states that have adopted 3-class legislation and I don't know of a single instance where they addressed any consideration for grandfathering non-classed ebikes after adopting 3-class legislation. Keep in mind if they are use legal they didn't have to address grandfathering the LSEBs.

 

[mschwett]

legal for sale is one thing, legal to use everywhere/anywhere is another. even with a federal definition or ruling, states ban stuff all the time. you can’t buy those little silver ball sprinkles in california because someone here decided they weren’t food.

Amazon.com

a state or (maybe?) county could absolutely say that a pathway may not be used by bikes. or e-bikes. or bikes longer than 6 feet. or motorcycles. or e-scooters. i would love to see the “states-rights” crowd response to a federal requirement that eBikes must be allowed on various pathways and bike lanes.

the frequently-cycled walkways on the golden gate bridge now have a 15 mph speed limit, after 50+ years of operation. and yes, there is enforcement, although not super often.

The changes were made after complaints about speeding cyclists on the bridge, said Steven Miller, bridge division deputy general manager. The increasing presence and availability of electric bicycles, or e-bikes, in recent years has complicated the issue, especially because the bridge had no mention of them in its regulations.

The new policies adopted last week will formally allow for all three classes of e-bikes, which include pedal-assist bikes and hand-throttle bikes. These bikes can reach speeds of up to 28 mph, which was the main impetus for the new 15 mph speed limit, according to Miller.

thanks, guys!!!

 

[Ken M]

legal for sale is one thing, legal to use everywhere/anywhere is another. even with a federal definition or ruling, states ban stuff all the time. you can’t buy those little silver ball sprinkles in california because someone here decided they weren’t food.

Amazon.com

a state or (maybe?) county could absolutely say that a pathway may not be used by bikes. or e-bikes. or bikes longer than 6 feet. or motorcycles. or e-scooters. i would love to see the “states-rights” crowd response to a federal requirement that eBikes must be allowed on various pathways and bike lanes.

the frequently-cycled walkways on the golden gate bridge now have a 15 mph speed limit, after 50+ years of operation. and yes, there is enforcement, although not super often.





thanks, guys!!!

Be aware the California sale ban was the result of a court decision and my guess it's more complicated than a quick mention. It's not a legal food item in any state.

LSEBs were considered just bikes by virtually every state prior to the 3-class legislation (that was true for over 12 years). Most riders are not even aware of the 2002 federal law. There is no documented issues from 2002 up until California was the 1st state to accept the lobby money to adopt 3-class. Colorado was the 2nd because Hiabike would not move their US sales headquarters to Colorado unless they adopted it so it was rushed thru in like 2 months with zero thought of what they were doing. I talked to one of those law state representatives and he had no clue that they were possibly making many currently legal non-classed ebikes illegal to use on any public infrastructure (they simply ignored that many bikes sold over those years were federally compliant but did not have the brain dead 3-class programming). Not kidding but he said "maybe we should have had someone technical in the room" .... Da, someone needs to do the thinking.

I believe states have broad rights but in reality the feds can supersede laws that are deemed to have no legal merit as 3-class clearly lacks. What were the states fixing / solving? Was there any issues with LSEBs being ridden as bikes that was fixed by 3-class? Is there any technical difference between a Class 1 and Class 2 ebike given same power and assist speed limit? Why can't a class 3 ebike have a throttle given it must share the streets / bike lanes where all the other vehicles have them (that makes no sense whatsoever and if you ask People for Bikes...Why?...they'll tell you it was to harmonize with s-pedelecs in Europe). So that's a valid reason to have a class 3 definition vs a single definition of an LSEB as a bike? I have been writting on EBR about this a lot over the past year and not one time has someone even tried to say there was a problem with an LSEB as a bike. The closest I have read is some claiming the only reason they can ride an ebike on a local trail is because of 3-class but they just echo what they have been spoon fed.

Again it's just my opinion that an LSEB is a bike and should be considered a bike by state "use / traffic" laws as the best path forward. That said, everyone has an opinion and most likely this only gets determined in court just like the silver sugar balls in California. I own 2 ebikes that I purchase legally and rode legally for nearly 8,000 miles in Colorado (a Polaris Diesel and an Izip Express) that per 3-class are not longer legal for use. I have call the AG's office in Colorado and they are clueless. The police are clueless on this as well. I did asked the local sheriff if he would issue me a ticket for riding an "out of class" ebike so I could test the legal waters myself in a county court. I file a petition to preempt 3-class legislation with the CPSC but they would not make a decision so in court is likely the only way it gets resolved. By the way, I still ride those "illegal" bikes but given I legally purchased them here someone needs to legally explain how they became illegal just because a fake bike advocacy group I live 20 minutes from push bad legislation with lobby money from the auto parts industry.

