Electric bicycles soon to be in National Parks, Forests, BLM lands?

[Traveler]

This may be old news, but I just caught this today, a current administration order will allow electric bikes (E-Bikes) onto trails in National Parks, Forests, and BLM properties. Wilderness areas are a little hazy under this order, but I suspect the worst from this.

These machines are capable of speeds exceeding 25mph, which given the ease of operation won't take long to wander off of "appropriate trails" and bike routes onto foot paths. The ATC, PCT, and other conservation organizations are raising concerns pointing out the administration is changing the nature of National Parks and other areas without any study or public comment.

According to the order, E-Bikes are able to use any trail open to bicycles and/or horses. I cannot imagine what mayhem a fast moving powered vehicle will produce with horses, since the presence of a slow moving hiker is enough to make many of them skittish. While this may sound agreeable on first glance, it opens up the high probability these machines will likely extend to use on foot trails. There has been a growing effort in the continued push by the mountain biking community to allow mountain bikes on all trails, the entire PCT for example, who will use ticketing and enforcement measures of these things as a legal platform to challenge exclusionary rules. It's also seen by many as the fuel powered vehicle camels nose getting under the tent.

Given the history of this issue, I am hoping for a positive outcome for the National Parks and the hiking community overall.

[colorado_rob]

Potentially, very sad. I'll remain optimistic that what the effect will be is that E-bikes will ONLY be allowed on existing bike-legal trails, which is still bad because undoubtedly existing bike trails will probably become more crowded, with unfit people now using them. We'll see.

[Starchild]

E-Bikes will be allowed in GSMNP then as it does allow horses.

[ldsailor]

I say allow them in certain areas - like the trail up to Mount Washington. I barely made it up there myself, so an E-bike has the potential of providing endless entertainment on those type of trails. Another possibility is Mahoosuc Notch. :banana

[Portie]

1. I am surprised they can change the regulations that govern the trails without public comment.

2. Both human-powered mountain bikes and horses can travel at 25mph or more.

3. Snow mobiles are allowed on some trails in some national parks. Likewise, motor boats are allowed in some national park lakes/rivers.

[Dogwood]

Even if authorized it will be on selective trails ...but we know how that legally tends to develop.

[Traffic Jam]

On a positive note, it may provide more access to the outdoors for people with disabilities. It’s not only the “unfit” using E bikes.

[Traveler]

1. I am surprised they can change the regulations that govern the trails without public comment.

2. Both human-powered mountain bikes and horses can travel at 25mph or more.

3. Snow mobiles are allowed on some trails in some national parks. Likewise, motor boats are allowed in some national park lakes/rivers.

I would think a rule change like this would be openly done and seek public and Agency comment as was the norm. Apparently that's no longer how things are done which will be handy for fossil fueled timber interests. I am less concerned with yahoos taking Ebikes onto footpaths than the startling erosion of the processes design to protect NPs.

[CalebJ]

I don't see the problem here. These aren't all electric bikes that don't require human power - it's an assist function only. And they'd still be subject to the same restrictions placed on bicycles in general, so you shouldn't see them in places that bicycles weren't already present. No added noise, just the ability for people to get a little farther than they might otherwise have done without a little boost.

[Coffee]

Terrible idea. A motor vehicle is a motor vehicle whether powered by gasoline or electricity. As an added problem, making it “easier” to get to remote areas will have the side effect of people with less survival skills getting in over their heads.

[Traffic Jam]

Lol, the assumptions about who uses E bikes is ridiculous. Riding an E bike does not mean the rider is “unfit” or has “less survival skills”.

[CalebJ]

Terrible idea. A motor vehicle is a motor vehicle whether powered by gasoline or electricity. As an added problem, making it “easier” to get to remote areas will have the side effect of people with less survival skills getting in over their heads.
This is -not- a motor vehicle. It's a simple assist function that requires the cyclist to be pedaling.

[Coffee]

It is a motor vehicle. Period. Most e bikes can move just fine without any pedaling whatsoever, many at speeds in excess of 20 mph.

[Coffee]

20 MPH https://www.radpowerbikes.com/products/radrover-electric-fat-bike

[CalebJ]

To clarify - there are multiple classes of e-bikes. Yes, some of them can run on electric power only. However, the law in question specifically requires them not to do so. When used on public lands they are required to operate in assist mode only.

https://electrek.co/2019/09/02/electric-bicycles-allowed-in-national-parks/

[Coffee]

There is no way you can enforce that.

