How do we feel about One Wheels?

[Tree Magnet]

10 hours ago, AustinBike said:

From a skills level, in my simplistic Venn diagram world, mountain bikes, road bikes and mountain unicycles are in one circle and one wheels, deckles scooters and motorcycles are in another circle. The intersection of the two is eBikes. The reason that eBikes sit in the middle is that there is some degree of self propulsion (i.e. pedaling) that happens for these vehicles, so they really sit in both worlds. 

I do recognize that one wheels require skills (balance, etc.) that I don't necessarily have - I went to special gym as a kid so my coordination and motor skills are limited. I don't want to imply that they are not skilled.

Ultimately anyone getting off their ass and doing something outside instead of watching TV deserves praise. But, as the current laws are outlined, they don't all deserve a free pass on the trails. Just as there are places we are not allowed to ride that we must abide by, they fall in the same camp. They should not be allowed to interpret the laws as they see fit. The idea that they can just apply Segway rules is ludicrous at best and primarily self-serving, just as if a mountain biker showed up at a motocross-only motorcycle trail and tried to argue that "well, we both have two wheels and knobby tires so I am allowed here..."

I find it interesting here that you are using "skill" as the qualifier for "access".  How someone chooses to move down the trail impacts me not at all unless it prevents me from using the trail or alters the trail for any other user in such a way that it changes the way the trail is used.

I'm a fan of your Venn diagram approach but mine looks totally different.  From a trails access and usage level, one circle contains any form of transportation that can co-exist with all other forms of transportation in the circle.  I would put hikers, runners, bikes, unicycles, one-wheels, scooters, etc in this circle.  In the other circle is any form of transportation that CANNOT co-exist with other forms of transportation.  I'd toss motorcycles, horses, quads, ATVs, in this circle.  Oddly enough, eBikes sit in the middle of my diagram as well because they can be ridden responsibly and fall into the first circle or they can rip shit up at 30 mph and jump into the second circle.  If you look at City Park, the motorcycles have chosen to put mountain bikes in the 'allowed' circle because they feel we can co-exist on the trail.  They've done the opposite with hikers.  

Legal arguments aside, how much or how little effort is required should not be a factor in considering access.

[Teamsloan]

I read AB's post about the skills as a response to Mr. CatLady and not a qualifier for access. Hiking takes very little skill and I think AB would agree that they should have access.

[RidingAgain]

25 minutes ago, Tree Magnet said:

I'm a fan of your Venn diagram approach but mine looks totally different. 

 

 

 

 

Oh how I have been waiting for someone to make this point.

Thank you Tree Magnet.

Edited May 1, 2019 by RidingAgain

[AustinBike]

3 hours ago, Teamsloan said:

I read AB's post about the skills as a response to Mr. CatLady and not a qualifier for access. Hiking takes very little skill and I think AB would agree that they should have access.

Yes, you are correct, I was replying to the MCL post. 

Skills should not dictate access. After all, I have access and few skills. Access is driven by rights and rules, not opinions. If you want access, you need to work on the rules, not just reinterpret them for your own benefit as you see fit.

[Seths Pool]

On 4/17/2019 at 5:45 PM, AustinBike said:

Actually, there is a very explicit rule: no motorized vehicles. If the parks are going to open up to them, there needs to be a “rules of engagement” for them. Right now bikes have to yield to pedestrians (and dogs). If one wheels are allowed then I would say they need to yield to bikes. Every engagement I have had has been awkward, they had little ability to react to riders and end up causing both to stop. This makes no sense, almost impossible for a bike and a one wheel to pass each other on UCD of the trail because it is too narrow for them to maintain control (but 2 bikes pass each other all day long.) There was a definite lack of maneuverability on every encounter. We just need some common sense way to all take advantage of the same trails. 

 

6 hours ago, RidingAgain said:

Here's a "...simplistic..." VENN DIAGRAM on the matter...

(Not sure how a "...deckless scooter..." and motorcycles/Onewheel end up in the same circle... But hey, what do I know...)

But seriously... This is great stuff. The more I look at it the more impressed I am.
 

maybe scooters,  motorcycles, and one wheels are all in the same circle because they are ......... motorized.....?

