When it comes to managing the National Park System, the example before us is clearly not the right way. In this case, we're referring to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and de facto National Park Service Director P. Dan Smith on, most recently, the topic of eBikes in the parks.
Bernhardt seems to treat the parks as his fiefdom to manage to the benefit of his industry friends. For Smith, well, he follows the secretary's lead.
Evidence of that arose at the end of 2018, when the partial government shutdown arrived. While the National Park System was closed during past government shutdowns, Bernhardt wanted it kept open, and Smith agreed. They even agreed, after piles of garbage arose and restrooms turned disgusting, to divert Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act dollars to pay for custodial staff.
We know, of course, that keeping the parks open wasn't the best decision. One of Joshua Tree National Park's iconic trees was cut down, a backcountry traveler in Big Bend National Park broke his leg and was extremely fortunate to encounter an off-duty ranger, who carried him on his back for two miles, and off-roaders went where they shouldn't in Death Valley National Park. How many other issues arose during the partial shutdown is hard to know, as Interior is dragging its feet on responding to Freedom of Information Act requests.
That the Interior secretary would open the gates to allow eBikes to motor down park trails where traditional bicycles can roll shouldn't be surprising. Back in November 2018, during a meeting of the “Made in America” Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee, one committee member, Phil Morlock, a vice president at Shimano North America Holdings, pointed out that Interior policy at the time banned eBikes from some areas of public lands because they were considered to be motorized vehicles.
"He suggested that this specific case be used as an example to review existing DOI policy issues which prevent outdoor recreationists from using new technology on public lands," draft minutes from the meeting noted.
While it isn't surprising that Bernhardt issued a secretarial order last week to allow greater eBike access (will privately owned drones get clearance next?), how he did, and how Smith responded in a press release for the public and a directive to his superintendents, are examples of how not to manage the parks. Or any business.
There had been an agreement to issue the policy this coming Thursday, but Bernhardt surprised more than a few folks, including some in the National Park Service, by releasing it last Thursday evening. In his secretarial order, Bernhardt said that within two weeks from last Thursday all three classes of eBikes must be exempted from being considered motorized vehicles within the park system.
Within 30 days, Bernhardt went on, he wanted to see summaries of any policy changes needed to increase eBike access to the parks, of any laws or regulations that stand in the way of such access, and a timeline for seeking public comment on changing any regulations to allow greater eBike access. At that time, as well, he wanted the National Park Service to provide visitors with guidance on where they could ride their eBikes.
In other words, first grant eBike access to park visitors and then explain how to make it neat and legal. Even though, Bernhardt should have engaged the public, the various trail groups, communities around parks, and other park users before he released the policy. Oh, and maybe evaluated potential visitor conflicts, impacts to wildlife and cultural resources, cost of enforcement—but that would have made his decision informed rather than seemingly haphazard.
As for Smith, he sent out a press release Friday stating that the Park Service has "a new electric bicycle policy for national parks..." Nevermind that under 36 CFR Section 1.5 the Park Service needs to go through rulemaking steps before it can adopt such a policy.
But there's more that's baffling when you read Smith's press release and his directive to superintendents. For instance:
* "The operator of an e-bike may only use the motor to assist pedal propulsion," stated Smith's release. "The motor may not be used to propel an e-bike without the rider also pedaling, except in locations open to public motor vehicle traffic."
So, how many park rangers will be needed to monitor whether eBikers are pedaling or not?
* "Park superintendents will retain the right to limit, restrict, or impose conditions of bicycle use and e-bike use in order to ensure visitor safety and resource protection," the release added. "Over the coming month, superintendents will work with their local communities, staff, and partners to determine best practices and guidance for e-bike use in their parks."
So, on one hand Bernhardt is calling for more eBike access, as is Smith ... unless superintendents disagree. And while Bernhardt is calling for 30 days to pass before a public comment period is scheduled, Smith expects superintendents to get that done over the next 30 days. A tight schedule to say the least, if all the steps are followed.
