The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has released their long awaited direction on e-bike trail access. The decision will continue to allow e-bikes on motorized roads and trails and “lays out a process to evaluate future requests for expanded access,” according to a press release from the agency. The decision also outlines the required environmental analysis and public input needed before expanding e-bike access at the local level.

“National forests and grasslands are a place for all people to recreate, relax and refresh,” said Forest Service Chief Randy Moore in the release. “The additional guidance will help our district rangers and forest supervisors better serve their communities with a policy that allows managers to make locally based decisions to address e-bike use. This growing recreational activity is another opportunity to responsibly share the experience of the outdoors with other recreationists.”

The guidance is similar to what the National Park Service (NPS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decided, in that local districts have the ultimate say to allow e-bikes on non-motorized trails or not.

The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) applauded the USFS for finalizing the ruling and incorporating some of IMBA’s recommendations, but isn’t pleased with how the decision will reclassify non-motorized trails to motorized trails when e-bikes are allowed.

“The final rule has some great elements:” wrote Todd Keller in an IMBA blog post. “it requires a local public process to adequately collect local sentiment on possible pros and cons of eMTB access, through NEPA and Travel Management planning; it distinguishes between class 1, class 2 and class 3 eMTBs to ensure quality experiences for all trail users; and it manages eMTBs as a new category, separate from traditional mountain bikes. These steps are all in line with IMBA’s recommendations.”

The ruling doesn’t create an exclusion for eMTBs though and the directives would reclassify non-motorized trails to motorized to allow e-bike access on non-motorized trails.

“This will create funding complications, lead to increased user conflicts, and fundamentally change non-motorized trail allocations across the forest system.”

IMBA is working on an analysis of the new travel management plan to boil down key points and help IMBA Local partners understand the ruling and implementation. We’re reaching out to IMBA and to the USFS to get more clarification on what some of the language in the new travel management plan means.

Well that seems to complicate things. Not sure this is good news for anyone except maybe dirt bikers and ATV riders, in the rare case where a trail gets re-designated. Converting non-motorized trails to motorized is likely a non-starter for most existing trails.

If it doesn’t have pedals then it’s not a bike or ebike. Seems like a simple solution. I have been on several trails with signs showing what vehicle is allowed.

Seriously, I can’t figure out why people think bikes with motors are motorized.

Totally agree. Ebikes are bikes with assist. Dirt bikes tear up trails so bad. Nobody wants to ride with dirt bikes. It would have made sense to adopt the position of DOT. Class 1 ebikes are bikes. Done! No studies, no reclassification of trails. Easy! Bikes are already banned from wilderness, which is fine.

I am happy riding my mountain bike with dirt bikes when biking on dirt bike trails, and riding dirt bikes with other trail users on legal moto trails. Seems your “nobody” statement might be a bit off.

I’ve got some background in this area so maybe I can clear things up after reading the actual text of the ruling. The Forest Service has added the definitions of Class 1, 2, and 3 ebikes (same as everyone else’s definitions), and then created a new category of motorized trails specifically to allow ONLY ebikes (and non-motorized uses), text below: g. Trails Open to E-Bikes Only. Specify the class or classes of electrical bicycles (e-bikes) allowed (Class 1, 2, and/or 3).

They have decided that the anything with is motor is motorized and declined to classify motorized ebikes as non-motorized. I’m guessing they decided that classifying anything with a motor as non-motorized (regardless of the method of power application control [ie, hand throttle vs pedal controlled throttle] that some people try to claim makes ebikes non motorized) would set a precedent they would like to avoid. Because of they way the Forest Service does their planning re-classifying a trail from non-motorized trail open to bikes, to motorized trail Open to E-Bikes Only, isn’t that difficult, individual forests will typically roll it into their travel management plan updates, in these cases environmentalists are typically too focused on trying to close or prevent new OHV trails to care much about the reclassification of mountain bike trails.

Thanks for noting this. Got word back from the USFS today that this is accurate: “After completing the appropriate environmental analysis and public engagement, a local unit may choose to allow e-bikes on additional trails without authorizing other motorized vehicles. For instance, permitted activities on a trail could include traditional bicycles and e-bikes, but not include ATVs or other motorized vehicles.”

Only difference between “classes” of ebike is a few lines of code. It’s like putting a governor on a 600hp car and saying it’s a low speed vehicle. People can and will develop software hacks to get full power out of their bropeds and there is virtually no way to verify/enforce the class of ebike on trail.

Unless manufacturers only build ebikes up to a given power output (mechanically limited) this will become a nightmare of inexperienced riders going way too far, way too fast.

They are mechanically limited already. There’s no way to get more power or torque from them via software. The only 3rd party hacks out there fake the speed sensor, so you could potentially get assistance past the 25kph or 20mph cutoff. But even that stuff is getting cracked down on from the manufacturers and government. In France you could literally go to jail for faking the speed cutoff on your E-bike. The entire point of the E-bike classification system is to legally describe these things so you can create different policies around them.

Only difference between an e bike and a mountain bike is a motor/gearbox that is hardly distinguishable at the BB and a slightly larger down tube. How are we to verify/enforce the type of bike on a trail? Should we just ban all bikes from trails because one of them may be capable of higher speeds?

Yes, the only difference between an e bike and a mountain bike is a motor.

That difference means it’s motorised. This isn’t hard.

You may have inadvertently stumbled onto the solution for this entire issue: take off the warning labels and let the herd thin itself.

This is the inherent problem. E-bikes are motorized, by definition. Whether they damage the trails as severely as other motorized vehicles or not, the simple fact that they make access easier and allow so many more out of shape folks to easily access these trails will have a negative impact on non-motorized trails. Non-motorized trails are designated as non-motorized to protect them. That should not change, ever.

Exactly. Nonmotorized doesn’t mean small motors.