4 hours ago, Tree Magnet said:

I find it interesting here that you are using "skill" as the qualifier for "access".  How someone chooses to move down the trail impacts me not at all unless it prevents me from using the trail or alters the trail for any other user in such a way that it changes the way the trail is used.

I'm a fan of your Venn diagram approach but mine looks totally different.  From a trails access and usage level, one circle contains any form of transportation that can co-exist with all other forms of transportation in the circle.  I would put hikers, runners, bikes, unicycles, one-wheels, scooters, etc in this circle.  In the other circle is any form of transportation that CANNOT co-exist with other forms of transportation.  I'd toss motorcycles, horses, quads, ATVs, in this circle.  Oddly enough, eBikes sit in the middle of my diagram as well because they can be ridden responsibly and fall into the first circle or they can rip shit up at 30 mph and jump into the second circle.  If you look at City Park, the motorcycles have chosen to put mountain bikes in the 'allowed' circle because they feel we can co-exist on the trail.  They've done the opposite with hikers.  

Legal arguments aside, how much or how little effort is required should not be a factor in considering access.

 

4 hours ago, RidingAgain said:

Oh how I have been waiting for someone to make this point.

Thank you Tree Magnet.

why is this so hard to understand everyone? its simply about having a motor, or being self propelled by human power and human power alone. replace the term "skill" with "motorized or not" and it all makes sense. 

AB's responses are logical and factual. why is everyone making this so complicated?

[Seths Pool]

On 4/19/2019 at 4:51 PM, AustinBike said:

Actually, not to get all legal on you (I am not a lawyer), but that page spells it out pretty clearly. No motorized vehicles. And then it spells out, specifically, the exceptions. None of which represents one wheels. You are not a Segway and you are definitely not an ADA appliance.

This is why I go back to my original statement: You need to get a city of Austin or PARD statement that one wheels are allowed. Otherwise you are interpreting a rule to your benefit. Trust me, there are plenty of places that bikes are not allowed (must we rehash the name Forest Ridge) and we are not allowed to simply say "well, by our interpretation..."

Instead of running on your interpretation, please take the time to get the opinion of the city, the folks that make the rules. At that point, you'll be on much firmer ground and be able to show that, yes, you are allowed. Otherwise, it comes off as "yeah, I read the rules, but the way that I interpret them...." 

All of this can be resolved by the people that make the rules, none of this can be resolved here because we don't make the rules. If you are angling to get the biking community on your side to help change the rules, again, I say engage with the Austin Ridgeriders as they have already established channels with the city. Also, I neglected to say earlier that the mountain unicycle guys are very familiar to the mountain biking community, we see them as "brothers on wheels" and are pretty amazed at the things that they can do. Quite frankly, watching them do things that I cannot is humbling, but they also do it without an engine, it is all individual skills. That, sadly, is where our groups part ways; you won't find us very excited about e-bikes either, for that reason.

But we should all be enjoying our parks. Get in touch with the city and PARD and get this all sorted out. It's better to be legally recognized and ride without worry than be defensive every time you encounter someone that questions whether you should be there. 

"no motorized vehicles" - aka it doesnt matter how many wheels it has, if you stand or sit on it, or if it balances itself, or if its a donkey with a motor retrofitted up its ass. if its not a Segway, or an ADA appliance, then whatever transportation device that possesses a motor used for propulsion IS NOT ALLOWED on the trails. 

 

are you guys just bored and want to debate some shit? its pretty black and white 

[Teamsloan]

Amen!

[Ridenfool]

Um, er, shouldn't it be no "mechanized" vehicles if we want to follow the verbiage that has be employed so successfully in the past ... 😏

Kidding, just kidding ... which BTW now ties yet another thread to the subject of goats.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Ridenfool

[Yosmithy]

54 minutes ago, Seths Pool said:

"no motorized vehicles" - aka it doesnt matter how many wheels it has, if you stand or sit on it, or if it balances itself, or if its a donkey with a motor retrofitted up its ass. if its not a Segway, or an ADA appliance, then whatever transportation device that possesses a motor used for propulsion IS NOT ALLOWED on the trails. 

