Help! Action Alert: New eMTB rules

[wrayb]

Help! We need riders who support Emtbs to respond to a survey on access to Federal trails here in the USA for Emtbs. This is critical for the future of Emtbs in this county because this decision by the Federal Government can have trickle down repercussions to ALL states and ALL trails! This is a very pivotal decision that could either curtail Emtbs or make them highly desirable (more sales worldwide mean more R&D and economies of scale for manufactures so better bikes and lower prices for EVERYONE!!!!). This is especially important for readers of this forum (who hopefully will be pro-access for Emtbs) to respond because you can be assured the E-haters will be very vocal on this topic and see this as their chance to eliminate Emtbs from "their" trails.

This survey is a result of a law change last year providing access for Emtbs on Federal lands in the USA. The IMBA response was to challenge this law because it was aurgued the powers that be didn't ask for any public input (i.e. input from the E-haters) before making this new law. This survey is the result. PLEASE take a minute to respond with something like "I feel type I Emtbs should be allowed access to all natural surface trails." Or whatever you feel is appropriate.

I happen to agree with IMBA on most issues. I feel type I Emtbs SHOULD be allowed on non-motorized trails. I am against access for type II (basically electric motorcycles). I am indifferent to access for type III (assisted up to 28 mph). Below is an email from IMBA. Read it and see what you think. The "manage Emtbs separately from mountain bikes" part gives me a little pause. I am not sure what they mean by that???? Also, their example response is all about the "mountain bike community" and the Emtb is NOT a mountain bike (or a motorcycle) so your response will be a different from the generic IMBA response. Btw, I hope the link works.

Subject: Action Alert: New eMTB rules

​ ​

​ ​ Love 'em? Hate 'em? Never heard of 'em? A proposed rule for managing e-bikes on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land is open for public comment through June 9. Mountain bikers could be affected by this new rule more than any other user group. The BLM has long been a strong federal partner and values rider input, so let’s make sure our voices are heard and we shape this new rule well for mountain biking. Pros of the the proposed rule: –Requires a local public process before allowing any eMTB access. –Distinguishes between class 1, class 2 and class 3 eMTBs. –Manages eMTBs separately from mountain bikes. What could improve in a final rule: –Managing class 1, class 2 and class 3 eMTBs separately from each other. –Prohibiting class 2 and class 3 eMTBs on natural surface non-motorized trails. –Clarifying the timeline for required NEPA analysis as part of planning processes. For more details on the rule, take a look at IMBA’s analysis of the proposed rule. For more information on eMTBs, visit IMBA’s eMTB education page and IMBA’s eMTB FAQs.​

​

​ For this proposed rule you need to submit your individual comment using regulations.gov. (Rule reference number: RIN 1004-AE72.) The sample comment below is in line with IMBA’s eMTB position, which supports class 1 eMTB access as long as access for traditional mountain bikes is not lost or impeded. We always advocate for these decisions to be made via public process alongside local mountain bikers and all stakeholders. Customize the comment below—the second paragraph would be great to personalize—or craft your own comment following these tips.

​ ​ Submit your comment​

​ ​ Sample Comment: Thank you for the opportunity for the public to engage in the Bureau of Land Management’s Increasing Recreational Opportunities through the Use of Electric Bikes. The mountain bike community is responsible for a large part of the natural surface trail infrastructure that exists today on our federal, state and local public lands. Hundreds of organized mountain bike clubs around the country manage thousands of volunteers who work closely with land managers on trail development, trail maintenance, and trail education for all users. Mountain bikers appreciate the leap in technology presented by eMTBs is a unique management challenge. This proposed rule rightfully plans separate management for bicycles and electric bicycles. It is critical land managers and local mountain bikers work together to determine where eMTBs are and are not appropriate on current and future mountain bike trails. The proposed rule includes an admirable planning process to achieve this, which could be made stronger by clarifying the timeline for NEPA analysis. The final rule should be improved by following the International Mountain Bicycling Association’s management recommendations: managing the three classes of e-bikes separately from one another, and prohibiting class 2 and class 3 eMTBs on natural surface, non-motorized trails. This is to maintain the spirit of traditional mountain bicycling by ensuring pedal-assisted use, and maintaining reasonable speeds for the safety of all users. Thank you for the willingness to engage with the mountain bike community.​

 

[jsharpe]

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of the people on this forum. I think you are right about the haters that will submit comments which need to be offset. A while back when I first learned about the comment period I submitted the following:

"I have been hiking, riding, and helping to maintain many miles of our local trails for more than 24 years. During that time I have observed quite a bit of change in the amount and types of uses. There has been a fairly recent but increasing appearance of class 1 pedal-assist e-bikes on trails both where they are allowed (e.g. Hartman Rocks) or not explicitly allowed (most of the USFS trails).
I have yet to observe or hear from others about even a single occurrence of any kind of problem or negative impact due to their use of the trail system. From my observations, they behave no differently than a human-only powered bicycle. Actually they riders I've met actually seem even more polite and considerate than some of on human-powered bikes.

Not only do they allow access to some who otherwise might not take advantage to our natural assets, for example, due to the age of the rider or elevation and/or grade of the trail (most of which are both high and steep in our area), but they also seem to be spreading the load to some of the underutilized trails which actually helps reduce the traffic on some of the most popular and heavily trafficked routes.

I strongly support treating class 1 pedal-assist e-bikes the same as a non-motorized bicycle and for them not to be considered a “motor vehicle”. In my opinion, they are an effective and appropriate way to utilize our trail assets."

 

[OldGoatMTB]

Help! We need pro Emtb riders to respond to a survey on access to Federal trails here in the USA...

I read the first line and thought you wanted professional ebike riders to give input. Obviously you want all those who endorse ebikes to give input!

 

[wrayb]

I read the first line and thought you wanted professional ebike riders to give input. Obviously you want all those who endorse ebikes to give input!

Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. I have made the change to "riders who support...". I hope some of the people on this forum will take 5 mintes to submit an opinion to this government survey! I know this is only for the US but this is a BIG market and the more Emtbs sold here the better the future is for everyone around the globe!

 

[OldGoatMTB]

Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. I have made the change to "riders who support...". I hope some of the people on this forum will take 5 mintes to submit an opinion to this government survey! I know this is only for the US but this is a BIG market and the more Emtbs sold here the better the future is for everyone around the globe!

BTW, I actually commented weeks ago. It really irks me how many places here in the states prohibit ebikes on trails the allow other bikes, namely national forests. There are a few jerks riding around on electric throttle-bikes giving us pedal-assisted bikers a bad name.

 

[cole_inman]

I emailed IMBA asking if them going with Class 1 only was to make it more palatable. I also don’t understand the “should be managed separately from traditional bikes” (it’s a 16-20lb difference what’s there to manage?), but thinking that’s also to make it more palatable, which is ok in my book. Sadly, no reply, and I’m on the board of a local IMBA chapter. Anyhow, I’ve put my comments in there. Share this with everyone you can. The USDA/USFS is next on the horizon if this goes through!

 

[Cyclopath1000]

I am a 69 year old avid outdoors person. I hike , bike, backpack,Backcountry ski . I mountain bike with both totally human powered bikes and a type 1 (pedal assist not throttle bike with a assist to 20 mph . ) I am equally courteous on a regular or an e bike and at my advanced age with the the collateral.damage of being aged : a knee replacement , a heart murmur, a cervical fusion plus more , I find the e bike something I can alternate with especially when riding with younger folks such as my 26 year old son. I hope the federal government funds it in their hearts to accommodate my use of an e bike on federal land. I love this country, all it's people and our majestic Backcountry. Please leave it open for reasonable e bike use. Thank you for allowing citizen comments on this vital issue.


I sent this ! Fund =find ...I have too big fingers. Need them shaved down ...weight reduction plan?

 

[wrayb]

I also don’t understand the “should be managed separately from traditional bikes” (it’s a 16-20lb difference what’s there to manage?), but thinking that’s also to make it more palatable, which is ok in my book. Sadly, no reply,

That sentence also bothers me very much. Totally ambiguous. For all we know IMBA could determine that means rules like..."No ebikes on any trail designed for pedal only bikes. E-trails must be built and maintained separately". That why no response was very specific...I wrote "Type I Emtbs should be allowed access to any and all trails accessible to pedal only bikes".

When it comes to Emtbs I don't trust IMBA if they don't specifically say how they would manage Emtbs separately.

 

[MPJ]

Done, good luck!??‍

 

[csj]

The "managed separately" should be strongly opposed. A portion of my response reads:

The question is not whether eMTB use can be allowed where MTB exists, but for what reasons it should not be. For years, even decades, eMTB definitions have been carefully considered so that their uses closely parallel existing MTB uses. Therefore, the question should be in what cases current eMTB classifications fail to make such use cases sufficiently similar. It is unclear whether there is any evidence suggesting there is any difference at all.​

​

I respectfully submit that any proposed rule managing eMTB separate from MTB is wrong-minded as considerable effort has been made to ensure that no technical justification exists for doing so. Such a plan would only serve to enable prejudicing trail use against eMTB by local officials due to special interests.​

​

I also opposed class 2. No throttles on eMTB if treated the same as MTB.