# Now that E-bikes will be allowed on BLM, National Park lands...



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

What are some rides you are excited about?

Since almost everything around me(Salt Lake City) is already open to e-bikes my excitement is mostly for the Moab area.

-Mag-7
-Klonzo
-Bar M(Brand trails)
-Navajo Rocks
-Horsethief


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Hold onto your volts, son, that’s not what the ruling means.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

rideit said:


> Hold onto your volts, son, that's not what the ruling means.


What do you think it means?

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> What do you think it means?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Why don't you tell everyone what you think it means instead of initiating a pissing contest again?


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

rideit said:


> Hold onto your volts, son, that's not what the ruling means.


"Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt signed an order on Thursday, Aug. 29 which will allow access of electric bikes on BLM land and in National Parks. This would effectively allow e-bikes onto any federal trail where non-motorized bicycles can ride.

"Reducing the physical demand to operate a bicycle has expanded access to recreational opportunities," Bernhardt wrote in the order. It continues, "E-bikes shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed."


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Why don't you tell everyone what you think it means instead of initiating a pissing contest again?


Because I'm not going to go into a point by point summary of my thoughts on every single section and subsection when discussing a smaller subset is possible. Thanks for asking.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Because I'm not going to go into a point by point summary of my thoughts on every single section and subsection when discussing a smaller subset is possible. Thanks for asking.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Good.


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

Darn, op ed beat me to it. Great News! I noticed that the AP story tried to freak everyone out by saying that ebikes were going to show up on hiking trails. That is blatantly false. Ebikes are only going to be allowed where bicycles are already allowed. I've never been to a Nation Park where bikes were allowed on hiking trails. It also might clear up some confusion in Zion National Park where ebikes were not even allowed on the highway with the cars. I think the BLM will have to give up their barbaric ban on ebikes on trails that are mostly in the desert. HA! I can see the anti-ebike mountain bikers in Southern Utah will have a total freak out. They go out of there way to hunt down ebikers that are on trails only used by mountain bikers.

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/f...8RyaKpK73LC6eJWHjXyPYBqqp4dpT4BNJxYaro9Xl5Wmw


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

str8line said:


> What are some rides you are excited about?
> 
> Since almost everything around me(Salt Lake City) is already open to e-bikes my excitement is mostly for the Moab area.
> 
> ...


Don't forget Captain Ahab. That should have always been open to ebikes.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> what do you think it means?
> 
> Sent from my sm-n975u1 using tapatalk


lawsuits


----------



## brado (May 13, 2010)

It means that e-bikes are allowed on BLM land everywhere that mtb's are allowed, which means all the trails str8line mentioned.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Because I'm not going to go into a point by point summary of my thoughts on every single section and subsection when discussing a smaller subset is possible. Thanks for asking.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Seriously though, what do you think it means?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chudaman (Oct 30, 2005)

str8line said:


> What are some rides you are excited about?


Fort Ord! (Now I just need to get an e-bike.)


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

holy crap - 5 new threads on this topic today.

Good grief.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

Forest Rider said:


> holy crap - 5 new threads on this topic today.
> 
> Good grief.


No kidding, beat me to it.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

mbmb65 said:


> Seriously though, what do you think it means?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Do you want the long answer or short answer?

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Forest Rider said:


> holy crap - 5 new threads on this topic today.
> 
> Good grief.





jcd46 said:


> No kidding, beat me to it.


Well it is something that select outspoken individuals on here have said would never happen long term, much less short term.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## stiksandstones (Oct 7, 2004)

Does this mean San Juan trail is eMTB friendly now? well, in so-cal it will never be friendly because so many morons have a [email protected] on for hating on eMTB's.


----------



## stiksandstones (Oct 7, 2004)

Looking at this
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/f...8RyaKpK73LC6eJWHjXyPYBqqp4dpT4BNJxYaro9Xl5Wmw

It looks like class 1, 2 and 3 bikes are allowed, I hope im reading it wrong, allowing class 2 and 3 would be BAD NEWS.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

San Juan Trail in Cali is USFS, along with the rest of Cleveland National Forest. USFS isn't part of the order. That trail isn't friendly to any bikes, IMO...

Do you know if it is unaffected by the Holy Fire shutdown? Lake Elsinore side has truck trails signed as closed to any use until Sept 24 still.

Cliff notes of the legal stuff:

Order to the following: Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

"e-bikes" shall mean "low-speed electric bicycle" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2085 (Class 1/2/3 system).

"E-bikes shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed; and E-bikes shall [be prohibited] where other types of bicycles are prohibited."

Exempt e-bikes from being defined as motor vehicles or off-road vehicles.

14 days to instruct the head of each department. 30 days for each department to reply with action taken, give a timeline to seek public comment on the changes. 30 days to provide appropriate guidance to the public on use of e-bikes on public land managed by these organizations.

NPS has already replied, complying to the order. Others haven't yet. USFS did plan their policy based on being consistent with other organizations, but I imagine they need some convincing to take action to change things up.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

life behind bars said:


> Good.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to life behind bars again.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Too early to jump the gun meaning that ebikes that are class 1, 2, or 3 have the same freedom as bicycles. The land management still has the call, regarding public health/safety concerns. The public comment hearings will be lit up with their imagined fears.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

brado said:


> It means that e-bikes are allowed on BLM land everywhere that mtb's are allowed, which means all the trails str8line mentioned.


It means each area land manager now has the ability to either allow or disallow based on the needs of the trail system. So yes it is possible that eBikes will now be legal on many BLM or NPS trails, those in charge of each unit can still ban them.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> It means each area land manager now has the ability to either allow or disallow based on the needs of the trail system. So yes it is possible that eBikes will now be legal on many BLM or NPS trails, those in charge of each unit can still ban them.


Yes but the burden is placed on banning them. The language of the order is of the "sure, you can ban them, but you better be able to articulate a very good reason for it" variety. The intent is for them to be included everywhere possible.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## 786737 (Mar 13, 2015)

stiksandstones said:


> Does this mean San Juan trail is eMTB friendly now?


San Juan is in the Cleveland NF so not covered by this order.


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

the one ring said:


> San Juan is in the Cleveland NF so not covered by this order.


Sec 5 says all land managers. That would include Forest Service.









Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Giant Warp said:


> Darn, op ed beat me to it. Great News! I noticed that the AP story tried to freak everyone out by saying that ebikes were going to show up on hiking trails. That is blatantly false. Ebikes are only going to be allowed where bicycles are already allowed.


The story was accurate, but the antis that were quoted were either confused or trying to mislead.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

ninjichor said:


> Too early to jump the gun meaning that ebikes that are class 1, 2, or 3 have the same freedom as bicycles. The land management still has the call, regarding public health/safety concerns.


They don't. Their only option is to ban all bikes. If they allow any bike, they have to allow at least Class-1 eBike.


----------



## 786737 (Mar 13, 2015)

moabmark said:


> Sec 5 says all land managers. That would include Forest Service.


The NFS is part of the Dept of Agriculture, not Dept of Interior.


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

the one ring said:


> The NFS is part of the Dept of Agriculture, not Dept of Interior.


Interesting, thanks

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

the one ring said:


> The NFS is part of the Dept of Agriculture, not Dept of Interior.


I would imagine they will be next. I can't imagine they would have some federal land were E bikes are allowed and other federal land where they're not........

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Exactly my fear. It would kill many of their potential headaches easily.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

rsilvers said:


> They don't. Their only option is to ban all bikes. If they allow any bike, they have to allow at least Class-1 eBike.


With all due respect, please provide evidence that supports your statement. Thank you.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

This Memorandum defines “e-bikes” consistent with Federal law and a majority of State laws 
and provides for their use and regulation on the same basis as bicycles without power assist 
capabilities (“traditional bicycles”).

Policy
E-bikes are allowed where traditional bicycles are allowed. E-bikes are not allowed where 
traditional bicycles are prohibited, including wilderness areas.

This Memorandum requires that these provisions also govern the use of e-bikes so that the use of 
e-bikes and traditional bicycles are generally regulated in the same manner.

The intent of this policy is 
to allow e-bikes to be used for transportation and recreation in a similar manner to traditional 
bicycles. 

Superintendents should understand State and local rules addressing e-bikes so that the use of e-
bikes within a park area is not restricted more than in adjacent jurisdictions, to the extent 
possible.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Here is the order:

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/f..._through_the_use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf

The order includes all three classes of ebikes and is an order with no room for local jurisdictions to impose restrictions on different classes of bikes. What that means is if BLM wants to regulate ebikes, they will have to regulate regular bikes along with them. 
For you unfamiliar with BLM, that would include most trails in southern Utah, such as Moab, Hurricane, and St George, Las Vegas, NV, Sandy Ridge OR, and Boise ID, just to name a few. Bureau of Reclamation also falls under the Dept of Interior, which usually includes land around some large reservoirs that have trail networks around them. Regular mountain bikes are now officially one and the same as class 1,2, and 3 ebikes on all lands administered by Dept of Interior.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

bpressnall said:


> Here is the order:
> 
> https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/f..._through_the_use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf
> 
> ...


Yup, cooler heads prevailed and the haters can now stew in their toxic brew.

We went through this in the late 1980's with hikers trying to keep us bikers off "their" trails. Hard to believe it is now bikers trying to keep other bikers off trails. Well, they lost. And in 5,10 or 20 years they will be on these same trails with their E-bikes. I wonder if they will admit to their prejudice someday.


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

rideit said:


> Exactly my fear. It would kill many of their potential headaches easily.


In my opinion, the Forest Service will be allowing E bikes just like the new regulation for the BLM. Not close down areas. Time will tell.. ...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Do you think this new order will help to improve access for non-electric bikes? For me it is not about hating ebikes. It is about categorizing all bikes- conventional and all classes of electric bikes, as the same thing. This means, for example, if there are user conflicts between pedestrians and class 3 ebikes, which are motor assisted up to 28 mph, and the land manager wants to restrict class 3 ebikes, they will also have to restrict regular bikes as well. That is the way the order is currently written, as it states that all classes of ebikes are to be allowed anywhere regular bikes are.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Posted from another forum



Nick said:


> Also is etiquette to still yield to a climber even if they have a ****ing motor?
> 
> I don't think so. Icould see THAT being the source of a conflict.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

str8line said:


> Yup, cooler heads prevailed and the haters can now stew in their toxic brew.