[CalebJ]

There's no way you can enforce a lot of rules, but you're getting upset about people potentially breaking rules. Guess what? That's an issue across the board with all sorts of rules. If you want to be upset, at least try to do so about a real problem when it actually occurs.

[Coffee]

Lol, it is completely unenforceable unlike many rules that can be enforced. Most of these e bikes have throttles and try proving that people are exerting effort pedaling. You can’t.

[colorado_rob]

Lol, the assumptions about who uses E bikes is ridiculous. Riding an E bike does not mean the rider is “unfit” or has “less survival skills”.Not sure about "survival skills", but I would bet 100-1 that there is a strong correlation between lack of fitness and the use of an E-bike on established hiking trails. I'm not knocking it, good for them, I only lament it, from a purely selfish standpoint, that such trails will, indeed become more crowded being opened up to E-bikes. On the other hand, in 10-15 years, maybe sooner, I will be happy for this change.

[RockDoc]

I see these every day on a rails-to-trail in Seattle. Large numbers of older adults are using them to commute to work and back, at high speeds. Generally, these e-bikes are 30-50% of the bike traffic. Then add the motorized scooters, the large wheel thingie with footpegs, self balance scooter boards, and segways, and you've got motorized mayhem for pedestrians. It's become dangerous to take a walk on once-quiet bike trails.

I filed a complaint with the local city government, since the first rule of the bike path is "No Motorized Vehicles". But not much interest from them ... at least until a child is greased by a big goober biking at 30 mph, unable to change course or stop.

[Feral Bill]

This is -not- a motor vehicle. It's a simple assist function that requires the cyclist to be pedaling. Assisting with a MOTOR

[colorado_rob]

The newest E-bikes are NOT the same as the older assist ones, you can ride the new ones like underpowered scooters. And with the evolving battery tech going on, they will just get stronger and faster. It is scary. Funny though, we don't see these in the Denver area much yet.

[TexasBob]

This is -not- a motor vehicle. It's a simple assist function that requires the cyclist to be pedaling.

Sounds like a motor vehicle to me:

Class 1: Pedal Assist
The electric drive system on the ebike can only be activated through a pedaling action and is limited to relatively low speeds. The sensor usually measures pedal movement, pedal torque or bicycle speed (sometimes all three) and sensors are located in the bottom bracket, rear hub or rear wheel. In parts of Europe this class is limited to 15 mph (25 kph) with motor wattage <= 250 watts. In America, because of our more liberal vehicle definition, this class is limited to a motor powered speed of 20 mph (32 kph) with motor wattage of <= 750 watts.

https://electricbikereview.com/forum/threads/what-are-electric-bike-classes-and-why-do-they-matter.22738/

[T.S.Kobzol]

I am ok with this. I have seen e bikes coexist just fine and without any histrionics on all kinds of trails I biked in Spain, France, Germany or Czechia


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Longboysfan]

E-Bikes will be allowed in GSMNP then as it does allow horses.

I have a question about the horses allowed on the AT in GSMNP.

Does the trail flatten out a bit - where horses are allowed?
Like not the narrow one hiker path in a divot most of the time?

[Dogwood]

Sounds like a motor vehicle to me:

Class 1: Pedal Assist
The electric drive system on the ebike can only be activated through a pedaling action and is limited to relatively low speeds. The sensor usually measures pedal movement, pedal torque or bicycle speed (sometimes all three) and sensors are located in the bottom bracket, rear hub or rear wheel. In parts of Europe this class is limited to 15 mph (25 kph) with motor wattage <= 250 watts. In America, because of our more liberal vehicle definition, this class is limited to a motor powered speed of 20 mph (32 kph) with motor wattage of <= 750 watts.

https://electricbikereview.com/forum/threads/what-are-electric-bike-classes-and-why-do-they-matter.22738/


A law was just passed in Atlanta to mandatory reduce the MPH of the pay as u go electric scooters(T bar skateboards) left all over town.

[HooKooDooKu]

According to the order, E-Bikes are able to use any trail open to bicycles and/or horses.

E-Bikes will be allowed in GSMNP then as it does allow horses.
Let's shut this crap down now!

Just google the subject and you will quickly find new stories as well as links to the order (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/PM_19-01.pdf) indicating that the above statements are NOT true.

In summary, the order is "E-bikes are allowed where traditional bicycles are allowed". The order continues with the statement that "E-bikes are not allowed where traditional bicycles are prohibited".

