Interior Secretary David Bernhardt late Thursday issued an order to allow eBikes to use the same trails in the National Park System that are open to muscle-powered mechanical bikes.
"E-bikes shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed; and E-bikes shall not be allowed where other types of bicycles are prohibited," read the order, released Thursday evening in Washington, D.C.
In issuing the order (attached below), Bernhardt said the decision "simplifies and unifies regulation of electric bicycles (e-bikes) on Federal lands managed by the Department and also decreases regulatory burden."
The policy change came without public disclosure and without an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposal before it is implemented, moves that appear in conflict with the Code of Federal Regulations. The secretarial order calls for the policy to be adopted "unless otherwise prohibited by law or regulation" within two weeks. It also calls for public comment, after the fact, some time in the future.
Secretary Bernhardt's order adds that within 30 days of the order agencies within the department should "provide appropriate public guidance regarding the use of e-bikes on public lands within units of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, lands managed by BLM, and lands managed by (Bureau of Reclamation)."
At the National Parks Conservation Association, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Kristen Brengel told the Traveler on Wednesday that implementing a change in where motorized vehicles, including eBikes, can go in the park system requires the Park Service to embark on a rulemaking process, as required under 36 CFR 1.5.
Except in emergency situations, a closure, designation, use or activity restriction or condition, or the termination or relaxation of such, which is of a nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the park area, adversely affect the park’s natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values, require a long-term or significant modification in the resource management objectives of the unit, or is of a highly controversial nature, shall be published as rulemaking in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
"If eBikes are to be used on trails already designated for bikes, that is completely contrary to the Park Service’s current policy," said Brengel, adding that a change in policy should be formally reviewed to ensure there are no conflicts with existing user groups.
“How does this affect the rest of the public visiting a park? We want to make sure everyone has a great experience," she added. “What does (an eBike) do to everyone else’s experience there? That’s why there needs to be a rulemaking and public comment. Depending on what this policy says, it could be completely violating the Park Service’s own regulations and policies.”
National Park Service staff in Washington, D.C., could not immediately be reached Thursday evening to say what process the agency would follow in opening trails to eBikes.
After the order was released Thursday, Brengel said that "(T)he Interior Department is rushing guidance on a use they haven’t properly evaluated for potential impacts to park natural and cultural resources, visitors or wildlife. Sadly, this new policy was created behind closed doors and with no public involvement. E-bikes have a place on national parks’ roads and motorized trails. But this announcement disregards well-established policies for how visitors can enjoyably and safely experience the backcountry in national parks."
The suddenly hot-button topic of where eBikes could travel in the National Park System arose this summer out of Acadia National Park, where staff made the decision that the motorized bikes couldn't travel the park's iconic carriage roads. Fines for those caught on the roads start at $130, according to the park's website.
Reaction to that decision drew dozens of comments to a Traveler article, and opposition to allowing eBikes on non-motorized trails in the federal lands system came from dozens of conservation groups, who fear permitting the motorized bikes on those trails will create a "slippery slope" that will lead to future problems with managing those trails.
Bernhardt referred to the controversy in his order.
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. The possibility that in some cases e-bikes can be propelled solely through power provided by the electric motor, a function often used in short duration by older or disabled riders as an assist, has contributed to confusion about e-bike classification. Further, Federal regulation has not been consistent across the Department and has served to decrease access to Federally owned lands by e-bike riders.
According to NPCA, so far Arches and Canyonlands national parks in Utah specifically ban eBikes from trails in the parks that are open to bicycles. Additionally, the park advocacy group notes that:
To designate a Park Service trail as appropriate for e-bikes and other kinds of motorized vehicles, a superintendent would need to evaluate the suitability of the trail and the costs involved, conduct an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement evaluating potential harm to the trail, allow a public comment period, and show that the use of the vehicle is appropriate using the agency’s five criteria for “appropriate use”:
Consistency with applicable laws, regulations and policies
Consistency with existing park plans for public use and resource management
The actual and potential effects on park resources and values
The total costs to the Park Service
Whether the public interest will be served
There are three "classes" of eBikes:
* Class 1: eBikes that are pedal-assist only, with no throttle, and have a maximum assisted speed of 20 mph.
* Class 2: eBikes that also have a maximum speed of 20 mph, but are throttle-assisted.