This kind of talk....



rideit said:


> Posted from another forum


Will bring this kind of behavior.

Lack of etiquette, it already happens. Good point rideit.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

bpressnall said:


> Here is the order:
> 
> https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/f..._through_the_use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf
> 
> ...


The National Parks Service memorandum requires e-bikes to be managed under Title 36 Part Four of the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically, Section 4.30, paragraphs (f), (g) and (h).

Superintendents may limit, restrict or impose conditions on e-bike access. Access within National Parks is limited to paved roadways and parking lots for the majority of NP's. This order is still a positive step for e-bikes because prior to this Order e-bikes have been denied access.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

This is the new policy for 75 percent of US public lands, National Parks included:

This Memorandum defines “e-bikes” consistent with Federal law and a majority of State laws 
and provides for their use and regulation on the same basis as bicycles without power assist 
capabilities (“traditional bicycles”).

Policy
E-bikes are allowed where traditional bicycles are allowed. E-bikes are not allowed where 
traditional bicycles are prohibited, including wilderness areas.

This Memorandum requires that these provisions also govern the use of e-bikes so that the use of 
e-bikes and traditional bicycles are generally regulated in the same manner.

The intent of this policy is 
to allow e-bikes to be used for transportation and recreation in a similar manner to traditional 
bicycles. 

Superintendents should understand State and local rules addressing e-bikes so that the use of e-
bikes within a park area is not restricted more than in adjacent jurisdictions, to the extent 
possible.

It's pretty clear what direction the Secretary of the Interior is pushing.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

bpressnall said:


> This means, for example, if there are user conflicts between pedestrians and class 3 ebikes, which are motor assisted up to 28 mph, and the land manager wants to restrict class 3 ebikes, they will also have to restrict regular bikes as well. That is the way the order is currently written, as it states that all classes of ebikes are to be allowed anywhere regular bikes are.


There are no practical differences between the classes since they are all capped at 1 HP. For comparison, a 50cc moped is 3 HP and can only go 25-30 mph. Throttle bikes are not for me for athletic purposes, but I am not sure I should tell others to not use them.

A 750 watt eMTB can only do about 23 mph on level group, and only about 12 mph up a hill. It doesn't matter if it is class 1 or 2 or 3 - it is still only going to be able to do 12 mph up a hill.

But aside from that, each region can pick which classes to allow, so worst case t hey ban the 28mph limited ones and stick to Class-1.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

str8line said:


> Yup, cooler heads prevailed and the haters can now stew in their toxic brew.
> 
> We went through this in the late 1980's with hikers trying to keep us bikers off "their" trails. Hard to believe it is now bikers trying to keep other bikers off trails. Well, they lost. And in 5,10 or 20 years they will be on these same trails with their E-bikes. I wonder if they will admit to their prejudice someday.


That's like asking the anti-snow boarders if they will admit to it. They will probably say they still find snow boards annoying. And eBike is less of an annoyance to manual bikers than snowboards are to the skiers who "built the trails."


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

rsilvers said:


> But aside from that, each region can pick which classes to allow, so worst case t hey ban the 28mph limited ones and stick to Class-1.


I forsee something along these lines being the immediate result in most places that have trails where bicycles are allowed. Class 1 only.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

That would make sense, but the way the order is written, there doesn't seem to be much wiggle room except perhaps the public comment period where the equestrian, environmental groups, and some mountain bikers will chime in and perhaps be able to sway policy. If you read section 4, it specifically states that all classes of ebikes will be allowed wherever regular bikes are allowed. This could potentially affect access for regular bikes if managers are only allowed an all or nothing policy. Any other interpretations of the order by people on this forum are purely speculative on not based on the actual order.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Up until now, ebikes were considered motorized, but now will be considered regular bicycles, so yes, those regulations in the CFR's will apply to ebikes now. The National Park Service is so restrictive to regular bikes, that this order will have little impact in the National Parks. In Yosemite, for example, there are zero trails open to bicycles.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

str8line said:


> What are some rides you are excited about?
> 
> Since almost everything around me(Salt Lake City) is already open to e-bikes my excitement is mostly for the Moab area.
> 
> ...


I might ride Arizona's Black Canyon trail once in a blue moon just like I did on my traditional bike but that river crossing could be tricky since the bottom bracket for an eBike is hella expensive.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

bpressnall said:


> That would make sense, but the way the order is written, there doesn't seem to be much wiggle room except perhaps the public comment period where the equestrian, environmental groups, and some mountain bikers will chime in and perhaps be able to sway policy. If you read section 4, it specifically states that all classes of ebikes will be allowed wherever regular bikes are allowed. This could potentially affect access for regular bikes if managers are only allowed an all or nothing policy. Any other interpretations of the order by people on this forum are purely speculative on not based on the actual order.


Almost makes one wonder if this new policy was not backed by the Sierra Club in an effort to make both Mechanized and Motorized Bicycles banned everywhere they can get them banned.....

We already know that Sierra Club and many Equestrian organizations have put up a very strong fight against Mechanized travel on the trails they use, just look at the battle for Wilderness and PCT access.

So now that eBikes are defined by the NPS and BLM as being the same exact thing as a non-motor bicycle, laws the effect one, effect the other.

I really hope this is not the case, but it does scare me a bit.

If you think it is paranoia, do some reading about hikers vs Bikers in Marin County......


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Klurejr said:


> Almost makes one wonder if this new policy was not backed by the Sierra Club in an effort to make both Mechanized and Motorized Bicycles banned everywhere they can get them banned.....
> 
> We already know that Sierra Club and many Equestrian organizations have put up a very strong fight against Mechanized travel on the trails they use, just look at the battle for Wilderness and PCT access.
> 
> ...


https://www.nationalparkstraveler.o...ion-groups-oppose-ebikes-non-motorized-trails

https://www.npca.org/articles/2298-national-trail-and-conservation-groups-blast-new-doi-e-bike-order

These guys didn't get the conspiracy memo from the Sierra Club.


----------



## 786737 (Mar 13, 2015)

Klurejr said:


> Almost makes one wonder if this new policy was not backed by the Sierra Club in an effort to make both Mechanized and Motorized Bicycles banned everywhere they can get them banned.....


Yeah&#8230;no. Considering the makeup of some of the top officials of the DOI, that would make for strange bedfellows.

More likely there was "Intense" lobbying by some other org that starts with an "S."


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

bpressnall said:


> That would make sense, but the way the order is written, there doesn't seem to be much wiggle room except perhaps the public comment period where the equestrian, environmental groups, and some mountain bikers will chime in and perhaps be able to sway policy. If you read section 4, it specifically states that all classes of ebikes will be allowed wherever regular bikes are allowed. This could potentially affect access for regular bikes if managers are only allowed an all or nothing policy. Any other interpretations of the order by people on this forum are purely speculative on not based on the actual order.


I don't really know a lot about this, but I wonder if the guy who signed it realized it would reach beyond multiuse paths and bike lanes.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

figofspee said:


> https://www.nationalparkstraveler.o...ion-groups-oppose-ebikes-non-motorized-trails
> 
> https://www.npca.org/articles/2298-national-trail-and-conservation-groups-blast-new-doi-e-bike-order
> 
> These guys didn't get the conspiracy memo from the Sierra Club.


Thanks for those links!

I liked this statement and fully agree with it:


> Trail advocates and conservation groups are quick to point out that e-bikes should be welcomed on public lands but not everywhere and not on every trail.




That said what I read in the NPS memo was that each NPS Unit was able to make those judgement calls on a case by case basis, which totally makes sense. Let the land managers make the decisions at a local level using the info they have. a blanket rule one way or the other for all trails in the country just does not make sense.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

chazpat said:


> I don't really know a lot about this, but I wonder if the guy who signed it realized it would reach beyond multiuse paths and bike lanes.


Nope, and the lobbyists offered no clues. Once they figure out the consequences this has in some heavily used places I think we can expect some blowback, most of which won't be good for cycling as a whole. My two cents.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> Thanks for those links!
> 
> I liked this statement and fully agree with it:
> [/COLOR][/FONT]
> ...


Yeah, eBikes are going to need different rules on some trails; places where line of sight is a problem and mountain bike speeds are high might need to be one way for eBikes. I once had to jump down a hillside off of a narrow trail in Boise hiking with my daughter in a pack on my back to avoid a mountain bike coming down over a blind rise with limited traction but had I been riding my eBike up that same trail with carelessness similar to the mountain the resulting collision would have been ugly for both of us. That particular trail should be one-way for eBikes who could still ride it if they went up the road.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

hikerdave said:


> Yeah, eBikes are going to need different rules on some trails; places where line of sight is a problem and mountain bike speeds are high might need to be one way for eBikes. I once had to jump down a hillside off of a narrow trail in Boise hiking with my daughter in a pack on my back to avoid a mountain bike coming down over a blind rise with limited traction but had I been riding my eBike up that same trail with carelessness similar to the mountain the resulting collision would have been ugly for both of us. That particular trail should be one-way for eBikes who could still ride it if they went up the road.


I disagree even though I see your point. There are probably a lot of pro riders who go faster uphill than I do on my e-bike. Blind turns should be approached with caution by any rider no matter their bike or fitness/ability. Should we tell pro riders they have to take the road up?

Hikers used the same arguments to keep bikers off trails in the late 80's.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

str8line said:


> What are some rides you are excited about?
> 
> Since almost everything around me(Salt Lake City) is already open to e-bikes my excitement is mostly for the Moab area.
> 
> ...


I'm hoping that the Forest Service will follow suit and open a few trails. A few trails around Big Lake, Arizona that I like to ride when camping are at 9000 feet elevation and are just brutal to ride without acclimation; typically I get one ride in the first day and then don't feel like riding until a few days later. Because I rarely drive just to ride and live at 1200 feet acclimation for a trip like that is tough. But with my eBike I did an out and back on the lower part of the Hermosa trail in Durango on a family trip this summer no problem. (That's a moto-legal trail well-suited for eBiking, BTW)


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

hikerdave said:


> I'm hoping that the Forest Service will follow suit and open a few trails. A few trails around Big Lake, Arizona that I like to ride when camping are at 9000 feet elevation and are just brutal to ride without acclimation; typically I get one ride in the first day and then don't feel like riding until a few days later. Because I rarely drive just to ride and live at 1200 feet acclimation for a trip like that is tough. But with my eBike I did an out and back on the lower part of the Hermosa trail in Durango on a family trip this summer no problem. (That's a moto-legal trail well-suited for eBiking, BTW)


I hear ya.

