Industry Veteran Hans Rey Calls for Clearer E-Bike Definitions

[pagheca]

Yes, @Fangs2k and @Powerslider: in my opinion there’s a general confusion when discussing e-bikes. The core issue is not speed or power, but the IDENTIFICATION of both the rider and the vehicle.

Bicycles have historically been exempt from strict regulation, and for good reason. However, this legacy, combined with the fact that e-bikes closely resemble traditional bicycles and, until recently, had relatively limited performance, has created a strong public bias: many people instinctively assume they should be governed by the same rules.

The reality today is more complex. From a technical standpoint, modern e-bikes can achieve significant speeds and acceleration. Even if they look like bicycles, in the wrong hands they can pose real risks.

And to be honest, I tend to agree with you, @Powerslider: some form of identification for riders—perhaps with reasonable exceptions for very young children—may now be necessary. I see far too many people riding carelessly and dangerously on cycle paths. Just this morning on my way to work, I witnessed a minor accident (fortunately without consequences) caused by someone riding on the wrong side of the path at a crossing, colliding with another cyclist coming the opposite way.

 

[Mario Antony]

There's preconceived idea within the post:

More Power = Higher Speeds = Dangerous/Trail Access denied

Pedalecs are not moppeds, nor motorcycles.
It hans't got a throotle.

Pedalecs, needs to be pushed hard (muscle force), to reach +40km/h [derestricted].

It's impossible to confuse ebikes with e-motorcycles, or even modified/transformed ebikes.
[[BTW:
OLD emoppeds, didn't doubled speed through jets or pipes.
Old 50cc were able to reach high speeds by deep and really engineering modifications (50cc would jump to 70cc, and even bigger 100/110cc). It wasn't simple...]]

Battery consumption is linear to power used.
More Power = More Drainage = Less Range.
All with big engines, will restrict power in most used modes, to have better range.

People perceive "power" through speed and aceleration.
Are you fast uphill? Even if you climb at say 40km/h, won't DH allow you to double that, if you want? Do you need to pedal to reach highspeeds in DH?

Trail Access is granteed by others perceiving you, as part of the trail system.
Like horse ridding, or trail running, or others.
Fundamentally, the idea that ebikes are motorcycles, is wrong (motorcycles are away faster, and erode too much any trail system).
This perception won't leave nonsayers easily, when we have ebikers stating this......

Starting with Restrictions, is the begining, for fuether restrictions.

If there is already in place speed limits, why would people want further restrictions?

 

[RickBullotta]

Our roads and highways handle a blend of vehicles with 1HP and 800HP. That hasn't been a big issue. We manage it with speed limits, not power limits.

 

[Mikerb]

Wow.....what a thread! I have just caught up with this discussion. Firstly I admit to having absolutely no interest in more than the amount of power already provided by my Bosch gen4 or Brose ( gen 3 Levo) bikes. Already mentioned a few times is the fact that here in the UK none of the media, and a lot of the police and other commentators do not have a clue what the existing regulations are regarding pedelecs. The constantly use the meaningless term "ebike". Most of the Time they should be using the term " motorcycle"
Rightly or not it is probably the negative aspects of media reporting of "ebikes" that will ultimately lead to renewed legislation affecting our small niche of the cycle market. We will then be in the hands of regulators, whether they are the UK Dept of Transport or the EU Commission........and neither is technically competent in my opinion either! Their decisions will be driven by 2 aspects. One will certainly be the perceived need to promote cycling to reduce car use...especially in urban areas, the other more technical aspect will be driven by European manufacturers and Industry lobby groups. Bosch would certainly be a major contributor.
In that latter aspect there are only 4 technical variances that would be considered.......cycle weight, throttle, max power, max assisted speed.
One other feature that may be included is an online registration/certificate of compliance to enable easy enforcement

 

[pagheca]

Our roads and highways handle a blend of vehicles with 1HP and 800HP. That hasn't been a big issue. We manage it with speed limits, not power limits.

Animals, bycicles, pedestrians and agricultural machinery are not allowed, though. And all the vehicles allowed have their own plates, while drivers are required to have a running driving license.

This makes THE difference.

 

[Powerslider]

Yes, @Fangs2k and @Powerslider: in my opinion there’s a general confusion when discussing e-bikes. The core issue is not speed or power, but the IDENTIFICATION of both the rider and the vehicle.

Bicycles have historically been exempt from strict regulation, and for good reason. However, this legacy, combined with the fact that e-bikes closely resemble traditional bicycles and, until recently, had relatively limited performance, has created a strong public bias: many people instinctively assume they should be governed by the same rules.

The reality today is more complex. From a technical standpoint, modern e-bikes can achieve significant speeds and acceleration. Even if they look like bicycles, in the wrong hands they can pose real risks.

And to be honest, I tend to agree with you, @Powerslider: some form of identification for riders—perhaps with reasonable exceptions for very young children—may now be necessary. I see far too many people riding carelessly and dangerously on cycle paths. Just this morning on my way to work, I witnessed a minor accident (fortunately without consequences) caused by someone riding on the wrong side of the path at a crossing, colliding with another cyclist coming the opposite way.

To clarify my position, I’m in favor of requiring a bike license for riders (14 and up?) operating any bicycle on public roads, however I’m not of the opinion that a license should be required when riding anything off road. You could drive a monster truck without a license if you never operate it on public roads.

