Help Get More E-Bikes On Moab Trails – CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

---

The Bureau of Land Management is considering allowing e-bikes on more mountain bike trails in the deserts surrounding Moab, Utah. While it’s good that the Moab Field Office is considering this, there’s one problem: officials are only considering Class 1 e-bikes. There are good reasons for this, but we need to get the Bureau to consider the technical limitations on the most common bikes so that more people can actually enjoy the trails.

The BLM is starting a 30-day public scoping period to analyze non-motorized mountain bike trails for possible Class 1 e-bike use in the Moab Field Office.

Scoping runs from Oct. 1 to Nov. 1.

Share your thoughts & see trail details here: https://t.co/E448yKil6C#PublicLands pic.twitter.com/yYcg7PdzrX

— Bureau of Land Management Utah (@BLMUtah) October 1, 2024

Why Letting E-Bikes In Matters

I know some readers and many fanatical cyclists don’t like e-bikes. They’re for lazy people. They don’t require as much effort. People go too fast on them. It’s cheating. Yes, I’ve heard it all, and I sympathize. But, there are a lot of assumptions behind those opinions that aren’t great.

Let’s start with effort, laziness, and “cheating.” During a bike race, it’s definitely cheating to ride an electric bike. Systems that let cyclists install a hidden electric assist motor have been around since the 1990s, and a number of champions have been accused or suspected of using “mechanical doping” to win. But the vast majority of riders aren’t racing. If someone passes you on the trail and it’s obvious that electric assist is making them faster than you, they’re not cheating because you’re not losing to them.

The other thing to consider is ability. The elderly, people with medical conditions, and people who are out to see the sights instead of train to ride faster all deserve a chance to enjoy public lands the same as people who are serious about moving as fast as possible on muscle power alone. Absent a real compelling reason and no alternatives, it’s not right to exclude people who could get out there with an e-bike.

The local community also stands to benefit a lot by allowing more users to have fun on the trails. Moab, like many other towns near national parks, is a town that lives on the money of visitors. There are downsides to this, of course, but getting more people to come and enjoy clean transport means more money for the local economy.

Encouraging e-bike ownership by allowing them in more places has many other benefits for people who visit places like Moab. If someone buys an e-bike to go run trails, has a lot of fun, and then decides to try riding to work, this helps cities reduce pollution and congestion. Add the benefits of exercise (you can throttle to work and pedal home, for example), and the net benefit to society is even greater.

The Problem: Chinese E-Bikes Aren’t Built To Fit California’s E-Bike Regulations

While the benefits are very real, there’s a technical challenge that BLM officials haven’t considered: common e-bike hardware.

Much of the United States has adopted a three-class e-bike regulatory system. Class 1 e-bikes are supposed to be electronically-limited to 20 MPH, have only pedal assist, and not have a throttle that works except possibly when pedaling. Class 2 e-bikes are like Class 1 bikes, except that they’re allowed to have a throttle that works without any pedaling. This makes them better for people looking for transportation and not exercise (but exercise very much remains possible). Class 3 e-bikes are limited to 28 MPH, and with no throttle.

While broadly supported by industry groups, it’s not a federal law. It first passed in California, and other states that have adopted the three-class system have largely adopted it in a copy-and-paste fashion. Now, we’re seeing federal agencies adopt or consider adopting, or at least reference the system for their own regulations because it’s both common and easy.

But, it’s important to keep in mind that this isn’t a global standard, nor has it been adopted in all US states. E-bikes built overseas can be programmed to behave like a Class 1 bike (speed limit 20, pedal assist only), but if the parts aren’t set up like a Class 1, it’s difficult to know whether the bike is really a Class 1, Class 2, or something else entirely. This makes for not only enforcement headaches, but makes it difficult for any given rider to know whether their bike is legitimately allowed on a given trail.

Add to this the possibility of being able to reprogram or change settings on a bike, and the questions become even more complicated. Many e-bikes come set up as a Class 2 (20 MPH limit, throttle enabled), but can be set up more like a Class 3 (but with throttle) by getting into a menu to change a setting. These bikes could be set up to act like a Class 1 bike by setting the limit to 20 MPH and disabling the throttle, but the mere presence of the disabled throttle on the handlebars can lead to confusion and false accusations.

Finally, there are the fast e-bikes that are more like a dirt bike. These are legal on motorized trails, and they’re becoming increasingly popular. However, many of these bikes are set up like a Class 2 when they ship, with a 20 MPH limit and throttle enabled. The possibility that something like a Sur Ron can be a Class 2 or not legally an e-bike at all again adds complexity to enforcement.

The Solution: Flexibility on Throttles

Instead of trying to rely on e-bike classes that were designed for use in cities, agencies like BLM should consider doing something that’s better tailored for outdoor needs and the difficulty of enforcing complex regulations that aren’t reflected in bike design on remote trails.

Instead of only allowing for Class 1 bikes to ride the trails, it would work better to set a speed limit and notify riders that the use of throttle is prohibited. This would mean that instead of looking for a class sticker on a bike or checking equipment that could have its settings changed the moment a ranger walks/rides off, rangers could target problem behavior on the trails. Excessive level or climbing speeds, spinning tires on climbs, and other things that cause real problems could be targeted instead of fussing over equipment questions that few people could answer at a trailhead.

Agree with me or not on all this, if you want to share your opinion with BLM on this topic, be sure to submit your comments here before November 8th.

Featured image by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Public Domain.