OUR POSITION ON E-BIKES ON TAM

E-mountain bikes are already legal on Mt. Tam under existing California law (although the Marin Water staff apparently disagrees based on a misunderstanding of the law). The health benefits from this way to stay young and enjoy nature are obvious. The environment and water quality continue to thrive. E-mountain bikes tend to be older, having graduated due to inevitable effects of age to pedal-assisted bicycles. We are good stewards of the mountain and, out of respect for others and to avoid injury, we ride with respect for others. The 20,000 acres of watershed, with its 60 miles of trails and 90 miles of fire roads, provide plenty of room for all to share: animals, plants, hikers, cyclists, equestrians, dog walkers, bird watchers, and you and me — with open arms and no discrimination.

1. The 2011 Ordinance Bans Motor Vehicles, Not Class 1 E-bikes.  Thus, They Are Entitled to the Same Access as Other Bicycles Without Any Further Action.

Under California law since 2015, a class 1 e-bike (also called “low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle”) is a bicycle, not a “motorized bicycle” or  a “motor vehicle.”  It is allowed the same access as other bicycles, unless the local jurisdiction passes an ordinance prohibiting such access. (Cal. Veh. Code §§ 231, 312.5(a)(1)-(3)), 21207.5(b), 24016(b)).

Marin Water has been evaluating class 1 e-bikes since 2018.  But it has never passed an ordinance prohibiting their use where other bicycles are allowed.  Thus, as a matter of California law which is binding on Marin Water, class 1 e-bikes are entitled to equal access.

Some have assumed that the 2011 ordinance, 9.04.01, covers e-bikes, although it does not appear that any opinion was obtained from legal counsel.  The staff's assumption is incorrect under California law, and Marin Water has never offered an opinion of its lawyer on this point.  The ordinance provides that no person shall operate any “motor vehicle” on district lands other than public roads or parking lots.  It defines “motor vehicles” to include “cars, trucks, motorcycles, motor-driven cycle[s], motorized scooter, self-balancing motorized personal transportation vehicle[s] or similar vehicles.” The definition of prohibited motor vehicles does not include “bicycles” or “electric bicycles.”  Indeed, the very next provision in the ordinance expressly allows bicycles which, as noted above, includes electric bicycles under California law. 

The stated purpose of the ordinance was to conform to the definition of “motor vehicle” in the California Vehicle Code. That Code, as noted, specifically excludes class 1 e-bikes from the definition of “motor vehicles.”  “[A]n electric bicycle is not a motor vehicle.”  Cal. Vehicle Code 24016(b).  Rather, “[a]n electric bicycle is a bicycle.”  Cal. Vehicle Code 231. 

II.  The Marin Water Experience With Class 1 E-bikes In The Last Decade Shows Why They Should Not Be Banned Now. 

Most people thought, correctly as it turned out, that class 1 e-bikes were allowed on Mt. Tam all along.  They account for an estimated 25% to 50% of the bicycles on Mt. Tam today.  We know from that experience that their impact on fire roads designed for heavy vehicles has been insignificant; that water quality has been unaffected bicycles of any type and remains excellent today; and that, over the years, hikers, cyclists and equestrians generally had learned to share the road and “slow and say hello.”  Hikers who wanted a bike-free experience had 60 miles of trails for their exclusive use.  E-bikes allow Marin’s increasingly older population and those with disabilities to enjoy outdoor recreation, which helps with our physical and mental health.  The health benefits are undeniable.

III.  Public support for ebikes has been repeatedly demonstrated. 

• A majority of the 2018 public workshop held by Marin Water favored equal ebike access.  

• A majority of the Community Advisory Committee on E-bikes in 2019-2020 was also in favor.  

• The Marin Water 2023 survey of over 1,000 visitors who stopped to take the survey (75% of whom were hikers) confirmed all of this. A strong majority viewed the condition of the roads and trails as good to great.  Only 1% reported feeling unsafe, and the causes ranged from coyotes and dirty bathrooms to rude visitors, dogs off leash, etc.  

• And the December 2023 presentation by Blue Point Conservation Service confirmed that the Northern Spotted Owl population is flourishing.  