Also, let’s not be under any illusion that the license would provide any proof of competency. It would mostly just be a fee to generate revenue to offset cost of bike lanes and the like. I envision it being similar to a fishing or hunting license.

 

[Powerslider]

Our roads and highways handle a blend of vehicles with 1HP and 800HP. That hasn't been a big issue. We manage it with speed limits, not power limits.

I struggle to find anything we regulate by its speed capability, or power. I’m repeating myself, but we (at least in the US) regulate behavior, not capability. That’s why I find it weird, and frankly disturbing that some are so ready to accept such a concept.

 

[pagheca]

To clarify my position, I’m in favor of requiring a bike license for riders (14 and up?) operating any bicycle on public roads, however I’m not of the opinion that a license should be required when riding anything off road. You could drive a monster truck without a license if you never operate it on public roads.

Also, let’s not be under any illusion that the license would provide any proof of competency. It would mostly just be a fee to generate revenue to offset cost of bike lanes and the like. I envision it being similar to a fishing or hunting license.

Yes, I understand your point. And I think you make a point about the need for bicycle registration.

However, once again, saying that “you could drive a monster truck without a license as long as you never use public roads, however I’m not of the opinion that a license should be required when riding anything off road.” is a bit misleading because "off-road" and "public" are two totally different concepts.

In many places you can operate an unregistered vehicle on private land (with the owner’s permission) or on designated tracks. But that does not extend to areas such as footpaths or hiking trails on public ground. And that’s precisely the distinction being made here.

And frankly, I wouldn’t want to encounter a “monster truck” while hiking in the mountains, just as I wouldn’t want to come across an e-bike or motorbike speeding at 70 km/h on a narrow trail while I am hiking with a couple of kids.

 

[pagheca]

I struggle to find anything we regulate by its speed capability, or power. I’m repeating myself, but we (at least in the US) regulate behavior, not capability. That’s why I find it weird, and frankly disturbing that some are so ready to accept such a concept.

Think of license plate, insurance, driver license. Aren't them "regulations", even in the US? Are you free to drive a Ferrari without a license in your town or on the motorway?

That's all we are discussing here: if you want to drive something without a license or plate or insurance, you can do that, BUT you have to stay within some limitations in power, speed, etc.

 

[Powerslider]

Animals, bycicles, pedestrians and agricultural machinery are not allowed, though. And all the vehicles allowed have their own plates, while drivers are required to have a running driving license.

This makes THE difference.

First, you can have animals, bicycles, and agricultural machinery on many roads. Just ask the Amish!
We can’t require an actual driver’s license to ride a bicycle unless we’re ready to say kids can’t ride bicycles! People can’t be that extreme. Besides, a license to operate a vehicle on public roads is completely irrelevant to operating a bicycle off road. I don’t see any connection between the two. Keep in mind, right now you can ride a 500cc motocross bike off road without a license. It’s ridiculous to propose an eMTB is so fast and powerful a driver’s license is required.

 

[Powerslider]

Yes, I understand your point. And I think you make a point about the need for bicycle registration.

However, once again, saying that “you could drive a monster truck without a license as long as you never use public roads, however I’m not of the opinion that a license should be required when riding anything off road.” is a bit misleading because "off-road" and "public" are two totally different concepts.

In many places you can operate an unregistered vehicle on private land (with the owner’s permission) or on designated tracks. But that does not extend to areas such as footpaths or hiking trails on public ground. And that’s precisely the distinction being made here.

And frankly, I wouldn’t want to encounter a “monster truck” while hiking in the mountains, just as I wouldn’t want to come across an e-bike or motorbike speeding at 70 km/h on a narrow trail while I am hiking with a couple of kids.

Off road means just that- you’re not on a public roadway. You can be at a public facility like a motocross track, drag strip, or public trail system, and you’re not required to have a driver/motorcycle license or be of legal driving age. The vehicle itself doesn’t need to have the same requirements when you stay off public roads, regardless if the facility is private. That’s why a 10,000 hp Top Fuel dragster can be run at a public racetrack but not a public roadway.

This does make me think about the eMTB riders who are riding on private land. Wouldn’t they be right to expect their eMTB would be free from speed and power restrictions?

 

[Powerslider]

Think of license plate, insurance, driver license. Aren't them "regulations", even in the US? Are you free to drive a Ferrari without a license in your town or on the motorway?

That's all we are discussing here: if you want to drive something without a license or plate or insurance, you can do that, BUT you have to stay within some limitations in power, speed, etc.

But the letter proposes a class system where we limit speed and power; and some proposals include different requirements because of power and speed capabilities. We in the US at least, don’t regulate in relation to power or speed. We don’t require a 1000hp Corvette to have some additional license or registration a base Camry would require; and we sure as hell don’t craft bullshit regulations limiting the vehicle’s power or speed!

 

[Mikerb]

I think some folk need to take into consideration that certainly in the UK and Europe absolutely no account was taken into consideration for EMTB specific regulation. The focus was on the generic cycle when assisted by an electric motor. Those regulations were designed to ensure no additional restrictions ( other than age) were imposed on EAPCs than any other cycle. The regulations also ,for example, took no account of the different needs of cargo bikes. What they did not consider was the subsequent massive growth of EMTBs. So maybe a review may now do that.
Again I can only comment on EU/UK regulation, but those regulations still position cycles including EAPCs into the various Road Traffic Acts of each country. There is therefore no definition of offroad. Thereare decisions of public highways, footpaths, bridleways, droves and private land.

