These bike laws are tyranny on wheels

[Mike and Joan Divine]

I hope this isn’t around the corner for us.  Scary bullshit if you ask me

 

Policymakers are making a basic form of transportation and a familiar element of childhood less accessible.

March 4, 2026 at 6:30 a.m. ESTYesterday at 6:30 a.m. EST

5 min

Make us preferred on Google

Illustration by Chiqui Esteban/The Washington Post; iStock

By Kevin R. Parker

 

Kevin R. Parker is a cyclist and writer in Prince William County, Virginia.

 

When I was 7 years old, I rode my bike beyond the end of the block for the first time to a shopping center a few streets away. Despite the short distance, it felt like a grand adventure. I remember riding along the shaded walkway in front of the stores, gliding across the smooth concrete with nobody else around, carrying the knowledge I had gotten myself to this seemingly exotic place on my own.

The conversations animating the Editorial Board, delivered to your inbox every Tuesday

 

Decades later, I still remember that first feeling of freedom. Thanks to my bike, my world got bigger.

 

A bicycle doesn’t require a license, registration, insurance or fuel. You don’t need an app or a subscription. You just get on and go. In an era when your car can track where you drive and report it to your insurance company, the freedom a bicycle offers is appealing. It is a form of transportation available to children, grandparents, minimum-wage workers, and anyone with legs and a sense of balance. Bicycles offer genuine freedom of movement in a world that offers less of it every year.

 

E-bikes extend that freedom. Those who can’t manage hills anymore can ride again. Someone who lives a little too far from work for a regular bike suddenly has another option for the commute. E-bikes make the world bigger for more people. But policymakers are hard at work designing regulations that curtail this freedom.

🎤

 

Follow Opinions on the news

 

In January, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed the most restrictive e-bike bill in the country into law. Every e-bike rider in the Garden State — including those on pedal-assisted models — now needs a license, registration and insurance. Riders must be at least 15 years old. The law was rushed through the legislature and signed on Murphy’s last full day in office, over the objections of cycling and transportation groups.

 

The justification for New Jersey’s legislation is safety. A 13-year-old boy was killed on an e-bike when he collided with a landscaping truck in September, and there are real safety concerns for riders and pedestrians when it comes to faster and more powerful e-bikes. E-bikes that hit high speeds can be a problem. But the law doesn’t distinguish between different kinds of e-bikes when it comes to licenses, registration and age limits. A 70-year-old on a pedal-assist bike riding to the grocery store is treated identically to a teenager on a powerful e-bike doing 40 mph. The proposed regulations are a blunt instrument that restricts transportation options and increases cost for people.

 

New Jersey isn’t alone. Cities across the country are debating new regulations, and not just for e-bikes. After Murphy signed the bill into law, New Hampshire introduced a bill requiring a $50 annual registration fee on all bicycles that operate on paths, roads or trails funded by state or local government, including children’s bikes. In California, progressive Bay Area communities have moved to ban or restrict e-bikes on paths and in public parks — the same communities that spent years and millions promoting alternatives to cars, now cracking down on the most effective alternative.

 

When he signed the law, Murphy said the updated regulations were needed to “prevent tragedies from occurring.” Defending onerous regulations by citing a need to make citizens safer is not new. Midwestern cities started banning sledding on public hills — not because sledding had become more dangerous after generations but because of potential liability. The joy of flying down a hill was suddenly off-limits for children in these in towns and cities. The danger presented by e-bikes is greater than sledding, and accidents have been on the rise. But legislators shouldn’t respond with blanket regulation that doesn’t recognize different types of bikes and the risks they pose. There are other ways to address safety concerns without raising bureaucratic and financial barriers for bike riders who are following the rules. Florida’s Senate — in the country’s most dangerous state for cycling — just passed legislation introducing new speed limits on e-bikes and requiring local law enforcement to track crashes involving e-bikes.

 

In the name of reining in out-of-control e-bike riders flouting existing laws that are inadequately enforced, lawmakers are regulating 14-year-olds exploring their towns on their own for the first time and grandparents who need a little help to keep biking around their neighborhoods. And yet, this issue seemingly has no political home.

 

Activists fighting e-bike restrictions frame it as climate policy or transportation equity. The political language focuses on progressive political priorities. There’s a stronger argument to be made based on personal liberty: State governments are restricting personal mobility and imposing licensing and registration on bike riders across the board. There are reckless e-bike riders who break the rules of the road and put themselves and other citizens at risk. If they violate the speed limit, ignore traffic lights or blow through stop signs, local law enforcement should hold them responsible. But by pursuing aggressive blanket regulation, policymakers are making a basic form of transportation and a familiar element of childhood less accessible.

 

The walkway where I rode as a child almost certainly has signs now. No bicycling. No skateboarding. No loitering. We have become quite good at forbidding small freedoms in the name of safety and liability, and bad at noticing what we’ve lost.

correctionAn earlier version misstated when New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed the e-bike bill into law.

 

What readers are saying

The conversation explores the new e-bike regulations in New Jersey, with many participants expressing strong opinions about the need for such measures. A significant number of commenters argue that e-bikes, especially those with throttles, should be regulated like motor vehicles... Show more

 

[James Logie]

E-Bikes are motorized vehicles capable of speeds that endanger the wide range of users on our meager cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.  E-Bikes are not an appropriate use of public facilities that are designed for non-motorized transit and recreational activities.  As motorized vehicles E-Bikes belong on roads and should be regulated as motorized road users because it's the only way to ensure they are banned from use on public pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "Pedalers".
To post a message, send email to: peda...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to: pedalers-u...@googlegroups.com
To post a message to the group owner, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers/post?sendowner=1&hl=en
For more options, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pedalers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pedalers+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/047901dcac9d%24474cf120%24d5e6d360%24%40erols.com.

--

Jamie Logie
301-356-1308

[Jim Quinn]

I am 82 years old and can't ride as fast nor as far as I could at the YOUNG age of 70.  I gave myself an E-Bike for my 78^th birthday.  I ride mostly on the roads but occasionally ride on a sidewalk or multi-use paved path because the road is not there or not safe.  Remember that we do NOT have the biking infrastructure that you would find in Europe.