Officially allowing e-bikes won’t result in a material increase in crowds because most believe that e-bikes are already allowed. 

IV.  The GGNRAA Experience Also Supports Equal Access.

Since 2019, the GGNRA has allowed class 1 e-bikes almost everywhere that traditional bicycles are allowed.  Each year, the Superintendent reviews the conditions on the GGNRA roads and trails, and evaluates whether to continue allowing class 1 e-bikes.  And each year, the Superintendent has found that those e-bikes should continue to enjoy equal access. 

V.  An Inclusive, Welcoming Approach is In Keeping With Marin’s Finest Tradition and William Kent’s Vision.

When William Kent transferred the watershed to Marin Water over 100 years ago, his vision was for the “preservation and development of the whole Mt. Tamalpais area as a recreation area and water district.” Kent believed that “parks should serve the needs of a democratic people . . . removing privileges reserved for only a few.”  Providing equal access of the older population and those with disabilities, and others who want to ride pedal-assist e-bikes is fully consistent with this imperative.

THE NEW 2024 E-BIKE PILOT PROGRAM IS A CULMINATION OF FIVE YEARS OF OUR WORK. IT IS A MAJOR STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION ALTHOUGH IT IS A BIT LIKE DRIVING A CAR ACROSS THE U.S. AND THEN BEING GIVEN A CHANCE TO “TEST DRIVE” IT. WE ALREADY HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH DATA AND EXPERIENCE FOR MARIN WATER TO TREAT CLASS 1 E-BIKES AS BICYCLES, AS PROVIDED IN CALIFORNIA LAW.

Class 1 e-bikes should be allowed on watershed

The Marin Municipal Water District should allow class 1 electric-assist bikes on the Mount Tamalpais watershed for the following reasons:

• E-bikes allow Marin’s increasingly older population and those with disabilities to enjoy outdoor recreation, which helps with our physical and mental health.

• The Golden Gate National Recreation Area allows class 1 e-bikes the same access as other bicycles — without any problems.

• Class 1 e-bikes’ environmental impact is no greater than other bicycles and water quality hasn’t been impaired by bicycle use of any kind.

• Officially allowing e-bikes won’t result in a significant increase in crowds because, in my experience, most e-bikers are unaware that an unenforced ban on e-bikes exists on the watershed.

• The “user conflict” issue is overblown. The recent survey showed that only 1% of people feel unsafe. They attributed the cause to many things such as coyotes, horses, dogs off leash and some rude cyclists. That’s no reason to exclude e-bikes as a class.

After a five-year trial period, it is time for MMWD directors to come to a decision. I and many others hope they opt for a fair and inclusive approach to e-bikers that is more in keeping with Marin values than picking on certain members of the public for exclusion.

— Lucy Dilworth, San Anselmo

Class 1 e-bikes belong on Mount Tamalpais

On Jan. 22, the IJ editorial board urged the Marin Municipal Water District to “give e-bikes a test period on watershed” and asked for a six-month test period. This is one more case of “been there, done that.”

Electric-assist bikes on Mount Tamalpais aren’t anything new. They’ve been coexisting with standard mountain bikes, groups of hikers, dogs, horses and the occasional coyote or bobcat for years. All can coexist if we’re considerate and respectful of each other. Most of us are.

To claim “the heft of an e-bike causes too much damage” is silly. Does a 225-pound rider on a standard mountain bike (weighing 30-35 pounds) cause less damage than a 150-pound rider on an e-bike (weighing 40-55 pounds)? Should we have a test period where all recreationalists — hikers, bikers and equestrians (plus their horses) weigh in before they are allowed to hike, bike or ride?

Mountain bikes were practically born on Mount Tam. They evolved from no suspension to single suspension, to dual suspension to pedal-assist via an electric motor, otherwise known as class 1 e-bikes.

Controversy has evolved, but the speed limits are the same. For standard mountain bikes and e-bikes it is 5 mph when passing a hiker. Otherwise, no more than 15 mph for all bikers. Class 1 e-bikes can’t go much faster than 20 mph.

