# Tahoe Changed It's Mind



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tahoe/recreation/?cid=FSEPRD719803

I'm not sure how many or which trails this closes but not a good sign.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

No, Tahoe didn't change its mind. The BCHA sued TNF because they were introducing eBikes before the National Forest changed its ruling on a nationwide level. This lawsuit makes the BCHA look like the bad guy while speeding up the USFS to change their association of eBikes with motorized. This is a win for eBikes on Forest lands, though it temporarily sucks for those on eBikes on TNF (assuming the TNF has any motivation to enforce the ban).


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

I wrote this four months ago in case you think I am trying to spin this "loss":


figofspee said:


> The TNF was violating national law by allowing eBikes on nonmotorized trails. The foundation of the lawsuit against the TNF is that they can't do that. If the National law is changed to allow eBikes the same rights as bicycles, then the threat of lawsuit diminishes greatly. One need only look at the amount of lawsuits (zero) directed at land managers of the BLM who are currently allowing ebikes on nonmotorized trails (many) and you will see the logic of the Forest Service in allowing eBikes on nonmotorized trails Nationwide. The fact that the lawsuit comes from a user group that, despite being the most dangerous and most destructive, enjoys ninety something percent access to the Forest, won't go unnoticed. Regardless of the individuals agreement with the context of the lawsuit, nobody in the Forest Service wants excessive lawsuits that will shrink the Forest Service's already puny resources.


----------



## Wellstercraft (Aug 1, 2016)

I’m not sure how this could even be enforced. The definition they are using to classify e bikes as a motorized vehicle is:

“Title 36 Part 212 Subpart A, defines a motor vehicle as such:
Motor Vehicle - Any vehicle which is self-propelled...”

By definition, class 1 e bikes are not self propelled. Self propelled is defined as any vehicle which is “capable of moving or able to move without external propulsion or agency.”


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Wellstercraft said:


> I'm not sure how this could even be enforced. The definition they are using to classify e bikes as a motorized vehicle is:
> 
> "Title 36 Part 212 Subpart A, defines a motor vehicle as such:
> Motor Vehicle - Any vehicle which is self-propelled..."
> ...


Maybe they're applying their definition of self propelled?






Agreed, none of the ebike laws are enforceable.


----------



## rancher52 (Aug 16, 2019)

Bunch of Nazis, remember it's your Land, Public your the public, IMOP

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## quadzilla411 (Feb 25, 2015)

Well, IMO, let's be honest here, the lawsuit is designed to do one thing and that is to create hate and controversy. As far as horse people, in the Tahoe area? that's a joke as you never see horse back riding or even horse poop. So it isn't like there is conflict, no parking for horse trailers so no activity. If they have a axe to grind it would seem that they should use their $$ to go after ATV's and even pedal bikes. So, pick the easy target Ebikes. What I see right now is that there is a rekindling of hate with pedal bikes and Ebikes. This is really a step backwards as the trails have been shared by both Ebikes and pedal bikes for three+ years and lately pretty good acceptance by pedal bikers so everybody is moving on. Since the banning I definitely see a up tick of snide remarks and same actions as a few years ago. Now, the banning is only TNF I guess but will be grounds for other lawsuits and bannings. 

For me, new to Ebike riding but have ridden with them for three years as they are a part of my riding friends. I don't ride TNF much as I normally ride more Easterly Carson Range, Mt. Rose Carson city et et. But I expect to see a ban move over here too. In the short term I will only ride my pedal bike at TNF but will continue to ride Ebike where I normally ride, future banning or not.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

The lawsuit is so TNF has to follow its own rules and so other Forests can't use the same process to allow eMTBs on nonmotorized trails and bypass their planning rules. The lawsuit wasn't about conflict or environmental degradation its about travel planning rules. These are the same rules that make sure there are some trails free of motor vehicles and that logging projects don't destroy your favorite trail. If you don't like the rules, you have to get the rules changed. E-bikers apparently don't like to ride on motorized trails. If nobody follows any rules, all of the trails will be used by traditional motor vehicles and we are back where we started. Learn the rules, banning is not a thing. E-bikes are trying to expand access not avoid being banned.


----------



## quadzilla411 (Feb 25, 2015)

aoliver said:


> The lawsuit is so TNF has to follow its own rules and so other Forests can't use the same process to allow eMTBs on nonmotorized trails and bypass their planning rules. The lawsuit wasn't about conflict or environmental degradation its about travel planning rules. These are the same rules that make sure there are some trails free of motor vehicles and that logging projects don't destroy your favorite trail. If you don't like the rules, you have to get the rules changed. E-bikers apparently don't like to ride on motorized trails. If nobody follows any rules, all of the trails will be used by traditional motor vehicles and we are back where we started. Learn the rules, banning is not a thing. E-bikes are trying to expand access not avoid being banned.