* Class 3: eBikes that are pedal-assist only, with no throttle, and a maximum assisted speed of 28 mph.
"Class 2 may not be suitable for singletrack mountainbike trails - it has been shown that they pose greater physical damage to trails due to the throttle-actuation," writes eBike manufacturer Bosch on its website. "Class 2 may be better suited for multi-use OHV trails designed for more rugged off-road vehicles.
"Class 3 eBikes are typically allowed on roads and on-road bike lanes (“curb to curb” infrastructure), but restricted from bike trails and multiuse paths. While a 20-mph maximum speed is achievable on a traditional bicycle, decision makers and agencies consider the greater top-assisted speed of a Class 3 eBike too fast for most bike paths and trails that are often shared with other trail users."
In his order, the Interior secretary didn't differentiate between the three classes, and directed the Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to "exempt all e-bikes ... from the definition of motor vehicles."
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Due to the article in NPT, during my recent travels to numerous CA, OR & WA parks, I gave this due consideration. Mixed use bicycle and pedestrian paths are dangerous enough without adding any propelling device. Changes as suggested will open rental companies to pressing the limits of the motors and throttling. The simplest and safest solution is to maintain these paths as non-mechanical only. At Yosemite I was required to walk from the parking lot on mixed use paths. I do not believe "real bicyclists" used them, but people on rental bikes who did not appear to be 'good bikers' used them. While I was trying to dodge groups of pedestrians who covered the width of walkways, the bicycles created a definite hazard. On non-paved paths, I feel they will damage the areas more than appropriate. While I attempt to support most Administration policies, this is definitely inappropriate and needs to go through due process.
In my travels over 30 states last year I found many "real bicyclists" to be rude and not paying much attention to posted rules., especially speed limits, they were extremely dangerous to share any path with. If you were on a paved bike path and were going down hill, look out because they are flying by, easily hitting 30 - 40 mph. Many seemed to act like they owned the paths, it was often that they would make inconsiderate remarks to ebike riders. Where on the other hand I found "ebike bicyclists" to be kind and considerate to the rules. Ebike riders are very stable in my experience in well over 100 mixed trails nationwide. I came upon many rental bike riders and not once see someone that was dangerous or unstable. I did not travel on national park trails because I knew ebikes were not allowed. My wife is a triathlete, until ebikes came into play, I didnt participate with her riding. Now I can enjoy the day with her. I happen to be in favor of not allowing ebikes on single track trails, I do believe they would be unsafe to other riders. Ebikes are well over 40lbs, they just don't belong on the single track trails. Your high end ebikes are being designed for single track riders, not sure why.
Class 1 and 2 ebikes are the same as regular bikes. Try one. The real terror on trails are the gravel speed bikes, not ebikes.
Mark, unless you have personally ridden an e-bike, don't judge. They are no different than a regular bike. All bike riders should adhere to speed limits and rules. Many people who rent are clueless or careless, as I see this on Lake Tahoe with boat rentals. Don't blame the boat, it's the operator... and that applies to everything in life. I do think multiuse paths should be large enough to handle all types of traffic. Yosemite is a place I avoid during the busy season because it's a mess, regardless. But please keep in mind, no bicycle is allowed on backcountry trails in National Parks, regardless of type.
I have been using my e-bike to get me places I wouldn’t otherwise be able to go. I am disabled and have multiple issues with my back and knees and hips and feet that limit my mobility. I personally just use pedal assist and keep it at about 15mph. Withoutmy e-bike I wouldn’t be able to go the places I go or see the things I see. I do hope that more places allow e-Bikes.
I am a senior and ride a class 2 ebike. My bike use is no different than a person with a traditional bicycle, except I have assistance as needed. Excluding ebikes is like restricting highways only to vehicles that cannot go over the speed limit....the issue is the rider /driver obeying rules of the road or being fined. Most ebike owners are seniors or have some limitations/disabilities that prevent or limit them from using traditional bicycles. I had not been able to ride a bicycle for 50 years before I got my ebike. I am a taxpayer who wishes to enjoy the parks like everyone else. Please consider looking at each situation. Perhaps all bicycle riders should walk their bikes where there is heavy pedestrian traffic. Simple rules for everyone makes much more sense...Hoping to enjoy the parks!
Access to trails and more remote areas shoudl not be limited to only the young and super-fit. E-Bikes provide those of us with a lower level of fitness to enjoy more areas.