So specific to GSMNP:
We don't have to worry about seeing e-bikes in the GSMNP back country (except for the three trails where bicycles are already allowed).
The biggest impact I see in GSMNP is that mornings where Cades Cove is closed to vehicle traffic, but open to bicycles and hikers... E-bikes would also be allowed in Cades Cove.

[BlackCloud]

It is a motor vehicle. Period. Most e bikes can move just fine without any pedaling whatsoever, many at speeds in excess of 20 mph.

This statement is only true if the e-bike is going downhill. An e bike is not a moped. For the battery to power the crank must turn.

[BlackCloud]

Lol, it is completely unenforceable unlike many rules that can be enforced. Most of these e bikes have throttles and try proving that people are exerting effort pedaling. You can’t.
An e bike by definition does not have a throttle. A throttle makes it a moped or scooter.

[BlackCloud]

I was recently in the hills of Switzerland where well over 1/2 of bikes in town are now e bikes. Bikes, e bikes, pedestrians, motor vehicles and pets all seemed to get along in harmony.

You may have heard something like this before, but it's the people, not the instrument that is the problem.

[TurboWells]

From the language in this article, it appears the parks feel they have some leeway on how the rule is implemented:

https://www.pressherald.com/2019/09/10/acadia-national-park-adopting-e-bike-rules-after-directive/

[HooKooDooKu]

From the language in this article, it appears the parks feel they have some leeway on how the rule is implemented:

https://www.pressherald.com/2019/09/10/acadia-national-park-adopting-e-bike-rules-after-directive/
Just read the order (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/PM_19-01.pdf) for yourself.
It clearly states that Superintendents have the authority place limitations on e-bike and lists what they must take into consideration and how the limitations would be disseminated.

[CalebJ]

An e bike by definition does not have a throttle. A throttle makes it a moped or scooter.
This isn't actually true. Class 1 e-bikes are assist only. Class 2 allow both assist and throttle only modes.

[Traveler]

Let's shut this crap down now!

Just google the subject and you will quickly find new stories as well as links to the order (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/PM_19-01.pdf) indicating that the above statements are NOT true.

In summary, the order is "E-bikes are allowed where traditional bicycles are allowed". The order continues with the statement that "E-bikes are not allowed where traditional bicycles are prohibited".

So specific to GSMNP:
We don't have to worry about seeing e-bikes in the GSMNP back country (except for the three trails where bicycles are already allowed).
The biggest impact I see in GSMNP is that mornings where Cades Cove is closed to vehicle traffic, but open to bicycles and hikers... E-bikes would also be allowed in Cades Cove.

Well, if that's the case, they won't be allowed where bikes are allowed to go? Sounds kind of silly, where else would they ride?

However, the larger point in all this was the complete lack of public comment opportunity before a change of policy of this nature in National Parks. If most everyone is ok with that, I guess there's not much more to say.

[HooKooDooKu]

Well, if that's the case, they won't be allowed where bikes are allowed to go? Sounds kind of silly, where else would they ride?
Your opening post used the phrase "E-Bikes are able to use any trail open to bicycles and/or horses". This phrase, along with your opening statement, made it sound like a whole lot of back country trials that used to be open only to hikers and horse riders would now also be open to E-Bikes.

That interpretation of this order that is simply not true, and that's the ONLY part of this discussion I'm trying to shut down.

"Lack of public comment opportunity"? I didn't research the history of the order, so I currently have no input on that aspect of the subject. So please do continue to discuss the history of this order and anything else that might be right or wrong about it.

[Coffee]

“his statement is only true if the e-bike is going downhill. An e bike is not a moped. For the battery to power the crank must turn.”

not true. Many have throttles. Check out Rad Power as just one example.

[Starchild]

I am ok with this. I have seen e bikes coexist just fine and without any histrionics on all kinds of trails I biked in Spain, France, Germany or Czechia

Says a biker. From a hiker's perspective I suspect the answer would be different. I've noticed that bike use does alter the trail in a obvious way to me.

[HooKooDooKu]

Says a biker. From a hiker's perspective I suspect the answer would be different. I've noticed that bike use does alter the trail in a obvious way to me.StarStarchild,
A biker's perspective is VERY appropriate for this discussion.

Notice that T.S.Kobzol is saying that "e-bikes coexist ... on all kinds of trails I biked..."

