# E-Bike advocacy in the Bay Area, California



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

I wanted to let people on here know about my recent experience getting into E-Bike advocacy for the first time. I think it's important for people to get involved if they want to get more trails opened to legal E-Bike usage.

I live in the Bay Area, CA where there are lots of different land managers and different rules in each place. I have yet to find a sign anywhere in the East or South Bay banning E-Bikes, but if you dig on the web you can usually find the land use regulations.

Well, I hadn't done that and was riding in the Mid Peninsula open space last weekend with a friend and got stopped by a ranger who said they are not allowed. There are signs that say "No Motorized Vehicles" all over the place, but according to AB 1096 which became law in 2015, Electric Bicycles are not motor vehicles:

"*24016. *(b) Aperson operating an electric bicycle is not subject to the provisionsof this code relating to financial responsibility, driver'slicenses, registration, and license plate requirements, and *an electric bicycle is not a motor vehicle.*"

The law further goes on to specify that Class 1 E-Bikes can be used anywhere a non-powered bike can unless the land manager decides against their use, but signs must be posted if that is the case. Mid-Pen has no E-Bike specific signs, but they have the rule in their land-use regulations and the rangers are enforcing it. Ug.

Here's where it gets interesting. I was given the option of a verbal warning or a written warning, and the ranger suggested that if I wanted to help the cause I should take the written warning because they count those. He claimed that the more documentation they have that e-Bikes are being used, the more likely it will be that the rule will be changed in favor of them. He also asked me to go speak at the next board meeting to move the process along faster.

So I took the written warning and went to the board meeting today to speak. They give you 3-minutes but I went over a bit andy they allowed it. I had a nice speech prepared and it was well received. I used my motorized vehicle argument and I think they knew exactly what I was talking about and knew that the lack of signage is a problem, but they don't want to put up signs that they will just end up taking down later (I was told this by the ranger that stopped me). I was told that they have someone working on it and they thanked me for speaking.

Afterwards, one of the staff members and the head ranger came to thank me personally for showing up and speaking. The ranger really wanted the rule to be changed because they feel they are wasting their time issuing warnings to e-Bike riders. It does no harm and makes no sense to them and they would rather not do it. They ask everyone they stop to go speak at the board meetings but hardly anyone actually does it.

So if any of you Bay Area E-Bike riders want to help, please go to a Mid Peninsula Open Space District meeting and sign up to advocate for E-Bike usage. California law is clearly on our side, and it looks like it's going to happen eventually, but every little bit of support helps. Mid-Pen really has some great riding if you've never been there, and if you have, you know what I'm talking about!

https://www.openspace.org/about-us/board-meetings


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

If you ride electric motorized bicycles and want to have the privilege to ride them on trails then follow this example. Showing up is 90% of advocacy.

The OP is fortunate to have had a warm reception, which must be capitalized upon. Build your case, expand your list of contacts, pay attention to the opposition.

If one thinks about, the decision to take the time to prepare, travel and have 3 minutes to address an Open Space Board meeting has produced a positive experience that is focusing attention on the merits of the ban of electric motorized bicycles and has stimulated dialog. 

Just by showing up, taking 3 minutes, and real, positive, results. Think about this before starting your next thread about why you believe electric motorized bicycles (fill in the blank). 

In 1/10th of the time it will take you to type your response to a post in a thread on a forum on the internet, notb produced a positive interaction that resulted in people with the authority to make decisions are now focusing on the ban, what the ban means and what are the options. Think about all the time you spend typing posts on this site. 3 minutes. Thank you notb for doing more for your cause than 98% of your peers.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Since you're interested in advocacy, you should realize that a Motor Vehicle is a specific DOT classification, which requires motorized vehicles like cars and motorcycles to have turn signals, license, insurance and all that stuff. A motorized vehicle is a general term describing any one with a motor. The intent of the Class 1-3 legislation was to define ebikes more spedifically than before and to exclude them from those requirements. Motor Vehicle and motorized vehicle aren't the same thing.

"No ebike" signs have a way of vanishing soon after posting, so I wouldn't rely too heavily on signage for determining where they're legal to ride.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

^^^ What he said. Does it have a motor? It's motorized. Yes there are some specific CA ebike wording, as mentioned.


