I'd agree with Ken's assessment of your comment. It's not a straw man in any way.
The implication is that a Class 3 bike will be ridden at that speed, even on crowded MUPs. There's not a lot of other ways to interpret that. The decision has EVERYTHING to do with the bike.
While I've left this thread and won't be coming back, you are making an honest effort at genuine discussion so I'll respond in kind.
The words are simply not there to make that jump. The implication isn't either, unless the reader ignores the context as was done subsequently, which I made a point of keeping with the original statement by quoting the original.
"Let me give you an example of brain dead policy. They suggest that class 3 ebike be restricted to use on street and road side bike lanes. A class 3 ebike can not have a throttle but every motor vehicle on those streets effectively is throttle controlled so no way can they claim that policy makes sense"
Thats quite a conclusion, even if the logic associated with it is extremely murky. Is the point then, that throttled vehicles are necessary for safety on the road? When analog bicycles have been running on streets for over a century without this concern? I should have walked away then as this kind of logical disconnection is nothing new.
But, knowing how these threads from this author go I still engaged to reconnect those dots anyway. My bad. So... how DOES the decision make sense? Don't focus on the wrong thing (throttles??).
"It makes sense if you count in the 28 mph Class 3 speed limit. I think all of us realize that 28 mph is waaaay too much speed to be carrying when intermingling with pedestrians. So... street-only. The decision has nothing to do with the bike and everything to do with the people walking."
Nowhere do I say or imply that
"...a rider is going to be zinging thru pedestrians at that speed all the time".
And he used that false conclusion to fuel the inflammatory BS that followed. It was a straw man. These threads are a torch carried by one person alone.
Carry on, then.