# California leads, the rest follow.....



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

http://staging.arkleg.state.ar.us/ftproot/bills/2017R/public/HB2185.pdf

It looks like another state is signing on to the California model for ebike integration: "an electric bicycle is not a motor vehicle" and "Motorized bicycle does not include electric bicycle" :thumbsup: And they have the same three classes of ebikes too!


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Since it's the stated goal of BPSA and Peopleforbikes who provide the legislation to orgs willing to sponsor it, to introduce the same legislation in all 50 states, I expect it to be adopted everywhere eventually. It's interesting to me that they change the language slighty in each state, it's going through committee right now in Colorado as well and they've been fighting against making it clear that the legislation only applies to hard surface and natural surface bike paths, not to non motorizeed single track trails. They'll tell you that is the intent of the bill, but resist saying it in the text itself because since it's DOT legislation, it has no jurisdiction over hiking/biking singletrack. IMO, since they don't have any jurisdiction over what we all consider bike paths either, why not? 

They do acknowledge that they made a mistake in the CA legislation and say it's too vague there. This one is better. 

If they make it clear, they have my full supprt.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2017)

Here are some interesting details regarding the legal definition of electric bikes in Texas:

Section 541.201 ...
(10) "Motor-driven cycle" means a motorcycle equipped with a motor that has an engine piston displacement of 250 cubic centimeters or less. *The term does not include an electric bicycle.*
(11) "Motor vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle or a vehicle that is propelled by electric power from overhead trolley wires. *The term does not include an electric bicycle or an electric personal assistive mobility device, as defined by Section 551.201.*
...
(24) *"Electric bicycle" means a bicycle* that:
(A) *is designed to be propelled by an electric motor*, exclusively or in combination with the application of human power;
(B) cannot attain a speed of more than 20 miles per hour without the application of human power; and
(C) does not exceed a weight of 100 pounds.​
So electric bicycles are NOT motor-driven cycles nor motor vehicles but are *explicitly* bicycles. Sorry Harryman, but you are wrong here. At least in some states, state law does define an electric bicycle as a bicycle and does so intentionally.

You will also notice that Texas does not care about power output, only that the bike not exceed 20 mph on electric power alone. It cannot weigh more than 100 pounds either.

Section 551 of the Texas code governs bicycle use:

Sec. 551.002. MOPED AND ELECTRIC BICYCLE INCLUDED. *A provision of this subtitle applicable to a bicycle also applies to:*
(1) a moped, other than a provision that by its nature cannot apply to a moped; and
(2) *an electric bicycle, other than a provision that by its nature cannot apply to an electric bicycle.*​In other words, electric bikes are governed by the same rules are other bikes except where the rules cannot apply. This occurs once:

Sec. 551.105. COMPETITIVE RACING. (a) In this section, "bicycle" means a nonmotorized vehicle propelled by human power.​So electric bikes are treated the same as other bicycles except they cannot receive special considerations under organized racing conditions. What about special restrictions for electric bicycles? Here they are:

Sec. 551.106. REGULATION OF ELECTRIC BICYCLES. (a) The department or a local authority may not prohibit the use of an electric bicycle on a highway that is used primarily by motor vehicles. The department or a local authority may prohibit the use of an electric bicycle on a highway used primarily by pedestrians.
(b) The department shall establish rules for the administration of this section.​
That sounds like more restrictions than bikes until you realize that bikes can also be prohibited on sidewalks but not on roads. No change here.

An electric bike in Texas is no more "NOT a bike" than a red bike is "NOT a bike" because of its paint. Local ordinances could restrict electric bikes further but that's always the case and the point being made in these forums is state law, not local.

I'd also point out that Texas law says an electric bike "is designed to be propelled by an electric motor, exclusively or in combination with the application of human power". Since electric bike conversions use bikes that aren't designed for electric power, technically they aren't even "electric bicycles" but are simply bicycles excluded under Sec. 551.105. In Texas, a BBSHD added to an MTB is literally just a bicycle. Tough to swallow for MTBR experts, I'm sure, but true nonetheless.

I personally prefer more permissive rules and do not subscribe to the divide-and conquer strategy that people here tacitly support through their closed-mindedness. The best approach is to be inclusive whenever you can, you know like how open-minded and welcoming MTBR is to alternative points of view.