But Smith is making it easy for superintendents to get by without much, if any, public comment. In a memorandum sent to them Friday the acting NPS director said superintendents "must" add language to their compendia (the on-the-ground rulebook used in individual parks for managing uses) to allow eBikes where "traditional bikes are allowed," and he even provided a fill-in-the-blank form for getting the job done.
Furthermore, Smith directed superintendents to adopt existing state laws pertaining to eBikes where their park is found. They also must comply with 36 CFR Section 1.7, which pertains to public notice, he added (if only, perhaps, to say he wanted public comment). He also told them to adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act, though Smith also pointed out that to meet Bernhardt's directive superintendents will resort to making a "categorial exclusion" that shortcuts the process.
What will be interesting to see is whether those parks that have blocked eBike use on trails now will be forced to do a 180.
You can argue whether eBikes have a place on hiking trails in the parks, but if you want to go through the rulemaking channels established under the Code of Federal Regulations and be circumspect with your decision-making, the approach Bernhardt and Smith took is not the handbook to follow.
The end result is not only a poor, disjointed example of how to manage "America's best idea," but it does a disservice to all recreational users of the parks, including eBikers. Instead of having a well-thought-out policy for recreation, this just muddies the waters, poses a threat to resources and other park users, and could end up in court.
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.
Comments
"You can argue whether eBikes have a place on hiking trails in the parks,"
This rule change does not allow eBikes on hiking trails. It only allow eBikes on trails were bikes are already allowed.
If I sign up for the newsletter will the annoying pop-up go away?
Robert, granted, there aren't a lot of trails in the park system that allow bikes, but there are some where bikes are allowed. Here's a short sampling:
https://www.nps.gov/maca/planyourvisit/biketrails.htm
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2018/03/cyclists-gain-access-rocky-mountain-national-park-pea-ridge-could-be-next
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2018/06/more-mountain-biking-trails-coming-cuyahoga-valley-national-park
https://www.nps.gov/sagu/learn/news/repair-work-schedule-to-begin-on-hope-camp-trail.htm
https://www.nps.gov/neri/planyourvisit/bicycling.htm
Kurt- Thank you for that list. Much appreciated.
Yes, the bikes they are no allowing on bikeable trails in national parks and BLM lands are eBikes. However, they are only the pedal assist variety. They are no different than regular bikes as far as noise, safety, and trail damage. They assist only to 20 mph then the rider has to bedal a 44 pound bike, not good for the rider, great for the public, including us slower riders. California State Parks and some county parks allow them now. When I ask hikers if they have any problems with pedal assist bikes the answer is always no. So don't create a tempest in a teapot. Also, go demo some ebikes! Try not to smile!
Speaking of trail damage, I've been a volunteer trail worker since the 1960's on both hiking and mountain biking trails. One of the biggest headaches in tral maintenance has been hikers cutting switchbacks and creating erosion tracks down fall lines. Mountain bikers embrace switchbacks. Far more fun and interesting than cutting corners. I find less trail damage from bikes than hikers.
The only people who will dislike this are the traditional mountain bikers. Allowing ebikes gives people who can't otherwise (due to physical limitations) enjoy these trails. I've been a mountai biker for years and I don't see a problem with this. Yes the trails may be busier but so what.
I think y'all are mis-reading Kurt's intent with this missive. I don't think he's against e-bikes, I think he's against the WAY the policy was changed and implemented - specially when the initial request came from someone who obviously has a vested interest in the sale and use of e-bikes!
For the record, 40 CFR 85.1703 defines a motor vehicle as "a vehicle which is self propelled. So this policy is entirely consistent with current law. Class 1 EBikes are not self propelled and are therefore not motor vehicles.
A Class 1 E-Bike enables me and thousands of others to ride trails and roads on public land that are currently only open to ‘non motorized vehicles’ . There is no environmental or safety reason that justifies the restriction against Class 1 E-bikes. These bikes non polluting. They generate no noise. They are built exactly the same as traditional bikes with regard to all safety considerations. There is no logical reason they should be restricted on roads and trails open to traditional bikes.
