Here is our Advocacy Director's response to Chino Hills State Park superintendent. We are also providing our members with the arguments to use in court to fight their citations upon request as a member benefit. We are not attorneys and do not provide legal advice. For legal advice please contact your legal advisor. Photo is what was received in mail after last citation was issued to one of our members in Chino Hills State Park. The member is fighting it with our help. We will let you know the outcome. Please join and support with your recurring donation the Electric Mountain Bike Association. Thank you for your support.
Thank you for your response. However, I still have several questions that perhaps you can clarify:
You listed that the reason for the ebike ban is due to "wildlife impact." However, the recently released BLM Final Rule (Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 212/Monday, November 2, 2020/Rules and Regulations) stated that there is no wildlife impact between bicycles and ebikes. Perhaps you could provide me with the studies that made you come to the conclusion that ebikes have more impact than bicycles to the point that a specific class of riders and vehicles are excluded? A group of 30 Boy Scouts hiking through the trails, would have a much bigger impact than ebikes on wildlife, yet they are allowed. Please explain.
AB1096 provides that any trail that bicycles are allowed should also allow ebikes. Of course, this is up the local jurisdiction. The intent of AB1096 is to allow bicycles and ebikes equal rights.
The Department of the Interior, Executive Order 3375, August, 2020
"While e-bikes are operable in the same manner as other types of bicycles and in many cases they
appear virtually indistinguishable from other types of bicycles, the addition of a small motor has
caused regulatory uncertainty regarding whether e-bikes should be treated in the same manner as
other types of bicycles or, alternatively, considered to be motor vehicles. This uncertainty must be
clarified. To resolve this uncertainty the Consumer Product Safety Act (Act) provides useful
guidance. That Act defines a "low-speed electric bicycle" to include a "two- or three-wheeled
vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor ofless than 750 watts (1 h.p,), whose
maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an
operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph", subjecting these low-speed e-bikes to the
same consumer product regulations as other types of bicycles (15 U.S.C. § 2085). A majority of
States have essentially followed this definition in some form.
Uncertainty about the regulatory status of e-bikes has led the Federal land management agencies to
impose restrictive access policies treating e-bikes as motor vehicles, often inconsistent with State
and local regulations for adjacent areas. The possibility that in some cases e-bikes can be propelled
solely through power provided by the electric motor, a function often used in short duration by older
2
or disabled riders as an assist, has contributed to confusion about e-bike classification. Further,
Federal regulation has not been consistent across the Department and has served to decrease access
to Federally owned lands bye-bike riders.
Sec. 4 Policy. Consistent with governing laws and regulations:
a) For the purpose ofthis Order, "e-bikes" shall mean "low-speed electric bicycle" as
defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2085 and falling within one of the following classifications:
i) "Class 1 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a
motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance
when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour;
ii) "Class 2 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a
motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing
assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour; and
iii) "Class 3 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a
motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance
when the bicycle reaches the speed of28 miles per hour.
More specifically, section b reads:
"b) E-bikes shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed."
By banning ebikes and only ebikes, this is in violation of the DOI Executive Order 3376, not to mention discriminatory towards several classes of transportation, ADA, fitness level and age group, not to mention ADA accommodations.
Clearly, the intent is to allow increased use of ebikes in parks and wilderness. Your ordinance prevents that. The basis of the ordinance is "wildlife impact" is not based on scientific studies as outlined in the BLM Final Rule. Furthermore, you have only excluded one class of operators/vehicles but allow other classes to exist despite law to the contrary. I am speaking specifically about hikers, equestrians and mountain bikers.
Under the Executive Order "Benefits of E-bikes" the following was written with the intent of increased ebike use:
"E-bikes advance Healthy Parks Healthy People goals to promote parks......"
"Increase bicycle access to and within parks."
"Expand the option of bicycling to more people."
"Mitigate environmental impacts."
Your current ebike ban, is in opposition to the Executive Order goals.
Furthermore, Under Title 15, Public Law Chapter 47, section 2085:
‘‘(d) This section shall SUPERCEDE any State law or requirement with respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements referred to in subsection (a).’’.
Could you explain how your ebike ban is in compliance with the Public Law?
Recently Officer Wheeler at Chino Hills state park issued a few citations. One of the riders had a state issued DMV disability exemption. The officer said it did not apply, as his vehicle "went faster than 5 mph, could not be operated indoors...." Not sure where the officer found those criteria, since the ADA mobility section does not list any of those issues.
"Title III
Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities
§ 36.311 Mobility devices.
(a) Use of wheelchairs and manually-powered mobility aids. A public accommodation shall permit individuals with mobility disabilities to use wheelchairs and manually-powered mobility aids, such as walkers, crutches, canes, braces, or other similar devices designed for use by individuals with mobility disabilities in any areas open to pedestrian use.
(b)
(1) Use of other power-driven mobility devices. A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of other power-driven mobility devices by individuals with mobility disabilities, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that the class of other power-driven mobility devices cannot be operated in accordance with legitimate safety requirements that the public accommodation has adopted pursuant to § 36.301(b).
(2) Assessment factors. In determining whether a particular other power-driven mobility device can be allowed in a specific facility as a reasonable modification under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a public accommodation shall consider –
(i) The type, size, weight, dimensions, and speed of the device;
(ii) The facility´s volume of pedestrian traffic (which may vary at different times of the day, week, month, or year);
(iii) The facility´s design and operational characteristics (e.g., whether its business is conducted indoors, its square footage, the density and placement of stationary devices, and the availability of storage for the device, if requested by the user);
(iv) Whether legitimate safety requirements can be established to permit the safe operation of the other power-driven mobility device in the specific facility; and
(v) Whether the use of the other power-driven mobility device creates a substantial risk of serious harm to the immediate environment or natural or cultural resources, or poses a conflict with Federal land management laws and regulations.