So let me point out again... this order is NOT expanding e-bikes to hiker trails.
The shortest summary of the order would be "e-bikes can go anywhere bikes are allowed".
So to point out AGAIN... the order is not allowing e-bikes on what have classically been hiker trials

[Coffee]

The problem isn’t that they are allowing e-bikes on hiking only trails but that they are allowing a motor vehicle in areas where they previously only allowed human powered mechanized vehicles. My most relevant experiences with mountain bikers was on the Colorado Trail. I didn’t have too many run ins but there were a few spots with many of them. With a motor, people are going to travel faster, take more risks to themselves, and put more hikers in peril. E bikes are fundamentally different than human powered bikes, especially those that have a throttle, which is most that I’ve researched. I’ve looked into e bikes myself for city use although I haven’t bought one yet. There’s an important place for such vehicles but I don’t think they belong on trails.

[HooKooDooKu]

“his statement is only true if the e-bike is going downhill. An e bike is not a moped. For the battery to power the crank must turn.”

not true. Many have throttles. Check out Rad Power as just one example.
The order places E-Bikes into 4 classes:
Class 1. Motor that provides assistance only when pedaling and ceases to assist above a speed of 20mph
Class 2. Motor that can be used to exclusively propel the bicycle and ceases to assist above a speed of 20mph
Class 3. Motor that provides assistance only when pedaling and ceases to assist above a speed of 28mph
The Rest: Device with electric motors that don't fall within Class 1, 2, or 3.

Effectively, the order defines an E-bike as a device that fits into Class 1, 2 or 3. These E-bikes are allowed where traditional bicycles are allowed.
Any "E-bike" that falls outside of Class 1, 2, or 3 is to be managed as a motor vehicle and only allowed on park roads and areas designated for off-road vehicle use.

This is a paraphrase of the order. Again, if you want to see the details for yourself, they are here (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/PM_19-01.pdf).

[BlackCloud]

Class 2 looks like trouble.

These are new definitions.

[Traveler]

Your opening post used the phrase "E-Bikes are able to use any trail open to bicycles and/or horses". This phrase, along with your opening statement, made it sound like a whole lot of back country trials that used to be open only to hikers and horse riders would now also be open to E-Bikes.

That interpretation of this order that is simply not true, and that's the ONLY part of this discussion I'm trying to shut down.

"Lack of public comment opportunity"? I didn't research the history of the order, so I currently have no input on that aspect of the subject. So please do continue to discuss the history of this order and anything else that might be right or wrong about it.

I stand corrected, that was how the original article I read stated the issue and part of the reason the thread was a question. Looking back, the horse reference may have been for multi-use trails. My comments regarding these machines stand however. Bikes illegally appear on hiking trails despite assurances from the mechanical community they do not, which if logic prevails, we will see these machines appear on them as well over time, camel's noses being what they are. That this was done in the dark of night without public comment is not typically how the NPS conducts its business and perhaps signals a change to a more secretive process.

[Traffic Jam]

Just like running or walking, cycling speed is limited by the landscape. There’s no way a E cyclist can maintain a fast, continuous speed on anything but a flat, well-graded trail. And even then, the cyclist is limited by battery life. Can you imagine an e cyclist going 20mph on the trails we hike? No, cuz it’s not possible.

E bikes are meant to provide short bursts of assistance. Those people who choose to use an e bike on a trail will already have a baseline level of physical fitness.

I believe the real reason people oppose this is because they don’t want more people outdoors, ruining “their experience”. It’s about entitlement, not sharing.

Would y’all really oppose a veteran with an amputation from using an e bike on an established MTB trail?

[Traffic Jam]

...and another point,

The studies I read during the MTB’s-on-trails-debate showed that hikers did more damage to trails than bikes. As a member of the cycling community, I know firsthand that cyclists hold each other accountable for their behavior and take their trail stewardship very seriously. Yesterday, I saw an MTB’er call out another for littering and (at least in this area) won’t bike in wet conditions so that the trails aren't damaged. How many hikers do that? Just look at the erosion on the AT for that answer.

[rickb]

The studies I read during the MTB’s-on-trails-debate showed that hikers did more damage to trails than bikes.

My local trail (part of the Bay Circuit Trail that circles Boston) was a narrow single track for years and years. With the popularity of mountain bikes over the past 20 years, most of it is now literally as wide as a mountain road.

Makes is is easier to avoid ticks, but completely different character.

Cannot hike it now because we are at the highest risk level for EEE. More aerial spraying tonight. God help us if that scourge ever reaches the AT. Bigger threats out there than e-bikes.

[Traffic Jam]

My local trail (part of the Bay Circuit Trail that circles Boston) was a narrow single track for years and years. With the popularity of mountain bikes over the past 20 years, most of it is now literally as wide as a mountain road.

Makes is is easier to avoid ticks, but completely different character.