One last note. The state with the highest ebike adoption rate in the US has still not adopted 3-class legislation and they allow compliant LSEBs to be used a bikes. So how can 3-class matter whatsoever when the highest adoption rate state does just find without it? Would be nice if People for Bikes had the courage and integrity to publicly answer questions like this.

 

[mschwett]

i actually don’t really care about 3 class, LSEB, whatever definition anyone wants to come up with. a clear set of definitions or regulations would be nice (and 3 class works fine around here) but what i do actually care about is a city, county, or state’s ability to set rules which are appropriate and safe for their local conditions. i’m a strong believer in the importance and purview of the federal government, but the repeated claim that it’s somehow a violation of interstate commerce for a city to prohibit vehicles with over XXX watts or assist over XX mph in their bike lanes or mixed use paths is absurd and dangerous. the united states is an enormous country with an incredible range of physical environments. there are entire states the size of countries with less people than 10 square miles of manhattan.

the advantage of a multi-tiered system is clear - it allows a local government to set regulations about use without creating redundant and conflicting sets of definitions that manufacturers (which are mostly global) would have to follow. it would be rational, for example, for new york city and san francisco to prohibit anything but class 1 bikes in bike lanes and mixed use paths on account of congestion, but allow class 3 bikes in vehicular lanes.

 

[Ken M]

i actually don’t really care about 3 class, LSEB, whatever definition anyone wants to come up with. a clear set of definitions or regulations would be nice (and 3 class works fine around here) but what i do actually care about is a city, county, or state’s ability to set rules which are appropriate and safe for their local conditions. i’m a strong believer in the importance and purview of the federal government, but the repeated claim that it’s somehow a violation of interstate commerce for a city to prohibit vehicles with over XXX watts or assist over XX mph in their bike lanes or mixed use paths is absurd and dangerous. the united states is an enormous country with an incredible range of physical environments. there are entire states the size of countries with less people than 10 square miles of manhattan.

the advantage of a multi-tiered system is clear - it allows a local government to set regulations about use without creating redundant and conflicting sets of definitions that manufacturers (which are mostly global) would have to follow. it would be rational, for example, for new york city and san francisco to prohibit anything but class 1 bikes in bike lanes and mixed use paths on account of congestion, but allow class 3 bikes in vehicular lanes.

How is having 3 classes more clear than having one LSEB definition?

3-class did not originate for local authorities considering local conditions .... it wasn't about safety ... it came from the auto industry as a way to keep ebikes recreational.

So you seem to think it would be just fine for every county to define what is a legal automobile. We don't want each local entity to create conflicting definitions which is one major reason why the federal safety agencies were created in the 1st place and why industry supported them being for - they wanted product definitions to be robust and harmonized across the country. You make is sound like that is best accomplished by local officials...c'mon. You idea would allow one county to set limit at 100w and 10mph and another at 200W and 15mph. That is exactly what we don't want. If there were legit reasons for having a unique definition there are ways for that to happen but it should not happen in a conference room at People for Bikes with the auto parts industry giving them a check telling them what to push for.

...."an enormous country with an incredible range of physical environments"....wow...how did the LSEB definition work just fine in the 50 states for over 12 years? Not sure how the classes as defined really added that much more resolution to address our enormous country's needs.

By the way there are congested mixed use paths with posted speed limits below the Class 1 assist speed so maybe we just need to have speed limits as we do with autos because otherwise we have to set assist limits based on lowest path speed limit per your logic. We allow riders with enormous differences in capability to ride the same paths (these capabilities greatly exceed the 8mph range of the classes). Oh but we are not allowed to critically think we are just supposed to assume the local officials did that for us.

 

[jabberwocky]

3-class did not originate for local authorities considering local conditions .... it wasn't about safety ... it came from the auto industry as a way to keep ebikes recreational.

You really need to provide a source for this or make it clear that its a product of your considerable imagination.

 

[Ken M]

You really need to provide a source for this or make it clear that its a product of your considerable imagination.

At least one of the videos on People for Bike's website mentions the lobby money they received to promote the 3-class system (I will find an example and post the link if still available). I think that speaks for itself.

