Paved trails at Cape Cod National Seashore, such as the Province Lands Bike Trail, seem reasonable for eBikes, but the Park Service needs to study all aspects of increased eBike access/NPS
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is forcing the National Park Service's hand by telling the agency to give greater access to eBikes with just 30 days to study the matter, a time period that doesn't possibly allow park staff to thoroughly consider all the facets of the issue.
Point in case: Cuyahoga Valley National Park on Monday announced a week-long public comment period on whether the motorized bikes should be allowed on trails that are open to muscle-powered bikes.
One week. Never can we recall such a short public comment period for any issue in the park system, let alone one that could have profound impacts.
At least Cuyahoga Valley is offering a public comment period. Bryce Canyon National Park officials apparently used the eBike template the Washington, D.C., headquarters provided. But on Monday when they announced that eBike riders could use the park's Shared Use Path, their website still said eBikes were banned from the path because they "are considered motor vehicles under 36 CFR, they are not permitted on the Shared Use Path."
There's little, if any, doubt that eBikes make the outdoors more accessible for individuals with limited mobility, be it due to arthritis or some other medical condition. Indeed, quite a few comments on past eBike stories on the Traveler have pointed out how the bikes have improved their users' quality of life.
But at the same, there also are studies pointing to the dangers of eBikes in general. Problems related to motors with lithium batteries that can catch fire, riders accidentally pulling the throttle too much, eBikers coming up silently on pedestrians or other trail users (In China they have been dubbed the “Silent Killers” because many times a pedestrian will walk in front of an electric bike without hearing it coming.).
In August, an eBike rider was killed in New York City when they collided with a pedestrian in Central Park. In Switzerland, officials reported that "deaths and serious injuries for users of e-bikes went up" in 2018 over the year before.
There are other stories that raise concerns.
"Older men on e-bikes behind rising death toll among Dutch cyclists" read the headline from a 2018 story in The Guardian.
"E-bikes not more dangerous but elderly are more at risk" headlined a story in the Dutch News.
"E-bikes, other motorized vehicles voted down on JoCo parks trails," reported the Kansas City Star back in December 2018. "...the majority of the board expressed concerns about safety, speed and whether even the county’s paved trails are wide enough to carry walkers, regular bikers and motorized vehicles," the article noted. "They also said they warned that allowing e-bikes and e-unicycles on the trails would eventually lead to groups asking for a wider range of even more powerful and disruptive devices."
Google "ebike accidents" in news stories and you'll find more stories, pro and con, concerning eBike use.
The point, of course, is that the Park Service can't possibly do a complete review of the safety of these motorized bikes to their users, and other trail users, in a week. And decide whether trails should be open to all three classes of eBikes, including motorized mountain bikes that can reach 28 mph, or just some of the classes. Most recreational cyclists on their muscle-powered mounts don't come close to reaching 28 mph. Does it make sense to allow e-MTN bikes on trails with pedestrians and slower traditional bikes?
There very well may be some trails where eBike use makes complete sense. The paved Province Lands Bike Trail at Cape Cod National Seashore might be a great candidate. The Mammoth Cave Railroad Bike and Hike Trail at Mammoth Cave National Park might not be a good one, as park staff notes that "this is not a uniformly flat, level trail. You are traveling in hilly country, and must ascend and descend grades that can in places be steep and difficult." Another good one could be the Westside Road at Mount Rainier National Park, where a bit more than 9 miles are closed to vehicular traffic but open to cyclists and pedestrians.
But should eBikes be allowed on the asphalt Lone Star Trail at Yellowstone National Park, or along the paved path that runs from Old Faithful Inn down to Morning Glory Pool? If both are opened to eBikes, how many eBikes can those pathways, popular with pedestrians, handle?
Indeed, in parks where there are trails open to muscle-powered bikes, and so under consideration for eBikes, the Park Service needs to determine how many businesses will jump at the chance to rent eBikes, and in turn how many eBike cyclists might descend on the trails. Will such a possible increase generate conflicts with other users?
Aging does diminish our reflexes and our strength, and health issues that otherwise might keep eBike users from cycling on trails could increase risks, as some of the news stories cited above underscore. On the other end of the age spectrum, might young children who have not yet fully developed skills to ride eBikes also contribute to safety risks?
No doubt, there are areas within the National Park System where eBikes can be accommodated. But giving the parks just 30 days to look into all the related issues, and the general public as little as seven days to raise comments, seems shortsighted.
