# Gotta love Lake Tahoe: E-bikes on MTB trails



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

I believe this is how most parks across the country that have a "No Motorized Vehicle" policy on their hiking, biking and equestrian trails will handle Ebikes.

If this holds true, then what is the purpose of an electric mountain bike that cannot be used on "mountain bike trails" (being the single-track hiking, biking and equestrian trails that makes this sport fun)?

https://www.tahoerimtrail.org/index.php/rules-permits


----------



## ungod (Apr 16, 2011)

Glad to see. I will be working with my local land managers and pushing for a similar ban.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

MA public parks and forests also have a " no motorized vehicles" regulation. E bikes? Great for commuters and where gas spewing motorcycles/atvs are allowed.


----------



## DannyvG (Apr 21, 2014)

The division between motorized vs non-motorized seems outdated since the goal seems to have been to ban polluting, noisy, fast and heavy vehicles that have the capability to rip up trails and seriously injure slower moving people (walking or cycling) on the same trails. Guess what, the class 1 ebikes are low powered machines with capabilities (speed/power) close to a trained cyclist and pose no more of a threat than a regular bicycle and are also not noisy and polluting. So why the need to ban them? 
I do agree that >1kW throttle operated electric vehicles have no place on hiking/cycling trails for the same safety reasons why now classical motorized vehicles are not allowed.

Luckily I am from the Netherlands where low power/speed ebikes are classified as bicycles and thus allowed on all mtb trails. And even though ebikes are very common for commuting they are still very sparse on mtb trails and I don't expect that to change for a while.

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

You also don't have the political realities we have in the US. My whole state treats e-bikes similarly to the policy in the OP. That's something that's VERY straightforward for a land manager to manage. A motor is a motor.

If land managers have to consider the CLASS of ebike in question, and whether it may have any modifications that put it outside of its original class designation is just a rotten mess that no land manager is going to want to mess with. By permitting a motor of any kind on a nonmotorized trail, you add fuel to the fires of the vocal anti-bike community who uses the motors to get ALL wheels removed from the trail. That's the absolute last thing we need.

ebikes are fantastic commuting machines for encouraging more people to leave their cars home for shorter trips. They're an excellent addition to a cargo bike. They are not such a great idea for mountain bikes.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

I hate that ebikes exist, but I'll wager a sixer that eMTB's will be available for rent at or near Spooner Lake within 10 years so that tourists can take them up that lousy climb to ride The Flume Trail.

I'll check back in 2026 to see who owes who a sixer


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Better send the ebike police after this dude. He and his e-buddy are climbing the Tahoe Rim Trail southbound to Marlette Peak. :nono:






... pretty _not_-hilarious that at the end of the clip, he goes off trail to get around a little technical spot rft:

I've been vocal on many ebike threads that rules prohibiting pedal assist bikes on non-motorized trails are great but fairly worthless. As demonstrated in this video, those who buy or rent them are as likely to follow the rules as mt. bikers are about staying off hiker/horse only trails.

This all has a good chance of not ending well for mt. biking...

As I really don't have any issue with ebike speed or impact, I guess I'd rather see them accepted so we don't force land management agencies to enforce ebike bans vis-a-vis patrolling places they historically don't patrol. Sigh...


----------



## JVG1967 (Feb 22, 2014)

Not trying to start a flame war here but here are the regs for Delaware State Parks: 

"Bicycle" shall include that certain class of vehicles which are exclusively human-powered by means of foot pedals, which the driver normally rides astride, which have not in excess of 3 wheels and which may be commonly known as unicycles, bicycles and tricycles. The term "bicycle" also includes a 2- or 3-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 horsepower), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 miles per hour. (21 Del.C. §101(4)).

"Motorized Vehicle" means every vehicle which is self‑ propelled including, but not limited to, mopeds, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles (ATV) and other two, three or four‑wheel vehicles, except Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices that comply with the device specifications in the Division of Parks and Recreation's administrative policy

Using the above rules as a guide E Bikes (pedal assist) are allowed on DE State park trails. I've also called each park to verify. I did this because I'm interested in purchasing a E Bike but wanted to make sure I'd have some place to ride it before I spent the money. Of course different states and opinions will vary.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

^ that's interesting. Tahoe Forest is a National Park, but is the only park that comes up with any info when I searched for "e-bikes" on the us forest web site. No other national parks seem to mention them yet. I don't beleive Delaware has any national parks so nothing that you mentioned would come up on that sight for Delaware. 

The Tahoe management unit set the ban and they seem to be far more concerned about the environment and the lake than increasing tourists to the area. Not to say that the park officials in Delaware are not concerned about the environment, it's just that people here are hyper sensitive. 

Another interesting thing is that wiki shows Delaware and I think Montana are the only two states to classify ebikes <750w or whatever as " bicycles" all other states classify them as motor driven cycle, mopeds, motorized bicycle, bicycle with helper motor (my favorite), bicycle with a motor attached, other various versions and for New York it says "illegal". There are about 17 state that have not classified them yet.


----------



## BikeBro (Nov 13, 2012)

DannyvG said:


> Guess what, the class 1 ebikes are low powered machines with capabilities (speed/power) close to a trained cyclist and pose no more of a threat than a regular bicycle and are also not noisy and polluting. So why the need to ban them?
> 
> Because then any inexperienced Joe Schmo can get to the top of big climbs and head down the same fast technical downhill trails i am on. While there are exceptions to this, where I am at least if you make it to the top you are likely have been riding for some time and be in good shape with good bike handling skills. I do not want to be anywhere near some kook who doesnt know how to ride when im going 30mph downhill. Yes, there is an issue with the bikes themselves (especially in the future w/ more power) but the people riding them needs to be considered as well. Earn your grins.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Screw ebikes, they're still too much work. That guy in the video sounded like he was going to keel over on that climb even with a motor. I'm holding out for Segways. It's just power assisted hiking right?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

DannyvG said:


> The division between motorized vs non-motorized seems outdated since the goal seems to have been to ban polluting, noisy, fast and heavy vehicles that have the capability to rip up trails and seriously injure slower moving people (walking or cycling) on the same trails. Guess what, the class 1 ebikes are low powered machines with capabilities (speed/power) close to a trained cyclist and pose no more of a threat than a regular bicycle and are also not noisy and polluting. So why the need to ban them?
> I do agree that >1kW throttle operated electric vehicles have no place on hiking/cycling trails for the same safety reasons why now classical motorized vehicles are not allowed.
> 
> Luckily I am from the Netherlands where low power/speed ebikes are classified as bicycles and thus allowed on all mtb trails. And even though ebikes are very common for commuting they are still very sparse on mtb trails and I don't expect that to change for a while.
> ...


Netherland? We will send all over to you. All of them, our issues are different.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

JVG1967 said:


> Not trying to start a flame war here but here are the regs for Delaware State Parks:
> 
> "Bicycle" shall include that certain class of vehicles which are exclusively human-powered by means of foot pedals, which the driver normally rides astride, which have not in excess of 3 wheels and which may be commonly known as unicycles, bicycles and tricycles. The term "bicycle" also includes a 2- or 3-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 horsepower), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 miles per hour. (21 Del.C. §101(4)).
> 
> ...


Usually that bicycle definition is how it pertains to state hiway/road laws. Not multi use trails.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

When the power density gets good enough, eBikes should be a hoot on OHV trails. It'll be a while, but I see that as a user group who could actually learn to put in the trail work commensurate with usage/wear required to actually keep them on those trails.

They've already been identified as the most attractive commuting answer for people with DUI convictions who can afford them (not a user group I really give half a crap about, but it is driving sales).


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Great now I am a Drunkard just because I ride a E bike !!!!


----------



## JVG1967 (Feb 22, 2014)

leeboh said:


> Usually that bicycle definition is how it pertains to state hiway/road laws. Not multi use trails.


The quote is from the Delaware State Parks rules and regulations. Has nothing to do with state hi way or road laws.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

JVG1967 said:


> The quote is from the Delaware State Parks rules and regulations. Has nothing to do with state hi way or road laws.


Actually it has everything to do with the state hi way and road laws. I am assuming the park service just copied the language from the dmv rather than trying to come up with something themselves.


----------



## JVG1967 (Feb 22, 2014)

singletrackmack said:


> Actually it has everything to do with the state hi way and road laws. I am assuming the park service just copied the language from the dmv rather than trying to come up with something themselves.
> 
> View attachment 1063752


With my state it doesn't surprise me that they did that, LOL!


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

My first thought was that they didn't write their own rules, if E-bikes become more common I wonder if they will change the language. According to those rules you don't even need a pedal assist bike, you can use a bike with a throttle as long as it stays below 20 mph.

I'm in DE and I don't think I've seen an E-bike in the wild yet. We don't really have much in the way of hills either, so not sure this would be the most popular place for them.


----------



## hdparrish (Jan 24, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


>


Stuff like this makes me sad. I did get a chuckle from seeing the faceless rider dominated by a puddle on a hairpin.

Part of me wonders if the people who believe e-bikes belong on NON-motorized trails are the same folks who feel they deserve to be in an HOV lane when they're driving solo.

I hope that's not the case.


----------



## Capt.Ogg (Jun 5, 2015)

Yeah those guys totally ripped the trail roosting 30mph uphill without pedaling.

edit: of course they should not be riding there if it's not allowed. But at the same time a good example of pedal assisted mountain biking.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Capt.Ogg said:


> edit: of course they should not be riding there if it's not allowed. But at the same time a good example of pedal assisted mountain biking.


Which begs the question, if they are pedaling, huffing and puffing, crashing, having fun, sweating, etc., why are they banned in the first place?

I know someone will say "because they're motorized, idiot!" But was this the kind of motor people were thinking of 60 years ago when trails were being designated as "non-motorized"?


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

If one extrapolates power density and power delivery elements further on the current exponential growth trends, in another 10 years these things will have the capability to go 20mph up everything, and a touch faster on the way down. That's going to be more erosion, more stupid interactions with other trail users, and more miles covered creating the possibility for an unfit rider to strand themselves somewhere awkward.

In a lot of regards, I think eBikes will be their own distinct thing - for trials type stuff that'll be a phenomenal setup with instant torque delivery, and on the right OHV trails they'd be the perfect weapon to having fun. They'd be lighter than full-on motos, and because they aren't as fast the consequences attached to injury when getting something wrong won't be nearly as huge. All of that is upside, but that doesn't mean they belong on trails that were designed, built, and maintained with non-motorized use in mind.


----------



## JVG1967 (Feb 22, 2014)

tehllama said:


> If one extrapolates power density and power delivery elements further on the current exponential growth trends, in another 10 years these things will have the capability to go 20mph up everything, and a touch faster on the way down. That's going to be more erosion, more stupid interactions with other trail users, and more miles covered creating the possibility for an unfit rider to strand themselves somewhere awkward.
> 
> In a lot of regards, I think eBikes will be their own distinct thing - for trials type stuff that'll be a phenomenal setup with instant torque delivery, and on the right OHV trails they'd be the perfect weapon to having fun. They'd be lighter than full-on motos, and because they aren't as fast the consequences attached to injury when getting something wrong won't be nearly as huge. All of that is upside, but that doesn't mean they belong on trails that were designed, built, and maintained with non-motorized use in mind.


