Are Electric Mountain Bikes Ruining Trail Systems?

I can't say I agree. For one thing there is this: "The federal government has deemed Class 1 e-bikes as exempt from motorized vehicle classification"

"The federal Consumer Product Safety Act defines a "low speed electric bicycle" as a two or three wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals, a top speed when powered solely by the motor under 20 mph (32 km/h) and an electric motor that produces less than 750 W (1.01 hp). The Act authorizes the Consumer Product Safety Commission to protect people who ride low-speed electric vehicles by issuing necessary safety regulations.[61] The rules for e-bikes on public roads, sidewalks, and pathways are under state jurisdiction, and vary.

In conformance with legislation adopted by the U.S. Congress defining this category of electric-power bicycle (15 U.S.C. 2085(b)), CPSC rules stipulate that low speed electric bicycles[62] (to include two- and three-wheel vehicles) are exempt from classification as motor vehicles providing they have fully operable pedals, an electric motor of less than 750W (1 hp), and a top motor-powered speed of less than 20 miles per hour (32 km/h) when operated by a rider weighing 170 pounds.[63] An electric bike remaining within these specifications is subject to the CPSC consumer product regulations for a bicycle. Commercially manufactured e-bikes exceeding these power and speed limits are regulated by the federal DOT and NHTSA as motor vehicles, and must meet additional safety requirements. The legislation enacting this amendment to the CPSC is also known as HR 727.[64] The text of HR 727 includes the statement: "This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements." (Note that this refers to consumer product regulations enacted under the Consumer Product Safety Act. Preemption of more stringent state consumer product regulations does not limit State authority to regulate the use of electric bicycles, or bicycles in general, under state vehicle codes.)

While Federal law governs consumer product regulations for "low speed electric bicycles", as with motor vehicles and bicycles, regulation of how these products are used on public streets is subject to state vehicle codes. There is significant variation from state to state, as summarized below."

There is nothing in the Federal law that states anything about Class type bicycles, those regs are the ones being adopted by states, starting with California, and being backed by People for Bikes which is the lobbying arm of the bicycle manufacturers. So all an eBike has to do under Federal regs is to abide by the 15 U.S.C. 2085(b) as stated above in bold.

According to HR 727 the Federal regs as set by the CPSC don't allow use of higher wattage or higher speed than 20 mph and the Class 3 law is not more stringent but more lax. However the language in the last sentence does open the door for state vehicle codes to regulate eBikes so I assume that is how the Class laws are being enacted. However if there is a problem at some point with a Class 3 bike the Federal regs could be looked to I suppose.

Not all states have enacted the Class laws and I would think that not all states will. The Federal regs are actually fine as they stand IMHO and the Class 1 laws being championed by PFB are just more convenient for the manufacturers that sell bikes here as well as in the EU as they, with the exception of the higher 32kmh speed limit, mirror them so they don't have to do much more than a software change to the bikes.

There is not going to be any quick solution to trail access here in the states regardless of the laws or how they are interpreted. It is going to take time for eBikes themselves to prove that they are not what the mtb users think and it is going to be up to those that want to see the change to act responsibly and do what they can to bring about the change over time.
 
In the meantime, there are hundreds of thousands of miles of logging roads, fire roads, ranch roads, and decommissioned roads on public lands, both federal and state, where you can ride your e-bike as much as you like and nobody is going to bother you.
 
As an example of why I consider this argument a non-issue. I just found out about the Quilomene Wildlife Area north of Vantage, WA. Most of the "roads" are opened to motorized vehicles, so presumably e-bikes would be fine. But except for a few weeks during hunting season the area is remote and very lightly traveled, and looks like a cool place to explore and well-suited for an e-bike bikepacking expedition:

 
  • Like
Reactions: JRA
At some point in time, the hard core MTB crowd will get old. They will either give up the sport or switch to an ebike. Either way, their objections will go away.
 
Huge issue for me, I have 3000+ acres of amazing trails in my backyard, but my CLass 1 eMTBs are considered motor vehicles here. Nearest motorized trails to me are an hour's drive away! Plus, I really don't want to breathe exhaust hydrocarbons when I'm huffin and puffin up hills!
 
Better Quilomene video:


If you google Quilomene you will quickly get to a WA state page with all of the information you need, including decent maps. Short answer is that if you have a discover pass and stick to the roads you will be good to go. If you want to cross the wind farm you need a (free) permit that you can get online.
 
The state of Oregon is currently under attack by PFB to implement the Class laws as instituted in CA and other states. However there are some concerns being presented to PFB by some respected members of the cycling community that are happy with the way the current laws are written and have been for the last 20 years. Not only are these people cyclists but involved in the legal community and active in the past on state wide cycling legislation. The beauty is that they also have adopted eBikes for their particular needs and can see that their benefits going forward.

While PFB seems to think that their legislation should be implemented nation wide it really only benefits the BPSA and the major manufacturers who only want to sell slightly upgraded EU spec eBikes and have been doing a good job of marketing their products as such so that many believe them to be the only viable eBikes. In fact they are disingenuous in that they do favor one specific method of eBike systems and they are considering lobbying to have eBikes characterized as "self propelled" rather than motorized to try and sell eBikes, that have motors, to the general public to gain access to trail systems.

However in the Oregon proposal as well as other states they include this:

(8) An individual shall not ride an electric assisted bicycle on a trail that is specifically designated as nonmotorized and that has a natural surface tread that is made by clearing and grading the native soil with no added surfacing materials. A city, county, local authority or state agency having jurisdiction over a trail described in this subsection may allow the operation of an electric assisted bicycle on that trail.

By doing this they give up all rights to eBike access on natural surfaces yet leave it up to agencies to determine if they will be allowed. What this does is to immediately discriminate against their use whereas if this wasn't written in it would make just as much sense for eBikes to be allowed on non motorized and natural surface trails and if there are problems resulting from that allow the agencies to ban their use on the trail(s) where there are problems. At this point it is pretty well documented that eBikes ridden responsibly have no more ill effect on natural surface trails than regular bikes. However the uproar that the MTB community has been raising based mainly on uneducated and unsubstantiated claims with articles headlined like the above are being pandered to like a spoiled child.

In October 2018 we finally got the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department to amend its definition of bicycles to include e-bikes by incorporating our Oregon Vehicle Code definition and thereby allow e-bikes onto trails without any help from PFB. It is the general consensus from those involved that the current 20 yr old regulations allowing 1000w systems is working just fine. There is movement to bring the speed limit for eBikes across the board to 28mph but not to exceed the posted speed of the public way posted.

Also the PFB definition of bike "path" use includes highway right of ways but in Oregon that would be considered to be a bike "lane". The feeling is that all eBikes should be allowed to use path's and lanes as long as they adhere to speed limits posted on path's and once again the posted limit for the road.
 
Last edited:
The state of Oregon is currently under attack by PFB to implement the Class laws as instituted in CA and other states. However there are some concerns being presented to PFB by some respected members of the cycling community that are happy with the way the current laws are written and have been for the last 20 years. Not only are these people cyclists but involved in the legal community and active in the past on state wide cycling legislation. The beauty is that they also have adopted eBikes for their particular needs and can see that their benefits going forward.

While PFB seems to think that their legislation should be implemented nation wide it really only benefits the BPSA and the major manufacturers who only want to sell slightly upgraded EU spec eBikes and have been doing a good job of marketing their products as such so that many believe them to be the only viable eBikes. In fact they are disingenuous in that they do favor one specific method of eBike systems and they are considering lobbying to have eBikes characterized as "self propelled" rather than motorized to try and sell eBikes, that have motors, to the general public to gain access to trail systems.

However in the Oregon proposal as well as other states they include this:

(8) An individual shall not ride an electric assisted bicycle on a trail that is specifically designated as nonmotorized and that has a natural surface tread that is made by clearing and grading the native soil with no added surfacing materials. A city, county, local authority or state agency having jurisdiction over a trail described in this subsection may allow the operation of an electric assisted bicycle on that trail.