 

are you guys just bored and want to debate some shit? its pretty black and white 

I don't want to argue, but isn't a Donkey just and Ass?

[Seths Pool]

15 minutes ago, Yosmithy said:

I don't want to argue, but isn't a Donkey just and Ass?

I don’t know what “just and ass” means but sometimes a donkey is referred to as a jackass, yes. So I’d say no jackasses with motors are allowed either. Which some of these users may probably already fall under that category 

[RidingAgain]

I'm just into all this VENN DIAGRAM stuff.

 

[Seths Pool]

1 minute ago, RidingAgain said:

I'm just into all this VENN DIAGRAM stuff.

 

Me too I like it mainly because it resembles a big ass or pair of boobs 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Seths Pool

[throet]

[DirtSurfer]

AustinBiker,  I joined this group with the intention to share information about Onewheels, understand the concerns of the biking community, and see how the Onewheel community can fit in with the existing groups that are on the trails.  I figured the best way to do this would be to get with the people who are actually doing the work, and start contributing to the work being done to maintain the trails.  For the first week I came alone.  Everyone was very super cool, and it was fun to learn more about trail maintenance.  It was great to make a new berm and then help flatten and pack it down with my wheel.  Nothing feels better than riding on a berm that you helped create.  The second weekend was Easter, and we had a total of 4 OW riders out of 12 workers.  We were 33% of the trail maintenance crew! Considering that probably as little as 30 OW riders have ever ridden at Walnut Creek, that’s a turnout from the OW community of over 10% on Easter Sunday.  Can you imagine how much work would get done if 10% of the biker community showed up to help?  Last Sunday, there were 2 of us out of a total of 7, so we had 29% of the work crew!  We made a new hill, fixed up a berm, moved a lot of dirt and logs, as well as cleared some limbs that hit you in the face.  Over the past 3 weeks we have already contributed an additional 20 hours of labor as volunteers for the AustinRidgeRiders.  We are showing that we can be good team players, and many bikers are noticing. 

First I want to say, I took your advice and talked to the Austin Parks and Rec Department. I was directed to talk to John at PARD who is in enforcement.  Here are a few things that came from that conversation:

 PARD uses Texas department of transportation definitions in all its code enforcement.  This means that an EPAMD is NOT a motor vehicle according to State law, and according to PARD codes and ordinances since they use TXDOT definitions.  Motorized vehicle does not mean “anything with a motor” according to the law.

John agreed that the EMPAD law was written before Onewheels existed, and also agreed that a Onewheel fits the definition of an EPAMD as it is written in the law.  He specifically said that it was a “reasonable interpretation of the law.”

Since Onewheels are an EPAMD, they are not considered a motor vehicle according to PARD and are allowed wherever EPAMDs are allowed – which if not specified, includes anywhere a bike is allowed.

 

If you don't mind,  I'd like to go through a few of your comments, you may want to grab a chair.

 “Because they are electric powered, they fall into the "not allowed on the trails" in my book.“

Your book and the law differ, and what the law says is what matters.  Motorized vehicle does not mean “anything with a motor” according to the law.  Please try to wrap your head around that fact.

“While everyone says these guys are cool, I encountered one and when I said "I don't think you are supposed to have electric vehicles on the trail" he let loose with a hell of a lot of expletives about bikers, and YES HE COULD ride anywhere he damn well pleased. “

When you yell at people you ride by, shouting that they don’t belong there, then don’t expect a thank you.  I think your version of this story is a stretch of the truth because I believe that I was the person you yelled at in this particular instance.  My version of the story is that you yelled at me as you rode by “No motorized vehicles on the trails!”, and my reply was “You don’t know what you are talking about!” Now that I’ve explained above how we are legal on the trails, do you feel a little bit like a bully? Maybe an apology is in order? 

 “So, instead of asking all of us what we think, we should probably be asking the city what the ruling is on these (yeah, slippery slope...)”

I have asked PARD as you suggested, and they agree that we have a right to be there, so please stop yelling at us to leave when you see us.

“I am fine with them as long as they are following the rules,”

But you shouted at us to leave on multiple occasions, and told us we are not allowed.  Aren’t you really just saying that you are fine with us as long as we stay away?

