There are many places where the legal definition of a thing does not match the dictionary or some group's understanding of a term. That's why the laws generally make a point of defining these terms: to clarify when the legal definition might not match someone's general understanding. You say a "bicycle" requires pedals, and it's right there in the definition. As are the two wheels. Also not meeting that definition: tricycles (adult/child/recumbent), balance bikes, handcycles, quadcycles. All technically not bicycles, but all covered, in most cases, by existing laws because in legal terms, they all fall into the general category of "bicycle." And it makes sense. How helpful would it be to clutter the legal code with duplicate laws to apply to every variation of vehicle that functionally performs at the same level with similar infrastructure and safety requirements?

Every time e-bikes gets mentioned here it turns into a bunch of weird tantrums about what constitutes bicycling, and who can say that they're "bike touring" and who cannot. I really don't care what you call whatever you're doing.

But when it comes to using the infrastructure, it's a question of doing it safely and responsibly. I see no reason label as invalid any form of transportation that can be operated in the same space with the same level of safety and responsibility. Ride an e-bike, pedals or no; roll around in a giant hamster ball; ride in a hammock suspended from drones. As long as you can do it without being a danger to other trail users or to the trail itself.