As the editorial states, e-biking gives older riders the opportunity to enjoy the beauty of the watershed. A lot of us with age and/or disability in our lives need pedal assistance to enjoy the mountain — especially heading up hill. Few of us are speed demons heading down.

I would ask all to not confuse class 1 e-bikes on the mountain with the injuries of kids riding class 2 or 3 e-bikes. That’s a different, albeit worthy battle.

E-bikes have been tested. They passed with flying colors.

— Kristi Denton Cohen, Mill Valley

More people should have the benefits of exercise

I write this with great appreciation for the work the Marin Municipal Water District does for our community. My wife and I have recently followed the community debate about allowing class 1 electric-assist bikes on MMWD watershed land. We find there is an important topic missing from the discussion.

Much of the debate seems to be centered on the safety, and perception of safety, of e-bikes on these trails. Recent surveys have shown roughly 1% of riders have any concern on the trails, and most of those concerns have nothing to do with e-bikes.

What is missing from the discussion is the overwhelming health issue that is at stake.

I teach at the University of California, Berkeley in the School of Public Health. My wife is a psychotherapist. We know Americans are in the midst of two national crises: mental health is at a near all-time low, while metabolic syndrome and chronic conditions are on the rise. Exercise is one of the most important factors to combat both. The literature is packed with evidence to support that exercise lowers the symptoms of depression, anxiety and many other mental conditions, and is essential to better physical health.

Allowing people that may have some physical mobility limitations to use a class 1 e-bike to titrate the amount of exercise they can handle, and allow them to enjoy access to the beautiful trails that will improve their health and for which they help pay to maintain, is a no-brainier. Further, Marin has a disproportionate demographic of an aging population that will increasingly benefit from this safe form of exercise.

When you weigh the tremendous benefits of allowing everyone access to these trails, including those with mobility limitations, we see absolutely no compelling reasons to withhold the access.— Deryk Van Brunt, Kentfield

Watershed recreation plan must ensure equity

I grew up hiking the trails on Mount Tamalpais with my father. In my teens, I took up mountain biking and quickly learned that Marin Municipal Water District officials didn’t want me or my friends on their trails, so we all rode the backside of China Camp State Park for years. I resented the fact that I couldn’t ride trails on Mount Tamalpais.

In time, I grew up and became a leader in the conservation field, serving my last 12 years as general manager of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. Up north, it wasn’t about who was allowed to use the trails, as everyone worked together to ensure equitable access.

I can tell you firsthand that equitable access leads to widespread support for conservation.

I commend the MMWD Board of Directors for pushing forward on a recreation management plan that will finally ensure equitable access for all users. When I attend trail work days, I see our mountain-biking youth rolling up their sleeves to maintain trails. They often comment to me that they are desperate for opportunities to ride trails.

We now have an opportunity to change the dynamic and foster our next generation of land stewards. If we want them to grow up and be conservationists, we must meet them where they are and provide access to the experiences they desire. Let’s get this right.

— Bill Keene, Fairfax

Marin Voice: Officials must learn difference between throttle, pedal-assist e-bikes

Did you know that children of any age can ride throttle-operated electric two-wheeled vehicles everywhere while adults cannot legally ride pedal-assist bicycles on fire roads on or near Mount Tamalpais watershed?

Believe it or not, that is the status quo in Marin County. These inconsistent rules are dangerous for children and unfair to adults. To explain how we got here and how to fix it, I’d like to clear up the confusion over different types of e-bikes.

• Throttle-operated (class 2): Many children ride these around town, causing some consternation and bad press. The fat-tire vehicles are propelled by a simple twist of a motorcycle-like throttle. They look and ride more like small motorcycles or mopeds than bicycles. They are heavy. Some weigh as much as 80 pounds. They might have pedals but there is no need to use them — the throttle alone takes you to top speed.

To call them a bicycle or e-bike is a marketing ploy and, unfortunately, the California Legislature allows it to happen. As a result, under California law, anyone can ride them — without a license, without any training and without any minimum age requirement.

To date, these motorized bikes have avoided much scrutiny because their motors supposedly shut off at 20 mph. But many believe that 20 mph is too fast for most children. Worse yet, some manufacturers advertise that customers can easily “disable” the speed limit and exceed 30 mph. Even for more circumspect manufacturers, the internet is full of easy hacks to exceed the speed limitation.