When I went to the University of Utah I rode the trails above the school almost every day. Some of them are crazy steep but I was strong. Over the last 10 years they were just too brutal. I went back about a month ago on the e-bike and I can actually ride instead of hike them. Basically it opened up a new riding area.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

str8line said:


> I disagree even though I see your point. There are probably a lot of pro riders who go faster uphill than I do on my e-bike. Blind turns should be approached with caution by any rider no matter their bike or fitness/ability. Should we tell pro riders they have to take the road up?
> 
> Hikers used the same arguments to keep bikers off trails in the late 80's.


Maybe you should hold off on disagreeing if you have never ridden the trail in question? I trust Hikerdaves account since he was actually there in person and knows the trail well. Where I do most of my riding there is only one spot on the trail where user conflict could result in a bad crash, but it would not matter if someone was on an eBike or pedal bike because it is pretty flat, but curvy and very crowded on the weekends. On that trail the danger is speed and a motor would have a hard time making it worse. Most of my riding area has sweeping views and limited tree cover so if someone on an eBike was in full powermode blasting uphill 2 or 3 times the pace of someone pedaling, they would have a good enough view to slow in time to avoid a crash. Not every trail is the same.

I think it is a good thing for the decisions to be made at the local level, not all trails are created equal, not all of them should have 2 way traffic that can travel both up and down hill as higher speeds than the average rider can accomplish. SOme have very limited sight lines and if a rider is traveling down at 15mph (posted speed limit for my trail system) and someone is traveling uphill at 15mph then conflict could occur and be bad.

The analogy that "if a pro can do it why is it any different if a non-pro does it on an eBike" is not going to win you any favors or gain you any respect with the Land Managers. Have you been to a trail advocacy meeting with Land Managers before? - this is not a mocking question, I am seriously curious to know you personal experience on the matter of trail access and advocacy. You have not posted much here so I don't really know what your experience is.

This new order will probably go into effect on the majority of trails on BLM and NPS where bicycles are already granted access, and that is a good thing, but there are some trails where the local level will probably take a closer look and make a different ruling.

Please try to have an open mind and see things from both sides of the picture. eBike MTB's are still a relatively new thing and those who make the rules are still trying to understand what the different power levels and speeds actually play out to in real life.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

str8line said:


> I disagree even though I see your point. There are probably a lot of pro riders who go faster uphill than I do on my e-bike. Blind turns should be approached with caution by any rider no matter their bike or fitness/ability. Should we tell pro riders they have to take the road up?
> 
> Hikers used the same arguments to keep bikers off trails in the late 80's.


There's one blind turn on my local ride that's pretty bad; on my traditional bike I actually ran a teenaged racer off the trail when he popped around the corner going downhill too fast; it was him or me and I'm not taking a cactus spine for his mistake. Now I always give a loud yell before I start up that steep hilly corner. By the way the kid did apologize and fortunately wasn't hurt.

I do think that eBikes should be regulated differently from bikes; but on most trails I think that we eBikes should have just as much right to ride as a traditional mountain bike. Trail restrictions for eBikes should be the exception and not the rule. I'd rather not be responsible for access lost to traditional bikes; mountain biking has been an important part of my life for about 35 years; I just can't enjoy this activity any more without assistance. The order that opened the trails was designed for people like me.

I predict that younger casual mountain bikers who don't want to or can't put in the time to achieve the high level of fitness needed to really enjoy the sport will start buying eBikes once the price comes down and the access issues are resolved. Right now I mostly see guys my age, 62, or older riding eBikes.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

And so it begins

The news that electric bicycles got the go-ahead "to begin zipping around on trails in national parks" sent nightmare visions of hikers getting plowed into by fast riders on now-peaceful trails.

In California, a closer look shows that the impacts will be minimal at Yosemite National Park, Point Reyes National Seashore and Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park.

Of my favorite 120 trails at Yosemite, Sequoia & Kings Canyon and Point Reyes, eBikes would be allowed at only four - all at Point Reyes. With one in-house maneuver, they could be banned at these, too, and avoid the potential scenario for flashpoint showdowns.

At sites where eBikes would be legal, the biggest potential for showdowns is on the walkway in Yosemite Valley. It gets heavy use from visitors on walks with cameras or using the low-speed rental bicycles. Mix an eBike into the crowd and you've got the potential for conflict.

But not everywhere. At Yosemite, I traced my 50 favorite hikes, including those out of Yosemite Valley, Tuolumne Meadows and along Glacier Point Road. Turns out eBikes wouldn't be permitted at any of them. Same thing at Sequoia & Kings Canyon, 52 out of 52. At Point Reyes, they would be allowed for stretches of roughly 3 miles or less - not worthy of the ease and speed of an eBike - on a few trails, including the popular Bear Valley Trail.

*Of bigger concern is the Estero Trail, a personal favorite, where present rules would permit them out to the ridge that overlooks Drakes Estero. Rangers could solve this by banning mountain bikes here, a worthy sacrifice that would take care of the eBike issue in a single maneuver.*


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

People will say anything to try to get something they don't like banned. Some hikers are doing it. Some regular MTB riders are doing it. Some skiiers used to do it to get snowboards banned. All the same personality type.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

rideit said:


> And so it begins
> 
> The news that electric bicycles got the go-ahead "to begin zipping around on trails in national parks" sent nightmare visions of hikers getting plowed into by fast riders on now-peaceful trails.
> 
> ...


This is just an opinion, not a fact nor a law.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Yes, but it represents a growing opinion that land managers might have no choice but to agree with. 
It’s pretty simple.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

rideit said:


> Yes, but it represents a growing opinion that land managers might have no choice but to agree with.
> It's pretty simple.


I am not sure this is a growing opinion. If we only consider the facts, Ebikes have gained constant acceptance all over the country in the last 3 years. The E apocalypse is not happening.


----------



## stiksandstones (Oct 7, 2004)

@moabmark where did you get that PDF file from? Thanks for all the info.


----------



## stiksandstones (Oct 7, 2004)

As someone who works in the industry and rides all kinds of bikes and also travels to Europe a lot, I am always baffled at the polarizing venom that comes about eMTB's here in the usa. Most places i've been in EU/UK, don't give a **** about eMTB on MTB trails....hope that day comes here.

Signed, 
Lover of all bicycles, even assist ones.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

stiksandstones said:


> As someone who works in the industry and rides all kinds of bikes and also travels to Europe a lot, I am always baffled at the polarizing venom that comes about eMTB's here in the usa. Most places i've been in EU/UK, don't give a **** about eMTB on MTB trails....hope that day comes here.
> 
> Signed,
> Lover of all bicycles, even assist ones.


Europe is apples compared to the oranges that are the US trail systems.

MTB Access is hard in this country whether you are dealing with Local, State or Federal agencies. Land is protected differently in this country than in Europe.

This entire section of the forum is dedicated to trail access and advocacy for this very reason, it takes strong volunteer effort and time to create a good relationship with the trail managers and sometimes it still takes years to get new trails or new access to existing trails for Mountain Bikes.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

Klurejr said:


> Europe is apples compared to the oranges that are the US trail systems.
> 
> MTB Access is hard in this country whether you are dealing with Local, State or Federal agencies. Land is protected differently in this country than in Europe.
> 
> This entire section of the forum is dedicated to trail access and advocacy for this very reason, it takes strong volunteer effort and time to create a good relationship with the trail managers and sometimes it still takes years to get new trails or new access to existing trails for Mountain Bikes.


You speak as if you are intimately familiar with land-use policies in Europe and the USA.

Which countries in Europe are you referring to?

Europe generally has more stringent policies regarding land use than the USA.

How much time have you spent riding in Europe? Where?

Where have you spent time riding in the USA learning about the policies of local officials?


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

stiksandstones said:


> As someone who works in the industry and rides all kinds of bikes and also travels to Europe a lot, I am always baffled at the polarizing venom that comes about eMTB's here in the usa. Most places i've been in EU/UK, don't give a **** about eMTB on MTB trails....hope that day comes here.


It will come here once nothing bad happens from eMTB, and nothing bad will happen. It will blow over like Snowboards on Ski trails. Remember that?


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

hikerdave said:


> There's one blind turn on my local ride that's pretty bad; on my traditional bike I actually ran a teenaged racer off the trail when he popped around the corner going downhill too fast; it was him or me and I'm not taking a cactus spine for his mistake. Now I always give a loud yell before I start up that steep hilly corner. By the way the kid did apologize and fortunately wasn't hurt.
> 
> I do think that eBikes should be regulated differently from bikes; but on most trails I think that we eBikes should have just as much right to ride as a traditional mountain bike. Trail restrictions for eBikes should be the exception and not the rule. I'd rather not be responsible for access lost to traditional bikes; mountain biking has been an important part of my life for about 35 years; I just can't enjoy this activity any more without assistance. The order that opened the trails was designed for people like me.
> 
> I predict that younger casual mountain bikers who don't want to or can't put in the time to achieve the high level of fitness needed to really enjoy the sport will start buying eBikes once the price comes down and the access issues are resolved. Right now I mostly see guys my age, 62, or older riding eBikes.


Which trails shouldn't e-bikes be allowed on? That's a slippery slope. Directional trails are a good idea but closing trails to e-bikes isn't.

Where I live most trails have a lot of blind corners. Almost everyone takes them at a appropriate speed. Sometimes riders don't, usually kids or teenagers or just dudes who aren't paying attention or just guys who think the trail is theirs. But the vast majority ride for the conditions. It's the same for people whether on e-bike, moto or regular bike, or even horse. They ride carefully. Are we going to restrict user groups based on the unsafe actions of a few? If so let's close down trails to mountain bikers since hikers, horse riders are at risk.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

str8line said:


> Are we going to restrict user groups based on the unsafe actions of a few? If so let's close down trails to mountain bikers since hikers, horse riders are at risk.