 

[Powerslider]

The more this topic is discussed, it only reinforces my belief that a worldwide, manufacturer-level, one-size-fits-all approach to achieving broader trail access and safety is not reasonable nor appropriate. Those goals should be achieved on an individual, case-by-case basis by people local to the area.

 

[bmwpowere36m3]

I struggle to find anything we regulate by its speed capability, or power. I’m repeating myself, but we (at least in the US) regulate behavior, not capability. That’s why I find it weird, and frankly disturbing that some are so ready to accept such a concept.

Mopeds or scooters, not requiring registration or insurance are normally limited to 50cc. As is the case in our state of CT. You still need a license though and cannot ride them on highways. So power and speed is limited through engine size. Above 50 cc their treated like motorcycles and require all the above.

"Off road", but most of us ride on public land (town parks, state forest, federal land, etc)... so rules still apply like driving on the street. I cannot take my motorcycle or snowmobile to my local town park, just because its "off road". THere's places its allowed, but limited and certain restrictions and rules apply. I mentioned it prior, but vehicles still need to be registered and riders licensed.

*edit* drag strip, MX track... those aren't public land. They may be open to the public, but their private property.

 

[Powerslider]

Mopeds or scooters, not requiring registration or insurance are normally limited to 50cc. As is the case in our state of CT. You still need a license though and cannot ride them on highways. So power and speed is limited through engine size. Above 50 cc their treated like motorcycles and require all the above.

"Off road", but most of us ride on public land (town parks, state forest, federal land, etc)... so rules still apply like driving on the street. I cannot take my motorcycle or snowmobile to my local town park, just because its "off road". THere's places its allowed, but limited and certain restrictions and rules apply. I mentioned it prior, but vehicles still need to be registered and riders licensed.

*edit* drag strip, MX track... those aren't public land. They may be open to the public, but their private property.

In the US at least, operating on a public road is not the same as operating off road. It is irrelevant if the off road land/facility is publicly or privately owned.

 

[pagheca]

First, you can have animals, bicycles, and agricultural machinery on many roads. Just ask the Amish!
We can’t require an actual driver’s license to ride a bicycle unless we’re ready to say kids can’t ride bicycles! People can’t be that extreme. Besides, a license to operate a vehicle on public roads is completely irrelevant to operating a bicycle off road. I don’t see any connection between the two. Keep in mind, right now you can ride a 500cc motocross bike off road without a license. It’s ridiculous to propose an eMTB is so fast and powerful a driver’s license is required.

Yes, you are right, I was thinking about animals, bycicles, pedestrians and agricultural machinery are not allowed ON A HIGHWAY. I should have specified that. At least this applies to many EU countries. I do not know if Amish are allowed on the highway (I remember them very well because I spent a year in Delaware and was driving quite often in Amish areas nearby.

In the US at least, operating on a public road is not the same as operating off road. It is irrelevant if the off road land/facility is publicly or privately owned.

Let me make sure I understand your point correctly.

You’re saying that public roads and off-road areas are two different things (which I agree with). At the same time, you’re suggesting that whether the off-road land is publicly or privately owned doesn’t really matter.

I’m asking just to clarify, not to argue. From my perspective, “publicly owned” usually means “public,” so I want to be sure I’m not missing something.

However, if ownership really isn’t relevant, does that mean that off-road, meaning outside any road where vehicles are normally allowed, you could technically drive on private land (for example, a track on someone’s property or even a backyard) with something like a dragster?

No intention to be confrontational at all, just trying to understand whether we might be using different definitions here and there.

 

[bmwpowere36m3]

In the US at least, operating on a public road is not the same as operating off road. It is irrelevant if the off road land/facility is publicly or privately owned.

You must live in a different United States... not the same in what sense?

If I ride my bicycle on public roads (including sidewalks) there a set of laws that apply. If I ride my bicycle on public land "off the road", as in a park or forest trails (rail path, double track, single track, etc...) there also a set of laws that apply. The two sets of laws may not be the same, but laws exists.

If I'm on private property, those prior laws aren't applicable. The owner of the property sets forth rules and regulations.

Your argument of its "offroad" and laws or restrictions on speed/power don't apply is not true across the board. The only scenario is private property. The discussion here in this thread is related to public land/roads where the government sets forth laws.

Nothing is stopping one from buying a class III or emoto or whatever and riding it on private property as fast and with as much power as one can buy, modify or build. So long as the property owner is okay with it.

 

[Powerslider]

Yes, you are right, I was thinking about animals, bycicles, pedestrians and agricultural machinery are not allowed ON A HIGHWAY. I should have specified that. At least this applies to many EU countries. I do not know if Amish are allowed on the highway (I remember them very well because I spent a year in Delaware and was driving quite often in Amish areas nearby.

Let me make sure I understand your point correctly.

You’re saying that public roads and off-road areas are two different things (which I agree with). At the same time, you’re suggesting that whether the off-road land is publicly or privately owned doesn’t really matter.