 “ but my experience has been that encountering one on the trail is WAY different than coming up on another bike - harder to get around, harder for them to maneuver and highly likely to end up spilling the rider when trying to pass. “

Not a single biker I have spoken to has had a similar experience, and the Onewheelers I shared this with think you are completely making this up.  We have never seen any biker ever take a spill while trying to pass us, so we wonder how it can be highly likely, if in our combined experience with bikers, we have never seen it happen once.  This seems to be dishonest scare tactics being used to try to get more people against onewheels.

“Actually, there is a very explicit rule: no motorized vehicles.”

At this point you seem to still believe that  “if it has a motor then it isn’t allowed”  which is not correct.  The law clearly states that an EPAMD is not a motorized vehicle under the law, and an EPAMD can have an electric motor up to 750 watts.

“Every engagement I have had has been awkward, they had little ability to react to riders and end up causing both to stop. This makes no sense, almost impossible for a bike and a one wheel to pass each other on UCD of the trail because it is too narrow for them to maintain control (but 2 bikes pass each other all day long.)”

Do you really expect people to believe that a 12 inch wide rider is harder to pass than a 30 inch wide rider?  We get lots of thank you’s from bikers and walkers.  We pull over and get out of bikers way before they catch up to us.  I have shared your story with a number of bikers and they also don’t understand how you came up with this.  We are polite, courteous, and respectful, which is more than I can say for someone who doesn’t know the law and is shouting at people to leave.

“You suffer from the same thing that we bikers suffer from - there are some in our midst that create problems for everyone and give all of us a bad name.  “

The bikers who yell at people as they ride by are the bikers who are giving bikers a bad name.  

 “Also, if there is a lack of clarity about what is or is not allowed in parks, I would focus on getting clarity from the city, not us “

There is no lack of clarity – it is clear to the Onewheel community that we fit under the EPAMD law, and I have verified this with an enforcement agent at PARD.

“(we don’t own the park, even though sometimes we act like it.)”

When you act like you own the park, and yell at people to leave, you are doing a disservice to the biking community, of which I am also a part.  I was raised to treat people with respect and not rush to judgement.  If you want to be a leader of the bike community, you should consider that advice.

“And yeah, I’ve come across ahole one wheelers just like I’ve come across ahole bikers.  “

The first one to yell at someone is usually the A-hole.  Especially if what they are yelling is not true.

“I agree with Antonio that we should be looking at the city code as this is a city park. Signage says “no motorized vehicles” so it if somehow a one wheel is not considered a motorized vehicle then it is incumbent on the OW community to get this clarified by the city. Until then, the motor rule seems to be pretty straightforward. “

Already done – yes PARD officials think that a Onewheel is an EPAMD, and it is pretty straight forward – EPAMDs (onewheels and segways as examples) are allowed anywhere a bike is allowed unless specifically stated that EPAMD are not allowed.  Again, by the definition of a motorized vehicle, an EPAMD is not a motorized vehicle.  The “motorized vehicle” definition is not as straight forward as you thought.

 “This is similar to what happened with skiing and snowboarding. When snowboarding first started there were arguments about rules. Then they were comprehended in rules, specifically, and everyone got along.  “

I agree it is very similar.  And it seems you have taken the approach of “Snowboarders stay out!  You are not allowed! You are not welcome!”  In the end, you may be harming the relationship between bikers and onewheelers, just as some of the skiers did.  You are probably not the best representative for the biking community on this front, especially since you seem to be in the minority.

“Actually, not to get all legal on you (I am not a lawyer), but that page spells it out pretty clearly. No motorized vehicles.”

You still have not grasped how the law works and that there is a legal definition under the law of a “motorized vehicle”.  When you do, you will understand why your comment above is irrelevant.

 “And then it spells out, specifically, the exceptions. None of which represents one wheels. You are not a Segway and you are definitely not an ADA appliance. “

At least now you are recognizing that a Segway has a motor, and is allowed, despite the sign that says “no motorized vehicles”  I think this is progress…..

The law does not give specific rights to the company Segway.  The law doesn’t actually say “Segway” in it.  The law gives specific access to Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices and a “Segway” is just one example of an EPAMD, as is a Onewheel.