Get with the times! E-bikes are the way of the future and an excellent way to get more motorists out of their cars, especially the older generation which is taking to e-bikes in huge numbers. And this is a segment of the population that often would not be able to peadal an analog bike down a trail at 6000 feet or more. Anyway the park service is only allowing pedal-assist e-bikes on bike trails and to call those "motorzed vehices" got to be a joke. E-bikes are a boon for the environment and you dear Sir should educate yourself about them.
vested or not its about fairness and obviously if you can read at all.... he is not interest or supportive of ebikes. He compares them to "drones".... Look at the other articles hes written even before the change and you will see the same attitude. Lets just be real and honest, he doesnt like ebikes, weather it was handled corretly or not....
Now to be honest I am not sure it was handled correctly currently, but as was pointed out I think its a reaction to the fact that it wasnt handled correctly to begin with. A non-self propelled bicycle doesnt violate the rules in many peoples opinions as its stated in the rules. Although the rules are somewhat contradictory because the werent written for ebikes but rather for motorcycles etc. If they wouldnt have handed out expensive tickets for something they dont understand it probably wouldnt have created such an issue to begin with.
Doug, I really haven't taken a stand one way or the other on eBikes. But I've noticed that quite a few government entities in the U.S. and abroad have taken a close look at them and come up with regulations.
For instance, in California Class 3 eBikes are prohibited on multi-use bike paths unless a local ordinance allows them. And the state mandated that riders be at least 16 and must wear helmets.
And as we previously noted, in Missouri eBikes were banned from Johnson County park trails.
The Park Service is required to do its due diligence on where eBikes can travel. The NPS states on its Electric Bike page that: "Superintendents are encouraged to engage with the public prior to implementing the policy memorandum so that superintendents and park staff can better understand potential impacts to resources and visitors, support for, and controversy associated with, allowing e-bikes where traditional bicycles are allowed."
While Cape Cod National Seashore has allowed for a week-long public education period, none of the other parks that have announced eBike access (Bryce Canyon, Glacer, Grand Teton, Yellowstone) have, to the best of our knowledge, "engaged with the public prior to implementing the policy memorandum...
Interestingly, on the Electric Bike page NPS also acknowledges that "(R)esearch on the likelihood and severity of e-bike crashes is limited at this time. There is recognition that more research is required to gain a clearer understanding of the differences, if any, between the use of e-bikes and traditional bicycles."
I believe we are at the point where we have to acknowledge that this discussion is degenerating into low, school playground level, bullying on the part of electric motorbike advocates. The need for a full analysis of the impacts of and regulatory requirements needed before the NPS can proceed to allow further use of these devices on and on parklands, due dilignence to use Repanshek's words, has been fully explained in language that any fully adult citizen should be able to understand. The tone of this discussion, the level of bullying, and the inability of electric motorbike advocates to comprehend even the most fundamental concepts of functional governance have now driven me out of the category of neutral, even disinterested as long as some formality of operations can be followed in the rulemaking process, and into the catgegory of opposed to any motorbike use anywhere. If electric motorbike advocates cannot act in a mature and dignified manner just discussing the process of how to open the trails to their use, then I don't want to be bothered by them in the field and they can crawl across the landscape on their stinking knees as far as I now care; they've put on a disgusting display here.
Nothing like a dignified manner of discussion
This is absolutley true and I love the regulations. Of course federal law classifies ebikes with all other bikes and are allowed on all areas that noramal bikes are allowed. So if your state hasnt passed any laws they are the same as bikes. California has actually went one step further in support by recognizing class 3 ebikes on curb to curb infastructure. This is because they see the benfits to pollution and traffic and huge amount of money spent on infastructure and see ebikes as a massive benefit to that problem. So the federal government believes they should be allowed on bike paths and most states believe the same but we should hand out tickets if they are on a cairrage road because they are totally different??? I honestly have no gripe with you Kurt although I do think you have had a bias towards not allowing ebikes the same freedoms as regular bikes in the beginning, you seem to be trying to be more open in your last article when you noted the large reation from people who benefit from them. But I honestly believe you still dont have a full understanding of the truth about the different classes of ebikes. I think the DOI doesnt either or they would realize that class 3 ebikes represent a moderately elevated risk compared to Class 1 and 2 ebikes. However it has been you and the people on this site that have lumped them together from the begining basically saying they are all "motorized" and they cant be allowed on non motorized places. You honestly have no idea of the limits you are putting on ebike riders.