Irrational, overreaching policies by a few Park superintendents have caused this ruling to be made. Arcadia was given as an example, but Arches and Canyonlands are much worse.
There are zero "trails" in Arches or Canyonlands where bicycles are allowed. The only "trails" where bikes are allowed are actually Jeep roads like White Rim, Elephant Hill, Confluence Overlook, and Turret Arch. Despite the fact that Jeeps and motorcycles are ALLOWED on these roads, the Arches and Canyonlands park administration banned Class 1 ebikes! Silly kneejerk blanket bans like this are why people get mad at Park policies.
I have been a mountain bike enthusiast since their inception in the 1980's, and now that I am approaching the magic number 60, I find myself slowing down a bit on the single track trails. Late last year I purchased a pedal-assist mountain bike to supplement my hardtail on the more extreme treks. Since its purchase, I have received nothing but positive feedback from my fellow cyclists, both e-powered and non-powered.
I equate the uproar on electrified bikes to the implementation of snowboards onto ski slopes in the 1970's. Initial skepticism gave way to acceptance rather quickly, and since then both parties tend to cohabitate well.
Are there going to be Mountain-Dew drinking ebikers taking advantage of the situation by riding elecrified bikes like motocross racers? Absolutely. Of course, the traditional cyclists tend to ignore that a subsection of the non-motorized cycling group can be just as rude and selfish. Every group has their outcasts.
The type of cycling equipment you choose to implement does not regulate the attitude or courtesy-level of the operator.
Well said sir
Well said!
Why don't we just pave over everything. That way people can go anywhere everywhere all the time however they want. Foot, e-bike, car, 18-wheeler, tank.
This is a ludicrous short-sighted unresearched unscientific policy. Unfortunately that's nothing new for this administration.
I apologize for sounding cynical, but something doesn’t add up here. The posted comments are straight out of the e-bike trade association’s handbook. Why so many “pro” e-bike opinions on a website that serves a predominately conservation-oriented audience? The e-bike trade associations have proven how powerful they are with the release of Order Number 3376 and their public relations efforts are just as strong. This is the new world of “open and honest dialogue.”
I consider myself an environmentalist, I drive a Prius and I don't eat meat. I've been riding regular mtbikes for almost 25 years across the planet and built/helped building miles and miles of trails. With this said, those who make one bundle of the pedal-assisted bikes and the self-propelled bikes are either blantly ignorant or in bad faith. Safety on the trails has nothing to do with how the climb was made easier: light frames and components, rear gears up to 52 teeth or a small electric engine that only works when pedaling). Most of ebikes actually act as brake engine when going down, I can assure I'm much faster and dangerous on my regular mtb. Erosion is also less with an ebike and I could go on. The main thing is the education of the rider in general. Why not introduce a "trail riding license" for ALL bikers?
I am 61 yrs old and ride an ebikes, I am all for it, but let's put speed limits on the trails for all bikes.
It should be noted for those who insist that a change in policy must only be done after thorough risk assessments and public comment, that no such assessments or public comments were performed when e-bikes were banned in the first place. Furthermore, efforts were made long ago to understand what reasonably constitutes an electic assist bicycle that doesn't fundamentally change the nature of the bike, and these results were ignored when e-bikes were banned in the first place. The enemy here are the people who have fraudulently argued against e-bikes when due diligence had already been done.
Like many individuals on this site, I am an avid rider of both my full suspension mountain bike and my E-Bike (Class 1). As I am approaching 60 and knees are in decline, the E-Bike has given me health benefits as I stay "in the saddle" for much longer periods of time. The biggest benefit for me has been the long climbs on the trails I ride. For descents, most of us simply turn the E-bike motor OFF and it is up to your skills like any other rider to avoid injury and enjoy the trail on the way down. Although the bike is heavy, my 29 inch tires leave no more of a depression than any other bike. It really comes down to who is riding responsibily or not. In my 25 years of biking, I have seen damage to trails created by riders on normal bikes way before this E-bike issue came up.
While I see both sides of the issue, most riders are curious and fascinated by my E-bike and ask questions, which leads me to invite them to give mine a test ride. Being respectful of others and staying on marked trails should always be the standard no matter what kind, make or class your bike is. While I stay off trails run by BLM, I do hope one day I can wakeup in the morning and have to make a decision about which bike I should take out and enjoy.
