CSPA Definition of an eBike- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 48 of 48
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25

    CSPA Definition of an eBike

    Here is some more ammo for all you. In short 'low speed' ebikes as defined under federal law are only pedal human powered bicycles and are not considered motorized. In the same law it prohibits states from changing this. So where ebikes are banned class 1 ebikes are not. If class 1 ebikes are banned then so are pedal bikes.

    Both sides rip this statement apart.

    Dave

    H.R.727 — 107th Congress (2001-2002)


    <DOC>
    [DOCID: fubl319.107]


    [[Page 116 STAT. 2776]]

    Public Law 107-319
    107th Congress

    An Act



    To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide that low-speed
    electric bicycles are consumer products subject to such
    Act. <<NOTE: Dec. 4, 2002 - [H.R. 727]>>

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT.

    The Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.) is amended
    by adding at the end the following:

    ``low-speed electric bicycles

    ``Sec. 38. <<NOTE: 15 USC 2085.>> (a) Notwithstanding any other
    provision of law, low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products
    within the meaning of section 3(a)(1) and shall be subject to the
    Commission regulations published at section 1500.18(a)(12) and part 1512
    of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations.

    ``(b) For the purpose of this section, the term `low-speed electric
    bicycle' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable
    pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose
    maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a
    motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20
    mph.
    ``(c) To further protect the safety of consumers who ride low-speed
    electric bicycles, the Commission may promulgate new or amended
    requirements applicable to such vehicles as necessary and appropriate.
    ``(d) This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with
    respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law
    or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements
    referred to in subsection (a).''.

    SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS. <<NOTE: 49 USC 30102 note.>>

    For purposes of motor vehicle safety standards issued and enforced
    pursuant to chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code,


    [[Page 116 STAT. 2777]]

    a low-speed electric bicycle (as defined in section 38(b) of the
    Consumer Product Safety Act) shall not be considered a motor vehicle as
    defined by section 30102(6) of title 49, United States Code.

    Approved December 4, 2002.

    LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 727:
    -----------------------------

  2. #2
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    CSP


    CSPA has no bearing on e-motorbikes on trails.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    Says who?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    "The primary responsibility of the CPSC is to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury that could occur during the use of consumer products."

    So you are saying CPSC federal definition which states cannot change has some point of disappearing and reverting to an ebike being a motorized bike? According to the CPSC's roll in government it is to protect during use. I would argue trail riding is use so by that the definition still applies.

    Got a court case showing otherwise?

  5. #5
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,763
    So, do the LM have the final say or no?
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    So you are saying CPSC federal definition which states cannot change has some point of disappearing and reverting to an ebike being a motorized bike? According to the CPSC's roll in government it is to protect during use. I would argue trail riding is use so by that the definition still applies.

    Got a court case showing otherwise?
    Don't need it. Again, this is an example of people not knowing what they are looking at. The CPSC is about the defining products for the purposes of protecting consumers and providing definitions for other laws. Just because the federal government defines a thing, doesn't mean the states or local governments can't regulate (or ban) a thing.

    Look at ATVs for instance. The Federal government defines them. But your state may require licensee of some kind for ATVs and your city might ban them in certain properties.

    Again, this sort of unwillingness to understand the land laws and access issues of eMTBs is what sets a lot of advocates teeth on edge. We don't hate eMTBs so much as we hate the fact people buy these things without understanding where they can and can not ride them and try to find a loophole large enough to drive their eMTB thru.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,824
    Quote Originally Posted by CycleKrieg View Post
    Again, this is an example of people not knowing what they are looking at.
    Exactly.

    It's just like when people quote a state's motor vehicle code definitions and try to apply them to trail situations...sorry, but that's not how it works.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,510
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    "The primary responsibility of the CPSC is to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury that could occur during the use of consumer products."

    So you are saying CPSC federal definition which states cannot change has some point of disappearing and reverting to an ebike being a motorized bike? According to the CPSC's roll in government it is to protect during use. I would argue trail riding is use so by that the definition still applies.

    Got a court case showing otherwise?
    8 posts of lame. As said the fed DOT rules do not apply to trail rules. Look up in your state. So many Fed, state and local DOT rules define " bikes" differently. Add in trail rules for State, Fed, local and conservation lands, it's a mess. Really. It's not a one shoe fits all.