As with any other new use in the parks, the question of where eBikes can travel, and all the impacts they might pose, need to be thoroughly studied before that access, if merited, is granted.
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.
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
Remember that the technology for eBikes will get better and better making them faster and faster- after all they ARE acctually motorcycles!
that is why they have classes. Class 2 bikes only go to 20mph. Instead of banning ebikes just put a speed limit on the trails. I have an ebike and usually average 14-16mph. I have had plenty of human powered bikes fly by me.
It is not accurate to classify all e-bikes in the same category as motorcycles. Motorcycles are self propelled, Class 1 pedal-assist electric bikes are not self-propelled. They can't go any faster than a strong rider on a conventional (mechanical assist) bicycle can go. The discussion around e-bikes in National Parks is referring only to pedal assist bikes. In the same way, but with different technology, these bikes allow older or handicapped people to ride bikes on steeper uphill grades by magnfying human effort. If you are opposed to that principle, then you should include mechanical assist bikes (gears) in your opposition. It is different technology that accomplishes the same purpose, albeit more effectively.
"After all they ARE actual 'motocycles'".
No they are ebikes. They have a new name becuase they are not motorcycles, or else we would call them that. A 50cc motorcycle (which is barely a motorcycle btw) is equivalent to 2500 watts of power, where as the most powerful ebike you can buy 'legally' with the ebike designation is 750 watts while most are only 250 - 500 watts. There is no comparison. Mine for example is 250 watts, silent and requires pedaling. Sorry your just plain wrong.
A major trend with electric bikes is having a torque sensor in lieu of a throttle. This makes the motor only assist the muscle power that the rider uses. That’s very different from a motorcycle where you just sit there, as in a car, and push a throttle to go. Torque sensor electric bikes are nothing like motorcycles. Lots of misinformation out there!
Yes, that's a good point; there truly do differ only by degree, not by kind, from what we all generally call motorcycles and it's now even more only a technical difference since there are electric motorcycles, quite powerful electric motorcycles, out there. And, the usual knuckleheads can cynically quibble about how questions are or aren't asked, maybe try to claim that millions of votes were cast by illegal immigrants, whatever; but, the roughly 77% majority who opposed allowing electric motorbikes on the trails in the recent Bozeman Daily Chronicle survey still constituted a 77% majority. I could understand some skepticism if those survey results had been less lopsided; but, a 77% majority is way too much of a majority to just handwave away and ignore.
The only logical reason people would oppose Class-1 Pedal Assist bikes on trails is that they don't want to share the space with more riders. In this case, those 'more riders' are people like me who have been trail riding for years and due to age and some disabilities can't do the steep hills and rough terrain on a traditional bike any longer. A Class-1 Ebike allows me to stay out there. My tax dollars also go to support the Parks and without a compelling safety or environmental reason to disallow Class 1 Pedal Assist bikes, those of us who want to ride in the National Parks on bike trails should be as welcome as anybody.
This is the most condescending and insulting article I have ever read. It's also packed with outright falsehoods--lies.
Class-1 Pedal Assist e-bikes enable the elderly and the disabled to ride bikes WITH their families and friends--the bikes offer cycling equality. They don't win races.
Class-1 Pedal Assist e-bikes are just bikes--the motors and software DO NOT propel the bike, they only offer assistance with pedaling to make people who need the assistance more like people who don't. When the software detects that the rider is struggling, the motor engages to give some assistance with pedaling--like crutches for an individual who has difficulty walking.
Class-1 Pedal Assist e-bikes are NOT morotized vehicles because they are NOT self-propelled. They must be pedalled to make them move. THERE IS NO THROTTLE.
Class-1 Pedal Assist e-bikes do not exceed 20 MPH (not 28 MPH as the article falsely states). An able-bodied person pedalling an ordinary bike can travel faster than 20 MPH.
We older Americans can handle our bike riding just fine, thank you--please don't tell us that we are a danger or in danger.
And lithium batteries? Are we really to believe that an elderly person riding an e-bike is in danger of the battery spontaneously combusting on a National Park trail?
This magazine must stop its campaign against Class-1 Pedal Assist e-bikes--its losing all its credibility.
The bottom line of this article seems to be that e-bikes will bring many more Americans into the national parks and onto the trails, and we can't have that! We should discriminate against the riders of Class-1 Pedal Assist e-bikes so that we can reduce the number of people who can enjoy the national parks that their taxes have paid for.
Elitist, eh?
