Going to the state Legislature with a request can be a dicey game.
As the Rolling Stones like to sing, “you can’t always get what you want.” But in the Capitol it’s always possible that you could end up with less than you already had.
That’s kind of where the state Game, Fish & Parks Department finds itself right now with electric bicycles on the George S. Mickelson Trail.
Agency officials went to the Legislature last week to ask lawmakers to change state statute and allow the use of Class 2 e-bikes on the109-mile trail. But instead of gaining a class of e-bikes on the trail, they lost one. Or at least they will lose one if a bill as amended eventually becomes law. It has a ways to go before that, however.
For now, the action on Senate Bill 56 gives a pretty good insight into the sometimes unpredictable ways of legislative proceedings. It also raises a larger issue of how accessible the outdoors should be, and what options for access should be legal.
The issue at hand — and at foot, as it were — is those increasingly popular e-bikes and their use on the Mickelson Trail. Two classes of e-bikes are already legal on the trail: Class 1 and Class 3. Both require the rider to pedal in order for the electric motor to assist in turning the wheels.
With Class 1 e-bikes, the motor assists the pedaler up to 20 mph. With Class 3 e-bikes, the motor assists up to 28 mph. If you want and are able to pedal them faster than that, say while going down a hill, you can.
Those bikes are already used on the Mickelson trail. That seems like a contradiction if you read the part of state law that prohibits the use of motorized vehicles on the trail. Because they have motors. Exemptions listed in that part of the law include trail users with self-propelled wheelchairs, emergency personnel, firefighters, government employees doing their jobs and, on one stretch of trail, snowmobiles during winter months.
All three classes of e-bikes are already there
There is no specific exemption there for e-bikes. But another part of statute defines motor vehicles as being, among other things, “propelled by power other than muscular power.” Class 1 and Class 3 e-bikes need muscular power to operate, so they aren’t considered motorized vehicles under the law and are allowed on the Mickelson Trail.
Not so with the Class 2 e-bike. At least, not legally. The Class 2 e-bike is essentially an electric-powered motor scooter with a throttle. You can also pedal the bike if you want to, as opposed to the other two classes that you have to pedal in order to get help from the motor.
Is a Class 2 e-bike with a throttle appropriate for the Mickelson trail? Are the Class 1 and Class 3 e-bikes?
Those are the questions being raised by Senate Bill 56, which was introduced on behalf of the state Game, Fish & Parks Department in response to the confusion over which e-bikes could be used on the trail and the fact that Class 2 e-bikes are already being used there, legal or not.
SB56 would have made Class 2 bikes legal. I write “would have” because it was amended in the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee last week to allow only Class 1 e-bikes on the trail. So instead of gaining the Class 2, GF&P lost the Class 3, at least for now.
Thanks to our pals at South Dakota Public Broadcasting, I was able to sit in on the committee hearing — after the fact — by listening to the recorded audio from the comfort of my den 175 miles from the state Capitol.
In his comments to the committee, GF&P Deputy Secretary Scott Simpson said that users of all three classes of e-bikes are already on the Mickelson Trail.
“And yet we aren’t hearing conflict among the various user groups,” Simpson said. “If we hear anything it’s likely to be from the hikers who do not hear the e-bikes approaching from the rear or from the traditional cyclists who don’t believe e-bikes have a place on the trail at all.”
E-bikes makes trail more accessible to more users
At least 10 rental shops in the Black Hills offer Class 2 e-bikes for rental, and some of them almost certainly end up on the Mickelson Trail, Simpson said. Private owned e-bikes surely show up there as well.
GF&P wants Class 2 e-bikes — which he said is the most popular class of electric bicycles — to be authorized for use on the trail to clear up confusion and help assure access to older people and those with mobility issues.
“The outdoors should be open to everyone,” Simpson said. “And this change will make our trail more accessible to a broader range of individuals.”
Former state Rep. Taffy Howard of Rapid City testified against the bill, saying she uses the trail regularly on a regular bike and worries about the speed and weight of e-bikes and the safety issues they raise on the trail.
“They are just too dangerous,” she said.
Current state Rep. Becky Drury of Rapid City shared similar safety concerns with the committee. Drury said she rides a traditional bicycle on the trail most weekends during the summer and sometimes feels threatened by the speed and weight of e-bikes.
Fears that e-bikes bring danger, change in nature of trail
“There’s nothing more terrifying than having an e-bike come barreling at you, whether it’s coming from behind or coming at you, and if you make a mistake of four inches it could be a fatal accident,” she said.
Drury said Rapid City allows the use of Class 1 e-bikes on its bike path, and sometimes it’s “almost like the Wild West.”