Cannot hike it now because we are at the highest risk level for EEE. More aerial spraying tonight. God help us if that scourge ever reaches the AT. Bigger threats out there than e-bikes.

Unfortunately, our cycling-unfriendly country has made it extremely hazardous to cycle on the roads so most of my friends have turned to MTB’ing. I’m still cycling on the road but expect to get hit any day. Sad but true. I’d love an E bike to extend my work commute and add in grocery shopping and errands.

[GaryM]

As some who hikes and has built his own ebikes I need to add a few things.
Ebike laws vary from state to state. Pedal assist (you have to pedal to make it go but the motor helps out) is not always a requirement. Hand operate throttles are very common but not always allowed. Power level is controlled at a federal level but does not apply to home builts. Most ebikes allow the option of PAS (Pedal Assist) and throttle control.
IMHO this can all be laid at the feet of the handicap accessibility laws. Once you permit powered wheelchairs in a place for those who need them how can you legitimately keep out average Joes who want one too? It is a slippery slope that only those horribly cruel selfish jerks foresaw and now we get to enjoy the consequences.
Personally I would like to go back to the way it was, some trails for foot travel, some for bicycles, some for horses, some for dirt bikes/ATV's, some for 4x4's/fullsize vehicles but that ain't happening. Anyway, for more detailed info than you could ever want to know about ebikes I would suggest endlessphere.com.
For those who hate the idea of bicycles/ebikes on the trails all I can say is get used to it. Traditionalist all over are currently being dumped on by the new world order we are experiencing...

[rickb]

Electric bikes do make you feel like Superman.

I got passed on on my regular bike by an electric unicycle last week (Minuteman Bikeway). I would have had to kill myself to keep up. Too cool. Bikeway ends at a subway station and it would have been real easy to carry on.

[Traffic Jam]

Electric bikes do make you feel like Superman.

I got passed on on my regular bike by an electric unicycle last week (Minuteman Bikeway). I would have had to kill myself to keep up. Too cool. Bikeway ends at a subway station and it would have been real easy to carry on.
Seriously wished I had one last week when I was pushing my bike up a super steep hill.

[Traveler]

Seriously wished the NPS had allowed comment before the rule change, which include Class II E-bikes that are powered without pedaling and have a throttle. Though apparently this is not much of an issue with people, for me it signals a move to secretive rule making, which one can only imagine where that can lead. That, my friends, is the issue, but given the collective shrug its not worth discussion. Perhaps when NPS rules are changed in secrecy for timbering and oil exploration it may spark some interest in this process.

[Traffic Jam]

Seriously wished the NPS had allowed comment before the rule change, which include Class II E-bikes that are powered without pedaling and have a throttle. Though apparently this is not much of an issue with people, for me it signals a move to secretive rule making, which one can only imagine where that can lead. That, my friends, is the issue, but given the collective shrug its not worth discussion. Perhaps when NPS rules are changed in secrecy for timbering and oil exploration it may spark some interest in this process.
So basically, people are incensed about E bikes on trails because they weren’t asked first? I can understand that but don’t oppose the change, oppose the fundamental issue which is a broken political system...but political dialogue isn’t allowed on WB.

As far as all classes of e bikes being allowed on trails...

”Pizzi said Class 1 e-bikes are most appropriate on trails where mountain bikes are allowed. He said Class 2 and 3 e-bikes are better suited for a park's paved trails and bike lanes but each jurisdiction will establish its own rules."We are focused on Class 1," Pizzi said. "We don't want everyone to think this is unfettered access to federal lands all over the country for all types of e-bikes. Every jurisdiction will do what is appropriate and effective in their environment.”

[HooKooDooKu]

Keep in mind that while Class II E-bikes do allow throttles, they still have limitations on speed... so it's not as if you could take a motorcycle, call it an E-bike and ride motor cycles on mountain bike trails.

[rickb]

Keep in mind that while Class II E-bikes do allow throttles, they still have limitations on speed... so it's not as if you could take a motorcycle, call it an E-bike and ride motor cycles on mountain bike trails.

I can see them being very, very popular on the Carriage Roads at Acadia National Park.


Having waves of fellow tourists passing at 28 MPH would be rather disconcerting.

Actually I think that would really suck.

[greensleep]

Seriously wished the NPS had allowed comment before the rule change, which include Class II E-bikes that are powered without pedaling and have a throttle. Though apparently this is not much of an issue with people, for me it signals a move to secretive rule making, which one can only imagine where that can lead. That, my friends, is the issue, but given the collective shrug its not worth discussion. Perhaps when NPS rules are changed in secrecy for timbering and oil exploration it may spark some interest in this process.

