Watch: angry cyclist wants to see the rule that allows disabled man to ride motorized bike on the trail

I know someone who is too old to really bike or walk anywhere far, but isn’t actually disabled and can still enjoy our local forest with pedal assist. Nice to think people like him shouldn’t just in case there are some other people who might try to abuse their privileges. That’s not a line of thinking that routinely impoverishes people’s lives, no sir. :angry:


I don’t really understand what the e-bike adds to enjoying the local forest in that case though. I’m also not sure what I think about the not being able to walk “far” but not being “actually disabled”. Do the bike prohibited trails also impoverish his life?

1 Like

The same thing that a pedal-only bike offers a person who has no mobility issues: the ability to go farther and faster than they could on foot.


Well, they definitely would if they were the only ones available; the point is there are at some places he can go. And yeah, it’s actually not unusual for seniors only to be able to do so much exercise without hurting for the rest of the day, without that counting as a disability.

But it feels weird to have to defend him when the concern is hypothetical. Just don’t take things away from people unless there’s actually a problem from them. We’ve all seen people who attack services on the off chance they could be abused, and I don’t think you want to be one of them.


And how exactly is he supposed to turn around? It looks like what he’s riding would not fit crosswise on the trail, even if it can turn in place he is not going to be able to turn around without assistance.

And while people are generally quite helpful in the wilderness you should not put yourself in a position where you have to rely on passing strangers. What happens if nobody comes along?

I’m saying that an e-bike would allow an elderly/mildly disabled person the ability to enjoy a bike trail in much the same manner that you or I can enjoy it now.

I also don’t see how allowing such an activity would diminish my own ability to enjoy such a bike trail.


That man is obnoxious. The bipedal one, I mean. At least he didn’t try to citizens arrest him or citizens fine, citizens citation, or all the other penal nonsense those bipedal types are good at.

As to the question of where his law and order and screw manners attitude comes from, perhaps it’s the unconscious rejection of the rules and law we all drown in day to day? I mean, beyond the moralistic laws, the bylaws, the compacts, the federal rules, state laws, county and city codes? Can’t mow lawn on Tuesday, can’t paint it that color, can’t grow crop foods in the front lawn, must have blueprints in imperial units, blah blah blah, must wear preposterous shirt while riding two wheels to get a half mile speed increase or else.

Anarchy might be asking for too much borne because of someone who loudly proclaims their fetish for rules but just pondering the source.

or maybe it’s not

depends what federal disability law has to say about it

people need to remember that wheelchairs are never against the rules

wheelchairs are always an exception to all the other rules


I think she was just awkwardly trying to deescalate.

An interesting discussion but not relevant here. The person was using a 4-wheel motorized bike, not a pedal assist.

But it’s not hypothetical.

For one, trail erosion is a concern, a 4-wheeled E-bike like he was using is more weight and is going to ride on the edges of the trail and break them down a lot more than a regular bike.

Also, his vehicle is larger and less agile meaning he has more trouble avoiding collision with someone coming from another direction. What if he encountered another vehicle like his coming from the opposite direction? I’m not confident he’d have room to pass. And a downed tree is hardly out of the ordinary for a trail like that. Is he capable of picking up his bike and lifting it over the tree?

Finally, and most importantly, the trail is tough terrain. If he has a mechanical breakdown, or worse, hits the edge of the trail and rolls down a hill, he could be in serious trouble.

I really want him to still be able to experience nature and drive his bike on fun trails, but that particular trail should probably not be an option.

I wouldn’t judge him based on the confrontation. Mountain biking is hard exercise, meaning that your blood is flowing and adrenaline is pumping, if you think you’re justified in a confrontation it’s pretty easy to be obnoxious.

1 Like

Ok, next time an enraged, teeth-bared dog is raging down the path off the leash and I’ve got multiple little ones in tow I’ll be sure to ask politely that they follow the universally recognized rules. (deep fucking /s)

Seriously, fuck that. If your dog is behaving in a threatening way, I am going to end the situation one way or the other. Period.

My kids have collectively been bitten five times, three of which drew blood and they’ve been chased or threatened dozens of more times, so I guess that’s a small price to pay for civility.

It is 100% the animal “owners’” responsibility to ensure that no one is even close to being injured by their beast. Based on actual experience I have zero reason to believe your animal is “really good with kids” or “such a sweetie” and I will protect my children accordingly.

ETA: Oh, and my teen son’s front tooth is still crooked because I guess he wasn’t polite enough to the dog that jumped on him when he was three.


Then she should have admonished her partner instead of the disabled guy. Especially since THE VERY FIRST THING HE SAID when confronted by the woman’s douchebag partner was to calmly state “this is a handicap piece of equipment.”


so I’ve noticed


The ADA definition of wheelchair says that a wheelchair has to be designed to be able to go indoors. This thing doesn’t count for that though, does it?

The weight would be distributed more evenly amongst the 4 wheels. I’m not sure what you’re talking about is a significant factor in eroding the trail.


Check out the Department of Justice revised rules that went into effect on March 15, 2011 that explicitly discuss “other power-driven mobility devices” that may be used on trails by individuals with mobility disabilities.

This applies to “any place, indoors or outdoors, that is open to the public.”

This guy clearly had a legal right to use this bike here. Can we move past that part of the discussion?


But you have to factor in the crushing burden that physically disabled people put on the rest of society by forcing us acknowledge their existence as human beings.


Cancel Culture™ never stops…uh…cancelling or whatever.


Mild ecofascism in action. Just because someone is on a bicycle doesn’t mean that they don’t think the world would be a better place if certain groups were locked away “for their own good”, or eradicated.


I haven’t followed the whole debate, but it looks like the national park service is already on the case. For example:

Motorized wheelchairs and scooters that are designed solely for use by a person with a mobility impairment are allowed.

& Electric Bicycles (e-bikes) in National Parks - Biking (U.S. National Park Service) (e-bikes can be used to aid pedaling by anyone where traditional bikes are allowed).


Ever hear the term ‘lack of endurance’?
And said endurance can refer to pain threshold, stamina, or both.
You live long enough, & one fine morning you will wake up & you will feel every trauma you ever inflicted on your body… but it won’t be apparent to outside observers, since no bones are sticking out, no blood is leaking, & no limbs are missing.

There is officially disabled, & there is de facto disabled.
I was told, in essence:
‘Well, you aren’t on oxygen, so your COPD isn’t enough of a disability; you can still walk, so your spinal issues don’t count: and you are getting old, so your CHF is par for the course.
I knew the claim was doomed when You Know Who started residing in the White House, but the denial doesn’t mean that everything is hunky-dory, either.