E Bikes on Colorado foot trails?

[NW307]

I predict a lot of monkey wrenching happening to those electric motorcycles if they're allowed in the backcountry. Then again I doubt too many folks are actually going to get off of them and leave them somewhere to hike. I have absolutely no problem with mountain bikes or motorcycles as long as they are used responsibly in designated areas. Mountain bikes should not go into the wilderness and motorcycles should not be driven on designated hiking/mt biking trails. Trying to pass off electric motorcycles (mopeds?) off as bicycles is absurd. There is plenty of land set aside for both activities already.

 

[realunlucky]

Do you work for a manufacturer of ebikes?

Well looks like he signed up just for this thread.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Phaseolus]

“except for certain exemptions”. You obviously have not read the exemption section.

 

[Ebikerules]

“except for certain exemptions”. You obviously have not read the exemption section.

What part do you think I missed? The part of the Secretarial order relevant to the BLM is this:
v) Instruct the Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to develop a
proposed rule to revise 43 CFR § 8340.0-5 and any associated regulations to be consistent with
this Order, add a definition for e-bikes consistent with 15 U.S.C. § 2085, and expressly exempt all e-bikes as defined in Sec. 4a from the definition of off-road vehicles or motorized vehicles;

The BLM interim policy says this about exemptions:
In the event that a District or Field Manager is considering denying the use of low-speed electric bicycles in a specific location, a written explanation must be submitted to and approved by the State Director.

 

[Rich M]

I just don't see the big deal.

They can bring a pack string and a mountain bike but some can't ride an E-bike. Sounds pretty out of date.

The whole motorized thing was about NOISE and an E-bike produces exactly none. Folks wanted the mountain experience and not to have to listen to some noisy motorized thing.

Compare a canoe to a jet ski is what the law was all about
vs
Compare a canoe to a canoe with an electric motor. Same access, roughly same speed, maybe a little more range and def more hassle with electric motor. Neither the canoe or E-powered canoe is gonna wake you up as they pass your camp, unless the paddlers are inexperienced and keep banging on the sides.

I can see E-bikes helping folks and enhancing the experience for many. Suddenly some folks have to share cause more people can access some areas. That's where the kicking and screaming comes in.

No, I don't have one.

 

[Jbehredt]

Electric motorcycles seem out of place on hiking/horseback/bike trails. No matter how impotent their propulsion system is. Call me old fashioned.

 

[brsnow]

Especially in Colorado but I would guess in most states it will be very uncomfortable for e-bikes trying to ride with bikes,

I just don't see the big deal.

They can bring a pack string and a mountain bike but some can't ride an E-bike. Sounds pretty out of date.

The whole motorized thing was about NOISE and an E-bike produces exactly none. Folks wanted the mountain experience and not to have to listen to some noisy motorized thing.

Compare a canoe to a jet ski is what the law was all about
vs
Compare a canoe to a canoe with an electric motor. Same access, roughly same speed, maybe a little more range and def more hassle with electric motor. Neither the canoe or E-powered canoe is gonna wake you up as they pass your camp, unless the paddlers are inexperienced and keep banging on the sides.

I can see E-bikes helping folks and enhancing the experience for many. Suddenly some folks have to share cause more people can access some areas. That's where the kicking and screaming comes in.

No, I don't have one.

Nothing to do with noise. Take a look at a motorcycle trail and then look at single track trails. The issue will be apparent. Plus ADA approved electric devices are approved if disabled what to access.

 

[Rich M]

I've seen places that horses go often and those are chewed up.

I can see the motorcycle in comparison and erosion concerns.

 

[BCSojourner]

No, wilderness areas exclude the use of "mechanized" devices oil f all types.

Yes I know, but I was trying to limit the issue to modes of travel which is in the original mandate and the focus of the thread. Thanks for the add on though!

 

[Ebikerules]

Yes I know, but I was trying to limit the issue to modes of travel which is in the original mandate and the focus of the thread. Thanks for the add on though!

Mountain bikes are not banned in the original Wilderness mandate, although the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society tried hard to get them banned back then. The ban on bikes was tacked on in the 80's when the original signers of the Wilderness Act were no longer around to cry foul. The orwellian association of bikes with mechanized and mechanical is how the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society are covering their tracks to make it seem like banning bikes was always part of the Wilderness Act.

 

[BCSojourner]

No doubt there are a lot of people, even Federal agencies, who don't understand the definition of mechanical and mechanized, I just thought you might want to a person who does understand the definition so you can communicate with those who do know the meaning and usage of those words. Saying a trail is "limited to mechanical" would mean that all modes of travel up to and including automobiles are allowed because even walking is mechanical if you are stretching the definition to include nonmotorized movement.