I disagree. More riders means more bodies to donate their time to trail upkeep, more money to go towards local chapters and lower prices… because as demand rises the manufacturers can build more and charge less for their bikes and components. I could see your point if everyone used their ebike and the trails as their mode of transportation but that will never be the case. A common problem I find at large trail systems is that the further away from the trailhead you get, the more maintenance is needed because less traffic means trails become overgrown. Ebikes can go further for 90% of riders.

Last note…. Bikes make people happy. The more people on bikes means more happy people. We need that right now. Society needs that.

Rise in demand does not dictate cheaper prices, especially in the age of disposable consumerism most manufacturing designs, technology and software is quickly made obsolete and machines have to be recalibrated, so a product rarely has a chance to remain relevant in the market long enough for the investment to be paid down to the point where the final retail is reduced. Some people prefer the solitude of overgrown trails and carry a folding saw or other necessities to keep it rideable to their taste. If happiness was sold in motors there would never have been a bicycle.

I am so down with this! Best answer, yet.

Crowded trails overloaded with two very different types of vehicles leading to happiness? That suggestion redefines delusional optimism.

….. I don’t own an ebike. Just wanted to make that clear.

How will ebike riders negatively impact the trails? Out of shape folks negatively impact trails?

Leave out of shape folks alone. They don’t hurt the trails.

Oh man, so many logical fallacies in your whole argument I don’t even know where to start. False premise(s), non-sequitur, slippery slope, appeal to probability, false equivalency, and maybe more but it’s late and I’m tired.

However your argument boils down to two things… 1. Non-motorized trails are designated as such to protect them 2. Out of shape people have a negative impact on trails and eMTBs will give them more access to trails

Without even getting in to all the other issues in the premise of your argument you seem to be implying that non-motorized trails are designated as such to protect them from out-of-shape people who will have a negative impact if given access.

There are two main problems with that… 1. Non-motorized trails aren’t designated as such to protect from out-of-shape people. They’re done so to protect from all the damage and hazards caused by high-power, traditional motorcycles and ATVs, because those were the motorized vehicles in question that originally created the need for the restriction. 2. You’re making a wildly unfounded assertion that out-of-shape people somehow cause more negative impact to a trail than (presumably) in-shape people. I don’t even know what to say about that one. It’s just weird and a kind of ableist, but also assumes that out-of-shape people don’t already have access and that they will be the ones predominantly using ebikes. And I’d absolutely challenge those last points. Very few of the riders I see smoking me on the climbs on their ebikes appear to be very out of shape. They’re mainly mtbers using ebikes to be able to put more miles in than their manual counterparts and keep themselves fresher for the fun parts. They share the same trail etiquette and joy of riding as regular mtbers bc they are regular mtbers, and the trail certainly doesn’t seem to be suffering from it.

There’s a lot more I could say but I don’t have the energy right now. Your points aren’t valid bc they aren’t based in any real reason and just don’t make sense anyway. You’re sticking your head in the sand and refusing to evolve your opinion based on new information which really means you’re just beholden to an ideology at this point, which is super weird considering we’re talking about mountain biking.

I doubt this will change your thoughts on the matter at all but hopefully some other people read this and decide the issue is worth giving some critical thought.

And for the record, I don’t own an ebike.

Your rebuttal focuses an awful lot on the throwaway mention of overweight people. That’s far from important to the point made by the op, to wit: that this will attract more riders to sections of trail formerly accessed by a limited number.

Haha. I think you are being facetious, as surely you can’t have read my comment as saying that out of shape people will do more damage than in-shape people. That would certainly be absurd. It’s all in the number of people on the trails. Much of my riding is on backcountry trails. I really don’t care if E-bikes are allowed on the singletrack in town that is maintained weekly by by the folks who ride the trails. It’s the backcountry trails that will undoubtedly suffer from an increased number of riders if E-bikes are allowed. They are non-motorized to protect the trails from damage. More people = more damage. It’s a really simple concept, actually. It’s surprising you can’t wrap your head around it. E-bikes make the hard to reach trails accessible by almost anyone, where they used to be only accessible to those who put in the hours of training in the off-season to be able to handle 5-6k feet of elevation gain in 40-60 miles. E-bikes don’t belong in the backcountry. They are motorized vehicles that enable people to cover more ground with fsr less effort. More people will do more damage to trails. It’s really as simple as that.

I wonder whether you’ll change your mind as you get older? I’m approaching 65…for my age I am super fit and I can still rip it downhill, but I ride with guys half my age and if I keep up with them on the climbs then I just don’t have the energy to be fully capable on the downs. I don’t want to stop riding with my mates and for that reason I’ve promised myself an e-bike for my birthday!

I predict that you will change your mind on this topic as you inevitably become less fit (at whatever age that starts to happen) Also I wonder what gives you the right to decide how many people should be allowed to ride trails? If suddenly everyone got super fit and all started riding analogue bikes on these trails you’re so concerned about… what would you do?

Fortunately we don’t have this silly nonsense of banning e-bikes from MTB trails anywhere here in Europe. We can understand the difference between actual motorbikes and pedal assistance.

I can’t say for sure, I’m almost 50. There is an argument for older folks and those with disabilities. I’m all for an exemption for over 55 or with a disability. I live in Alaska, and I’ve just seen that every time they make a trail easier for the masses to access, it draws more people, which draws more garbage and destruction. It’s not the E-bikes themselves I have a problem with, it’s the ease of access. In my experience, if people have to work hard for something, they will be more likely to appreciate it and take better care of it. From what I’ve seen, the same goes for backcountry trail access and etiquette. The riders and hikers I see in the backcountry are like minded folks who recognize that it took a considerable investment of time and effort to access these beautiful places and they do their best to keep them pristine. If more people put in the effort to get in shape to access these hard to reach places, I would welcome them with open arms; it is already happening, as mountain biking has exploded in popularity, but the people I see who struggled to climb 40 miles into a trail appreciate the effort it took to get there, and would never want to destroy it. As for age, who knows, I hope I’m like my friend Fred. He doesn’t do much mountain biking any more but at 83 last year, he still rode his years in miles on his road bike to celebrate his birthday. I asked him about E-bikes and his reply was, “they’ll put me in the grave before they put me on an E-bike.” I’d like more of us to strive to be like Fred.

