I have uploaded a copy of the teams report here:
http://files.meetup.c...

The team also prepared an 11 minute video presentation:
http://atlas.fcgov.co...

Note that the team contacted other cities around North America for their policies regarding ebikes on park trails, and Toronto staff mislead them, reporting that ebikes are NOT permitted on Park trails, where there is no City By-law to this effect...

Lock

I find it interesting that he said the Americans with Disabilities Act trumps local ordinances and allows them to ride ebikes on trails. I wonder what the definitions of being disabled are.

Recent changes to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) allow individuals with mobility
disabilities to use ebikes (and other power-driven mobility devices) on City trails and in other public
places. The ADA regulations supersede the City Code. Consequently, ebikes are allowed on City
trails when operated by people with mobility disabilities

http://www.ada.gov/pu...

Sec. 12102. Definition of disability

As used in this chapter:

(1) Disability
The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).

(2) Major Life Activities
(A) In general
For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

(B) Major bodily functions
For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.

(3) Regarded as having such an impairment

For purposes of paragraph (1)(C):
(A) An individual meets the requirement of “being regarded as having such an impairment” if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.

(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.

(4) Rules of construction regarding the definition of disability
The definition of “disability” in paragraph (1) shall be construed in accordance with the following:

(A) The definition of disability in this chapter shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under this chapter, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter.

(B) The term “substantially limits” shall be interpreted consistently with the findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

(C) An impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability.

(D) An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.

(E)

(i) The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as

(I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen therapy equipment and supplies;

(II) use of assistive technology;

(III) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or services; or

(IV) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications.

(ii) The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

(iii) As used in this subparagraph

(I) the term “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” means lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error; and

(II) the term “low-vision devices” means devices that magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a visual image.

Ya would probably have to go to common law for past decisions on watt is "substantial" for a disability...

Lock

Under section 2(B) "reproductive functions" if you have erectile dysfunction would qualify you to ride an ebike on their trails. I would have to see the ebike section of the ADA to see if it is just mobility impairment that allows one to ride ebikes, or whether any disability does. ADA definition is rather broad of a disability.

The only equivalent legislation would be the Ontario Human Rights Code which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, but might not address ebikes on trails. Federal Human Rights Code and Ontario with Disabilities Act is probably mute on this subject.

Other Colorado communities seem to be having the same problems on deciding what to do with ebikes, as in this older article.\
http://www.denverpost...
Geezerina, ha ha.
I should make up a sticker for my ebike, and name it a Geezerino.

I think I read somewhere that trails that get USA Federal funds cannot ban ebikes. It seems to me that a blanket allowance and have a speed limit would certainly uncomplicate things regarding ebikes on trails.

Under section 2(B) "reproductive functions" if you have erectile dysfunction would qualify you

Hehe... Tried that Viagra stuff once. Didn't swallow fast enough and all I got was a stiff neck...
lock

It would appear that recognition has been given that persons with disabilities use equipment other that wheelchairs, and manual devices such as canes and crutches. These are called other people-driven mobility devices (OPDMD) and there was an amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act on March 15th, 2011. The criteria for disability seems to be as follows:

Who qualifies to use OPDMD?
Persons who present a valid, state-issued parking placard or card or other state-issued proof of a mobility disability as a credible assurance, or a verbal representation not contradicted by observable fact.

from this discussion here
http://www.parks.stat...

So I guess ED does not qualify. I am not sure how one would demonstrate this disability to a parks employee stopping you for riding a Segway down a park trail.

Ontario presently has a pilot project to allow the disabled, mail carriers, and police to use Segways on the road and sidewalks. The findings will be made public this October at the completion of the 5 year study.

I do not see anything wrong with having the disabled use ebikes as mobility devices. I do myself, I cannot pedal a bicycle, and I am not ready for a disability scooter.

More negativity from Ft. Collins

http://www.coloradoan...

Plenty of reasons to keep ebikes off trails


The city of Fort Collins is considering allowing electric bicycles (ebikes) on our paved recreation trails. I can think of at least four reasons why this is a bad idea.

» It is unnecessary. Ebike riders can now use the many miles of bike lanes on our city streets that have been generously provided by taxpayers. There is no need for them to access our paved recreation trails. The major advocate for allowing ebikes on these trails is a man who sells the bikes and may benefit financially if the city allows them.

One of his arguments is that we're going to "need" to allow ebikes because of the number of baby boomers who will be retiring soon. I'm sure a lot of boomers would be insulted at the suggestion that they will need help peddling their bikes. The Senior Advisory Board seems not to have bought this argument; it voted to recommend that Council not allow them on our paved trails.

» It will lead to more requests from more groups. Indeed, city staff is already looking at the possibility of ebikes on unpaved trails and of Segways, longboards and similar devices on our paved trails. If ebikes are allowed, how could we say "no" to other motorized vehicles? What about ATVs, mopeds, motorcycles and scooters?

» It is dangerous. Just look at any catalog that sells ebikes and you will find that many of them are capable of traveling, effortlessly, at more than 30 miles per hour. Having such vehicles on our recreation trails would be a threat to many of the people who legitimately use these trails now: walkers, runners, people with dogs, young children riding bicycles, families out for a day of enjoyment.

» It will be impossible to enforce. Some have suggested that we could reduce the danger posed by ebikes simply by regulating their use: speed, size, weight, etc. But, in fact, the city's ability to do this is almost nonexistent. There are only seven natural areas rangers who patrol more than 33,000 acres and 103 miles of unpaved trails, from dawn to dusk seven days a week. These are the same seven people who would also be responsible for trying to enforce any regulations that would be applied to ebikes. It's an impossible task.

The city claims to have done "extensive" research, although it did not do any outreach to existing trail users, the group that would be most affected by this change. Even so, of the 202 citizens who made comments, more were opposed than in favor, hardly a ringing endorsement of the idea.

Twelve of the 20 other communities surveyed have banned ebikes, with very little controversy.

If you think ebikes on our paved recreation trails are a bad idea, please let City Council know.

Linda Knowlton lives in Fort Collins.

Some people seem to forget that persons with ebikes are taxpayers too.

http://www.coloradoan...

Tell council to say no to ebikes on trails
11:13 PM, Nov. 8, 2011

If you don't like the idea of motorized vehicles on our paved recreation trails, the time to let City Council know is now. On Tuesday, council will decide whether to allow a trial period for electric bikes on these trails. I feel strongly that this "trial," if allowed, would be just a prelude because City Council will have no way of just saying "no" at its end.

How will they judge? If only X other trail users are hit by ebikes? If they get only Y complaints from other trail users about ebike riders? If only Z tickets are issued to ebike riders for violating trail rules? And just what are these rules? And who will enforce them? And how many collisions and complaints and tickets will be allowed?

Many other communities have said no to ebikes, and we should, too: They are unnecessary, they are dangerous, and allowing them would open the door to all kinds of other motorized vehicles.

If you've not yet contacted council about this, please do so now. If you've done so before, please do it again. The email address is cityleaders@fcgov.com.

Linda Knowlton,

Fort Collins

Lots of positive comments left for a change. Maybe your wish of being one small voice in the crowd is starting. One can only hope.