I'm not going to argue with you because at this point not sure you want to check into anything but the dictionary. If you are interested I would be happy to discuss and try and educate you on terminology that is used in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Manuals and Handbooks. It is used in environmental assessments in conjunction with travel management plan decisions that ultimately designate modes of use on trails and routes, and results in actual travel plan implementation such as the sign that you included in your post. The limits are typically not spelled out on a sign. The term "limited to non-motorized" would have been the applicable narrative designation for that sign (one showing bike, horse and hiker travel is ok) in the environmental document. If the narrative designation for that trail in the plan had been "limited to non-motorized and non-mechanized" the mountain bike would have had a red line across it indicating mountain bikes are not allowed. Whether you like it or not that is the terminology that is used in travel management planning and has been used for many years, and has been widely accepted by recreation users and interest groups. Yes we all understand the definition of mechanical and mechanized. Can't say that I have ever seen a designation of "limited to mechanical" because anyone on horse or foot can also use the same trail or route.

 

[brsnow]

As an avid biker I have no issues with bike ban in wilderness areas. It make sense to make some areas harder to access. Nothing wrong with earning the access.

 

[BCSojourner]

That BLM agency is the one acting illegally depending on how rigidly you view the Secretarial Order. The Secretarial Order gave a specific time frame for interior land managers to treat ebikes like regular bikes (except for certain exemptions) and they are now outside of that time frame. Unless the BLM agency has petitioned to have ebikes banned from certain trails, then the agency could be sued for continuing to blanket ban ebikes outside of the secretarial order parameters. Over 400 interior department agencies have moved to treat ebikes with the CPSC guidelines, the agencies that remain undetermined need to announce how they justify ignoring a direct order, or face potential legal consequences.

Secretarial Orders can be and are contested or rescinded, particularly if they violate existing laws like FACA. If the meeting had not been behind closed doors, and was conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act where the public and all interested parties get to attend, they probably wouldn't be in court right now. I seriously doubt that any agencies will "face potential legal consequences" over this. As stewards of the public lands they started to implement it not knowing that FACA had been violated. Why would they be at fault?

 

[Ebikerules]

I'm not going to argue with you because at this point not sure you want to check into anything but the dictionary. If you are interested I would be happy to discuss and try and educate you on terminology that is used in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Manuals and Handbooks. It is used in environmental assessments in conjunction with travel management plan decisions that ultimately designate modes of use on trails and routes, and results in actual travel plan implementation such as the sign that you included in your post. The limits are typically not spelled out on a sign. The term "limited to non-motorized" would have been the applicable narrative designation for that sign (one showing bike, horse and hiker travel is ok) in the environmental document. If the narrative designation for that trail in the plan had been "limited to non-motorized and non-mechanized" the mountain bike would have had a red line across it indicating mountain bikes are not allowed. Whether you like it or not that is the terminology that is used in travel management planning and has been used for many years, and has been widely accepted by recreation users and interest groups. Yes we all understand the definition of mechanical and mechanized. Can't say that I have ever seen a designation of "limited to mechanical" because anyone on horse or foot can also use the same trail or route.

You might want to ask yourself and them why they are using the the terminology incorrectly. Calling bikes mechanized or mechanical is no different then calling them motorized. Perhaps you or someone can elaborate on what the definition of mechanical or mechanized is, so it can be provided to the lexicographers.

 

[Ebikerules]

Secretarial Orders can be and are contested or rescinded, particularly if they violate existing laws like FACA. If the meeting had not been behind closed doors, and was conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act where the public and all interested parties get to attend, they probably wouldn't be in court right now. I seriously doubt that any agencies will "face potential legal consequences" over this. As stewards of the public lands they started to implement it not knowing that FACA had been violated. Why would they be at fault?

As of right now, the Order is being implemented in over 400 agencies in the department of interior and all of the national park systems. The lawsuit is geared towards national park systems so one would logically assume that they would be the first to revoke the allowance of eBikes on nonmotorized trails. The BLM still has all of the info regarding following the Order on their website, none of which is referencing a lawsuit holding things up. The agencies who are continuing the blanket ban on eBikes are violating the order that forces them to treat eBikes as regular bikes.

As of right now, you are the only source of info that the Secretarial order is being held up by the lawsuit that was directed at the national parks. So far, all those agencies are greenlighting ebikes. If the lawsuit had teeth, those agencies would have pulled all info suggesting eBikes are equated with regular bikes months ago. You might be absolutely correct in your assessment that the order is being held or rescinded by the lawsuit, but all indicators point otherwise, and you are the only person on the internet who has said that is the case, which makes me skeptical. Unless you are a spokesperson for the BLM, or quoting them directly, I would hold off on assumptions being passed on as fact.