You may have posted this facetiously, but other user groups will come to this conclusion as a legitimate solution.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

str8line said:


> Which trails shouldn't e-bikes be allowed on? That's a slippery slope. Directional trails are a good idea but closing trails to e-bikes isn't.
> 
> Where I live most trails have a lot of blind corners. Almost everyone takes them at a appropriate speed. Sometimes riders don't, usually kids or teenagers or just dudes who aren't paying attention or just guys who think the trail is theirs. But the vast majority ride for the conditions. It's the same for people whether on e-bike, moto or regular bike, or even horse. They ride carefully. Are we going to restrict user groups based on the unsafe actions of a few? If so let's close down trails to mountain bikers since hikers, horse riders are at risk.


Probably the directional mountain-bike-specific trails at McDowell Mountain Park shouldn't be used by eBikes, mainly to prevent traditionalists from stroking out or suffering shrinkage when an eBike overtakes them.


----------



## stiksandstones (Oct 7, 2004)

Is there a map, or a list of National Parks that currently allow MTB's, as the OP asked, are there any 'good' national park MTB rides anyway? I guess thats up to ones definition of a 'good' trail. But if someone can point me to a list or map of NPS MTB trails, so I can let me boss know haha.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

moabmark said:


> Sec 5 says all land managers. That would include Forest Service.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I don't understand here is Class 2. Are they saying that all ebikes are allowed on bike trails including throttle bikes? Because that is what their description of class 2 reads as.

I do agree when considering that they lay out all the classes as all ebikes and that they shall all be allowed on all trails bikes are used on, this does look like a good way to get all bikes off trails. A few 28mph bikes on single tracks used by hikers or horses will get people angry, same with throttle bikes, I mean, who is going to police if a bike is a 20mph limited throttle bike or one of those emotorcycles with pedals? They can barely police what that already have much less adding additional headache by having to determine if a throttle bike is not within these parameters.

This all seems like a cluster of a call. I can see opening up all trails to class 1, maybe Class 3 as defined by these definitions but the throttle bikes, that seems like a nightmare to police and opens the trails up to all sorts of folks who may not have the trails sustainability or other users in their best interest. I see throttle bikes as commuters all the time, being in the home of Rad Bikes, and they are not slow, nor are they usually purchased by ex or current cyclists looking for a boost, they are purchased by people looking for an alternative to car, who doesn't mind occasionally pedaling or knowing that they have the option of pedaling if they exceed their range by accident.

Can someone clarify if this is what this means?


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

hikerdave said:


> Probably the directional mountain-bike-specific trails at McDowell Mountain Park shouldn't be used by eBikes, mainly to prevent traditionalists from stroking out or suffering shrinkage when an eBike overtakes them.


:lol::lol:

I've never really felt comfortable asking someone to move, e-bike or not. I just stop or hang back until they do, especially if they are hammering.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

watermonkey said:


> You may have posted this facetiously, but other user groups will come to this conclusion as a legitimate solution.


That conclusion is the basis of all access policy in Marin, for example.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

delete me. I broken


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

str8line said:


> Which trails shouldn't e-bikes be allowed on? That's a slippery slope. Directional trails are a good idea but closing trails to e-bikes isn't.
> 
> Where I live most trails have a lot of blind corners. Almost everyone takes them at a appropriate speed. Sometimes riders don't, usually kids or teenagers or just dudes who aren't paying attention or just guys who think the trail is theirs. But the vast majority ride for the conditions. It's the same for people whether on e-bike, moto or regular bike, or even horse. They ride carefully. Are we going to restrict user groups based on the unsafe actions of a few? If so let's close down trails to mountain bikers since hikers, horse riders are at risk.


OMG, don't be spewing this unpolarized common sense and personal responsibility mumboJumbo.

In the land of the free and home of the brave, too many here think the government should regulate everything we do "for safety":madman:

I do silly things like go a reasonable speed around a blind corner and call out "rider up". Or, even worse, have a bear bell on my bars :eekster:


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

watermonkey said:


> You may have posted this facetiously, but other user groups will come to this conclusion as a legitimate solution.


Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

rockcrusher said:


> What I don't understand here is Class 2. Are they saying that all ebikes are allowed on bike trails including throttle bikes? Because that is what their description of class 2 reads as.
> 
> I do agree when considering that they lay out all the classes as all ebikes and that they shall all be allowed on all trails bikes are used on, this does look like a good way to get all bikes off trails. A few 28mph bikes on single tracks used by hikers or horses will get people angry, same with throttle bikes, I mean, who is going to police if a bike is a 20mph limited throttle bike or one of those emotorcycles with pedals? They can barely police what that already have much less adding additional headache by having to determine if a throttle bike is not within these parameters.
> 
> ...


The memorandum states:
"Benefits of E-bikes
E-bikes advance Healthy Parks Healthy People goals to promote parks as a health resource by supporting a healthy park experience that is accessible, desirable, and relatable to people of all abilities, and by minimizing human impact through the expansion of active transportation options in parks."
If a regional manager was to close a trail to bikes or eBikes it would contradict the direction Secretary Bernhardt intends to go with this order. Bikes and eBikes are part of the mission of the Interior to promote healthy, active users.

The memorandum is a little contradictory about throttles:
"E-bikes are allowed in [insert name of park] where traditional bicycles are allowed. E-bikes are prohibited where traditional bicycles are prohibited. Except where use of motor vehicles by the public is allowed, using the electric motor to move an e-bike without pedaling is prohibited."


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

My read on throttles is that they are allowed on the bike but you are not allowed to activate them on NPS trails.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

rsilvers said:


> My read on throttles is that they are allowed on the bike but you are not allowed to activate them on NPS trails.


The Memorandum does not segregate different rulings for different agencies. Class 2 bikes are allowed you just can't legally use the throttle without pedaling on nonmotorized trails and paths.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

rockcrusher said:


> A few 28mph bikes on single tracks used by hikers or horses will get people angry, same with throttle bikes, I mean, who is going to police if a bike is a 20mph limited throttle bike or one of those emotorcycles with pedals?


It will not be a problem, and here is why. Class 1, 2, and 3 are all still limited to 750 watts.

I de-restricted a Turbo Levo and could not get over 23 mph.

The 28 mph is only doable with low rolling resistance road tires and handlebars with drops.

If I made the law, I would pick 750 or 1000 watts and have NO speed cap, because a MTB would be drag and tire limited to about 23 - and only a road bike would probably reach 28. To go over that, you would need a velocycle shell.

Think about it another way - 50cc mopeds are 3 HP, which is 3x the Class-3 limit, and even those could not really reach 30mph on level ground.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

stiksandstones said:


> Is there a map, or a list of National Parks that currently allow MTB's, as the OP asked, are there any 'good' national park MTB rides anyway? I guess thats up to ones definition of a 'good' trail. But if someone can point me to a list or map of NPS MTB trails, so I can let me boss know haha.


I've been to a lot of NPs, and truth be told, there aren't any trails that are already legal (and fun) to ride on a mountain bike that would be fun to ride on an eBike.

To put it another way, I haven't yet discovered an actual singletrack trail in a NP that was legal to ride on. Plenty of roads (Old Fall River Road in Rocky Mountain, carriage roads in Acadia), etc. But no actual trails.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

The NPS covers a lot more than National Parks; National Recreation Areas, National Historic Sites, National Battlefield Parks, etc. There is a NRA near me that consists of 15 land units along 48 miles of river. Most of the park does not allow bikes but I can ride to one unit from home and it has a little over 7 miles of really nice mtb trails and another 3 miles of flat trail along the river, and there is talk of extending the trail to connect to a bike lane, though I imagine this would not be mtb trails.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

rsilvers said:


> It will not be a problem, and here is why. Class 1, 2, and 3 are all still limited to 750 watts.
> 
> I de-restricted a Turbo Levo and could not get over 23 mph.
> 
> ...


Ok, I do wonder about throttle bikes though and enforcement. It would be easy to tell if a bike is pedal assist because they would be pedaling but a throttle bike would be easy to just putter along on sections where inforcement might be but them they could really open them up. I am not saying the average pedal assist or even throttle assist bike but those that are outside what are generally considered the major manufacturers. I mean I have seen videos of some serious offroad ebikes that would definitely scoot at above 28mph. Heck today on my commute home, up a large seattle hill a dude on a throttle bike merged into traffic then proceeded to ride up the hill with traffic and then started to pass cars. Uphill. I maybe can maintain 12mph if I try on that hill, and that requires me to go what feels like anaerobic.

I'm just saying lumping throttle bikes in with pedal assist ain't going to make this transition easier on the pedal assist folks.


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

AP News apparently had some inside info back in June about this: https://apnews.com/531d9ebb52df4062af8292d0f7845159?

"The National Park Service, for its part, may soon loosen its restrictions."

Some have mentioned the lack of single track that is open to bikes in the national parks and that the order is pretty meaningless there, but I think that misses the most important point: Previously eBikes were completely banned in national parks like Canyonlands where there are hundreds of miles of dirt roads open to licensed motor vehicles and bicycles.

WARNING: this next part is pure speculation:

The eBike ban in that case seems arbitrary and senseless, so that could be at least part of the motivation for this change. It could also benefit places like Arches where it could ease some of the parking issues. Maybe that's why there is no specific focus on Class 1 vs 2 and 3? The thinking was probably that if we are talking mostly about paved and dirt roads, why not allow higher speed eBikes?


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

notb said:


> AP News apparently had some inside info back in June about this: https://apnews.com/531d9ebb52df4062af8292d0f7845159?
> 
> "The National Park Service, for its part, may soon loosen its restrictions."
> 
> ...


Probably the biggest effect of the order will be on cars. I imagine that a scenic loop would be much nicer on an eBike than in a car; bicycle riding is accessible to a lot more people when the motor is added. One of my favorite rides ever was 17-mile drive near Monterray when we parked our car and rented bikes for our tour. I drove around Crater Lake with my mom years ago and it kind of sucked - no place to pull over so stuck in the car. Parking in Yosemite is ridiculous, I hear.

The order may be more about creating bike rental business, which then translates into increased eBike sales once people try them. Probably most of the bikes sold will be road and path oriented.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

notb said:


> AP News apparently had some inside info back in June about this: https://apnews.com/531d9ebb52df4062af8292d0f7845159?
> 
> "The National Park Service, for its part, may soon loosen its restrictions."
> 
> ...


See my post two above yours, re singletrack in NPS parks, though I'm pretty sure it is rare. And according to the NPS, they can still choose to ban ebikes, or classes of ebikes, without banning mountain bikes.

It is/was odd that ebikes would have been banned on dirt roads that were opened to motor vehicles and bicycles, that did need correcting. I imagine the new policy is all about getting people on ebikes instead of cars and the signer really had no clue about singletrack.