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

Harryman said:


> A motorized vehicle is a general term describing any one with a motor. The intent of the Class 1-3 legislation was to define ebikes more spedifically than before and to exclude them from those requirements. Motor Vehicle and motorized vehicle aren't the same thing.
> 
> "No ebike" signs have a way of vanishing soon after posting, so I wouldn't rely too heavily on signage for determining where they're legal to ride.


You could be right, but it will probably take someone with deep pockets to clarify that in court. A careful reading of AB 1096 is necessary, but it's clear that the intent was to classify Class 1 E-Bikes as being the same as bicycles, but allow land managers to ban them in California if they want to. It also says "21113. (b)*A governing board, legislative body, or officer shall erect or place appropriate signs giving notice of any special conditions or regulations that are imposed under this section...".

The word "Shall" means "expressing a strong assertion or intention" so as a legal term it means that if land managers want to ban E-Bikes, they need to post signs since they now have the same rights as bicycles.

Anyway, it was clear to me that they don't want to post more signs. Since they haven't already put them up, it's a simple matter to allow E-bikes by just removing "Electric Bicycles" from their land use regulations. They even have a "Bicycle Access Guidelines" brochure that has no mention of E-Bikes being banned. Any reasonable person would expect them to be allowed unless they happened to read the land use regulations in detail.


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

Boulder Pilot said:


> Thank you notb for doing more for your cause than 98% of your peers.


Thanks! It feels good to get involved and it was actually pretty fun.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Good job on the advocating!

Just to follow up with what Harry said,

These two are no the same:

"Motor Vehicle"
"Motorized Vehicle"

Also consider how the rules play between use on streets and paved paths verses on dirt Multi-use trails.

Best wishes with your advocating!


----------



## levity (Oct 31, 2011)

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Kudos to notb for taking the time, making the effort, and choosing to try to effect change the right way.


----------



## michaeldorian (Nov 17, 2006)

I just recently moved to the Bay Area. Thanks for doing this. I'll definitely make it out too. I agree with the rangers point-of-view. This whole policing is a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Yeah, I've read AB 1096 plenty of times.

Here's the definition of a Motor Vehicle in CA, it won't take anyone with deep pockets to figure it out.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/bluebook/bb07/veh/veh-415.htm

All I'm pointing out is that signage can be confusing, on some trails, it could say "No Motor Vehicles" and you're all good. On others, it could be "No motorized vehicles" and you could be fine, or not. No way of knowing without asking.



notb said:


> The word "Shall" means "expressing a strong assertion or intention" so as a legal term it means that if land managers want to ban E-Bikes, they need to post signs since they now have the same rights as bicycles


As I read your definition, all they need is the intent.... 

My local governments have continued to not allow ebikes on singletrack, and have rewritten their code to do so while now allowing them on bike paths, yet don't have sigange up yet. The code is still valid. It can be more complicated to change code than you might think, it took over a year here. It all depends on who you're dealing with, who paid for the land, easements, all that sort of thing.


----------



## eltee (Nov 10, 2009)

notb said:


> Well, I hadn't done that and was riding in the Mid Peninsula open space last weekend with a friend and got stopped by a ranger who said they are not allowed. There are signs that say "No Motorized Vehicles" all over the place, but according to AB 1096 which became law in 2015, Electric Bicycles are not motor vehicles:
> https://www.openspace.org/about-us/board-meetings


Thanks for posting about your contact with the rangers and your followup with the district meeting.

I am a new owner of an eMTB. Were the rangers San Mateo County Park rangers? I was hired as a ranger before I became a cop. I actually rode a bike as a cop many years ago before I got promoted and reassigned.

Which Open Space area were you at, San Bruno off Skyline Dr. (goes along Crystal Springs) or somewhere else? I've been looking for places with easy riding until I get used to riding an e-bike.

If I were to be stopped I would really consider accepting the option you took. I'm an older guy, cop, and school board member so I've done my share of speaking before committees plus all my court appearances.

IMHO you were a good rep for the eMTB community. Good job. Thank you.


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

Harryman said:


> Yeah, I've read AB 1096 plenty of times.
> 
> Here's the definition of a Motor Vehicle in CA, it won't take anyone with deep pockets to figure it out.
> 
> ...