Rumple is one of your biggest defenders and has done nothing but spout ignorance about ebikes, what does that say about your percieved stand? Most ebike riders have commented as to just how insulting and biased your articles have been, what does that say about your stand?
Rumple and many non ebike people's largest complaint is only "MOTOR" yet the rules being discussed have clearly stated self-propelled (although I agree with you that this is for an old understanding and new vehicles should still be looked at), but where do you draw the line??? a 2 mph lark for people who cant walk shouldnt be allowed on a bike path? Its clearly MOTORIZED? Infact is self-propelled.... Or would maybe some reasonableness be in order from some people who clearly have zero understanding of the benefits or nonbenefits of an ebike, rather than just spouting that they have been labeled the "silent Killer" by someone else who clearly has no Idea what they are talking about. Ignorance begetts ignorance, and for the most part I believe the commenters on here and even partially you have only uneducated people and honestly I think those parks that handed out fines for class one ebikes didnt apply the rules that we are talking about. The one conversation that is easy to have is that the argument is about SPEED. But all ebike riders have said they have no issue with speed caps and ebikes are not faster than regular bikes, and all people like rumple say they are motorized and cant go on trails and dont want to discuss speed. Lets be honest its pretty clear bias. E mountain bike riders dont care about motorized trails!!! the bike is the exact same bike designed for single track with a small peddle assist mainly for going uphills and has absolutely no affect going down hills. If you have ever rode one you would understand this. Most people who buy ebikes comment something like this " my wife/husband and I like to ride together but my wife/husband had a hard time keeping up with me, So I bought my wife/husband an ebike and now we can ride together again. All bike riders want to ride togehter. it sucks riding alone.
Think about some of these facts you can put in your next article:
1. Class 1 and 2 Ebikes are not classified any differently than normal bikes in the majority of areas in the united states.
2. you cant even register them as a motorcyle in almost all locations
3. in arizona, where I live, all motorized vehicles are required to travel in automobile lanes and cant travel in bike lanes or bike paths or sidewalks, even if they qualified as a moped, which they dont, mopeds are not allowed on any road with a speed limit over 25mph. Want to know why? SPEED they hold up traffic and SAFETY they are to slow to be safe.
4. Mopeds arent motorcyles either. you dont even need a motorcycles license
5. Try to take a motorcyles test on an ebike. Your not allowed....
6. so if there not mopeds and not bikes and not motorcyles that means you cant ride them?
Why would we treat them like every other bike in all locations EXCEPT the national parks?
What law (or regulation) is that? The only thing I've seen in the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations is that as a product they are to be regulated as a consumer product - I suppose like pedal powered bicycles, skateboards, hoverboards, Segways, etc. I've seen no federal law/regulation that requires them to be treated the same as non-assisted bicycles as a form of transportation.
What your refer to I believe is the regulation. meaning that under federal law they are not required to be registered as a vehicle and can go where ohter consumer products can. Please see this article but I can give you a hundred more that state the same thing.
https://electricbikereview.com/forum/threads/electric-bike-laws-in-the-u...,'bicycle'%20for%20consumer%20purposes.
Please see point number 2.
I believe what you are refering to is it. Try this, but I can give you a million others that say the same thing
https://electricbikereview.com/forum/threads/electric-bike-laws-in-the-u...,'bicycle'%20for%20consumer%20purposes.
notice the bold sections below.
