After lawmakers’ 54-46 vote in favor, a bill that aims to explicitly allow e-bikes access to a significant portion of Montana’s trail network is expected to pass in the House of Representatives.
During a Thursday afternoon floor session, House Bill 261 sponsor Rep. Steve Gunderson, R-Libby, said his bill would help Montana catch up to other states by establishing a regulatory framework for electrically assisted bicycles, or e-bikes. It also gives land managers a “tool,” Gunderson said, to close some roads, pathways and trails to e-bikes in the absence of comprehensive state laws governing their use.
Gunderson mentioned in his introductory statements that e-bikes are currently governed by the same regulations as bicycles under Montana law. However, there are numerous uncertainties regarding their usage that remain ambiguous in the state statutes.
He stated that this bill tackles those concerns.
Unless specifically prohibited by a local authority or state agency, HB 261 states that e-bikes can be ridden with the motor functioning in the same areas where regular bicycles are allowed. These areas include but are not limited to streets, highways, roadways, bicycle lanes, and shared-use paths.
When HB 261 was heard by the House Transportation Committee on Feb. 3, a handful of opponents zeroed in on that language, calling it representative of an “open-until-closed” approach to trail administration that preempts local control.
Noah Marion, representing Wild Montana, expressed concerns during the committee meeting regarding HB 261. Marion pointed out that this bill has the potential to create confusion among recreationists, as certain land managers, such as the U.S. Forest Service, classify e-bikes as motorized vehicles. Additionally, Marion emphasized that this proposal may put at risk federal funding for non-motorized trails, which are managed through programs like the Recreational Trails Program.
HB 261 has faced opposition from others who assert that it has the potential to generate conflicts among different user groups and result in widespread closures that apply to both human-powered and electrically assisted bicycles.
According to John Juras, the chair of the Montana Bike Walk Montana legislative committee and a proponent of HB 261, the bill aligns with the organization’s objective of making cycling more accessible for older individuals in Montana. Juras also highlighted the appreciation expressed by the Great Falls bicycling community towards HB 261, as it clearly states that e-bikes should not be classified as motor vehicles. This clarification could resolve any uncertainty among cyclists in Great Falls regarding the permissibility of using e-bikes on natural-surface trails with public access easements.
On Thursday, while discussing the bill, Gunderson proposed an amendment that suggested adding public lands, areas managed by the state, and natural-surface trails to the list of locations where e-bike usage would be allowed. However, this permission could be revoked by land managers if they have concerns regarding safety or if there are other legal obligations that prevent it.
Speaking in opposition to HB 261, Rep. Jill Cohenour, D-East Helena, said the proposal represents a significant departure from the current system, which holds that leased state land is closed to such uses until opened through a petition process.
She expressed her disagreement with the approach, stating that it would be the responsibility of the leaseholder to prevent the entry of e-bikes. She believed this was not the most suitable method for our agricultural community and those who manage cattle on state lands.
Gunderson proposed a similar measure during the 2021 legislative session, but it failed in the Senate on a 25-25 vote after easily passing through the House.
Before advancing to the Senate, HB 261 is scheduled for an additional House floor vote. This vote is typically procedural and lawmakers seldom modify their votes between the second and third readings.
As of Thursday afternoon, Legislative Services has tallied six comments in favor of HB 261 and 87 comments in opposition.
