Arguments to make to the OC Parks Commission in Person or by Email (Revised)

 Admin.ocparkscommission@ocparks.com

updated 4/26/2025

You will have 2 minutes to speak to the Parks Commission.

Please be aware that the decision before the Parks Commission will be very sharply focused.  They will have 2—and only 2—options (emphases mine):

1. The OC Parks Commission recommends OC Parks staff explore the feasibility of allowing Class I electric bicycles on unpaved, natural surface trails in OC Parks facilities. 

or 

2. The OC Parks Commission does not recommend OC Parks staff explore the feasibility of allowing Class I electric bicycles on unpaved, natural surface trails in OC Parks facilities.

Use one or more of these points; put it/them  into your own words, keeping both the necessary focus and  the time limit in mind.  

1. Legal Ramifications:  Our wilderness parks were created from lands set aside to preserve natural wildland habitat in the face of the increasing urbanization of Orange County.  Human enjoyment of said parks, while part of the deal, was a fringe benefit.  These lands came with legal strings attached in the form of conservation easements [NCCP, HCP*, Nature Conservancy and OC Parks Foundation Easements].  One of their stipulations is that no motorized vehicles may be used for recreation on park trails, “motorized” being understood to mean having a motor of any kind. It would be a difficult and complicated process to change these legal restrictions, as it would, in effect, challenge the very conditions under which these lands were set aside in the first place.  This could require legal advice.  Be careful what you wish for, lest we end up with no parks left for us to enjoy or all humans prohibited from entering them.

*Natural Community Conservation Plan, Habitat Conservation Plan

For this and #2, see  Overview of e-bikes in OC Parks, especially slides 5-6 and 11.  Scroll down past Minutes to get to it.

2. Slippery Slope:  Although the proposal applies to Class 1 e-bikes only, it is very difficult to tell them apart from Class 2 or 3 e-bikes on sight.  This makes enforcement tricky.   In addition, some of the more powerful electric motorbikes look somewhat similar.  And who can say that in due course a demand will not be made to legalize all e-bikes—and then where does it end? With full-on motorcycles?  This almost guarantees that the wilderness parks will either be destroyed as wilderness or all human recreational use will have to be prohibited to save them.

3. Weight Issues:   E-bikes are heavier than mountain bikes. The Addendum to a study done by Utah State for our parks a few years ago established that, while horse traffic is the most damaging to trails, there aren’t that many horses in our parks, and equestrian use is limited to a few areas.  Although the study claimed that hiking and biking lead to similar trail erosion, it made an important exception:  “in situations where cycling leads to skids and trail-widening behaviors.”  To  this, it added that “the increased mechanical forces of spinning tires can also dislodge soil leading to increased soil transport, erosion and vegetation damage, as well as a higher potential  for wider and more deeply incised trail conditions.” Most of the trail damage we observe, primarily on single tracks with heavy downhill traffic, has been caused by bikes.  Heavier e-bikes will likely increase the amount of damage and trail widening, at a faster rate.  Expect higher maintenance costs for trails and adjacent habitat.

See Addendum to Pilot Project Report, p. 2. 

4. Liability Issues:  Related to the matter of weight is potential liability.  Collisions between hikers and mountain bikes seem to be rare, but they have occurred, and people have been injured.  If an e-bike runs into someone, there would perhaps be a higher likelihood of severe injury or even death.  What might the Parks’ liability be, particularly if they had chosen to legalize e-bikes, whose presence had previously been illegal?  Yes, we all know that there are e-bikes in the parks right now because it’s hard to enforce the rules, but there may be a different perception of whom to blame when something is where it does not belong, and when it is there with permission.  Lawsuits are costly; are you prepared?

5. Age and Ethics:  The argument many e-bikers make in favor of e-bike legalization is that they have enjoyed mountain biking, but that they are now getting older, and it is becoming harder to pedal up hills or keep up with their friends.  What they need is a pedal-assist.  Although we can empathize with them, the argument is specious.  We are all getting older, things hurt, and it is getting harder for all of us to do some of the things that we used to do with ease.  Older hikers also find it harder to get up those hills! We hikers, in fact, outnumber all other trail users in our parks.  But do we plead that you go out there and widen and reroute all our favorite single tracks to ascend smoothly, at a much more gradual rate, so we can still climb them with reasonable ease?  No, of course not!  We all recognize this proposal as outrageous because it threatens the premise of our  wilderness parks.  So, I ask, why is it that a particular group of trail users think they are entitled to special consideration, which also challenges the premise of wilderness, when others are not? 

6.  Fire Danger:  Fires caused by lithium-ion batteries are rare but fierce and rapidly spreading.  The main risks for e-bike battery packs would involve overuse and overheating or impact damage due to a crash.  Do we wish to encourage this risk, though small, in wilderness areas?

See National Fire Protection Agency, US Fire Administration.

7.  Conflict of Interest:  Be aware that one of the Parks Commissioners, David Hanson, owns a chain of bike shops called Jax Bikes.  Because he has skin in the game, he should properly recuse himself or be recused from any discussion and all voting on any matter involving the legalization of e-bikes in our parks.

 8. Final Questions:  Our parks now see more human visitors—of all kinds—than  ever before, which puts more pressure on our wilderness.  We already have a significant number of e-bikes on our trails illegally, while OC Parks staff, though dedicated, are insufficient in number to enforce existing park regulations throughout the territory involved.  Would legalizing Class 1 e-bikes, thereby rewarding  persons who are currently breaking the law and inviting greater numbers of e-bikes into our parks, resolve this dilemma?  No, it would not.  The influx would inevitably include a proportionate number of bikes that were “still” illegal, just as it does today, and Parks staff would still face an impossible enforcement situation—just with more park users. Would further investigation into the feasibility of legalizing Class 1 e-bikes produce enough new information to make it worth pursuing?  Does finding out that we can  do something mean that we should do it?  Should we then throw up our hands and dispense with all park regulations entirely?  Or do we wish to maintain—and keep—our parks as wilderness?