State and Local Laws dictate your use, but cannot constitutionally supersede the federal law – Any ebike purchased within the 750W/20mph limits has no fear of being under federal motor vehicle classification, nor can any state classify them a motor vehicle. The ebike is considered a ‘bicycle’ for consumer purposes. However, the State Laws on local bike paths and local thruways may prohibit or limit ebike access. When bike path signs use word such as ‘motor vehicles’ and ‘motorbikes’ , the laws are likely referring to gas-ICE motorbikes/dirt bikes/scooters, and not ebikes. Other references to ‘motorized bicycles’ or ‘motorized vehicles’ sound more inclusive and probably are intended for either ebikes or gas mopeds. If in doubt, you always have the option to pedal unassisted by completely powering your bike down. Even though Federal law grant ebikes a bicycle status, the common consensus found in my research allows local and state law to add additional regulation to pathway and road access, just because “it has a motor”. So the Federal laws protects the consumer from the burden of motor vehicle requirements, but not the restrictions to local and state right of ways enjoyed by all non-motored bicycles.
Your local state may have very definite rules as to what is an e-bike, what is a moped, and what is a motorcycle. While ebikes enthusiast don’t want the motor vehicle label, it is certain that each state will define some power level and speed where that classification will apply. Your best source of information is to go directly to your state motor vehicle department website, and get a copy of the your local state vehicle codes, with NO EDITING. Only recently updated official state vehicle codes will contain all the latest changes to the laws.1 For a link to your state MVA, look here:2 http://eco-wheelz.com/electric-bike-laws.php
Can I legally buy/build and ride an ebike that’s faster than 20 mph? Yes you can, but you need to know that the ebike is no longer considered equivalent to a bicycle and is subject to other state vehicular classifications. The definitions for electric bikes spanning 20-30mph, and 1-2 horsepower ranges, will vary from state to state, resulting in a no-man’s-land consensus about limits for motor vehicle definition. The common label for a 20-30mph, 2-wheeled vehicle with active pedals is a Moped. Other MVA labels include motor scooter, motorbike and dirt bike which may have equivalent power and speed performance, but do not have pedals to assist and move the vehicle.
Rumple, the only disgusting display has been you, and your rhetoric has honestly been the least reasonable or mature.
You still cant even say "ebike" or "peddle assist" lol, you have to enforce your electric "motorbike" opinion so you can somehow prove that they are only allowed on "motorized" trails. So the federal government says they are bikes at your local park but that doesnt have any bearing on the national park? or maybe you should have a moderate amount of reasonableness and be open to the fact that maybe they are more equal to standard bikes?
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2019/09/review-shows-national-park-services-bicycle-regulations-and-ebike-hurdles-access
You can also try this, its a site quoted by Kurt quite often. It also fairly commonly known by everyone in the industry - 750 watts 20 mph
https://peopleforbikes.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/E-Bike-Law-Primer-...
Especially this section and notce the bold
Federal Law Governing Low-Speed Electric Bicycles: Electric-assisted bicycles have been defined and regulated at the federal level since 2002. Public Law 107-319 established that electric bicycles are regulated as consumer products under the Consumer Product Safety Act, and more specifically, subject to the same regulations that govern traditional, human-powered bicycles. Thus, electric bicycles are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and must comply with the bicycle safety standards at 16 C.F.R. Part 1512. In addition, electric bicycles are explicitly not “motor vehicles” for the purposes of federal law, and are not subject to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration vehicle standards. As a practical matter, Public Law 107-319 ensures that electric bicycles are designed, manufactured, and tested like traditional bicycles for the purposes of consumer product safety law. The main provisions of Public Law 107-319 are codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2085.
BTW does this finally answer your stupid MOTOR argument Rumple?
I'm simply asking where in the U.S.C. or C.F.R. does it suggest the following:
The law/regulation that mentions these is pretty simple. The result is that product safety matters are the purview of the CPSC and not the Dept of Transportation. Nowhere does it say or even suggest that federal agencies must allow them where non-assisted bicycles are allowed. It doesn't even mean they're specifically equivalent to bicycles. It means that one doesn't need a driver license to operate one. It means they don't have to be registered with a state dept of motor vehicles. I means they're regulated for safety similar to how a toy wagon or a toy car would be. However, I find your claim to be sorely lacking in facts on how any law or regulation requires federal agencies to allow them where regular bicycles are allowed.
Look, I can only give you the facts. I can't make you reasonable.... Go to Google and type in Federal law for ebikes and tell me what the first 100 sites tell you...
