Gov bill SB184 ebike on trails

To promote safe bicycling for fun, fitness and transportation statewide through advocacy and education

HomeGov bill SB184 ebike on trails

SB184: Improving regulations for electric assist bicycles on trails

What It Accomplishes	SB184 improves recent legislation on the use of e-bikes on paved trails by changing focus from vehicle technology to behavior. This has 3 direct benefits: It removes risk of profiling in enforcement; It more directly addresses trail safety in a way that is enforceable; It increases accessibility, better supporting active transportation.
Background	Electric-assist bikes benefit those with physical limitations, motivates riding regardless of hills and wind, enables commuting with less sweat, and allows for ease when carrying children, groceries, or other cargo. They are popular products, and a key option for increasing accessibility for recreation and active modes of transportation. In 2020, OK Statute 47-11-1209 incorporated international standards of classification to promote ease of regulating usage, while enabling efficient market penetration: Class 1 e-bikes are pedal-assist, meaning the rider must pedal for the motor to provide assistance. The motor stops providing assistance above 20 mph. Class 2 e-bikes include the use of a throttle, meaning the rider does not need to pedal to use the motor. The motor also stops at 20mph. Class 3 e-bikes are pedal-assist, but the motor stops at 28 mph.
What’s the problem?	As adopted in 2020, OK 47-11-1209 prohibits Class 3 e-bikes from multi-use trails, unless local municipalities enact law stating otherwise. However, the difference between a Class 1 and Class 3 e-bike is software, plus a small sticker labeling the class of bike. This means enforcing a ban of Class 3 e-bikes from trails requires an officer to stop every bike for inspection. It is unwanted and opens the possibility for accusation of racial profiling. Further, bike trails can be important infrastructure for both recreation and transportation. Municipalities even choose to not install safe on-street bike infrastructure if there is a parallel trail in the region. Class 3 e-bikes can be a great transportation choice for longer routes on higher speed roads that may lack otherwise safe bike infrastructure. But banning Class 3 e-bikes undermines the commitment of trails fulfilling transportation needs.
Why should I support SB184?	SB184 changes the regulation to allow class 3 e-bikes on paved trails by default, but defines a 20mph speed limit to e-bikes on trails. Enforcing a speed limit to e-bikes takes away the risk of profiling by officers, and further reduces risk of officers being accused of profiling. If a trail is convenient for part of a rider’s commute, it is currently illegal for the rider of a class 3 e-bike to use it, regardless of their speed, and regardless of how unsafe the nearest alternative road might be. This bill allows Class 3 e-bikes to use the trail in a way that is safer for them while still being peaceful and safe for other trail users. SB184 still allows local control to supersede state policy.
To thank for introducing Please Contact	Senator Carri Hicks carri.hicks@oksenate.gov (405) 521-5543
To Support	please call your state senator and representative To find their names and contact info: Click HERE

Additional Related Questions and References

What do e-bikes look like?

è E-bikes can range in style from road bikes to mountain bikes to step-through hybrids, to longtail cargo bikes, to front-loading cargo bikes. Here are a few examples. The Trek Allant+ (Figures 1 and 2) has the same style as a typical city bike. It comes with both Class 1 and Class 3 options. The Yuba Spicy Curry (Figure 3) is an example of a Class 1 Long-tail. The Riese and Muller Load (Figure 4) is a front-loading style, and also comes in both Class 1 and Class 3 variants.

pedal-assist e-bike on paved trails, like other bikes, but still requiring the vehicle to be operated in a safe manner.
Figure 4 Riese and Muller Load 75 comes in Class 1 and Class 3 options. Trailer and dog not included.

Is racial profiling an issue in Oklahoma?

That being said, there are recent examples of racial profiling:

1a. This was the case in a recent example with the Tampa Bay police department during a 2015 focus on bicycle law enforcement. Here is a short article about bias in their enforcement in 2015, with no resulting improvement in crashes or crime.

Our analyses find that the TPD’s use of bicycle stops does not appear to improve bicycle safety, as there were fewer crashes after the number of bicycle stops dropped considerably. This result is inconsistent with the notion that bicycle stops as practiced by the TPD in the period of interest are effective in improving bicycle safety.

1b. In Tulsa, June 2020, two black teens were legally walking along a quiet street that did not have sidewalks. Two officers followed, rushed, and tackled them claiming they were jaywalking, even though they were walking in accordance with the law. This article from the Tulsa World includes additional details and video footage. Worth noting, although not included in the article, that the boys weren’t technically jaywalking, nor does it mention that jaywalking is not actually illegal.

è Whether or not it is an issue, it’s important for officer/community relations to remove the possibility, and further remove the likelihood an officer could even be accused of profiling.
Are speed limits appropriate to apply?

è Current legislation restricts a technology, which will require legislative updates as alternative vehicles or technologies evolve. Like automobiles, the change will focus on legislating behavior instead of technology.

For instance, The 2021 Dodge Durango Hellcat, with 710 Horsepower and advertised as able to reach 180 MPH, is simultaneously advertised as a family SUV. Motor vehicle regulation allows for this vehicle to drive from your neighborhood to daycare or elementary school to pick up children, provided that speed limits are obeyed.

SB184 updates 47-11-1209 to be consistent with this paradigm, allowing an operator of a pedal-assist e-bike on paved trails, like other bikes, but still requiring the vehicle to be operated in a safe manner.

Figure 5 Marketing picture of a 2021 Dodge Durango Hellcat SUV, from Motortrend.com

Are the existence of trails really a reason not to make streets safe for bicycles?

This is like asking if the existence of a highway is a reason to not fix potholes on local roads. By itself, it should not be a satisfactory reason to justify infrastructure decisions. There may be other context that should drive such a decision. If the road has no businesses or houses on it, does not improve accessibility for anyone, and has decision to be abandoned as a road, then avoiding fixing the potholes might be a reasonable decision.

However, if there is reason to access businesses, schools, or houses within a corridor, the existence of a trail or highway a few blocks over does not enable safe access to desirable destinations. Providing safety improvements to a destination corridor should be independent of alternative bypasses.

Unfortunately, a report of recommendations for an Oklahoma City Street Enhancement Project did exactly that. An excerpt of the report is shown in Figure 6. Among other factors (which may or may not be sufficient of an argument), the report stated that bicyclists can make use of the trail 0.5 miles away. (Note that the report does not mention how the highway also 0.5 miles away would provide an alternative to motorists if they felt too negatively impacted by the bike lanes originally proposed in this project.)

Still, paved trails can play a part in a connected bicycling network, and SB184 would allow more route options for e-bike riders.