 

[BCSojourner]

What part do you think I missed? The part of the Secretarial order relevant to the BLM is this:
v) Instruct the Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to develop a
proposed rule to revise 43 CFR § 8340.0-5 and any associated regulations to be consistent with
this Order, add a definition for e-bikes consistent with 15 U.S.C. § 2085, and expressly exempt all e-bikes as defined in Sec. 4a from the definition of off-road vehicles or motorized vehicles;

The BLM interim policy says this about exemptions:
In the event that a District or Field Manager is considering denying the use of low-speed electric bicycles in a specific location, a written explanation must be submitted to and approved by the State Director.
[/QUOTE

You might want to ask yourself and them why they are using the the terminology incorrectly. Calling bikes mechanized or mechanical is no different then calling them motorized. Perhaps you or someone can elaborate on what the definition of mechanical or mechanized is, so it can be provided to the lexicographers.
[/QUOTE
So.........all of the folks who put together the Manuals and Handbooks and all of the attorneys and judges who have been involved in cases regarding travel management are using terminology incorrectly? Agencies make changes and adjustments based on input from plenty of knowledgeable professionals as well as case law, etc. But you are correct and they aren't? Just curious, are you a hunter?

 

[BCSojourner]

As of right now, the Order is being implemented in over 400 agencies in the department of interior and all of the national park systems. The lawsuit is geared towards national park systems so one would logically assume that they would be the first to revoke the allowance of eBikes on nonmotorized trails. The BLM still has all of the info regarding following the Order on their website, none of which is referencing a lawsuit holding things up. The agencies who are continuing the blanket ban on eBikes are violating the order that forces them to treat eBikes as regular bikes.

As of right now, you are the only source of info that the Secretarial order is being held up by the lawsuit that was directed at the national parks. So far, all those agencies are greenlighting ebikes. If the lawsuit had teeth, those agencies would have pulled all info suggesting eBikes are equated with regular bikes months ago.

Another question, how did you come up with 400 agencies in DOI? There are only 9 technical bureaus or departments in DOI. The BLM and National Park Service are 2 of the 9.

 

[Ebikerules]

Another question, how did you come up with 400 agencies in DOI? There are only 9 technical bureaus or departments in DOI. The BLM and National Park Service are 2 of the 9.

I posted the link earlier. Districts might be a better word then agencies, see how confusing it is when people use words incorrectly. As for your other comment, I am open minded, if you think they bikes are mechanized, prove it to me and yourself and people reading that they are. Saying that you know some people who consider bikes mechanized isn't much of a rebuttal to dictionaries and thesauruses.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

Why does my blood pressure rise so much with this discussion? Ebikes are like drones to me, not a single place from them in the back woods. I followed a fatass once in ID who was on an ebike blazzing his own trail in the timber for miles. Cant really say what happened when I found him. Who do you work for Ebikerules?

If anyone knows of a group advocating against ebike use on non motorized trails let me know so I can send them all my money.

 

[brsnow]

Why does my blood pressure rise so much with this discussion? Ebikes are like drones to me, not a single place from them in the back woods. I followed a fatass once in ID who was on an ebike blazzing his own trail in the timber for miles. Cant really say what happened when I found him. Who do you work for Ebikerules?

If anyone knows of a group advocating against ebike use on non motorized trails let me know so I can send them all my money.

outside of the larger groups here are more regionalized.
Addison Oaks Trail Riders

Allegan County Pleasure Riders

American Endurance Ride Conference

American Hiking Society

American Flyers

Appalachian Trail Conservancy

Back Country Horsemen of America (and the 30 BCH states and 196 chapters, full listing at end)

Bay Area Barns and Trails

Blue Ridge Horsemen's Association

Brighton Trail Riders Association

Canalway Partners-Board Member

Carolina Mountain Club

Colorado Mountain Club

Colorado Plateau Mountain Bike Trail Assoc, Inc.

Conserving Carolina

Continental Divide Trail Coalition

County Line Riders of Catalina, Inc

Dallas Off Road Bicycle Association (DORBA)

East Mountain Regional Trails Council

Fort Custer Horse Friends Association

Grand Valley Trails Alliance

Greater Yellowstone Coalition

Highlands Plateau Greenway

Ice Age Trail Alliance

Idaho Trails Association

Indiana Trails Community

Ionia Horse Trails Association

Kensington Trail Riders

Maybury Trail Riders

Michigan Horse Council

Michigan Trail Riders Association

Montana Wilderness Association

Montana Backcountry Alliance

National Parks Conservation Association

Natural Resources Council of Maine

Nickel Plate Trail, Inc

North Carolina Horse Council

North Country Trail Association Incorporated

Oregon Equestrian Trails

Oregon Horse Council

Overmountain Victory Trail Association

Pacific Crest Trail Association

Partnership for the National Trails System

Pinckney Trail Riders Association

Pisgah Trailblazers

Pontiac Lake Horseman’s Association

Proud Lake Trail Riders

Quiet Trails Group

Rose Oaks Equine Adventurers

San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council

Tri-County Horse Association

The Wilderness Society

Winter Wildlands Alliance

Yankee Springs Trail Riders Association