  “This is why I go back to my original statement: You need to get a city of Austin or PARD statement that one wheels are allowed.”

I’ll show you my permission slip if you show me yours?  That’s not how the law works.  No one gives out “permission slips”.  If you don’t think I belong on the trails, and you want to try to keep us out, then you can call for enforcement and see what happens.  I am here to share information; it’s your decision on what you do with it.  Just remember though, enforcement is for all.  I don’t expect any onewheels to get a ticket, but I would expect a few bikers to get tickets for speeding, failure to yield, riding on the trails when they are wet, and possibly a few bikers on Tuesday night could get a DUI.  So as the saying goes “be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”

“Instead of running on your interpretation, please take the time to get the opinion of the city, the folks that make the rules. “

Laws are made for the people - by the people, which is why I have reached out to the people who matter most – the hikers and bikers.  But I did follow your suggestion and I talked to PARD.

 “Also, I neglected to say earlier that the mountain unicycle guys are very familiar to the mountain biking community, we see them as "brothers on wheels" and are pretty amazed at the things that they can do. “

I’m guess you are able to see that the definition of a bicycle under the law includes unicycles, even though it states clearly “two tandem wheels”?  I hope you are now able to see why a onewheel is classified as an EPAMD.

“Quite frankly, watching them do things that I cannot is humbling, but they also do it without an engine, it is all individual skills. That, sadly, is where our groups part ways; you won't find us very excited about e-bikes either, for that reason.“

So this is what it all boils down to for you I think.  Skills.  You have no respect for us, because you think riding a onewheel requires no skills.  You are inferring by that statement that having a motor means you have less skills, or being on a vehicle without a motor requires more skills.  I guess you have no problem jumping a dirtbike 50 feet over a ravine, since the motor is doing all the work right?  I think you are confusing the word “skills” with “energy”.   You may burn more energy pedaling your bike around, but that doesn’t mean you automatically have skills.  You are able to pedal a bike – but so can my child.  I think your skills comment is nothing more than a cheap shot.  Everyone else I have talked to agrees it takes more skill to ride a Onewheel down Powerline than a bike.

“It's better to be legally recognized and ride without worry than be defensive every time you encounter someone that questions whether you should be there.  “

Actually, how about you just stop being offensive?  No one needs to be defensive, unless someone is yelling at them and being offensive.  There is no need for defense without offense.  So, if you believe what you wrote, then please stop yelling at us, and be a better leader for the biking community.

“One wheels and scooters (lime, bird, etc.) share the same skills as well, much of it driven by the fact that they are self propelled. “

That is just silly.  Scooters share the same skill as a bike, not a onewheel.   You balance left or right both on a bike and a scooter.  Yea, you have to pedal a bike, but that doesn’t take skill, it takes energy.  Anyone can pedal a bike. The skill comes in when you take that bike down something gnarley.  

“I am not saying that OW don't have skills,”

Actually that is exactly what you have inferred.  You seem to think that riding a onewheel on trails is easier than riding a bike, yet in a previous comment you stated that we “have a harder time negotiating the same terrain” so which is it?

 “From a skills level, in my simplistic Venn diagram world, mountain bikes, road bikes and mountain unicycles are in one circle and one wheels, deckles scooters and motorcycles are in another circle. The intersection of the two is eBikes. The reason that eBikes sit in the middle is that there is some degree of self propulsion (i.e. pedaling) that happens for these vehicles, so they really sit in both worlds.  “

Not sure why you want to keep trying to make a point of saying that onewheel riders don’t have as much skills as a biker.  Even if it were true, why would it matter?  Is this some sort of “who has the biggest _ick contest” to you?  We have a single 11 inch wheel to balance on, and you have two 29 inch wheels holding you up.   Somehow you think riding a bike is harder over the same rough terrain?  Your math doesn’t add up.  I respectfully disagree that riding a onewheel down Powerline takes less skill than a bike, and if you would just give it a try, I think your injuries would prove my point.

“I do recognize that one wheels require skills (balance, etc.) that I don't necessarily have - I went to special gym as a kid so my coordination and motor skills are limited. I don't want to imply that they are not skilled. “

Well, that’s exactly what you have done, so this comment does nothing but smooth out your insult – but it was still an insult.