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/biking/e-bikes.htm


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

EBikes were allowed where motorized was allowed up until this ruling, roads included. This order equates bikes and eBikes on 75 percent of singletrack and bike paths on Federal lands by default. The remaining 25 percent is now on notice that they are operating inconsistent with Federal law. There is some pretty good singletrack on Federal lands, which you can bet the Department of Interior is well aware of. Misinterpreting the Order doesn't change it, but it does give you a permanent black eye on the internet.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

rockcrusher said:


> Ok, I do wonder about throttle bikes though and enforcement. It would be easy to tell if a bike is pedal assist because they would be pedaling but a throttle bike would be easy to just putter along on sections where inforcement might be but them they could really open them up. I am not saying the average pedal assist or even throttle assist bike but those that are outside what are generally considered the major manufacturers. I mean I have seen videos of some serious offroad ebikes that would definitely scoot at above 28mph.


If you mean the 3000 watt bikes, those have huge batteries and stuff. They tend to have dual-crown forks. They don't look like bicycles since they are electric motorcycles or mopeds. In fact, the styling on these is designed to look bad-ass and motocross-like.

The Class-1 bikes are getting smaller and lighter because that is the only way that they can evolve since they are limited to 750 watts. So, the contrast with electric motorcycles will grow larger and larger over time as one kind gets more powerful and the other kind gets smaller and thinner.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

rsilvers said:


> If you mean the 3000 watt bikes, those have huge batteries and stuff. They tend to have dual-crown forks. They don't look like bicycles since they are electric motorcycles or mopeds. In fact, the styling on these is designed to look bad-ass and motocross-like.
> 
> The Class-1 bikes are getting smaller and lighter because that is the only way that they can evolve since they are limited to 750 watts. So, the contrast with electric motorcycles will grow larger and larger over time as one kind gets more powerful and the other kind gets smaller and thinner.


I really don't see Electric Motorcycles getting"larger and larger"..... Sure when someone finally comes up with a giant highway cruiser style electric bike.... but technology has a patterned history of getting smaller and lighter with new generations, along with faster and more powerful. That goes for just about all technology. Computer processors, Touchscreens, and even Internal Combustion engines are smaller and offer more power for the displacement than past generations.

So it is not outlandish to think that eBikes and Electric Motorcycles will both increase in power and range as the technology continues to advance. That said I doubt we will see an Electric Motorcycle that looks like a current Gen Class 1 eBike anytime soon* if ever,* there are always limitations to how small something can get and retain the performance desired.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

The more powerful ones will have dual-crown forks and rear ends with full float.


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

figofspee said:


> EBikes were allowed where motorized was allowed up until this ruling, roads included.


Various people, including me, have spoken with rangers at Canyonlands who confirmed the ban: https://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/e-bike-routes-moab-utah-1058898.html. I've driven the White Rim Road twice so it was an interest of mine to ride at least part of it on eBike, but no go. Discovermoab still has the ban at Canyonlands and Arches documented on their page: https://www.discovermoab.com/ebikes/.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

notb said:


> Various people, including me, have spoken with rangers at Canyonlands who confirmed the ban: https://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/e-bike-routes-moab-utah-1058898.html. I've driven the White Rim Road twice so it was an interest of mine to ride at least part of it on eBike, but no go. Discovermoab still has the ban at Canyonlands and Arches documented on their page: https://www.discovermoab.com/ebikes/.


Sounds like a misunderstanding/massive overreach on their part:
At Acadia National Park, the e-bikes are welcome on paved roads inside the park and even on dirt roads where cars and trucks are allowed.

https://www.apnews.com/531d9ebb52df4062af8292d0f7845159


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

figofspee said:


> EBikes were allowed where motorized was allowed up until this ruling, roads included. This order equates bikes and eBikes on 75 percent of singletrack and bike paths on Federal lands by default. The remaining 25 percent is now on notice that they are operating inconsistent with Federal law. There is some pretty good singletrack on Federal lands, which you can bet the Department of Interior is well aware of. Misinterpreting the Order doesn't change it, but it does give you a permanent black eye on the internet.


But according to the NPS, they can still ban ebikes if they deem it is in the best interest:

_May superintendents restrict the use of e-bikes or close areas to e-bikes under certain circumstances?

Yes. Superintendents may restrict or impose conditions upon the use of e-bikes, or close locations to the use of e-bikes, after taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, and other management activities and objectives. If warranted by these criteria, superintendents may manage e-bikes, or particular classes of e-bikes, differently than traditional bicycles in particular locations. For example, a superintendent could determine that a trail open to traditional bicycles should not be open to e-bikes, or should be open to class-1 e-bikes only.
_
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/biking/e-bikes.htm


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

chazpat said:


> But according to the NPS, they can still ban ebikes if they deem it is in the best interest:
> 
> _May superintendents restrict the use of e-bikes or close areas to e-bikes under certain circumstances?
> 
> ...


Just like I can disobey an order given by one of my supervisors. It might be seen as insubordination and cost me my job, so I probably won't do that too often.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

chazpat said:


> But according to the NPS, they can still ban ebikes if they deem it is in the best interest:
> 
> _May superintendents restrict the use of e-bikes or close areas to e-bikes under certain circumstances?
> 
> ...


It looks like that goes against the original ruling by the DOI. We'll have to see but I expect they'll need a compelling reason and proof as to why e-bikes wouldn't be allowed on the same trails as beach-cruisers, hybrids, mtb's, etc..


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

ORDER NO. 3 3 7 6 
Subject: Increasing Recreational Opportunities through the use of Electric Bikes 
Sec. 1 Purpose. This Order is intended to increase recreational opportunities for all Americans, 
especially those with physical limitations, and to encourage the enjoyment of lands and waters 
managed by the Department of the Interior (Department). This Order simplifies and unifies 
regulation of electric bicycles ( e-bikes) on Federal lands managed by the Department and also 
decreases regulatory burden.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

figofspee said:


> Sounds like a misunderstanding/massive overreach on their part:
> At Acadia National Park, the e-bikes are welcome on paved roads inside the park and even on dirt roads where cars and trucks are allowed.
> 
> https://www.apnews.com/531d9ebb52df4062af8292d0f7845159


No misunderstanding. Massive overreach. Until they comply with this ruling, you can't even ride an ebike on the pavement in Canyonlands and Arches. As of today, ebikes are still banned in Arches and Canyonlands, period. I'm sure the rangers are grinding their teeth, and their heads are spinning.

Once the ban is lifted, (assuming it is, and the rangers don't decide to risk their jobs by trying to retain the bans), there will be hundreds of miles of new ebike opportunity in the Moab area. White Rim, Elephant Hill, Confluence Overlook, The Maze, Lavender Canyon, Horse Canyon. An ebike opens up some of the sandy roads that are too brutal on an MTB. PERMITS ARE REQUIRED on White Rim, Elephant Hill, Lavender Canyon, and Horse Canyon, even for a day trip. All backcountry overnights require a permit.

Take a look at the photos of these "trails" and ask yourself why in hell ebikes were ever banned.

BTW, I'll warn anyone who has never been on these roads that when it rains or snows, they can become impassible. The adobe clay surface in some sections is like snot after a heavy rain. Also, arroyos will flood, cutting off access, sometimes for days.

https://www.nps.gov/cany/planyourvisit/needlesroads.htm
https://www.nps.gov/cany/planyourvisit/whiterimroad.htm
https://www.nps.gov/cany/planyourvisit/mazeroads.htm


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Here's a free class on federal regulations:

This recent Order from the Dept. of the Interior directs the agencies (NPS, BLM, USFWS, BOR) to manage E-BIKES using the same regulations that manage bicycles.

The REGULATIONS that manage access for bicycles, and NOW E-BIKES, Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 4.30, paragraphs (f), (g) and (h), grants Supervisors the authority to LIMIT, RESTRICT and IMPOSE conditions.

I work with federal land managers. I talk with federal land managers. Access for E-Bikes will expand with this Order. Unrestricted access to all trails that bikes currently have the privilege of accessing within D.O.I. properties is not what this Order will bring about. Ignore the uptight people that hate e-bikes. At the same time, understand what the Order will accomplish.

This Order is subjected to public input. There will be a multitude of baseless challenges. There will also be a few challenges that will require strong advocacy to win.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

Boulder Pilot said:


> Here's a free class on federal regulations:
> 
> This recent Order from the Dept. of the Interior directs the agencies (NPS, BLM, USFWS, BOR) to manage E-BIKES using the same regulations that manage bicycles.
> 
> ...


I think there will be super strong advocacy.

From what I've seen of many of the bike shop employees and hard core riders around SLC there is good acceptance of e-bikes, and it's getting better by the day. I've noticed it on the trails too. Most riders are super excited to ride one or own one. Of course our trails are generally pretty steep so going faster on the climbs means way more riding, which is what many people want.

Round Valley in Park City was already planning to allow e-bikes before this recent development. Everywhere around the Salt Lake Valley allows e-bikes.

E-bikes will probably be the only real growth market for the bike industry for the foreseeable future. They will become massively popular because as people ride them they'll realize how similar they are to a normal bike.

I've seen it over the last three years in the Alps. It's becoming huge for transportation in the big cities of Europe too. I was in Zermatt last summer and walked by the school and out of the 50 or so bikes in the bike rack about 10 of them were e-bikes.

Things are changing quickly when you compare it to even a year ago.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> Here's a free class on federal regulations:
> 
> This recent Order from the Dept. of the Interior directs the agencies (NPS, BLM, USFWS, BOR) to manage E-BIKES using the same regulations that manage bicycles.
> 
> ...


Excellent post, thank you Boulder!


----------



## rancher52 (Aug 16, 2019)

We should be very vocal, about appreciation of use, that said also should call ,write powers involved expressing delight and how helpful including those that couldn't without an e-bike.
Always be a gentle ,polite 
E-Bike warrior to others on the trail, 
Yes when you pass others ,act like it's really difficult, so no feelings our hurt- seriously

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

rancher52 said:


> We should be very vocal, about appreciation of use, that said also should call ,write powers involved expressing delight and how helpful including those that couldn't without an e-bike.
> Always be a gentle ,polite
> E-Bike warrior to others on the trail,
> Yes when you pass others ,act like it's really difficult, so no feelings our hurt- seriously
> ...