  9. #9
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,763
    10-4. I just skimmed thru. If I “know” a riding area is not allowing class 1’s, don’t go there. However, we have some riding areas that are undecided and I ride them. Certainly, if you see a no ebike sign, that’s a given. But Bentonville is very progressive with the Mtb scene and has had no “known” issues with them. Once these huge destinations start allowing them and pulling in more town revenue, you will see less no ebike signs. JMO!
    Last edited by Gutch; 08-13-2018 at 08:24 AM.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    Its not an unwillingness as as I worked at National Parks, state, and on BLM land enforcing laws for years in back country trail systems. I worked in the court systems for almost 10 years due to being in this line of work. Federal definitions are very important and can/do force changes at state level or lower. All you did was again give an opinion. Point is no court case exists yet until one can show otherwise. I heard of a case in Washington state, but have yet to find it myself.

    Would a case using a predefined federal definition hold up better in court or the assumption without apparent evidence that 'low speed' ebikes damage or are dangerous on trails? A long term scientifically backed study of ebike impact would really help.

    As an example ADA requires that a landowner, land manager, business owner, etc... Show on a recurring basis that an assistive device in a particular situation, location, and time is to great a risk to the general public for it to be permitted. So yes, even a wheel chair can be banned legally. A Segway is an assistive device under ADA and yet a mall could get it banned with the proper court process. People skipped this step with ebikes which is why a court case and current federal definition are so important. I'm disabled and yet places are banning my assistive device while forgetting about people in my situation. One small city near me included permission for disabled riders and another did not.

    I ride and race a Haibike. Guess what it did for me? I was an expert racer over 10 years ago before being disabled. Now this bike has allowed me to return to that level. My skills and limits on battery basically returned me to being a average experienced racer.

    I had a guy tell me that assistive ebikes for disabled people and even assistive wheelchairs all are not allowed. He was very unpleasant in his approach while stopping next to me on the trail. He was super concerned about the trail damage he believes may happen. Funny thing was he was standing on a specific spot of trail I personally helped build. The very dirt he was standing on was dirt I helped shape and maintain.

    Over regulation is a common theme. Should ebikes be regulated? Maybe. But lets first see if people will actually abuse them on a regular basis in a way that causes a public issue.

    We have shared trails here where speeds of 30 mph to 40 mph are attainable on traditional pedal bikes for various longer sections. Yet we have no consistent issue of bike verses people or any other situation that warrants a legal change. Will we with ebikes? Maybe, but let's see first.

  11. #11
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    Its not an unwillingness as as I worked at National Parks, state, and on BLM land enforcing laws for years in back country trail systems. I worked in the court systems for almost 10 years due to being in this line of work. Federal definitions are very important and can/do force changes at state level or lower. All you did was again give an opinion. Point is no court case exists yet until one can show otherwise. I heard of a case in Washington state, but have yet to find it myself.

    Would a case using a predefined federal definition hold up better in court or the assumption without apparent evidence that 'low speed' ebikes damage or are dangerous on trails? A long term scientifically backed study of ebike impact would really help.

    As an example ADA requires that a landowner, land manager, business owner, etc... Show on a recurring basis that an assistive device in a particular situation, location, and time is to great a risk to the general public for it to be permitted. So yes, even a wheel chair can be banned legally. A Segway is an assistive device under ADA and yet a mall could get it banned with the proper court process. People skipped this step with ebikes which is why a court case and current federal definition are so important. I'm disabled and yet places are banning my assistive device while forgetting about people in my situation. One small city near me included permission for disabled riders and another did not.

    I ride and race a Haibike. Guess what it did for me? I was an expert racer over 10 years ago before being disabled. Now this bike has allowed me to return to that level. My skills and limits on battery basically returned me to being a average experienced racer.

    I had a guy tell me that assistive ebikes for disabled people and even assistive wheelchairs all are not allowed. He was very unpleasant in his approach while stopping next to me on the trail. He was super concerned about the trail damage he believes may happen. Funny thing was he was standing on a specific spot of trail I personally helped build. The very dirt he was standing on was dirt I helped shape and maintain.

    Over regulation is a common theme. Should ebikes be regulated? Maybe. But lets first see if people will actually abuse them on a regular basis in a way that causes a public issue.