Forcing a CA-style law in Texas would not have my "full support" and, unlike Harryman, I'm informed on Texas law. I don't pretend that TX laws speak for the nation and Texas is pretty backwards with one of the most ineffective state governments in the nation, but they have it right here.

I post this not just because of the content in this thread but also in a thread closed by an overactive moderator. In that thread, Harryman said:



Harryman said:


> That's actually not true, while *the law* does state that *ebikes share many of the same allowances on use*, it defines them as electric bicycles. *If the goal was to legally classify them as bicycles it would do so*. *AFAIK, there is no legislation anywhere that legally defines an ebike as a bike[.B]. If they did, the legislation would be far simpler, it would just state something like
> 
> "Bicycle" means a vehicle propelled by human power applied to pedals or by a motor of less than 750w upon which a person may ride having two tandem wheels or two parallel wheels and one forward wheel, all of which are more than fourteen inches in diameter."
> 
> I'm using the CDOT regs from Colorado as the basis, but I'm sure in the CA DOT regs, there is a similar definition of a bicycle. If the intent was to make them bicycles, that's where the amendment would be, not one reclassifying them to not be mopeds any longer.*


*

So, Harryman, consider yourself corrected. Texas law specifically classifies electric bicycles as bicycles. The share ALL the "same allowances" as bicycles because they are bicycles. Even your example of a more permissive definition is more restrictive than what Texas has.

CA is not leading the way. it's just not in last place.*


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Isn't that just pertaining to hiway/road use, not mutli use trails off road?


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2017)

leeboh said:


> Isn't that just pertaining to hiway/road use, not mutli use trails off road?


I'll respond assuming this was addressed to me.

What I posted is what Texas provides regarding regulations on electric bicycles, no different than what others are discussing. Trail access is more complex because trails are subject to various jurisdictions. Assuming no other jurisdiction, a public trail would be governed by Texas Parks and Wildlife. Considering how they operate, it would be surprising if they have any rules, or concern, over electrified bikes at all. They don't even impose speed limits, licensing or any other regulations on boating operation! It is the case that Texas imposes no rules *generally* on bicycle access to trails nor do they differentiate between electric and conventional bicycles in that regard.

Texas Parks and Wildlife is interesting in that they empower their officers with unconstitutional authority. As a result, it's commonplace for Parks Rangers to accompany other officers on police actions of all kinds. Doing so enables the police in Texas to skirt lots of otherwise pesky rules like warrant requirements. A Ranger is about the most unpleasant officer you can experience in Texas. Parks and Wildlife does a lot of things in Texas, many not a lot having to do with parks and wildlife. 

I live in Austin which is fairly bike-friendly and aware. I see cyclists often over many years but have only encountered an ebike once EVER while riding and it was on a commute. It's just not an issue. Considering that electric bikes offer value as transportation but not especially as recreation, I don't see it ever as being a big deal. Frankly, I believe the resistance to eMTB comes from existing cyclists, not the public. Plenty of evidence of that on MTBR.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

The issues are motorized vehicles on off road trails. I think e bikes for commute, recreation and transportation are a good thing. I get Texas does LOTS of things different than many places. Here in the crowded east( Mass) there are less trails, space and far more people than say the mid west or far west. No motorized vehicles allowed on multi use off road trails( for the most part) in MA. That includes e bikes.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2017)

leeboh said:


> The issues are motorized vehicles on off road trails.


Those may be your issues but they are not the subject of thread I was responding to. Furthermore, in Texas they aren't issues at all because e-bikes aren't motorized vehicles.



leeboh said:


> I get Texas does LOTS of things different than many places.


Does it though? In this regard I doubt it but I appreciate your attempt to marginalize the news. You'd most likely feel better not knowing.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Didn't they just pass a law about open container in cars( sorry lifted f 150's)? CC laws. Open carry? etc. It's DOT legislation, as mentioned before. And has everything to do with on road regulations vs off road access. On the MT bike forums.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Man, you _*know*_ it's a stretch when you have to use more than 1000 words to "prove" that a vehicle propelled by an electric motor is actually a bicycle.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> Man, you _*know*_ it's a stretch when you have to use more than 1000 words to "prove" that a vehicle propelled by an electric motor is actually a bicycle.