I'm thinking about purchasing a Specialized Turbo Levo and would never use the bike on a public multi use trail. The multi use trails around me have too many walkers, joggers, other riders and little kids. In my opinion the bike doesn't belong there so I'll make sure I stick to the more secluded and less used trails. All it takes is a little common sense and we can all get along.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

E-Bikers in California

California Bill AB-1096 is now California LAW (effective 01/2016) Like it or not, you will see these bikes on your local singletracks. Even if they have the signs that say no to motorized vehicles. These outdated signs were meant for motorcycles and ATVs. Plus they were put up before this new law was signed and made LAW.

So if anyone is riding their ebikes and get stopped. Make sure that you have a printed copy of this bill and show the ranger/police. If you are on a Ca State Park trail (that includes City Parks), you are protected! Trails on Federal land or privately owned parks..ehh, ????.

Either way, if you get a ticket...Fight it! It'll force them to update those outdated signage. If any "haters" threaten you with bodily harm. They're breaking a different law and you have every right to defend yourself.

Have fun and don't kill the flow!

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01520160AB1096


----------



## levity (Oct 31, 2011)

Pinoy - can you provide clarification?

As I read Bill AB-1096 is seems that class 3 bikes (capable of 28 mph) are prohibite unless there is some special approval, and class 1 & 2 bikes (20mph max) can be prohibited by local ordinance. Seems like one needs to know the local rules.

from the 4th paragraph of AB-1096:

"... The bill would prohibit the operation of a *class 3* electric bicycle on specified paths, lanes, or trails, unless that operation is authorized by a local ordinance. The bill would also authorize a local authority or governing body to prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of *class 1 or class 2* electric bicycles on specified paths or trails ..."

here's the definition of the different classes:

312.5. (a) An "electric bicycle" is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts.
(1) A "*class 1 electric bicycle,*" or "low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle," is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
(2) A "*class 2 electric bicycle*," or "low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle," is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
(3) A "*class 3 electric bicycle*," or "speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle," is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour, and equipped with a speedometer.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Awaiting Pinoy's answer too, but FYI, some trails in Orange County are marked "no electric bicycles", so maybe that's what others must do to prohibit them. It should be noted that Rangers in the Santa Monica mountains (state park) have been reported to permit Class 1 bikes.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

It used to be that Class 1&2 ebikes were banned everywhere except where they were expressly permitted, now Class 1&2 are permitted everywhere except where they are expressly prohibited.

I gear my Class 1 to top out on the flat at 20mph in the smallest cog on the maximum of 9 power assist settings and mostly ride around on PAS 1 & 2.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> now Class 1&2 are permitted everywhere except where they are expressly prohibited.


"Everywhere"?

I can't believe you STILL don't understand these rules only apply in certain places.
Amazing.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Yes, everywhere. In CA. They seem to be on ground zero for this. Waiting for it to blow up. I give it to the fall.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

Whats up guys!

@Levity the text that you quoted means that

"The bill would also *authorize a local authority or governing body to prohibit, by ordinance*, the operation of class 1 or class 2 electric bicycles on specified paths or trails"

if they choose to do so. If they dont have that ordinance in place. Then Class 1&2 ebikes will be allowed where any bicycle can go legally (within that location).

If they updated their trail signs and online documentations banning all Ebikes, *but they don't have an ordinance in place*. Then they (local governing body) are breaking this new law.

Reading up on the Tahoe Rim trail rules, it seems that they took it upon themselves to preemptively ban Ebikes period. Thats a shame since it's like Ebikers are *guilty* of all wrongdoing, before proven innocent.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

WoodlandHills said:


> It used to be that Class 1&2 ebikes were banned everywhere except where they were expressly permitted, now Class 1&2 are permitted everywhere except where they are expressly prohibited.
> 
> I gear my Class 1 to top out on the flat at 20mph in the smallest cog on the maximum of 9 power assist settings and mostly ride around on PAS 1 & 2.


"Everywhere" applies to where the jurisdiction of the State of California Law can be enforced. But "may not" apply to Federal, and Privately owned land.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

Almost forgot! Wilderness designated areas too!* ALL bikes are banned*! Thanks IMBA for dropping the ball on that one!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

PinoyMTBer said:


> "Everywhere" applies to where the jurisdiction of the State of California Law Vehicle Code can be enforced. But "may not" apply to Federal, and Privately owned land.


fify

Also doesn't appear include areas under the control of municipalities, ie town and city parks/forests etc.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

@slap

Actually, it does!


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

PinoyMTBer said:


> Reading up on the Tahoe Rim trail rules, it seems that they took it upon themselves to preemptively ban Ebikes period. Thats a shame since it's like Ebikers are *guilty* of all wrongdoing, before proven innocent.


Actually, since I presume motorized vehicles weren't allowed before, I think a more accurate statement would be that they are still prohibited since they are still "guilty" of having a motor. Nothing changed.

Same situation here in Colorado, they were reclassified like the federal law, but you still can only ride them with the motor engaged on roads and bike lanes, except in Boulder, where they are testing them on bike paths. So, since they are still regulated to the same locations as they have been historically, would you consider that a preemptive ban?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> "Everywhere"?
> 
> I can't believe you STILL don't understand these rules only apply in certain places.
> Amazing.


 It's interesting how someone 2000 miles away is such an expert on how California law is being interpreted today. Are you also an attorney along with the other skills you list in your posts? I am not, but I have several close friends who have been practicing before the CA Bar for over 50 years cumulatively and they all have confirmed the interpretation we have posted above. Given that I actually live and ride here, have consulted local attorneys as well as the relevant land management agencies, I'll just continue to believe that we know more about what is happening in our state than some .......errrrr........"person"..... in Massachusetts.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Harryman said:


> Actually, since I presume motorized vehicles weren't allowed before, I think a more accurate statement would be that they are still prohibited since they are still "guilty" of having a motor. Nothing changed.
> 
> Same situation here in Colorado, they were reclassified like the federal law, but you still can only ride them with the motor engaged on roads and bike lanes, except in Boulder, where they are testing them on bike paths. So, since they are still regulated to the same locations as they have been historically, would you consider that a preemptive ban?


 If new Colorado law now permits ebikes to have equal access like in CA, but Boulder banned them before the law took effect, then yes, that is a preemptive ban. If the law is not the same as in CA, then no, it's not a preemptive ban. Unlike some who comment here I don't profess to be an expert on the laws of other states than my own, so I can admit I am not familiar with bicycle law in Colorado.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> It's interesting how someone 2000 miles away is such an expert on how California law is being interpreted today. Are you also an attorney along with the other skills you list in your posts? I am not, but I have several close friends who have been practicing before the CA Bar for over 50 years cumulatively and they all have confirmed the interpretation we have posted above. Given that I actually live and ride here, have consulted local attorneys as well as the relevant land management agencies, I'll just continue to believe that we know more about what is happening in our state than some .......errrrr........"person"..... in Massachusetts.


Is there a different version of the English language practiced in California?
Willing to venture that the average Californian has a better grasp of the language than we M*******s?

Check lout your DOT's definition of what constitutes a 'bike path' for starters:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/chp1000.pdf

Then maybe take your arguments to this guy, obviously just another e-bike "hater" (who happens to be an E-bike industry guy):

https://www.imba.com/blog/supporter/california-electric-mountain-bike-law

"A California law that legalizes the use of electric bicycles on most California bikeways (Assembly Bill 1096) does not pertain to electric mountain bicycles (eMTBs) on non-motorized trails. Any claims that AB 1096 would create access for eMTBs on singletrack trails or other trails on public lands, whether they are currently open or closed to mountain bicycles, is inaccurate.

PeopleForBikes and the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association have been attentive to eMTB trail issues since AB 1096's inception. Before the passage of AB 1096, it was illegal to ride an electric bicycle on bike paths California. Together as a coalition, the California Bicycle Coalition, the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association and PeopleForBikes fixed this. From day one of this effort, this coalition reached out to stakeholders who would be impacted by the bill and expert attorneys to ensure that this bill does not apply to off-road trails. It does not. This issue was addressed months ago and the parameters of the bill were confirmed every time the issue was raised.

Unfortunately, some people have inaccurately interpreted the law. AB 1096 makes a change to the California Uniform Vehicle Code and applies only to Class I, II, III, and IV bikeways. These are California Department of Transportation designations and the Uniform Vehicle Code has no legal bearing on the management of bicycle use on trails located on federal, state, county or city public lands. Bicycle access-electric or otherwise-is determined by the management guidelines of agencies with jurisdiction over those lands.

Rest assured, AB 1096 does not open the door to unfettered and unmanaged eMTB recreation or jeopardize existing mountain bicycling access. Our coalition regrets that some mountain bike stakeholders have been unrelenting in their attempts to discredit the spirit of the coalition's effort to increase bicycle access. We hope this guest IMBA blog post will help clarify the situation."


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Yet more educational material for you, from the haters at Electricbikereport no less:

"In short, the Vehicle Code does not regulate trails in the State Parks. Trails are regulated separately by parks departments, which control access. This law does not clarify where eMTBs can be ridden on trails in city, county, and state parks."

The New California E-Bike Law & Electric Mountain Bikes | Electric Bike Report | Electric Bike, Ebikes, Electric Bicycles, E Bike, Reviews


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> If new Colorado law now permits ebikes to have equal access like in CA, but Boulder banned them before the law took effect, then yes, that is a preemptive ban. If the law is not the same as in CA, then no, it's not a preemptive ban. Unlike some who comment here I don't profess to be an expert on the laws of other states than my own, so I can admit I am not familiar with bicycle law in Colorado.


An ebike was considered a motorized bicycle in Colorado previous to the implementation of the federal definition and could only be used on roadways. Not on non moto singletrack.

The new regs created a new class (under 750, 20mph top speed) and allow them on roadways and in bike lanes. Still no singletrack.

Boulder is testing them on bikepaths, as a home rule state, that is their perogative. They could make them legal on city park singletrack if they wanted.

I would assume that CA was similar, that an ebike before the new regulations was considered motorized and off limits on non moto singletrack in Tahoe. I don't see how if the definition of the same vehicle changed, but the land manager still didn't want that same vehicle on their trail system, how it was preemptive? They were banned before, still banned now, Tahoe seems to just have updated their rules to address the change in definition.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Good call posting the actual text versus a link, perhaps it will be debated and disscused.

I am really at a loss as to why mine and other's posts are perceived as full of rancor when we are asking what I thought were relevant questions.

Since WoodlandHills lives in California maybe he can get insight from his lawyer friends regarding the above and following:
The New California E-Bike Law & Electric Mountain Bikes | Electric Bike Report | Electric Bike, Ebikes, Electric Bicycles, E Bike, Reviews

Per Morgan Lommele, E-Bikes Campaigns Manager at PeopleForBikes, the group responsible for writing the language of bill AB-1086, :

This new law, effective January 1, 2016, only applies to Class I, II, III, and IV bikeways in California.

For more information about particular access on each of those bikeways, visit this link: California governor signs law modernizing electric bike regulations | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News
Many have asked how this affects eMTB access on trails in city, county, and state parks. The important distinction is that this law applies only to the California Vehicle Code.

State, county and city parks are managed outside of the vehicle code, just as the federal land management agencies. "Bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail" is commonly used in the Vehicle Code, and is the preferred way to discuss path/trail access, even for paved or soft-surface bikeways.

In short, the Vehicle Code does not regulate trails in the State Parks. Trails are regulated separately by parks departments, which control access. This law does not clarify where eMTBs can be ridden on trails in city, county, and state parks.

I am sorry if asking about the reality of ebike access rather than your perception of it is taboo, simply genuinely curious where you draw the conclusion of open unless posted, rather than closed unless posted.

