Committee approves Mountain Bike Responsibility Act, shielding for-profit trail operators under conditions

A Senate committee adopted a committee substitute for Senate Bill 595—the Mountain Bike Responsibility Act—and voted to report the substitute to the full Senate with a recommendation that it pass.

Committee counsel said the substitute is patterned on existing responsibility acts in the Natural Resources chapter (for example, the Ski Responsibility Act) and defines operator and rider responsibilities, conditions that limit operator liability and industry standards the operator must follow. The substitute applies to for‑profit private trail system operators; it does not apply to state parks, nonprofit trail systems or systems already covered by separate code sections such as the Hatfield‑McCoy Trail System.

Richie Heath, executive director of the West Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association, testified that sponsors worked with industry members to craft clear responsibilities for private trail operators and to balance operators’ need for liability protection with rider safety. “Where a provider has done things that you would expect—trail markings, other responsibilities they’ve obliged by—then in those instances, you would provide them from the protections of the inherent risk that exists,” Heath said.

Key elements of the committee substitute include: • Applicability to for‑profit trail system operators; Hatfield‑McCoy and state park systems are excluded because they are covered by other code sections. • A duty to maintain mountain bike trails in a reasonably safe condition and to mark trails at trailheads and at intersections; the bill references industry standards for classifications of trail difficulty. • New subdivisions requiring operators to construct, operate, maintain and repair trails consistent with relevant mountain‑biking industry standards and to repair and maintain mountain‑bicycling equipment made available to riders by rental agreement or otherwise. • An explicit exclusion of e‑bikes from the definition of bicycle covered by this act (the bill relies on DMV definitions that limit coverage to muscle‑powered bicycles).

Committee members asked for examples of negligent conduct that would not be protected; counsel and the sponsor said the bill is not intended to give blanket immunity for operator negligence (for example, leaving dangerous equipment in a trail or failing to mark a trail that is closed for maintenance could still expose an operator to liability).

The committee agreed the substitute and voted to report SB 595 to the full Senate with a recommendation that it pass.

Sponsors and witnesses said the statute aims to encourage private investment in trail systems and tourism while setting clear expectations for safety and maintenance.