Sounds like Scott has never ridden an ebike. There is zero impact beyond a normal bike. There is a huge difference between a dirt bike and an ebike that people should get educated about before posting negative comments.

I’ve ridden one. Read my comment above. It’s not about the bikes damaging the trails. It’s the masses of idiots who can now access the trails with minimal effort.

Before everyone gets all hot and bothered, I’m not saying that everyone on an e-bike is an idiot. I live in a place that is visited by thousands upon thousands of tourists every summer. You open my local backcountry trails to E-bikes, and then you have multiple businesses renting E-bikes to people who are not avid cyclists, but now can easily access areas that used to be hard to reach. Please tell me how hundreds or thousands more people on these trails, who aren’t familiar with trail etiquette, and don’t have any reason to take care of our environment, as they will be gone in a week, will not do damage to this beautiful place I call home? The businesses are already here, and renting the bikes. The only thing keeping these trails safe is a non-motorized/ no e-bike rule.

What kind of chickenshit trails do you ride on that a novice can ride up during his weeklong vacation on a rental ebike. An ebike might make up for a fitness deficit but not for a skill deficit. Arguably and ebike might be even harder to ride on technical terrain.

And, there’s the rub. A weekend rental warrior is not going to have a clue that there may be something other than weak legs which make mountain biking a challenge. Not everyone has the sense to avoid activities for which they are ill-prepared. Unfortunately, that rarely stops them from filing lawsuits when they end up in the hospital. So, maybe the problem will rectify itself: a few hefty lawsuits against e-bike renters and manufacturers and this issue will go the way of lawn darts and diving boards.

By definition they are not. Congress defined Class I products as specifically non-motorized. I understand your opinion but the law is an actual law defining class I as non motorized.

No. There is no “actual law” as you present it. Where are you getting this idea that there’s some sort of overarching law governing motorized bicycles? These laws, where they exist, are state laws and are as yet inconsistent in both their requirements and enforcement.

Except there is. It is consumer law and it includes the definition to be considered a bicycle and non- motorized. My state went further and clarified the definition as mot a motor vehicle.

You made my point for me: your STATE.

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2011-title15/USCODE-2011-title15-chap47-sec2085

As I said. Commerce law. The USA has determined the product is a bicycle. Also note the federal laws supercedes any state law. Would you please cite a law that defines these products or catagorizes them as motor vehicles? This is why I’m sure lawsuits will be coming to put the USFS policy on track with Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce.

I call your attention to the section entitled Federal Role in this document: https://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/state-electric-bicycle-laws-a-legislative-primer.aspx#:~:text=The%20law%20defined%20a%20low,is%20less%20than%2020%20mph.%E2%80%9D

Yes. Consumer law. Intent and product definition by the only authority to have that power – Congress. This is why ebikes are allowed anywhere bicycles are unless otherwise specifically prohibited. The POLICY that USFS has now issued is at odds with Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Right and the federal law applies to rules around consumer purchases, not where they can be ridden.

Ebike does not fit the legal description of “motorized vehicle” in any state in the US. That’s why bike trails that already allow ebikes still say “no motorized vehicles”.

So are dirt bikes. See you on the trails.

Have the Forest Service guy ride an ebike then ride a motorcycle dirt bike. The inability to differentiate, or not, should determine his job status.

Then have them riding an analog bike uphill with an ebiker and a dirtbiker coming up behind them impatient to pass.

Who says all motorized trails have to allow motorcycles? Not every motorized trail allows every type of motorized vehicles. So MTB trails will likely be converted to motorized trails with only Class ??? Ebikes. They have defined all 3 so potentially trails wouldn’t even allow all types of ebikes.

The problem is the world is so crazy right now, it’s impossible to know when what you’re reading is actually an April Fools joke.

“You can’t ride that here.” ‘That’s funny…’

I don’t think you guys understand what has been done here. Motorized trails doesn’t mean it automatically allows ATV’s motorcycles, trucks, SxS and construction equipment. Motorized trails are already broken down into what types of vehicles can use them. I assume these will be motorized trails with only ebikes allowed. Just like there are motorcycle trails that don’t allow ATV’s or ATV trails that don’t allow trucks.

Typically (as a 4×4 and dirt bike owner in the past) I have found that access to various types of off-road vehicles to trails has been limited primarily by the width of the trail itself. Not engine displacement, top speed, fuel type, or even weight.

Yeah, typically that’s how it’s done, but there is nothing saying they can’t/won’t. They defined the different class ebikes which means they intend to mark trails based on the different classes of ebikes, which would be something other than width.

From what I’ve read regarding the currently accepted three class division of e-bikes, there seems to be very little difference between classes. I see the 20 mph line as the only truly meaningful distinction. And, I’m not sure they’ve thoroughly defined even that. For example, does a class I e-bike have some sort of braking motor which prevents it going over 20 mph downhill? Or, can the motor on a Class I bike propel it uphill at 20 mph, or is the speed capability 20 mph max on level ground, in which case it would seem unlikely the motor would have much, if any, benefit for a rider going up a steep incline, which appears to be one of the primary arguments in favor of e-bikes. And, that weight issue would be unavoidable, wouldn’t it? At 155 lbs, I can most definitely get more speed out of my little Honda XR 100 than the guys who weigh nearly twice as much. The same effects would apply to the electric motors on an e-bike.