I have advocated for sticking to legal trails and asking the appropriate land managers when in doubt, and staying off trails when it is not clear. How that is bigoted and hating, color me confused.

Here is another group you may have heard of that the PeopleForBikes is aligned and working with:
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/page/-/uploads/eMTB OnePager R2.pdf


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Some CA trails have been posted with "no electric bicycles" signs. Does that establish a precedent that any trail (city, county or state) must explicitly ban electric bikes or they're legal? Who knows? This is why it may be decided in court. Maybe we should all go bang our heads against a wall since nobody is convincing anyone else to change their position. Of note is there are very few individuals "policing" the trails out here; my friends have ridden past rangers on their e-bikes with impunity, so it'll take a long time for this to be resolved.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

But thats my point, once saturation reaches a certain level the worst actors will be caught and their bad actions will have a negative impact on your future access.
I would think actively promoting the quality and caliber of ebikers through your good behavior by sticking to known legal trails will speed the acceptance from land managers you desire. 

But hell what do MTBers know about access issues caused by a small subset of users that paints them all with the same colored brush in the eyes of John Q Public.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Why can't ebikers use the same methods to gain access that MTBers did: ride any damn place they want to and fight it in the courts if you get caught? Isn't that the history of the sport? And aren't those attitudes still celebrated here in these forums today? It's pretty selfish to get all bent out of shape over people doing exactly what the pioneers of the whole sport did! It's like you all think that "Hey we got in everyone's face, kicked the door down and forced our way in way back in the day. Now we wanna keep the riff-raff out!". It just reeks of hypocrisy IMHO


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

fos'l said:


> Maybe we should all go bang our heads against a wall since nobody is convincing anyone else to change their position.


What's your opinion on the articles quoted above?

The author seems legit to me. Any reason to think he'd be saying what he's saying if it's it had zero basis in fact?

As far as signage setting a precedent like you mention, think of it this way: If one town forest hangs a few "NO ATV" signs, does that mean it's all of sudden open season for 4-wheelers on every unposted trail in the state? Of course not.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Why go through all the growing pains MTBs did? 

And I don't get the hypocrisy angle. I do not and did not say bad behavior by ebikers is any worse than bad behavior by MTBers and I will happily apply the same standards to any user breaking the rules. Maybe your perception of outlaw MTBers being celebrated by the community was true 15 years ago, and maybe it still is in your neck of the woods, but in my personal experience the gains MTBers have gotten from working with land managers has been awesome and I do not understand why you would want to copy our bad actions from years prior rather than our better organized land manager friendly structured advocay of today.

I am not justifying our past bad behavior and I certainly do not see that as logical justification for ebikers to assume the same outdated stance.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Hera are some facts if you care:
1) The individuals riding ebikes that I've encountered (with one exception on a mobility scooter who was going slower than those walking with him) are either long time MTB'ers or ladies trying to keep up with what they used to be able to do on a p-bike. Many, myself included have done trail work, attended meetings etc. All have children, most grandchildren who we want to be able to continue using the trails. By the way, the sample size of less than 10 isn't significant.
2) There are not enough rangers down here except in one heavily used park, easily avoidable, to police the trails from individuals who ride responsibly whether, ultimately, it's legal or not.
3) There's so many places to ride (probably 20+ within a half hour of my house) that an individual can always find someplace to ride virtually alone.
4) CA possibly has set a precedent by placing " electric bicycles prohibited" signs on some trails; presumably (this is arguable) they will need to exclude e-bikes wherever they desire with signs.
5) Why is Specialized introducing five or whatever e-MTB's and Haibike 30+ eMTB's that satisfy CA laws?
6) The European pro organizations are having difficulty finding motors on some bikes. Faraday (probably among others) conceals their electronics in the frame tubes. They are developing a motor with the rim the rotor and the stator between the seatstays. Who knows how long it will be possible to discover motor systems?
7) It's going to take a long time to resolve this issue; until then I'm riding my p-bike or e-bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

fos'l said:


> Hera are some facts if you care:
> 1) The individuals riding ebikes that I've encountered (with one exception on a mobility scooter who was going slower than those walking with him) are either long time MTB'ers or ladies trying to keep up with what they used to be able to do on a p-bike. Many, myself included have done trail work, attended meetings etc. All have children, most grandchildren who we want to be able to continue using the trails. By the way, the sample size of less than 10 isn't significant.
> 2) There are not enough rangers down here except in one heavily used park, easily avoidable, to police the trails from individuals who ride responsibly whether, ultimately, it's legal or not.
> 3) There's so many places to ride (probably 20+ within a half hour of my house) that an individual can always find someplace to ride virtually alone.
> ...


What 'issue'? Right now, the issue is whether or not e-bikes have been given blanket access to MTB trails in your state, which a lot of people seem to mistakenly believe is the case. Not whether you will be able to buy one and poach trails on it.

So, in case you missed the last bunch of posts...very, very curious as to your response to this:



slapheadmofo said:


> What's your opinion on the articles quoted above?
> 
> The author seems legit to me. Any reason to think he'd be saying what he's saying if it's it had zero basis in fact?
> 
> As far as signage setting a precedent like you mention, think of it this way: If one town forest hangs a few "NO ATV" signs, does that mean it's all of sudden open season for 4-wheelers on every unposted trail in the state? Of course not.


Any particular reason you feel you need to avoid responding to this? Besides the obvious?

And how about WoodlandHills? Rider95? Where are you guys now? All of a sudden, nothing but crickets? What're your thoughts? You guys seem to have grown awful quiet...



Maybe we can get the information from those articles posted in this sub-forum as a sticky. Cut down on the spread of ignorance.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> Why can't ebikers use the same methods to gain access that MTBers did: ride any damn place they want to and fight it in the courts if you get caught? Isn't that the history of the sport?


Yeah, that's what didn't work, have fun with it. These days, and as those of us that were around then have matured, we have formed cooperative realtionships with land managers. We help them accomplish goals, they help us accomplish goals.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Harryman said:


> Yeah, that's what didn't work, have fun with it. These days, and as those of us that were around then have matured, we have formed cooperative realtionships with land managers. We help them accomplish goals, they help us accomplish goals.


 That's sounds like just another way of saying that we got ours and screw you...... All dressed up in fancy phrases like "cooperative relationships" and "accomplish goals"....... In other words, our outlaw past got us a seat at the table with the big boys, but now we are old and part of system and we don't want any change in the status quo. Hypocrisy! It's understandable and quite common, but sad nonetheless when one sees it happen.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> What 'issue'? Right now, the issue is whether or not e-bikes have been given blanket access to MTB trails in your state, which a lot of people seem to mistakenly believe is the case. Not whether you will be able to buy one and poach trails on it.
> 
> So, in case you missed the last bunch of posts...very, very curious as to your response to this:
> 
> ...


 I am personally acquainted with the publisher of the second article and while he is a nice person, he's no expert on CA law and I had already spoken to him about my disagreement. The first was written by an organization that is IMHO dedicated to blocking access to any trails by ebikes, despite their protestations of innocence. IMBA represents the most retrograde viewpoints in the MTB community on this issue, they just dress it up prettier than most.

All of this fussing and fuming is going to be moot in a few years: the market will decide and numbers will prevail. If no one buys ebikes, no problem. If thousands buy them, again no problem: majority rules and they will be everywhere.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

So your stance is that you are a law expert and understand all this better than the those who were involved in drafting lobbying for this bill, who are now going on record with outright fabrications meant just to persecute you?


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

WH, why argue; we know that we can ride at will out here, so see you all on the trails; I'll be on my p-bike or e-bike. Let the "lawyers" keep telling us all they know about CA law.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> I am personally acquainted with the publisher of the second article and while he is a nice person, he's no expert on CA law and I had already spoken to him about my disagreement. The first was written by an organization that is IMHO dedicated to blocking access to any trails by ebikes, despite their protestations of innocence.


Ummmm...the articles were written by the same person.

That eludes you but somehow when it comes to interpreting law, you're an authority?
How exactly did the author respond to your premise? I'm assuming by telling you the same thing you've been told over and over by lots of other people - that you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> That's sounds like just another way of saying that we got ours and screw you...... All dressed up in fancy phrases like "cooperative relationships" and "accomplish goals"....... In other words, our outlaw past got us a seat at the table with the big boys, but now we are old and part of system and we don't want any change in the status quo. Hypocrisy! It's understandable and quite common, but sad nonetheless when one sees it happen.


No actually, I'm pointing out our outlaw past resulted in us not having a seat at the table, it wasn't until we changed our approach that it did. It's easy for a land manager to ban a user group that is nothing but trouble, bring them something of value and they will listen. The current e-bike stance of demanding access is more stick and less honey to an underfunded, overstressed land manager. Reverse that and you will see greater acceptance.

Do you really think mtbers want to embrace a new two wheeled user group with a "screw it, we'll ride where we want" attitude? We have enough problems as it is. Land managers and mtb orgs both acknowledge the problems mtbs create, no user group has zero impact. If e-mtbers did the same, they would have better shot at widespread acceptance, otherwise land managers will take the stance they did with us, "eh, I don't need the aggravation, no e-bikes for you." or if they lump you in with us, as you insist, "eh, I don't need the aggravation, no bikes for you."

A 1000W bike like yours is not a 250W bike which is not a 0W bike. We don't all have to pretend they are the same just because you'd like it that way. They are not evil, the people that ride them aren't evil, it's simply a cool new class of vehicle that should be treated as such.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> Why can't ebikers use the same methods to gain access that MTBers did: ride any damn place they want to and fight it in the courts if you get caught? Isn't that the history of the sport? And aren't those attitudes still celebrated here in these forums today? It's pretty selfish to get all bent out of shape over people doing exactly what the pioneers of the whole sport did! It's like you all think that "Hey we got in everyone's face, kicked the door down and forced our way in way back in the day. Now we wanna keep the riff-raff out!". It just reeks of hypocrisy IMHO


 Umm, where to start. Mt bikes were a brand new invention with no history and no rules regulating them. Here in New England we worked with the land owners, managers, lawmakers and such. And voiced our opinion and fought for access. Still fighting for our access. We have great cooperation with many land mangers and now we are counted as a valuable resource for trail work, building boardwalks, trail restoration and general ally for outdoor recreation, human powered of course. Lets talk about the history of motor sports here in MA, for example. General abuse of trails, illegal poaching especially by the ATV's. Seems the dirt bikes were generally better behaved but all got swept out of most areas for public access. MA now sees about 5 or 6 public access for ATV's and motorcycles, mostly way out in the western part of the state. So the motos now have a bad track record, bad public image and laws on the books against them. Good luck with your efforts. CA is just mt biking utopia? The birthplace of mt biking on mt Tam? Seems to be anti bike. As well as many CA trails. Lots of people trying to share the same trails. Going to have conflicts . Its no longer " back in the day" One poster here already admits to poaching off limit trails as well as being able to buy fake low watt stickers to deceive others on the true power of the e motorcycles. Great start, and really good luck.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> If thousands buy them, again no problem: majority rules and they will be everywhere.


Right. Like ATVs. They're allowed on on any and all trails because some folks bought them and there was a general population vote on where they'd be allowed and they won. And prior to the vote, they were allowed full access everywhere because someone put up a 'NO ATVs" sign on one trail, setting the precedent that immediately opened up every other trail to their use.

Are you guys for real with this stuff?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I can't see the point in arguing the law on this. Even if eMTBs are specifically prohibited by a land manager, as in the case of the Tahoe Rim Trail, e-bikers will still ride those trails and there will be no enforcement. I think the term. "pissing up a rope" comes to mind.