This is great information. Thanks and I get the difference between Motor Vehicles and Motorized Vehicles now. Just as you said, I've seen "No Motorized Vehicle" signs all over the places where they are definitely allowed, like Wilder Ranch in Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara county parks which actually physically border Mid Pen. It's hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Other than my somewhat informed but legally wrong reasoning, I think there are a variety of reasons why someone may think that "No Motorized Vehicle" signs don't apply to E-Bikes. Also, how many people read the regulations online before riding?

The important point is that most land managers would rather not pay for and put up more signs, but clearly there is a need for them if they really want to keep E-Bikes out. Hopefully the desire to NOT put up signs helps to convince them to just change the regulation. I think this can be used as one argument for change, but we have to be careful with that one because it could convince them to just put up the signs. I only used it because the ranger specifically brought that up in our conversation.

My other points were the usual ones about helping older people or those with mild physical issues continue to ride, and lack of any compelling reason for banning them given that they are ridden almost exactly like a non-assisted bike and don't cause additional trail damage.

Hopefully people will find their own reasons and petition their local land managers to change the regs.


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

eltee said:


> Thanks for posting about your contact with the rangers and your followup with the district meeting.
> 
> Were the rangers San Mateo County Park rangers?
> 
> ...


Thanks! I didn't actually pay any attention to what kind of rangers they were, but the head ranger was at the board meeting so I assumed Mid Peninsula actually has their own.

The ranger I encountered on the trail was waiting at the intersection of Long Ridge Road and Ward Road in Long Ridge open space, much further south than where you are talking about, but on Skyline. I had just exited legal riding in Upper Stevens Creek as I found out later. Unfortunately it would be very difficult to ride Upper Stevens Creek without crossing into Midpeninsula land at some point. Any sort of decent loop in that area will require that.

It's an interesting situation there, because the rangers seem to be suggesting that the more E-bikes that are caught, the more likely it is that the regulation will be changed. Unfortunately I can't risk going back again now that I have a written warning.

Sounds like Wilder Ranch might be a good place for you to start. It is much easier riding for the most part, except for Zane Gray Cutoff, which is deeply rutted. Check it out.


----------



## motocatfish (Mar 12, 2016)

notb said:


> I wanted to let people on here know about my recent experience getting into E-Bike advocacy for the first time. I think it's important for people to get involved if they want to get more trails opened to legal E-Bike usage.
> ...
> Well, I hadn't done that and was riding in the Mid Peninsula open space last weekend with a friend and got stopped by a ranger who said they are not allowed.
> ...
> ...


Good for you! 

And its really not much of a stretch, as disability-placard holders can ride our ebikes in Midpen already. 
(https://www.openspace.org/what-to-do/activities/biking)
Quote: "Electric bikes: Electric powered bicycles are NOT allowed, except for use by individuals with a mobility disability, and only on trails where bicycles are authorized."

Good luck with Midpen. Does the board accept written advocacy letters that are read in their meetings? I don't live close enough to attend.

Some of us are advocating to CalFire for Soquel Demo Forest eAccess. My temp placards got me special-permission letters & access, but my current placard will probably be my last.

Catfish ...


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

motocatfish said:


> Good for you!
> 
> And its really not much of a stretch, as disability-placard holders can ride our ebikes in Midpen already.
> (https://www.openspace.org/what-to-do/activities/biking)
> ...


Thanks to you and others who would like to help further the cause. I need to contact Mid-Pen to see what the next step is. I assume a board member has to get the process going.

If you look at the map, Mid-pen is so important if you want to do any long rides on the peninsula. The places that are allowed like Santa Clara county parks don't really have any large continuous loops that don't involve a lot of pavement. Wilder is great, but getting to and from Santa Cruz on a weekend on 17 is a nightmare.

For Mid-Pen board meetings, I think you can attend using video chat by calling the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200 first and arranging it. They had just started that at the August 22 meeting, but it's not clear to me if that's only for people with disabilities.

Yeah, I wish I could ride in Soquel. I've heard great things about it but never went.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Nice work OP. Advocacy work is tedious and inconvenient, but it's the only way forward for positive change. :thumbsup:


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

op, nice post. how much resources are wasted enforcing something that the enforcers don’t want to enforce?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> It was going well too!


