[AGarcia]

If you think I'm making a spurious argument, draw the line then - what objective, quantifiable, legally unambiguous criteria differentiates between a motor which actuates when you pedal, vs. a motor which actuates when you twist a throttle with your wrist?

And to follow up here's an example of a more objective, quantifiable and (relatively) unambiguous definition for "pedal assist" bikes found in the federal Consumer Protection Safety Act:‘‘ 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."

 

[chazpat]

And that is the problem with lawyers in the US. You have to hire a lawyer to try to plug every single possible way another vulture, I mean lawyer, could possibly find to claim a loophole in what you are trying to do. They just create more work for themselves without adding any benefit to the general population. Just like all the class action lawsuits where in the end, the corporation pays a huge fine, which is then almost all taken by the lawyers, and then the corporation raises their prices to cover the cost and the consumers who were supposedly being harmed end up paying more.

Yes, I do realize that there are good lawyers, some are friends of mine.

 

[chazpat]

And to follow up here's an example of a more objective, quantifiable and (relatively) unambiguous definition for "pedal assist" bikes found in the federal Consumer Protection Safety Act:‘‘ 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."

Sure sounds like self-propelled to me.

 

[AGarcia]

Well, what else can I say? Maybe I'm truly mediocore, as stated above. And maybe I am wrong. Carry on.

 

[life behind bars]

Well, what else can I say? Maybe I'm truly mediocore, as stated above. And maybe I am wrong. Carry on.

You did insinuate that you were going to be the test case, when may we expect to see this in the news?

 

[Mookie]

Somebody better call Saul and get this sorted out.

 

[Walt]

You could get some sympathy from me (and even support) by saying something like "well, hey, trail X is wide open, has no hikers, and is directional. It's crazy that I can't ride an e-bike on it, it wouldn't hurt anything. Let's let the local land managers/local riders make the calls!"

There is the concern that full on moto riders will use the same argument in places, of course (and in fact they have, unsuccessfully, many times). But that's another issue.

The "it's really a bike so I'll do whatever I want" thing is going to just get bans expanded, however. It turns people off who would otherwise be neutral or even friendly to e-bikes and makes you seem like a jerk. Nobody likes loophole-jumpers (assuming there is actually some kind of loophole here, I'm not very interested in the semantics of the letter).

Advocate for common sense trail access (where it makes sense) and drop the lawyer schtick. You're doing your future self no access favors.

-Walt

 

[JoePAz]

Why is this so hard to understand eBikes have motors that generate forward motion. They are motorized. Those motors maybe measured in the hundreds of Watts vs tens of HP and they may only work when you move your feet, but they still have motors.

Until such time as the government choose to create a special class of vehicle definition for this they are motorized just the same as motorbikes. Now we can argue about "what a low powered e-bike is" and how it may impact trails and user conflicts, but what is not arguable is they have motors and therefore are motorized, and not allowed on "non-motorized" trails.

Pretty simple and despite the fact that some can "slide by" and not get caught does not change things one bit.

 

[Klurejr]

No, I wasn't being sarcastic at all (indeed, I'm hoping to have meaningful conversation, and you seemed willing to particiate). I don't think it's spurious at all.

I don't think it would be too hard do in the regs. Indeed, you and I could certainly put our heads together do it ourselves.

But focusing on that may obfuscate the real issue, in my estimation...

Now, humor me here, please.... and give this some thought: The letter author basically says e-bikes have a motor, and because they have a motor, they are by definition "self-propelled." and because they are self-proplled, they are motor vehicles. Essentially, what the letter author's logic leads one to conclude is anything with a motor must be a motor vehicle. That we can agree on, correct?

But..... if the regulation author really meant what the letter author asserts, then why didn't the regulation author simply define a "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle with a motor, period"? That would have been so easy, direct and clearly support the letter author's point. Why did the regulation author go and use the term "self-propelled"?