 Still, they got there in the end and that's what matters........ In a few years as state after state enacts laws like this one, once ebikes become common on bike paths and in bike lanes, people will begin to wonder why they can't ride their legal bicycle (Class 1 or 2) on a dirt MUT too........


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

craigsj said:


> Here are some interesting details regarding the legal definition of electric bikes in Texas:
> 
> Section 541.201 ...
> (10) "Motor-driven cycle" means a motorcycle equipped with a motor that has an engine piston displacement of 250 cubic centimeters or less. *The term does not include an electric bicycle.*
> ...


I still read your regs as "Separate, but equal" like in other states. Texas defines that an ebike is an "electric bicycle", that is is not a motor vehicle and is governed by the same regs as bicycles.

This is the definition of a bicycle in TX:

"(2) "Bicycle" means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter."

TRANSPORTATION CODE CHAPTER 541. DEFINITIONS

My point was and still is, I don't know of anywhere that says the bicycles and ebikes are legally one and the same vehicle as is often claimed. They can and are often be treated the same, but they retain their individual classification. There certainly could be legislation like that out there that I don't know about, it seems simpler to change the definition of a bicycle to include it having a motor if that was the goal.

"Motor vehicle" and "motorized vehicles" are not always interchangable terms. Motor vehicle is a legal classification in DOT law, motorized vehicle is a common description of a vehicle with a motor. So while ebikes are not motor vehicles, some places consider ebikes a motorized vehicle, some do not.

The legislation states where it applies:

Sec. 551.001. PERSONS AFFECTED. Except as provided by Subchapter C, this chapter applies only to a person operating a bicycle on:
(1) a highway; or
(2) a path set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2017)

Harryman said:


> I still read your regs as "Separate, but equal" like in other states. Texas defines that an ebike is an "electric bicycle", that is is not a motor vehicle and is governed by the same regs as bicycles.


Yes, and Texas defines an "electric bicycle" as:

(24) "Electric bicycle" means a bicycle that:
(A) is designed to be propelled by an electric motor, exclusively or in combination with the application of human power;
(B) cannot attain a speed of more than 20 miles per hour without the application of human power; and
(C) does not exceed a weight of 100 pounds.​
Stated more simply, ""Electric bicycle means a bicycle" with additional restrictions A-C. No "separate but equal", it's plain English.



Harryman said:


> My point was and still is, I don't know of anywhere that says the bicycles and ebikes are legally one and the same vehicle as is often claimed.


Are red and blue cars "legally one and the same vehicle"? Why choose such sloppy and ultimately useless language? Electric bicycles are a subset of bicycles in Texas, not a unique, separate type of vehicle. This is not controversial or subject to your personal interpretation. It's very clear.

Consider a full suspension MTB. Is it a separate vehicle type because it has a more suspension than other MTBs? Of course not. It's just an MTB with more moving parts.

Of course, Texas has given e-bikes have a unique name. They can't talk about what they are any other way and there is a definite risk, otherwise, that people will take it on their own to make stuff up about them, kinda like here.

Now, to make all this abundantly clear, I quoted 551.105 and will quote it again:

Sec. 551.105. COMPETITIVE RACING. (a) In this section, "bicycle" means a nonmotorized vehicle propelled by human power.​
If what you say is true then there would be no need add the extra "In this section, "bicycle" means a nonmotorized vehicle propelled by human power" because, according to you, bicycles cannot be any other way. Texas added this language so that you would understand they were speaking of bicycles with only human power, as opposed to bicycles with motors which also exist in Texas law.



Harryman said:


> They can and are often be treated the same, but they retain their individual classification. There certainly could be legislation like that out there that I don't know about, it seems simpler to change the definition of a bicycle to include it having a motor if that was the goal.


Why does it matter what "seems simpler" to you? The language is plain for all to see. They defined an electric bike in terms of a bike, then they said they were to be treated as the same except where they specifically could not be. It's not complex and has the virtue of both retaining current understanding of bikes AND stating that electric ones are still bikes and are not to be treated differently.