• Pedal assist (class 1 and 3): This is the type of e-bike that adults typically ride.  They look almost identical to regular bicycles and nothing like the throttle bikes. Indeed, they do not have any throttle. The small motor makes pedaling a little easier. Class 1 e-bikes are mountain bikes with suspension and top speeds of 20 mph. Class 3 is a lighter, no-suspension version designed for the street with top speed of 28 mph.

Most of the fire roads on Mt. Tam are on Marin Municipal Water District land. Under an old ordinance, no type of e-bike is allowed. Three years ago, MMWD staff recommended allowing pedal-assist e-bikes. The board, however, said no.  While the newly elected board appears more enlightened, the outdated ordinance remains on the books. I feel that the anti-bicycle lobby is citing the antics of children on throttle bikes as a reason to continue banning adults riding pedal-assist bicycles on Mt. Tam.

As for pedal-assist bicycles, I continue to urge MMWD to allow them where other bicycles are allowed, subject to the same rules of the road including speed limits.  This is the inclusive approach taken by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, where visitors amicably share the road while enjoying nature and protecting the environment.

As for throttle vehicles, with their growing popularity among children, it is time for state and local governments to address the problem.

One approach would be to treat throttle vehicles as mopeds and other motor vehicles. That would mean riders need a driver’s license. Mandatory helmet use, enforced by parents, schools and, where necessary, police, is also essential for safety.

The current law requires minors under 18 years old to wear helmets when riding any type of bicycle or scooter, but it is rarely enforced and the fine is only $25.

Even if they remain misclassified as an e-bike, a sensible age requirement should be considered for throttle vehicles, in addition to training and licensing.

Assembly Bill 530 is pending in the California Legislature. It would require a minimum age for all e-bikes. Although the bill has some good aspects, its proposed 12-year-old minimum age seems too young for throttle vehicles. To pick the right age, lawmakers should consult experts in child development.

In closing, I encourage parents and our state and local lawmakers to take the time to understand the differences between pedal-assist and throttle — and to fix the status quo which, as we witness every day, is dangerous to children and unfair to adults.

Bob Mittelstaedt, of Kentfield, served on MMWD’s citizen advisory committee on e-bicycles and is a founder of ebikeaccess.org.

E-bike safety plan: Good but not strong enough

Assemblyman Damon Connolly’s proposed bill on e-bike safety is laudable: Children under 16 years old should not ride class 2 e-bikes (the throttle bikes with top speeds of 20 mph).

But a bigger problem is the even faster “throttle mopeds” seen on our public streets every day. It is already illegal for children under 16 to ride them. Just as local action will be needed to enforce the proposed bill if enacted, local action is needed now to enforce the current law.

Local and online merchants are falsely purveying throttle mopeds as class 2 e-bikes. Their top speeds exceed the class 2 limit of 20 mph. So it’s a misdemeanor to ride them without a license, and dangerous as shown by the disproportionately high accident rate for children.

Nonetheless, some local shops are cashing in on these sales even as they proudly boast about how fast the throttle mopeds can go. What should be done right now to address this problem?

First, local authorities should take action against the purveyors of these dangerous products who are targeting our youth. Specific makers of these types of bikes should be identified.

Second, town councils across Marin should publicize that throttle mopeds with top motor-assisted speeds above 20 mph cannot be ridden by under-16, unlicensed children.

Third, just like Tiburon already bans class 3 e-bikes, all schools should also disallow the even faster and more dangerous throttle mopeds.

Fourth, our police should roll out a high-profile ticketing and impoundment program. Impounding a few of these expensive vehicles will get the message out to the parents and merchants.

Connolly’s bill, as needed as it is, addresses only legal class 2 e-bikes. To address the problem of throttle mopeds being misrepresented as class 2 e-bikes, we should enforce the current law.