    We have shared trails here where speeds of 30 mph to 40 mph are attainable on traditional pedal bikes for various longer sections. Yet we have no consistent issue of bike verses people or any other situation that warrants a legal change. Will we with ebikes? Maybe, but let's see first.





    You still haven't demonstrated how the CSPC has any bearing on this, which is after all your assertion. Everything else you posted is deflection.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    Yes, I did. If you missed it, I'm not sure how to help you.

  13. #13
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,763
    Kraisydave is a good example of a mtbr that has contributed to the Mtb seen and now wants to enjoy an emtb. It will be interesting to see how this situation shakes out over time with/if more mtbrs add an emtb to the mix.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  14. #14
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    Yes, I did. If you missed it, I'm not sure how to help you.




    You haven't helped anyone. Just spewed conjecture and mumbo jumbo. This has been covered on these forums over and over again, you aren't adding anything but your spin on matters that don't even apply to e-motorbike access. Thanks for adding nothing.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    Gutch,

    Thank you. Just wanted to have an open discussion of ebikes. Really it is a fun topic and important to me at this time.
    Others just like to troll such as using the new emotorbike. It appears they have created another class of bike. Guess that person really has no idea what's going on around them.... It is a common tactic to end the conversation like that when they are loosing.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,109
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    You haven't helped anyone. Just spewed conjecture and mumbo jumbo. This has been covered on these forums over and over again, you aren't adding anything but your spin on matters that don't even apply to e-motorbike access. Thanks for adding nothing.
    He didn't claim to have helped anyone. You really need to brush up on your comprehension skills. Most of the arguments you find yourself in revolve around you misinterpreting things that were relatively simple concepts to grasp.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    Thanks Tuckerjt07

    I was really hoping to find some solid information from all of you to use locally. It's good to read about what others are going through with ebikes. Thanks to everyone.

  18. #18
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,341
    This part of the thread had nothing to do with Bentonville, so I pulled it out to form a new thread.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,510
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    Thanks Tuckerjt07

    I was really hoping to find some solid information from all of you to use locally. It's good to read about what others are going through with ebikes. Thanks to everyone.
    "All politics are local" ( Tip O'Neil) Rules and regs vary from local, to state and federal lands. Plus the DOT rules of what a "bike" are vary. A lot. And even motorized bike definitions vary as well. Mid west? Just look up your local rules, start there. MA rider here. For the most part, motorized vehicles not allowed on off road trails in the state forests and parks( except for 6 or so spots) I mt bike a lot on town and local conservation lands, motorized vehicles are excluded. As per some of the laws around open space and conservation land holdings. Not going to debate motorized here, you can look what applies to your local. I think for example MN and PA are much different. And please stop quoting motor vehicles laws, please. Unless you are riding in the streets.

  20. #20
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,856
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    Here is some more ammo for all you. In short 'low speed' ebikes as defined under federal law are only pedal human powered bicycles and are not considered motorized. In the same law it prohibits states from changing this. So where ebikes are banned class 1 ebikes are not. If class 1 ebikes are banned then so are pedal bikes.
    Actually, by your reasoning, both Class 1 & 2 would be legal everywhere, so go wild.

    The CSPA classifies them as not being a Motor Vehicle, they don't say they're not motorized. A Motor Vehicle classification is a distinct thing.

    They do classify them as bicycles as you say.

    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-20...2-part1512.xml

    The USFS and BLM do classify them as still being motorized, you and Jim-Bo can take that up with them.

    https://peopleforbikes.org/wp-conten...Fed-2016-1.pdf

    https://www.blm.gov/policy/ib-2015-060

    Here's your ebike lawsuit, I've never been able to find any follow up info on it.

    http://forums.mtbr.com/trail-buildin...l#post12929479

    Living in a home rule state, and a home rule city, the CSPA holds no power. It's up to local govt here to decide if you can buy legal dope, what is an ebike and where you can ride them.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    Well thanks for the constructive reply, really. I do have to disagree with you about the lack of need to discuss ebikes class of motorization. I get it if you don't care. That's all good. However, the debate about classes is huge and finding a federal law showing a class is not legally motorized is significant even if it is just pavement related. The point of the law appears to be for importation and sale purposes. In no way did I see anything in the law stating that it is only for pavement.

    Simple question ... Would a small local board of land managers, small city, etc. who make the rules be influenced by this law of ebike classification? If no, then we can move on. If yes, then it does matter even if it is not directly applicable.

