The e-bike discussion is centered around products, not people, and that’s a problem.

I remember the first time I rode an e-bike. It was in 2011 at the Fat Tire Fest in Fruita when Specialized was debuting its first motorized product, the Turbo. From the first two pedal strokes, it was clear that this product would change the industry. As anyone who’s ridden an e-bike can attest, the feeling of a bike accelerating beyond your input immediately puts a smile on your face.

Accessing the power and torque of an electric motor with an intuitive pedaling motion was a revolution (pun intended) and a stroke of engineering genius. The marketing was even more revolutionary, and the term “pedal-assist” was born. Because the throttle sensor was integrated into the mechanics, these bikes differentiated themselves from what was considered motorized and were marketed accordingly. Exploiting a gray area, they found their way into places where motorized vehicles had never been permitted before.

A lot has changed since 2011. Tesla released the Model S in 2012, and our perspective on the capability of electric motors and batteries in transportation has shifted drastically. However, the concept that an e-bike is somehow not motorized has persisted. Consider for a moment that every defining benefit of an e-bike stems from its motor, and each of these attributes distinguishes it from a non-motorized bike. Also, consider the freedom offered to the bike industry as their best-selling products continue to be immune from motorized regulations. Features that would allow for the effective management of these unique devices, like geofencing and a means of compliance testing, are still absent from consumer products.

What is the consequence? Thankfully, there’s no slippery slope argument to be made here. It is obvious to anyone who’s used a paved pathway over the past five years that the lack of regulation and enforcement have made e-bikes a clear and present danger to operators and other users. So why, with history and present conditions in mind, do we continue to treat these products as non-motorized? What benefit has this provided us that a well-regulated “motorized” approach wouldn’t have? And why would we ever consider expanding their use on our dirt trails?

Ultimately, our pathways and trails must be managed to be safe and enjoyable for all users. Conservatively, these resources in Park City host over 5,000 people daily throughout the summer, with about 70% on foot and 30% on bikes. Trails and pathways are proven products that support our economy and enhance our quality of life. Effective management is about benefiting people and understanding how our current system functions to meet the needs of our unique community.

The Park City regulations allowing folks over 65 and those with mobility issues to use e-bikes on trails isn’t perfect. Still, it recognizes that e-bikes are inherently different than analog bikes and attempts to manage them accordingly. The community supported this pilot program (by a very narrow margin) when it was enacted and continues to support it by a much larger margin of surveyed residents of 84060 and 84098.

So why did certain council members vote against the overwhelming directives from the community and amend the municipal code concerning e-bikes? How do they claim this is a “new issue” when motorized vehicles have been effectively regulated in Utah since 1909? And how do we, as residents, effectively speak out against the continued push to permit motorized class I e-bikes on our non-motorized system?

This is not an issue of excess or a “First World problem.” This is about acknowledging the facts. Moreover, it’s about our deep love for the trails and the people (not products) who use them.

Ian Hartley

Park City