Home Invoice 261, launched by Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-Libby), would revise state code to state that electric-assist bicycles are usually not motor autos, mopeds or off-highway autos. The invoice would additionally revise state regulation to replicate the commonly acknowledged classifications of electric-assist bicycles, usually known as e-bikes. Underneath the invoice, e-bikes can be allowed anyplace that common bicycles are allowed, together with streets, highways, roads, bike lanes and bike or multi-use paths. That features paths with a pure floor, like grime. State companies and native jurisdictions would nonetheless have the flexibility to limit e-bike use on particular multi-use paths or trails.

The invoice would limit using the quickest class of e-bikes, which might journey as much as 28 mph, to riders 16 and older. And it will require that these sooner e-bikes, known as Class 3 e-bikes, have a speedometer displaying the bike’s present pace in miles per hour. All e-bikes can be required to have a sticker denoting the bike’s class, quickest pedal-assist pace and motor wattage on the bike. 

E-bikes are bicycles which have a battery and electrical motor that enlarge a rider’s pedaling effort, a function known as pedal-assist. Class 1 e-bikes have motors that solely perform when a rider is pedaling — they don’t have throttles and the motor cannot propel the bike by itself and not using a rider pedaling. The pedal help on Class 1 e-bikes stops at 20 mph; past that, the bike is powered solely by the rider with out help. Class 2 e-bike motors are additionally restricted to twenty mph, however the bikes have a throttle, which means the motor can propel the bike with out the rider pedaling. Class 3 e-bikes are pedal help — which means there is no such thing as a throttle and the rider should be pedaling for the motor to have interaction — however the motor disengages at 28 mph. 

The invoice had its first studying in committee on Monday. The Home Transportation Committee is ready to vote on the invoice Wednesday.

In a telephone name Tuesday, Gunderson famous that the invoice would carry Montana according to federal definitions of e-bike lessons, which have additionally been adopted by 45 different states. 

“What we’re doing is we’re making an attempt to align with accepted federal regulation that 45 different states have adopted,” he mentioned. “We’re not making an attempt to go a invoice that provides us extra entry. We’re making an attempt to provide native authorities extra energy to manage as wanted.” 

As proposed state laws, the invoice wouldn’t have an effect on e-bike entry on federal land, equivalent to land managed by the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Administration. The BLM permits native discipline workplaces to permit Class 1 e-bikes on non-motorized trails by going by a public course of. In distinction, the Forest Service considers e-bikes to be motorized autos, similar to a bike. The Forest Service prohibits e-bike use on all non-motorized trails. HB 261 wouldn’t have an effect on any of that. 

What the invoice would do is make non-federal bicycle and multi-use infrastructure routinely open to e-bikes until a state company or native jurisdiction chooses to ban entry. Presently, Montana regulation defines e-bikes however would not take a stance on the place they’ll and might’t go. Some jurisdictions, like Missoula, have addressed e-bike entry, however there is no statewide baseline. 

Gunderson mentioned his reasoning behind the invoice, and the same invoice in 2021 that handed the Home however died on the Senate flooring, is that e-bikes provide biking to folks whose age or well being situations would in any other case hold them off bikes. That features himself, he mentioned, noting that he merely desires to journey his e-bike in locations he beforehand rode a daily bike. 

“I am 65 years outdated and I am not in probably the most good well being, my knees are unhealthy, and I can not get out and revel in biking like I used to,” he mentioned. “My spouse and I are each e-bike lovers who get pleasure from getting out.” 

In a Home Transportation Committee listening to on Monday, John Juras, the chairman of Bike Stroll Montana’s legislative committee, and Logan Smith, the group’s interim government director, each spoke in assist of the invoice. Chris Fox, a Stevensville resident, additionally spoke in assist. He mentioned he would not at the moment personal an e-bike “however I think that I will probably be driving them sooner or later.” 

However some conservation and wildlife-advocacy teams fearful that the invoice would routinely open e-bike entry until an company or municipality took motion to limit entry. Additionally they voiced concern over the enforcement burden that might place on native governments, and doable person conflicts with quick, quiet e-bikes. The teams, which included Wild Montana, Montana Audubon and Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, specified that their issues have been primarily associated to natural-surface paths and trails. 

