Attn: USA Members, esp. from States Considering 3-Class Law

[JimBo]

At the risk of pounding the proverbial eMTB acccess drum too loudly, here I go again, hoping to motivate you guys to get your local land managers on REAL eMTBs (not a 1000W or higher "kit," or a "chipped" or "tuned" eMoto). As they say, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."

Following is a quote from Morgan Lomelle of People for Bikes from an email correspondence about why "natural surfaces" are always excluded from ebike legislation. PFB is spearheading the nationwide effort to pass "model legislation" that classifies ebikes into three groups (emphases are mine):

"Long story short -- what goes where on trails isn't determined by any legislative bill. Mountain bike advocates always worry that if we pass a three class bill, it will lead to a blanket opening of non motorized singletrack to eMTBs, so we put that provision in there as an assurance that the three class bill only applies to bike paths, roads, things that are within the state's vehicle code. Trail use is not determined by the vehicle code. So, the model bill has that provision as an assurance. Trail designations have to go through the public lands agency (e.g. MA State Parks)."

Ride on, USA brothers, but to be able to do so legally, please get your local officials to ride on one, too!

 

[Mabman]

Serious effort underway here in Oregon since last fall to not allow the PFB/BPSA legislation and keep the laws that have been in effect here for over 20 years. This excerpt from a group email:

I have to say that now that I better understand the full potential effect of the People For Bike legal standard I would urge that People For Bikes abandon its proposed legislation in order to maintain the existing 1000 watt power output standard in Oregon law ORS 801.258, and so that what would be Class 3 bikes are not made to be illegal on bike lanes and paths.

As it stands the Oregon law requires a electric assist cutout at 20 mph. If anything I would urge e-bike advocates to attempt to raise that standard to 28mph.

It was just in October 2018 that we finally got the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department to amend its definition of bicycles to include e-bikes by incorporating our Oregon Vehicle Code definition and thereby allow e-bikes onto trails. We still need to change the rules to allow beach access for e-bikes but that will come soon as commission staff were in favor of that change.

I think it is a little paternalistic for the e-bike “major players” to impose a one size fits all law that abolishes our perfectly functional existing law and replaces it with a complex law that happens to conform to the more restrictive standards imposed in some countries in Europe."

Also the "natural surface" statute being imposed by PFB in order to pacify the mtb crowd concerned with trail access vis a vis "motorized bicycles" which under OR current law are not recognized as such but as bicycles is being questioned and proposed that if there are access issues that come to pass at that time they would be addressed and bans placed if necessary. If an agency wants to exclude eBikes then the onus will be on them to make proper identification. This makes more sense than having to have eBikers as individuals try and lobby agencies for access which will end up being costly for both sides.

Also there is a difference between bike lane and bike path in that bike lanes are part of the public road way and bike paths are not. Being proposed is that eBikes, and all bikes, should not exceed the posted speed for either public roadways or bike paths. There really is no reason not to allow 28mph type bikes if that is the ruling as they would be outside the law and subject to fine.

 

[ULEWZ]

At the risk of pounding the proverbial eMTB acccess drum too loudly, here I go again, hoping to motivate you guys to get your local land managers on REAL eMTBs (not a 1000W or higher "kit," or a "chipped" or "tuned" eMoto). As they say, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."

Following is a quote from Morgan Lomelle of People for Bikes from an email correspondence about why "natural surfaces" are always excluded from ebike legislation. PFB is spearheading the nationwide effort to pass "model legislation" that classifies ebikes into three groups (emphases are mine):

"Long story short -- what goes where on trails isn't determined by any legislative bill. Mountain bike advocates always worry that if we pass a three class bill, it will lead to a blanket opening of non motorized singletrack to eMTBs, so we put that provision in there as an assurance that the three class bill only applies to bike paths, roads, things that are within the state's vehicle code. Trail use is not determined by the vehicle code. So, the model bill has that provision as an assurance. Trail designations have to go through the public lands agency (e.g. MA State Parks)."

Ride on, USA brothers, but to be able to do so legally, please get your local officials to ride on one, too!

I see no difference between and E-mountain bike and a mountain bike. I would prefer a blanket approval that they are specifically excluding. Not going to support PFB to ride on the streets. Load of crap unless I don't understand what you wrote.

 

[JimBo]

I see no difference between and E-mountain bike and a mountain bike. I would prefer a blanket approval that they are specifically excluding. Not going to support PFB to ride on the streets. Load of crap unless I don't understand what you wrote.

