E-Bikes Are Now Allowed In US National Parks (engadget.com) 72
The National Park Service has expanded the use of e-bikes to allow pedal assist models on the same roads and trails as conventional bicycles so long as they cut off assistance at 28MPH. Officials contend that the policy shift could make parks more accessible and "mitigate" environmental damage while ensuring uses similar to traditional bikes. Engadget reports: E-bikes make it easier to travel far, the NPS said. It could likewise enable park rides for people with limited mobility, particularly on hilly and otherwise challenging terrain. They might also lower emissions and improve air quality by reducing the use of cars and motorcycles. It's not certain how the service would enforce the rules.
While the NPS' arguments appear to hold up, USA Today also highlighted concerns that e-bikes could cause more harm than good. Safety may be more of an issue than it is for conventional two-wheelers. E-bikes may also wear down trails in a less sustainable way. And then there's the simple matter of noise. People often go to parks for peace and quiet, and that may be harder if they have to contend with the hum of e-bike motors. This isn't to say that e-bikes will prove calamitous -- it's just that the NPS is letting more of them in without evidence that it considered the potential drawbacks.
While the NPS' arguments appear to hold up, USA Today also highlighted concerns that e-bikes could cause more harm than good. Safety may be more of an issue than it is for conventional two-wheelers. E-bikes may also wear down trails in a less sustainable way. And then there's the simple matter of noise. People often go to parks for peace and quiet, and that may be harder if they have to contend with the hum of e-bike motors. This isn't to say that e-bikes will prove calamitous -- it's just that the NPS is letting more of them in without evidence that it considered the potential drawbacks.
What's next, F-Bikes? (Score:1, Funny)
I just bought a D-Bike. Now E-Bikes are in?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Dammit, I'll just have to take my flying car until then.
F-ing idiots... (Score:2)
Except:
1) E-bikes weren't previously prohibited.
2) The policy clearly defers to the park superintendent, i.e., the person who is in the best position to understand any drawbacks to their use. This person is also able to craft particular rules to minimize such drawbacks. Did we really want the dudes in DC making the same rules for Denali and Everglades?
3) Isn't it better to put a framework in pla
Re: (Score:2)
"E-bikes weren't previously prohibited."
Yes they were, at least according to guidance.
"The policy clearly defers to the park superintendent"
No it doesn't.
"leave the public entirely unaware of how to treat e-bikes"
This was never the case. There was always a "framework in place", e-bikes were blanket banned and are now declared to be the same as bicycles.
You went 0-3
Re: (Score:2)
"Acadia National Park, where staff announced in June that e-bikes would be prohibited"
What an odd thing to do, given that you believe they were banned.
From one of the links, the one with, uh, the
Re: (Score:2)
Guidance is the term the USFS service uses. NPS may not use it.
36 CFR 4.30 is moot regarding e-bikes, as NPS asserts that e-bikes are not bicycles, even now apparently.
"Oh, relying on the fact that 'solely human powered' is included in the definition of a bicycle?"
This sentence does not parse and I have no idea what you are talking about.
NPS describes this policy as new, yet according to you it is not. Prior this policy, all federal lands have treated e-bikes as motorized vehicles and therefore banned on
Re: (Score:2)
"Superintendents may limit or restrict or impose conditions on bicycle use, including specific limitations on e-bike use, or may close any park road, parking area, administrative road, trail, or portion thereof to such bicycle use and/or e-bike use, or terminate such condition, closure, limit or restr
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you should also "at least read shit". The part about "Superintendents may limit" applies to BICYCLES. Of course they "may limit" but they SHALL treat bicycles and e-bikes the same.
And yes, my "SHIT DOES NOT COME FROM THE NPS MEMORANDUM", it comes from the order that COMPELS the NPS to allow e-bikes. It is a higher authority., and it does not "only" do what you claim, it orders a list of requirements on the last page including "E-bikes are allowed in [insert name of park] where traditional bicycles a
A smaller change than it might sound like (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So for Yosemite, the only thing that might change here is the 12 miles of paved bike paths.
Re: A smaller change than it might sound like (Score:5, Funny)
Helmets are required by law
Sounds like a choking hazard for the bears.
Re: (Score:2)
Helmets are required by law
Sounds like a choking hazard for the bears.
Nope too big mostly.
About the size of an apple , orange or maybe even grapefruit is the choke point.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but the change also affects BLM lands which is very significant. It does not affect US Forestry Service lands which is also very significant, but USFS changes have been brewing with one site already granted an exception and others having applied. There is good reason to think that the USFS may follow suit soon because they've determined there aren't adverse consequences, there is significant demand and the change would allow for consistency.