Harryman said:


> The legislation states where it applies:
> 
> Sec. 551.001. PERSONS AFFECTED. Except as provided by Subchapter C, this chapter applies only to a person operating a bicycle on:
> (1) a highway; or
> (2) a path set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles.


Yes, that's because they are talking about "RULES OF THE ROAD".

Have you considered that, perhaps, you may be simply wrong in assuming that the other 48 states aren't the same as CA and CO?


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

I am seeing that park mangers are for now taking a wait n see its a gray area now, I came across 4 diff e bikers on park trails during my recent Fl trip . None seem to think it was a big deal , I was how ever stopped by a local rider with a club jersey on when riding at Santos he told me I couldn't ride . I just smiled and rode on I hope he wasn't too upset , unless there is a sigh that says no E bikes its a gray matter at worst . Clubs are very sensitive about e bikes but it is park land just be aware if you ride a e bike on a trail be on your best behaver which you should be anyway .


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

^^^ Maybe you should look up park rules first?


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

I am working to help you and others to better understand there is nothing to fear from e bikes on your trail , you should be encouraging there use maybe not for you but for others .


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

No motorized vehicles allowed for the most part in MA. On mutli use, off road trails.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Those are for ATVs and such in most case, and in states were the law has been changed to e bikes are the same as a reg bike and can use the bike pathways so is a Mt bike trail in a city park a pathway ? the debate will continue . And if I may ask you this if e bikes were allowed on your trail how would this affect you??? would it take a way from your enjoyment? if so how?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

The law here clearly states that a motorized vehicle( wait for it) has a motor. This has nothing to do with DOT or road specs for a bicycle. Also an off road trail is not considered a bike path. It's not up to me to change the law. Where does the slippery slope stop? 259, 750, 2,000 watts? 4,000 watts? How to tell by looking? Can you? After market controller mods, fake stickers already out there. Genuine concerns about getting ALL the trails shut down to bikes, E or not. Not going to promote them at all. Ever.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Look, I've said this before - but trying to make a narrow legal argument that e-bikes are ok on singletrack because of this kind of law MAKES E-BIKE PROPONENTS LOOK BAD. You should NOT be trying exploit a potential loophole in a law that clearly wasn't written with mountain bike trails in mind - you should be making arguments about controlling speed and power so that you don't give mountain biking a black eye and cause us all to lose access to trails.

These laws, I think we can all agree, are a GREAT THING for e-bikes as transportation - they will potentially save carbon emissions, cut down on gridlock/traffic, and get people outside getting at least some exercise. If enough people start riding them, it will help promote better cycling infrastructure all over the country. It's a win all around.

But be honest and don't try to use these laws to promote using e-bikes for recreation on mountain bike trails. Mopeds don't need a license plate or registration/insurance in many places either, and can be legally driven in the bike lane - raise your hand if you want 50cc mopeds on your local trails? I thought so...

-Walt


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

raise your hand if you want 50cc mopeds on your local trails? I thought so...
???? what? relax a little e bikes are useing the trails now almost every were a few here n ther whats been hurt? new laws are bening written and old laws changed . If you are woried about Mt bikers getting a black eye the next time you see Mr Mt biker god fly past a hiker on your trail on park land mabey you should say something about that?.The next time you meet some horse ppl out riding ask them about your fellow Mt bikers I have a video clip from last week at the Land Bridge in FL with how a e biker interacts with a group of horse riders .


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

It's more than a tiny bit ironic that one of the biggest fears that MTBers have about ebikes is that they will be ridden in the same manner as MTBs and cause trails to be shut down.......


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rider95 said:


> Those are for ATVs and such in most case,


All New England states consider e-bikes to be OHV's when it comes to trail access. 
So do most other states, but people keep trying to conflate highway rules with trail access. No matter how many long-winded semantic gymnastic sessions people trot out, it doesn't change the fact that these rules have no bearing on access to actual MTB trails.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> It's more than a tiny bit ironic that one of the biggest fears that MTBers have about ebikes is that they will be ridden in the same manner as MTBs and cause trails to be shut down.......