No law, code, regulation, or internet argument will do anything to stop an e-biker from riding wherever they please.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Curveball said:


> No law, code, regulation, or internet argument will do anything to stop an e-biker from riding wherever they please.


I sadly agree with you. As evidenced by the video I posted near the beginning of the thread.

So will the outraged mt. bikers just shake their fists, or will their complaints result in law enforcement on trails that have never seen law enforcement?


----------



## DannyvG (Apr 21, 2014)

Empty_Beer said:


> So will the outraged mt. bikers just shake their fists, or will their complaints result in law enforcement on trails that have never seen law enforcement?


Or will the mountainbikers shoot in their own foot and are they better of embracing emtb's as a new part of the sport.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

DannyvG said:


> Or will the mountainbikers shoot in their own foot and are they better of embracing emtb's as a new part of the sport.


So we embrace them by allowing them to ignore the rules of the land managers we do have to work with in order to maintain and improve our existing trail systems? I guess I don't see it as an either or, California has taken a great step forward and many land managers seem to feel that the spirit of AB-1086 works with their areas. That is awesome please frequent those legal locations and demonstrate the good judgment to not abuse the areas that as of yet are not accepting.

That does not mean you should not ever be allowed on the trails, or that I have any desire to stop you from gaining access, but that is the salient fact that seems to be forgotten again and again is access for eMTBs is currently restricted.

I think MTBers do themselves a disservice by not admonishing trail abuse, regardless of user MTBer, Hiker, Horse, Ebiker, etc. I simply thought ebikers could learn from all the missteps and mistakes MTBers made from our outlaw past and with such knowledge advocate for your desire to gain more access and succeed much quicker than we did... or continue you as you are and it won't be MTBers that cause access issues for ebikers it will be ebikers.

Own your civil disobedience for what it is and advocate for change, but do not fail to see the hypocrisy between your words and actions.


----------



## DannyvG (Apr 21, 2014)

Velocipedist said:


> So we embrace them by allowing them to ignore the rules of the land managers we do have to work with in order to maintain and improve our existing trail systems?.


I didn't mean that embracing them should mean they automatically get complete access. But instead of trying to make emtb a separate discipline, treating ebikers as weak idiots who are lazy etc (not saying that you do but it seems to be the case for a lot of others) I would expect it to be far more effective and positive for everybody to be more open minded about emtbs. they will probably gain in popularity also among classical mountainbikers.

Also the current mtb representatives could perhaps proactively start pilots on selected trails and establish stricter acces rules in stead off trying to keep them off completely. for example for ebikes on mtb trails, 350W max (in my opinion 1000W is way to much) and only off the shelf emtbs with the legal bosch/yamaha/shimano etc systems making it easier to police and harder for high powered systems getting acces.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

DannyvG said:


> I didn't mean that embracing them should mean they automatically get complete access. But instead of trying to make emtb a separate discipline, treating ebikers as weak idiots who are lazy etc (not saying that you do but it seems to be the case for a lot of others) I would expect it to be far more effective and positive for everybody to be more open minded about emtbs. they will probably gain in popularity also among classical mountainbikers.
> 
> Also the current mtb representatives could perhaps proactively start pilots on selected trails and establish stricter acces rules in stead off trying to keep them off completely. for example for ebikes on mtb trails, 350W max (in my opinion 1000W is way to much) and only off the shelf emtbs with the legal bosch/yamaha/shimano etc systems making it easier to police and harder for high powered systems getting acces.


I don't see mtb representatives proactively advocating for a new user group that assumes they have access and when the do not. No one is keeping anyone off anything, at present they are kept off by current regulations. While that may mean there is a current ban in place, I have not and would not argue for it to be permanent.

It reminds me of outlaw downhillers justifying their pirate trails, but the thing is in my experience when they joined other MTBers in advocacy efforts they were more likely to get the types of trails they wanted built.

Ebikers simply need to work with the various areas (mostly in California) that have explicitly permitted ebikes on non motorized trails by only riding on such legal choices and thereby demonstrating the good behavior that is more likely to convinvce and influence the Forest Service to update their Travel Management Rule that classifies ebikes as motorized.

The onus should be on ebikers working for access, not blindly assuming it, because the latter defintely makes all current trail users MTBers included less inclined to accept ebikes.

Of course MTBers with open arms championing the ebike cause, does not change the Forest Service TMR, so arguing for more acceptance from another user group that happens to have access to but not authority over the trails ebikes want to ride is a moot point.

I know I know following the rules is so passe.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Empty_Beer said:


> I sadly agree with you. As evidenced by the video I posted near the beginning of the thread.
> 
> So will the outraged mt. bikers just shake their fists, or will their complaints result in law enforcement on trails that have never seen law enforcement?


 Speaking for my area only. Lots of mt bikers do trail work and do their own self policing. From picking up power bar wrappers to removing fallen branches and logs. As well as calling out bad behavior. From any party. Bad dog walkers, illegal trail building etc. Someone knows something and word gets around to try to " correct" things. I'm still waiting to see someone with all that power try to loft 50-60 lbs over some of the rocky trails and logs. Lots of mt bikers at the trail head. Peer pressure and some " clear" communication can be a powerful thing. Generally mt bikers are very friendly and helpful to all they encounter on the trails. One should be wary of putting the trail access at risk. Lets talk my town. My neighbors kid bought a small dirt bike and was riding illegally on local conservation land. Buzzing up and down the street as well. They are friends so I had a pleasant conversation with them and left it at that. Enviro police were called by someone( not me) who was also upset. Bike impounded for 2 weeks and a $ 500.00 dollar fine.


----------



## melchionda (Sep 25, 2012)

It's unfortunate that people see ebikes through such a narrow lens. For me ebikes are a way of sharing and introducing Mountain Biking to a larger part of my family. For example, my dad is fit... but not fit enough to do a 10 or 20 mile mtb ride. Likewise my son who is 8 is getting better every day but he cant do more than 5 or 10 miles, especially if climbs are involved. Last year we used an ebike to get us all out on a 20 mile fathers day ride. It was a great equalizer.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

melchionda said:


> It's unfortunate that people see ebikes through such a narrow lens. For me ebikes are a way of sharing and introducing Mountain Biking to a larger part of my family. For example, my dad is fit... but not fit enough to do a 10 or 20 mile mtb ride. Likewise my son who is 8 is getting better every day but he cant do more than 5 or 10 miles, especially if climbs are involved. Last year we used an ebike to get us all out on a 20 mile fathers day ride. It was a great equalizer.


It's exactly for this reason that ebike will be popular. And once adopted by the masses the rules will adapt.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

eFat said:


> It's exactly for this reason that ebike will be popular. And once adopted by the masses the rules will adapt.


again, that is assuming they will be adopted by the masses....

My personal viewpoint is they will not be adopted by the masses (eMTB's specifically) and will remain a niche market for a long time due to the very high expense to purchase.

Now if the prices drop that might change.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Yes, the "masses" don't even ride bicycles much less motorized ones.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> again, that is assuming they will be adopted by the masses....
> Now if the prices drop that might change.


That's what I assume, yes. All the new models that we talk about are high end oriented to mountain bikers that already have 5k bikes.

But there are also simpler bikes (like this) that of course you will never see on technical terrain but will be perfect for the Sunday outing.

I can also easily imagine that many National Parks (local too) restrict car access in the future and promote this way of exploration.



life behind bars said:


> Yes, the "masses" don't even ride bicycles much less motorized ones.


The motor will be the motivation to change this.


----------



## Bjorn2Ride (Apr 4, 2017)

It looks like Class 1 pedelecs are NOT being prohibited from Tahoe trails. Not a single case of a citation or even a warning on record. Don't speed on Highway 50, though. CHP will nail you. Even in your Subaru. So ride responsibly and don't sweat the bigots. They have zero power and influence in this matter.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> It looks like Class 1 pedelecs are NOT being prohibited from Tahoe trails. Not a single case of a citation or even a warning on record. Don't speed on Highway 50, though. CHP will nail you. Even in your Subaru. So ride responsibly and don't sweat the bigots. They have zero power and influence in this matter.


I'm not sure if you think that not being actively ticketed, as in the closures aren't being enforced means that they are allowed? Or, you're just advocating to poach?

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ltbmu/recreation/bicycling/?cid=stelprd3824321

https://tahoerimtrail.org/mountain-biking/

http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/lake-tahoe-trails-open-emtb-access-1022393.html


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

eBikes in the Lake Tahoe Basin
Motor Assisted Bicycles: *The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit has determined that motor assisted bicycles (electric, gas or diesel) are motorized vehicles. Use of motor assisted bicycles is only allowed on motorized trails. Please take a look at the Motor Vehicle Use Map at*http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/ltbmu/TravelManagement*for trail information.
Electric bikes or ebikes are evolving with more power, less weight and in more configurations each year. New ebikes are closing the gap between electric bicycle and electric motorcycle. Current regulations restrict ebikes to the motorized trails shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map above.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> It looks like Class 1 pedelecs are NOT being prohibited from Tahoe trails. Not a single case of a citation or even a warning on record. Don't speed on Highway 50, though. CHP will nail you. Even in your Subaru. So ride responsibly and don't sweat the bigots. They have zero power and influence in this matter.


Uh, most of the trails in the Tahoe area are on USFS land.

And many/most of them are non-motorized trails.


----------



## Bjorn2Ride (Apr 4, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> Uh, most of the trails in the Tahoe area are on USFS land.
> 
> And many/most of them are non-motorized trails.


Your attachment of the picture of the citation for riding an eBike didn't come through. Maybe try a link?

The trolls keep pretending it's "a thing" like the guys on "Mountain Monsters".

At least photoshop something for us.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

B2B, give it up. 1st you claim that ebikes can ride Tahoe trails, then people show you an actual rule stating they cannot. Now you're scrambling. It's sad to watch. You will NEVER win the ebike case on this forum.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Silentfoe said:


> You will NEVER win the ebike case on this forum.


There is nothing to win. It's you who think you will lose something.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

eFat said:


> There is nothing to win. It's you who think you will lose something.


Of course there is. Ebike proponents on this forum are the extreme minority. They are not allowed on the vast majority of trails and they do not have an international or even national lobbying organization of their own. You need to convince and show regular mountain bikers that you are responsible and that you belong. Nothing I've ever seen posted here is helping that cause. You are ostracisizing yourselves even more. Without us, you will fade away as quickly as you emerged.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Silentfoe said:


> Without us, you will fade away as quickly as you emerged.


Yeah, they said something similar in the end of the 19th century about another vehicle with a motor...


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

They actually didn't. While many parallels exist, it's a red herring. I'm all for ebikes being restricted to where the "other vehicle with a motor" is restricted to, if you want to keep drawing that comparison.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> Your attachment of the picture of the citation for riding an eBike didn't come through. Maybe try a link?
> 
> The trolls keep pretending it's "a thing" like the guys on "Mountain Monsters".
> 
> At least photoshop something for us.


I haven't ridden there on an e-bike.

Why? Because it's illegal to do so.

Just because I can't produce a citation doesn't mean the law isn't the law.