On the E-bike and on paved roads, I can climb hills, ride 50-60 miles, and average 15 MPH.  I do not need someone restricting how fast I can go downhill on a paved road with the motor turned off (e.g. 40-45 MPH).  I have no problem with a speed limit on a busy multiuse path especially around cities.  I personally do not need that speed limit but some do.  I approach a pedestrian just like I wish cars approached me when I'm on a bike (i.e. carefully and with a verbal warning).

---

From: peda...@googlegroups.com <peda...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of James Logie <jamie...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 8:22 AM
To: Mike and Joan Divine <mikeandj...@erols.com>
Cc: peda...@googlegroups.com <peda...@googlegroups.com>; the-wednesda...@googlegroups.com <the-wednesda...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [pedalers] These bike laws are tyranny on wheels

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/CAMNy0G%2BwesFUpZGcJAn8LG1JK1vMEB1LZ%3Dd8%2BeVETedk%2BbWQww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rodrigo Loureiro]

Statements like these deepen the problem and sew division and confusion within the cycling community as well as towards the cycling community as unfortunately, there is so much confusion about ‘e-bikes’, even within the cycling community, and the cycling is not helping by making the confusion more prevalent.

The original article makes it clear, but like so many others, most only red the headlines. I like the original article distinction between pedal assist and other e-bikes. They are not the same thing.

We should be striving for a clarification of the regulations, as Class 1 and 3 e-bikes (pedal assist) and totally different from Class 2 e-bikes. While I agree that Class 2 e-bikes should be regulated, licensed as any other type of motor vehicle (which they are), Class 1 and 3 should not. I bet most don’t know it.

Class 1 and 3 belong into any other path, trail where normal bicycles are used, whereas Class 2 do not. As the article describes so well, “ the law doesn’t distinguish between different kinds of e-bikes when it comes to licenses, registration and age limits. A 70-year-old on a pedal-assist bike riding to the grocery store is treated identically to a teenager on a powerful e-bike doing 40 mph."

This is the problem, and by, even cyclist on this group, taking a stance against all e-bikes, we are dooming ourselves, as Class 1 and Class 3 e-bikes are the future, for again cyclist, beginner cyclist, and any cyclist who feels they can’t ride bc they can’t keep or find the hills too difficult to ride.

We need to expand the population riding bicycles (including Class 1 and Class 3) bicycles, rather than trying to divide the cycling community.

Thanks,

Rodrigo

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/CAMNy0G%2BwesFUpZGcJAn8LG1JK1vMEB1LZ%3Dd8%2BeVETedk%2BbWQww%40mail.gmail.com.

[James Logie]

Disagree.  The wide range of skills and experience among E-bike users, as well as the range of differing types of E-Bikes, is the problem.  There's no practical way to police the use of different classes of E-Bikes and the variation of responsible versus irresponsible use among the pool of users poses an unacceptable risk to public safety.  A motorized vehicle is a motorized vehicle.

--

Jamie Logie
301-356-1308

[Mariette Vanderzon]

There is definitely a way to differentiate between different classes of E-bikes.   We easily differentiate between cars and trucks, between antique and newer, between junior licenses, CDLs, Class M, and RVs.   

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/CAMNy0G%2B5EtA%2Bw80X3ZJOQ2kk1OC%3Dgmar3wHwFU9QQ1J-O_WjQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rodrigo Loureiro]

Where do you stop in terms of ‘ranges of different types of bikes’?

Same could be said about Time Trial / Triathlon bikes… should we say that TT bikes have no place on multi-use trails, because “irresponsible use among the pool of users poses an unacceptable risk to public safety”?

How about ‘aero bikes’? Should we also say “ban aero road bikes bc irresponsible use among the pool of users poses an unacceptable risk to public safety"

How about ‘race optimized bikes’? Should we also say “ban race optimized road bikes bc irresponsible use among the pool of users poses an unacceptable risk to public safety"

How about recumbent bikes? Should we also say “ban recumbent bikes bc irresponsible use among the pool of users poses an unacceptable risk to public safety"

No, I concede the argument that ‘class 2’ e-bike (throttle e-bike where the user does not have to do any physical exertion to move’ are questionable on bike paths and multi-use trails, but any and all bicycles (in any way shape or format) that only moves when the user exerts forces onto the pedals have a place among the community of cyclists, and wherever cyclist use their bicycles, including multi-use and bike paths.

The cycling community is under attack by motorists, legislators and in general by people who never ride a bicycle, and it’s about time that we ourselves stop attacking each other bc some of us ride a type of bicycle we ourselves do not ride, and further reducing the appeal of riding on a bicycle

[Doug Scott]

There was a great read a few months ago tracing the origins of the e-bike classifications to a 1997 Lee Iacocca company EV Global.  Through that lens the classifications make a certain about of sense.  Roll forward to today and I am not so certain.  The fact that we seem anchored in a 1997 era classification system despite huge underlying change is a systemic problem.

I see little fundamental difference at this point in the type of engine - gas or electric.  Class 2 e-bikes ought to be regulated under the moped/motorcycle framework and probably need to disappear from discussions of e-bikes going forward.  At that point, I do not know that other than an upper limit on speed the distinction between Classes 1 and 3 is really anything more than consumer preference.

Given the current affordability of cars, it might be useful to understand the regulatory framework that makes moped’s more prevalent in other countries and not here.  As I see it the only differences between class 2 e-bike and mopeds comes down to basic safety features like lights.  Driving around Gaithersburg at night, lights would be a useful requirement.

Doug

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/EB1C1BBD-3E52-4FBF-8FC6-B26A82148813%40gmail.com.

[Doug Scott]

I think it is pretty simple and calling out differences between race bikes and touring or TT bikes serve no public or safety interest.  I get to three:

bicycle

e-bike - pedal assist

moped/motorcycle for Class 2

Done, I would sell it as de-regulation.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/79CBB054-1093-4E41-A2B3-C1DB2A554E67%40gmail.com.

