Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 78 of 78
  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    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/fi...kes_-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.
    "It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how." ---Dr. Seuss

  2. #62
    GSMNP 900 Miler
    Join Date
    02-25-2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Age
    52
    Posts
    4,241
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    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).

  3. #63
    Is it raining yet?
    Join Date
    07-15-2004
    Location
    Kensington, MD
    Age
    43
    Posts
    831
    Images
    51

    Default

    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/uplo...ng_process.pdf
    Be Prepared

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    04-28-2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    59
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Just read the order 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.

  5. #65
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    6,875
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daybreak View Post
    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/fi...kes_-508_0.pdf

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    12-01-2014
    Location
    bronx
    Age
    56
    Posts
    284

    Default

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

  7. #67
    Is it raining yet?
    Join Date
    07-15-2004
    Location
    Kensington, MD
    Age
    43
    Posts
    831
    Images
    51

    Default Superintendent's Compendium

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

    2019 CHOH Superintendent's Compendium.pdf Look at bottom of page 7.
    Last edited by BlackCloud; 10-05-2019 at 11:24. Reason: copy/past wouldn't work
    Be Prepared

  8. #68
    GSMNP 900 Miler
    Join Date
    02-25-2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Age
    52
    Posts
    4,241
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCloud View Post
    So here is what the C&O Canal NHP, which includes a small stretch of the AT, has decided:

    2019 CHOH Superintendent's Compendium.pdf 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.

  9. #69

    Default

    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.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RockDoc View Post
    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.
    "It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how." ---Dr. Seuss

  11. #71

    Default

    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.

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-21-2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
    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/fi...kes_-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.

  13. #73
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-21-2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stephanD View Post
    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.

  14. #74
    ME => GA 19AT3 rickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-12-2002
    Location
    Marlboro, MA
    Posts
    6,875
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Portie View Post
    That is a Forest Service trail, under the US Dept of Agriculture not Interior.
    Very interesting (and good) point!!!!!

  15. #75
    Registered User
    Join Date
    12-01-2014
    Location
    bronx
    Age
    56
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stephanD View Post
    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.

  16. #76
    Is it raining yet?
    Join Date
    07-15-2004
    Location
    Kensington, MD
    Age
    43
    Posts
    831
    Images
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HooKooDooKu View Post
    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.
    Be Prepared

  17. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traffic Jam View Post
    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.

  18. #78

    Default

    ..............
    Last edited by Traffic Jam; 10-14-2019 at 20:29.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •