Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
41 - 55 of 55 Posts
Discussion starter · #41 ·
Congress says not "motor vehicle" forest service says "motor vehicle" I imagine Congress trumps forest service?


Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Before you get flamed, I'll just chime in that as I've learned over the last 2 months, it's really up to the land manager to make their own rules up regarding trails that are not public roads. If they want to ban eMTBs they can, and don't have to put up signs so it is up to us to figure it out. The NFS has chosen to ban them on singletrack through regulation (not law, but it ends up being almost the same). This could change, but for now that's the way it is.

I'm in the process of creating a list of legal places I can ride that are nearby. It involves a lot of phone calls and emails. There are lots of online resources like this:eMountain Biking Map • PeopleForBikes, but they tend to be incomplete. Some of the information I've found online that says eBikes are banned in a certain place is incorrect. Regulation documentation online for a specific place often don't even mention eBikes even though the unwritten policy is that they are not allowed. All this makes it difficult to know for sure, but calling and speaking with them is the best way to find out.
 
Hi there I am new here and I signed up because I received a notice saying that there is an upcoming meeting:

Midpeninsula Regioanl Open Space District
Board of Directors Meeting
Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 5 p.m.


I was wondering what can be said in favor of allowing EMTBs to be allowed to ride in areas where they are currently prohibited. I am hoping that more trails will open up for EMTB riders. Looking for any advice as to what to say during one of these public meetings.
 
Looking for any advice as to what to say during one of these public meetings.
MidPen is currently running an e-bike pilot program on a couple paved trails, gathering data and opinions. At the Jan. 27, 2021 meeting they're considering whether to stick to their current schedule of running the paved pilot for a year before moving on to studying dirt options, or speeding up the process.

So, a very specific policy question being discussed, about how to gather data on how to make a decision sometime in the future. Lots of steps.

There is, however, an online form for commenting about e-bikes, and opting in to receiving communication about e-bike policies:

 
In the last two Midpen board meetings I attended, someone spoke in favor of e-bikes and referenced riding Kennedy and other local Midpen trails. I believe it was the same person both times but not 100% sure. Here is what was put in the minutes for the 7/14 meeting:

Bradley Erickson encouraged the District to allow Class 1 e-bikes in District preserves because it
allows older riders to enjoy the preserves. Additionally, these are allowed in national, state,
county, and city parks.


Is Bradley on here? I'm not actively advocating for e-bikes but I have some ideas on what might be useful inputs to Midpen on this topic.
 
Before you get flamed, I'll just chime in that as I've learned over the last 2 months, it's really up to the land manager to make their own rules up regarding trails that are not public roads. If they want to ban eMTBs they can, and don't have to put up signs so it is up to us to figure it out. The NFS has chosen to ban them on singletrack through regulation (not law, but it ends up being almost the same). This could change, but for now that's the way it is.

I'm in the process of creating a list of legal places I can ride that are nearby. It involves a lot of phone calls and emails. There are lots of online resources like this:eMountain Biking Map • PeopleForBikes, but they tend to be incomplete. Some of the information I've found online that says eBikes are banned in a certain place is incorrect. Regulation documentation online for a specific place often don't even mention eBikes even though the unwritten policy is that they are not allowed. All this makes it difficult to know for sure, but calling and speaking with them is the best way to find out.
Congress is most powerful federal land manager. If Congress and an agency have conflicting definitions, then it is the court's job to side with whomever is most lenient.
 
Discussion starter · #50 ·
In the last two Midpen board meetings I attended, someone spoke in favor of e-bikes and referenced riding Kennedy and other local Midpen trails. I believe it was the same person both times but not 100% sure. Here is what was put in the minutes for the 7/14 meeting:

Bradley Erickson encouraged the District to allow Class 1 e-bikes in District preserves because it
allows older riders to enjoy the preserves. Additionally, these are allowed in national, state,
county, and city parks.


Is Bradley on here? I'm not actively advocating for e-bikes but I have some ideas on what might be useful inputs to Midpen on this topic.
It's not me, but you should share your points if you've taken the time to put thought into them. I moved away from the Bay Area more than a year ago and probably won't ever be riding on Midpen managed lands given how long this process takes and the recent direction the board members have taken, but still comment online when the opportunity presents itself.
 
Yea, that's gonna be a no from me, dawg.
From your link: "..... judicial deference is appropriate where the agency's answer was was not unreasonable, so long as the Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question."
Congress speaking to the direct issue regarding ebike classifications:
"(b) For the purpose of this section, the term `low-speed electric
bicycle' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable
pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose
maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.'

"a low-speed electric bicycle (as defined in section 38(b) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act) shall not be considered a motor vehicle as
defined by section 30102(6) of title 49, United States Code."

Woof Woof
 
From your link: "..... judicial deference is appropriate where the agency's answer was was not unreasonable, so long as the Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question."
49 U.S. Code 301xx- Motor Vehicle Safety
If it goes to the court over vehicle safety, maybe. If it's about NEPA or a land agency following their travel management rules, the court is going to defer to the agency.
 
As of August 27, 2021, CA State Parks has consolidated their policies on e-bikes. This page is worth a visit, in general, restrictions have been increased:

E-Bikes in CA State Parks

Bottom line, existing Class 1 access remains the same for now but is being listed as "temporarily allowed". Class 2 loopholes have been closed and are currently only allowed on trails in 1 SRA (Folsom Lake) and in all of the SVRA's. Class 3 SVRA's only. Classes 2 & 3 OK for paved roads in State parks.
 
41 - 55 of 55 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top