[Rodrigo]

I'm calling for an even simpler de-regulation

Bicycle : Human propelled (aided, or not)

moped/motorcycle for Class 2

Done

--

Rodrigo
http://teamrodrigo.com

[Mariette Vanderzon]

It's all just hot air if we don't tell our regulators, I mean legislators.  Many of whom claim to be in favor of deregulation.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/CA%2BS8auMiMgWyGQ%2BoezYfHXUVjMobmVi6-%3DwWYVrTvq5B8Uredw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rodrigo]

I agree !!!!

Let's get started : https://pedal-freedom.netlify.app

Welcome any comments/suggestions and additions

Rodrigo

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/CAE2OczJoPT66GyXA4rvzfhjfVXTQBNqipWUKj%2BwBS2iCCQy84A%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Rodrigo
http://teamrodrigo.com

[Allen Muchnick]

The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles will study how to regulate (and possibly educate the users of) electric personal mobility devices in the coming months.

HB1120,  a bill to study electric personal mobility devices, has already passed both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly and awaits the governor's signature.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. § 1. That the Department of Motor Vehicles shall convene a work group to examine and make recommendations for options and measures for improving the safety of electric power-assisted bicycles, motorized skateboards and scooters, electric personal assistive mobility devices, and mopeds for operators and the general public. The work group shall be composed of relevant stakeholders identified by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Such stakeholders may include representatives of law-enforcement agencies, the Virginia Association of Counties, the Virginia Municipal League, manufacturing companies, common interest community associations, and bicycle riding organizations. The work group shall develop recommendations regarding whether to propose new regulations or legislation related to improving the safety of electric power-assisted bicycles, motorized skateboards and scooters, electric personal assistive mobility devices, and mopeds for operators and the general public and any other recommendations it deems appropriate. The work group shall report its findings to the Chairs of the House and Senate Committees on Transportation no later than November 1, 2026.

Allen

Allen Muchnick
Manassas VA
allen22204@gmail.com
703-625-2453 mobile

On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 11:07 AM Mariette Vanderzon <mariette....@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/CAE2OczJoPT66GyXA4rvzfhjfVXTQBNqipWUKj%2BwBS2iCCQy84A%40mail.gmail.com.

[James Logie]

Of course they can be differentiated on an administrative level.  Real time policing is another matter.  There's no practical way to police the use of different classes of E-Bikes in the public sphere.

--

Jamie Logie
301-356-1308

[James Logie]

The cycling community is under attack by a lack of respect for our right to use the roads.  The only way to secure that respect is through promotion and adoption of roads as a shared use domain in which the rights and safety of vulnerable users are observed and protected.  If we as cyclists can't face the reality of the hazards associated with the booming popularity of E-Bikes and refuse to extend due consideration to the vulnerable users of public trails and pedestrian facilities we're in no position to insist that motorists extend those considerations to us.   

--

Jamie Logie
301-356-1308

[Steve Palincsar]

On 3/5/26 8:22 AM, James Logie wrote:

E-Bikes are motorized vehicles capable of speeds that endanger the wide range of users on our meager cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. 

My e-bike, a Class 1 Alchemy with a Fazua drive, has assist up to 20 mph and is no faster than a typical unassisted road bike, and definitely slower than one ridden by an A or AA rider.

E-Bikes are not an appropriate use of public facilities that are designed for non-motorized transit and recreational activities. 

To all intents an purposes, it is non-motorized transport.

As motorized vehicles E-Bikes belong on roads and should be regulated as motorized road users because it's the only way to ensure they are banned from use on public pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Why should a Class 1 e-bike be regulated as though it was a motorcycle, when it plainly is not?  And why should it be banned from bicycle facilities, when it clear is a bicycle?

Who are you, James?  What is your experience with e-bikes?  You're making some pretty broad and bold assertions, and I'm really curious what they're based on.  One would think that any member of the pedalers list would be a cyclist, and would know better.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 3/5/26 9:39 AM, James Logie wrote:

Disagree.  The wide range of skills and experience among E-bike users, as well as the range of differing types of E-Bikes, is the problem. 

And the way we solve that problem is let's not distinguish between them, let's just lock them all up and throw the key away.  Right?

There's no practical way to police the use of different classes of E-Bikes and the variation of responsible versus irresponsible use among the pool of users poses an unacceptable risk to public safety.  A motorized vehicle is a motorized vehicle.

How about you throw the book at the irresponsible, and leave the rest of us alone to piddle along at our 13-15 mph averages?

There are plenty of irresponsible motorists.  We can't differentiate between them, so let's treat them all as though they were all criminals.  Right?  Because that is the gist of your argument.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 3/5/26 9:56 AM, Mariette Vanderzon wrote:
> There is definitely a way to differentiate between different classes
> of E-bikes.   We easily differentiate between cars and trucks, between
> antique and newer, between junior licenses, CDLs, Class M, and RVs.

And between responsible and irresponsible drivers.

[Carol L.]

Exactly.  The problem isn’t the e-bikes themselves.  The problem is the people who ride them inappropriately and irresponsibly.  And guess what.  People can ride regular bikes inappropriately and irresponsibly too.  I will say, as someone who has ridden an e-bike since 2019 (mostly), they can be a different beast and require some additional skill to manage.  And I’m only talking about class 1 (20 mph assist) and class 3 (28 mph assist).  Class 2 bikes, as noted in this discussion thread, are essentially mopeds.  Carol

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 5, 2026, at 6:46 PM, 'Steve Palincsar' via Pedalers <peda...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "Pedalers".
To post a message, send email to: peda...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to: pedalers-u...@googlegroups.com
To post a message to the group owner, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers/post?sendowner=1&hl=en
For more options, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pedalers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pedalers+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/55774f3b-f766-4661-bb60-1affd6b807f1%40his.com.

