The headline of the article is a bit salacious. E-MTB aren't banned, they're regulated, which Cam readily notes. Folks, read the article, which is accurate. Prior to this, there wasn't any definition of what an e-bike was in Washington, so it was a free-for-all, mostly on paved commuter paths. Maybe it was illegal, maybe it wasn't.
With the legislation, any jurisdiction can decide to open their trails to e-MTB use, if they see fit. As things are now, it doesn't kick e-bikes off of any trails where they were allowed, at least that I'm aware of. Both federal and WA State forests hadn't allowed e-MTB on non-moto trails prior to this.
There's a lot more nuance to this than may meet the eye. Ongoing efforts to gain (or maintain) trail access are now easier than if blanket e-MTB access was a perceived threat to certain conservation groups. Grants for non-motorized trails are still in play, which would have been a huge question. Losing those grants would have ground new trail development to a halt.
There are huge and world-class trails systems that are actively threatened. Kettle Crest is one example, and there are more coming in the Central Cascades. Really any trail system that is in a Wilderness study area is actively at risk - it's a messed up system, but that's another story for another day. This takes the e-bikes everywhere argument off the table for the anti-bike crowd.
For the anti e-MTB crowd, this keeps them from being everywhere. For the pro e-MTB crowd, this gives land managers a framework to allow them. Case-by-case decisions seem reasonable to me, and give land managers more flexibility than an overly-prescriptive law that isn't written with enough flexibility for each use case.
March 9, 2018, 9:04 a.m. - JVP
The headline of the article is a bit salacious. E-MTB aren't banned, they're regulated, which Cam readily notes. Folks, read the article, which is accurate. Prior to this, there wasn't any definition of what an e-bike was in Washington, so it was a free-for-all, mostly on paved commuter paths. Maybe it was illegal, maybe it wasn't. With the legislation, any jurisdiction can decide to open their trails to e-MTB use, if they see fit. As things are now, it doesn't kick e-bikes off of any trails where they were allowed, at least that I'm aware of. Both federal and WA State forests hadn't allowed e-MTB on non-moto trails prior to this. There's a lot more nuance to this than may meet the eye. Ongoing efforts to gain (or maintain) trail access are now easier than if blanket e-MTB access was a perceived threat to certain conservation groups. Grants for non-motorized trails are still in play, which would have been a huge question. Losing those grants would have ground new trail development to a halt. There are huge and world-class trails systems that are actively threatened. Kettle Crest is one example, and there are more coming in the Central Cascades. Really any trail system that is in a Wilderness study area is actively at risk - it's a messed up system, but that's another story for another day. This takes the e-bikes everywhere argument off the table for the anti-bike crowd. For the anti e-MTB crowd, this keeps them from being everywhere. For the pro e-MTB crowd, this gives land managers a framework to allow them. Case-by-case decisions seem reasonable to me, and give land managers more flexibility than an overly-prescriptive law that isn't written with enough flexibility for each use case.