I'm thrilled to hear about this! My Class1 e-bike got me back riding again after 5 years out of the saddle. I now enjoy riding with my 7 yr old daughter and we both love the park system and we cycle and camp regularly. Please keep the parks open to e-bikes.
We just returned from Tetons National Park. We rode our eBikes on the beauiful bike path from Jackson Hole to Jenny Lake. We were told by a volunteer ranger that we were not supposed to be on the bike path, we were supposed to be on the two lane road with all of the large RV’s going 50 mph. Many of those RV’s being rented by people who had no idea what they were doing. To make matters worse there was very limited shoulder space, between 6 inches and maybe 2 feet wide in spots, for bikes. No thanks. Give me the ticket. I would rather pay that instead of being road kill. Let us be on bike paths, you just might save a life. Keep us off single track trails, you definitely will save a life. By the way, I have never seen bikes or dogs allowed on any hiking trail in National Parks.
I applaud the decision to allow ebikes on trails already designated for bikes, on any trail surface, dirt or paved. I put 2500 miles on mine over the past 5 months.
I am 59 and both my knees are new. Cycling is a preferred exercise after surgery. I was an avid mountain biker until arthritis set in and took over. I recently purchased a class 2 ebike. I have my life back. This bike assists me just enough to be able to get the excercise I need and enjoy our beautiful parks! I have been traveling National and State Parks in CA and NV The past few months just to get to experience them on my bike. I was so disheartened to discover the lack of knowledge and understanding regarding modern ebikes. Responsibly ridden, Ebikes are not the enemy. Thank you for this new and reseaonable law. For any of you doubters, take a test ride on one or flag me down and I’ll happily let you try mine to see we are not a danger.
I think the main issue, T. Clark and other eBike users, is the decision that a "motorized vehicle" can travel on trails where they long have been banned. There's a concern that it's an erosion of what are allowable uses in the parks. The fact that DOI issued this new policy without any proper rulemaking process is also of concern.
Thank you Interior Secretary for permitting the use of ebikes on our National Parks bike trails. Ebikes have opened the door for more citizens to enjoy trails & paths throughout our Parks. i believe they are no more dangerous than any other bicycle. It’s about the responsibility of the rider and respect for others on the trails.
Its interesting all the comments are "pro" E-bike. I do not think e-bikes should be allowed--they are mechancial !! Yes you are with the cars and trucks and RV's on paved roads and paths. Regular bikes do enough damage to trails, we don't need ones with motors. I've seen enough bikes flying down the trail--almost out of control and running over people and into horses. Yes I've worked with people on trails who ride bikes but people with E-bikes stating the can't hike and pedal a regular bike shopuld not be on trails because they would never help to improve trails. Trails that bikes ride get rounded out and you can't hike the trail. I say NO E-BIKES ON TRAILS!!!!!!!!!
Wow! I'm an ebike advocate but I never expected a change like this within my lifetime. What I have learned is that most anti-ebike arguments are just that; arguments. Fearmongering, in fact. There is no evidence to substantiate the ebike opposition. Like other commenters here, I agree that what is important are rider behavior and responsibility. This is true for all people in our parks, regardless of how they choose to visit and explore them. More ebikes are better than more cars!
One has to pedal very hard to reach the top maximum speed of 20 miles an hour on a class 1 ebike.
Most of the anti-ebike comments seem to indicate a closed mind towards learning the facts about an ebike, or an elitist attitude about who should get to enjoy the park bike trails.
I'm not sure, however, that class 2 ebikes with the throttles should be included since those can be powered without pedaling.
I don't think the issue here is whether or not e-bikes should now be allowed where traditional bikes are permitted; rather the issue is whether the decision should be made behind closed doors with no public comment. The decision was made contrary to federal rules a sets a precedent, whether you favor e-bikes in these places or not.
May I ask which federal rules were followed when ebikes were initially not allowed?
If you have not ridden a class 1 e-mtb on a trail that allows them you should. They do not cause any more damage than an acoustic mtb. I have seen many "fit", "young", mtb riders that do cause damage by their ridding techniques, locking up the brakes, sliding around corners, etc. It is the rider not the bike that is the issue. I am 59 and my e-mtb allows me to cover more distance than I can on my regular mtb. I am in pretty good shape but with my e-mtb I ride more because I can climb mountains I normally would have to take several breaks to catch my breath. This allows me to have more fun because I get to enjoy more downhill runs.