Interestingly, the only time I hear this argument,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the change was ordered by the Secretary of the Interior and the same order applies to the BLM. The NPS did not order this change, they were ordered to implement it. We simply haven't seen the BLM version yet.
For someone who is such an expert on this, you don't seem to know anything.
This may help (Score:2)
For others to help understand the above posts, this may help:
What is Federal land?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And not even possible to ride a bicycle on anyway so the issue is moot.
"wear down trails in a non-sustainable way". (Score:2)
What the heck is this nonsense?
How would an e-bike do this exactly? All they really do for most people for trail use is help you to pedal up hills with less to no effort.
On flat areas they can also help you go faster but that really wouldn't apply to trails as a person not that used to off-road biking couldn't go very fast very far without losing it anyway.
It seems like a pretty good change to me, as long as bikes are still kept to the same areas they were before.
I could say taking an e-bike into some plac
Re: (Score:2)
How would an e-bike do this exactly? All they really do for most people for trail use is help you to pedal up hills with less to no effort.
They do weigh more, by probably twenty or thirty pounds, which would increase wear ever so slightly, I guess, but it mostly sounds like a NIMBY argument, with little actual merit.
Re:"wear down trails in a non-sustainable way". (Score:5, Funny)
They do weigh more, by probably twenty or thirty pounds, which would increase wear ever so slightly, I guess
I guess you could also argue along those lines they would allow for heavier people to make use of bike trails as well, so it's kind of a force-multiplier in that regard by adding even more weight load to the trail. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it's not terribly significant once you factor in rider weight. Also, on the whole eMTB riders may be less skilled and travel at a slower speed.
The important thing is that there is already data on this subject and there's no evidence at all that supports increased trail wear.
Re: (Score:2)
Many e-bikes are now packing several horespower these days. I seen up to 3.4 kW (~5 horsepower) advertised. Yahoo's getting their jolly's off will blast up hills and around bends at a far more ferocious clip than a rider who can maybe sustain maybe 200-300 W up a hill. So especially on hills I can see them causing a lot more erosion than a normal bike ridden at human speeds. I have no problem when preserving a few last shreds of national forest and national parks for human powered transportation only.
As
Re: (Score:2)
Erosion to uphill trails is probably more due to wheel slip from the uneven power application as a rider pedals at low speed. Electric assistance should even out the power, and keep momentum up, reducing wheel slippage if anything, even if the overall power is significantly higher. But as someone else pointed out, mountain biking generally isn't allowed in national parks anyway, so this mostly affects paved cycling paths.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a side note, the legal limit for e-bikes on regular roads in Canada is 32 km/h and 250 watts. 28 mph (45 km/h) can actually be quite dangerous especially for new riders.750 watts is a significant amount of power. [The pros](https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/kristoff-averages-insane-345-watts-for-5-hours-26-minutes-to-win-gent-wevelgem/) don't even do half that on a sustained basis..
Re: (Score:2)
There's really no difference between US "750 watt" bikes and "250 watt" bikes sold in other countries. The 250 watt limit is not a peak power specification and neither is the 750 watt one. Fact is, the motors in all markets are exactly the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I will call bulls*t on all of this. There's no limit to the dumb stuff that cyclists do, e-bikers cannot possibly exceed that. Furthermore, these "several horsepower" e-bikes that you buy with a "swipe of the Mastercard" don't really exist. Commercial e-bikes are all sub-750 watts, at least in the US. Sure you can find one from shady sources like Luna, but those are sold in technical violation of law (for off-road use only).
It's also moot, because this is about trail riding, not commuting on the road, a
Re: (Score:2)
What the heck is this nonsense?
How would an e-bike do this exactly? All they really do for most people for trail use is help you to pedal up hills with less to no effort.
On flat areas they can also help you go faster but that really wouldn't apply to trails as a person not that used to off-road biking couldn't go very fast very far without losing it anyway.
It seems like a pretty good change to me, as long as bikes are still kept to the same areas they were before.
I could say taking an e-bike into some place like Zion making a ton of sense even just for the road, since basically only shuttles are allowed there and it would mean you could explore the park more at your own pace without much effort waiting for shuttles. I can't remember if they do allow bikes on the park road but I think they do...
There's a certain style of environmentalist who wants to lock away all the park lands. No access for anyone. Using nonsensical arguments like the one you were questioning. Having 'studies' that last for ages and only lead to more studies. California went from being a sportsman's playground to you can't do anything anywhere. It took about 2 generations. My money is that Colorado will see the same thing happen as the mindset was imported there.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to ride your two stroke ATV with no muffler, do doughnuts, rip up as much vegetation as possible, and you toss beer cans around. That, along with firing guns into the air, is your idea of a "sportsman's playground".