This is the major issue here, I agree. This is the slippery slope. We will eventually have no say except to complain "ex post facto".

[HooKooDooKu]

...
Having waves of fellow tourists passing at 28 MPH would be rather disconcerting.
...
That's a Class 3 E-bike. Those do not have a throttle but can only be pedal assist.

[rickb]

That's a Class 3 E-bike. Those do not have a throttle but can only be pedal assist.

Exactly.

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3376_-_increasing_recreational_opportunities_through_the _use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf

[Dogwood]

This may be old news, but I just caught this today, a current administration order will allow electric bikes (E-Bikes) onto trails in National Parks, Forests, and BLM properties. Wilderness areas are a little hazy under this order, but I suspect the worst from this.

These machines are capable of speeds exceeding 25mph, which given the ease of operation won't take long to wander off of "appropriate trails" and bike routes onto foot paths. The ATC, PCT, and other conservation organizations are raising concerns pointing out the administration is changing the nature of National Parks and other areas without any study or public comment.

According to the order, E-Bikes are able to use any trail open to bicycles and/or horses. I cannot imagine what mayhem a fast moving powered vehicle will produce with horses, since the presence of a slow moving hiker is enough to make many of them skittish. While this may sound agreeable on first glance, it opens up the high probability these machines will likely extend to use on foot trails. There has been a growing effort in the continued push by the mountain biking community to allow mountain bikes on all trails, the entire PCT for example, who will use ticketing and enforcement measures of these things as a legal platform to challenge exclusionary rules. It's also seen by many as the fuel powered vehicle camels nose getting under the tent.

Given the history of this issue, I am hoping for a positive outcome for the National Parks and the hiking community overall.

i dont see anything wrong with your concerns. The biking community has for yrs lobbied to gain greater access to trails built by other communities. This creates problems on some trails such as narrowed single track of flatter nature where the dramatically different rates of speed can definitely cause issue with multi use. Hopefully, the NPS does not kowtow to the biking community. This is not simply a hiker entitlement issue as has been suggested. If what you're saying is correct - late night passage limiting public comment- it does not bode well for transparency.

[T.S.Kobzol]

I could be wrong but I don’t think the national Park is thinking about allowing bikes on hiking trails. Just allowing them to coexist in a national park trail system. For example on Acadia Carriage roads But not on acadia hiking trails. Basically on trails where bikes are currently allowed they want to make sure that also e-bikes are also allowed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Traveler]

So basically, people are incensed about E bikes on trails because they weren’t asked first? I can understand that but don’t oppose the change, oppose the fundamental issue which is a broken political system...but political dialogue isn’t allowed on WB.

As far as all classes of e bikes being allowed on trails...

”Pizzi said Class 1 e-bikes are most appropriate on trails where mountain bikes are allowed. He said Class 2 and 3 e-bikes are better suited for a park's paved trails and bike lanes but each jurisdiction will establish its own rules."We are focused on Class 1," Pizzi said. "We don't want everyone to think this is unfettered access to federal lands all over the country for all types of e-bikes. Every jurisdiction will do what is appropriate and effective in their environment.”

Basically the point was missed, its not the bikes, its the issue of not seeking public comment for rule changes as the NPS typically does. Class II bikes are included in the rule change, but are said not to be allowed in NPs, how that will be enforced is anyones guess due to the secrecy of the rule change and its component pieces.

It's not about the bikes, its about secret changes to Federal rules. Is this a one time thing, or is this a test of public attention that leads to other rule changes behind closed doors. Not sure why few others are concerned about this and the potential it represents when rule changes go outside of the normal processes, however, indifference may have a price at some point.

[rickb]

By my reading of the actual Order all three classes of e-bikes are considered equivalent, and all three classes will be allowed on exiting bike trails.

Not sure why/how some could read the actual order differently. Am I missing something?


Excerpt from Order her:


Sec. 4 Policy. Consistent with governing laws and regulations:

a) For the purpose ofthis Order, "e-bikes" shall mean "low-speed electric bicycle" asdefined by 15 U.S.C. § 2085 and falling within one ofthe following classifications:

i) "Class 1 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour;

ii) "Class 2 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour; and

iii) "Class 3 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of28 miles per hour.

b) E-bikes shall be allowed where other types ofbicycles are allowed; and

c) E-bikes shall not be allowed where other types of bicycles are prohibited.