You could always just be pretty blunt with it and say if it has electric propulsion it can come here if it is gas powered and makes noise like a gas motor it’s not allowed. Simple enough. Why the nitty gritty details of it has to have pedals . It’s all about the propulsion.

That approach leaves it wide open for electric motorcycles to use the trails, doesn’t it?

And just requiring pedals means I could ride my old gas powered Indian moped if I still had it. It had pedals until I took them off and push started it every time because I was 13 and really wanted a motorcycle.

Seems like a simple non-motorized, with the exception of class 1 E-bikes allowed for 55 and older or disabled persons. Problem solved.

Might work. Although I’d be curious why you chose 55 as the age at which folks need an electric crutch…

Pretty arbitrary, really. 50, 60? Just something to allow for those old bikers who don’t want to go gently into the dying of the light.

I think I’d be a little happier with 65. Or so. 😎 I’m not quite prepared to concede the battle just yet.

I know what’s going to happen with emtbs. Same as every other motorized product. Technology will drive stronger, faster and they will become basically a motorcycle. I used to see homemade ebikes on the cherry creek bike path in Denver which has a 15 mph speed limit for a good reason. Lots of people walk it. People go all speeds but mostly it’s hard to go over 15mph under human power. I would get passed by these things weaving in and out of bikes and pedestrians going at least 25mph and rarely ever pedaling. Anything but a bike. It’s just a matter of time before someone literally gets killed. Ebikes always want to pass while doing nothing resembling biking because they can, just like cars on the road because they can and want to go faster than the limit because they can. Some peoe will be respectful, but there’s lots of examples where we know that is not the case. Why will this be any different? I suggest they stick to dirt roads i.e gravel.

I turned 42 last year, & realized that my knee could no longer get me up the hill a block from my house (much less any hiking trails).

Although I would commonly do 25-to-30 MPH on my manual bike, for brief spurts getting around in automotive traffic… I really have no use for a high speed EMTB.

That’s what e-motorcycles are for.

As such, I was greatly pleased by the thoroughly bureaucratic-minded “ebikes are non-motorized vehicles” policy proposed: Does it maintain sense linguistically? No. Does it make sense from a regulatory standpoint? Yes!

Wimpy <1HP ebikes aren’t motorcycles in any practical sense, & there’s no fairness in dictating who gets to quietly use a singletrack, beyond “don’t be noisy, don’t go fast, leave no trace”; which is really all the trail restrictions we need.

All restrictions that differentiate between e bikes and other bikes violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have a legal right to be able to access public trails.

If you have a legitimate disability, I absolutely agree. If you are a healthy 25 year old who just wants to get more dh laps, grow a pair and get in shape. It doesn’t seem like an impossible task to make some exemptions for those over 55 or people with disabilities. Will people ignore and abuse the exemption? Of course, but many will abide by the law, and it will still help to minimize impact and damage caused by too many people with easy access.

The law requires equal opportunity for access, not actual access. For example, the ADA says certain buildings must have ramps for wheelchairs. It doesn’t guarantee you a wheelchair. Nor does it guarantee wheelchair access to MTB trails. Or wheelchair access to interstate highways. Etc You may need to do a bit more research.

None of this matters because me and my friends and tons of others have been quietly and respectfully riding e-bikes on trails that don’t allow it for years.

Discretion is the better part of valor. I was always able to drink in my alcohol-free college dorm because I never got drunk and stupid. There’s much to be said for your approach.

Some good posts here. People who are older or physically challenged shouldn’t be banned from backcountry trails. Ebikes help us old codgers keep enjoying the wild areas. We own the public land and are entitled to enjoy it as much as young moth bike jocks who are trying to ban electrically assisted bikes from trails. It’s nonsense to claim they’re any more damaging or obnoxious than the hotrodding mtn bikers zooming around the trails. The more interest we have, the more influence, and funding. I’m a former conventional biker, hiker etc. But am 75 now with bad knees and have gone to e-bikes. Will continue to enjoy the backcountry ad long as I can. For now that assistance makes it possible.

Thank you USFS for creating a sensible standard for ebike use on public trails. I hope other agencies pay attention (hey, BLM/Nat Parks/US Dept Interior). ebikes clearly fit in their own category of “motorized bicycles”, i.e. not bicycles and not motorcycles. Trying to simply lump them in with non-motorized bicycles by virtue of mental-gymnastic wording changes to existing policy, as a kind of shortcut to access, has negative short and long term consequences for non-motorized bike access nationally.

This is a horrible decision for mountain biking ad a whole, not just ebikes. They just said the only thing that differentiates a bike from a motorcycle is any motor. When trying g to keep or access to trails it is not good. They could have simply modified the definition of a non-motorized vehicle to include class 1 ebikes, but instead really complicated matters. Emtbs are coming and this decision won’t stop that, but it will be messy for a few years. I have an emtb and it is such a game changer. It equalizes different riders abilities. Sometimes I go Amish and friends with lower fitness ride emtbs. Sometimes I go Amish and my 15 year old rides my emtb, sometimes I go emtb and my stud younger friends ride Amish. My point is we can all ride in harmony while nobody is pisse dwaiting the others. If I am emtb and I fell like I am not getting enough burn I shut the motor off for a while or turn down the assist.

I am going ro still ride my emtb as well as my son. It sucks that I will be labeled a criminal to go out and get exercise and bond with my son and friends. I was and still am a pretty fast rider. A few years ago I developed some chronic pain issues related to biking and could only bike 2 times a week if I didn’t push too hard. The emtb allows me to have more saddle time without the pain I would have for days after. Motorized trails suck and the closest decent ones are an hour away when I have single-track in my back yard and more 15 and 30 minutes away. I am not going to stop riding the trails I helped legally build so that I can travel an hour to eat dust, get rocks thrown at me, and ride blown out double track.