I can read between the lines from your whiny entitled tone.
They're right. You need to be excluded from anyplace you can wreck.
Re: (Score:2)
They specifically want to lock it away from you.
You want to ride your two stroke ATV with no muffler, do doughnuts, rip up as much vegetation as possible, and you toss beer cans around. That, along with firing guns into the air, is your idea of a "sportsman's playground".
I can read between the lines from your whiny entitled tone.
They're right. You need to be excluded from anyplace you can wreck.
You certainly live up to your name. I don't drink beer, detest two strokes, don't rip up vegetation and most certainly don't shoot in the air. But you already know that, you're just going after the most ridiculous straw man you can imagine. Enjoy CA. I only wish that the folks who wrecked it could be kept from leaving when it gets too bad for them.
Re: (Score:1)
Not the tire designed for off-road e bike use.
Have to work a lot more on trail repair work?
Put in asphalt bike roads.....
What is this humming noise... (Score:5, Insightful)
... of which you speak?
Both my pedelecs are deathly silent. You will hear tyre noise but all bikes make tyre noise on trails...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends entirely on the tire. I have a RadPower Mini folding e-bike; as shipped it came with very knobbly tires. I recently replaced them with more urban-type tires, and the noise level dropped considerably.
(on the forest-service gravel roads that I ride on, I haven't noticed an important difference in traction, so from my POV it's a total win.)
Re: (Score:2)
*** whoosh ***
(I'm pretty sure the OP was cracking a spelling joke.)
Re: (Score:2)
The click-click-click-click-click of the freewheel I imagine. Coasting is really loud.
Re: (Score:2)
Yours might be, but are they all?
28 MPH? (Score:2)
56 MPH! 90 km/h!
Re: (Score:1)
Without evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't to say that e-bikes will prove calamitous -- it's just that the NPS is letting more of them in without evidence that it considered the potential drawbacks.
Reading the Policy Memorandum it appears to me that the NPS has thought this through and decided to allow e-bikes with some restrictions. The statement that "NPS is letting more of them in without evidence that it considered the potential drawbacks" is absurd.
Re:Without evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, and this misinformation comes from MTB organizations that have fought an anti-ebike crusade from a while now. The fact is that there is quite a lot of evidence and all we're really seeing now is some reasonable government consideration. It probably also helps that bicycle manufacturers would like to see these changes and the current administration is favorable to corporate interests. Nevertheless, it's the right thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
this misinformation comes from MTB organizations that have fought an anti-ebike crusade from a while now
You're just mad that I've got a bigger dick than you 'cause I actually pedal my bike, with legs.
Don't bring those e-bikes here! They'll shrink all our penises!
arguments against are pure false narrative (Score:3)
The arguments against e-bikes are entirely false fabrications created by mountain bikers, no one else cares and no one else opposes e-bikes while supporting bikes.
Studies have been conducted and e-bikes are already ridden pervasively on trails in Europe; the cited issues are already well understood. There are no safety or trail wear issues and noise is a total red herring. Some bikes are even silent for the rider. It's all complete nonsense.
It should also be said that bike were banned on federal trails "without evidence that it considered the potential drawbacks". In fact, they were banned so that land managers didn't have to do anything and the ban was accomplished by a fairly absurd reading of existing regulations. There is absolutely no justification for requiring a consideration of "potential drawbacks" for vehicles that are functionally identical to ones that have already passed such scrutiny. Electric assist bicycles have the same impact as bicycles and the only people who disagree are cyclists that want to deny other the same access that they enjoy.
Re:arguments against are pure false narrative (Score:4, Insightful)
The limits in Europe are for must lower powered bikes. 25 km/h and 250 watts. The 28 mph (45 km/h) and 750 watt e-bikes allowed in the US are very overpowered and would probably be classified as mopeds in Europe and Canada, which would require an actual licenses, registration and insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
The drive systems in US 750 watt bikes and European 250 watt bikes are EXACTLY the same. The only difference is the speed limiter (which is software settable). Furthermore, the US has almost no 28 mph trail bikes for sale (only one that I've ever seen). US trail bikes are 20 mph vs. 16 mph in Europe, that's the only difference.
Wattage ratings in these jurisdictions are completely meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they aren't available at retail, but you can definitely buy the parts and easily assemble one yourself. If the legal limit is 28 mph, you can bet that some people are going to be building bikes that can take advantage of what the law says, rather than what's available from their local dealer.
Re: (Score:2)
Moving the goalposts now?