[James Logie]

The way we solve the problem is to return to the principle that kept motorized vehicles off public trails and sidewalks for the past several decades.  One simple rule:  No Motorized Vehicles.  There is no practical way for law enforcement to differentiate between multiple classes of motorized bicycles and conduct effective enforcement in real time.  Public trail facilities and sidewalks are not designed for motorized vehicles.  That's why use of motorized vehicles have always been banned and many years of experience show that a simple rule works:  No Motorized Vehicles.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "Pedalers".
To post a message, send email to: peda...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to: pedalers-u...@googlegroups.com
To post a message to the group owner, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers/post?sendowner=1&hl=en
For more options, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pedalers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pedalers+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/55774f3b-f766-4661-bb60-1affd6b807f1%40his.com.

--

Jamie Logie
301-356-1308

[James Logie]

You're suggesting that all irresponsible drivers are managed and contained, everywhere, at all times?  If this were true the roads would be considerably safer for all users, including cyclists.  Unfortunately, automobile crashes remain a leading cause of death and injury in the United States, often as the result of irresponsible driving.

When and how will law enforcement manage to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible E-Bike users and different classes of E-Bikes?  Opening facilities not designed for motorized vehicles to motorized vehicle use exposes the vulnerable users of those facilities to threats similar to what we all experience on roads.  There is no practical way to mitigate this problem.  The simple rule that has worked for years is No Motorized Vehicles.  We should return to this common sense solution that has been proven by decades of experience.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "Pedalers".
To post a message, send email to: peda...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to: pedalers-u...@googlegroups.com
To post a message to the group owner, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers/post?sendowner=1&hl=en
For more options, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pedalers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pedalers+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/af541f32-4d34-4e33-b814-a5ea365f1c8d%40his.com.

--

Jamie Logie
301-356-1308

[Steve Wartik]

In my experience, differentiating between multiple classes of e-bikes is simple enough. If someone is riding without pedaling, they are riding a class 2 or class 4 e-bike. And it's easy to distinguish these two by their looks. If you can train an officer to use a hand-held speed detector, you can train them to spot the characteristic features of e-bike classes. They may make a few mistakes, but on the whole I think they'd be effective.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 3/6/26 8:01 AM, James Logie wrote:

You're suggesting that all irresponsible drivers are managed and contained, everywhere, at all times?  If this were true the roads would be considerably safer for all users, including cyclists.  Unfortunately, automobile crashes remain a leading cause of death and injury in the United States, often as the result of irresponsible driving.

No, I am flat out saying that you don't know what you're talking about, are wrong about everything you've said, and have nothing useful to say on this issue.

When and how will law enforcement manage to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible E-Bike users and different classes of E-Bikes? 

By their behavior.  Can it be simpler than this?

Opening facilities not designed for motorized vehicles to motorized vehicle use exposes the vulnerable users of those facilities to threats similar to what we all experience on roads.

My e-bike is not a motor vehicle, and proves no danger to my fellow cyclists.  You would punish me anyway.  That's nonsensical.

  There is no practical way to mitigate this problem.  The simple rule that has worked for years is No Motorized Vehicles.  We should return to this common sense solution that has been proven by decades of experience.

Pure bovine excrement.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 3/6/26 7:41 AM, James Logie wrote:

The way we solve the problem is to return to the principle that kept motorized vehicles off public trails and sidewalks for the past several decades.  One simple rule:  No Motorized Vehicles.  There is no practical way for law enforcement to differentiate between multiple classes of motorized bicycles and conduct effective enforcement in real time.  Public trail facilities and sidewalks are not designed for motorized vehicles.  That's why use of motorized vehicles have always been banned and many years of experience show that a simple rule works:  No Motorized Vehicles.

You want a 100% successful solution that worked for thousands of years?  You break the law, we execute you. 

A bit too simple?

A more practical simple solution is we punish you on the basis of your behavior.  It is not the bike, but how you ride it that determines if you are acting irresponsibly.  A bicycle with e-assist is every bit as suitable or unsuitable for trail facilities and sidewalks as an unassisted bicycle, depending on how it is ridden.

It seems pretty clear to me you have no practical experience with the sort of e-bikes member of this list might own.  Do you even ride a bicycle?  It seems doubtful.

[Denise C.]

Ouch!  Steve!

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "Pedalers".
To post a message, send email to: peda...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to: pedalers-u...@googlegroups.com
To post a message to the group owner, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers/post?sendowner=1&hl=en
For more options, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pedalers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pedalers+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/decf3355-121a-4016-9b20-7b68f2dc8322%40his.com

.

[Francisco Velez V]

Yes—you certainly lose credibility when it turns into a personal attack. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this list who are conflicted about the issue and are trying to examine both sides of the argument. This isn’t a typical cross-section of Americans—please stick to logical, data-driven arguments rather than personal attacks.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/1531627811.327494.1772804759017%40mail.yahoo.com.

--

--
Frank Velez
(315)222-4433

[Len Burman]

James, you’re just wrong. Pedal assist e-bikes allow all sorts of people to get into cycling or continue cycling who otherwise wouldn’t be able to do it. The first time I encountered an e-bike, an overweight person who I had passed earlier passed me on her heavy mountain bike going uphill. I was puzzled at first and then annoyed when I realized she was on an e-bike. But then I thought she probably wouldn’t be on a bike if she had to pedal up the hill unaided. This assistive technology allowed her to get into my sport and get into shape. I hope she got stronger—maybe strong enough to ride a traditional bike. Maybe she got into triathlons. Even if not, she was getting to commute to work on a bike—an activity that kept me healthy and happy for decades. Yay!  

Shame on you for trying to take that away from people like her!

Some people commute on an e-bike because they don't want to get all sweaty. Some, perhaps many, would otherwise drive their cars contributing to pollution and road congestion. Their choice to ride an e-bike benefits all of us. (The same js true of electric scooters, even though they are super annoying.) The vast majority of these people aren't speeding or putting anyone at risk. Most would not bike if they were restricted to riding in the street..