If you watch this video at the 4 minute mark and beyond you will hear Morgan say it's the "best system they found" which is essentially saying it was brought to them and based on my research it was a Bosch executive (Claudia Wasko) that brought the draft to P4B with the lobbying effort proposal as well. Bosch is obviously a major ebike product producer but that segment is tiny compared to their car parts business. Later in the video she states that class 3 was a harmonization with the S-Pedelec regulation in Europe but S-pedelecs were already legal for sale in the US under HR727. She claims the federal system "maxes out at 20mph" which is an outright lie or Class 3 ebikes could not be imported or sold in the US. I'm not going to go into every incorrect statement made in the video but it's an example of how they misrepresent 3-class publicly.

Think critically for a second, why was there no problems with HR727 federal definition from 2002 to 2015 when California became the first state to adopt 3-class legislation (I understand there were not a lot LSEBs being sold from 2002 - 2015 but they did exist and were being ridden as bikes at least in most states)? Seems rational that they would have just pushed for solid state recognition of an LSEB as a bike in all 50 states to "clarify" if needed but instead they pushed 3-class policy which while all 3 classes are compliant with the federal definition it did not need parsing given that the federal definition had speed limiting via a power limit above 20mph. As Morgan does state correctly in that video the biggest issue was that some states still had ebikes recognized as motor vehicles long after HR727 was suppose to have corrected that with a federal definition that they were not motor vehicles.

I would like to think that PFBs is strictly a bike advocacy organization but they need to be more transparent on who funds their efforts.

Here's some questions about 3-class legislation that should make you question it.
- When ebikes were moved from the NHTSA to the CPSC the requirement for having a speedometer was removed (keep in mind the congressional vote was one vote short of total consensus). Why was a speedometer on Class 3 added back on when the actual safety regulations at the federal level do not have this requirement?
- Same thing can be said about motor inhibiting brakes on Class 2 ebikes. Note: Worse is that the safety issue is really with cadence based pedal assist ebikes and not with throttle based ebikes.
- With the brand and sales growth of multi-mode ebikes (bikes with switchable modes for all 3 classes) how is the class system ever going to be enforceable when only the CPSC owns what is legal for 1st sale? There really is nothing stopping something like the SurRon from having a 20mph / 750W / class 2 mode to be legal to ride on all infrastructure that a class 2 ebike is allowed to ride on but that is clearly not the intent of 3-class policy. That is not a problem if the federal LSEB definition was promoted because it controls 1st sale in all 50 states. Note: the reason why the CPSC doesn't stop multi-mode ebikes from being imported and sold is because they view the 3-class ebikes as a completely different product vs LSEBs.

 

[jabberwocky]

Think critically for a second, why was there no problems with HR727 federal definition from 2002 to 2015 when California became the first state to adopt 3-class legislation (I understand there were not a lot LSEBs being sold from 2002 - 2015 but they did exist and were being ridden as bikes at least in most states)?

Because ebikes didn't exist as much of a thing then (a tiny fraction of the market) and nobody who managed anything bike related knew or cared to enforce anything related to them. Your whole "things were fine in 2002!" thing is mystifying because electric bikes were pretty much blanket banned on everything bike/ped specific around here until very recently.

So your whole "the 3 class law is to cripple ebikes as a favor to the car lobby" is because one of the corporate sponsors of PFB (Bosch) said something in a video about harmonizing with europe? Because that doesn't even remotely support your statement. PFB is an industry lobbying arm (they make no secret of that) but their list of industry representatives is extensive and includes people from almost all the ebike motor system mfgs (Shimano, Yamaha, Bosch, Brose) as well as a great number of bike/bike part manufacturers. The idea that all these people would collude to somehow hold back ebikes in favor of cars when 98% of them aren't even tangentially in the car industry is frankly stupid.

You really need to stop making s*it up in pursuit of your bizarre vendetta. People actually come to this site for information; its hard enough to figure out whats proper and legal without one vocal idiot constantly making stuff up and presenting it as fact.

 

[mschwett]

You really need to stop making s*it up in pursuit of your bizarre vendetta. People actually come to this site for information; its hard enough to figure out whats proper and legal without one vocal idiot constantly making stuff up and presenting it as fact.

well said. there are many good points on both sides of this debate, but they’re completely masked and stripped of all credibility by the ad hominem and/or scarecrow rhetoric.