I couldn't agree with you more. I am glad you took the time to respond, I didnt know where to start, there were so many foolish things mentioned. I was almost run over by a tandem on a denver path Sunday. The muscle bikes never pay attention to the speed limit of 15mph, constantly putting most riders and pedestrians in danger, I have close friends that say they never do and they average around 22-25mph on the paths. One of the best examples was when I came down the grade from Copper Mountain going into Frisco CO, those guys were easily hitting 40mph, and there are families with kids on that path, its pathetic to say they are safer in someway compared to ebikes. I can barely get to 15 with my class2 ebike. I have traveled all over the country in the last 5 years with my ebike, and yet to see someone out of control. If these people would actually just ride one they would know they are not a threat. Look at the demographics for ebikes, yes all of 50,60,70,80 somethings are true and wild daredevils...NOT!!
100% agree! This article is SO far off I'm embarrassed for the magazine and author.
The misinformation is overflowing. I'm an old guy who now gets to ride in the outdoors because my eBike (fat tire) allows for it. I did years on MTB', motorcycles and dirt bikes. To try to lump them together is ridiculous. I feel really stupid that I have actually donated to some of the organizations that support banning eBikes. The idea that their hard fought goals for trail access now excludes me only loses them an ally. These are "Public" lands for all to use responsibly and until irresponsible behavior or activity can be demonstrated all should have access.
Good Job Karen! I live in a NPS Gateway Community and have had many years of interacting with NPS. You and I and many like us just sit back and never voice our opions on NPS nutty decisions. Therefore our opinions are never considered. We can't even get a trail here, let alone ride a bike on it. If you are not into kayaking your opinion does't count...
Karen, Secretary Bernhardt's directive didn't tell the NPS to ONLY allow Class 1 eBikes; he opened it to ALL classes, including eMTN bikes, which can reach 28 mph (and maybe more on downhill stretches).
Kurt- There are also Class 1 E Mountain Bikes (eMTN), restricted to 20 MPH. I don't think any of these Pedal Assist E-Bikes can go faster than a conventional bike when going downhill. Those of us who ride E-Mountain Bikes generally aren't speed demons anyway. We're just trying to stay upright and negotiate rough terrain.
I can go just as fast downhill on my normal bike as I can on an ebike. All the reasons against allowing ebikes are idiotic. As some who rides Mountain bikes, dirt bikes, and has ridden ebikes - ebikes and mountain bikes are that different to warrant banning them, and ebikes are DEFINITELY nothing like actual motorcycles.
Even a regular old manual bicycle can exceed 28 mph going downhill. Speed is nothing against electric bicycles per se.
Then perhaps you should be campaigning for the enthusistic allowance of Class-1 Pedal Assist e-bikes?
Perhaps we should also at least in some way consider the wishes of the roughly 77% majority who oppose electric motorbikes on the trails.
Rumple, if you'd create an account in the Traveler, your comments would post as you save them, not when someone OKs them. And you don't need to reveal your name, though I'm really curious....
Rump - You take one "survey" of unknown nature, taken in one geographic area and apply the results to a national majority? Next thing you know you will be telling us 97% of scientists believe man is the primary cause of climate change.
Has National Parks Traveler lost sight of its mission?
The magazine is National Parks TRAVELER—encouraging people to travel to their parks, see more of their parks, see their parks more often.
The e-bike is the means to that end!
Now, for the first time, ALMOST EVERYONE can tour their national parks without a car. Families and groups of different physical abilities, young and old, can all ride bikes together through their parks—some on regular bikes, some on e-bikes making them more equal to the abilities of better, more fit riders. Group rides become possible.
No longer will Grandma have to be driven from scenic view to scenic view. No longer will Grandpa be left in his wheelchair in the parking lot, waiting for his family to return from their bike ride through the park.
The e-bike is the answer to the National Park Service’s prayers—only the e-bike holds the promise of getting more people out of their cars and touring their parks in a more natural and environmentally friendly way.
Can you see that future? Less traffic, less cars, less exhaust, less noise? Can you see an almost car-free National Park?
The National Park Service should be encouraging the use of e-bikes—they should be building bike pathways and lanes exclusive for bikes in an effort to get people out of their cars. Imagine: You park your car outside the park, rent an e-bike (or bring your own) and ride into the park.
And National Parks Traveler magazine? Well, they SHOULD be writing articles encouraging people to visit their parks in this new way, telling their readers about the best bike pathways, the best e-bike tours, encouraging people to ride as groups on e-bikes and see the parks more naturally.