This is unfortunate. Congress with authority over interstate commerce defines these products (class I) as non-motorized. USFS over complicated this issue needlessly. I will remind people also that emtb and mtb input outnumbered hiking and equestrian input combined during the comment period.

The US Department of Interior no longer defines e-bikes as motorized vehicles

The policy simply gave local land managers the authority to determine where and if to allow e-bike usage using the current federal definition of e-bikes (which includes 3-wheelers). That just means individual parks can have individual rules. The policy is already being challenged in court in at least two lawsuits. Apparently the e-bike industry had a few unallowed private meetings with DoI officials where increased use of e-bikes in parks was being peddled.

Wow. I’m so flabbergasted by the myopic perspectives attempting to quantify and qualify the detriment to the environment, tourism and biking communities. To think that we can account for all the independent, dependent, and interdependent variables of this seemingly simple issue is short sided, to say the least. No one can say with any certainty what will occur as a result of this decision. It’s okay to be afraid, just admit it to yourself so you can kit up and go out for a ride!

Many points are raised here and I feel sorry for the local officials making decisions, given their multi-use mandate covering resources, wildlife, forage and recreation. As food for thought I’ve taken one of the comments promoting restricted access and changed it slightly to a sentiment some hikers surely have – just to see how it sounds:

“Much of my hiking is on backcountry trails. I really don’t care if bikes are allowed on the singletrack in town that is maintained weekly by by the folks who ride the trails. It’s the backcountry trails that will undoubtedly suffer from an increased number of users if E-bikes or other bikes are allowed. They should be non-vehicular to protect the trails from damage. More people = more damage. It’s a really simple concept, actually. It’s surprising you can’t wrap your head around it. Bikes make the hard to reach trails accessible by almost anyone, where they used to be only accessible to those who put in the hours of training in the off-season to be able to handle elevation gain and long miles on foot to reach them. Bikes don’t belong in the backcountry. They are vehicles that enable people to cover more ground with far less effort. More people will do more damage to trails. It’s really as simple as that.”

In my opinion excluding people (who are equal owners of the land) who damage trails no more than other users, do not add to noise pollution and do not affect the safety of others more than regular bikers seems to me generally a bad idea and there should be compelling reasons to do so. It’s natural to complain about crowded trails but we are all part of that problem.

Seems silly to think anyone will stop ebikes from entering trail networks with the explosion of ebikes already on the trails everywhere I look, I only see class 1 ebikes on the trails anyways. They’re already on the trails, no one will stop that when they’re selling thousands every month so get used to it. Personally, I really don’t care, they don’t cause anymore trail damage than regular bikes. We have so many people riding them on local trails all over the North East. In Canada, from what I’ve seen, ebikes are pretty much legal to ride on any trails and they seem to be doing just fine. Just rode in Quebec and ebikes were on all the trails I was riding. Everyone needs to be happy riding their bikes and stop worrying so much about what other people are doing, ebikes are not MX bikes.

What about senior citizens and disabled persons? Are they excluded from trails because they are not “fit”enough? What about all the people that use car shuttles to get to the top and then ride downhill? If ebikes are banned then shuttles should be too.

Do the shuttles drive up the trails?

No, but they allow for a lot more traffic on the trail. So if I ride my ebike up the fire road, your ok with me riding it down your trail, right. How about if I turn it off for the downhill?

You’re asking the wrong person. Your question needs to be addressed to ecampigli, not me. I don’t really feel the need to couch my disdain for e-mopeds in arguments about overcrowded trails. I think those arguments are very valid and I agree with virtually every one of them. But, at the end of the day I regard e-bicycles with the same jaundiced eye with which I regard “relic’ed” guitars, lip-synch’ing, and three-wheeled “motorcycles.” Would I be ok with a dirt bike riding to the top of a trail and coasting down in neutral with or without the engine on? Well, at least the dirt bike rider is unlikely to try convincing me that he’s riding a bicycle…

Does anyone here use a weed whacker? How about a chainsaw? How about a log splitter? How about a lawnmower? An electric drill? Do you drive a truck? Do you have a car or boat or motorcycle or snow machine or ATV that you use for pleasure? Shut them all down. You can fell trees and drill holes and row boats without any motorized assistance. When you’re old and weak you can go back to power.

The law recognizes the distinction between essential activities and recreation. Your point isn’t entirely without merit, but it fails to recognize that mountain biking is purely recreational while maintaining your property is essential. On that note, I’d be very happy if all lawn maintenance equipment were electric and thus nearly silent. And, further, I’ve always said that a good hour of firewood cutting, splitting, and stacking is a whole lot more productive than an hour in a gym. So, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. Your argument just doesn’t work as intended.

I’m aware that there is a flaw in my premise. I tried to neutralize it by including motorized devices that are not essential, such as a personal watercraft. But, as I mention elsewhere in this thread, definitions are situational. A guy who likes to shred on his motocross bike every Saturday is different from an Australian rancher who uses a motocross bike to look after 100 square miles of ranch. Of course we could split hairs forever. 😉

Don’t even get me started on personal watercraft… 😉

Who said anything about shutting it all down?Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can’t we just have some trails kept pure? Nobody is trying to take away anyone’s birthday. Some of us would just like to keep E-bikes off the trails on which they are already forbidden.

I do appreciate that it sounds like they are planning to leave the final say up to the local communities.

This is why everyone stays confused. It has already been worked out that ebikes are not motorized. Motorized signs do not apply to ebikes. Ebikes are allowed any place a bicycle is allowed unless a no ebike sign is posted.