“But, as the current laws are outlined, they don't all deserve a free pass on the trails. “

No one is asking for a free pass – we are asking you to respect the law as it is written.  That doesn’t seem unreasonable.  We are also asking for you to stop yelling at us on the trails.  You don’t know the law, but you feel justified in trying to kick people out of the park, or intimidate them to leave.  You have no authority to do anything about it anyway, but seeing as the law is on my side, your behavior is borderline harassment.  All you are doing is giving bikers a bad name and making bikers look more like an elitist group.

“The idea that they can just apply Segway rules is ludicrous at best and primarily self-serving”

I’m sorry you feel the law is ludicrous – please talk to your representative about that.  If you don’t like the law, then you can try to get it changed so EPAMDs are not allowed.

Look – I get it – you want the trails to yourself.  You don’t want to share them and you are hoping you can use the law against us to try to keep us out.  I’m sorry you feel that way, I wish you hadn’t rushed to judgement, but I think with time you’ll probably come around.  Unfortunately for you, we are here to stay, so grin and bare it, or gin and beer it – whatever it takes. 

As a recap:

There is a definition under the law of a vehicle called an EPAMD. It REQUIRES by definition that the vehicle is 1)self balancing 2) 750 watts or less.    

This law was written before a onewheel existed. The onewheel was created for the specific purpose of fitting under the EPAMD laws which exist on the books in many states including Texas.

Segways are a BRAND of EPAMD, and nowhere in the law is the word “Segway.”

PARD enforcement agrees that the Onewheel is best described under the law as an EPAMD.

 

I’d like for you to come around and respect us as a group for what we do, but I know we won’t win everyone over.  You may choose to be the leader of the “Skiers” and try to fight to keep us from having fun at the park.  You can continue to shout at us to generate negative interactions from OWs, while sowing the seed of fear amongst the bikers.  You can call the police and try to get us ticketed, while bringing double the number of tickets down upon your own group.  You can even push us to the point we don’t want to help take care of the trails, but yet we still ride them.  

For now, I’m going to keep showing up on Sunday and keep bringing friends.  I’ll continue sharing the stoke of the Onewheel as well as riding my onewheel on all the trails I like to ride my bike.  The onewheel is actually good for the trails – you would like them better if I rode them more often.  It is perfect for smoothing out bike ruts and crushing lumps of dirt flung onto the trails by tires during wet times.  It doesn’t harm the trails, it doesn’t harm anyone, and it’s legal.    It is an amazing device, and I think that your opinion of the onewheel would change if you tried to ride one.  It’s really not fair to judge when you have no experience riding one.   

 

“But we should all be enjoying our parks.”

I couldn’t agree more.  Now that we are cool, do you want to meetup for a ride? :)

[DirtSurfer]

6 hours ago, Seths Pool said:

"no motorized vehicles" - aka it doesnt matter how many wheels it has, if you stand or sit on it, or if it balances itself, or if its a donkey with a motor retrofitted up its ass. if its not a Segway, or an ADA appliance, then whatever transportation device that possesses a motor used for propulsion IS NOT ALLOWED on the trails. 

 

are you guys just bored and want to debate some shit? its pretty black and white 

The law does not say Segway in it.  It reads "no motorized vehicles"  You need to go a step further and look up the definition of a motorized vehicle.  It does not mean "anything with a motor".  An EPAMD is not a motorized vehicle as defined by TXDOT definitions. PARD uses TXDOT definitions.  A onewheel and a Segway are both EPAMDs, and EPAMDs are allowed anywhere a bike is allowed.  I agree that its pretty black and white, but we don't seem to be on the same page. 

[Teamsloan]

Wow.

It seems like there are two groups here. One is operating under the long established/traditional understanding of the law (before e-things were a thing) and one was operating on the belief that their own new interpretation of the law was good enough.

We’ll refer to them as Old School and New School.

Old School doesn’t like anyone that comes along and decides without any official word from enforcement that the traditional interpretation of the law doesn’t apply. It appears to Old School as if New School is doing this, and he feels that while they may be well intentioned, New School needs to go get official clarification. Otherwise it’s just his word against the other with no real authority backing either one. This is a reasonable and understandable reaction to New School even if New School doesn’t like it.

