# Where is the evidence of a class 1 eBike restriction?



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

I have posted on a few different threads asking anyone to provide evidence that there is an actual regulation/law that restricts class 1 eBikes (pedal assist) from any federal property trail (i.e. BLM, USFS, etc). I have had a several people provide sections of CFR which were simply not applicable; travel guidances which clearly do not apply to class 1 eBikes; policy memos which are poorly written, irrational, self contradictory, and do not carry the weight of actual regulation/law; etc. But as of yet, no one has been able to provide any regulation/law that would ban a class 1 eBike from any trail where MTBs are allowed.

Despite this lack of actually banning class 1 bikes, there seems to be a rampant case of groupthink where people believe that such a ban does exist. Not only do they believe, they vehemently endorse such a ban and vow to report any violators to the authorities. Amazing.

While no one has provided any rational justification for why a class 1 eBike SHOULD be banned, they all seem to agree on the fact that if the bike has an electric motor, then it is a motorized vehicle and should be treated as such. This is just nonsense. By this sophomoric thought process, if I taped a 5V computer cooling fan to my bike, it would then have an electric motor. As such, it would then be a motorized vehicle and subject to the same regulations as a Honda CRF450R dirtbike. This insults the intelligence of even the dimmest observer. But there are those who believe.

So, again, I am asking that anyone provide any evidence that there is an actual regulation or law that bans class 1 eBikes from any trail where MTBs are allowed. Such a regulation/law may exist... I just haven't seen it yet. But if it doesn't exist, then I say that we should all actively stamp out this misconception that any ban does exist. We should all make a point of correcting anyone (including LEOs) who casually believes that a Specialized Levo is not allowed on the same trails that a Specialized Stumpjumper is allowed on.

Full disclaimer: I do not own an eBike of any sort. However, I firmly believe that public land belongs to the people... not the government. And if the government wants to restrict access for ANY members of the public, there must be compelling reasons for them to do so. And the overly-simplified argument of "if it has a motor, it is a motorized vehicle" just doesn't amount to a compelling reason. 

If we simply accept that class 1 eBikes are not allowed on any MTB trail for arbitrary and capricious reasons, then we will accept other restrictions such as: your tires are too wide, your tires have too deep of a tread pattern, you can't have triple clamped forks, you can't ride bikes over35 pounds, you can't ride bikes under 25 pounds, or how about a restriction on any bike that is just painted red. Once you let the camel's nose under the tent, the whole camel is coming in. We must ALWAYS push back vigorously against any restrictions that would deny our access to public lands. For an injustice to one of us, is an injustice to all of us.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

http://flagstaffbiking.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/20150929EBikesBriefingPaper.pdf


> E-bikes have a motor
> and are therefore self-propelled and are not covered by the exceptions in the definition.
> Therefore, e-bikes are motor vehicles and are subject to regulation under the TMR, which
> requires designation of National Forest System (NFS) roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands
> for motor vehicle use.


http://flagstaffbiking.org/wp-conte...nds-BLM-Field-Going-Notification-July2015.pdf

By the way this HAS been covered in detail and links have been provided.

Stop re-hashing the old topics.


----------