I’m asking just to clarify, not to argue. From my perspective, “publicly owned” usually means “public,” so I want to be sure I’m not missing something.

However, if ownership really isn’t relevant, does that mean that off-road, meaning outside any road where vehicles are normally allowed, you could technically drive on private land (for example, a track on someone’s property or even a backyard) with something like a dragster?

No intention to be confrontational at all, just trying to understand whether we might be using different definitions here and there.

An example I’m thinking of would be riding in the open desert in Nevada that is federal land. You can operate say a truck, side by side, or motorcycle that isn't street legal. You’re not on a public roadway, so you’re not required to adhere to the same vehicle regulations that govern vehicles operating on public roadways. There could be some limitations but you’re not operating under standard motor vehicle regulations. I can even add a more relevant example by pointing to the Tonto National Forest (federal land) where Hawes is located. Motorized vehicles do not have to adhere to Arizona motor vehicle regulations. Instead they must adhere to Arizona OHV laws governed by the Game and Fish Department instead of the public roadways governed by Department of Transportation. Completely different division with different (lesser) regulations. It’s not about ownership as much as if you’re on a public roadway or not.

 

[bmwpowere36m3]

An example I’m thinking of would be riding in the open desert in Nevada that is federal land. You can operate say a truck, side by side, or motorcycle that isn't street legal. You’re not on a public roadway, so you’re not required to adhere to the same vehicle regulations that govern vehicles operating on public roadways. There could be some limitations but you’re not operating under standard motor vehicle regulations.

Access such as that pales in comparison to where bicycles are allowed by multiple orders of magnitude. Yes, there are certain places were off-road vehicles are allowed and they have their own rules and regulations. Just because they allow 450cc MX or 1000hp trophy truck to run wild in the desert, doesn't mean you can or should in for example, Central Park, NY.

You can probably ride any eMTB, Surron, Bonnell, Stark, etc... in that OHV area. If you think that applies to places trail system like Hawes and SOMO , then that's simply not the case and will never be.

Trails we MTBrs access are often multi-use and started life as hiking trails. The areas you mention out in the desert or others were developed or access granted with motorsport vehicles in mind and not hikers or bikers.

You want that kind of access and freedom, but at ANY "off the road" trail system is what I'm hearing and isn't going to happen. That OHV access is few and far between, granted in some states there's more of it, but as a whole in the US its limited in comparison to bicycle access. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too unfortunately.

 

[pagheca]

An example I’m thinking of would be riding in the open desert in Nevada that is federal land. You can operate say a truck, side by side, or motorcycle that isn't street legal.

Thanks for the example but... are you 100% sure about that?

I searched over the internet and looks like, with some exceptions, you cannot drive an unregistered vehicle off-road on federal land. I am not an expert on law, though. I asked chatgpt and this is the answer, but I am very well aware that this may not be the "right" question to ask and that it may be an allucination as usual... I would really like to have an answer from a lawyer.

However, this is absolutely not true in Italy, or Spain, and probably in most, if not all, the EU. You cannot drive an unregistered vehicle on public or someone else's private land. Population density here is much higher and there is nothing like a "desert" here the size of the Nevada desert.

Pedelec and bicycles are, once again, an exception, that is my original point. Read these answers carefully because they are very articulated (if true... ).

QUESTION: can you drive in the US federal land an unregistered vehicle off-road?
__________________________________________________
Short answer: sometimes yes, sometimes no — it depends on where on federal land and what rules apply there.

Here’s the real breakdown:

1) Federal land is not one single rule set​

Different agencies manage different lands, each with its own regulations:

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
• U.S. Forest Service
• National Park Service
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Each can set specific requirements for vehicles.

---

2) BLM & Forest Service land (most permissive cases)​

On many BLM and Forest Service lands:

• You can often use an unregistered off-road vehicle (OHV) (e.g., dirt bike, ATV)
• BUT:
  • It must be used only on designated trails/areas
  • It usually must have an OHV sticker/permit (state-issued)
  • You cannot drive it on public roads within those lands

So: unregistered for road use is often fine, but not unregulated.

---

3) National Parks (strict)​

On land managed by the National Park Service:

• Off-road driving is generally prohibited
• Vehicles must be street-legal, registered, and insured
• Driving off designated roads is typically illegal

Here the answer is basically no.

---

4) State laws still apply​

Even on federal land:

• States often require:
  • OHV registration or permit
  • Safety equipment
  • Age restrictions

So you may not need a road registration, but you usually still need some form of official authorization.

---

5) Private vs public confusion​

This is where many discussions go wrong:

• Federal land is publicly owned, but not a free-for-all
• It’s managed land with specific access rules
• “Off-road” ≠ “unregulated”

---

Bottom line​

• Yes, you can often drive a non-road-registered vehicle off-road on some federal lands
• No, you generally cannot just drive anything anywhere without permits or restrictions

---

If you want, I can give you a couple of concrete examples (e.g., California desert vs Colorado forest), where the rules differ quite a bit—it makes the contrast very clear.

Yes, give me a couple of examples:

Great—these contrasts really make the differences clear.

---

Example 1: California desert (BLM land — relatively permissive)​

A classic case is areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management like:

• Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (a.k.a. Glamis)

What’s allowed​

• You can ride:
  • Dirt bikes
  • ATVs
  • Side-by-sides
• Vehicles do NOT need to be road-registered

But you still need:​

• An OHV permit/sticker (California “green sticker” or equivalent)
• A flag on dunes (for visibility)
• Spark arrestor (fire prevention)

Important limits​

• Stay within designated open areas
• You cannot drive on paved public roads without full registration

This is the situation many people refer to when they say “you don’t need registration”—it’s true here, but only under specific rules.

---

Example 2: Colorado National Forest (more structured control)​

Take land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, for example:

• Arapaho National Forest

What’s allowed​

• Off-road vehicles are permitted only on designated motorized trails

Requirements​

• You typically need:
  • An OHV registration or permit (Colorado sticker)
  • To follow the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM)

Key restriction​

• If a trail connects to a public road:
  • Your vehicle may need to be street-legal to legally transition

So even off-road, the system is much more controlled than in open desert areas.

---

Example 3: National Parks (very restrictive)​

For comparison, consider:

• Yellowstone National Park

Managed by the National Park Service.

Rules​

• Driving is allowed only on paved or designated roads
• Vehicles must be:
  • Registered
  • Insured
  • Street legal

Off-road driving?​

• Almost always illegal

This is the complete opposite of BLM desert land.

---

The real takeaway​

Across the US, federal land falls into three broad categories:

1. Open OHV areas (BLM desert)
   → Unregistered vehicles OK, but with permits
2. Managed trail systems (Forests)
   → Allowed, but tightly controlled and mapped
3. Protected parks
   → Off-road driving basically prohibited

---

Why people get confused​

Different people are thinking of completely different places:

• Someone from California desert → “You can ride anything anywhere”
• Someone from a National Park context → “Absolutely not allowed”

Both are right—in their specific context.

---

If you want, I can compare this directly with EU rules (Italy/Spain vs US), because the philosophy behind regulation is actually quite different and explains a lot of these misunderstandings.

 

[Powerslider]

Thanks for the example but... are you 100% sure about that?

I searched over the internet and looks like, with some exceptions, you cannot drive an unregistered vehicle off-road on federal land. I am not an expert on law, though. I asked chatgpt and this is the answer, but I am very well aware that this may not be the "right" question to ask and that it may be an allucination as usual... I would really like to have an answer from a lawyer.

However, this is absolutely not true in Italy, or Spain, and probably in most, if not all, the EU. You cannot drive an unregistered vehicle on public or someone else's private land. Population density here is much higher and there is nothing like a "desert" here the size of the Nevada desert.

Pedelec and bicycles are, once again, an exception, that is my original point. Read these answers carefully because they are very articulated (if true... ).

QUESTION: can you drive in the US federal land an unregistered vehicle off-road?
__________________________________________________
Short answer: sometimes yes, sometimes no — it depends on where on federal land and what rules apply there.

Here’s the real breakdown:

1) Federal land is not one single rule set​

Different agencies manage different lands, each with its own regulations:

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
• U.S. Forest Service
• National Park Service
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Each can set specific requirements for vehicles.

---

2) BLM & Forest Service land (most permissive cases)​

On many BLM and Forest Service lands:

• You can often use an unregistered off-road vehicle (OHV) (e.g., dirt bike, ATV)
• BUT:
  • It must be used only on designated trails/areas
  • It usually must have an OHV sticker/permit (state-issued)
  • You cannot drive it on public roads within those lands

So: unregistered for road use is often fine, but not unregulated.

---

3) National Parks (strict)​

On land managed by the National Park Service:

• Off-road driving is generally prohibited
• Vehicles must be street-legal, registered, and insured
• Driving off designated roads is typically illegal

Here the answer is basically no.

---

4) State laws still apply​

Even on federal land:

• States often require:
  • OHV registration or permit
  • Safety equipment
  • Age restrictions

So you may not need a road registration, but you usually still need some form of official authorization.

---

5) Private vs public confusion​

This is where many discussions go wrong:

• Federal land is publicly owned, but not a free-for-all
• It’s managed land with specific access rules
• “Off-road” ≠ “unregulated”

---

Bottom line​

• Yes, you can often drive a non-road-registered vehicle off-road on some federal lands
• No, you generally cannot just drive anything anywhere without permits or restrictions

---

If you want, I can give you a couple of concrete examples (e.g., California desert vs Colorado forest), where the rules differ quite a bit—it makes the contrast very clear.

Yes, give me a couple of examples:

Great—these contrasts really make the differences clear.

---

Example 1: California desert (BLM land — relatively permissive)​

A classic case is areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management like:

• Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (a.k.a. Glamis)

What’s allowed​

• You can ride:
  • Dirt bikes
  • ATVs
  • Side-by-sides
• Vehicles do NOT need to be road-registered

But you still need:​

• An OHV permit/sticker (California “green sticker” or equivalent)
• A flag on dunes (for visibility)
• Spark arrestor (fire prevention)

Important limits​

• Stay within designated open areas
• You cannot drive on paved public roads without full registration

This is the situation many people refer to when they say “you don’t need registration”—it’s true here, but only under specific rules.

---

Example 2: Colorado National Forest (more structured control)​

Take land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, for example:

• Arapaho National Forest

What’s allowed​

• Off-road vehicles are permitted only on designated motorized trails

Requirements​

• You typically need:
  • An OHV registration or permit (Colorado sticker)
  • To follow the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM)

Key restriction​

• If a trail connects to a public road:
  • Your vehicle may need to be street-legal to legally transition

So even off-road, the system is much more controlled than in open desert areas.