 

[Ken M]

Here's a video from 2011 which has Larry Pizzi talking about Currie Tech providing Izip Expresses to the LA Police Department. These ebikes were compliant to the LSEB definition and must have been just fine as bikes for USE given they were being ridden by law enforcement. These ebikes did not have an assist cut-off at 20mph or 28mph as required by the Class legislation so why was there an issue with LSEBs being use regulated just as bikes given the LA Police department was doing that???? Years later are getting the lobby money, PIzzi talks extensively about the importance of 3-class legislation for clarity and safety. Was that legit concern or just an opinion shaped by cash to PFBs for lobby efforts?

By the way, I believe the LA police department sold these now illegal ebikes to the public after they were retired from use.

 

[Ken M]

well said. there are many good points on both sides of this debate, but they’re completely masked and stripped of all credibility by the ad hominem and/or scarecrow rhetoric.

I have no vendetta. I owned two ebikes I purchased and rode legally in Colorado that were compliant to the federal definition (a Polaris Diesel/Appex and a Izip Express which you can look up reviews on to verify they are not 3-class compliant). Then one day after 3-class was adopted in Colorado they were apparently illegal to ride so I make some calls to the state AGs office and to People for Bikes. I just wanted to understand why no consideration for grandfathering what were legal ebikes since 2002. I could not get an answer so I did get frustrated and started to research what really drove this legislative effort. If "safety" really drove it I would respect that. Clearly improved clarity didn't drive it because 1 class is more clear than 3 bizarrely defined classes. Why don't you state what you think drove the need for 3-class legislation since you are stating that I'm posting false information based on a vendetta.

People can read HR727 and decide for themselves if it federally declares an LSEB to be a bike. Court has an opinion on this in his regulatory post which he states that he believes HR727 declares that an LSEB is a bike. Do you want to tell him he shouldn't have put that information on his site???

I can say with confidence that even to this day there are ebikes being purchased legally (they are federally compliant) on Alibaba and AliExpress that are not 3-class compliant and the riders buying them don't even realize they are ridding illegal bikes. If they hit a pedestrian them not being aware they are on an illegal bike will not be a defense in court. I think they deserve to know and understand how this can be true right now!

 

[Ken M]

Because ebikes didn't exist as much of a thing then (a tiny fraction of the market) and nobody who managed anything bike related knew or cared to enforce anything related to them. Your whole "things were fine in 2002!" thing is mystifying because electric bikes were pretty much blanket banned on everything bike/ped specific around here until very recently.

So your whole "the 3 class law is to cripple ebikes as a favor to the car lobby" is because one of the corporate sponsors of PFB (Bosch) said something in a video about harmonizing with europe? Because that doesn't even remotely support your statement. PFB is an industry lobbying arm (they make no secret of that) but their list of industry representatives is extensive and includes people from almost all the ebike motor system mfgs (Shimano, Yamaha, Bosch, Brose) as well as a great number of bike/bike part manufacturers. The idea that all these people would collude to somehow hold back ebikes in favor of cars when 98% of them aren't even tangentially in the car industry is frankly stupid.

You really need to stop making s*it up in pursuit of your bizarre vendetta. People actually come to this site for information; its hard enough to figure out whats proper and legal without one vocal idiot constantly making stuff up and presenting it as fact.

There it is again.... because there weren't many ebikes in 2002 is the reason there were not issues with LSEBs being ridden as bikes. Well how does that explain that there are still at least 12 states that still allow LSEBs to be ridden as bikes (these states have not adopted 3-class policy). I know Oregon may now be considering it but it's the highest ebike adoption state and it hasn't had any issues with LSEBs being used a bikes. If not needed by Oregon to this day how is your claim they didn't exist as much in 2002 be valid?

Your claim that they were banned around where you live is probably because your state kept the "motorized vehicle" assignment on ebikes which was NEVER valid after 2002 because the states had no VIN number system to declare them as motorized vehicles. Claimed blanket banned is ???? rhetoric if my opinion is as such.

By the way, Bosch, Brose, and Yamaha are huge motor vehicle businesses. Claiming they aren't even tangentially in the car industry is simply a false statement by you.

Over 3 million European ebike riders purchased the speed hack dongles. That kind of tells me they are not happy with 15mph assist limits for commuting. That's creating a lot of law breakers. So instead of reviewing the regulations, they make the ebike manufacturers figure out a way to disable the ebikes if someone puts a speed hack device on an ebike. We need more people out of cars ... more than the EU needs a 15mph assist limit and the US needs a 20mph assist limit. I'm on the side of common sense and safe legislation...not what is good for the auto industry.