Well some of this is my fault for throwing stuff out there to see what people think. I'm getting a lot of perspective at least, but I'm going to be careful in my discussions with land managers to use words that don't need clarification of definition. I don't think it's needed anyway because the fact that E-Bikes have been peacefully coexisting with other trail users in nearby riding areas is the best argument.

I should have an update on some actual progress soon as I've started talking to one of the administrators.

In the mean time, enjoy this picture of me getting written up by a ranger


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

if that is a kickstand, you deserve two tickets. I get the reflectors because that takes work to take off., but you had to add that KS


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

sfgiantsfan said:


> if that is a kickstand, you deserve two tickets. I get the reflectors because that takes work to take off., but you had to add that KS


Ha ha, it is. Motostrano told me they put those on all their bikes. It rattles around but it's kind of convenient. One of the advantages of an e-bike is that you don't have to watch weight as much, but I'll probably end up taking it off because of the noise if nothing else.


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

brownpownow said:


> See Federal Register / Vol. 80 4503
> 
> "New technologies that
> merge bicycles and motors, such as ebikes,
> ...


Yeah, I did quite a bit of research on this before suggesting it. The TMR is a Regulation, not a Law:

"Federal laws are bills that have passed both houses of Congress, been signed by the president, passed over the president's veto, or allowed to become law without the president's signature. ... Regulations are rules made by executive departments and agencies, and are arranged by subject in the Code of Federal Regulations."

Congress can definitely pass LAWS that overrule state laws and that is the end of that as pointed out earlier by the supremacy clause. But when there isn't a federal law, state laws can overrule federal REGULATIONS that were written by any of the thousands of administrators of the various executive branches without congressional act.

I believe the only place in California where Federal regulations override state laws via supremacy would be in places where jurisdiction was definitely ceded to the federal government like Yosemite and Sequoia national parks.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

notb said:


> Yeah, I did quite a bit of research on this before suggesting it. The TMR is a Regulation, not a Law:
> 
> "Federal laws are bills that have passed both houses of Congress, been signed by the president, passed over the president's veto, or allowed to become law without the president's signature. ... Regulations are rules made by executive departments and agencies, and are arranged by subject in the Code of Federal Regulations."
> 
> ...


And every other type of federal land, such as National Forests...

You know, lands managed by the Forest Service. Who determine usage policy.

No, CA isn't going to be able to overturn their refs. I doubt they have any interest in doing so, either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brownpownow (Jul 19, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> And every other type of federal land, such as National Forests...
> 
> You know, lands managed by the Forest Service. Who determine usage policy.
> 
> No, CA isn't going to be able to overturn their refs. I doubt they have any interest in doing so, either.


Exactly.

"notb"'s combination of naïveté(as demonstrated by his lack of experience with MROSD's anti-bike-of-any-kind bias) and ignorance (claiming above that signage is required by the AB 1906 - it's not, see 21207.5) is spectacular.

The reflectors and kickstand are just icing on the fail cake.


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

Glad the photo was entertaining. I didn't realize reflectors were controversial, but I do take perverse joy in being a dork with a kickstand. Thanks to brownpownow I'm going to leave it on. Winning!

I spoke with a Mid Peninsula staff member today and here's what they told me:
- They know they have a signage issue, especially since the open space abuts land where they are allowed.
- They have a couple of board members that mountain bike and the admin I spoke with rides an E-Bike, so they are familiar with E-bikes and what they are and are not. One of the local shops got some of the employees and board members out on them a while back.
- The regulation banning E-Bikes was written in 2014 and was more preemptive than anything else. They were seeing all kinds of electric devices like Segways and hover boards at the time, and didn't know what kind of impact E-Bikes would have so they wrote a regulation.
- There are a variety of concerns like uphill speed when passing hikers (safety), and the fact that they want to keep it a "pure" non-motorized experience, but these are not easily quantifiable so may not factor into any future decisions.
- The regulations are typically updated every 6-8 years. The last update was in 2014, so it could be a while before anything gets changed, but the admin was going to try to get an E-Bike committee going for the 2019/20 fiscal year. This could lead to regulation changes sooner (hopefully).