---

Example 3: National Parks (very restrictive)​

For comparison, consider:

• Yellowstone National Park

Managed by the National Park Service.

Rules​

• Driving is allowed only on paved or designated roads
• Vehicles must be:
  • Registered
  • Insured
  • Street legal

Off-road driving?​

• Almost always illegal

This is the complete opposite of BLM desert land.

---

The real takeaway​

Across the US, federal land falls into three broad categories:

1. Open OHV areas (BLM desert)
   → Unregistered vehicles OK, but with permits
2. Managed trail systems (Forests)
   → Allowed, but tightly controlled and mapped
3. Protected parks
   → Off-road driving basically prohibited

---

Why people get confused​

Different people are thinking of completely different places:

• Someone from California desert → “You can ride anything anywhere”
• Someone from a National Park context → “Absolutely not allowed”

Both are right—in their specific context.

---

If you want, I can compare this directly with EU rules (Italy/Spain vs US), because the philosophy behind regulation is actually quite different and explains a lot of these misunderstandings.

I'm positing that off road vehicles (and drivers/riders) are not required to adhere to the laws and regulations a vehicle operating on public roadways are required to adhere to. To me this should be obvious to Americans. It is not my contention that they're free of all regulations.

I also will add again; regional differences are a great reason why a worldwide, manufacturer-level "solution" is much too blunt of an instrument. We should be seeking as local of a solution as possible so it can accurately reflect local needs and desires.

 

[Powerslider]

Access such as that pales in comparison to where bicycles are allowed by multiple orders of magnitude. Yes, there are certain places were off-road vehicles are allowed and they have their own rules and regulations. Just because they allow 450cc MX or 1000hp trophy truck to run wild in the desert, doesn't mean you can or should in for example, Central Park, NY.

You can probably ride any eMTB, Surron, Bonnell, Stark, etc... in that OHV area. If you think that applies to places trail system like Hawes and SOMO , then that's simply not the case and will never be.

Trails we MTBrs access are often multi-use and started life as hiking trails. The areas you mention out in the desert or others were developed or access granted with motorsport vehicles in mind and not hikers or bikers.

You want that kind of access and freedom, but at ANY "off the road" trail system is what I'm hearing and isn't going to happen. That OHV access is few and far between, granted in some states there's more of it, but as a whole in the US its limited in comparison to bicycle access. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too unfortunately.

It appears to me that some here are suggesting that public land requires adherence to the same regulations as public roadways. That is wrong and I'm pushing back on that fallacy. It sounds like you agree.

 

[Mario Antony]

What's the problem with licenses obrigatory to ride bikes or other vehicle on the road?

Thanks for the example but... are you 100% sure about that?

I searched over the internet and looks like, with some exceptions, you cannot drive an unregistered vehicle off-road on federal land. I am not an expert on law, though. I asked chatgpt and this is the answer, but I am very well aware that this may not be the "right" question to ask and that it may be an allucination as usual... I would really like to have an answer from a lawyer.

However, this is absolutely not true in Italy, or Spain, and probably in most, if not all, the EU. You cannot drive an unregistered vehicle on public or someone else's private land. Population density here is much higher and there is nothing like a "desert" here the size of the Nevada desert.

Pedelec and bicycles are, once again, an exception, that is my original point. Read these answers carefully because they are very articulated (if true... ).

QUESTION: can you drive in the US federal land an unregistered vehicle off-road?
__________________________________________________
Short answer: sometimes yes, sometimes no — it depends on where on federal land and what rules apply there.

Here’s the real breakdown:

1) Federal land is not one single rule set​

Different agencies manage different lands, each with its own regulations:

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
• U.S. Forest Service
• National Park Service
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Each can set specific requirements for vehicles.

---

2) BLM & Forest Service land (most permissive cases)​

On many BLM and Forest Service lands:

• You can often use an unregistered off-road vehicle (OHV) (e.g., dirt bike, ATV)
• BUT:
  • It must be used only on designated trails/areas
  • It usually must have an OHV sticker/permit (state-issued)
  • You cannot drive it on public roads within those lands

So: unregistered for road use is often fine, but not unregulated.

---

3) National Parks (strict)​

On land managed by the National Park Service:

• Off-road driving is generally prohibited
• Vehicles must be street-legal, registered, and insured
• Driving off designated roads is typically illegal

Here the answer is basically no.

---

4) State laws still apply​

Even on federal land:

• States often require:
  • OHV registration or permit
  • Safety equipment
  • Age restrictions

So you may not need a road registration, but you usually still need some form of official authorization.

---

5) Private vs public confusion​

This is where many discussions go wrong:

• Federal land is publicly owned, but not a free-for-all
• It’s managed land with specific access rules
• “Off-road” ≠ “unregulated”

---

Bottom line​

• Yes, you can often drive a non-road-registered vehicle off-road on some federal lands
• No, you generally cannot just drive anything anywhere without permits or restrictions

---

If you want, I can give you a couple of concrete examples (e.g., California desert vs Colorado forest), where the rules differ quite a bit—it makes the contrast very clear.