I will again ask what drove the need for the 3-class system in the US given the LSEB definition in HR727 that passed one vote short of congressional consensus? That sure seems like those state representatives were happy with an LSEB as a bike. They could have created an entirely product requirements document if they wanted to but instead they put LSEB as a bike subcategory in 1512. They are sold as a bike but the states needed to parse them into 3 classes. Cmon.

 

[Ken M]

I have talked to a local sheriff about my illegal non-classed LSEB compliant ebikes and he said he would be happy to write me a ticket if I want to challenge the state law. As I ride on on that illegal ebike I just told him I'm thinking about it.

 

[Hogstir]

Doing some research on this supposed ban of E Bikes on the loop. There is no County Ordinance or statute or even a Parks dept rule that prohibits E Bikes on the loop. All they have is a “guideline” posted on the County website Chuck Huckleberry Loop page that prohibits ANY motorized vehicle on the loop.
Guidelines are suggestions and NOT legally enforceable. This is basically an underground regulation as they NEVER got approval from the Board of Supervisors to ban E Bikes from the loop.
They claim that you can be cited under park rule 1.070 which is a catch all trespassing rule basically saying “if we post that you can’t do it (anything) then it’s trespassing if you do“. They even stated years ago that they were working on an ordinance covering E Bikes on the loop. They NEVER in fact applied for an ordinance let alone got it approved.
On their page they claim that they banned E Bikes for safety purposes yet they admit they did no studies about the safety of E Bikes on the loop. They also admit that they have NEVER tried to enforce this “guideline”.
So they banned E Bikes because they were too unsafe to be allowed on the Loop yet they have NEVER tried to enforce the ban even though they admit that hundreds of people ride the loop on E Bikes daily???
I actually have the minutes from a Loop Advisory Committee meeting from 2021 where they were discussing allowing E Bikes on the loop, they asked someone on the committee for a legal opinion so I assume he was a representative from the County Attorney’s office who recommended a blanket ban on ANYTHING with a motor calling it a slippery slope if they allowed E Bikes but banned electric skate boards, hoverboards, Segways etc. His opinion was that it would be easier for them to just ban ANYTHING with a motor.

 

[vincent]

hmm, that is not how i read it but will look at it again when i have time

my concern is not so much a ticket but the legal liability of being in any kind of wreck, the county did state that ebikes are liable for any issue like that and my understanding is that is whether i am at fault or not

i personally do not want to become the lawsuit that lines all this out

 

[Hogstir]

hmm, that is not how i read it but will look at it again when i have time

my concern is not so much a ticket but the legal liability of being in any kind of wreck, the county did state that ebikes are liable for any issue like that and my understanding is that is whether i am at fault or not

i personally do not want to become the lawsuit that lines all this out

The County is trying to shift any liability from themselves by being able to claim he was riding in violation of our guidelines. Any attorney would laugh at that considering that the County never did any safety study showing E Bikes posed a greater risk than regular bicycles and the fact that they have NEVER tried to enforce a ban on something they claim to be unsafe.
They would have to show that the accident was caused by the fact that it was an E Bike and would not have happened had it been a regular bike or that the damages were greater because it was an E Bike.
Remember that both the former County Administrator and his chief deputy were severely injured while cycling using regular bikes in bike LANES on county roads. The chief Deputy sued the county for failure to maintain the lanes safely and received a multi million dollar settlement. So the county can be sued by anyone for anything.
The number one safety complaint that riders report on the loop in a county study was bicycles going too fast, yet the County has failed to ever address this safety issue by establishing ANY speed limit. I have so far spoken with the Parks Dept, a Sheriffs Deputy, the county Administrators Office and the County Attorney’s office To verify my facts.

 

[m@Robertson]

Yeah the county saying you are liable for anything is hogwash. They have no say in the adjudication process. They're just playing CYA and its only a scare tactic. Regardless of what they say their declaration has to be found to have merit in a court that reviews the individual situation.... and they have no standing in a collision anyway unless you the ebike rider are suing the county on some pretext.

If a person who was hit by an ebike and sued the county for not shooting you on sight when you entered the pathway... thats between the county and that person. Not the ebike rider.

 

[vincent]

hope you guys are both right
hogstir thanks for calling all those people and trying to get some clarification

to me the dangerous people on the loop are the road bikers, they fly
often in packs of 6-10
imo they should be on the road

it is just too dangerous with people walking, kids and animals being walked plus horses are allowed

i really wish there was a speed limit, there should be

and i wish the county/city etc would just say the ebikes are legal and be done with it

i do want to start a petition for allowing ebikes on the loop but just way too busy right now. far down my list