Yosemite National Park has so much car traffic that they had to implement a shuttle service in the park. Is that the future we really want? Or do we want to get people out of their cars and into the parks in a quieter, more environmentally friendly way?
The e-Bike is the answer.
SPECIAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWS ALERT: Recently uncovered evidence confirms that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is real and that man is the primary cause. This evidence also confirms that roughly 77% of those scientists strongly agree with the roughly 77% majority who opposed allowing electric motorbikes on the trails in a recent Bozeman Daily Chronicle survey. These scientists urge caution on changes to current electric motorbike policies until such time that the impacts of electric motorbikes are fully and properly assessed, the specific types of electric motorbikes that can be allowed are properly defined, and appropriate regulatory guidelines for their use can be developed and proposed. Unfortunately, all requests by the US House of Representatives to obtain and review this new evidence in order to proceed with said assessment and regulatory development are being refused by the administration pending adjudication of executive privilege assertions. Subsequent efforts to gain access the the evidence by subpoena are being blocked by the Department of Justice. More on this later in tonight’s broadcast.
Rump - purveyor of fake news at its best.
ec, you omitted the letter T from your post.
TRump - purveyor of fake news at its best.
There, fixed it.
The fastest growing bike segment in the US are ebikes. They're here to stay so let's stop the hand-wringing, get on one and have fun!
https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/2018/the-us-bi...
These articles along with all the previous ones on this site are quite hilarious and probably the least responsible journalism I've ever seen, but thats the norm for ebike haters. No reasonable facts, all propaganda. They only want to raise issues trhough panic not reasonbale conversation. Let me point out one of the most rediculous examples.
Go to the article and you will see this "Last year in Switzerland 79 people died in cars, 42 on motorbikes, 27 on bicycles and 12 on e-bikes. In addition, 43 pedestrians were killed, the Federal Roads Office said on Thursday."
So double the the people died on bikes and almost 4 times the people who were walking died then on ebikes. No mention of the AMOUNT of people who use this transportation or the amount of time doing it? No average rate of deaths per rider..... See the problem?
Also no mention of the fact that ebike riding has tripled or quadrupled easily in the last years so of course it would increase!! I do data analytics for a living and this is the perfect example of "circumstantial evidence". This is akin to saying that there are way more car deaths than ebike deaths, so ebikes are safer... of course not, more people use cars. You have to compare the averages not totals, Duh!
At least they included this which says the exact truth!! "These e-bike figures are the highest ever recorded and reflect the increasing popularity of e-bikes in Switzerland."
Again one ebike rider vs how many deaths for standard bikes in new york???
This is all silly and frivolous reporting and like it was said already "hand wringing" . The really sad part is that likely the biggest consumer of this site is conservative older people and yet they are alienating their largest consumer by "alarmist" propaganda... so sad!
Doug, all we're saying is that the NPS needs to do its due diligence as required under the Code of Federal Regulations. Indeed, we haven't taken a stand one way or another, and even pointed to some trails where eBikes might work just fine.
But at the same time, if there's no issue, why are people so opposed to have NPS conduct its due diligence?
Then say that... I am totally in support of conversation but thats not the "slant" of your arcticle, and you are actually not being truthful. You are touting a message that is biased. Saying that the only place a "motorized" vehicle should be allowed is on a motorized trail (which is what your laast article mentioned" is completley archaic, rules change as new technologies come out). As you mentioned its about speed. You can clearly see that the speed of a bike may cause issues to hikers but cant see that forcing a 20 mph ebike on to a road with Vehicles going 60mph would be WAY more dangerous. Its myopic, selfserving and biased. Saying that people call them "silent killers" is alarmist in nature and using to support your argument is sad. Are you saying that bicycles make more noise?
Your last article was not about open discussion. Would you say this gave equal representation to ebikes benefits? https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2019/08/dozens-conservation-groups... like using quotes to propel an agenda.
If you were being truthful you would mention all the benefits that ebikes have in addition to the things you are saying.
The impact of ebikes is non existant
Saying that people call them "silent killers" is alarmist in nature and using to support your argument is sad. Are you saying that bicycles make more noise? Are you saying that we want noisy vehicles in our national parks that would impact wildlife? LOL
What you should be promoting is that ebikes are coming and have many many benefits but NOW is our chance to be part of a conversation to make sure they are safe, regulated and have the exact same rights that everyone has. After all they are called Public lands, no small group has any more rights than anyone else does. Do we really need to make new trails just for Emtn bikes, because they have just as many rights as bikes do? thats working in reverse...