— Bob Mittelstaedt, Kentfield

Read up before buying an e-bike for your child

As an avid cyclist and parent/grandparent, I’m very concerned about throttle electric-assist bicycles (basically mopeds and motorcycles) that children are riding on Marin streets. Here is some unsolicited advice for parents considering an e-bike for their child as a holiday present:

• The safest choice for children is a regular, nonelectric bicycle. It’s a great way for your child to exercise and enjoy some freedom.

• If you are considering an e-bike (because you live up a steep hill, for example), the safest is a Class 1 electric pedal-assist bicycle — without a throttle. Note that its 20-mph limit will be too fast for some children, depending on their maturity, size and experience.

• Class 2 e-bikes — the ones with a throttle, no pedaling required — might look cool but are not safe for children. By law, they aren’t supposed to go faster than 20 mph. However, I suspect most kids know how to shift into “unlimited” or “off-road” mode, which can go 35 mph or faster, depending on the brand.

If your child’s life and limbs aren’t reason enough, there’s also a risk that the police will realize that models with top speeds above 20 mph are not legal Class 2 e-bikes. I hope they start ticketing kids without licenses and impound the vehicles.

So parents: Please think twice before buying a throttle machine for your children. Find out how fast they will go, how much they weigh and how often they have been involved in serious accidents.

— Robert Mittelstaedt, Kentfield

Banning e-bikes is not the right decision

A recently published letter to the editor conflated words by San Anselmo Councilmember Tarrell Kullaway about the safety of electric-assist bicycles to gun safety. Doing so does a disservice to both issues.

It should be beyond debate that the unrelenting epidemic of gun violence demands tough action by our legislatures. Even though it’s true that human beings are the perpetrators, making it harder for them to obtain guns would help address the problem if not eliminate it.

On the other hand, a broad ban against e-bikes makes no more sense than banning electric cars because they can go fast or banning dog walkers because some flout the leash laws and endanger others and wildlife. There are more effective ways to deal with the small fraction of reckless riders than outright bans.

Instead of criticizing Kullaway as a “bicycle advocate” and “apologist,” it would have been more fitting to recognize and praise the Marin County Bicycle Coalition (where Kullaway works as executive director) for its teen e-bike safety program. We should encourage parents to take responsibility for their teen’s use of e-bikes and enroll them in this worthwhile program. My organization, e-bikeaccess.org, also promotes safe, respectful e-bike riding.

Regarding the recent article on the topic (“San Anselmo reexamines electric bike rules after park collision,” April 2), it may well be sensible to require bicycles to be walked in Memorial Park, particularly if it is overly crowded. A better long-term solution, of course, would be to provide a path for bicycles. Whatever the situation in that particular park, there is no reason for a broader ban on e-bikes.

— Bob Mittelstaedt, San Rafael

Marin Voice: E-bike enthusiasts make case to join community using MMWD watershed for recreation

By BOB MITTELSTAEDT

February 24, 2023 at 1:26 p.m.

It is an exciting, and important, time on the Mount Tamalpais watershed as the Marin Municipal Water District updates its recreation management plan. Public discourse will no doubt improve the final product.

In that spirit, I offer some observations as a long-time Mt. Tam nature lover, hiker, jogger, rider of regular bicycles and, now at 75 years old, pedal-assist bicycles.

At the Feb. 8 community workshop, the district disclosed results of its recent in-person visitor survey.  The results are quite encouraging. Of the 1,060 visitors interviewed in person, the vast majority view the condition of the trails and fire roads — and interactions with other visitors — as “good” or “great.”  Over 90% feel safe, up from 60% a decade ago.

These survey results suggest that tensions between hikers and cyclists have calmed down over the decade. The Marin Conservation League has stated that most hikers have come to accommodate the “culture differences” with mountain bikers and the majority of bikers, in turn, have learned to acknowledge the different experiences sought and accommodate their behavior. That’s good progress.

The survey results were also generally positive on the e-bikes (electric pedal-assist bicycles) front. The survey comprised three times more hikers than cyclists, yet 63% favored allowing e-bikes. Only a quarter wanted to “restrict” e-bikes.

E-bikes account for a significant percentage of bikes on Mt. Tam now (despite the water district’s old policy against them), and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area allows them almost everywhere other bicycles are allowed. The sky has not fallen, as some critics predicted. This should provide comfort as the district reconsiders its policy. Certainly, a consistent approach by the three jurisdictions on Mt. Tam is essential to a coherent plan.