Full text of Order here:


https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3376_-_increasing_recreational_opportunities_through_the _use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf

[Feral Bill]

By my reading of the actual Order all three classes of e-bikes are considered equivalent, and all three classes will be allowed on exiting bike trails.

Not sure why/how some could read the actual order differently. Am I missing something?


Excerpt from Order her:


Sec. 4 Policy. Consistent with governing laws and regulations:

a) For the purpose ofthis Order, "e-bikes" shall mean "low-speed electric bicycle" asdefined by 15 U.S.C. § 2085 and falling within one ofthe following classifications:

i) "Class 1 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour;

ii) "Class 2 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour; and

iii) "Class 3 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of28 miles per hour.

b) E-bikes shall be allowed where other types ofbicycles are allowed; and

c) E-bikes shall not be allowed where other types of bicycles are prohibited.



Full text of Order here:


https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3376_-_increasing_recreational_opportunities_through_the _use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf Translation, the EBike industry got to an Interior Department that is openly anti environment, under the dubious guise of helping people with disabilities. I suspect this rule was quietly moved through the comment process with as little notice as possible.

[HooKooDooKu]

By my reading of the actual Order all three classes of e-bikes are considered equivalent, and all three classes will be allowed on exiting bike trails.

Yeah, that's how I understood the order.
Wasn't even sure why the defined the three classes since they include all three... other than to explain the difference between Class II (with throttle) and Class III without (Class I is just a sub-set of Class III).

[BlackCloud]

Ok people.

Federal agency heads consider and implement policies as a matter of course. They never allow for public comment, as most policies are never seen by the public. Agency heads issue policies to the workforce all the time and you know nothing about them. Have you ever seen a policy issued by the Director of the Secret Service? Of course not.

The Federal rule making process however always provides for public comment as a proposed Federal Rule is considered and adopted as administrative law in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). You will note in the Secretary's Order that he instructs several agency heads to initiate the rule making process on this matter. That will be the public's opportunity to opine.

Since everyone here is concerned about NPS trails: the Secretary instructs the NPS Director to initiate the rule making process to amend 36 CFR Sec. 1.4 to add a definition for e-bikes. That's when those who don't want e-bikes in Acadia, C&O Canal, etc. write in. It's not a done deal - just the beginning. Until there is a Final Rule, the NPS policy will be to allow Class I, II and III. It is very possible that in the rule making process, the allowable use of e-bikes will look very different than this policy might imply. A Federal Rule ALWAYS overrules and agency policy.

Here's more in the Federal rules making process:
https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf

[Daybreak]

Just read the order (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/PM_19-01.pdf) for yourself.

Note that this particular order is from the National Park Service and does not apply to the BLM or the National Forests. Additionally, the National Forests are under the Dept of Agriculture not Interior. Slippery slope may eventually apply.

[rickb]

Note that this particular order is from the National Park Service and does not apply to the BLM or the National Forests. Additionally, the National Forests are under the Dept of Agriculture not Interior. Slippery slope may eventually apply.

The NPS order was a follow up to that of the Secretary of the Interior, which basically told them and all the rest to do his bidding.

Here is that order, dated the day prior:

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3376_-_increasing_recreational_opportunities_through_the _use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf

[stephanD]

E-bikes are great for food delivery in the city, but when I try to imagine them on the Creeper trail, this is grotesque.

[BlackCloud]

So here is what the C&O Canal NHP, which includes a small stretch of the AT, has decided:

https://whiteblaze.net/forum/blob:https://whiteblaze.net/18f679d1-2104-4851-ab33-a111cb9668aa https://whiteblaze.net/forum/blob:https://whiteblaze.net/05287d58-b636-47c3-a3dc-15dd73f122e045727 Look at bottom of page 7.

[HooKooDooKu]

So here is what the C&O Canal NHP, which includes a small stretch of the AT, has decided:

https://whiteblaze.net/forum/blob:https://whiteblaze.net/18f679d1-2104-4851-ab33-a111cb9668aa https://whiteblaze.net/forum/blob:https://whiteblaze.net/05287d58-b636-47c3-a3dc-15dd73f122e045727 Look at bottom of page 7.
I feel like I'm missing something here... because the bottom of page 7 is saying the same thing for the C&O Canal NHP as the NP order that started this... e-bikes are allowed where traditional bikes are allowed.

[RockDoc]

Horrible decision. Slippery slope.

First low-powered e-bikes, then higher power, then segways, scooters, and all varieties of yet-to-be-invented MOTORIZED vehicles on our public trails.

The law states "No motorized vehicles". Period.