Standard legal interpretation requires that the words be given meaning: We can't ignore the use of the term "self-propelled" as the letter author, effectively, does. And one has to assume (legally, in the absence of contrary evidence) that the regulation author wouldn't include words within the regulation that are essentially meaningless. So, "self-propelled" has to mean something beyond "a motor" in this context. Indeed, the structural definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth the regulations precludes such an interpretation. One can't simply conlcude, as the letter author does, "if it has a motor, it's a motor vehicle." The regulation author could have done that, but, for whatever reason, chose not to.

Look, I understand folks don't like e-bikes. And folks here are certainly entitled to call me a d-bag or whatever. I'm probably all of that, to be honest. It's all good. But I'm always up for discussion!

You missed the second highlighted sentence in that section.

Read it again:

New technologies that merge bicycles and motors, such as e-bikes, are considered motor vehicles under 2122.1 of the TMR.

That is very clear to me. Why are you having trouble with this? The law applies to self propelled vehicles and vehicles that merge bicycle and motor technology such as pedal assist. It does not matter what someone wants to call it, the law is clear that if there is a motor of any sort in play, then it is a motorized vehicle and thus not allowed.

 

[life behind bars]

All the semantic gymnastics make it easy to want to dislike emotorbikes.

 

[sfgiantsfan]

No, I wasn't being sarcastic at all (indeed, I'm hoping to have meaningful conversation, and you seemed willing to particiate). I don't think it's spurious at all.

I don't think it would be too hard do in the regs. Indeed, you and I could certainly put our heads together do it ourselves.

But focusing on that may obfuscate the real issue, in my estimation...

Now, humor me here, please.... and give this some thought: The letter author basically says e-bikes have a motor, and because they have a motor, they are by definition "self-propelled." and because they are self-proplled, they are motor vehicles. Essentially, what the letter author's logic leads one to conclude is anything with a motor must be a motor vehicle. That we can agree on, correct?

But..... if the regulation author really meant what the letter author asserts, then why didn't the regulation author simply define a "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle with a motor, period"? That would have been so easy, direct and clearly support the letter author's point. Why did the regulation author go and use the term "self-propelled"?

Standard legal interpretation requires that the words be given meaning: We can't ignore the use of the term "self-propelled" as the letter author, effectively, does. And one has to assume (legally, in the absence of contrary evidence) that the regulation author wouldn't include words within the regulation that are essentially meaningless. So, "self-propelled" has to mean something beyond "a motor" in this context. Indeed, the structural definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth the regulations precludes such an interpretation. One can't simply conlcude, as the letter author does, "if it has a motor, it's a motor vehicle." The regulation author could have done that, but, for whatever reason, chose not to.

Look, I understand folks don't like e-bikes. And folks here are certainly entitled to call me a d-bag or whatever. I'm probably all of that, to be honest. It's all good. But I'm always up for discussion!

And this is why everyone hates lawyers. Maybe you should file a class action. It has a motor and is a vehicle

 

[WoodlandHills]

It funny how self-defeating you all can be: a guy who might very well be an attorney and seems to be a MTBer, comes on here and points out a possible loophole in what appears to be a poorly written official document that would allow the worst of all possible outcomes that you all could imagine, and what happens? Instead of thanking him for his diligence, you jump all over him. Instead of possibly seriously debating him as adults and clarifying the issue he raised, you pile on with insults. (Replace the word "lawyers" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" in a previous post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017.) The guy even bent over backwards to be polite and mature about the whole thing, reaching out to anyone who might respond with actual debate to very little response.

And to think the mods jumped on me for being provocative and impolite, but let this treatment of someone pass as if it never happened....... Is it the guys choice of career that makes it all OK? If so, what other jobs is it open season on these days........

 

[Klurejr]

It funny how self-defeating you all can be: a guy who might very well be an attorney and seems to be a MTBer, comes on here and points out a possible loophole in what appears to be a poorly written official document that would allow the worst of all possible outcomes that you all could imagine, and what happens? Instead of thanking him for his diligence, you jump all over him. Instead of possibly seriously debating him as adults and clarifying the issue he raised, you pile on with insults. (Replace the word "lawyers" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" in a previous post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017.) The guy even bent over backwards to be polite and mature about the whole thing, reaching out to anyone who might respond with actual debate to very little response.