How about this...
Are you really going to tell emnt bike riders that need paved roads? or that a non-uniformly flat or level trail is not suitable for an Emnt bike with 200mm of suspension travel? LOL
Go back to your horse and buggy and start enforcing 10 mile an hour speed limits on the freeway...
Lets see the make up of your responders and see how they view your article. They will be in two groups:
1 Crackpots talking about how ebikes explode... LOL
2 people offended at the obvious "slant" of the article, perfectly represnted by this commenter:
These 2 "knuckle heads" are even better... lol. Absolutley nowhere are electric motorcycles allowed on these trails that were approved. The ignorance of people who open their mouths and have no idea what they are talking about is quite amusing..
So Doug, are you, or are you not, in favor of the Park Service doing its due diligence?
I absolutely am, and I think that its absolutely vital to make sure that stupid individuals dont ruin this for everyone. However, your reporting is only going to make things worse. Class 1 ebikes represent absolutley no difference to standard bikes or horse bike riders other than you may have more people taking part in the activity. They will actually benefit the environment (which I am a big fan of) and may even benefit the parks by posibly reducing the gas engine riders who may move to ebikes and possibly reduce noise impact as well (also a big fan of). Having a defiant "not in my backyard" attitude towards the trails is only self serving and will only cause fractures that in the end will hurt honest regulation and reasonable conversation of the facts.
Well said, Mr. Repanshek; all seriousness aside, there are lots of people with strong opinions on both sides of this issue and for good reasons in many cases, which is exactly why all interested segments of the public need to have the opportunity to provide input and the issue must be formally and rigorously studied and assessed before any decisions are made. It is never a good idea to make governance decisions based solely on truth by emphatic assertion, despite the tendency of the current administration and the party that backs it to do so. The various potential types and classes of electric motorbikes need to be assessed along with their different impacts with regard to the resources, safety, and potential secondary social and economic effects. That information needs to be cross-referenced against the NPS mission, then against the mission of, the conditions in, the management and enforcement capabilities at, and finally the existing regulations and why those existing regulations were imposed in each park unit where varieties of this kind of equipment might be allowed. Once all of that study has been done, and I bet most of it hasn't even been started, then proper regulations and controls must be promulgated along with any budget, staffing, or other resource adjustments needed to properly implement those newly required regulations and policies. Come on, people, this is not rocket science; it's just what adults need to do to implement good governance, which is why the current administration and the party that backs it hasn't done it, can't do it, but can be relied upon to make a big show of refusing to do it on trumped up (he, he, he) grounds that there is some spiritual reason to not do it when the real reason is that they are so disgustingly poorly educated, inept, and incompetent that they don't know how to even start to do it.
Except that the whole reason its an issue, is beacuse the doi had to make a rule to prevent these "conservatives" from handing out fines to ebike riders. Class 1 EBIKES are not MOTORCYCLES the are bicycles with peddle assist and they cut out at a certain speed that is no faster than a standard bike. There wouldnt have been a knee jerk reaction if they wouldnt have started out by handing out rediculous tickets for nothing, with no facts to back it up.
Class 1 (Peddle Assist) ebikes should be immediately allowed. It is all out ridiclious that there is this big of an issue with them. It reminds me of all the fear, gloom and doom over allowing snowboarders on ski resorts. Once allowed, it wasn't an issue. We are like the only country that is hesitatnt about class 1 ebikes. Switzerland, France, Spain and Andorra have zero issues with them on single track trails. Stop the gloom and doom and open up ebikes to single tracks nationwide.
It would still be better to follow due process on this quesion regardless of the outcome of that process. I'm sorry that so many folks don't see why a formal rule-making process is necessary to prevent the random establishment of chaotic precedents. I'm also sorry that these same folks so emphatically proclaim that due process is like really "rediculous" or "ridiclious" without understanding even the basics of good governance.
https://www.singletracks.com/mtb-columns/e-bikes-are-important-forest-ac...
Some impressive naivety in that article, Gord.
"More mountain bikers means more trail funding for longer and better singletracks." simply isn't true. Most public lands got blitzed with people since March and there is zero expectation that any sustainable increase in funding is coming with them.
Besides, USFS has loads of motorized singletrack already out on the ground - why not encourage these motorized bicycles to ride there? Maybe more funding would come for those motorized singletrack trails and I'd be proven wrong.