E bikes make real bikers look bad. Trail conflict is inevitable with multiple use types, and i really hate being lumped in with e bikes by the powers that be. What they do is not the same sport, and i worry that treating them the same means that mountainbikes will be banned, or at least further restricted, in the crowded area where i live and ride. I’m also a fit elitist who would rather have less trail traffic. Growing the sport is good for bike manufacturers but not long term riders.

If you want to ride an e bike go ride motorcycle trails, or use it for commuting.

If a trail goes from non motorised to motorised that means uphill sections where people are going slow and attempting to make it up they could be blasted past by ebikers going 20mph or dirtbikers going breakneck. Certainly ebikes need ebike designated trails because having someone screaming up behind you, impatient to pass becuase they are getting their “quicker further faster” laps on an ebike is disrupting the solace of trails. Really Ebikes increase risk to all involved and for most user groups are a crutch. It is good to to get outside, but remember anywhere there is a trail someone has been before and responsibility and resect to each other does not end when a power button lights up.

A class 1e bike climbs about as fast as a moderately strong xc racer. They aren’t climbing at 20 mph.

And you can smoke a cigarette and drink a beer while riding as fast as the strong xc racer. Maybe you’re right; what could be the harm in that?

I generally save my beer for a nice resting point along my ride rather than while I’m riding, but I guess if they wanted to while they rode, they might? Cigarettes? Does anyone still smoke those?

Dude. Judgmental much? You worry too much about other people. All the trails where I ride are populated with both ebikes and analog riders. Everyone gets along. I do not own an ebike. I also do not care if someone who smokes or is out of shape or drinks beer gets up the mountain quicker. I ride for me and the beauty of riding, not to be seen.

Haha. Smh. I think you may have missed the point, and certainly the sarcasm. I love a beer after a good ride. E-bikes have their place, and I’m not saying they should be banned from every trail. I just think trails that are already deemed non-motorized should stay that way. If you guys get along in your neighborhood, great. I would never try to change that, and I would still enjoy your trails, wherever they might be. I’m just voicing my opinion on the backcountry trails in my neighborhood. If it is working so well as it is, why does everyone feel the need to force a change?

Yeah. But I and my small contingent of riders ride backcountry trails locally and in other locales/states. And we always see e-bikers who are having the same amount of fun as us. I think your argument is bunk. Most people do not litter. Most people respect. And most of us pick up after others. I understand your point of view, but I am calling it out as elitist. I could care less who got there and what their shape is. It’s your bias. I hope people enjoy and respect. Which has to be taught, not obstructed.

I’ve been a tourist in your state. Even rented a bike, but because I couldn’t spend a full day riding I unfortunately didn’t get to the good trails. But, if I go back I think I would rent an e-bike due to not knowing the terrain or the types of hills I’d be climbing. Plus, I could see more. I think this is what pisses you off. More people on “your” trails. I get it. I surfed for 35 years and understand localism. I just never practiced it.

I’d think you’d be more pissed about the oil and gas pollution in your state.

I also understand the analog riders thinking. I am 56 and ride 40 – 50 miles a week, but I can feel myself getting slower and having less energy uphill. Especially when the days heat up. But, I will stay analog until I can’t ride it anymore. I would never rule out an e-bike in the future though.

Where is the oil and gas pollution you speak of? The oil and gas industry is held to an incredibly high standard up here. I would be careful opening that can of worms if you don’t live here and understand it. People want to throw stones at the oil industry while typing on their computers, cell phones etc, that are all made from petroleum products. I’m also assuming everyone in this argument owns a bike, how do we think these bikes would be manufactured without oil? It’s a ridiculous notion to completely eliminate the oil industry, but you are helping me to make my point. The oil industry has been strongly regulated up here to prevent pollution and large scale incidents are extremely rare. It’s an example of utilizing our natural resources responsibly, which is exactly my opposition to opening trails completely to E-bikes.

You have a right to your opinion, as I have a right to mine. The reason we are all commenting here is because we feel strongly about it. That’s OK. I welcome the argument. I’ll have to do some soul searching, as I don’t feel like I’m a “localist.” It’s not about just more people on my trails. I travel and ride all over the country and I really appreciate your riding group’s commitment to taking care of the places you visit, as I do, as well. You are not the problem, and you would also be over the age 55 exemption to the no E-bikes rule I’m in favor of. There is a way to make this work and still protect this place from the masses who have already begun to destroy it.

And by the way, if you do make it back up to AK, as localist as I am, I’d be more than happy to hook you up with some trail info and even take you out for a ride on some of my favorite trails. As of this writing, though, E-bikes are still not allowed on the best ones, so we would have to suffer together.

You asked for it. Now you get dirt bikes on your MTB trails. And you have no legitimate argument against it. Motorized means motorized. Any argument that there is some mystical difference between emtb bikes and dirt bikes will undoubtedly be met with compelling counterarguments in court.

At best, you might effectively argue for a gross weight limit, but with that you still have to draw a line which cannot distinguish between a 90-pound kid on a Honda XR 75 and an 250-pound 30-year old on his electric moped.

There is a common, literal interpretation of “motorized vehicles.” If it has a motor, it’s a motorized vehicle. No exceptions. If this is the case, an MTB with electric shifting is a motorized vehicle. No exceptions. Don’t even bother trying to argue. It has a motor. Furthermore, these “e-shifter” riders don’t have the skill or strength to shift a mechanical bike. They should be limited to motorized vehicle trails only, so riders with strong thumbs are not endangered by these inexperienced weaklings.

Come on. Really? Do Electronic shifters take 75 percent of the work out of climbing a hill? They aren’t a motor that propels the bike. You are being petulant.

And an e bike generally requires the rider to pedal and the motor has less than a horsepower. Compared to a motorcycle, calling them motorized is petulant.