I asked what the process was and he said the board is always interested in public input, so the more people that show up and show support the more likely it is that change will happen.

He is putting together an E-Bike mailing list and once that is ready I'll give out the email address you can use to get added. This will be used to notify people of any meetings where E-Bike issues will be discussed so people who are interested can show up to show support or speak against.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

notb said:


> Glad the photo was entertaining. I didn't realize reflectors were controversial,


It is customary to remove them so they don't litter the trails. They are also helpful to identify newbnesss.


----------



## brownpownow (Jul 19, 2018)

notb said:


> I do take perverse joy in being a dork with a kickstand.


"dork" is too kind of a description but you do you. Mountain bikers don't use kickstands because when riding rowdy trails, heck even when riding tame trails, they don't want that superfluous thing to deploy.



notb said:


> he said the board is always interested in public input, so the more people that show up and show support the more likely it is that change will happen.


And you believed that?

Hilarious! (see previous observation about naïveté)


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Ha, just show up and you will get trails, good lord. 

Did he mention that all the anti-mtbers show up every meeting and get what they want, almost every time.


----------



## levity (Oct 31, 2011)

You guys crack me up sometimes.



tahoebeau said:


> You mean on trails like this?
> 
> View attachment 1214562


Sure, climbing a fire road fully loaded is good use of an ebike.

So is this -














now let's get back on track and return to the OP's issue of how best to deal with advocacy


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

levity said:


> now let's get back on track and return to the OP's issue of how best to deal with advocacy


Well? Let's hear it.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

levity said:


> now let's get back on track and return to the OP's issue of how best to deal with advocacy


Yes, please do. I took all the same old re-hashed arguments and moved them into a place us moderators lovingly call the Black Hole. Other mods can see what transpired and review it, but it is forever lost to the public.

If you want to talk about the definition of a motorized Vehicle, do it in another thread, this one is specifically for advocacy in a specific place.


----------



## simbot (May 29, 2007)

Yeah I got one of those warning tickets at Longridge, I honestly didn't know e-bikes weren't allowed. I asked WHY? why are there not allowed, he didn't have an answer but told me that they are probably going to allow them. 

I asked what will happen if I ride here again? You'll get another warning. Ok I'll be back, have been back a number of times, got one more warning, different ranger this time. Also asked him why, since ebikes have no more impact on the trails than regular bikes, he agreed. Didn't know the reason. This uphill passing speed argument in nonsense. 

I'll just keep going back, and they can write me as many warnings as they want to. I'll look for future meetings I can attend.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

simbot said:


> Yeah I got one of those warning tickets at Longridge, I honestly didn't know e-bikes weren't allowed. I asked WHY? why are there not allowed, he didn't have an answer but told me that they are probably going to allow them.
> 
> I asked what will happen if I ride here again? You'll get another warning. Ok I'll be back, have been back a number of times, got one more warning, different ranger this time. Also asked him why, since ebikes have no more impact on the trails than regular bikes, he agreed. Didn't know the reason. This uphill passing speed argument in nonsense.
> 
> I'll just keep going back, and they can write me as many warnings as they want to. I'll look for future meetings I can attend.


And when you get cited for poaching?


----------



## simbot (May 29, 2007)

life behind bars said:


> And when you get cited for poaching?


It isn't poaching, they only give "warnings"


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

simbot said:


> Yeah I got one of those warning tickets at Longridge, I honestly didn't know e-bikes weren't allowed. I asked WHY? why are there not allowed, he didn't have an answer but told me that they are probably going to allow them.
> 
> I asked what will happen if I ride here again? You'll get another warning. Ok I'll be back, have been back a number of times, got one more warning, different ranger this time. Also asked him why, since ebikes have no more impact on the trails than regular bikes, he agreed. Didn't know the reason. This uphill passing speed argument in nonsense.
> 
> I'll just keep going back, and they can write me as many warnings as they want to. I'll look for future meetings I can attend.


That's interesting and is similar to my experience. I think as long as you are polite they aren't going to issue tickets. I haven't gone back and won't until this is resolved, but I do miss riding there since the trails are so fun.