New School later reports back that he has spoken to law enforcement and they side with his new interpretation of the law. But this is still little better than his own interpretation because it’s still only his word and he has no authority. I think Old School would happily change his interpretation of the law to conform with New School’s if the law enforcement with actual authority in the situation made it clear which interpretation of the law would be enforced. This could be done through public service announcements and updated signage. Then Old School would have an authoritative source informing the interpretation instead of some weird guy with no credibility claiming he’s right.

Old School, well done on trying to build a relationship with the mtb community. I just think it would be much better received by those Old School people if an authoritative source made it clear what the enforceable interpretation is instead of you. Don’t blame them for seeking a more authoritative source, they’re German.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheX]

If I'm at Walnut sharing the trails with dogs and kids, wouldn't bother me in the least to share with e-bikes and one-wheels.

[AustinBike]

It would be helpful not to post with statements that say “you”, it is an unclear pronoun. I assume that the post meant “bikers” and not me specifically because the recollection of the events do not match anything that I was involved in to date.

Again, all I am saying is that there is a lack of clarity and that we really need Austin PARD to weigh in on this officially. I don’t think that bikers are the best ones to tackle this as we can be seen as having a vested interest. I’d like to see a clear directive from PARD (and hopefully signage) so that we can all coexist peacefully.

And, from a trail maintenance perspective, thanks for helping out. 

[Seths Pool]

6 hours ago, Teamsloan said:

Wow.

It seems like there are two groups here. One is operating under the long established/traditional understanding of the law (before e-things were a thing) and one was operating on the belief that their own new interpretation of the law was good enough.

We’ll refer to them as Old School and New School.

Old School doesn’t like anyone that comes along and decides without any official word from enforcement that the traditional interpretation of the law doesn’t apply. It appears to Old School as if New School is doing this, and he feels that while they may be well intentioned, New School needs to go get official clarification. Otherwise it’s just his word against the other with no real authority backing either one. This is a reasonable and understandable reaction to New School even if New School doesn’t like it.

New School later reports back that he has spoken to law enforcement and they side with his new interpretation of the law. But this is still little better than his own interpretation because it’s still only his word and he has no authority. I think Old School would happily change his interpretation of the law to conform with New School’s if the law enforcement with actual authority in the situation made it clear which interpretation of the law would be enforced. This could be done through public service announcements and updated signage. Then Old School would have an authoritative source informing the interpretation instead of some weird guy with no credibility claiming he’s right.

Old School, well done on trying to build a relationship with the mtb community. I just think it would be much better received by those Old School people if an authoritative source made it clear what the enforceable interpretation is instead of you. Don’t blame them for seeking a more authoritative source, they’re German.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

haha that was entertaining to read. easy to picture the skit in my head with the two groups. haha. well said. 

 

6 hours ago, DirtSurfer said:

The law does not say Segway in it.  It reads "no motorized vehicles"  You need to go a step further and look up the definition of a motorized vehicle.  It does not mean "anything with a motor".  An EPAMD is not a motorized vehicle as defined by TXDOT definitions. PARD uses TXDOT definitions.  A onewheel and a Segway are both EPAMDs, and EPAMDs are allowed anywhere a bike is allowed.  I agree that its pretty black and white, but we don't seem to be on the same page. 

I'm rolling my eyes at you. that goofy little contraption you have is a motorized transportation device, get over yourself. its neat and everything, but get real. im trying to take you seriously here.

and frankly, I could care less about those things being at walnut creek or whatever since I never go there.... just stay away from places like the greenbelt.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Seths Pool

[DirtSurfer]

35 minutes ago, Seths Pool said:

I'm rolling my eyes at you. that goofy little contraption you have is a motorized transportation device, get over yourself. its neat and everything, but get real. im trying to take you seriously here.

and frankly, I could care less about those things being at walnut creek or whatever since I never go there.... just stay away from places like the greenbelt.