Yes, give me a couple of examples:

Great—these contrasts really make the differences clear.

---

Example 1: California desert (BLM land — relatively permissive)​

A classic case is areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management like:

• Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (a.k.a. Glamis)

What’s allowed​

• You can ride:
  • Dirt bikes
  • ATVs
  • Side-by-sides
• Vehicles do NOT need to be road-registered

But you still need:​

• An OHV permit/sticker (California “green sticker” or equivalent)
• A flag on dunes (for visibility)
• Spark arrestor (fire prevention)

Important limits​

• Stay within designated open areas
• You cannot drive on paved public roads without full registration

This is the situation many people refer to when they say “you don’t need registration”—it’s true here, but only under specific rules.

---

Example 2: Colorado National Forest (more structured control)​

Take land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, for example:

• Arapaho National Forest

What’s allowed​

• Off-road vehicles are permitted only on designated motorized trails

Requirements​

• You typically need:
  • An OHV registration or permit (Colorado sticker)
  • To follow the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM)

Key restriction​

• If a trail connects to a public road:
  • Your vehicle may need to be street-legal to legally transition

So even off-road, the system is much more controlled than in open desert areas.

---

Example 3: National Parks (very restrictive)​

For comparison, consider:

• Yellowstone National Park

Managed by the National Park Service.

Rules​

• Driving is allowed only on paved or designated roads
• Vehicles must be:
  • Registered
  • Insured
  • Street legal

Off-road driving?​

• Almost always illegal

This is the complete opposite of BLM desert land.

---

The real takeaway​

Across the US, federal land falls into three broad categories:

1. Open OHV areas (BLM desert)
   → Unregistered vehicles OK, but with permits
2. Managed trail systems (Forests)
   → Allowed, but tightly controlled and mapped
3. Protected parks
   → Off-road driving basically prohibited

---

Why people get confused​

Different people are thinking of completely different places:

• Someone from California desert → “You can ride anything anywhere”
• Someone from a National Park context → “Absolutely not allowed”

Both are right—in their specific context.

---

If you want, I can compare this directly with EU rules (Italy/Spain vs US), because the philosophy behind regulation is actually quite different and explains a lot of these misunderstandings.

If people don't respect rules probably is because:
1) They don't know
2) They know nothing happens if caught
3) They know they won't be id

For each, there's a real solution:

1) License required. Determine minimal age, to ride on a road. Be it 10years old...12years old, what ever.
All that ride ON THE PUBLIC ROAD should have a license/title to do so. Riders NEED TO KNOW THE RULES & LAW.
It's for they safety, and all others.

2) Police can fine, and/or remove this license, leading to further problems

3) License plates.
If so many see there are problems, people must be accountable for their behaviour.

BTW, in Portugal, not so long ago, all of these were in practice. Bikes had license plates, people would need to carry a Bike License to ride on the road.


Insurance: it's umbelivable how so many are against insurance while ridding, but it might be the only reasonable thing to do, without being required.
EG: by bad luck, you crash into someone, that gets injured. Insurance will not only protect you, but will also be responsible for the damage caused, be it surgery, or rehab program, which could lead to thounsands and thousands of dollars/euros on you!

But, sincerelly, I find amusing, how some, prefer to limit power/speed/other, rather than making riders trully accontable: Driving Licenses and Licenses Plates.

And yes, I have insurance (even against theft/robbery/etc), and because I have a driving license, there is no need for further driving license (like what happens with less than 125cc motorcycles)
Most Cyclimg federations, have road insurance for all their associates, and it's less than 50euros/year.



Don't bring emotorcycles into the discussion.
Those are 10x, 20x, 100x more powerfull than a ebike-pedalec.
Nothing to do with Pedalecs.

 

[Powerslider]

What's the problem with licenses obrigatory to ride bikes or other vehicle on the road?


If people don't respect rules probably is because:
1) They don't know
2) They know nothing happens if caught
3) They know they won't be id

For each, there's a real solution:

1) License required. Determine minimal age, to ride on a road. Be it 10years old...12years old, what ever.
All that ride ON THE PUBLIC ROAD should have a license/title to do so. Riders NEED TO KNOW THE RULES & LAW.
It's for they safety, and all others.

2) Police can fine, and/or remove this license, leading to further problems

3) License plates.
If so many see there are problems, people must be accountable for their behaviour.

BTW, in Portugal, not so long ago, all of these were in practice. Bikes had license plates, people would need to carry a Bike License to ride on the road.


Insurance: it's umbelivable how so many are against insurance while ridding, but it might be the only reasonable thing to do, without being required.
EG: by bad luck, you crash into someone, that gets injured. Insurance will not only protect you, but will also be responsible for the damage caused, be it surgery, or rehab program, which could lead to thounsands and thousands of dollars/euros on you!

But, sincerelly, I find amusing, how some, prefer to limit power/speed/other, rather than making riders trully accontable: Driving Licenses and Licenses Plates.

And yes, I have insurance (even against theft/robbery/etc), and because I have a driving license, there is no need for further driving license (like what happens with less than 125cc motorcycles)
Most Cyclimg federations, have road insurance for all their associates, and it's less than 50euros/year.



Don't bring emotorcycles into the discussion.
Those are 10x, 20x, 100x more powerfull than a ebike-pedalec.
Nothing to do with Pedalecs.