Not asking you to support PFB, but rather to get your local land managers to try an eMTB before ruling them out.

 

[SquireRides]

"I think it is a little paternalistic for the e-bike “major players” to impose a one size fits all law that abolishes our perfectly functional existing law and replaces it with a complex law that happens to conform to the more restrictive standards imposed in some countries in Europe."

Perfectly functional US Law?

You can certainly argue the European model for ebikes is restrictive in terms of performance, but it does simplify the debate, the law, and access rights.

Having multiple ebike classes is enough to confuse law makers and land owners. It also means there are plenty of legally bought high-power bikes in people's possession - How do you practically limit their use in a parks? You can't or, at least, land owners would simply exclude all ebikes to avoid having to do so.

There's virtually no market for high power ebikes in Europe because they get treated as moped/motor-bikes. So it's much simpler for landowners/govt to simply permit ebike access in the same places normal bikes are permitted, because 99.999% of them are EU-standard 16mph bikes.

 

[MattyB]

Completely agree - other than maybe raising the max assistance speed to 20mph, I would not change the current EU/UK laws. For me they strike about the right balance between preserving access through sensible limits and being overly restricitive and complex to understand.

 

[SquireRides]

The max speed is a personal thing. As it creeps up, there'll be more and more sources of objections to ebikes.

Personally, EU-standard 16mph ebikes work perfectly well. They uplift. They shred single track as fast as your fastest mates. And downhill, motor assist max speed is more or less irrelevant.

As EMBN recently demonstrated, a fat freerider from Frome on a 16mph-limited ebike was able to beat a world champion XC racer on a skinny rig. That, to me, proves the EU-standard is absolutely fit for purpose.

It's only when I'm on busy roads that I wish I could get assist beyond 16mph.

 

[dirt huffer]

This is becoming so confusing.

 

[Mabman]

Although I have ridden primarily mtb's since 1980 and e bikes since 2001 it wasn't until 3 years ago that I put together my first eMTB. All my other efforts have been towards alternative personal transportation using e assist methods.

My 750w torque assist PAS eMTB is able to attain speeds up to around 25mph, which is over the legal limit of 20mph here, but if you think after riding your eMTB's that speeds like that can be achieved on technical single track then you are as daft as the ones that are afraid that they can. With the exception of skilled DH types but that is not me nor has anything to do with the assist function. But as noted if you get onto a connecting road it is an option to get up to that speed as long as the terrain warrants it. Basically although I am experienced rider I ride within my limits whether on an eBike or a push bike and work at keeping the rubber side down and my impact to the trail at the bare minimum.

My road bikes are a different story and I have much more time and miles aboard them at over legal speeds. Once again I ride within my means and don't go 28mph down the bike path knocking old ladies walking their foo foo dogs out of the way. I ride primarily for distance so I limit my wattage accordingly to my goals for the day and 90% of my ride my average speed is between 15 and 20 mph. Not saying once in awhile I don't wick it up but only if the coast is clear and the wh's not dear. Mainly I get my yah yah's on the dh sections where the combined weight gets up some pretty good speed, I have regen on my bikes and that helps to keep it in check however.

So don't confuse that the OR laws we are trying to preserve are advocating for high wattage/high speed hooliganing but are more about leaving the onus of responsibility on the end user rather than on gov't oversight brought on by the bicycle industrial complex.

 

[Brianjonesphoto]

I completely agree with the idea of getting land managers on emtbs to see how evil they aren’t. This issue I see is for those of us in areas that there are not completely open riding how do you not shoot yourself in the foot for future stealth riding once you are known to the land managers?

 

[JimBo]

I completely agree with the idea of getting land managers on emtbs to see how evil they aren’t. This issue I see is for those of us in areas that there are not completely open riding how do you not shoot yourself in the foot for future stealth riding once you are known to the land managers?

Maybe stealth is overrated? I'm certainly not a fan of the Stealth Bomber 50mph ebikes - New England MTB Ass'n cites them in their arguments for keeping ebikes off singletrack altogether!

In 2015, on one of my first emtb rides in my local state park, I came across a park ranger. This was a few months before CA passed its "model" 3-class law and I'm in MA, but I was keenly aware that ebike trail access was a potential issue.