.
"Class 2 may not be suitable for singletrack mountainbike trails - it has been shown that they pose greater physical damage to trails due to the throttle-actuation," writes eBike manufacturer Bosch on its website. "Class 2 may be better suited for multi-use OHV trails designed for more rugged off-road vehicles." This comment is completely false and obviously biased becasue Bosch is biased against "throttle assist" ebikes. In reality, Class 2 ebikes are pedal assist + throttle, both limited to 20 mph. Using throttle only will deplete your battery quickly and is rarely used in that capacity. It is very helpful for older folks or those with knee issues to get momentum after a complete stop before engaging in the pedal assist feature. National Parks are allowing ALL ebike classifications. And if you are really concerned about trail safety, a speed limit should be implemented on all trails because the ones who are really tearing them up are the speed freaks, regardless of bicycle type! NO bicycle should be restricted to OHV trails as they are in no way similar to a gasoline powered vehicle or motorcycle. Please do some research before being swayed by some manufacturer!! Class 2 are inexpensive compared to the fancy mid-drive Bosch Class 1 ebikes and retired people like me can't afford that luxury.
https://sierratrails.org/understanding-e-bikes-and-what-they-mean-to-los...
I've been a mountain bike enthusiast for over 10 years. I recently purchased a Class 1 mountain bike because of physical limitations after healing from being hit from behind and run over on my motorcycle. I am more than willing to assist in maintaining the local Washington state single track trails that I ride. I also believe that I'm a courteous rider and enjoy sharing the trails with other mountain bikers. I of course favor the recent DOI order 3376 and British Columbia's BC Parks (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-parks-ebike-policy-1....) and Recreation Sites and Trails (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/sports-recreation-arts-and-culture/out...) policies that allow Class 1 ebikes on single track trails. I'm hoping that the recently passed Washington state ebike legislation gets revioked or modified to allow at least Class 1 ebikes on natural surface trails.
"Very much in favor of this decision." My feeling as both an avid hiker and eBiker is that where its appropriate for bicycles its no less appropriate for an eBike.
Definition of an eBike is established by federal legeslation, and as such it includes only class 1 in CA code. Pedal Assist less than 20 MPH no throttle, small motor.... class 2 and 3 are ebikes at the state level, but not in the jurisdicitons subject to federal gov't rules, but I think eventually they will get there too.
The effective difference of an eBike is a few pounds of extra weight, and a slighly higher speed when climbing hills. Thus its a bicycle.
FYI if you look up the federal code, its very explicit when it defines what an ebike is, and that it defines it as a bicycle and specifically not a motorized vehicle. But allows states and other agencies to regulate use of bicycles and ebikes as necessary.
I never understood the legal validity of the national parks position that an eBike was a motorized vehicle since it seemed specifically at odds with the federal code.
Which is not to say that they don't have the responsiblity to regulate as necessary, but they don't have a right to call a bicycle, ebike a motorized vehicle when the federal law specifically states that it is not.
I think when ebikes first came out there was a lot of fear about them, people didn't understand what they were. Now that they're becoming more common people have less fear and are more accepting. I've put just over 7K miles on my hardtail bike in the past 2 years.
What's the definition? The only thing I could find was a regulation made by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (and a law that seems to mirror the regulation) that allowed it to regulate "low speed electric bicycles" but didn't otherwise specify that any other federal agency was bound to accept them as they would a human powered bicycle.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2003-02-12/html/03-3423.htm
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html/USCODE-2011...
My e-bike enables me to ride as I did 10 years ago. I was no problem then and I was allowed on the trails.
As defined by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, E-bikes are “pedal-assist” meaning the rider must be pedaling for the electric motor to engage.The experience is entirely different from riding a gas scooter or motorbike. The electric assistance is perfectly smooth and SILENT, and complements rather than supplants human power. The bicycle’s low-speed electric motor provides a boost of power to climb hills, extend the range of trips, or allow users to bike more often and farther. Low-speed e-bikes are as safe and sturdy as traditional bicycles and move at speeds similar to conventional bikes.