Very few DIY e-bike builders concern themselves with following legal definitions of e-bikes. 750 watts does not make a "very overpowered" bike and 28 mph is all but useless for pedal assist bikes riding off-road.
You're imagining a demon your don't understand. Yes, there are DIY e-bikes that are effectively motorcycles; they are not enabled by these policy changes.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm in a beach town. There have been pedal-powered bikes on the sidewalks and trails here for as long as I can remember, and for the most part it hasn't been a problem because the bikers were safety-conscious and kept their speed down. A few years ago, the bike rental companies started offering e-bikes. Most of their users are also responsible. They go full speed on the roads (with cars), and dial it back when on the sidewalks. But a few yahoos see
Re: (Score:2)
"You obviously haven't seen these things in daily use. With a pedal bike, you have to work to get up to high speed. There's something about having that speed available at the push of a button, which seems to encourage irresponsible behavior."
Considering I commute by e-bike daily I'd say I see these things in daily use up close and personal.
Also considering that you think riding an e-bike is about pushing a button, I'd say you don't. It's also clear you've never ridden one.
Regardless, this is about trail ac
A prediction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Another card-carrying mountain biker. Fat chance.
Once e-bikes are allowed consistently on trails, the cat will be out of the bag and no one will accept the lie that e-bikes pose any new or special problem. Reversing this action will soon be laughable.
Also, since bikes aren't allowing in any national parks, so what?
Re: (Score:2)
Another card-carrying mountain biker.
Glad e-bikes exist for disabled people, but there's something about sharing the trail with the sort of people I'm trying to avoid: lazy shit-bags; i.e., inexperienced out of shape hipsters out there blasting up and down trails with terrible etiquette. See it all the time. Granted, that's a selfish/elitist me-thing... hardly a reason to ban them.
Kinda reminds me what Google Maps did for my "secret" hiking trails that traverse beautiful but sensitive environments. All sorts of novice adventurers out there now
in favor of . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
It might be wise for the BLM or whoever is in charge, to allow rental ebikes that meet some ideal standard. Not every senior/disabled person owns an ebike or wants to haul one hundreds of miles to each park. I believe that I'm part of the cohort for this change at age 75.
I expect to own one next year. It will be powerful, have full suspension and fat tires. I probably will bring it to National Parks. But for most regular people who need this enhancement the rental ebikes will be more practical.
From the sound of other comments, many slashdotters expect young rowdies to overwhelm the parks with their youthful exuberance amplified by powerful ebikes. Is this realistic?
Re: (Score:2)
Be aware that e-bikes can be hard to travel with due to the batteries. If you are driving then no problem, but flying and shipping takes special care.
Re: (Score:1)
The huge generator back at the RV will be the solution to that electrical problem
A few hours at full generator and everything is ready for the next days e bike adventure.
The big RV with the huge generator is still approved by the gov?
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering about that...
So someone who brings their ebike to the park will have to run a gas powered generator to charge it. So much for the 'green' aspect. It's just relocating the pollution to somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
You think the e-bike creates the park visitor in an RV running a generator?
What if the visitor replaces his dirt bikes with electric?
Re: (Score:2)
Can I also suggest riding on National Forest roads? Out west there are thousands and thousands of miles of them, winding to a ton of very pretty forests and mountains. The forest service roads tend to be pretty beat-up gravel roads which are no fun in a car, but are plenty of fun on an e-bike!
This is great news (Score:1)
disposible and cheap (Score:2)
Ebikes are motorized vehicles for lazy people (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like a sophisticated thinker with a great deal of experience in the subject. I wonder what your opinion is on non-motorized ebikes is? Do they ruin the experience for motorized ebikes?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's a response worthy of a deep thinker. No doubt everyone needs to hear your opinions on this subject.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be the case in the US, in the EU they are power assisted. If you don't pedal you don't move, that isn't motorised. I am so lazy I don't have a car and yes I do bring 50 kg loads back from the garden center in my bike trailer.
>10,000 km on my bikes in 4 years (I have a short but steep commute).
Wow (Score:2)
So the Parc legislation forbade e-bikes before they were invented?
Cool!
Re: (Score:2)
That is trivially easy to do, just forbid the use of any device not explicitly approved of.
Nice try.
Re: (Score:2)
The law doesn't quite work that way.
Re: (Score:2)
The Secretary of the Interior directed that e-bikes are to be considered bicycles for purposes of regulation on federal lands (BLM, NPS, NFS, etc.)
There were previously definitions by some federal agencies that defined bicycles as being "purely human powered" -intended to eliminate the use of motorcycles and mopeds on bicycle trails, but by definition blocking e-bikes as well. The new directive overrides that definition.