My wife doesn’t ride at all and I ride a lot. She rented an e-bike in Moab last year and was able to easily keep up with me on every hill, even in first gear. Not admitting that E-bikes are motorized vehicles is really interesting to me. Have you actually ridden one? I personally don’t see the attraction, other than the motor makes riding less work. The one I tried was heavy and not nearly as fun, as I can’t imagine trying to pop off berms and jumps and throw it around in the air, which is what makes riding a mtb fun for me. E-bikes are motorized vehicles. There is really no argument. Splitting hairs about mechanical vs e-shifters is really just trying to argue for argument’s sake. I don’t use electronic shifters either, as I don’t want to rely on a battery when I’m 40 miles from the nearest road and 5 or 6 hours into a ride, but the fact remains that electronic shifters don’t propel the bike; end of story.

I’ve ridden several. They ride different because of the added weight. They have a small motor, yes. But they are not motorized for the intention of the non-motorized vs motorized trails distinction. A 100cc motorcycle puts out multiple times more power and is much more damaging to a trail. The only reason I notice most of them are e bikes is because they are capable of going faster, but i have never been passed by one that made me fear for my safety. Continuing to spread doomsday fear about them is simply ignorant. I rented one for my wife who also doesn’t ride at my speed, put my daughter on her Mac-ride on it, and by wife with my daughter still beat me up the trail. She was tired from riding it, but it vastly improved the experience for both of us and the trail was no more damaged than it was by my acoustic bike.

So, laziness wins again. The obesity epidemic continues, and the bike industry is endorsing it whole-heartedly. Hard to reach places will be easily accessible by anyone who can afford to buy an e-bike and people will continue to be good stewards, as they always have been. You may be a really good person, who will take care of our pristine backcountry, but in my experience, the masses are not. I have already seen a huge negative change in the backcountry in my almost 50 years on this planet, caused by more people recreating there. E-bikes will not help to protect our trails. It’s sad that so many people are always looking for the easy way out. E-bikes are the new wonder drug to make everyone equal. Maybe we should allow transgender men to use them in the Olympics to even the playing field with the men who were born that way? Then we can all truly be equal, thanks to technology and there will be no need for anyone to work at physical fitness. Idiocracy is coming. Laziness wins again.

emtb and mtb comments outnumbered hiking and equestrians combined during the comment period. It seems like that coalition would be a winning group that could have more trails created.

Sorry Scott, a motor is a motor. Good thing that you’re running cables.

Congress has decided that class 1 ebikes are to be treated as bicycles, not motorized vehicles. So that issue has. Even decided.

So the “no motorized vehicles” signs should be more detailed? Something like “no vehicles propelled by motors?” But that’s not what the signs say today. And the common purist argument, “If it has a motor its a motor vehicle” would also have to be updated. Relying on NMV restrictions creates lazy arguments put forth without much thought. And let’s consider the definition of a “vehicle.” Bicycles are vehicles in the legal sense that must obey the same traffic laws as motor vehicles on roadways, but when the bicycle is on single track, which is not considered a roadway, traffic laws are irrelevant. The bicycle is no longer considered a vehicle. Therefore, an eMTB is not subject to the NMV restriction because it’s not a vehicle. It’s actually just a bicycle. What I’m trying to do is put a stake in the heart of the “no motor vehicle” argument by challenging the premises and lack of clarity. When that argument i neutralized, your personal objection comes down to the fact that it’s easier to ride an eMTB up a hill. Well, that’s true, but why is this fact any concern of yours? Just be honest, don’t fall back on the semantically flawed “non motor vehicle” argument.

Well stated James. I guess my earlier comments lay out pretty clearly why more people on Backcountry trails concerns me, so I won’t belabor the point. I don’t really know much about e-shifters, but if they qualify as motors in your book, that’s fine with me. Non-motorized means non-motorized. Keep them out too, if it reserves our beautiful backcountry for people who are willing to put in the time and energy it takes to remain physically fit enough to ride them.

Lots of assumptions here about who rides ebikes (talking about class 1 only) here. I’ve been trail and road riding for 33 years, fortunate enough to retire at 57 and average about 4-5 days on singletrack weekly – rode my last mtb race at 59. I’m 62 now, ride as much as ever but I get slower each year and the climbs just keep getting harder. I don’t have an ebike yet….but I know there’s one in my future just as there’s one in the future of everyone who has commented here. Scott – your day will come when all the time and energy will not be enough and an ebike will be your only option to continue riding where you love to ride. I don’t plan to stop for a long time but if in 5 or if I’m fortunate 10 years from now I need an ebike to make it up the climbs, I hope the trails I ride will allow it.

I used to play tennis every day. Sometimes for hours. Now my knees won’t take it. Sometimes we just age out of activities. Or, we accept that we just aren’t up to the same level of performance as we once were. Starting to think that’s at least partly what this is all about – aging guys who simply cannot accept that they can no longer do what they could do at age 25. But, there it is. We can’t. Nor should the rules we probably had a hand in establishing be rewritten to allow us to pretend we’re still kids.

I appreciate the sentiment. I am 48 and had a 2 level cervical spinal fusion 3 years ago, largely due to a nasty tomahawk fall from a mtb, down a steep ravine. I landed on my head and broke my helmet in 3 places. I’m lucky I didn’t break my neck. Now, every time I ride more than about 3 hours, it feels like someone is jamming an ice pick into my back. I bought a new Revel late last season, and the geometry seems to feel better. I am training hard on the bike trainer now, waiting for the snow to be gone, just hoping it will be enough for me to still enjoy the long backcountry rides I used to love. This summer will be the test. The thing is, if I can’t do them anymore, I don’t expect them to change the rules so that I can ride an E-bike on the same trails I used to. I value these trails and the pristine Alaskan backcountry too much to watch it be destroyed, just so I can still ride it. My body is changing, and I will change my riding to accommodate it. I will likely just have to enjoy shorter rides and take much longer breaks. It’s called aging. It happens to all of us, and it’s no excuse to open the flood gates and allow our beautiful places to be destroyed.