Lennard Zinn, who was on the US Olympic team in 1980 (which never got to compete because Jimmy Carter pulled us out of the Olympics that year). He kept riding with world-class cyclists until he almost died from the effects of long-term overtraining on his heart. He wrote a book about it called The Haywire Heart. A custom frame builder, he started building e-bikes in part so that aging athletes like him could keep riding with their friends without killing themselves. He also sold to aging wannabe athletes like me. I'm old and slow and take heart medicine that makes me even slower. I still love cycling and can ride with friends who are a lot faster. At my last physical, my doctor asked if I use any assistive devices. I listed my eyeglasses and my e-bike.

The safety issue on bike paths arises from speed and recklessness, not the sources of energy used to turn your pedals. Many Potomac Pedaler riders can ride fast enough to be a menace to pedestrians and other cyclists without any mechanical aids, although I assume the vast majority of us ride responsibly. The right policy is to deter people from riding recklessly regardless of their power source. There's no perfect solution, but a blanket ban of e-bike riders from bike paths a terrible solution.

Cheers,

Len Burman

 

————————————————

Warning, iPhone autocorrect applied 

On Mar 6, 2026, at 8:46 AM, 'Denise C. via Pedalers <peda...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/1531627811.327494.1772804759017%40mail.yahoo.com.

[James Logie]

I'm confident in my assessments and I disagree with everything you're saying.  At this juncture I have no more time to put into a back and forth on this.

Steve Palincsar	8:45 AM (2 hours ago)
to me

On 3/6/26 7:32 AM, James Logie wrote:

As an experienced cyclist

I think you're as much an experienced cyclist as those MAGA trolls that get on Quora and begin questions by saying things like "I've been a Democrat for years but".  I don't believe you're a cyclist at all; I think you're a troll.

I know better than to tolerate use of motorized vehicles on facilities that are barely adequate for non-motorized use.  There is no practical way to exercise real time policing of different classes of motorized vehicles on public facilities intended for non-motorized and pedestrian transit and recreation.  Common sense, and plenty of experience as a user of trail facilities throughout the region, has demonstrated to me that far too many people already make inappropriate use of motorized vehicles on those facilities.  Absent regulation there's no reason to think this trend will not continue to grow.   

Begone.

--

Jamie Logie
301-356-1308

[James Logie]

"Some people commute on an e-bike because they don't want to get all sweaty. Some, perhaps many, would otherwise drive their cars contributing to pollution and road congestion. Their choice to ride an e-bike benefits all of us."

Len,  

This sounds good if we have infrastructure that is designed for motorized transport such as E-Bikes and motor scooters.  Such infrastructure does not exist in the DC area, nor will it any time soon.  My view is that we should invest in facilities to promote less polluting options for individual commuters in conjunction with mass transit development.  Perhaps we can collectively develop the political atmosphere to support infrastructure that promotes better transit choices in the future.  

And, the answer is no, I will not be ashamed of advocating for the safety of vulnerable users of trails, sidewalks and roads.

--

Jamie Logie
301-356-1308

[Alan Felsen]

I'll put on my pedant hat (as usual) and point out a definition that many seem to have gotten wrong in this discussion.  All 2-wheelers with electric motors are not Class 1, 2, or 3 e-bikes.  Everything with a throttle is NOT a class 2 e-bike.

From: https://thecyclistchoice.com/resources/virginia-ebike-laws/

Quick Answer: Virginia E-Bike Laws in 2026

No driver’s license, registration, or insurance required. Virginia classifies e-bikes into three classes: Class 1 (pedal-assist to 20 mph), Class 2 (throttle to 20 mph), and Class 3 (pedal-assist to 28 mph, riders must be 14+ or supervised by an adult 18+, helmets required for all). All classes limited to 750W motors. E-bikes are allowed on roads, bike lanes, and most paths where traditional bikes can go.

Quick Answer: Maryland E-Bike Laws (2026)

Definition & classes: Maryland defines Class 1–3 e-bikes (≤750W) with permanent class labels and equipment rules (Transp. §11-117.1).

Rights & duties: E-bikes generally follow bicycle rules; no driver’s license, registration, or insurance (§21-1205.1).

Paths & trails: Park and trail access is set by land managers. DNR rail-trail exceptions: Torrey C. Brown Rail Trail and Western Maryland Rail Trail allow e-bikes (follow posted rules). Many natural-surface State Park trails remain closed to e-bikes unless designated (DNR Park Policies).

Helmets: Riders and passengers under 16 must wear a helmet (§21-1207.1).

Age (Class 3): Operators must be 16+ (see Class 3 in §11-117.1, and §21-1205.2).

If it has a throttle and can go over 20 mph, or is pedal-assist and can go (assisted) above 28 mph, or has a motor above 750 watts, it isn't an e-bike at all under the law.  It makes no sense to talk about "e-bike" legislation when talking about things that aren't e-bikes under the law..

One post mentioned 'class 4' e-bikes.  As best I can tell, that is a colloquial term for things that are NOT e-bikes and not a legal definition.  I think we should avoid calling them that.  It's almost an oxymoron.   What is a class 4 e-bike?  It's an object that isn't an e-bike.

A mountain bike YouTuber that I follow (Berm Peak) has been covering this for a while, even before the e-bike bans started, and he argues that we should use the terms "e-bike" and "e-moto" (or e-motorcycle).  We should all be in favor of rules and regulations for the sale and use of e-motos (at least assuming you aren't a libertarian who opposes those rules on internal combustion powered two wheelers).  A gas powered motorcycle requires a title, registration, insurance, and a special driver's license.  Slapping some barely functional pedals on a Harley-Davidson wouldn't make anyone think it should be allowed to be ridden by a 14-year old on a bike path.  The same should be true for a 1,500W, 40+ mph electric motorcycle.

The 'crisis' that these laws seem to be attempting to address mostly deals with e-motos.  E-bikes are just getting swept up in it, and it would help if all of us made a clear distinction between E-bikes and other motor vehicles. 