By doing this they give up all rights to eBike access on natural surfaces yet leave it up to agencies to determine if they will be allowed. What this does is to immediately discriminate against their use whereas if this wasn't written in it would make just as much sense for eBikes to be allowed on non motorized and natural surface trails and if there are problems resulting from that allow the agencies to ban their use on the trail(s) where there are problems. At this point it is pretty well documented that eBikes ridden responsibly have no more ill effect on natural surface trails than regular bikes. However the uproar that the MTB community has been raising based mainly on uneducated and unsubstantiated claims with articles headlined like the above are being pandered to like a spoiled child.

In October 2018 we finally got the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department to amend its definition of bicycles to include e-bikes by incorporating our Oregon Vehicle Code definition and thereby allow e-bikes onto trails without any help from PFB. It is the general consensus from those involved that the current 20 yr old regulations allowing 1000w systems is working just fine. There is movement to bring the speed limit for eBikes across the board to 28mph but not to exceed the posted speed of the public way posted.

Also the PFB definition of bike "path" use includes highway right of ways but in Oregon that would be considered to be a bike "lane". The feeling is that all eBikes should be allowed to use path's and lanes as long as they adhere to speed limits posted on path's and once again the posted limit for the road.
Following is a quote from Morgan Lomelle of People for Bikes from an email correspondence about why "natural surfaces" are always excluded from ebike legislation. PFB is spearheading the nationwide effort to pass "model legislation" that classifies ebikes into three groups (emphases are mine):

"Long story short -- what goes where on trails isn't determined by any legislative bill. Mountain bike advocates always worry that if we pass a three class bill, it will lead to a blanket opening of non motorized singletrack to eMTBs, so we put that provision in there as an assurance that the three class bill only applies to bike paths, roads, things that are within the state's vehicle code. Trail use is not determined by the vehicle code. So, the model bill has that provision as an assurance. Trail designations have to go through the public lands agency (e.g. MA State Parks)."
 
Gee, in 1990, I rode my mtb on the motorcycle trails, built with my gas tax, to find a single track to ride. The motorcycles did not have a problem. The mtb riders need to get over it and share the trails. At a Forest Service meeting in 1993, a FS employee was trying to cause an argument between horse riders and mountain bikers. The horse riders said share the trail. I have ridden trails in Idaho, Washington and California and we shared the trail.

We all need to get along and share the trail.
 
The issue we have here is that there is a statute that specifically states that eBikes are not allowed on nonmotorized trails and currently there is no such wording in the Oregon eBike law so why would we want it to be made into law? We already have it worked out with the State as I mentioned above to allow eBikes on natural surface trails without PFB and the below will just muddy those waters.

From 814.405 of the draft of the Oregon E Bike Bill with Classes that was also from the desk of Mr. Lomelle:

8) An individual shall not ride an electric assisted bicycle on a trail that is specifically designated as nonmotorized and that has a natural surface tread that is made by clearing and grading the native soil with no added surfacing materials. A city, county, local authority or state agency having jurisdiction over a trail described in this subsection may allow the operation of an electric assisted bicycle on that trail.

I realize there are differences from what is going on in other states from what is going on here but there is no reason why Oregon should follow the Class laws as written by PFB if there is enough evidence that they don't make the existing laws better, but worse?

Mr. Lomelle made this statement in an email that is not at all true as the 1000w limit has been in effect here since the last eBike laws were written over 20 years ago and once again why would we willing give it up?:

So, it is not legal to sell a device with a 1,000w motor and call it an electric bicycle. It would fall under a different category of vehicle or device under Oregon law.

Pardon my Libertarian views on this subject but I really feel the PFB is taking it upon itself to tailor eBikes to suit a specific type of eBike that just happens to suit the manufacturers that pay for their existence. However the loss of Interbike is going to take a huge chunk out of their annual budget as they drew quite a sum from that event.
 
Back