Howard also said that authorizing all classes of e-bikes would “dramatically change the way that trail is used.” She quoted former Peter Norbeck, a former governor and U.S. senator from South Dakota, on the value of slowing down to enjoy the winding roads of Custer State Park.
Norbeck said: “It’s scenic. You’re not supposed to drive here at 60 mph. To do the scenery half justice, people should drive 20, or under. To do it full justice, they should get out and walk.”
Howard asked the committee to either kill the bill or accept the amendment to allow only Class 1 e-bikes on the trail. She said the Great Northern Historical Trail in Montana and the Route of the Hiawatha Trail in Idaho — which she said are similar to the Mickelson Trail — both limit e-bikes to Class 1.
In response, Simpson said he understood the safety concerns and considered them valid. But safety needs apply to all bikes, he said.
“I think what we need to remember is a traditional bicycle doesn’t have a speed limit on the Mickelson Trail, either,” Simpson said. “A traditional bicycle can go as fast as they want to.”
GF&P worries about confusion, enforcement issues
Simpson noted that Brookings, Huron, Mitchell, Pierre, Spearfish, Watertown and Yankton allow all three classes of e-bikes on their trails, and that Sioux Falls is working to allow Class 2 bikes as well.
He also wondered how GF&P would enforce a ban on some classes of e-bikes while allowing others on the trail. The bikes look the same, he said, so “differentiating between the two requires us to stop every e-bike on the trail and ask them, take a look at their bike, see what they’ve got.”
Then, he wondered, do they kick those riding Class 2 bikes off the trail, tell them to ride home or write them a ticket?
“I’m not sure what we do,” he said.
Sen. Jim Mehlhaff of Pierre, a member of the committee, noted that the throttle on Class 2 e-bikes can be disconnected. So that would be one option for GF&P out on the trail, he said.
Mehlhaff compared allowing e-bikes with throttles on the trail to allowing motor scooters or mopeds. He said amending the bill to allow just Class 1 e-bikes only was a good compromise that helps limit trail-congestion or speed problems and still gives people with physical limitations access to the trail.
“It’s in keeping with what the trail is for, which is getting out into the outdoors and getting some exercise,” Mehlhaff said.
Personally, I’m not sure about this bill and this issue. I like the idea of making the outdoors more accessible, particularly on a trail that shows off the beauty of the Black Hills in so many ways. But I’m also concerned about more bike crashes and about the changing the nature of recreational use of the trail — a change that has already been occurring.
And how much access to the outdoors can natural-resources agencies practically provide to people with limitations? As much as possible while also being practical?
At 72, I’m reaching the point where I can’t do some of the things I used to do in the outdoors.
E-bikes raise question of access versus impact
The days are long gone when I could spend hours waddling through sucking marsh muck in a pair of chest waders while lugging a dozen duck decoys, a shotgun, shells, binoculars, a Thermos and lunch.
I still get the decoys out once or twice a year, but my lugging isn’t far and it doesn’t involve marsh muck. With age and other limitations, you have to give some things up.
I still ride shorter stretches of the Mickelson Trail with a regular bicycle these days. But I’m probably not going to ride the Custer-to-Edgemont stretch or the Custer to Rochford stretch in a day again. Maybe I might, with an e-bike. Or maybe I’ll just decide to ride one way on a regular bike and set up a shuttle.
Limitations require accommodations. They also require reason.
All told, the amendment to SB56 seems like one based on reason. I might not feel that way if I had a Class 2 or Class 3 e-bike that I like to take on the trail. I probably wouldn’t.
And there’s time, yet for more changes to the bill, if enough lawmakers can be convinced they are needed. After being approved in its amended form on a 5-2 vote by the Senate committee, SB56 passed the full Senate 21-12. It is now in the House, waiting committee action there.
I understand why GF&P brought the bill. And I understand the desire of agency officials to get more people of all ages and abilities out on the trail, enjoying the outdoors. That’s part of their mission. A big part.
In voting against the amended bill, Sen. Joshua Klumb of Mitchell said the amendment defeated the purpose of the original bill as submitted on behalf of GF&P, which was to get more people using the trail.
“Now I think it’s almost a nanny state bill,” he said.
So, plenty of opinions, and not all of them aligned. That’s the legislative way, and should be on most things.
It’s also why things can go wrong in a hurry when you come to the Legislature thinking you have a good bill and a good idea.
And while, as the Rolling Stones know, “you can’t always get what you want,” they also know that “if you try sometimes, well, you might find you get what you need.”
The amended bill on e-bikes isn’t what GF&P officials want. In fact, it’s less than they had. But is it what they need?
We’ll see.