I have no real objection to class 2 e-bikes.  I'm also not sure I'd object to them being treated somewhat differently than pedal-assist-only bikes, but with the 20mph limit they aren't really the massive danger to public safety that seems to be sparking this reaction.  Even if the regulations on class 2 changed  --- only allow on the road?  don't allow on unpaved trails? --- would it really make sense to group them with e-motos and require a license, insurance, registration, and title for a class 2 e-bicycle?

I just did a Google image search for "e-bike".  The first 4 SPONSORED results are these:

Two of those look like e-bikes.  The other two, not so much.  The first one doesn't have pedals and has a 8,000W/15,000W motor (!!!!!) with a top speed of 53/62 mph (higher numbers for the "Pro" model).  It is listed as an 'off road' electric dirt bike because they have to do that to avoid regulations on selling it as a road-going vehicle.  So the very first thing you see on Google when searching "e-bike" is an e-moto.  We need to take the term "e-bike" back.

I'll also put on my retired police officer hat and say that we ask the police to make many distinctions between things to guide enforcement.  The argument that 'the police can't tell the difference between them so we have to ban them all' is weak.  It might be helpful to require e-bikes to have markings that designate their class and then apply significant penalties for falsifying those markings or modifying the vehicles in a way that changes their class. Even without that, I trust the police can distinguish between an e-moto and an e-bike most of the time.  That, combined with existing rules on behavior (speed limits on trails, general laws against reckless operation) should be enough to keep people safe without going to the extremes of the New Jersey law.

Alan

[Mariette Vanderzon]

So you are saying rather than compromise, you'd want all the people who can now commute by bike to work get back in their cars and spew carbon dioxide in the air? 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "Pedalers".
To post a message, send email to: peda...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to: pedalers-u...@googlegroups.com
To post a message to the group owner, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers/post?sendowner=1&hl=en
For more options, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/pedalers?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pedalers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pedalers+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/CAA5UzP0fsRz5mqjBVC%2BnUtMpUqoUEh5n7o8ZMawKTMsn_OjDDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Steve Palincsar]

No, I think it's pretty clear that Alan wants bike laws to distinguish between the various types of e-asst/e-propelled two wheel vehicles, treating the different types in different, appropriate, manners.

There are two-wheel electric powered vehicles that people are calling "e-bikes" when then actually have the performance characteristics of electric mopeds and motorcycles.  The Jersey law that set this discussion off treats them all the same, as electric motorcycles.  Alan's discussion clarifies the differences between the types.

Anyone who has ridden a class 1 e-assist bicycle realizes they're very different in performance than one of the 15,000 watt electric motorcycles shown below.  You'd think it intuitively obvious that a bicycle with a 250 - 350 watt assist is not the same as one with a fifteen thousand watt motor, and that an e-bike that will not move unless you turn the cranks is fundamentally different from one where you sit on it and turn a throttle, and it moves by itself.

But again, the Jersey law treats them all the same.  And some on this list have even taken the extremist line that if it's got a motor, it's a motor vehicle, and there is no difference between a 350 watt assist that only works when you turn the cranks, and a Kawasaki Ninja motorcycle with 326 horspower or a Corvette E-Ray: they're all "motor vehicles" because "motor."

I'm glad that Virginia and Maryland laws show some common sense in this matter, and it deeply saddens me that there are some among us on this list who do not agree.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/CAE2Ocz%2BZS%3Dn4Tq2Owo5ZWh6RSGCW0%2BpVHTBwxXSFgxmt6TKqaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
Steve Palincsar
Alexandria, Virginia 
USA

[Francisco Velez V]

I understand the “three-class compromise” as a middle ground between the categorical-difference argument by James and the access-and-mobility argument by Steve(s) and the  Behavior v Technology argument  by several.  However, I own a cargo e-bike (a pedal-assist Urban Arrow limited to 20 mph), and with three kids in it at that speed the truth is that much of the infrastructure around DC simply isn’t designed for it. That’s essentially an infrastructure-fit problem. It’s not much of an extension to a regular e-bike in principle.

Many of the trails have too many pedestrians, the paths are narrow, and the speed differences create real challenges for pedestrians trying to react and avoid conflicts.

I also think there is a legitimate risk-amplification argument here. I run on these trails a lot myself — sometimes with headphones on, looking down at my watch, or making a sudden turn when I hit the lap button (you know… like an urban runner). Adding motors can mean higher sustained speeds, heavier bikes, and more inexperienced riders traveling faster than they might on a traditional bike. That combination increases risk to me as a pedestrian.

I don’t think it needs to be deeply troubling that people are conflicted about a new technology that our infrastructure and legislation haven’t fully caught up with. Reasonable people can hold different views here. As a first responder, I’ve seen a lot of terrible outcomes involving cyclists (and e-scooters — my gosh, the e-scooters), both in car–bike collisions and bike–pedestrian incidents. Given that reality, it seems reasonable for some people to feel that the three-class compromise may not be entirely sufficient and to ask what the next steps should be.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 9, 2026, at 3:23 PM, Francisco Velez V <francisc...@gmail.com> wrote:



<image.png>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/510ec004-2eac-45e3-83a8-b78b2d3028b5%40his.com.

[James Logie]

Based partly on just yesterday having seen multiple electric powered vehicles, of descriptions that fall within and without the E-Bike classifications under discussion, travelling the W&OD at well in excess of 20 mph; I stand by my assertion that it is too great a risk to public safety to stray from the time tested success of the No Motorized Vehicle rule.  The bending of rules that brought us to the current state of near chaos on public multi-use facilities started with the booming commercial success of E-Bikes.  The existence of a large contingent of users who will abuse the privilege of operating a motorized vehicle that fits a particular classification, and/or simply ignore the classification restrictions, is amply demonstrated.  

Abuse of the privilege as defined under current law, and the flagrant violation of the existing rules that includes operation of vehicle classes that are not permitted is not theoretical.  It's happening now, and it's obvious that the frequency and severity of abuse is increasing -- There are increasingly greater numbers of motorized vehicle users traveling public multi-use trails at increasingly higher speeds.  There is no safe way to manage the constant abuse of privilege in this context.  Multi-use trails and sidewalks are not designed for motorized vehicles.  Permitting the use of E-Bikes based on a set of unenforceable classifications is what has resulted in the burgeoning patterns of abuse that are too great a danger to the non-motorized users of public facilities.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/510ec004-2eac-45e3-83a8-b78b2d3028b5%40his.com.