I asked him, "Are electric bikes allowed here?" He responded, "No motorized vehicles!" I pointed out that my bike was electric, and he looked incredulously at it, laughed and said, "No way, it looks just like a bicycle!" I recited the Federal definition of "under 750w, motor governed at 20mph, and fully functional pedals" that puts ebikes in the same category as bicycles, and he told me to ride on.

Over the next couple years, I ran into him a few more times, each time offering to take him on an emtb ride to see for himself just how much it was like an acoustic bike (but way more phun). This past August, he finally took me up on it (along with an Environmental Affairs colleague). NEMBA has been bugging them (and many others) about keeping ebikes off "non-motorized" MTB trails, and they wanted to see what all the fussing was about.

The smooth, easy singletrack ride was great (with a few hills), and they loved it of course! Ironically, a cyclocross rider was zipping around at twice our speed, and when we stopped to let him pass we noticed that his skinny tires left a deep rut. Our bikes left no visible trace! I asked, "Should cyclocross/gravel bikes be banned from singletrack?"

My point being that you can opt to stay stealth and hope they don't catch you, but what does that do for your (and others') long-term ability to ride those trails if/when they do catch you? I've been riding 3+ years with more than 3k trail miles in my backyard state park, and expect to be able to continue to do so because I talked to my rangers, even took them for rides.

 

[liv2ryd]

JimBo, I like your approach and will try something similar with our local rangers and see what their response is. I'm in MA as well. We should emtb together sometime.

 

[JimBo]

JimBo, I like your approach and will try something similar with our local rangers and see what their response is. I'm in MA as well. We should emtb together sometime.

Abso-fricken-lutely! PM me your contact info?

 

[HikerDave]

Maybe stealth is overrated? I'm certainly not a fan of the Stealth Bomber 50mph ebikes - New England MTB Ass'n cites them in their arguments for keeping ebikes off singletrack altogether!

In 2015, on one of my first emtb rides in my local state park, I came across a park ranger. This was a few months before CA passed its "model" 3-class law and I'm in MA, but I was keenly aware that ebike trail access was a potential issue.

I asked him, "Are electric bikes allowed here?" He responded, "No motorized vehicles!" I pointed out that my bike was electric, and he looked incredulously at it, laughed and said, "No way, it looks just like a bicycle!" I recited the Federal definition of "under 750w, motor governed at 20mph, and fully functional pedals" that puts ebikes in the same category as bicycles, and he told me to ride on.

Over the next couple years, I ran into him a few more times, each time offering to take him on an emtb ride to see for himself just how much it was like an acoustic bike (but way more phun). This past August, he finally took me up on it (along with an Environmental Affairs colleague). NEMBA has been bugging them (and many others) about keeping ebikes off "non-motorized" MTB trails, and they wanted to see what all the fussing was about.

The smooth, easy singletrack ride was great (with a few hills), and they loved it of course! Ironically, a cyclocross rider was zipping around at twice our speed, and when we stopped to let him pass we noticed that his skinny tires left a deep rut. Our bikes left no visible trace! I asked, "Should cyclocross/gravel bikes be banned from singletrack?"

My point being that you can opt to stay stealth and hope they don't catch you, but what does that do for your (and others') long-term ability to ride those trails if/when they do catch you? I've been riding 3+ years with more than 3k trail miles in my backyard state park, and expect to be able to continue to do so because I talked to my rangers, even took them for rides.

Eventually someone will complain and force the rangers to kick you out. No harm, no foul doesn’t work in the USA, sadly.

I’m hoping the people for bikes law catches on; I aslo wish that their model legislation would clarify whether power is peak or average; IMO it should be 750 watts peak.

The ambiguity of whether the law applies to singletrack should also be clarified; in Arizona around Phoenix land managers are interpreting this as applying to dirt trails so lots of places to ride for me. I’m getting stopped about once a week by older riders who are eBike curious; many are about to buy or plan to in a few years.

An interesting approach might be tried in the BLM Shoshone district this year; reclassify a portion of the trails as mechanized / motorized where Class I eBikes are allowed. (Just as motorcycles can be allowed on trails where 4-wheelers can’t go). This approach avoids the whole question of whether eBikes are classified as motorized vehicles.

That way the horror of “but it has a motor” is avoided; the trails are motorized, provided that the motor is very small.

I’m hoping that eBike riders here in the Phoenix area ride responsibly; a few years of few or no complaints (other than those from bicycle purists out to sabotage) will pave the way for wider adoption across the country.

We’re not harming anyone or anything by riding our eMTBs.