And to think the mods jumped on me for being provocative and impolite, but let this treatment of someone pass as if it never happened....... Is it the guys choice of career that makes it all OK? If so, what other jobs is it open season on these days........

Perhaps you can point out specific posts where anyone posts any hate speech against homosexuals or those of Jewish heritage.... I did not see it.

I just went back and re-read all the replies to AGarcia, and the worst comments made were that lawyers are some of the most disliked professionals and one person compared a lawyer to a vulture. Not exactly hate speech. No one was using personal insults(something that is moderated here).

I would like to point out that your comment is off-topic and contributed nothing to this discussion.

 

[leeboh]

Hahaha! Honestly, I don't get all the hate for the pedal-assist bikes. But hey, I don't get a lot of things.. so it's all good.

Bikes don't have motors. Motorized bikes have motors and ( wait for it) are considered a motorized vehicle. Hmmm, just like the wording in the document.

 

[J.B. Weld]

I would like to point out that your comment is off-topic and contributed nothing to this discussion.

Gotta disagree, I think his post was completely relevant and I happen to agree with him. Weird but true.

 

[leeboh]

Well, heck... I was gonna take out my standard mtb for tonight's ride...But all this talk is making me want to take out the Levo instead! I'll think of ya'll while I'm riding!

Telling. " going to take out my standard mt bike tonight" The one without the motor?
The other side with their lawyer has already taken note of this. I'm sure.

 

[life behind bars]

It funny how self-defeating you all can be: a guy who might very well be an attorney and seems to be a MTBer, comes on here and points out a possible loophole in what appears to be a poorly written official document that would allow the worst of all possible outcomes that you all could imagine, and what happens? Instead of thanking him for his diligence, you jump all over him. Instead of possibly seriously debating him as adults and clarifying the issue he raised, you pile on with insults. (Replace the word "lawyers" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" in a previous post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017.) The guy even bent over backwards to be polite and mature about the whole thing, reaching out to anyone who might respond with actual debate to very little response.

And to think the mods jumped on me for being provocative and impolite, but let this treatment of someone pass as if it never happened....... Is it the guys choice of career that makes it all OK? If so, what other jobs is it open season on these days........

There is no loop hole , which was pointed out. But that little bit of trivia doesn't fit your agenda of being the disruptive token motorbiker does it?

 

[AGarcia]

You missed the second highlighted sentence in that section.

Read it again:
View attachment 1138827

No, I didn't miss it. I read it. Carefully. I also read Section 212.1 of the TMR. Carefully.

 

[chazpat]

It funny how self-defeating you all can be: a guy who might very well be an attorney and seems to be a MTBer, comes on here and points out a possible loophole in what appears to be a poorly written official document that would allow the worst of all possible outcomes that you all could imagine, and what happens? Instead of thanking him for his diligence, you jump all over him. Instead of possibly seriously debating him as adults and clarifying the issue he raised, you pile on with insults. (Replace the word "lawyers" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" in a previous post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017.) The guy even bent over backwards to be polite and mature about the whole thing, reaching out to anyone who might respond with actual debate to very little response.

And to think the mods jumped on me for being provocative and impolite, but let this treatment of someone pass as if it never happened....... Is it the guys choice of career that makes it all OK? If so, what other jobs is it open season on these days........

Someone chooses to be an attorney, they do not choose to be Jewish or gay (though some will argue otherwise) so that is not a valid comparison. And I was the one that referred to lawyers as "vultures", I tried to temper that by explaining that I was referring to lawyers who look for loopholes rather than following intent and those that file class action lawsuits for their own profit rather than the good of the damaged (and you can add patent trolls as well); I may have not done a good job in that. I did feel that AGarcia was arguing a loophole and yes, I did poke him.

AGarcia actually PMed me and he and I had a polite exchange.

 

[AGarcia]

And, yeah. It does feel like personal attacks. And it's sad to me that the moderators here add to it (or at least fail to curb it). But I've seen happen so many times on this section of the forum to anyone that appears to support e-mtbs. So it's expected, really.