--

Jamie Logie
301-356-1308

[Rodrigo Loureiro]

So… if I take a gravel bike (and some actually weigh more than most class 1/2/3 e-bikes) and ride “well in excess of 20 mph” on the W&OD (which I am well capable of doing for extended periods of time), it’s all ok is not ’too great a risk to public safety’, but if I take the class 1/2/3 e-bike and ride at the exact same speed, then I am not ’too great a risk to public safety’ ? 

THAT makes sense !!!

BTW… both the class 1 and 2 e-bike only have e-assist until 20 mph, so in your own example they were essentially riding without any electric assist from the e-motor on the e-bike, and the class 3 e-bike only assists up to 28 mph… but still you insist that riding an e-bike without the e-assist is ’too great a risk to public safety’ just because it is an e-bike.

BTW2, a lot of users (myself include) of the W&OD are actually capable of riding well in excess of 28 mph on their ‘conventional’ bicycles on the W&OD trail… but I guess according to you, that’s ok as long as it’s done on a non e-bike, but if the exact same behavior is done on a class 1/2/3 e-bike, then it is a ’too great a risk to public safety’

Makes a lot of sense... class 1/2/3 e-bikes really are ’too great a risk to public safety’

<image.png>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/CAMNy0GJ-9MNyAozpTFNYwU%3DLiXsa6ZPX6sCxSrLwJeL7n0C1YA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Steve Palincsar]

And when I and my friend Pat ride our class 1 e-bikes on the W&OD at 12-13 mph, which is what we do, because we are old and feeble, we are a danger to public safety, but when you ride well in excess of 20 mph on your unassisted gravel bike you are perfectly OK, because MOTOR is EVIL.  It's simple minded and easy to understand, as long as you are entirely lacking in critical awareness.

That is exactly what we need in government these days: simple minded.

Flagrant violation of the rules by MOTOR vehicle operators is happening every day, even as we speak, on the roads of this country.  The only way to save The People from this Menace is to confiscate all MOTOR vehicles.  In the Name of Public Safety.  Because it is impractical and stupid to apprehend those who drive recklessly and Endanger the Public when we could simply ban them all. 

Yes, simple.  minded.  is.  what.  we.  need.

[James Logie]

Rodrigo,

Thanks for letting us know how fast you can ride.  That's really cool.  I cannot ride that fast, nor would I on a multi-use public facility.

In any event, I did not say that speed is the only factor.  If you, me or anyone travels a multi-use trail at 28 mph, that is irresponsible and you can be sure I have called out many cyclists, including close friends, who engage in that kind of reckless use of such facilities.  The problem I'm identifying is the trend of eroding norms of behavior that results in far too many instances of people blythely abusing the privilege of operating a motorized vehicle in a public space.

There have always been cyclists who ride inappropriately fast on multi-use trails.  However, from many years of experience I know those instances to be relatively infrequent compared to the continuous stream of motorized vehicle abusers I witness every time I make use of those facilities in recent years (including just this past weekend).  There are not enough Police Officers available to police the use of unpermitted motor vehicles and it would be virtually impossible to do so even if the personnel and resources were available.  Should we have police cruisers chasing moto riders down the W&OD at 30 mph?  I don't think so.  The only practical way to police the present dangerous trends would be check points at trail entrances where Police would have to stop literally everyone to check the type of bike they're using.  I don't want that and I'm willing to bet you wouldn't like it either.  

The electric bicycle trend is growing and the accompanying technological changes are creating increasingly faster machines that are commercially available and are currently unregulated outside the outdated classification scheme that you're defending.  The problem is real and it's growing steadily worse.  We as cyclists should at least be prepared to acknowledge that the popularity of E-Bikes has led to a trend that is creating problems that impact everyone.  As one of the principal user groups of multi-use trails, we should be demanding, rather than resisting, discussion of regulation that has some hope of being actually effective.

In the absence of any viable regulatory scheme, I stand by the one simple rule that has worked for years:  No Motorized Vehicles.  

--

Jamie Logie
301-356-1308

[Alan Felsen]

It might be time to change the subject line or start a new thread about multi-use trails, because the law passed in New Jersey has little to do with anyone's concerns about sharing trails.  In fact, it looks like the law allows class 1 e-bikes to operate on bike paths (per the information at the bottom of this page:  https://njbwc.org/faq-nj-ebike-law/

The law they passed in NJ is objectively terrible.  Even if you support requiring a license, registration, and motorcycle-rated helmet for a class 3 e-bike (which to clarify, I think is insane), the law contains vague and contradictory provisions making it so no one knows what is prohibited or allowed under the new law, which took effect in January.  

/sarcasm mode on/ 

What would really work on the W&OD is to ban all vehicles.  Not just motor vehicles.  I mean, how are the police supposed to tell the difference between an e-bike and a regular bike?  What about strollers and wheelchairs?  Might need to include them in the ban.  I mean, wheels are wheels...   

/sarcasm mode off/

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/CAMNy0G%2BWcnS06wS4K1UT4gBCDt0UPe9vJPHWRWt8qoR%2BEO4xwg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mariette Vanderzon]

btw, I was not replying to Alan above.  For some reason his response did not show in the thread for me.  I was replying to the comment that one can't tell a Freego from an electric assist which is absurd. 

From Steve -"That is exactly what we need in government these days: simple minded."  Goal accomplished! 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pedalers/CAA5UzP0062OW%3Di7sVxOZP3KoEqYAnEr8zfvyf61i2r0RvjFFkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rodrigo]

James, on top of ignoring all logical arguments about how class 1/2/3 e-bike are designed to be regular bicycles with limited assist if you need, just saying that all e-bike (pedal assist with limited e-assist) are the same as all other motorized vehicles (no need to pedal and thousands of watts), which is simply an irrational argument, on top of everything else, what astounds me about your position is the cruelty and selfishness of your arguments that are contrary to the spirit of a cycling community at large.