[Feral Bill]

Horrible decision. Slippery slope.

First low-powered e-bikes, then higher power, then segways, scooters, and all varieties of yet-to-be-invented MOTORIZED vehicles on our public trails.

The law states "No motorized vehicles". Period. I am baffled why people can't get this. These things do not belong where motors are prohibited.

[CalebJ]

It's not a 'can't get this' for many of us. I directly disagree with your conclusion and don't see it as a slippery slope situation in the slightest.

[Portie]

The NPS order was a follow up to that of the Secretary of the Interior, which basically told them and all the rest to do his bidding.
Here is that order, dated the day prior:
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3376_-_increasing_recreational_opportunities_through_the _use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf
I don't read that at all in the memo.

1. The memo asks the agencies involved to determine whether public comment is required, and the solicit those comments.

2. There would have been a dozen government attorneys, as well as other civil service policy experts, who would have vetted this document before it was released. Their job is to make sure the law (either the law as passed by Congress, or part of the US Code) is not violated.

3. If this order does violate the law, special interest groups are free to sue the Sec of Interior, and they will win (if the law was violated).

4. Congress is free at any time to hold hearings on the subject, and if they like they can alter Interior's budget to prevent them from allowing these bikes on bike trails, or they can pass additional laws or amendments to current laws preventing the Interior Department from doing this. BTW when Congress gets involved, you truly see whether "special interests" are involved.

[Portie]

E-bikes are great for food delivery in the city, but when I try to imagine them on the Creeper trail, this is grotesque.
That is a Forest Service trail, under the US Dept of Agriculture not Interior.

[rickb]

That is a Forest Service trail, under the US Dept of Agriculture not Interior.

Very interesting (and good) point!!!!!

[stephanD]

E-bikes are great for food delivery in the city, but when I try to imagine them on the Creeper trail, this is grotesque.
what I really meant is they are grotesque on ANY trail; state, federal, local, what have you.

[BlackCloud]

I feel like I'm missing something here... because the bottom of page 7 is saying the same thing for the C&O Canal NHP as the NP order that started this... e-bikes are allowed where traditional bikes are allowed.
Well the Secretary's order had 3 classifications of e-bikes where the C&O Canal is only allowing the one. I think.

[MtDoraDave]

E bikes are meant to provide short bursts of assistance. Those people who choose to use an e bike on a trail will already have a baseline level of physical fitness.
I believe the real reason people oppose this is because they don’t want more people outdoors, ruining “their experience”. It’s about entitlement, not sharing.

Would y’all really oppose a veteran with an amputation from using an e bike on an established MTB trail?

My two concerns about ebikes being allowed on regular bike trails (mountain bike trails) were:
1. That the electric assist bikes would erode the trails in a manner similar to (but obviously less than) the way motocross bikes erode/ rut a trail.
2. That the electric assist bikes will allow people to ride faster than their skill level, causing injury (or death), causing tension between them and non-ebike riders, going faster around blind corners; too fast for a safe reaction/ crash avoidance. Etc.

My concerns on point number one were put at ease when the president of the local mountain bike association forwarded scientific study comparing trail erosion of trails for standard mountain bikes, ebikes, and motor bikes. The difference between the mountain bikes and ebikes was negligible.

My concerns on point number two are still very much concerns. A couple former officers of the local mtn bike association told me about a former Olympic athlete (I disremember his name) who took up mountain biking. Being a world class athlete, his muscles and cardio quickly allowed him to ride quite fast. He rode faster than his skill level, and now he's paralyzed from his crash. I, personally, have a titanium bar and screws for a similar reason. I was riding faster than my skill level. At a popular mountain bike trail system near Ocala, FL, called Santos, there are miles and miles or trails. One can easily ride 50 miles without seeing the same trail twice. However, many of them aren't directional. On a regular mountain bike, traveling at regular mountain bike speeds, there are often crashes and more often "close calls" going around blind curves. Introducing ebikes to the landscape will quite likely increase the likelihood, frequency, and severity of these incidents.
Times they are a-changing, and time will tell if my concerns and fears are real or fancied

...and on the second part I bolded, "It's about entitlement, not sharing": Yes, it could be looked at that way from both sides. Those who don't have the skill level or the fitness level to keep up with those who do may be feeling that these ebikes entitle them to do so.

- and a veteran with an amputation... I would bet they are/ will be the exception rather than the rule... and no, I don't have a problem with wounded veteran, or a wounded anyone else on an ebike - but my fears expressed above remain valid to me.

[Traffic Jam]

..............