I wonder what their reasoning is behind banning non-powered bikes? It's got very steep hills, so there's a good chance that bicycles wouldn't be very practical, but seems strange to ban them.

Bikes, even muscular ones, can be annoying to pedestrians on thin hiking paths. My take is that even if they allow one/a few/a capped number, then it's out of the bottle, and people will try to game the system one way or another

Presumably the poster wanted to differentiate e-bikes (electrical motor assisted) with fully human powered (traditional) bikes.

The type powered by meat motors

I've started calling them "acoustic" bikes, like non-electric guitars. Not technically accurate, but folks almost always get it and smile.

Another name: bio bikes

Analog bikes

How strange that a non-electric bike now needs a special prefix. To me "bike" is the traditional kind and "e-bike" is the motorized kind. Has it really tilted that far? Not where I live, where probably 10-20% of bikes are electric. So far.

If Ford Mustang was a bike it would be a Richi Hulk

https://www.reddit.com/r/MTB/s/qBcUDZ7rqd

I was going to point out how bad the last few decades of mustang have looked.

Then I saw your link. Yes. You’ve picked the right comparison.

Narrow streets and very steep slopes there is absolutely no way to safely cycle anywhere there.

Could be a speed limit thing.

I doubt that they have speed limits if they don't allow motorised vehicles.

I agree, If everyone is on foot there is no need for regulating the speed.

Some places actually have pedestrian speed limits.

Only donkeys, there are a few vehicles tho the garbage collection “truck” being one of them.