Noah Marion, of wilderness-advocacy group Wild Montana, characterised the invoice “as a mandate on native communities.” By making open e-bike entry the default, he mentioned, the invoice would burden native governments by having to determine the place to shut e-bike entry by a public course of. As an alternative, he argued, the state ought to observe the BLM’s “closed until open” strategy, by closing bike and multi-use infrastructure to e-bikes as a default and permitting native governments to determine the place to permit e-bikes. He additionally took subject with the invoice’s definition of e-bikes as not being motorized autos. 

“Defining e-bikes as non-motorized we see a bit bit as problematic as a result of the Forest Service defines e-bikes as motorized autos,” he mentioned. Katjana Stutzer of the Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers had the same concern: “It will redefine e-bikes to one thing they are not … by definition these have motors. And this introduces confusion to customers and land managers.” 

Amy Seaman of Montana Audubon opposed the invoice and fearful about conflicts between e-bikes and wildlife or different path customers, notably older customers. She mentioned that the group might assist the invoice with some adjustments. 

In Missoula, Aaron Wilson, the town’s transportation planning supervisor, mentioned in a telephone name Tuesday that the invoice is “fairly carefully in line to the path we have taken with the town” already. Missoula code already defines the three e-bike classes as HB 261 would, and specifies the place totally different lessons of e-bikes are allowed. Class 1 and a pair of e-bikes are allowed most locations the place common bicycles are, together with bike lanes and first multi-use paths. He mentioned the town appreciates that the invoice permits for native management. 

Bob Giordano, the director of Free Cycles and the Missoula Institute for Sustainable Transportation, mentioned in a telephone name Tuesday, “The thought of the place do autos belong or are allowed is a crucial dialog. If somebody’s on the River Path and someone comes alongside at 25 mph on an e-bike and hits the walker or the canine or the infant carriage, that is not good. Our streets are already busy sufficient, our trails ought to be respites of solitude and respites of nature.” 

Alternatively, he mentioned, “If you are going to Lolo, Stevensville, down the Bitterroot Path, huge sight-lines, it appears like you are able to do that very safely.” Heavy e-bikes, which might typically weigh greater than 50 kilos, make touring at excessive speeds inappropriate for some paths. However Class 1 and a pair of e-bikes are usually not as regarding. Giordano, a long-time advocate of motorcycle transportation and infrastructure, praised e-bikes typically as “a special mobility aside from automobiles coming on-line reasonably shortly, and I am glad we’re speaking about several types of mobility and the place they’re allowed.” 

Evan Harmon, the winter supervisor at Large Sky Bikes, mentioned he was glad the subject has come up: “I believe it’s largely good that the state Legislature no less than is considering these things. I believe it’s a step in the suitable path to have folks and the regulation begin familiarizing themselves with e-bikes. I don’t assume there’s a very good cause to not permit them at this level. It’s an amazing device, particularly for commuting. It’s an amazing possibility. The nearer we are able to get to that being extra mainstream, the higher.” 

Alex Gallegos, proprietor of Missoula Bicycle Works, mentioned on Tuesday that he was supportive of e-bike entry however involved about Class 2 e-bikes — restricted at 20 mph however which have throttles — being on multi-use paths. 

“It’s too straightforward on that to only pin it, to make full use of that throttle, whereas on a Class 1 or a Class 3 it’s completely pedal help,” he mentioned. “I’m superb with Class 1 and Class 3 on bike paths. I’m not terribly snug with Class 2 on bike paths. However it’s a tough argument to make as a result of it’s like saying a super-fast Ferrari shouldn’t be allowed on metropolis streets as a result of it might go to quick. You must anticipate folks to be thoughtful of different customers. Sadly there’s not an efficient technique to implement using these bikes on particular trails.” 

Listening to the small print of HB 261, he mentioned, “There’s nothing in there that’s like, ‘My gosh, why would you write this, why would you introduce this?’”