    In my experience to date it has helped influence my local rule makers.

    If there is law on the books anywhere else giving good definitions and/or case examples I'm open to hear it. While most of this is being handled locally, I suspect it will be federal soon.

    The most important question for me is whether or not ebikes should be permitted on pedal only bike trails specifically for legally disabled people. And where does the ADA fall on this?

    Dave

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    It is not up to local govt to decide if you can buy legal dope. The local government can decided to not have any laws against it on their books. However, it is still against federal law and a person can still be federally charged even if they are locally legal. It is why many legal drug dispensaries only accept cash. They are afraid the feds will lock their bank accounts due to it still being federally illegal.

  23. #23
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,341
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    Well thanks for the constructive reply, really. I do have to disagree with you about the lack of need to discuss ebikes class of motorization. I get it if you don't care. That's all good. However, the debate about classes is huge and finding a federal law showing a class is not legally motorized is significant even if it is just pavement related. The point of the law appears to be for importation and sale purposes. In no way did I see anything in the law stating that it is only for pavement.

    Simple question ... Would a small local board of land managers, small city, etc. who make the rules be influenced by this law of ebike classification? If no, then we can move on. If yes, then it does matter even if it is not directly applicable.

    In my experience to date it has helped influence my local rule makers.

    If there is law on the books anywhere else giving good definitions and/or case examples I'm open to hear it. While most of this is being handled locally, I suspect it will be federal soon.

    The most important question for me is whether or not ebikes should be permitted on pedal only bike trails specifically for legally disabled people. And where does the ADA fall on this?

    Dave
    If you take a few hours and read through the plethora of posts on this site you will find all this has been discussed many many times before.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    Thanks, I was trying. It goes round and round here.

    I wish in a simple world that people would see that on an ebike I'm no faster or slower than any other fit racer. Missing my ebike cuts out so much of the bike world for me. As a disabled person I would just like access to those same trails as everyone else.

    Maybe ebike tech will improve so much that no one will even know I'm on one and this conversation won't matter.

    Thanks for being understanding of why this is important to me. Debating with all of you really does help prepare me for the local debates that actually most influence access.

    Dave

  25. #25
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    Thanks, I was trying. It goes round and round here.

    I wish in a simple world that people would see that on an ebike I'm no faster or slower than any other fit racer. Missing my ebike cuts out so much of the bike world for me. As a disabled person I would just like access to those same trails as everyone else.

    Maybe ebike tech will improve so much that no one will even know I'm on one and this conversation won't matter.

    Thanks for being understanding of why this is important to me. Debating with all of you really does help prepare me for the local debates that actually most influence access.

    Dave



    Bike only trails are not subject to A.D.A. regulations. Conflating several subjects isn't helping you to get meaningful answers either. As far as your wish, the world isn't simple, hence few simple answers.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    First locally we don't have any bike only trails. For argument would you show a source?

  27. #27
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    First locally we don't have any bike only trails. For argument would you show a source?



    I ain't arguing. The info exists in these sub-forums, go crazy.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    So then in simple terms you are wrong.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,824
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    First locally we don't have any bike only trails. For argument would you show a source?
    https://www.access-board.gov/guideli...-report/trails
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,824
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    So then in simple terms you are wrong.
    Also in simple terms, ever heard of Google?

    There is also a site search function here.

    It's great you're interested in the subject, but keep in mind you are years late to the conversation here. You'll have better luck (and annoy less people) if you spend some time getting yourself up to date than demanding people everyone go back and rehash everything for you, or getting bitchy when they don't jump at the opportunity.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    Have you?

    A trail does not have to be built to accommodate everyone's disability. However, ADA does prohibit discrimination against reasonable use of an assistive device. In this case an ebike by a disabled person. Or in my case also a cane while walking.

    § 35.101 Purpose.
    The purpose of this part is to effectuate subtitle A of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S. C. 12131), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    So I just skimmed the link you posted. These state proposed trail definitions. Where they ever voted on and legally implemented? It appears not based on the information you linked.

  33. #33
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    Have you?

    A trail does not have to be built to accommodate everyone's disability. However, ADA does prohibit discrimination against reasonable use of an assistive device. In this case an ebike by a disabled person. Or in my case also a cane while walking.