Everyone knows that in the us it's 750 watts and 20mph and in Europe it's 250 watts and 15.5 mph to not be considered a motor vehicle and be allowed where bikes travel
Links and quotes are allowed in the comments here. If you have them, then have a go at it. I can't find anything that says anything about federal agencies being required to allow Class 1 e-bikes where non-assisted bicycles are allowed. You made the claim, so I'm asking you politely to back it up. It sounds to me like you would like it to be true, but it simply isn't.
Now I did find this from the National Conference of State Legislatures. I bolded the part that makes it clear that such federal law only refers to product and safety standards.
And this is from a proponent of e-bikes (which was referenced in the NCSL article):
Are you saying thateven though it's vague the regulations we have don't allow bikes , rollerblades ebikes etc to share the same sidewalks? Are you saying that the rule implies that hoverboards ebikes and larks can't use bike sidewalks and have to use roadways? People on here are asking ebikes riders to have a reasonable discussion about these laws, would you say you are being reasonable about what these regulations mean? I can tell you that all of the police in az read it the same way as me. Unfortunately we passed an ebikes bill to handle these regulations but the governor vetoed it. Too bad there wouldn't be an argument but it would say the exact same thing. Just like California they are equal to bikes and can share the same paths depending on class. Essentially as anyone can see if you look at speed. Ebikes equate to bikes a thousand times between than motorized vehicles.
Let me summarize it for you although I know you won't believe your own quote
Ebikes are not motorcycles or mopeds or vehicles and are held to the same requirements as bikes.
I am all for regulations and better rules because as you will see they will say the exact same thing
Your other quote is merely making the defense that class 3 ebikes fall under the same guidelines
im not sure what to say, pretty much everyone including lawyers in my state realize that the state has the right to regulate ebikes, but without those rule which is common in most states they fall under the Federal regulations and those feel pretty obvious to every reasonable person. Sorry I just don't understand your point or even if you have one except to try to poke holes in my words
Ypw, so just to make sure I'm not misrepresenting anything let me restate my words.
Federal regulations clearly state that a class 1 or 2 ebikes is not a motor vehicle and as a consumer product needs to meet the requirements of that are applied to bicycles. There is no exact wording that states we need to treat ebikes as bicycles. States can make their own regulations that would supercede the Federal regulations in some situations especially on roadways, bike paths and sidewalks.
That being true, in my opinion, most have adopted the 3 class rules as implemented in 2016. They grayest area has been single track usage primarily due to prevelance of bike groups at the beginning not wanting to share the paths with ebikes and using cheating terminologies. Most of this has been squashed in the last coupleyears due to reasonable bike enthusiasts and articles making fun of such an attitude. Of course you would likely have to be tied into the mountain bike community to be caught up on such things.
I hope that helps you feel like I haven't been untruthful. I apologise if I was misleading in anyway.
Ypw, so just to make sure I'm not misrepresenting anything let me restate my words.
Federal regulations clearly state that a class 1 or 2 ebikes is not a motor vehicle and as a consumer product needs to meet the requirements of that are applied to bicycles. There is no exact wording that states we need to treat ebikes as bicycles. States can make their own regulations that would supercede the Federal regulations in some situations especially on roadways, bike paths and sidewalks.
That being true, in my opinion, most have adopted the 3 class rules as implemented in 2016. They grayest area has been single track usage primarily due to prevelance of bike groups at the beginning not wanting to share the paths with ebikes and using cheating terminologies. Most of this has been squashed in the last coupleyears due to reasonable bike enthusiasts and articles making fun of such an attitude. Of course you would likely have to be tied into the mountain bike community to be caught up on such things.
I hope that helps you feel like I haven't been untruthful. I apologise if I was misleading in anyway.
Again, everything you post applies only to the definitions of eBikes as it applies to regulation as a consumer product. It sets the line between where they're regulated for safety and product standards as a consumer product compared to where they're regulated as a motor vehicle. That's it.