Well, you got the talking points, a little outdated tho. The Ebike crowd and the shops that sell and service them will move forward and the track record so far has been great as far as conflict and degradation of the environment. One thing for certain some fat assed lawyer working pro bono in SF won't shut Ebikes out and move the bikes to motorized trails that have been destroyed by turbo charged ATV's.

Anyway, in the mean time it's going to be easy to get a exception with a simple note from a doc Re: bone spurs that would give the rider a handicapped status.............


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

quadzilla411 said:


> One thing for certain some fat assed lawyer working pro bono in SF won't shut Ebikes out and move the bikes to motorized trails that have been destroyed by turbo charged ATV's.
> 
> Anyway, in the mean time it's going to be easy to get a exception with a simple note from a doc Re: bone spurs that would give the rider a handicapped status.............


Good points there. The lawyer aspect is interesting, might not be pro bono though. If you look at all the enviromentalists, they have some force behind them. They are more concerned with the logging aspect, shutting area's down, but they've been known to aim at the OHV (Off Highway Vehicle) sections of forestry too. Not to mention they are batshit crazy about pipelines.

Ebikes have flown under the radar, so far. But the problem comes when politicians get involved. They want the vote, enviromentalists have some force behind them, but they seem more concerned about what I mentioned as apposed to ebikes. The majority of ebikes are store bought ebikes, not much ripping up land and vegitation on ebikes. Might take an ebiker crashing into someone and killing them. Pathway usage, restirctions on that, perhaps. Look at what NYC did with the ebike laws. The disabled angle is always a good one, some Lycra will say something negative towards ebikes here on the forums, but the majority of the population is getting older with ailing health problems. Not only get that note, but apply for the disabled placard. Does that condone speeding 40 on your ebike, or going where ebikes are not allowed. I tell you this much, the officer will think more into the matter of ticket writing when your limping towards his cruiser, have a doctors letter, a placard.


----------



## quadzilla411 (Feb 25, 2015)

Sure, Ebikes have flown under the radar and I think because as far as destruction of the pathways and intimidation of other trail users has not happened or happened in a way that there is no documentation of incidents. As far as horse, I live in horse country, the rurals of Nevada and they don't like bikes of any kind and couldn't tell the difference between a pedal bike, Ebike and a kids bike. BUT, we don't see them as they also don't ride on rocky exposed trails where bikers go around the Tahoe area. Basically they don't want to lose their political power they have and want to flex their political muscle.

I do think around here hikers have a legitimate issue with bikes in general and a lot of bikers are courteous but a lot are also not. I think the concept of "multi use" trails, trails that are out and back cause this conflict and can be corrected by building more single use trails. 

Playing the handicap card or age card is not something that I will do but I have friends on Ebikes that have health and age issues and being able to trail ride has turned their life around. WTBS, if the powers to be think that they can run the clock out by requiring a 10 year study on the impact of pedal assist bikes on trails and saying that it is a good compromise to make us ride with ATV's, Then I can feel that bone spur in my foot.....


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

You guys are on track with the way that the social aspects of this issue are moving forward and the way enforcement is not gonna work. However, they carry no water in court. This decision in Tahoe is NOT about:
Speed
Conflict
Disability Status
Liability
On road status
Wattage
environmental degradation
or any of the other reasons you want to ride an ebike or anyone has ever told you not to. It's about USFS following their travel management rules which are the rules that keep it from being a free-for-all. They did not do that, so there was a lawsuit, so they closed the trails again.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Just the clarify: The USFS decided to withdraw their "perceived" approval, without addressing the lawsuit. The lawsuit was then dismissed... There was no ruling on this. Now the USFS is working on getting something in the books by following closely what BLM is currently doing.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Tahoe National Forest - Recreation
> 
> I'm not sure how many or which trails this closes but not a good sign.











Forest Service Seeks Improved Access at Lake Tahoe for Electric Bikes - SnowBrains


The US Forest Service is working on plans to improve access for electric bikes in the Lake Tahoe area. The project includes access to both trails and roads.




snowbrains.com





And we're back.


----------



## youth slayer (Apr 13, 2010)

Wellstercraft said:


> I'm not sure how this could even be enforced. The definition they are using to classify e bikes as a motorized vehicle is:
> 
> "Title 36 Part 212 Subpart A, defines a motor vehicle as such:
> Motor Vehicle - Any vehicle which is self-propelled..."
> ...


That's a solid answer and makes sense for all the people that seem to be reluctant to go to a bike store and at least ride one before they decide it's a motorcycle ?


----------