    § 35.101 Purpose.
    The purpose of this part is to effectuate subtitle A of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S. C. 12131), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.



    Dude, the guy that is trying (unsuccessfully) to help you has decades of experience in these matters, including the A.D.A. Try to be a little less troll like and maybe a little more open minded.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,824
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    Have you?

    A trail does not have to be built to accommodate everyone's disability. However, ADA does prohibit discrimination against reasonable use of an assistive device. In this case an ebike by a disabled person. Or in my case also a cane while walking.

    § 35.101 Purpose.
    The purpose of this part is to effectuate subtitle A of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S. C. 12131), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.
    If you try reading more and bloviating less, you'll find that I've argued for E-bikes to be allowable OPDMDs across the board many times here. ADA OPDMD access guidelines apply to pedestrian trails; differently designated trails are exempt.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    Well, for info I was not intending to be anything but polite. I will happily write with whomever wants to talk about ebike access.

    While his intentions may be good that doesn't mean he is correct.

    The advantage of how ADA works is that I don't have to prove I can be there. One has to prove to the requirements of ADA that I cannot be there on an assistive device. I do believe a clear argument can be made about what class of ebike is assistive and which is unreasonable.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,824
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    So I just skimmed the link you posted. These state proposed trail definitions. Where they ever voted on and legally implemented? It appears not based on the information you linked.
    What is with wannabe-lawyers these days?

    Go do your own research. I didn't write the damn thing.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,824
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    Well, for info I was not intending to be anything but polite. I will happily write with whomever wants to talk about ebike access.

    While his intentions may be good that doesn't mean he is correct.

    The advantage of how ADA works is that I don't have to prove I can be there. You have to prove to the requirements of ADA that I cannot be there on an assistive device.
    Not on federal lands or trails designated other than pedestrian, or trails that have been assessed/inventoried and found to have characteristics with which certain OPDMDs are not compatible.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    No wannbe. Enforced law for a long time. Lots of training.

    So yeah, those are just hopeful guidelines and are not enforceable until adopted. Point is ADA does still apply to publicly access bike only trails.

  39. #39
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,341
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    Point is ADA does still apply to publicly access bike only trails.
    Seriously, check around this website, tons of knowledgeable people who know a lot about ADA access, most recently in this thread:

    http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/ebike...1084188-3.html

    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    I am well acquainted with the ADA requirements in general and the foot travel item is the catch. This is a guideline intended to prevent discrimination to all users. If a trail does not allow bicycles it would not be discrimination to prevent e-bikes for physically impaired users. The ADA mandate allows usage to certain extents but is liberated from making all trails accessible as the cost and impact to the environment would be too great. As this is up to the land manager they could easily fine a physically impaired user on a trail that was no motorized vehicles because it was not a noted accessible trail. When you go to Yellowstone everything is not accessible there and there is not the expectation that you could use a OPDMD to get into places that maybe you couldn't get in to with a manual wheelchair.

    The OPDMD item is an easy way to essentially white wash a very difficult concept. If a trail is bike use ebikes should be allowed under OPDMD usage by someone with a disability. If the trail is not bikes or pedestrian only, the land manager could easily argue that it is not an accessible trail and is not open to OPDMD. It would be hard to argue that this is discrimination as it is still preventing some one that doesn't have access to a OPDMD from using it. The crux of any anti discrimination law is showing that you are being discriminated against. Accessing hiking trail that didn't meet ADA guidelines for accessibility would be hard to argue as discriminatory as the park either has accessible trails that are available or that it would be imprudent and damaging to the environment to make the trail truly accessible to all.

    It's a sticky wicket for sure but pitching ADA as a right to use Ebikes somewhere is a slippery slope and lest we forget that to actually get any traction in using the ADA you generally will need a class action discrimination lawsuit raised. Of course California is different but for most other states it will be long legal slope to gain back traction and access using this tactic.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  40. #40
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,155
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    No wannbe. Enforced law for a long time. Lots of training.

    So yeah, those are just hopeful guidelines and are not enforceable until adopted. Point is ADA does still apply to publicly access bike only trails.
    I think there is a risk in asking the LM to prove that a trail is not accessible. A LM may just chose to close the trail vs go through legal proceedings or presenting the burden of proof that the trail is inaccessible. Frankly I think if I required a OPDMD or similar I would ride and ask forgiveness under the burden of ADA mandated accessibility. The description of what makes an accessible trail and what doesn't is fairly vague. A LM could decide that a trail with rocks doesn't meet their criteria for being accessible and that would stand in a court of law where access was being challenged as discrimination.