Various studies show very little difference in the average travel speeds and average top speeds for e-bikes versus traditional bikes. “With few exceptions, riders of e-bikes behave very similarly to riders of bicycles.” Also, electric bikes open up cycling to a whole slew of people who would otherwise be driving a car. It's wrong for cyclists to assume that anyone can ride a bike. Many people find it impractical or impossible because of hills, distance, health reasons, knee problems, or aging. E-bikes suddenly make biking a whole lot more accessible to the 98% of our population who aren't cyclists.
E-bikes are emissions-free, low impact and operate silently. E-bikes resemble traditional bicycles in both appearance and operation and do NOT function similarly to mopeds, scooters and other motorized vehicles. E-bikes are a cost-effective and environmentally friendly transportation option. I’m not sure how riding my E-bike on a trail will “have potential harm to wildlife” any more than a traditional bike will, or what the “long-term, harmful consequences” might be. By implying allowing e-bikes on trails and suggesting that users of e-bikes will lead to future problems with managing those trails, is simply ludicrous.
Janice et al eBike proponents, some things to keep in mind during this period of reviewing where eBikes can go in the National Park System:
* eBikes, by their very definition, are motorized. There are NPS regulations against allowing motorized vehicles on trails;
* In his directive, Interior Secretary Bernhardt did not say only Class 1 eBikes would be allowed; he left it open to all three classes of eBikes;
* There have been reports of increasing injuries, and even some fatalities, related to eBikes:
Also:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/14/e-bike-crash-death-prompts-debate-over-safety-on-uk-roads
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145751830174X
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-bicylist-critical-after-striking-pedestrian-central-park-20190827-3sfdl2zvqbehtoungcbqeptzhq-story.html
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/road-deaths-and-injuries_serious-e-bike-injuries-increase-by-more-than-a-third/44874308
https://azdailysun.com/news/council-pedals-toward-more-stringent-regulat...
The issues highlighted in the above-cited study and news stories are why the NPS needs to proceed carefully in evaluating the use of eBikes on trails. This is not to say accidents only happen to eBike users. It simply underscores why the proper evaluation called for by federal regulations needs to be done, whether the topic is expanded access for eBikes, mountain bikes, scooters, or even equestrians.
I'm certainly not anti-bicycle nor anti-eBike, but they have their purpose. The regulations around eBikes are really about regulating their safety. They're not specifically treated as motorcycles where they would have been regulated by the Dept of Transportation and subject to FMVSS rules. However, that doesn't make them the same as human-only powered bicycles. That's the same reason why the powered toy cars aren't regulated as motor vehicles. It's simply not relevant to the discussion of NPS policies.
Kurt, it would be interesting to see those statistics in the context of similar studies for standard bikes. Tough to make a judgement when we don't know if they are worse or better than the manual counterpart.
This is great news for all mountain e-bikers. There are many miles of trails and plenty of room for hikers and bikers in Utah. I would encourage all e- bikers to be courteous on the trail the so we don’t loose this great privilge.
The results of one of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle's recent surveys of local Bozeman area readers were published in this morning's edition. I can't remember the exact figure; but, over 77% of the respondents indicated they are against opening trails to e-bikes. A 77% majority is a pretty big majority ...just saying.
How exactly was the question asked? If you asked me if I wanted to open trails to ebikes, I would say no. If you asked me if I wanted to open existing bike trails to ebikes, I would say NP. So many times these surveys are (intentionally) poorly worded and asked of people totally ignorant of the issues. That's why in most cases, surveys and polls aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
Oh yeah! I certainly get what your saying ...like those presidential elections in 2000 and 2016.
Well Rump, the polls were pretty accurate in 2000, but did miss the boat big in 2016.
Pedal Assist ebikes allow seniors and those with disabilities to enjoy the outdoors and the scenic vistas. The people that should be banned from our public single track trails are are aggressive and disobey the yield rules that require downhill riders to yield to uphill riders. This is a much bigger problem on single track mountain trails than ebike riders.
I know of nowhere managed by the National Park Service where bicycles are allowed on singletrack. It's mostly fire roads or other dirt roads where motorized vehicles are allowed. Either that or wide, paved trails like part of Mirror Lake Trail in Yosemite. And that trail allows service vehicles.
Good decision. This highly restricted access to the majority of our land is way over done. More access for hunting, fishing ect.
This comment was edited to remove gratuitous language--Ed.