As the district’s consultants explained, “recreational zoning” helps improve user experience.  This concept is already a reality in the water district with 60 miles of trails “zoned” for hikers (17 of which are shared with equestrians.)

Bicycles are allowed only on fire roads, which they share with hikers and equestrians. Unlike hikers, bicycles have no exclusive routes. This inequitable “zoning” presumably will be addressed and corrected in the recreation plan.

With the 22,000 acres under MMWD’s control, surely there are trails and roads that can be reserved for bicycles, with due regard for safety and biodiversity.

The recent workshop showed that more effort is needed to publicize bike-free trails. Take Phoenix Lake, for example. While no place on Mt. Tam is truly overcrowded, Phoenix Lake draws a relatively larger number of visitors. To access Phoenix Lake, the multi-use fire road from the parking lot to the dam is the most popular. But, as locals know, hikers can use the Ross Trail to avoid bicycles.

The Ross Trail is accessed from the intersection of Lagunitas and Glenwood or from the parking lot at Natalie Coffin Greene park. The trail climbs along the south side of the hill until it reaches the Bill Johnson Road.  From there, hikers can turn left and reach the start of Tucker and Harry Allen trails or the Gertrude Old Trail that hugs the south side of Phoenix Lake and leads to the west end of the lake. From there, hikers can cross the main fire road, and take the Yolanda Trail and its offshoot to return to the Ross Trail, with only a short walk along the fire road. Almost all of this route is bike-free.  It provides solitude and wonderful views of the lake and Mt. Tam.

As a co-founder of the website ebikeaccess.org, I can say we will be posting information about other bike-free trails and will work to publicize them.

Unfortunately, it remains true that a few scofflaw cyclists poach on some hiker-only trails. This is not a reason to ban bikes from fire roads or to punish e-bike riders, who tend not to be the problem. But it does underscore the need for more education, peer pressure from the biking community, monitoring by volunteers – including high school mountain-bike teams – and creating some legal single tracks exclusively for bikers.

We want 100% of visitors to feel safe and protect our precious watershed.

Bob Mittelstaedt, of Kentfield, served on MMWD’s citizen advisory committee on electric-assist bicycles.

Marin watershed provides both water and recreation

Fortunately, there appears to be little support for the weekday ban on public access to the Marin watershed proposed in a recent letter by Rick Johnson of Novato.

Recreation has always been an important use for all parts of Mount Tamalpais. That’s what William Kent had in mind when he worked to preserve the land. That’s what the Marin voters were promised when they created the Marin Municipal Water District. That’s incorporated in MMWD ordinances.

According to history books, Kent said the watershed should be “available for the enjoyment and use of everyone” as “the showplace of the state,” with “happy well-behaved people going where they have a right to go, and where they naturally want to go.”

A weekday ban on public access to the watershed would be incompatible with this legacy. Matt Sampson was elected to be the new District 1 representative on the MMWD Board of Directors. Sampson, a hiker and bicyclist, says that maintaining “recreational access on the MMWD watershed is imperative.”

I can understand why someone from Novato might have less appreciation for the recreational value of the Mount Tam watershed. But to those of us who live closer, the mountain provides inspiration, recreation and solitude. Restricting use to weekends is a bad idea.

There are much better ways to protect the watershed from fire hazards, including the MMWD’s ongoing efforts to clear dead trees and brush. I shudder to imagine how much busier the watershed would be on weekends if that was the only time the public had access.

— Robert Mittelstaedt, Kentfield

With respect, civility e-bikes perfectly safe

We need to learn from last week’s fatal accident on the Mill Valley-Sausalito Pathway (“Sausalito pedestrian dies after e-bike collision,” Sept. 21).

The lesson, as the Marin County Bicycle Coalition wrote in a recent statement on its website, is to “work together to treat each other with respect and civility.” I agree with MCBC and dispute some of the ideas of Larry Minikes. His letter, published in the IJ on Sept. 25, implies that more government regulation is the answer.