Class 1/2/3 e-bikes are an amazing entry point for expanding the community of cyclists.

I realize you hate e-bike (in spite of not knowing how they work, otherwise you wouldn't be lump[ing them into 10,000 watts e-motos), but you should think about the new cyclist who are intimidated about cycling and a class 1 e-bike is their way into the great world of bicycling.

You should think about the cyclists that are out of shape or overweight and to be able to ride with his friends, the e-bike is the only way they'll be able to do it.

You should think about the cyclists in this community who have spouses, brothers, sisters who don't ride and the e-bike is the only way they don't feel intimidade with cycling and the e-bike is the way for all of them to ride together.

You should think about the cyclists who are recovering from an injury and the e-bike is the only way they have to accelerate and continue riding.

You should think about the aging cyclists that have to either stop riding or use an e-bike to recapture the pleasure of being outside and riding with friends and relatives.

That's all the cyclists you are telling "i don't care about you because your class 1/2/3 e-bikes' are the same as a 10,000 watt e-moto so they should be banned"

I don't ride the W&OD trail, so either way it does not affect me and my riding, but the extremism, intolerance, cruelty, and selfishness of your position shocks me. 

You want to ban fellow cyclists whose 'threat to public safety' is leisurely riding on their e-bikes on public bike trails to enjoy our great sport, the outdoors, improve their health and longevity. 

[James Logie]

Rodrigo,

Any casual reader can see that I did not say any of the things you're claiming I said.

I did not say that all E-Bikes are the same.  I said there's a dangerous trend of abusive use of electric bicycles of varying classes and there is no effective way of policing the arena in which that is occuring.  Effective policing in the current legal framework must (logically) include real time differentiation between classes of E-Bikes.  Absent adequate personnel, material resources and a viable means of conducting enforcement, there is no way to mitigate the very obvious problem that you choose to ignore.

I do not lump together typical, less powerful E-Bikes with 10,000 watt E-Motos.  The problem I'm identifying, and you are refusing to acknowledge, is that all of these different machines are in simultaneous use in spaces that are not designed for motorized vehicles.  In addition to the all too common use of unsuitably powerful electric bikes (that's a differentiating phrase, by the way, in case you missed it) I've witnessed gas powered bikes on multi-use trails ranging from single cylinder bicycle conversion kits to classic mini-bikes and full size motorcycles.  The danger is real and the cruelty and selfishness at work here is the refusal to acknowledge the threat to public safety that results from a continuously deteriorating state of affairs for which there is no effective mitigation available.

You should think about the may non-cyclist users of public multi-use facilities:  Pedestrians -- often family groups including children and older people; People of all ages who choose to use trails as a safe space to ride non-motorized bicycles at a slow pace; Families including very young children on bicycles; Children at play, unaccompanied by adults; Parents and grandparents with infants and toddlers in strollers; People walking dogs (for that matter, wildlife, like squirrel, fox and deer)

In the case of W&OD there are trail users on horseback.  I've seen horses spooked by approaching pedestrians and non-motorized bicycles.  Imagine how a horse could react to the sudden appearance of a motorized bike (electric or otherwise) approaching at 30 mph; potentially catastrophic for all parties.

All of the above, combined with inherent design restraints, are among the reasons that these facilities originally prohibited use of motorized vehicles.  

Selfishness is cyclists refusing to consider the danger inherent in the current state of affairs that is in no way effectively regulated.  My goal is to return multi-use trails and other pedestrian facilities to safe spaces for all users.  Absent a functional system of regulation and enforcement (a phrase the astute reader will recognize as allowing for differentiation) the only proven way to do that is to return to the No Motorized Vehicles rule.

--

Jamie Logie
301-356-1308

[Alan Felsen]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2026, 13:59 James Logie <jamie...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Imagine how a horse could react to the sudden appearance of a motorized bike (electric or otherwise) approaching at 30 mph; potentially catastrophic for all parties.

Maybe that was just a typo and you meant to write "20 mph", but if you meant 30 then you're still missing an important point.  Anything capable of going 30 mph under electric assist is not an e-bike.  It is already considered a motor vehicle under most or all States traffic laws.  If a class 1, 2, or 3 e-bike is approaching at 30 mph then the motor is irrelevant at that point.  That's just an extra-heavy, human-powered vehicle.

Absent a functional system of regulation and enforcement (a phrase the astute reader will recognize as allowing for differentiation) the only proven way to do that is to return to the No Motorized Vehicles rule.

Please help me understand this.  It seems that absent functional enforcement, it doesn't matter what the rules are.  You mentioned you already see gas powered motor vehicles on the trail.  How of l would banning e-bikes bikes fix that?  

I stand by my contention that the police or other authorities could enforce vehicle class and safe operation rules while allowing class 1 through 3 e-bikes.  

As an analogy, the traffic laws in Maryland ban modified exhaust systems that are louder than the original factory spec.  We've all seen and heard cars that are in violation of this.  We  could have the police pay attention and enforce the law.  Or we could ban all motor vehicles, at least those with combustion engines and mufflers, but not enforce that ban with any more effort than is currently put into enforcing the existing rules.  

Tangent warming - veering off topic ahead:

Don't even get me started on electric cars with loud fake engine/exhaust sounds playing through external speakers.  Looking at you, Dodge.  From 

https://electrek.co/2025/06/30/ev-with-fake-engine-noises-recalled-for-not-having-the-correct-fake-engine-noises/

"If you’re not familiar with the Charger Daytona EV’s “Fratzonic Chambered Exhaust,” it’s a system that employs a combination of digital sound synthesis and a physical tuning chamber (translation: a speaker) to produce a 126 decibel sound that approximately imitates a Hellcat Hemi V8 ICE. That’s loud enough to cause most people physical pain, according to Yale University – putting it somewhere between a loud rock concert and a passenger jet at takeoff."