When I'm on my normal bike and someone on an e-bike tries to pass I "accidentally" turn across their front wheel just as they approach.

And when I'm on my e-bike I laugh and wave as I pass.

No, no, no... just kidding. 

I agree with you about advocating for the benefits for the elderly(I just turned 50) and those with a bad knee(me) and those who aren't as ass-kickingly strong as they once were(but still as ass-kickingly fast-at least in terms of scaring myself).

Seriously though. I'm taking being a e-bike warrior seriously... I never pass someone when I'm on the e-bike, that's just rude.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Some National park already made up their mind. Free demo day too!

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news...ational-park-to-welcome-new-policy-on-e-bikes


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

ruthabagah said:


> Some National park already made up their mind. Free demo day too!
> 
> https://www.news5cleveland.com/news...ational-park-to-welcome-new-policy-on-e-bikes


 Roads or paved trails, have fun.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

leeboh said:


> Roads or paved trails, have fun.


and you are blind as usual:

"The new policy will allow visitors to use e-bikes on park roads, paved or hardened trails."

No single track in Cuyoga Valley anyway.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

ruthabagah said:


> No single track in Cuyoga Valley anyway.


I think that was the point he was making.......


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

ruthabagah said:


> and you are blind as usual:
> 
> "The new policy will allow visitors to use e-bikes on park roads, paved or hardened trails."
> 
> No single track in Cuyoga Valley anyway.


 This is the trail advocacy forum on a mt bike site. I don't think anyone has issues with e bikes on paved roads, they make great commuters. Enjoy the bike paths too.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

leeboh said:


> This is the trail advocacy forum on a mt bike site. I don't think anyone has issues with e bikes on paved roads, they make great commuters. Enjoy the bike paths too.


Arches and Canyonlands ban ebikes from their paved roads *and* their 4x4 Jeep roads. City of Moab explicitly bans any ebike from their paved paths, even the one the goes 8 miles north of town along Highway 191, which means if you stick to their rules but want to ride up to, say, Sovereign Trail, (where ebikes are allowed), you *must* drive up there, or risk being killed on the highway. And you probably would be killed, it is basically an interstate in that stretch.

It took a bill in the Colorado state legislature to get Boulder to allow ebikes on their paved paths. Even after the bill was passed it took them over 6 months, and then they *still* banned them on some dirt commuter trails.


----------



## rancher52 (Aug 16, 2019)

str8line said:


> When I'm on my normal bike and someone on an e-bike tries to pass I "accidentally" turn across their front wheel just as they approach.
> 
> And when I'm on my e-bike I laugh and wave as I pass.
> 
> ...


Your Funny, yes u probably pop Wheely across intersections

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

honkinunit said:


> Arches and Canyonlands ban ebikes from their paved roads *and* their 4x4 Jeep roads. City of Moab explicitly bans any ebike from their paved paths, even the one the goes 8 miles north of town along Highway 191, which means if you stick to their rules but want to ride up to, say, Sovereign Trail, (where ebikes are allowed), you *must* drive up there, or risk being killed on the highway. And you probably would be killed, it is basically an interstate in that stretch.
> 
> It took a bill in the Colorado state legislature to get Boulder to allow ebikes on their paved paths. Even after the bill was passed it took them over 6 months, and then they *still* banned them on some dirt commuter trails.


? I have ridden my e bike on the tower arch jeep road in arches several times, also have done white rim have run into rangers on both rides and they were fine with it?

The copy below is from the new regulation that just came out. Read the part about the consumer protection agency confusion. I have attached a picture of the consumer protection act the states class 1 e bikes are non motorized. I paid for some legal research on this conflict a year ago and the attorney came back and said the Forest Service, BLM national parks etc regulation are not in line with Congress. 
He said it would be only a matter of time before the policies would be brought into line with Congress. 
He also stated if you wanted to battle with moab etc on their paved paths they would have a difficult time defending their position due to what the Cons protection act says.

To resolve this uncertainty the Consumer Product Safety Act (Act) provides useful 
guidance. That Act defines a "low-speed electric bicycle" to include a "two- or three-wheeled 
vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor ofless 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", subjecting these low-speed e-bikes to the 
same consumer product regulations as other types of bicycles (15 U.S.C. § 2085). A majority of 
States have essentially followed this definition in some form..... . Uncertainty about the regulatory status of e-bikes has led the Federal land management agencies to 
impose restrictive access policies treating e-bikes as motor vehicles, often inconsistent with State 
and local regulations for adjacent areas......

Hope that made sense.









Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

ruthabagah said:


> and you are blind as usual:
> 
> "The new policy will allow visitors to use e-bikes on park roads, paved or hardened trails."
> 
> No single track in Cuyoga Valley anyway.


You're the blind one, no trails have opened yet, hardened or not. You're demo day is a road ride.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

moabmark said:


> ? I have ridden my e bike on the tower arch jeep road in arches several times, also have done white rim have run into rangers on both rides and they were fine with it?
> 
> The copy below is from the new regulation that just came out. Read the part about the consumer protection agency confusion. I have attached a picture of the consumer protection act the states class 1 e bikes are non motorized. I paid for some legal research on this conflict a year ago and the attorney came back and said the Forest Service, BLM national parks etc regulation are not in line with Congress.
> He said it would be only a matter of time before the policies would be brought into line with Congress.
> ...


The order was less of eBikers will now have access, as it is a notice that they have had access since 2002.


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

Forest Service bans self propelled? Go figure.....









Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

moabmark said:


> ? I have ridden my e bike on the tower arch jeep road in arches several times, also have done white rim have run into rangers on both rides and they were fine with it?


Either the rangers didn't recognize your bike as an ebike, or they didn't want to hassle you.

Roll up to the Arches entrance station on your ebike and ask them if you can ride it up the hill, on pavement. Unless something changed this week, they will turn you away.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

I think the order is driven by the ebike industry, via David Bernhardt, a Trump appointee. Read into that what you want.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> Here's a free class on federal regulations:
> 
> This recent Order from the Dept. of the Interior directs the agencies (NPS, BLM, USFWS, BOR) to manage E-BIKES using the same regulations that manage bicycles.
> 
> ...


Yes, the CFR's that regulate bicycles, will also regulate ebikes, but the purpose of the order is to categorize ebikes and regular bikes as the same thing. So, if for some reason the local land manager wanted to restrict ebikes on a trail, they would also have to restrict regular bikes. If you read the order, section 4, part b and c, it doesn't get much clearer than that. In section 5 (implementation) the agencies are required to revise the CFR's so that ebikes are no longer considered off road (motorized) vehicles. They are also required to submit a summary of any laws or regulations that would prohibit the full adoption of the policy. Of course, if they are changing the law, then the preexisting laws prohibiting the implementation of the order would no longer apply. They have 30 days to make it happen, then they can seek public comment, which is the opposite of how things usually work. Then equestrian groups, environmental groups, hikers, bikers, etc will submit comments and we will find out how flexible Trump appointee David Bernhardt is, as any change in his order will have to go past him.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

New BLM Field Manager in Moab:

https://www.ksl.com/article/4663427...gement-moab-office-welcomes-new-field-manager


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

bpressnall said:


> Yes, the CFR's that regulate bicycles, will also regulate ebikes, but the purpose of the order is to categorize ebikes and regular bikes as the same thing. So, if for some reason the local land manager wanted to restrict ebikes on a trail, they would also have to restrict regular bikes. If you read the order, section 4, part b and c, it doesn't get much clearer than that. In section 5 (implementation) the agencies are required to revise the CFR's so that ebikes are no longer considered off road (motorized) vehicles. They are also required to submit a summary of any laws or regulations that would prohibit the full adoption of the policy. Of course, if they are changing the law, then the preexisting laws prohibiting the implementation of the order would no longer apply. They have 30 days to make it happen, then they can seek public comment, which is the opposite of how things usually work. Then equestrian groups, environmental groups, hikers, bikers, etc will submit comments and we will find out how flexible Trump appointee David Bernhardt is, as any change in his order will have to go past him.


See post #97.

I think the person in charge of the NPS probably has better insight into how this works than we do.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

chazpat said:


> See post #97.
> 
> I think the person in charge of the NPS probably has better insight into how this works than we do.


Maybe we need another class of eBike; 0.75 conformant with EU regulations; if I was operating an eBike rental business in Tusayan, Springdale, or Moab I might want to flash the bikes with Euro-legal software to protect my investment and reduce liability; Park regulations that adopted these restrictions would level the playing field.

I'm thinking this way after getting literally dusted this morning by a guy on a Turbo Levo going all-out on this moderately busy morning while I was riding just riding along on my eBike.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

hikerdave said:


> Maybe we need another class of eBike; 0.75 conformant with EU regulations; if I was operating an eBike rental business in Tusayan, Springdale, or Moab I might want to flash the bikes with Euro-legal software to protect my investment and reduce liability; Park regulations that adopted these restrictions would level the playing field.
> 
> I'm thinking this way after getting literally dusted this morning by a guy on a Turbo Levo going all-out on this moderately busy morning while I was riding just riding along on my eBike.


I think so. If ebikes can truly be just another bike on the trail, I think they will get less resistance.


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

str8line said:


> New BLM Field Manager in Moab:
> 
> https://www.ksl.com/article/4663427...gement-moab-office-welcomes-new-field-manager


Yeah can you imagine, Hey welcome to your new job. O by the way we have about 5000 no E bike stickers on every trail in Moab now we've gotta go remove them.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Keep in mind, the European standard for ebikes on non-motorized trails is 250 watts and maximum motor assisted speed of 25 kph (15.5 mph). US bikes allowed by the new order are 750 watts and 28 mph. Big difference there.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

A Bozeman editorial for y’all pollyannas 

Proposed e-bike rule a slippery slope


“It’s being sold as an innocuous proposal to give a little more access to the elderly and disabled. But make no mistake: A Trump administration plan to allow electric-assisted bicycles on national park and Bureau of Land Management trails where they are currently banned is a sea-change in land management policy with far-reaching implications.

Interior Secretary David Bernhardt recently signed an order that classifies so-called e-bikes as non-motorized for purposes of trail use in parks and other public lands administered by the department. The order gives agency officials 30 days to formulate a plan for implementing the new rule.