----------



## coregon (Jul 31, 2017)

I am not from the Lake Tahoe area but we face similar slanted issues up here in Portland Oregon. I have been a mountain biker since the mid 1980's and I have ridden every trail in the NW area of Oregon and Washington. I am now 65 and I purchased a Haibike pedal assist and it was the best thing I have ever come across in my entire life. Having been an avid skier in Utah for 15 years and avid windsurfer in the Columbia river gorge for 15 years I have never had a single piece of equipment that has brought me more enjoyment then my new bike. 
I don't understand why there is such a hate for someone who has enjoyed the trails and is qualified to use them to be so against them having a little assist. Being a little older I don't have quite the stamina i use to all though I am still a strong rider and COULD make it up any steep trails without the assist but I elect to ride longer and have more fun on the uphill. I also have a very fast recovery rate to ride multiple days in a row.
I see it's okay for all of these downhillers to car shuttle and then bomb down the trails but then it's not okay for me to get more than adequate exercise riding up the trails. I monitor my heart rate closely and I still maintain the same heart rate as I would if I was riding a non-pedal assist bike. The bike does not move if you don't pedal into it so this should not be confused with bikes with throttles. You can make it as hard as you want with multiple assist levels
Nobody likes getting passed on the trails if they think they have worked hard enough to get to that point but we won't get into that particular area because I know it is very sensitive.
So quit hating and get out there and ride and don't worry about someone else enjoying and having fun.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Welcome to the forum. You have a lot of catching up to do before you start in with the same old story. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## coregon (Jul 31, 2017)

And what would that same old story be? For someone who doesn't even know or tried the pedal assist bike you sure have a strong opinion. Just because the government agencies have made a decision on something they know very little about doesn't make it just.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

I wille


coregon said:


> I am not from the Lake Tahoe area but we face similar slanted issues up here in Portland Oregon. I have been a mountain biker since the mid 1980's and I have ridden every trail in the NW area of Oregon and Washington. I am now 65 and I purchased a Haibike pedal assist and it was the best thing I have ever come across in my entire life. Having been an avid skier in Utah for 15 years and avid windsurfer in the Columbia river gorge for 15 years I have never had a single piece of equipment that has brought me more enjoyment then my new bike.
> I don't understand why there is such a hate for someone who has enjoyed the trails and is qualified to use them to be so against them having a little assist. Being a little older I don't have quite the stamina i use to all though I am still a strong rider and COULD make it up any steep trails without the assist but I elect to ride longer and have more fun on the uphill. I also have a very fast recovery rate to ride multiple days in a row.
> I see it's okay for all of these downhillers to car shuttle and then bomb down the trails but then it's not okay for me to get more than adequate exercise riding up the trails. I monitor my heart rate closely and I still maintain the same heart rate as I would if I was riding a non-pedal assist bike. The bike does not move if you don't pedal into it so this should not be confused with bikes with throttles. You can make it as hard as you want with multiple assist levels
> Nobody likes getting passed on the trails if they think they have worked hard enough to get to that point but we won't get into that particular area because I know it is very sensitive.
> So quit hating and get out there and ride and don't worry about someone else enjoying and having fun.


I will defend you


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> I wille
> I will defend you


Bwaahaaa, you can't even defend your own fairy tales.


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

rider95 said:


> i will defend you


LOL! :lol:

You're the wind beneath coregon's wings!


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

I don't believe in coregon, he is already about to snap after one message from silentfoe. How does he know that SFoe has never ridden an ebike.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

"There are none so deaf as those who will not hear."

We have here the greatest collection of deaf, blind, selfish and fearful mountain bikers.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

eFat said:


> "There are none so deaf as those who will not hear."
> 
> We have here the greatest collection of deaf, blind, selfish and fearful mountain bikers.


Yep, you guys are really something.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

coregon said:


> I am not from the Lake Tahoe area but we face similar slanted issues up here in Portland Oregon. I have been a mountain biker since the mid 1980's and I have ridden every trail in the NW area of Oregon and Washington. I am now 65 and I purchased a Haibike pedal assist and it was the best thing I have ever come across in my entire life. Having been an avid skier in Utah for 15 years and avid windsurfer in the Columbia river gorge for 15 years I have never had a single piece of equipment that has brought me more enjoyment then my new bike.
> I don't understand why there is such a hate for someone who has enjoyed the trails and is qualified to use them to be so against them having a little assist. Being a little older I don't have quite the stamina i use to all though I am still a strong rider and COULD make it up any steep trails without the assist but I elect to ride longer and have more fun on the uphill. I also have a very fast recovery rate to ride multiple days in a row.
> I see it's okay for all of these downhillers to car shuttle and then bomb down the trails but then it's not okay for me to get more than adequate exercise riding up the trails. I monitor my heart rate closely and I still maintain the same heart rate as I would if I was riding a non-pedal assist bike. The bike does not move if you don't pedal into it so this should not be confused with bikes with throttles. You can make it as hard as you want with multiple assist levels
> Nobody likes getting passed on the trails if they think they have worked hard enough to get to that point but we won't get into that particular area because I know it is very sensitive.
> So quit hating and get out there and ride and don't worry about someone else enjoying and having fun.


 Not hate, just not legal for most areas in my state, MA. It has to do with motorized vehicles on multi use trails. And bikes don't have motors. Hmm. 3rd post. Maybe read up on some past threads here. Informative to say the least. The issues around lake Tahoe is that they are not allowed in some areas. And where you ride?


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

I bought an E-bike to crush KOMS of people like SilentFoe.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I own an ebike so this is precious. Zero is on my ignore list so I'll just have to guess at what he's saying. It's more fun that way.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

Silentfoe said:


> I own an ebike so this is precious. Zero is on my ignore list so I'll just have to guess at what he's saying. It's more fun that way.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


haha, funny.

Probably more like its too hard for you to read.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

coregon said:


> I am not from the Lake Tahoe area but we face similar slanted issues up here in Portland Oregon. I have been a mountain biker since the mid 1980's and I have ridden every trail in the NW area of Oregon and Washington. I am now 65 and I purchased a Haibike pedal assist and it was the best thing I have ever come across in my entire life. Having been an avid skier in Utah for 15 years and avid windsurfer in the Columbia river gorge for 15 years I have never had a single piece of equipment that has brought me more enjoyment then my new bike.
> I don't understand why there is such a hate for someone who has enjoyed the trails and is qualified to use them to be so against them having a little assist. Being a little older I don't have quite the stamina i use to all though I am still a strong rider and COULD make it up any steep trails without the assist but I elect to ride longer and have more fun on the uphill. I also have a very fast recovery rate to ride multiple days in a row.
> I see it's okay for all of these downhillers to car shuttle and then bomb down the trails but then it's not okay for me to get more than adequate exercise riding up the trails. I monitor my heart rate closely and I still maintain the same heart rate as I would if I was riding a non-pedal assist bike. The bike does not move if you don't pedal into it so this should not be confused with bikes with throttles. You can make it as hard as you want with multiple assist levels
> Nobody likes getting passed on the trails if they think they have worked hard enough to get to that point but we won't get into that particular area because I know it is very sensitive.
> So quit hating and get out there and ride and don't worry about someone else enjoying and having fun.


Here's the thing:

It's legal for them to drive a motorized vehicle on ROADS.

It's NOT legal for you to drive a motorized vehicle on non-motorized TRAILS.

I'm not "hating" on you. I'm asking you to obey the law so others don't get kicked off the trails. This is a pretty simple concept.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Here's the thing:
> 
> It's legal for them to drive a motorized vehicle on ROADS.
> 
> ...


Can you show examples of not obeying the law that got a trail closed to MT bikers?? Is there a example of a e bike riding a MT bike trail that resulted in that trail being closed ?.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> Can you show examples of not obeying the law that got a trail closed to MT bikers?? Is there a example of a e bike riding a MT bike trail that resulted in that trail being closed ?.


Trails have been closed because of mountain bikers across the west because they didn't follow the rules/laws, how do you think that we came to these conclusions about the threats of trail closure? Stop being so obtuse, maybe you'll learn something if you do more watching and less participating?


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Trails have been closed because of mountain bikers across the west because they didn't follow the rules/laws, how do you think that we came to these conclusions about the threats of trail closure? Stop being so obtuse, maybe you'll learn something if you do more watching and less participating?


I was looking on line today for stories about Mt bike trails being closed down to MT bikers I wanted to read were and why? , also stories were e bikes have caused problems for trail users can any one point to any???


----------



## coregon (Jul 31, 2017)

leeboh said:


> Not hate, just not legal for most areas in my state, MA. It has to do with motorized vehicles on multi use trails. And bikes don't have motors. Hmm. 3rd post. Maybe read up on some past threads here. Informative to say the least. The issues around lake Tahoe is that they are not allowed in some areas. And where you ride?


I ride in Oregon where we don't have those same restrictions, at least not yet. Hopefully bias towards pedal assist e-bikes doesn't spill over. I don't condone anyone who rides where it is illegal to ride I just believe that the Mt. Bike community needs to embrace pedal assist e-bikes that have governors on the limited speed one can pedal to. I hope land management in the states where these restrictions are in place are eventually changed to be more fair and realistic so the Mt. BIke community can continue to grow for all that want to stay healthy. 
I didn't buy an E-bike to go out there and crush KOM's, nothing productive about that. They have earned what they have accomplished.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Nice post coregon I agree there is not one reason the two cant coexist as more n more e bikes from top Mt bike brands come out we will get good data to open even more trails .


----------



## coregon (Jul 31, 2017)

Silentfoe said:


> I own an ebike so this is precious. Zero is on my ignore list so I'll just have to guess at what he's saying. It's more fun that way.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


I would be curious as to the specific E-bike you own if you don't mind. Also I would be very interested not on the legality of where some land management has made it illegal but on the merits of using a pedal assist e-bike with a governor limit of 20mph pedaling. 
I know the argument that some people will do mod's on the motor so they can pedal higher than that but that is not my question.
I don't know what kind of trails this is a problem on because on the single track trails that I ride on I never even come close to pedaling at 20mph with vertical and curves.

I know I am coming late to this thread but just interested in hearing people's logical conclusions.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

coregon said:


> I ride in Oregon where we don't have those same restrictions, at least not yet. Hopefully bias towards pedal assist e-bikes doesn't spill over. I don't condone anyone who rides where it is illegal to ride I just believe that the Mt. Bike community needs to embrace pedal assist e-bikes that have governors on the limited speed one can pedal to. I hope land management in the states where these restrictions are in place are eventually changed to be more fair and realistic so the Mt. BIke community can continue to grow for all that want to stay healthy.
> I didn't buy an E-bike to go out there and crush KOM's, nothing productive about that. They have earned what they have accomplished.


It seems like you do have those same restrictions.

https://pinemountainsports.com/e-bike-trails/

One issue is that the regulations allow ebikes far more powerful than what you're on, in Oregon for example, it's 1000w, which means it peaks at 2000w, so they're not just for old guys who want a little help up the hill, they're for riders who want to go fast.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I own a Surly Big Dummy cargo bike with a BionX ebike conversion. I use it as an alternative to a car. 
All thne answers to your questions have been given in this forum. It's been written about exhaustively. You aren't bringing up any new points or ideas. Please do a search and come back if you still have questions.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

coregon said:


> I am not from the Lake Tahoe area but we face similar slanted issues up here in Portland Oregon. I have been a mountain biker since the mid 1980's and I have ridden every trail in the NW area of Oregon and Washington. I am now 65 and I purchased a Haibike pedal assist and it was the best thing I have ever come across in my entire life. Having been an avid skier in Utah for 15 years and avid windsurfer in the Columbia river gorge for 15 years I have never had a single piece of equipment that has brought me more enjoyment then my new bike.
> I don't understand why there is such a hate for someone who has enjoyed the trails and is qualified to use them to be so against them having a little assist. Being a little older I don't have quite the stamina i use to all though I am still a strong rider and COULD make it up any steep trails without the assist but I elect to ride longer and have more fun on the uphill. I also have a very fast recovery rate to ride multiple days in a row.
> I see it's okay for all of these downhillers to car shuttle and then bomb down the trails but then it's not okay for me to get more than adequate exercise riding up the trails. I monitor my heart rate closely and I still maintain the same heart rate as I would if I was riding a non-pedal assist bike. The bike does not move if you don't pedal into it so this should not be confused with bikes with throttles. You can make it as hard as you want with multiple assist levels
> Nobody likes getting passed on the trails if they think they have worked hard enough to get to that point but we won't get into that particular area because I know it is very sensitive.
> So quit hating and get out there and ride and don't worry about someone else enjoying and having fun.