 Because e bikes don't have more power or go any faster, especially uphill.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Yep just ask some horse ppl I was riding came across a group of horse,s I went to stop and my brakes let out a scream like a banshee in heat I was soo embarrassed lol I appoigazed too him said I was sorry . The look on his face went from pissed to surprise to friendly guess he,s not used to mt bikers being nice , as told to me the Mt bikers just go flying by . E bikes don't need to carry speed nope! easy to get going and to stop so why not stop and chat? at least the horse ppl like us lol


----------



## mrfat (Jan 21, 2014)

Definitely noticing more e-bikes on CA trails. In the past 2 weeks I've seen over 2 dozen "e-riders" a I call them. Couple groups of 4-6 riders but mostly just a pair of riders. A lot of novice riders too which is the most concerning. They lack proper trail etiquette. Just pass by people without saying a word and startling half the people they approach from behind. Doesn't help that they are passing people at 15mph or more either. I think this rapid proliferation of e-bikes here is going to result in some trail rule changes. Or perhaps they appropriate authorities will actually start monitoring trails and issues citations for exceeding the speed limit or endangering the safety of others.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

rider95 said:


> at least the horse ppl like us lol


Not in Marin and many other places, they are lumping you in with mountain bikes and saying now they are coming up hill at 20, they are bad for access.


----------



## dman_mb1 (Jan 19, 2007)

craigsj said:


> Frankly, I believe the resistance to eMTB comes from existing cyclists, not the public. Plenty of evidence of that on MTBR.


This ^^


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Not in Marin and many other places, they are lumping you in with mountain bikes and saying now they are coming up hill at 20, they are bad for access.


Get off your bike and take your helmet off and say a friendly hello that will do more good then blaming a e biker that hasn't ever road that trail .


----------



## Whiptastic (Mar 14, 2016)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't horse riders have the right of way over all bicycle riders? I was taught to stop for all horses, so you don't startle them and get the rider thrown off the horse. I've only come across a few so far on mutli-use trails, for which I stopped and made sure their horse was okay with my bicycle. Sometimes I ask them if their horse is okay with bikes. If they say yes, then I slowly ride by without a full stop.

Just for clarification, is there a printed trail rules book for California that I can read? So far I've just let more experienced riders teach me, but I haven't followed up on if what they say is correct yet.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Yes you should stop for horse,s and with hikers I always give a friendly hello to let them know I am There , if you are riding in a group say 3 more coming or what ever the number of riders I say just me! as I slowy pass . Up hill riders have the rt of way,


----------



## ghoti (Mar 23, 2011)

Whiptastic said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't horse riders have the right of way over all bicycle riders? I was taught to stop for all horses, so you don't startle them and get the rider thrown off the horse. I've only come across a few so far on mutli-use trails, for which I stopped and made sure their horse was okay with my bicycle. Sometimes I ask them if their horse is okay with bikes. If they say yes, then I slowly ride by without a full stop.
> 
> Just for clarification, is there a printed trail rules book for California that I can read? So far I've just let more experienced riders teach me, but I haven't followed up on if what they say is correct yet.


Apparently horses have the supreme right of way and everyone needs to yield to them. My issue is if we're heading in the same direction and I need to overtake them. A lot of horseback riders are very resistant to any such overtaking whatsoever. I'll try to shout at them from 10-15 yards and wait to see what they do. Hopefully they stop and you can pass by at a slow speed. But some horses are skittish and the rider needs to get the horse to face you in order to pass safely. This can be problematic on a tight single track trail. Some horses get spooked by the hub free wheeling so you either have to pedal by or walk your bike with the rear wheel in the air.

There really isn't any absolute ruleset though most trailheads will usually have some sort posted. Unfortunately a lot of people don't bother to heed them so it's up to you to be ready to announce your presence, yield regardless of any right of way, and pass a slow/safe speed if possible.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Whiptastic said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't horse riders have the right of way over all bicycle riders? I was taught to stop for all horses, so you don't startle them and get the rider thrown off the horse. I've only come across a few so far on mutli-use trails, for which I stopped and made sure their horse was okay with my bicycle. Sometimes I ask them if their horse is okay with bikes. If they say yes, then I slowly ride by without a full stop.
> 
> Just for clarification, is there a printed trail rules book for California that I can read? So far I've just let more experienced riders teach me, but I haven't followed up on if what they say is correct yet.


This is usually the sign you will see at any managed trail system that is Multi-use.


----------