Public lands managers devote a great deal of time and resources developing travel regulations aimed at minimizing conflicts between different trail users and impacts on terrain and wildlife. Those regulations often ban the use of motorized vehicles for good reason. And e-bikes are motorized vehicles. Just saying that they’re not doesn’t change that fact. Sales have been booming for these bikes, and allowing them on trails where are currently barred will fundamentally change the experience on those trails with potential harm to wildlife.

To appreciate the implications of this order, one need only recall the history of snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park. When they were first allowed, only a few, low-powered sleds entered the park. But over time, that ballooned into hundreds of more powerful machines that wandered off established roads, polluted the air and endangered wildlife. Getting park winter use under control was a painful and controversial process. Allowing motorized bikes on trails will likely lead to similar problems.

The Interior Department order doesn’t apply to Forest Service lands, which are administered by the Department of Agriculture. But with the precedent established, could a similar order for national forest trails be far behind?

The National Park Service has issued a statement saying public comment will be sought about the rule change. It’s not clear whether there will be a formal process for this or for comments about e-bike use on BLM land.

This is a case where those making these decisions need to hear from you – those who value their parks and public lands. Call Park Service and Bureau of Land Management officials and let them know what you think about allowing motorized bikes where they have long been banned.

And don’t buy the notion this is some kind of benign proposal. It could be the beginning of something with long-term, harmful consequences.”


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Take that pollyannas! eBikes are going to to wander off trail like snowmobiles, pollute the air, and endanger animals in the same manner as a vehicle that weighs 10 times as much and capable of speeds 10 times faster. Don't believe the department of Interior when they equate eBikes with nonmotorized, but do trust this editor with their superior understanding of these devices.

You would think that the horsey industry could afford better virtue signalling then this garbage, but at least you posted the entire article so I don't have to give them any clicks.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

I only posted it as an example of what the opposition is thinking and saying.


----------



## Nash04 (Dec 24, 2012)

Yeah! Still remember when the Fatbikes became popular and we saw the same complaints as mentioned above.....give me a break! most ebike owners are old farts like me and basically going the same speed if I was on my Stumpy, not like some young kid whom I've seen numerous times where they're riding like hell and make their own path of the trail if it's busy. Basically we just have haters/selfish people who just doesn't want to share the trails. I've seen that issue may times in CA where the hikers have the nice trails under the trees while the MTB are riding mostly in the desert without no cover. Let's share the trails with everybody, well almost everybody.

By the way, yes they're motorize but it only works when you actually pedal not like a throttle. So the more pedaling you do the more the motor assist you receive so please let's get this straight. If there's no action then there's no reaction!!!


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Nash04 said:


> Yeah! Still remember when the Fatbikes became popular and we saw the same complaints as mentioned above.....give me a break! most ebike owners are old farts like me and basically going the same speed if I was on my Stumpy, not like some young kid whom I've seen numerous times where they're riding like hell and make their own path of the trail if it's busy. Basically we just have haters/selfish people who just doesn't want to share the trails. I've seen that issue may times in CA where the hikers have the nice trails under the trees while the MTB are riding mostly in the desert without no cover. Let's share the trails with everybody, well almost everybody.
> 
> By the way, yes they're motorize but it only works when you actually pedal *not like a throttle.* So the more pedaling you do the more the motor assist you receive so please let's get this straight. If there's no action then there's no reaction!!!


Class II has a throttle and has been included in the DOI Order.

A land manager I was speaking with recently joked that the typical emtb'er is a _"handicapped senior citizen first time biker with 30 years riding experience teenager"_. They get letters that describe emtb'ers has "needing an ebike due to disabilities", "needing an ebike due to being old" and "needing an ebike to enjoy more open space."

Not sure if many of you realize the fact that when some of you feel the need to justify the use of emtbikes using one of your favorite talking points that your opposition is compiling all of these examples of "reasoning" and when compiled into a rebuttal it makes the whole community of emtber's look somewhat disingenuous.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Actually Nash, the Class 2 bikes do have a throttle, so no pedalling required on those to get motor assist, and the class 3 have a motor assist cap of 28 mph. The add on kits apparently have no restrictions and I have seen claims of 40 mph out of those. There are also tutorials popping up on how to bypass governors and adding stronger batteries and motors, all methods of cheating the regs and gaining more speed. It's kind of like Tour de France doping- it will be a cat and mouse game. It's unfortunate because I think guys like you should be able to ride your class 1 bike on any bike legal trail. My fear is that the motocross crowd is going to see this as a way to ride any trail, so they will get an ebike and beef it up. It will be so hard for land managers to regulate all the different bikes that they may have to just close the trail to all bikes. Sure, that might not happen, but with this new order, that is certainly a possibility. In Europe ebikes on non motorized trails are much more restricted than this order from the Dept of Interior allows. They are capped at 250 watts and 15.5 mph for motor assist, and no throttle.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

rideit said:


> A Bozeman editorial for y'all pollyannas
> 
> Proposed e-bike rule a slippery slope
> 
> ...


So much wrong with that article, but I highlighted the worst in bold. I am not certain how the author thinks allowing eBikes on trails and paths where bicycles are already permitted is going to have some adverse effect on wildlife.... I guess maybe if somone on a class 3 bike was running at max speed and hit an animal on the trail... but in that case they are more likely to hit a human.

The snowmobile comparison is just awful, Eletric eBikes don't pollute, so we will not be seeing added air pollution as a side effect of this new order...

What we might see is some of the guys with the high powered eBikes going out and riding the BLM trails they are already riding, I doubt anyone will be trying to ride one of those monsters in a national park. That comes down to enforcement, in the NPS there is a higher ratio of Rangers due to the higher volume of park visitors, many BLM lands are in the middle of nowhere, already have designated Moto Trails and less Rangers to patrol them.



Nash04 said:


> Yeah! Still remember when the Fatbikes became popular and we saw the same complaints as mentioned above.....give me a break! most ebike owners are old farts like me and basically going the same speed if I was on my Stumpy, not like some young kid whom I've seen numerous times where they're riding like hell and make their own path of the trail if it's busy. Basically we just have haters/selfish people who just doesn't want to share the trails. I've seen that issue may times in CA where the hikers have the nice trails under the trees while the MTB are riding mostly in the desert without no cover. Let's share the trails with everybody, well almost everybody.
> 
> By the way, yes they're motorize but it only works when you actually pedal not like a throttle. So the more pedaling you do the more the motor assist you receive so please let's get this straight. If there's no action then there's no reaction!!!


2 things. 
1 - Fatbikes without motors are not the same as a bike with a motor, not even close. Yes they are now defined as being the same but they are not the same.
2 - the order for eBike definitions to be changed for NPS and BLM land includes Class 2 and Class 3 eBikes, Class 2 have a throttle and can be used without pedaling.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

bpressnall said:


> Actually Nash, the Class 2 bikes do have a throttle, so no pedalling required on those to get motor assist, and the class 3 have a motor assist cap of 28 mph. The add on kits apparently have no restrictions and I have seen claims of 40 mph out of those. There are also tutorials popping up on how to bypass governors and adding stronger batteries and motors, all methods of cheating the regs and gaining more speed. It's kind of like Tour de France doping- it will be a cat and mouse game. It's unfortunate because I think guys like you should be able to ride your class 1 bike on any bike legal trail. My fear is that the motocross crowd is going to see this as a way to ride any trail, so they will get an ebike and beef it up. It will be so hard for land managers to regulate all the different bikes that they may have to just close the trail to all bikes. Sure, that might not happen, but with this new order, that is certainly a possibility. *In Europe ebikes on non motorized trails are much more restricted than this order from the Dept of Interior allows. They are capped at 250 watts and 15.5 mph for motor assist, and no throttle.*


That last part is very important and could have been a much easier way for eBike companies to get better access faster. 250watts and 15.5mph cap would be more than enough to help all of those who need the motor to help with physical ailments or disabilities while at the same time being low enough power to not entice the moto-bro crowd who just want to be able to go fast up and downhill on all the trails where their motorcycle cannot go.

Many user compare the US to Europe and don't understand why Europe is more accepting of eBikes than the US, this is one of the reasons(not all of them).


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Klurejr said:


> That last part is very important and could have been a much easier way for eBike companies to get better access faster. 250watts and 15.5mph cap would be more than enough to help all of those who need the motor to help with physical ailments or disabilities while at the same time being low enough power to not entice the moto-bro crowd who just want to be able to go fast up and downhill on all the trails where their motorcycle cannot go.
> 
> Many user compare the US to Europe and don't understand why Europe is more accepting of eBikes than the US, this is one of the reasons(not all of them).


The US is more accepting of eBikes then Europe. Having a 25km/h cutoff defeats the point of owning an eBike for many applications.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> I am not certain how the author thinks allowing eBikes on trails and paths where bicycles are already permitted is going to have some adverse effect on wildlife....


I don't know what the author is thinking, but I do know what some of the thought process was behind a relatively new designation of a large BLM trail system in my town, that was very recently designated as a special recreation area. This area is subject to designated winter closures due to critical wildlife habitat - closures most notably restricted to motorized and mtb. travel, but not skiers, hikers or equestrian access. While some trails remain open in the winter to fatbike travel, most of the area is closed in the winter into spring.

The relatively new plan included expansion of mtb specific trails, many of which are directional, and also included an expansion of the whole system through easements with other govt. entities to a lower elevation trailhead. With more miles of trails lower down and in less critical habitat, while mtb traffic has increased, its had a designed effect that there's less traffic into the interior of the management unit, simply because it now takes a lot more climbing and miles to get there. Note - this was done on purpose. Most mtb traffic now stays within 1/10th of mile of a main road, area that's already subject to wildlife disturbance.

E-bikes were not factored into this plan. If they (e-bikes) become as ubiquitous as some project, then the average range of riders will increase, sending more traffic further into the interior, which equates to an increase in wildlife disturbance. Presence = disturbance...it doesn't have to mean fast speeds or bike/wildlife collisions. New mtb trails development was traded with a decrease in motorized access to the area. E-bikes, and the potential increase in range they represent, blur these lines in a significant way.

There's a current proposal for a trail to connect my town with Crested Butte. Potential trail routing will most likely have to cross some significantly important, critical wildlife habitat. There's major blowback on this point alone. The question has already been raised, what if e-bike rentals become available in town, and recreational tourist traffic on this trail increases significantly as a function of e-bikes allowing the "average" tourist the ability to ride far enough into these areas? These are the questions people are asking, and why even the concept of e-bikes can have a prophylactic effect on trail access or development.