It has nothing to do with getting passed, no one here has made that complaint.

You can easily flip the question:

The same DH crowd who shuttles and bombs today will likely seek out the biggest, baddest ebikes they can get their hands on. We were all in our 20s once and felt that everything was a competition to have the best equipment and make it go as fast as possible. Today, Ebikes can easily be modified to de-restrict them and remove speed limits, and soon, add throttles etc. Wattage limits stated on stickers might or might not be actual. Rangers are in no position to evaluate the differences. *So the problem is, to allow ANY ebikes, is really to allow ALL e-bikes. *This in turn will yield trail conflicts and possibly the eventual complete ban of all bikes in many areas.

So the question can easily be put back to you: e-bike proponents, through their quest to allow motors on the trail, even if governed by rules, even with the best of intentions, essentially help enable and encourage the above. Why should you be able to potentially risk everyone's access so that you can ride further and faster than your body allows, just to have more fun? Its a faustian bargain.

Dongles for your Haibike which derestrict the speed limit, they have them for different motors like the Yamaha PW or Bosch:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=e-bike+dongle&_sacat=0

Throttles kits are not far behind - and of course, there are bikes that come with a throttle stock.

Stickers, are, well, just stickers.


----------



## Samanta89 (Aug 1, 2017)

It's pretty simple, especially when http://yourlink.com is here


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

You mean that you would do that but once agene you can not show one example of a e bike causing any trail conflict , ignoring all the good e bikes do for riders and other trail users. You risk everyone's access by setting fast strav times on public park trails scaring other park user hikers dog walkers. Or building wooden high bank turns on park trails and then when you crash and get hurt you sue and our trail is closed this has happened on my trail. A old very experienced rider on a e bike is the trails best friend .


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

rider95 said:


> You mean that you would do that but once agene you can not show one example of a e bike causing any trail conflict


Here ya go

'Our trails aren't built for that': eBike riders risk fines in Canberra nature parks

Trail bike crackdown - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

No Cookies | Gold Coast Bulletin

https://m.vietnambreakingnews.com/2016/07/hanoi-police-blast-student-bikers/

E-bike trend hits roadblock on local trails | GJSentinel.com

https://cyclingindustry.news/taiwan...ic-bike-clampdown-new-certification-required/

China Bans E-Bike Use in Major Cities - Bike Europe


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

And here's another one.
As e-bikes gain popularity, land managers ponder future | AspenTimes.com


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

A lot of mountain bike purists criticize use of e-bikes to climb a trail. Pritchard said when cyclists are huffing and puffing their way up a climb, it strikes some of them as cheating when they encounter an e-biker covering the same ground quicker and easier.
"There's just something weird that goes on in your brain," he said. LOL yeah its called e hate


----------



## Bmiller71 (Oct 29, 2013)

Harryman said:


> Here ya go
> 
> 'Our trails aren't built for that': eBike riders risk fines in Canberra nature parks
> 
> ...


You are kidding right? Most of these are not even close to being the same issue!! Riding an electric scooter in China is just like riding an e-MTB in Tahoe. What a F-ing joke these examples are! On top of that not one example of where an e-MTB is causing trail access issues for MTBers.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rider95 said:


> A old very experienced rider on a e bike is the trails best friend .


Right. Even more than the people that build and maintain the trails, for sure.
You're obviously the hero we've all been waiting for. I for one can't believe anyone has ever been able to develop a decent trail system anywhere without a bunch old codgers doddering around the woods on electric mopeds there to keep everything from imploding.

You are one seriously wacky individual.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Bmiller71 said:


> You are kidding right? Most of these are not even close to being the same issue!! Riding an electric scooter in China is just like riding an e-MTB in Tahoe. What a F-ing joke these examples are! On top of that not one example of where an e-MTB is causing trail access issues for MTBers.


Rider95 has a hard time seeing past his sample size of one, since he's a mellow old guy puttering around on an ebike, he believes everyone else on an ebike behaves like he does. So, those were for him.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Well, im the guy that likes to haul ass! Ebike, mtb, roadbike, lawnmower whatever. The majority of anyone on 2 wheels is going to go as fast as their talent allows them. I really have never seen a speed limit sign anywhere Ive ridden. Also, everyone i sees hauls the mail. Human nature. However, I understand bike etiquette and will follow the law.


----------



## mount (Apr 22, 2006)

I don't have any legal experience. I just use the trails, want others to have an awesome time out there and have my own experiences to share. The ebikes are really fun. Specialized' marketing verse is 'It's you, only faster'. I'm a fit cyclist and the Turbo can definitely haul- faster than I've humanly cranked before. All climbs come more easily and more rapidly. It's a game changer, you can do more intense climbing and more of them.

If I got one of these at 8 years old, just to get me excited and able to keep up with my dad... don't think I would ever want a lesser powered bike experience. No way would I want to ride non-motor. Ever. Instead, it's going to be all about the amazing new stuff we can do on these faster, more powerful motor assisted rides. I think there's tremendous potential for trials style steep uphilling and speed climbing. Also, It's totally possible to ride off trail, carve your own path on the 3"+(almost motorcycle sized) tires with more power driving them. It's an exciting prospect, I've felt it. But, this concerns me. Mountain biking since 1989 in the Bay Area, I have seen trails closed to MTB due to complaints from equestrian and ped users and issues with erosion. Hence, many of us have become more respectful MTB ers. Now it's all about caring for the trail and the people who are using it with you - make it a good outing for Everyone, positive representation for MTB and maintain access. 

One incident I had last year. I'm a runner too. Running up a single track trail, had a motor assist bike speed up from behind, fast, demand for me to pull aside. This required me to halt my run and take a side hill stance so the moto-pedaler could pass. I never previously had that experience while running uphill. Running downhill, I expect it, usually can hear it in advance and can brace myself for it. But, this time it happened fast and had little auditory warning. It was a startling and stressful event and I don't look forward to it happening more regularly.

I decided to hold off on ebike purchase for myself. I believe we need some experimentation before knowing how they will really affect trails and other users- and this entire post is solely in concern for multi use trails for non motorized vehicles.

Even though I had one bad experience with ebike. I also had a good experience.

When MTB first started, bikes hit the trails immediately but in waves and joined hikers, runners and horses. No one knew how it would work out. Many looked down in it. There were some unhappy equestrians and hikers and many happy bikers who needed to learn (and invent) trail manners and build trust. Some trails closed to MTB. Some trails went to part time MTB. Hikers and horses earned 'right of way'.

I think it could go the same way with ebikes. Start by riding selected multi use 'non moto' trails along with MTB, hike/horse, the new bikes will come in waves. See how it goes. If there are problems, then adjust. 'Right of way' helps a lot - we are all better off when yielding to the more basic form of transport: moto-assist bike < MTB < Horse < Runner < Hiker < Naked Hiker 

My biggest concern is if there are problems, I hope moto-assist doesn't get lumped together with MTB and cause access issues for all tires.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

^Good post. I also sold my 2nd Levo for the same reasons. There needs to be more clarity. Time will tell.


----------



## esun127 (Dec 7, 2004)

I'm late to the party. Rode MTB religiously from 1996-2007 with some DH racing in the early 2000s. I've been riding exclusively on the road for the last 10 years.

The Levo FSR got me interested again in MTB. Was initially sad to see the vehement opposition to eMTB on this forum and others. But I don't have a dog in the eMTB fight and can see arguments from both sides. 

The obvious argument in favor of eMTB is the added fun factor. Not only do you get more downhills in a given time period, but the climbs become more fun too. 

As for the numerous arguments against eMTB, these are the two that stand out for me. 

- Speed governer limit: 20mph spec'd, 17-18mph actual, which is above the posted speed limit on many trails. IIRC the speed limit on my local trails has always been 15mph. So this is a losing proposition right off the bat. Regardless of the fact that most riders break the 15mph limit on the downhills, it's just not a smart move from a legislative standpoint, where outsiders can clearly see than 20 > 15. 

- Motor wattage: 250 watts is huge for a pedal assist eMTB. I have a power meter on my road bike. My measured FTP is right around 250 watts. That means if I were to hop on a Levo FSR, my adjusted FTP would be 500 watts at the max assist setting. That's Fabian Cancellara level. Seems unnecessary, as I can have lots of fun without smoking 95% of the top UCI pros.


----------



## highroad 2 (Jan 24, 2017)

Re: mounts post #114 post where he was rudely overtaken by an e-mtb while he was on an uphill run.
I was not there so I have no choice but to take his word on what happened and I am sorry it was offensive.
It is possible that rudeness can be perceived when not intended.
Assuming the e-mtb was legal to be there, what could he/she have done differently to not disrupt your run and cause you to alter your progress and path?
It could have been a narrow single track with few or no natural passing opportunities and he had been following you for awhile and you had not caught on he was there.
When snow skiing and overtaking a slower skier we yell out "on your left (or right)" and no one is taking offense.
For lack of a better method, I say the same when passing other mtb.
What if it had been a faster runner, equestrian or a mtb that was waiting to get around you and no opportunity is presenting itself in a reasonable length of time.
What verbiage, tone and loudness is appropriate to get ones attention?
Thank goodness the E-mtb was quiet enough that you were not aware of it.
Was it the attitude of the e-mtbiker or the e-mtb or both that you have the issue with?
Is it possible that a mtbiker could display the same rudeness at sometime?
How will you handle the situation when you are wanting to overtake a slower trail user on a climb?
I am not sure the significance that this event happened on a climb when it is a known fact that legal E-mtb's ( assist limited to 20 mph) are slower and less maneuverable over 20 mph on the downhills than a non assisted 20-25 pound lighter mtb.


----------



## Xaero (Mar 18, 2006)

I'd love to get ran over by this thing on the trails.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Looks like a POS. Agreed, wouldn't want to get hit by it but honestly don't think I could maneuver that bike over most the trails I ride. I bet I'll never see one.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

esun127 said:


> Motor wattage: 250 watts is huge for a pedal assist eMTB. I have a power meter on my road bike. My measured FTP is right around 250 watts. That means if I were to hop on a Levo FSR, my adjusted FTP would be 500 watts at the max assist setting. That's Fabian Cancellara level. Seems unnecessary, as I can have lots of fun without smoking 95% of the top UCI pros.


At max assist, the motor will put out up to 530w and 300% of what you're putting in, so if you're at 250w, the motor will add 530w on top. Plenty indeed.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Gutch said:


> Looks like a POS. Agreed, wouldn't want to get hit by it but honestly don't think I could maneuver that bike over most the trails I ride. I bet I'll never see one.


Those are junk, I agree, I doubt you'll ever see one on singletrack. 2-3kw motors on DH bikes, sure.


