# E-bikes banned off-road in Washington State



## Whiptastic (Mar 14, 2016)

E-bikes banned off-road in Washington State


http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/trail_news/e-bikes-ban-372650


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

They are allowed on trails that currently allow motorized use and land managers can grant access to specific trails or trail networks on a case by case basis.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

The legislation was aimed to clarify where e-bike could be (and not be) used.

Paved trails = have at it.

Singletrack dirt, as Vik related it's a case by case basis by the land manager. Or, in other words, closed unless specifically stated otherwise.


----------



## Rangie (Jan 17, 2015)

They're going to allow them on paved bike paths? Seriously?

What do we need around earbud wearing stroller moms, little kids weaving all over on scooters and tiny dogs on the retract-o leash? More speed!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Rangie said:


> They're going to allow them on paved bike paths? Seriously?
> 
> What do we need around earbud wearing stroller moms, little kids weaving all over on scooters and tiny dogs on the retract-o leash? More speed!


It just hastens the e-motors demise, forever relegated to the streets with the mopeds.


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

It should be classified with motorcycles. That's all they are.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

Makes me think of a real old joke; 
Q: "What do you call 50 Tort Lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?"
A: "A good start"

Seems like a "good start" to me.


----------



## Tracer16 (Nov 6, 2017)

I live in Washington State. This doesn't really affect me where I'm at. I use my Levo on the MUT trails and my Tallboy on the others. This is on the far more conservative East side. Lots of open space with very few other riders. This does seem like it dooms the ebike as I can't see land management going out of there we to make compensations.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Are MUT's multi use trails? If they are you are banned on those, on your ebike, no matter what part of the state you are in.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Are MUT's multi use trails? If they are you are banned on those, on your ebike, no matter what part of the state you are in.


From the summary of the WA State Bill:



> Class 1 and 2 electric-assisted bicycles may use a shared-use path or any part of a highway designated for the use of bicycles, such as a bicycle lane, but local jurisdictions and state agencies may still restrict or otherwise limit the access of Class 1 and 2 electric-assisted bicycles.


Summary text is here.

MUTs = a shared use path in my mind.

They are banned from non-motorized natural surface trails [ie. MTB/hiking trails] unless the land manager decides to allow them. They can be banned from MUTs if the land manager chooses.


----------



## Tracer16 (Nov 6, 2017)

MUT trails that I use the ebike on are open to motorized vehicles. Like dirt bikes and quads. I would think that the ebike would be allowed on these trails


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Tracer16 said:


> MUT trails that I use the ebike on are open to motorized vehicles. Like dirt bikes and quads. I would think that the ebike would be allowed on these trails


I think you are fine.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

vikb said:


> From the summary of the WA State Bill:
> 
> Summary text is here.
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting the link!

The WA law reads much like the CA law but with this one important distinction:

_"Generally, a person may not operate an electric-assisted bicycle on a trail that is designated as
nonmotorized and that has a natural surface, unless otherwise authorized by the state agency
or local authority having jurisdiction over the trail."_​
So whereas in CA dirt trails allowing bicycles are _open_ to e-bikes _unless closed_; in WA dirt trails allowing bicycles are _closed_ to e-bikes _unless open_.

I wonder if CA will get around to changing its law? The _closed unless open_ is how it was originally intended but not how the final version was enacted.


----------



## panchosdad (Sep 21, 2008)

Moe Ped said:


> Thanks for posting the link!
> 
> The WA law reads much like the CA law but with this one important distinction:
> 
> ...


In WA e-bikes are banned from non-motorized dirt trails, not all dirt trails. I don't live in WA, but around us a large percentage of single track is open to dirt bikes, so e-bikes would be allowed. Important distinction, and it makes the thread title misleading.


----------



## Whiptastic (Mar 14, 2016)

It’s a given that any eBike can be ridden anywhere you can ride/drive a motorized vehicle, on or off road. I would think everyone understands that.

The title of the thread is the title of the article itself, posted on MBR in the UK. MBR UK is rightly concerned, because if this was the rule of law there they’d be screwed.

What stood out when I read the article was that Washington and California laws mirror each other with one exception as Moe Ped pointed out. That is, the onus of allowing eMTB use on natural surface MTB trails is on the regulating agency to approve use; unlike the California law that allows certain eMTB Classes and puts the onus on the regulating agency to exclude use.

Personally, I like the California law and am glad I live there. By including certain Classes of eBike use the regulatory agencies can watch and observe there use to make an “informed real world decision” as to their true impact if any. If the impact is negative, then that agency can exclude them. The Washington law doesn’t even give them a chance at an “informed real world decision” for use. IMHO that is unfortunate.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Whiptastic said:


> The Washington law doesn't even give them a chance at an "informed real world decision" for use. IMHO that is unfortunate.


Sure it does. Any land manager in WA can allow e-bikes on their trails to study the impacts and make a determination about allowing greater access. All you need is one or two test beds in the state for an opinion to form about e-bike access and should the opinion be positive access will spread.

Beyond that whatever happens in CA will be communicated beyond that state whether it's positive or negative.


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

BLM and Forrest services national stance is they are motorized vehicles so they are default banned unless specifically allowed.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

So the individual districts can make the determination of whether they roll or they don't. I'm not terribly bothered by that. If they want to play lets see the eBike advocates roll up their shirt sleeves and become part of trail advocacy game and earn their way into the system rather than ride the coat-tails of mtbr's that have worked so hard on access issues.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Whiptastic said:


> Personally, I like the California law and am glad I live there.


Personally, I like the Washington law and am glad that I live here.

So, we're both happy with our respective situations.


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

That means work..... These are eBike riders...isnt going to happen.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Curveball said:


> Personally, I like the Washington law and am glad that I live here.
> 
> So, we're both happy with our respective situations.


I mostly agree. I am also glad that most Californians remain in CA.


----------