(c)
(1) Inquiry about disability. A public accommodation shall not ask an individual using a wheelchair or other power-driven mobility device questions about the nature and extent of the individual´s disability.
(2) Inquiry into use of other power-driven mobility device. A public accommodation may ask a person using an other power-driven mobility device to provide a credible assurance that the mobility device is required because of the person´s disability. A public accommodation that permits the use of an other power-driven mobility device by an individual with a mobility disability shall accept the presentation of a valid, State-issued disability parking placard or card, or State-issued proof of disability, as a credible assurance that the use of the other power-driven mobility device is for the individual´s mobility disability. In lieu of a valid, State-issued disability parking placard or card, or State-issued proof of disability, a public accommodation shall accept as a credible assurance a verbal representation, not contradicted by observable fact, that the other power-driven mobility device is being used for a mobility disability. A "valid" disability placard or card is one that is presented by the individual to whom it was issued and is otherwise in compliance with the State of issuance´s requirements for disability placards or cards."
Additionally, Officer Wheeler inquired about what the person's disability is. This is a violation against ADA and HIPAA laws. The fact the individual has a disability should suffice. And they also carried a state issued DMV disability form, proving the disability. Perhaps Officer Wheeler should also learn the law about ADA and asking about disabilities. ADA also requires that accommodations should be made to allow access. But instead the ordinance prevents the disabled individual any access at all.
The BLM Final Rule (Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 212/Monday, November 2, 2020/Rules and Regulations) also states that in regards to "speed, safety, environmental impact, wildlife impact" there is no difference between ebikes and regular bicycles. However, despite this finding, Chino Hills ordinance claims otherwise. Could you explain the discrepancies and why your ordinance contradicts the official federal findings?
Law also requires that ordinances be updated. The Chino Hills ordinance was written in 2018. The BLM Final Rule has updated its regulations on a national level. Does CHSP plan on updating its ordinance to allow ebikes or is the ban in perpetuity? If so, perhaps you could give me a date that CHSP plans on updating its ordinance and if not, why not.
BLM Final Rule also states that if an ordinance is created that causes a ban to be placed, a detailed explanation must also be given as to why the ban was instituted. The current ordinance only lists "wildlife impact". No other explanation is given. Perhaps you could provide me with one?
The CHSP ordinance also states under 6. "This order shall remain in effect until the adoption of e-Bike regulation by the Department and/or repair of the North Ridge Trail."
Clearly the BLM Final Rule has clarified the situation. The CHSP ordinance was written in 2018. The Final Rule was written in 2020. Does CHSP therefore plan on updating its ordinance, as I previously asked?
You could rightfully claim that state parks does not come under the jurisdiction of the DOI/BLM and you would be correct. However, it is the intent of federal law and even California State law AB1096 to expand ebike use. The federal laws have already been accepted and adopted by many states and other federal and state departments to create a uniform application of law in regards to ebikes. CHSP seems to be behind in this regard and needs to update its ordinances and policies to comply with current law, regulation and scientific studies.
The reason for this followup email is to point out the many laws and regulations that CHSP is in violation of, in its enforcement of its 2018 ordinance banning ebikes. There are many more recent laws/regulations and accepted studies that point out that ebikes and bicycles are equivalent and should be treated the same. However, specifically ebikes and a certain class of society, are banned from using the parks that tax money has paid for. Is there any plan on CHSP complying with current law and lifting the ban?
Thank your for your time.
Dr. Kevin R Schmidt
On 4/13/2021 5:44 PM, Gordon, Kenneth@Parks wrote:
Good afternoon,
E-bikes are permitted at California State Recreation areas. Chino Hills State Park is a not classified as a state recreation area, but as a state park.
Posted orders are regulations specific to individual parks or districts that are put in place for many reasons including public safety and resource protection. Please see the attached link to posted orders regarding Chino Hills State Park.
https://www.parks.ca.gov/.../Posted%20orders%2021[17562].pdf
E-bikes are permitted on the paved asphalt sections of Chino Hills State Park including Bane Canyon Road, the Rolling M Ranch area, and the campground.
Thank you,
Ken Gordon
Supervising State Park Ranger
Chino Hills State Park & California Citrus State Historic Park
kenneth.gordon@parks.ca.gov
CHSP is a state park. I have gone to the website for CA state parks and it says that class 1 and class 2 pedal assisted bicycles are allowed. However, I have read that CHSP is closed to those vehicles, because of "wildlife impact". Several riders have also been cited for riding their ebikes in that park. AB1096 says that ebikes and bicycles are equivalent. So if you ban ebikes, you should ban mountain bikes. However, mountain bikes are currently allowed. This seems like a contradiction to the law.
Could you please clarify this position? Also if you could provide me with the study on wildlife impact that the state used to close CHSP to ebike use, that would be very helpful. Multiple research papers on the subject have found just the opposite, that there is no difference between ebikes and mountain bikes. If there is someone I could speak,to that would also be helpful. I would like to discuss with them how they came to that conclusion and if there will be a time that the ban on ebikes will be lifted.
Thank you for your assistance.
Dr. Kevin R Schmidt
PARKS.CA.GOV
www.parks.ca.gov