----------



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

I don't really see the problem as long as only pedal assist type e-bikes are allowed on MTB trails. I don't own one myself, and most likely won't until I get too old and broken to pedal uphill (I actually quite like climbing on my bike). But I can see the benefit. I was out on a ride and met a couple on the trail - the guy was riding a regular MTB and the lady had a pedal assist bike. He was still faster than she was, and she was clearly putting in quite a lot of her own effort, remarking that it was still hard. These two would never have been able to ride together if not for the pedal assist bike. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

mahgnillig said:


> I don't really see the problem as long as only pedal assist type e-bikes are allowed on MTB trails. I don't own one myself, and most likely won't until I get too old and broken to pedal uphill (I actually quite like climbing on my bike). But I can see the benefit. I was out on a ride and met a couple on the trail - the guy was riding a regular MTB and the lady had a pedal assist bike. He was still faster than she was, and she was clearly putting in quite a lot of her own effort, remarking that it was still hard. These two would never have been able to ride together if not for the pedal assist bike.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


How will rangers in the field verify that the bikes:

- Don't have throttles? Aftermarket throttles are becoming available and will be more and more discrete 
- Don't exceed wattage limits? (Are we counting on a sticker or label to be reliable for that? Custom stickers are readily available). 
- Aren't modified to remove their 20mph cutoff? ($70 dongles avail on Ebay/online)


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Procter said:


> How will rangers in the field verify that the bikes:
> 
> - Don't have throttles? Aftermarket throttles are becoming available and will be more and more discrete
> - Don't exceed wattage limits? (Are we counting on a sticker or label to be reliable for that? Custom stickers are readily available).
> - Aren't modified to remove their 20mph cutoff? ($70 dongles avail on Ebay/online)


On the road, what are the reasons police pull someone over?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

eFat said:


> On the road, what are the reasons police pull someone over?


You area avoiding the question and it makes it look like you are unwilling to answer it.

Try to answer the question without presenting another question to change the direction of the conversation.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> You area avoiding the question and it makes it look like you are unwilling to answer it.
> 
> Try to answer the question without presenting another question to change the direction of the conversation.


Not at all. It's just that these questions are not relevant. In every population there will always have "black sheep".

The real issue is the individual behaviour.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> ... to change the direction of the conversation.


And as for changing the direction of the conversation, I thought it was mandatory here, even without question or justification.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Sooooo.......does all this mean that I can drive my Top Fuel Dragster down the street if I keep it under the speed limit....because all cars are the same?


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Don't we have USDA forest service approved spark arresters for use on BLM land now? Why cant we have USDA forest service approved E bikes?, get them inspected to meet what ever the requirements are and registered.


----------



## mahgnillig (Mar 12, 2004)

Procter said:


> How will rangers in the field verify that the bikes:
> 
> - Don't have throttles? Aftermarket throttles are becoming available and will be more and more discrete
> - Don't exceed wattage limits? (Are we counting on a sticker or label to be reliable for that? Custom stickers are readily available).
> - Aren't modified to remove their 20mph cutoff? ($70 dongles avail on Ebay/online)


Considering the only place I've ever seen rangers is Desolation Wilderness in the last 7 years of hiking and biking in the Tahoe area I don't think they actually check anything at all. But my point was merely that I, personally, regardless of the law, don't care if someone is on an e-bike or not as long as they're not riding like an asshat. That's all.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

eFat said:


> Not at all. It's just that these questions are not relevant. In every population there will always have "black sheep".
> 
> The real issue is the individual behaviour.


Ah, so you're already moving to the "dirt bikes should be allowed on mtb trails, it is the individual behavior not the vehicle"; I thought you'd wait until ebikes were allowed before moving to that one.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

rider95 said:


> Don't we have USDA forest service approved spark arresters for use on BLM land now? Why cant we have USDA forest service approved E bikes?, get them inspected to meet what ever the requirements are and registered.


And they are still restricted to motorized areas. So your point?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Well there not restricted to just motorized trails every were that's the point , so lets register them to be USDA approved for our trails .


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

eFat said:


> Not at all. It's just that these questions are not relevant. In every population there will always have "black sheep".
> 
> The real issue is the individual behaviour.


On the road, individual behavior does not threaten an entire group's access. Drivers of illegal vehicles don't increase the risk that all vehicles will be outlawed. Ebikes however, increase the risk that all bikes will be lumped together and banned.



rider95 said:


> Don't we have USDA forest service approved spark arresters for use on BLM land now? Why cant we have USDA forest service approved E bikes?, get them inspected to meet what ever the requirements are and registered.


Its a good thought but I don't think it will work, and I think the situation with e-bikes is different:

1) A spark-arrester is a very binary thing, easy to visually evaluate, even on the trail, unlike discrete throttles and motor wattage.
2) There's not a huge incentive to remove a spark arrester, there might be a modest power increase but compared to the total power of the bike its nominal. There is however, incentive to have ebike throttles, de-restrict the speed cutoffs, and to double an e-bike's power. 
3) I think, most people really don't want to start forest fires. But with ebikes, having more power, going faster, may feel innocuous to many, until, over time, people tear up hills for KOMs, closing distances shorten, bikes get more powerful, people start to get hurt, slowly, it leads to banning of all bikes, and/or is used as an argument to block additional access.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> Well there not restricted to just motorized trails every were that's the point , so lets register them to be USDA approved for our trails .


I propose that you contact the U.S.D.A. and get the ball rolling on this. Get back to us when you have achieved it.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

They are restricted to motorized areas only. A spark arrester does not give them access to non motorized areas. You're still digging holes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

I prove you wrong every time I ride my e bike Lets get them inspected and registered USDA approved for use on our trails .


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

rider95 said:


> I prove you wrong every time I ride my e bike Lets get them inspected and registered USDA approved for use on our trails .


I'm sure you are true to your word and ride within safe limits. But you are one person on the Internet and that is an anecdotal argument.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> I prove you wrong every time I ride my e bike Lets get them inspected and registered USDA approved for use on our trails .


Do it, report back.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

rider95 said:


> I prove you wrong every time I ride my e bike Lets get them inspected and registered USDA approved for use on our trails .


https://www.usda.gov/

What does the USDA have to do with trail access?

Maybe you meant the Forrest Service?

https://www.fs.fed.us/


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

220...221...whatever it takes...


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Yes I mean USF of course have your e bike inspected approved and given a sticker e bike manufactures would have to meet USF specs for a USF approved e bike .


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Your first step would be to have the USFS define an ebike as not being a motorized vehicle, then convince them to undertake your inspection and certification program, which I assume would also require a fee, since I wouldn't see them doing it for free.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

rider95 said:


> Yes I mean USF of course have your e bike inspected approved and given a sticker e bike manufactures would have to meet USF specs for a USF approved e bike .


That is a great idea! Have you or any eBike Advocacy groups you are a member of started such talks with the USFS?

Please post any progress they make here for everyone to read about.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

rider95 said:


> Yes I mean USF of course have your e bike inspected approved and given a sticker e bike manufactures would have to meet USF specs for a USF approved e bike .


How would they ensure that the bike wasn't modified after the inspection?

Dongles de-restricting speed cutoffs and wattage limits are plug and play.


----------



## KiwiPhil (Jun 2, 2008)

Procter said:


> How would they ensure that the bike wasn't modified after the inspection?
> 
> Dongles de-restricting speed cutoffs and wattage limits are plug and play.


Look at it this way, in any motorsport cars have restrictions depending on class. All these cars are able to be modified to go faster and have more HP than what the restrictions state. However, not all humans are in fact cheats and most bide by the rules that govern them. What your implying could be liked to having to ban all motorsport because someone MIGHT modify the car outside the regulations.
Yes, it can be done, but are the majority of Class1 riders going to....NO, so why restrict the majority due to something that "might" happen?
And if you state that Yes, the majority of class1 riders will modify their bikes, well sorry, your living in a dream world.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

When regulations prove ineffective at reigning in the excesses the powers that be simply ban them all, that's how it works in reality.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

KiwiPhil said:


> Look at it this way, in any motorsport cars have restrictions depending on class. All these cars are able to be modified to go faster and have more HP than what the restrictions state. However, not all humans are in fact cheats and most bide by the rules that govern them. What your implying could be liked to having to ban all motorsport because someone MIGHT modify the car outside the regulations.
> Yes, it can be done, but are the majority of Class1 riders going to....NO, so why restrict the majority due to something that "might" happen?
> And if you state that Yes, the majority of class1 riders will modify their bikes, well sorry, your living in a dream world.


Yes this point has been made and discussed many times. First, since we are talking about Tahoe, note that there is no 'HP limit' or 'top speed' restriction for a vehicle in CA or NV. There are of course speed limits, but you can't get busted for having a car the CAN go 150MPH, only if you DO go 150MPH.

https://www.yourmechanic.com/articl...ar-modifications-in-nevada-by-valerie-mellema
https://www.yourmechanic.com/articl...odifications-in-california-by-valerie-mellema

But I get your point, let's explore it. Here's where the modified cars analogy breaks down:

1) Some illegal modifications are obvious looking at the vehicle (coal rollers, window tinting, missing muffler, etc.), and getting pulled over is the deterrent. Not true with ebikes/dongles/speed cutoffs/wattage limits/discrete throttles.

2) One important certification, smog check, is mandated annually and conducted with expensive measuring equipment (costs born by shops but recouped in fees), with a large part of a department dedicated to it (the DMV) and standards/certifications for the measuring equipment, etc. Its a lot of bureaucracy, but the fees cover the cost, and at scale (millions of cars), the costs per car decrease.

Creating and administering this process for e-bikes (a fraction of the total cars) would probably be too expensive to justify itself . . . for the fees to cover it, they would have to be too high. Throttles could probably be detected on close inspecting, but how would you measure wattage and speed cutoffs for certification purposes? Who would buy the equipment? USFS? How many would they have to buy to make them accessible throughout USFS areas? How high would the fees need to be to recoup the money? That seems really implausible that the market would ever by large enough fund that kind of bureaucracy.

Also, for smog, you can get around it by being compliant for the test, but then modifying after. For many, this effort is not worth it and they choose to not modify. We all had that buddy who had to swap out his intake and replace his catalytic converter every year just so he could have his 500HP track car, and that guy didn't have very much else going on his life. Not true for ebike dongles, its a few seconds to swap them. The barrier is so low that the certification really becomes meaningless.

And finally, on your point about how prevalent will it be, I think it will be a larger proportion of riders than you are saying. Pretty much every male here, in their 20s, with whatever newfound disposable income they had from their first career and no house/kids to worry about, wanted the biggest, baddest, whatever - car, moto, truck, mountain bike ... whatever they were in to. And that will extend to ebikes.

But even if its a very small proportion of riders, it really doesn't have to be that prevalent to significantly affect all bike access. This is not true with cars, illegal cars don't threaten anyone's access to roads.


----------



## KiwiPhil (Jun 2, 2008)

Geez its good to see some health debate void of name calling, thanks Procter for being civilised in your responses. And yes, I do understand your points. 
But I wouldn't think that some 20yr old male looking for a thrill would buy an expensive Class1 bike and modify it, and I can only comment from my experience here in NZ which I know vastly different to the reality over there, but I would think that young fella looking for a thrill may go straight to a class2 or 3 bike and ride more open fast terrain.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KiwiPhil said:


> Geez its good to see some health debate void of name calling, thanks Procter for being civilised in your responses. And yes, I do understand your points.
> But I wouldn't think that some 20yr old male looking for a thrill would buy an expensive Class1 bike and modify it, and I can only comment from my experience here in NZ which I know vastly different to the reality over there, but I would think that young fella looking for a thrill may go straight to a class2 or 3 bike and ride more open fast terrain.