Whether E-Bikes are allowed or not, the new technology will make spotting E-bikes much more difficult so it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run. Lapierre E-Zesty expected in Jan 2019:


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

notb said:


> That's interesting and is similar to my experience. I think as long as you are polite they aren't going to issue tickets. I haven't gone back and won't until this is resolved, but I do miss riding there since the trails are so fun.
> 
> Whether E-Bikes are allowed or not, the new technology will make spotting E-bikes much more difficult so it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run. Lapierre E-Zesty expected in Jan 2019:
> View attachment 1215472


What's going to happen is, they will try to ban ebikes but if that doesn't work, just ban bikes. This is what us "haters" have been talking about.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

simbot said:


> It isn't poaching, they only give "warnings"


Since when is poaching not poaching? Have we entered some alternative reality where the laws no longer apply?


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

life behind bars said:


> Since when is poaching not poaching? Have we entered some alternative reality where the laws no longer apply?


I guess if you can rationalize bikes with motors as not being motorized, it's not a big mental leap. :skep:


----------



## 786737 (Mar 13, 2015)

life behind bars said:


> Have we entered some alternative reality where the laws no longer apply?


What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening.


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

I got a reply from MidPeninsula today. They had a discussion and decided to use the general bike issues mailing list for E-Bike issues as well. Anyone who wants to be added to the list to be notified of upcoming meetings that discuss bike issues can email them at "[email protected]" and ask to be added.


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

Congress says not "motor vehicle" forest service says "motor vehicle" I imagine Congress trumps forest service?









Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

moabmark said:


> Congress says not "motor vehicle" forest service says "motor vehicle" I imagine Congress trumps forest service?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Before you get flamed, I'll just chime in that as I've learned over the last 2 months, it's really up to the land manager to make their own rules up regarding trails that are not public roads. If they want to ban eMTBs they can, and don't have to put up signs so it is up to us to figure it out. The NFS has chosen to ban them on singletrack through regulation (not law, but it ends up being almost the same). This could change, but for now that's the way it is.

I'm in the process of creating a list of legal places I can ride that are nearby. It involves a lot of phone calls and emails. There are lots of online resources like this:eMountain Biking Map • PeopleForBikes, but they tend to be incomplete. Some of the information I've found online that says eBikes are banned in a certain place is incorrect. Regulation documentation online for a specific place often don't even mention eBikes even though the unwritten policy is that they are not allowed. All this makes it difficult to know for sure, but calling and speaking with them is the best way to find out.


----------



## Chupanebre (Jan 22, 2021)

Hi there I am new here and I signed up because I received a notice saying that there is an upcoming meeting:

Midpeninsula Regioanl Open Space District
*Board of Directors Meeting 
Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 5 p.m.*

I was wondering what can be said in favor of allowing EMTBs to be allowed to ride in areas where they are currently prohibited. I am hoping that more trails will open up for EMTB riders. Looking for any advice as to what to say during one of these public meetings.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Welcome. E-bikes can be a contentious issue. Lots of people are warming to them, but not all. 

Good luck.


----------



## Chupanebre (Jan 22, 2021)

chuckha62 said:


> Welcome. E-bikes can be a contentious issue. Lots of people are warming to them, but not all.
> 
> Good luck.


Thank you. I appreciate it.


----------



## Scott M (Apr 19, 2016)

Chupanebre said:


> Looking for any advice as to what to say during one of these public meetings.


MidPen is currently running an e-bike pilot program on a couple paved trails, gathering data and opinions. At the Jan. 27, 2021 meeting they're considering whether to stick to their current schedule of running the paved pilot for a year before moving on to studying dirt options, or speeding up the process.

So, a very specific policy question being discussed, about how to gather data on how to make a decision sometime in the future. Lots of steps.

There is, however, an online form for commenting about e-bikes, and opting in to receiving communication about e-bike policies:






Biking


Sixteen open space preserves are open to mountain biking. Here's what you should know.




openspace.org


----------



## Chupanebre (Jan 22, 2021)

Thanks Scott M. Great info. Much appreciated!


----------



## bharl (Apr 21, 2021)

.