    The other factor is federal land, which is going to be different than state and will be different than local. If a trail passes through multiple districts it gets even more complicated and much more fraught with the potential for an outright bike ban vs. working out how to provide it as accessible or isn't accessible through each district.

    This is all spitballing and hasn't happened ever as far as I know but as persons with disabilities take to e-bikes the governments will need to begin addressing this, so it should be an interesting ride.
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  41. #41
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,856
    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    However, the debate about classes is huge and finding a federal law showing a class is not legally motorized is significant even if it is just pavement related.
    Again, there are some laws, federal and state, that define ebikes as not being a Motor Vehicle, which means, you don't need to have plates, lights, insurance etc. Those laws do not state they are not motorized, since they have a motor. Some places are allowing them on non motorized trails and bike paths, some are not. There isn't any consistency across the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by kraisydave View Post
    Would a small local board of land managers, small city, etc. who make the rules be influenced by this law of ebike classification? If no, then we can move on. If yes, then it does matter even if it is not directly applicable.
    The people that make the rules here in various agencies couldn't care less about the CPSA's definition of ebikes, or the USFS and BLM's stance on them. I know because I was involved. They're allowing them on bike paths and not on singletrack.

    You should also be aware that although your emtb is a Class 1 ebike, not all Class 1 ebikes are like yours. Yours is 250w, and 750w is allowed. Which is what management decisions are based on, what the law allows.

  42. #42
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,763
    Dude, if you have a legit disability, go ride your ebike. The cyclist crowd is or shouldn’t give you a hard time. If they do, they are not the image that “we” should be. The point that you are concerned where to ride is respectable. Most people don’t give a shit and are the riders that will give ebikes a bad rap.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,824
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    A LM could decide that a trail with rocks doesn't meet their criteria for being accessible and that would stand in a court of law where access was being challenged as discrimination.
    .
    The criteria for factors that can be used in determining suitability are spelled out pretty clearly in the guidelines actually.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    25
    Thanks everyone for the replies. It really does help build a picture for me so I know what to expect when traveling. In no way would I want to damage a land managers relationship with mtb'rs. For info I did just break ground again with state that doesn't have policy for ebikers with disabilities. The managers I spoke with said I was the first to ask. They had a meeting and granted me permission to ride there with my brother. I'll post after giving the details and location in a couple weeks.
    Thanks again and I will keep digging into old posts on this site for info.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    This part of the thread had nothing to do with Bentonville, so I pulled it out to form a new thread.
    The one would have to question why all of the anti-ebike rhetoric in the Bentonville e-bike thread you were participating in was allowed to stay.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  46. #46
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,341
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    The one would have to question why all of the anti-ebike rhetoric in the Bentonville e-bike thread you were participating in was allowed to stay.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    I allow your rhetoric, so why would I remove others?

    By all means continue harassing the mods and how we spend our volunteer time here at mtbr. It will end really well for you.

    Give it a rest tuckerjt07
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    I allow your rhetoric, so why would I remove others?

    By all means continue harassing the mods and how we spend our volunteer time here at mtbr. It will end really well for you.

    Give it a rest tuckerjt07
    Nonsensical question.

    I'm not harassing the mods, far from it, the only one I have an issue with is you and I'm not harassing you either. Are you now above question and/or criticism? I've asked you to recuse yourself from conversations in which you have a clearly evidenced bias as it stifles conversation and the sharing of ideas. You claim you do not let a bias reflect in your moderation. Bringing attention to and asking for an explanation when you handle situations differently, especially in instances where you have publicly acknowledged a bias, is the only avenue left.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  48. #48
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    ...Name:  download.jpg
Views: 134
Size:  8.7 KB
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-17-2019, 04:36 PM
  2. my definition of All Mountain
    By muddywings in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 03:49 AM
  3. My definition of All Mountain
    By muddywings in forum Videos and POV Cameras
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2011, 05:19 AM
  4. definition of race?....
    By CHUM in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 03-08-2011, 05:49 PM
  5. Replies: 59
    Last Post: 02-20-2005, 05:53 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.