What part of the law do you not agree with, and why do I need to get over myself?  Do you understand that a Segway is allowed to go on the greenbelt, and it has a motor? Read that again

Segways have a motor and are allowed to go on trails that say "no motorized vehicles"  because they are an EPAMD

I'm sorry if you do not like that - go talk to your representative, but ther eis no need to be insulting to others just because you don't agree with the law.

If I was on a Segway, you would still be telling me "no motorized vehicles allowed" "read the sign".   

 The sign is not the law - the sign represents the law.  There is currently a law that allows Segways - right now - to go wherever they want - they go places that say "no motorized vehicles" Do you understand that?

The greenbelt is a bit rough for my liking, but by telling me to stay away, you only make me want to show up.   You have no authority, so why should I listen to you, and not listen to John at PARD?

 

[DirtSurfer]

2 hours ago, AustinBike said:

It would be helpful not to post with statements that say “you”, it is an unclear pronoun. I assume that the post meant “bikers” and not me specifically because the recollection of the events do not match anything that I was involved in to date.

Again, all I am saying is that there is a lack of clarity and that we really need Austin PARD to weigh in on this officially. I don’t think that bikers are the best ones to tackle this as we can be seen as having a vested interest. I’d like to see a clear directive from PARD (and hopefully signage) so that we can all coexist peacefully.

And, from a trail maintenance perspective, thanks for helping out. 

I understand the signage is misleading, but I think that is to your benefit - follow me on this - even if you take OWs out of the equation, Segways are allowed, and the sign says "no motorized vehicles"  So the signage as it exists is confusing, because you have to go back to the definition of a motorized vehicle under the law - most people think that if it has a motor, then it is a motorized vehicle.  I  get that, and its a normal assumption.  

So the sign is misleading, but it helps keep out things that you don't like.  Heck, it has probably kept out a number of Segway owners, because they don't know the law, and that they are not a "motorized vehicle"  under the law.  You could add verbiage to the sign that says "except EPAMDs"  but that would open the slippery slope for people to say "I thought I was an EPAMD"  when riding a scooter, and you would probably end up with more things on the trail that you don't want.

If you can accept that Segways are allowed with the existing signage, then its not a stretch to accept that onewheels are too.  If they didn't change the signs for Segways who pushed the law into existence, then I doubt they will change them for Onewheels.  Keeping the signage keeps more things you don't like out of the park, including Onewheel owners and Segway owners who don't know the law. 

Thanks for recognizing the work we are doing, I've read a lot of your posts - and I think had I rolled up on my bike sometime, we would probably have hit it off.

[RidingAgain]

3 hours ago, TheX said:

If I'm at Walnut sharing the trails with dogs and kids, wouldn't bother me in the least to share with e-bikes and one-wheels.

There ya go... With age comes wisdom.

Well... And crotchetyness.

But not in the above quoted comment.

[RidingAgain]

3 hours ago, AustinBike said:

I’d like to see a clear directive from PARD (and hopefully signage) so that we can all coexist peacefully.

 

I'd like to see clear directive and signage with anything cause people to coexist peacefully.

But, come on... We know that's not how it works.

But we can always hope.

[RidingAgain]

1 hour ago, Seths Pool said:

...and frankly, I could care less about those things being at walnut creek or whatever since I never go there....

 

Thanks for your consideration of the greater mtb community needs.

[AntonioGG]

Dirtsurfer, the conversation from John at PARD, his opinion is one thing, but what did he say about what the law actually says?  I ask because in the last 6 months or so there has been a pilot program to allow EPAMDs (actually, I think it may actually say scooters) in certain trails.  The signs are still up on some of these trails.  I think Walnut is one of them, so is Shoal Creek.  I'm not sure about other trails.  To me, that means that they're not currently allowed in other trails.  So that would be good to clarify.

Don't misinterpret any of this as us wanting the trails to ourselves.  We just want the trails.  We don't want to give certain people the excuse to ban everyone off parks or trails while we're arguing over legal definitions.  Yes, a-hole MTBers are part of what we worry about too and the people that are in the frontlines battling to gain and maintain access get to hear about every bad interaction.

I was thinking about OWs as I was trying to flatten bike rutts at Brushy Creek.  That big fat wheel would take care of them in no time.

Edited May 2, 2019 by AntonioGG