An electric Tesla can go much faster than the average gasoline car. Yet, when a Tesla gets into an accident, no one calls for special rules that apply only to electric cars. All cars (including e-cars) should be subject to the same speed limits and other rules of the road. The same is (and should be) true of all bicycles, including electric-assist bikes.

Instead of creating more regulations, our public dollars should be spent on enforcing the existing rules. Peer pressure, proper parenting and promoting a culture of politeness are also important ways to reduce accidents like this. When you see a bicyclist riding too fast or recklessly, say something. When riding your bike, set a good example — obey the speed limit and slow when passing walkers. And parents, please let your children know that riding safely can be a matter of life and death, theirs and their neighbors.

I ride by the motto that the hiker around the next blind corner might be my grandmother or an off-leash dog. I don’t want to run into someone and get hurt, let alone hurt an innocent hiker or dog. Let’s share the road — responsibly and politely — as if our grandmothers hike and ride here too.

— Bob Mittelstaedt, Kentfield

Don’t ban e-bikes from MMWD fire roads

A recent letter to the editor misstates the position of aging people, like myself, who need a bit of “pedal assist” to continue our favorite exercise, riding on Mount Tamalpais fire roads.

It’s not that we think cycling with an electric-assist bike is more important than environmental protection. It’s that cycling does not degrade the environment. Otherwise, bicycles wouldn’t have been allowed on Mt. Tam in the first place. And pedal-assist bicycles are no different in that respect.

Today, the pandemic has closed indoor gyms. Cycling on the streets is still dangerous, yet seniors need to maintain a strong immune system. Forbidding us from this kind of safe exercise could be the difference between life and death for some of us.

The Marin Municipal Water District has 21,600 acres of land, with 91 miles of roads. That’s big enough to accommodate hikers, joggers, dog walkers, equestrians, birders, photographers and, yes, cyclists. Even with the sizeable increases shelter-in-place order, most trails are scarcely used.

True to Marin County’s progressive, generous and inclusive nature, the various users have found a way to co-exist. The “Slow and Say Hello” program works. So does the 5 mph speed limit when passing. Coexistence, while not perfect, sure beats arbitrarily discriminating against one type of user or another.

Citations for dogs off a leash exceed those for unsafe biking by 25 to one. Banning all dog walkers for the sins of a few makes no sense. Nor does banning e-bikes for the reckless riding by a small fraction of regular cyclists. Aging e-cyclists are courteous —slow uphill, no battery downhill. For your sake and ours, we are careful not to scare or run into horses or people. Support us please, with a letter to the MMWD board.

— Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Kentfield

E-bikes are good for older adults

Our Board of Supervisors has declared 2018 as the Year of the Older Adult. A bunch of us turned out last week to encourage the board to allow us to continue riding pedal-assist bikes on Mount Tamalpais and other fire roads, subject to the existing speed limits and other rules of the road.

These bikes are a terrific way for the older adult and others to continue enjoying the mental and physical benefits of out-of-doors exercise in our beautiful county.

A letter in the Jan. 29 IJ (“Some doubts about e-bikes on Marin trails”) called us “power-challenged” and suggested we should be content with staying “at the bottom.” This dismissive approach is no way to celebrate the Year of the Older Adult. It’s based on nothing other than an apparent predilection that only the young belong at the top.

The state of California, by law, treats Class 1 e-bikes as regular bikes.

They look the same and function the same. The only difference is a Class 1 e-bike provides help in pedaling uphill.

And as anyone who spends time on Tam and in open space areas knows, most of our trails are quite uncrowded and can accommodate a few more people who want to continue riding mountain bikes as they advance in years.

Contrary to the earlier letter’s assertion, e-bikes do get people out of their cars, whether commuting to work or just to the trailhead.

Marinites are at their best when we are open-minded and inclusive — and not begrudging those who need a little boost on the hills. I encourage anyone with doubts to rent a bike and try it out. You will see that the trails are uncrowded and, far from causing problems, we are just trying to enjoy the Year of the Older Adult and extend our lives through exercise.

— Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Kentfield

OUR FAVORITE SUPPORTING LETTERS TO THE MARIN IJ