----------



## form49b (Jul 1, 2013)

In the last two Midpen board meetings I attended, someone spoke in favor of e-bikes and referenced riding Kennedy and other local Midpen trails. I believe it was the same person both times but not 100% sure. Here is what was put in the minutes for the 7/14 meeting:

_Bradley Erickson encouraged the District to allow Class 1 e-bikes in District preserves because it 
allows older riders to enjoy the preserves. Additionally, these are allowed in national, state, 
county, and city parks. _

Is Bradley on here? I'm not actively advocating for e-bikes but I have some ideas on what might be useful inputs to Midpen on this topic.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

ron t said:


> Before you get flamed, I'll just chime in that as I've learned over the last 2 months, it's really up to the land manager to make their own rules up regarding trails that are not public roads. If they want to ban eMTBs they can, and don't have to put up signs so it is up to us to figure it out. The NFS has chosen to ban them on singletrack through regulation (not law, but it ends up being almost the same). This could change, but for now that's the way it is.
> 
> I'm in the process of creating a list of legal places I can ride that are nearby. It involves a lot of phone calls and emails. There are lots of online resources like this:eMountain Biking Map • PeopleForBikes, but they tend to be incomplete. Some of the information I've found online that says eBikes are banned in a certain place is incorrect. Regulation documentation online for a specific place often don't even mention eBikes even though the unwritten policy is that they are not allowed. All this makes it difficult to know for sure, but calling and speaking with them is the best way to find out.


Congress is most powerful federal land manager. If Congress and an agency have conflicting definitions, then it is the court's job to side with whomever is most lenient.


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

form49b said:


> In the last two Midpen board meetings I attended, someone spoke in favor of e-bikes and referenced riding Kennedy and other local Midpen trails. I believe it was the same person both times but not 100% sure. Here is what was put in the minutes for the 7/14 meeting:
> 
> _Bradley Erickson encouraged the District to allow Class 1 e-bikes in District preserves because it
> allows older riders to enjoy the preserves. Additionally, these are allowed in national, state,
> ...


It's not me, but you should share your points if you've taken the time to put thought into them. I moved away from the Bay Area more than a year ago and probably won't ever be riding on Midpen managed lands given how long this process takes and the recent direction the board members have taken, but still comment online when the opportunity presents itself.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

figofspee said:


> Congress is most powerful federal land manager. If Congress and an agency have conflicting definitions, then it is the court's job to side with whomever is most lenient.


Yea, that's gonna be a no from me, dawg.








Chevron deference







www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

aoliver said:


> Yea, that's gonna be a no from me, dawg.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From your link: "..... judicial deference is appropriate where the agency's answer was was not unreasonable, so long as the Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question."
Congress speaking to the direct issue regarding ebike classifications:
"(b) For the purpose of this section, the term `low-speed electric 
bicycle' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable 
pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose 
maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.'

"a low-speed electric bicycle (as defined in section 38(b) of the 
Consumer Product Safety Act) shall not be considered a motor vehicle as 
defined by section 30102(6) of title 49, United States Code."








Text - H.R.727 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide that low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products subject to such Act.


Text for H.R.727 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide that low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products subject to such Act.



www.congress.gov





Woof Woof


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

figofspee said:


> From your link: "..... judicial deference is appropriate where the agency's answer was was not unreasonable, so long as the Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question."


49 U.S. Code 301xx- Motor Vehicle Safety
If it goes to the court over vehicle safety, maybe. If it's about NEPA or a land agency following their travel management rules, the court is going to defer to the agency.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

There is no ambiguity here. Congress has spoken. You are wrong.
"Laws and Regulations
Federal agencies operate under the* U.S. Code* and the Code of Federal Regulations."




__





Regulations & Policies | US Forest Service


View and Comment on Proposed and Interim Directives




www.fs.usda.gov


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

As of August 27, 2021, CA State Parks has consolidated their policies on e-bikes. This page is worth a visit, in general, restrictions have been increased:

E-Bikes in CA State Parks

Bottom line, existing Class 1 access remains the same for now but is being listed as "temporarily allowed". Class 2 loopholes have been closed and are currently only allowed on trails in 1 SRA (Folsom Lake) and in all of the SVRA's. Class 3 SVRA's only. Classes 2 & 3 OK for paved roads in State parks.


----------