Peace. I’m glad you have what it takes to do those rides. We all have different opinions. On a separate subject, you got me thinking about other sports. How did we come to embrace ski areas and ski lifts? What if we all had to hike up instead? If you’re able to do it it’s a great experience.

The difference, and it’s a significant one, is that on a given slope *everyone* rides the lift up and comes down via the same gravity.

Well, we could just do away with lift served ski areas. They have a major negative impact on the environment anyway. The argument for this is stronger than the argument against eMTBs in the sense that eMTB environmental impact is close to MTBs. Of course, there are MTB parks that use ski lifts and riders who only go downhill. It’s an insult to the sport in my opinion, as are shuttles.

There is certainly a place for lift access and shuttle laps. I don’t have a problem with E-bikes on my local in-town singletrack, either. The trails are maintained weekly by the local mtb community. I am also an avid backcountry and resort skier. I don’t want new resorts popping up in my favorite backcountry ski areas and I wonder how long it will be before someone invents an e-skin that will help propel us up the hill. I’m not a fan of that idea either, but I’m sure someone will figure it out and it will be a whole new argument. There is a place for E-bikes and certainly as I age, I may soften my opinion on them. As I have said, I wouldn’t be against an over 55 exemption, but there is no need to allow unfettered access to our pristine backcountry areas by anyone who wants to rent or buy an e-bike. It’s just not good stewardship of our backcountry trails.

Why is the backcountry only reserved for you and your buddies. My tax dollars pay for it. But you want to keep it to yourself.

Not at all. You are more than welcome to enjoy it too. You just have to work for it. Wild places should stay wild. Too many people with easy access will ruin it. I’ve seen it happen too many times already. Why are you so afraid of the effort? It’s actually really good for you.

Again, you want to restrict access to people like you. I’m not afraid, I’ve been. But I’ve heard this selfish reasoning too many times as an excuse to keep others off their special place. Go buy your own land and you can do what you want.

How can protecting beautiful places be selfish? You must not live in a place that you have watched slowly being loved to death by tourism for decades. The places that used to be amazing are now a collection of cigarette butts, beer cans, and tangled fishing line, because they made the trails better and access easier. I don’t think I’m being selfish; quite the opposite. I’m essentially preventing my aging self from having easy access in the bnear future, so that others can enjoy what I have for so many years.

Your protecting it for yourself. If you really cared, you wouldn’t have any access, like wilderness designation. You assume people who would make the time and effort to get that far in are somehow bigger pigs than you. Rather elitist.

Haha. I suppose that’s one way to look at it. I just know what I’ve seen. More people equates to more “pigs,” and it has been my experience that people who don’t want to put out the extra effort to get there, also don’t want to put out the extra effort to take care of the place. Of course, that’s a generalization, but it has been proven to be accurate in Alaska, in my experience, without exception. We can use and recreate in our environment responsibly. I don’t even vote green, typically. But we need to use and recreate in our wild places responsibly, and unfortunately, that means not making a highway to every waterfall and not allowing easy access everywhere, just because some folks don’t want to have to put out the effort it takes to get there

This is a fatally flawed argument. A bicycle, whether motorized or not, remains a vehicle regardless of where it is being operated. It’s only the laws governing operation which change based on whether the bike is ridden on a trail or a street. Much like a sports car remains a sports car whether it’s being driven on city streets or the local race track. There’s no lack of clarity related to motorized bicycles. It is universally understood that “motorized” means propelled by a motor, not “has a motor on it.” A mechanic carrying a starter motor across a shop does not become “motorized.” Attempting to introduce any such definition is laughably disingenuous at best.

Let me make one adjustment to your second sentence. “A bicycle, whether motorized or not, remains a bicycle, regardless of where it is being operated” An electric guitar is still a guitar. Is a train a motorized vehicle? What about the cars without engines? What about those cars when they are not attached to an engine? How does state and federal law treat this subject? Definitions are flexible/situational. Are you a handyman or a plumber? Same activity, different definitions. Does an e-bike become a bicycle when the power is shut off? It can be ridden without power, in which case, it is exactly a bicycle. Don’t fixate on the motor.

Totally. Missed. The point. “Don’t fixate on the motor?” If it weren’t for the motor, would we even be having this discussion? No. We wouldn’t. The motor is the entire point here.

All of the examples you use as rebuttals are non-sequiturs.

I just came back from a 2 hr. ride on my Turbo Levo. I ride everywhere other MTB riders go. No one cares. Not a bit. There is no issue. In the real world I’m just another guy on a bicycle.

I know James… If my eMTB didn’t have AXS I wouldn’t even classify it as an e bike!

Except Congress has defined Class I products as specifically non-motorized. This is the entity responsible for interstate commerce. The law is really clear and I understand your opinion but you’re wrong.

To what are you referring? The Federal Highway Administration, not Congress, classifies vehicles – by passenger capacity or weight. The unofficial and very nebulous classification of electric bicycles to which you appear to refer is just a loose guideline which is adopted – or not – by individual states. “Congress” has nothing to do with this. It’s completely up to your state, if your state even addresses the matter.

What do you consider a class A motorhome with a diesel pusher and a gasoline fueled generator? Is that a diesel vehicle or a gas vehicle?

So a pacemaker makes people androids? It is a motor assist after all.

Enter your email for the top stories in mountain biking, plus product picks and deals delivered to your inbox each week.

Connect              

Company   About Us | Support Us | Singletracks Merch | Widgets

Explore   MTB Podcast | Best Bike Trails | IMBA Epics | Best MTB Gear | Mountain Bike Deals

Copyright 2022 Blue Spruce Ventures LLC | Terms | Privacy