Don't underestimate youthful exuberance.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

KiwiPhil said:


> Geez its good to see some health debate void of name calling, thanks Procter for being civilised in your responses. And yes, I do understand your points.
> But I wouldn't think that some 20yr old male looking for a thrill would buy an expensive Class1 bike and modify it, and I can only comment from my experience here in NZ which I know vastly different to the reality over there, but I would think that young fella looking for a thrill may go straight to a class2 or 3 bike and ride more open fast terrain.


There have been people on this forum who have gone straight to a dongle who were neither young or looking for a thrill. Heck, you can derestrict a levo with a free app on your phone, it's simple.

But you are right, if you really want a thrill, you'd just skip class 1, 2 and 3 and strap a 3kw kit on a burly bike, like these guys.

Since this is a Tahoe thread: https://electricbike.com/forum/foru...l-off-topic/41080-bike-porn-from-the-dark-net

And this guy who rides an illegal electric motorbike on non ebike legal CA trails: http://forums.mtbr.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=1050288

They're out there already, and ebikes are barely getting started.


----------



## KiwiPhil (Jun 2, 2008)

Yip, Harryman agree, and as I have said before, it'll be the few that spoil it for the many. Hopefully people learn to distinguish between the twits in the world, and normal respectful riders on a class1.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

KiwiPhil said:


> Geez its good to see some health debate void of name calling, thanks Procter for being civilised in your responses.


And likewise to you, Phil.

Harryman, I'm getting nothing off your link.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

mtnbikej said:


> Sooooo.......does all this mean that I can drive my Top Fuel Dragster down the street if I keep it under the speed limit....because all cars are the same?


As long as your dragster is street-legal.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

KiwiPhil said:


> Look at it this way, in any motorsport cars have restrictions depending on class. All these cars are able to be modified to go faster and have more HP than what the restrictions state. However, not all humans are in fact cheats and most bide by the rules that govern them. What your implying could be liked to having to ban all motorsport because someone MIGHT modify the car outside the regulations.
> Yes, it can be done, but are the majority of Class1 riders going to....NO, so why restrict the majority due to something that "might" happen?
> And if you state that Yes, the majority of class1 riders will modify their bikes, well sorry, your living in a dream world.


 Welcome to our world. Good'ole USA. Been here before? Where nascar is the BIGGEST spectator sport in this country. Over all the ball sports too. Bigger, faster, more HP, got a Hemi? Super charged, turbo, boost, street mods, boost kits, nitro, after market kits, chop shops, clubs. Its a friggin' love affair with cars/motors here in the USA. Pick ups, motorcycles, ATV's, dirt bikes etc. Try south of say DC and go west some too. And how many classes of sports car racing are there? Dozens. Maybe kiwi land is a bit different, eh?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

leeboh said:


> Welcome to our world. Good'ole USA. Been here before? Where nascar is the BIGGEST spectator sport in this country. Over all the ball sports too. Bigger, faster, more HP, got a Hemi? Super charged, turbo, boost, street mods, boost kits, nitro, after market kits, chop shops, clubs. Its a friggin' love affair with cars/motors here in the USA. Pick ups, motorcycles, ATV's, dirt bikes etc. Try south of say DC and go west some too. And how many classes of sports car racing are there? Dozens. Maybe kiwi land is a bit different, eh?


One look at SEMA and all the TV Shows about Hot Rodding also point to the nature of those in this country.

Follow the story of the first automobiles and first motorcycles, as soon as customers got their hands on them they started modding them to be lighter, go faster, jump higher, etc...

That said, the vast majority of cars on the highway are bone stock.

Personally I don't think we will have a valid answer to the overall question for another 5 years.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> That said, the vast majority of cars on the highway are bone stock.


That's because the primary purpose of cars, for most people, is simple transportation. Recreation/hobby is a secondary purpose.

Hobbies like mountain biking are different. A better data point would be, what proportion of us modify our mountain bikes? Judging by the sheer existence mtbr itself, a great majority of us do. I don't know why it would be different with ebikes. Scanning e-bike enthusiast sites (like https://electricbikereview.com/forum/) quickly verifies the same.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Procter said:


> That's because the primary purpose of cars, for most people, is simple transportation. Recreation/hobby is a secondary purpose.
> 
> Hobbies like mountain biking are different. A better data point would be, what proportion of us modify our mountain bikes? Judging by the sheer existence mtbr itself, a great majority of us do. I don't know why it would be different with ebikes. Scanning e-bike enthusiast sites (like https://electricbikereview.com/forum/) quickly verifies the same.


good point. I wonder if there is a way to quantify how many Mountain Bikers modify and how many do not and get similar numbers for eBikers?

I just don't think that sort of data is available.


----------



## KiwiPhil (Jun 2, 2008)

leeboh said:


> Welcome to our world. Good'ole USA. Been here before? Where nascar is the BIGGEST spectator sport in this country. Over all the ball sports too. Bigger, faster, more HP, got a Hemi? Super charged, turbo, boost, street mods, boost kits, nitro, after market kits, chop shops, clubs. Its a friggin' love affair with cars/motors here in the USA. Pick ups, motorcycles, ATV's, dirt bikes etc. Try south of say DC and go west some too. And how many classes of sports car racing are there? Dozens. Maybe kiwi land is a bit different, eh?


No, Kiwi land is no different, in fact you'd be surprised by the amount of "Petrol Heads" (me being one) there are here per capita. But just because there lots of categories and lots of mod's on the market, it doesn't mean everyone will mod their car, or in this case, their Class1 Ebike. 
For example, a have ridden Motox and Quads for donkeys years, and yes, I mod'd them for more horse power, because with the riding I was doing I was allowed to, and more HP was you friend lol. But, and I firmly believe that a class1 ebike has more than enough assist that anyone that rides regular MTB trails will ever need. I simply cannot see why anyone would buy a class1 and modify it when they can just buy a class2/3 bike or a Electric Motorbike, if they are more thrills than what a class1 can deliver. What I'm trying to say is that, after riding a class1 levo for several months, this bike already delivers more than what I need in regard to power output. Those that want more are a different class of rider, who will (here at least) look for different terrain and trail, and ride a totally different style. However, this is just my opinion, and probably way off topic for this thread (apologies Moderators)


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Human nature being what is it, I'd wager on most people looking for more power. As you become more accustomed to the bike's (and your) capabilities, the bike will feel slower. If the mod is easy enough and cheap enough to do, many people will. 

In the case of bikes like the Levo, it's just a matter of selecting the higher assist mode. The one I rode made climbing a virtual non-effort.


----------



## KiwiPhil (Jun 2, 2008)

chuckha62 said:


> In the case of bikes like the Levo, it's just a matter of selecting the higher assist mode. The one I rode made climbing a virtual non-effort.


Exactly, so why the need to modify it??
I'm only using mine at 15% assist for the riding I do and to keep with my riding buddies. I, for one, don't need anything more than what a class1 delivers, in fact i'd be happy if it had less. And that's from a speed freak who participates (d) in many forms of motorsport.......
Away from the threads topic again......sorry


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

KiwiPhil said:


> I simply cannot see why anyone would buy a class1 and modify it when they can just buy a class2/3 bike or a Electric Motorbike, if they are more thrills than what a class1 can deliver.


Because the class 1 might be legal on a lot of trails that class 2 & 3 aren't. There are a lot of speed junkies out there (I'm one) and doubling top speed of a class 1 e-bike seems like a fast/easy/free mod that would tempt many people.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Dongles only remove the upper speed limit where the assist cuts out, so it removes the real annoyance to many people when you approach 20mph (in the us) and it changes from you feeling like superman to like you're dragging a chain. They don't add more power, they just enable you to go faster.

I've seen zero evidence of riders making their OEM emtbs more powerful, although the same Brose motor is used on a 350w bike, I'm not sure if it's a software issue or voltage/controller, but I doubt it's hackable for a mere mortal. The manufacturers are all about making their motors more powerful by increasing the torque, which would make them quicker, not faster. The gofast guys seem to gravitate to kit bikes, it's easy enough to still claim they're whatever you want them to be.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Harryman said:


> Dongles only remove the upper speed limit where the assist cuts out, so it removes the real annoyance to many people when you approach 20mph (in the us) and it changes from you feeling like superman to like you're dragging a chain. They don't add more power, they just enable you to go faster.
> 
> I've seen zero evidence of riders making their OEM emtbs more powerful, although the same Brose motor is used on a 350w bike, I'm not sure if it's a software issue or voltage/controller, but I doubt it's hackable for a mere mortal. The manufacturers are all about making their motors more powerful by increasing the torque, which would make them quicker, not faster. The gofast guys seem to gravitate to kit bikes, it's easy enough to still claim they're whatever you want them to be.


Dongles only remove the upper speed limit TODAY. But as you mention, in some cases the same motor is used on different bikes, with different wattage limits. Its totally conceivable that, in the future, manufacturers will allow wattage controller modifications with a dongle (or some other easy modification) as well. Why wouldn't they? This allows them to sell bikes that meet the legal specifications to those who want legal bikes, and sell more bikes to those who want to exceed legal expectations, without them being responsible for actually selling it. Its a win-win for manufacturers with no downside, unless they collectively agree that doing so would be bad for the future of biking . . . but that's a prisoners dilemma and there is always the one company that will not get in line, and sells a modifiable bike, therefore causing the rest to do so.

We see this effect in other product families when there are legal restrictions on specific product features, the main example would be guns (the AR rifle platform for example). I don't know why we think ebikes would be any different.


----------



## KiwiPhil (Jun 2, 2008)

Procter said:


> Dongles only remove the upper speed limit TODAY. But as you mention, in some cases the same motor is used on different bikes, with different wattage limits. Its totally conceivable that, in the future, manufacturers will allow wattage controller modifications with a dongle (or some other easy modification) as well. Why wouldn't they? This allows them to sell bikes that meet the legal specifications to those who want legal bikes, and sell more bikes to those who want to exceed legal expectations, without them being responsible for actually selling it. Its a win-win for manufacturers with no downside, unless they collectively agree that doing so would be bad for the future of biking . . . but that's a prisoners dilemma and there is always the one company that will not get in line, and sells a modifiable bike, therefore causing the rest to do so.
> 
> We see this effect in other product families when there are legal restrictions on specific product features, the main example would be guns (the AR rifle platform for example). I don't know why we think ebikes would be any different.


Agree
I would hope that if the manufacturer develops a ebike that is easily modified for extra wattage output, it wouldn't be certified as a class1. I'm not sure if there is any bound agreement that the "reputable" manufacturers like Specialized, Scott etc have to abide by to gain any certification that the bikes they manufacture do fall into the correct category, perhaps someone can enlighten me on this? But this would make common sense to keep them from being easily mod'd. However, with it being on an international scale, who would check and set and enforce the guidelines are adhered to.
We have the same issues in within the firearm fraternity over here. But this is caused by a lack of understanding of firearms and vocal anti gun lobbyists. All arms are precieved as being human killing machines and all weapons should be banned. Yet we have very few shootings. Again, like people riding high powered ebikes on restricted trails, the bad media about the few spoil it for the many. We have constant calls for tighter restrictions on registered firearms users, yet it's not the registered firearms users breaking the law. 
Unfortunately when it comes to firearms, you guys can keep your American AR15's, I'm an German built Heckler & Koch sort of guy and own a few lol?


----------