Do you have anything that backs up your previous assertion that federal law or regulation requires that eBikes be treated the same as non-assisted bicycles on where they're allowed to be used? I can't find anything that suggests that for state or local governments, or where it applies to federal agencies. And everything I've found suggests that they can be considered as a separate category for allowable access, such as skateboards, hoverboards, electric toy cars, scooters, etc. are regulated.
You've provide a lot of stuff, but none of it says that there's any requirement to allow them where regular bicycles are allowed. You can provide quotes about speeds and defintions till you're blue in the face, but the matter at hand here is the NPS rule on where eBikes are allowed to be ridden. And there is NOTHING in federal law or a current regulation that mandates what you claim it mandates. NOTHING.
Sorry for the double post this site just doesn't work for me
Most of my energy on this set of comments was to counter this particular statement of yours, which appeared to be your words and not a quote from anyone else.
This is patently untrue, and you've simply doubled down on the claim that you were right about it. However, once that's understood that it's an untrue statement, then this is not about blanket federal mandates that require eBikes to be allowed where regular bikes are allowed, but rather about lobbying for policy decisions that do allow them.
I tried to make that clear in my last statement and you accept none of it..... Sigh.... Many of those quotes say the exact same thing as me. But what can I say, it seems a lot of people disagree with you, but like I said it's pretty vague. I am no lawyer. At least I have the ability to admit that my statement wasn't clear and restate it more clearly. My intention was to state that the Federal government excludes them from motor vehicles and classifies them as a consumer product with the same guidelines as bikes. But let me just say the arguments have been more misrepresented on the other side. Kurt himself quoted a an article saying deaths have tripled in Switzerland but no mention that ebikes most likely have also. To me that's misrepresenting also. But I will be vilified for something that could be clearly seen to some that the Federal government sees them the same as all consumer products like bikes larks and rollerblades, I guess I am lobby for something, lol.
Either way the prejudice that's been apparent to me and all other ebikes riders on this site by the commenters and even some of the articles is sad. Us reasonable people will give up because we don't have the energy to argue the rediculous assertions of some haters.
weird I don't see you correcting any of these kind of comments when it's clear the Federal government has made a "learc demarcation that they don't qualify as a motorized vehicle in another regulations they have"
It just shows the true intention when you goafter only the people you wish to suppress
You said that federal law allows them where other bikes are allowed. Again - patently untrue. The law is simply about who sets product and safety standards. Nothing more and nothing less.
I am neither a proponent or detractor when it comes to eBikes. I believe they have their place. However, I don't stand idly by when a proponent mispresents what the law is in order to try to win an argument.
I made my comment based on these and many other articles that say the same thing. I apologise evidently I am patently wrong. I am glad you corrected me. I do not understand the difference between consumer product and motor vehicle enough to say one way or another It was my understanding from what has been said by numerous sources that if the state doesn't define it the Federal government does not veiw them as a motor vehicle and are allowed on roads and bike paths the same as a bike. You don't need registration or license.
I don't know you or your preferences on anything, it's a knee jerk reaction to all of the missinformation being spouted on here. You have won your argument as I stated earlier against my assumption that ebikes are treated likes bikes by the Federal law. I apologise again for misleading anyone.
Then why bring up singletrack? I don't know of any place in NPS where bicycles are allowed on singletrack. Bicycles are for the most part restricted to paved trails and fire roads.
It's weird I'm not correcting you but I have looked up numerous more articles and they all seem to agree with me that unless otherwise regulated by the state the Federal law considers ebikes essentially equivalent to bicycles in rules. Which is all I was saying. I guess there is a lot of people who don't understand the regulations
http://www.paelectrics.com/legislation.html
I actually appreciate very much your insistance on accuracy. I can actually even see many parts to your point, however I think there is a lot gray area here and I'm not sure what I said was all that innacurate. Either way it seems many many people have the same assumption as me. I'm sorry you took such offense to what I said as being "patently" untrue... Oh well. Since I'm not a lawyer I guess I have to take your word. Even though numerous others disagree.
I don't believe that's true as even Kurt has mentioned... But I am tired of talking to you and you wouldn't believe me even if I was right...
OK, we're going in circles, so we're shutting this one done.