In New Jersey at least, your standard vehicle driver's license isn't enough (or required even) to operate a boat. Instead you need a boat license (or endorsement) and has its own written test. I envision the same for cyclists operating on roadways if we were to go there.

 

[Mario Antony]

In New Jersey at least, your standard vehicle driver's license isn't enough (or required even) to operate a boat. Instead you need a boat license (or endorsement) and has its own written test. I envision the same for cyclists operating on roadways if we were to go there.

Yes, it would be the same to anything that rides on the road.
Driving license: yes = ok, no need for further licenses.
Driving license: no = a special driving license would be required to pass, to have permition to use the road.

Will it limit access?
No! License would be open to all.

But yes, it would limit the stupidity some see on cities (ebikes, and rental moppeds) for example.

It seems something simple, and really brainless, compared to limit power or speed.

 

[Powerslider]

Just for curiosity:
How police can ID a boat without any [lidentifier]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[Mario Antony]

A picture is worth a thousand words.
View attachment 179610

Sorry, I started wrong the post, and thought I had erase. Thanks!

I think Boat ID, is thesame worldwide...
Well... ± !
Some boats don't have it, because... well you know.... come from Marroc, or Venezuela, or....

Now, if we could limit boat power, there wouldn't be a PROBLEM! Ahahha

 

[bmwpowere36m3]

It appears to me that some here are suggesting that public land requires adherence to the same regulations as public roadways. That is wrong and I'm pushing back on that fallacy. It sounds like you agree.

Rules and regulations are evitable... I'm not going to argue the philosophical merits of freedom and right to travel, etc... Rules are not going to be universal either, because there's a lot of nuance and factors depending on local politics, land available, precedent and various scenarios were dicsussing.

If you could buy an "unrestriced" ebike say for use on OHV, BLM or private land, legally. What's to stop you from using it on a public road? In a town park? Enforcement, right?

However, that enforcement is probably impossible and would be a waste of resources. So by treating ebikes like bicycles and LIMITING them, there's no need for enforcement. Without limits, at what point to they become motorized vehicles, because those have a ton of regulation. There needs to be a distinction and it cannot rely solely on enforcement.

Folks are angling, trying to push how far they can ride their legal "bicycle" and still have all the access in world.

Simply put, you can't ride your motorcycle, SXS, off-road crawler everywhere. You can take your bicycle A LOT MORE places. Maybe "today's" ebikes need to be somewhere in between. Ideally, I think, most folks would like to retain ALL the access a bicycle brings.

Here in CT:
Bicycles = most access (certain roads and trails are restricted), no motor, and no age restriction
Moped/Scooter = no off-road access (nor highway), power restricted <50cc and age (driver's license)
Motorcycle = limited off-road, age restricted and registration & insurance required (motorcycle endorsement on top of driver's license).

So the motorcycle gives you a tiny bit of off-road access with power, but has burdens of age, registration and insurance. Bicycles have the least restrictions, but no motor.

So where does an ebike fall? It has to be more restrictive than a moped/scooter, at least in CT.

 

[Powerslider]

Rules and regulations are evitable... I'm not going to argue the philosophical merits of freedom and right to travel, etc... Rules are not going to be universal either, because there's a lot of nuance and factors depending on local politics, land available, precedent and various scenarios were dicsussing.

If you could buy an "unrestriced" ebike say for use on OHV, BLM or private land, legally. What's to stop you from using it on a public road? In a town park? Enforcement, right?

However, that enforcement is probably impossible and would be a waste of resources. So by treating ebikes like bicycles and LIMITING them, there's no need for enforcement. Without limits, at what point to they become motorized vehicles, because those have a ton of regulation. There needs to be a distinction and it cannot rely solely on enforcement.

Folks are angling, trying to push how far they can ride their legal "bicycle" and still have all the access in world.

Simply put, you can't ride your motorcycle, SXS, off-road crawler everywhere. You can take your bicycle A LOT MORE places. Maybe "today's" ebikes need to be somewhere in between. Ideally, I think, most folks would like to retain ALL the access a bicycle brings.

Here in CT:
Bicycles = most access (certain roads and trails are restricted), no motor, and no age restriction
Moped/Scooter = no off-road access (nor highway), power restricted <50cc and age (driver's license)
Motorcycle = limited off-road, age restricted and registration & insurance required (motorcycle endorsement on top of driver's license).

So the motorcycle gives you a tiny bit of off-road access with power, but has burdens of age, registration and insurance. Bicycles have the least restrictions, but no motor.

So where does an ebike fall? It has to be more restrictive than a moped/scooter, at least in CT.

Connecticut doesn’t allow small kids to ride dirt bikes or quads off road? You’re required to register and insure your dirt bike like a road motorcycle even when it never sees a public roadway in CT?

Also, I think eMTB should have the identical power and speed limits cars, boats, motorcycles, and analogue bicycles employ. None… and there’s a lot more power, speed, and deaths due to cars and motorcycles than eMTB (even per capita). Somehow we’re still not governing their output.

Fundamentally I disagree with the premise that limiting power and speed will protect access to trails. What will protect access is a complete overhaul of the class system to one that clears up the definition of eMTB, eMoto, and eRoad. Speed and power isn’t the best way to clarify the distinction IMO. That’s why I disagree with Hans’ letter.