What will future trail development look like if trails and access now have to include a 28 mph capable e-bike? I doubt they will look like what we're used to, and that is of significant concern to me.


----------



## richardjohnson (Sep 12, 2016)

I don't have an ebike and am not ebike curious but have seen many users say that ebikes are just like regular bikes and with this ruling we are going to see how real they are. However I just ran into this video of a rocky mountain ebike rider and have to say that ebikes are not like regular bikes. Even if I was as fit as possible I do not think I could ride but stairs like this guy is riding. This is a plain old pedal assist ebike from what I can see, so the argument that it is for old farts that want to have fun is not resonating with me.

It is a cool video, but it certainly isn't selling the idea that an ebike is just for extending your range and getting into nature.


----------



## rancher52 (Aug 16, 2019)

I want a T-shirt with your <We Love Cows! They Make Trials ect perfect


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

figofspee said:


> The US is more accepting of eBikes then Europe. Having a 25km/h cutoff defeats the point of owning an eBike for many applications.


15mph cutoff vs 20mph cutoff would add just one minute per mile on my Class 1 eMtb. That's 8 minutes per work day commuting that I would never get back. I would find the cutout annoying when I jackrabbit across a six-lane boulevard or use the car left-turn lane, though - those are places where higher speeds are nice to have.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

figofspee said:


> The US is more accepting of eBikes then Europe. Having a 25km/h cutoff defeats the point of owning an eBike for many applications.


A 25km/h cutoff is too slow for climbing for you?

Why?


----------



## rancher52 (Aug 16, 2019)

Seriously why 15.5mph, 20mph isn't high speed without assist going 25 or so is possible ,
Who our you people, ? Everybody hates new stuff, Remember when 15 gears was normal and ppl griped bikes had a 18 gear setup as not fair same argument different times.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

rancher52 said:


> Seriously why 15.5mph, 20mph isn't high speed without assist going 25 or so is possible ,
> Who our you people, ? Everybody hates new stuff, Remember when 15 gears was normal and ppl griped bikes had a 18 gear setup as not fair same argument different times.


Why not 25mph then? Or 30mph?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> A 25km/h cutoff is too slow for climbing for you?
> 
> Why?


Where did he say anything about climbing?

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

I am fine with limiting eBikes to 15mph, as long as we limit cars/trucks/motorcycles to 15mph. In that scenario I would voluntarily restrict my eBike because it would be doing my part to help reduce the number of people who are killed by cars every year.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Where did he say anything about climbing?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Fair enough.

I incorrectly assumed that someone wouldn't need additional assistance beyond that which gravity provides when going down hill.

Apparently that isn't enough?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I incorrectly assumed that someone wouldn't need additional assistance beyond that which gravity provides when going down hill.
> 
> ...


Where did he mention mountain biking?

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

rancher52 said:


> Everybody hates new stuff, Remember when 15 gears was normal and ppl griped bikes had a 18 gear setup as not fair same argument different times.


Nope, don't remember that.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Where did he mention mountain biking?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Oh darn. Egg on my face for assuming that someone posting on a forum dedicated to electronically assisted mountain bikes was talking about electronically assisted mountain bikes.

Did I stumble into RBR, or the commuting or forum on MTBR, on accident?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Oh darn. Egg on my face for assuming that someone posting on a forum dedicated to electronically assisted mountain bikes was talking about electronically assisted mountain bikes.
> 
> Did I stumble into RBR, or the commuting or forum on MTBR, on accident?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Considering that classifications are not seperated by bike type that's a pretty erroneous assumption when someone is talking about several uses. You knew he was referring to road, commuting, adventure, touring, bike packing, etc. You just wanted to cherry pick the argument apart.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Up until recently, the Feds limited ebikes (at least on paper) to singletrack used by dirt bikes. What are dirt bikes speed limited to?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> Having a 25km/h cutoff defeats the point of owning an eBike for many applications.


Which ones?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

For those curious what kind of wattage gravity can produce (6000 watts), here is a thread on that:
https://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/wattage-calculator-1107271.html

When gravity is providing the watts it is far more dangerous then a motor, as there is no off switch.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> Up until recently, the Feds limited ebikes (at least on paper) to singletrack used by dirt bikes. What are dirt bikes speed limited to?


What are bicycle speeds limited to?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> What are bicycle speeds limited to?


I've hit 48mph, road bikes are even faster.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

richardjohnson said:


> I don't have an ebike and am not ebike curious but have seen many users say that ebikes are just like regular bikes and with this ruling we are going to see how real they are. However I just ran into this video of a rocky mountain ebike rider and have to say that ebikes are not like regular bikes. Even if I was as fit as possible I do not think I could ride but stairs like this guy is riding. This is a plain old pedal assist ebike from what I can see, so the argument that it is for old farts that want to have fun is not resonating with me.
> 
> It is a cool video, but it certainly isn't selling the idea that an ebike is just for extending your range and getting into nature.


I'm a fit 50 year old fart. I've been riding bikes (mostly mountain, but road as well) for 30 years.

I guess it depends on what video you are watching.
I'll probably end up with an E-bike sooner than later, in addition to my leg powered MTB.

Looks hella fun to me.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

mlx john said:


> I'm a fit 50 year old fart. I've been riding bikes (mostly mountain, but road as well) for 30 years.
> 
> I guess it depends on what video you are watching.
> I'll probably end up with an E-bike sooner than later, in addition to my leg powered MTB.
> ...


Of course they're fun. So are more powerful gas powered cycles. But that's not really the point, is it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I've hit 48mph, road bikes are even faster.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


On a M.U.P.?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> On a M.U.P.?


Yes

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Yes
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Prove it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

mbmb65 said:


> Prove it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Prove I didn't. Apparently it was 44 in Strava, it and Garmin Connect don't always agree.









Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

mbmb65 said:


> Of course they're fun. So are more powerful gas powered cycles. But that's not really the point, is it?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Funny....Straw- gas powered cycle :yawn:

I was responding to this statement--

" so the argument that it is for old farts that want to have fun is not resonating with me.

It is a cool video, but it certainly isn't selling the idea that an ebike is just for extending your range and getting into nature."

I was just saying that the Trek video of E-bikes and the Lupato Bros resonated with me.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Prove I didn't. Apparently it was 44 in Strava, it and Garmin Connect don't always agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol. What kind of "trail" allows for that kind of speed?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

life behind bars said:


> On a M.U.P.?





tuckerjt07 said:


> Yes
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


An apt demonstration of why we can't keep nice things. Those kinds of speeds on a Multiple Use Path is exactly what gets Cyclists banned, trail systems lost forever and is what we have to look forward to with motorized use on M.U.P.s.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> An apt demonstration of why we can't keep nice things. Those kinds of speeds on a Multiple Use Path is exactly what gets Cyclists banned, trail systems lost forever and is what we have to look forward to with motorized use on M.U.P.s.


Or, congratulations, you just played yourself. Outside of a race, closed course environment my top speed on that trail is barely above 20mph, not even 25mph. It's a perfect example to refute the slippery slope of people will ride too fast, just because a speed is attainable does not mean people will reach it. Thanks for helping me make that point. 

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

mbmb65 said:


> Lol. What kind of "trail" allows for that kind of speed?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Closed course, relatively straight, steep trail with trust in one's brakes.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> An apt demonstration of why we can't keep nice things. Those kinds of speeds on a Multiple Use Path is exactly what gets Cyclists banned, trail systems lost forever and is what we have to look forward to with motorized use on M.U.P.s.


one word for you: gravity. this is how such speed can be attained on any type of bike going downhill. 20mph, is the governed limit on an ebike... above that, its strenght, or gravity. stop making up stories lbb. Pic added, this is my average ride, and the one shared by my riding group.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

life behind bars said:


> On a M.U.P.?





ruthabagah said:


> one word for you: gravity. this is how such speed can be attained on any type of bike going downhill. 20mph, is the governed limit on an ebike... above that, its strenght, or gravity. stop making up stories lbb. Pic added, this is my average ride, and the one shared by my riding group.


Straw man. Has absolutely nothing to do with unreasonable speeds on M.U.P.s and the irresponsibility of those that that act so recklessly.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Straw man. Has absolutely nothing to do with unreasonable speeds on M.U.P.s and the irresponsibility of those that that act so recklessly.


It has everything to do with it. You were quick to vilify me, predictably I might add, and blame trail closures on said behavior until you realized you were set up.

The argument you are making here is a slippery slope argument based solely on the premise that just because irresponsible can be achieved that they will be wildly prevalent. You've been given real world examples that show this not to be the case so of course you try to reject them out of hand by casting them in an incorrect light. Where I live we have over 250 miles of e-bike accessible trails and the type of conflict that is used as an argument on this site has yet to happen.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Straw man.


You can't attack the fact, so you attack the one sharing them with you....


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It has everything to do with it. You were quick to vilify me, predictably I might add, and blame trail closures on said behavior until you realized you were set up.
> 
> The argument you are making here is a slippery slope argument based solely on the premise that just because irresponsible can be achieved that they will be wildly prevalent. You've been given real world examples that show this not to be the case so of course you try to reject them out of hand by casting them in an incorrect light. Where I live we have over 250 miles of e-bike accessible trails and the type of conflict that is used as an argument on this site has yet to happen.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Yeah, you were fishing, and he, unfortunately, took the bait. You're intentions are always thinly veiled. You're a troll.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

mbmb65 said:


> Yeah, you were fishing, and he, unfortunately, took the bait. You're intentions are always thinly veiled. You're a troll.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's not a troll. That's countering a troll. He's repeated the same tired slippery slope fallacy ad nauseum and he provided a perfect example to refute it with a real world example. Sometimes you just have to give people enough rope before you can get through to them.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It has everything to do with it. You were quick to vilify me, predictably I might add, and blame trail closures on said behavior until *you realized you were set up.*
> 
> The argument you are making here is a slippery slope argument based solely on the premise that just because irresponsible can be achieved that they will be wildly prevalent. You've been given real world examples that show this not to be the case so of course you try to reject them out of hand by casting them in an incorrect light. Where I live we have over 250 miles of e-bike accessible trails and the type of conflict that is used as an argument on this site has yet to happen.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


So you are purposely misleading people in an effort to make them look bad.... Bravo, very classy.


----------

