Probably true, but I guess that while this forum is public, I don't consider it the general public. That may be a mistake.

I probably wouldn't have taken the same approach during a debate in a bar or the city issues list, but here where we're pretty much all advocates of bikes in one way or another, I think that it makes sense to get deeper into the concepts so that we're more prepared when out talking to the unwashed masses and understand why the misstatement I was first replying to really is a misstatement that makes you vulnerable to one of those "Teach the ..." arguments.



Excellent point. I am definitely guilty of topic drift - I often can't see the title of the thread when I'm reading posts, so I sometimes respond to just what the post says without taking enough consideration of what the framework of the conversation is.

Even if one can make a perfectly green mr. fusion powered e-Ducati, it doesn't belong on the greenway.

I do think there is a place for e-assist vehicles that move at human speeds, but that's covered in my previous post as well as the recent posts by Fanatic and Nickel

No.

No.

No.

No.

A web search on the ADA and public bike trails suggests that this question can not be quite so easily answered.

I think that under Minnesota law (and probably the ADA), genuinely handicapped people already have the right to use electric vehicles on the trails. What is happening now is that electric vehicle manufacturers and dealers are lobbying for laws to be changed so they can start tapping into the huge couch potato market.

Exactly.



No.

Which is why I think something taking account some of the things I'd brought up in my previous post:



Works better than a flat No.

If we just say "No", then the obvious question about handicapped and disabled people means we're taking an unreasonable position.

On the other hand, if we approach it more like this:

http://www.ultwp.com/lanco/cwp/view.asp?A=15&Q=648462

I think we're much more firmly on the high ground although I might prefer a max speed than a max wattage concern and it might be reasonable to add in a requirement for a handicapped sticker/tag or something like that.

Restrictions on power and speed could be enacted, but with an enforcement budget of $0, they're meaningless.

I should stop posting, because it's an unwinnable argument. Technology now allows an affordable electric powered vehicle that looks like a bicycle (although the pedals are basically fake) and that means the end of the era of "bike trails" for human-powered vehicles.

Pedalling is work, shooting down a scenic trail without any effort is fun. The trails are already in place (thanks to decades of work by advocates of real bicycles). So the potential market is huge, and politicians will readily oblige dealers and owners of rental shops with any necessary changes to the laws.

We can't stop the future from arriving, even if it looks pretty ugly at times.

It may not be very winnable (and not reaching out to accommodate those who need accommodation makes it less winnable IMO), but I'm certain that if no one argues for it, the argument will certainly be lost.

Of course, having the argument _here_ doesn't make a lot of difference other than having a potential to get advocates on similar pages or at least making them aware of the ranges of opinions held by their fellow advocates.

This is the part I don't get. AFAIK people who actually are handicapped already have the right to use powered vehicles on recreational trails - I see them all the time. As far as I can see, the current debate is really about extending that right to everyone, not just the people who actually need it.

Are we extending the definition of "physically handicapped" to include anyone who can't go as far or as fast on a bicycle as they wish they could? I guess we already have. Like I said: unwinnable...

For the same reason that places that don't allow pets generally specify that there is an exception for service animals - to make sure that the exception is clearly explained and understood by all.

Otherwise Sally disabled is not as sure if she's welcome to come in the place.

And if she does, when Joe dog owner sees her, he assumes that he can bring his dog in as well since clearly the "no pets" sign is not enforced.

It cuts down on confusion while simultaneously being more friendly to the disabled.

As far as definitions of handicapped, I'd prefer to leave that to the people who determine who gets discounted bus passes and things to hang on the mirror of their cars and whatnot.

Let's just agree to bookmark this thread and check it in 10 years.

No.