# Walking is pure human power



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

So here we go...
...walking is the most pure human power of all

If we add a pogo stick, bicycle, scooter, roller blades, ice skates, etc... the human is making use of a non motorized mechanical device to proper them to where ever they want to get to. 

The only true non mechanical devices to propel a human are horse, donkey, lama, camel, elephant, etc... Would these animals be considered engines? 

Is the real fight between kinetic and mechanical energy?

Is a human an engine? Converting calories to use of power and exhausting the remains? Are humans two strokes? Intake and exhaust only? Brrappp-cough-cough-

At least with a e-assist bike the human still has to pedal to get the unit to go forward!

Ever try pedaling a donkey?

If you smell something...
...I'll be out back working on my "Baconmobile"


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

And your point is? That it still takes energy to ride a motorized bicycle? I'll agree to that. As well that it takes human energy to ride a motocross bike, a horse or a unicycle. Should they all be on the same trail at the same time? Nope.

The issue that all fans of Ebikes don't ever adress is that of advocacy. How you can convince those who don't want bikes on non motorized trails at all, and often for less than rational reasons that a motorized bike isn't motorized? Calling it an Ebike helps, but expecting those who are anti bike to shrug and accept that is unlikely. And expecting those who have been in the advocacy trenches to fight that battle for you is unlikely too. 

Yes, we have trails you can safely ride the current crop of ebikes on and you won't run into much grief in the real world. However, the ebike wave is just beginning here in the US, most people have no clue they exist and the backlash outside the mtb community has yet to start. As someone who spends many, many volunteer hours working to increase my local trail system which is closed to ebikes currently, I won't be pushing for them to included, not because I hate them, quite the opposite actually, but because motorized vehicles don't belong on a non motorized trail. We have trails that are mixed moto/non moto use that are great fun on a bike, they are perfectly suited for that. Go ride them there and push for expanded moto trails.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

Harryman, I'm just as passionate that horses don't belong on "non-motorized" trails. Most of the problems with ebikes on trails will come from the biking community.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

Where is the proof that e-bikes abuse the trails more? That's like saying fat bikes do more damage due to wider tires, yet in fact from what I see first hand building and maintaining trails fat bikes smooth stuff out. 

I do think low powered assist mt bikes can use existing trails as horses do in some areas I visit, and we all know form past surveys horses do more damage than human powered mt bikes. I don't think from my riding e-assist does any more damage than a regular mt bike other than being heavier, but horses aren't light!

The mt bike community took over trails form hikers by a giant proxy move at a time when the forests and parks had no idea what a mt bike was. More of the same today as I speak with forest and park people and ask if e-assist bikes are allowed on trails they look at me strange and say no motorcycles aren't allowed on the trails, but these are the same guys who rarely visit their own trail systems or mt bike at all, rather sit behind a desk and dictate power without really knowing their job!


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

NEPMTBA said:


> Where is the proof that e-bikes abuse the trails more?


Where's the proof that all e-bikes on the trail will stay below 750w?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Whether there is or isn't any 'proof' is beside the point.
MTBers shouldn't be saddled with proving anything about e-bikes in order to gain or maintain MTB access. They need to be treated as a separate and distinct user group that is allowed to stand or fall strictly on it's own merit, as MTBers have done successfully for the past few decades. It's hard enough to get bike access in lots of places without having motors shoehorned into the equation.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> Where is the proof that e-bikes abuse the trails more?


If you're responding to me, I didn't say that. The majority of ebikes available today don't have the power to do more damage than a clyde rding aggressively. I expect that to change in the future however.

Tell me how ebikes won't harm advocacy efforts instead.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

I'm sure there will be no enforcement of power but isn't that the same as no enforcement of a moto or quad using the trail? Who's gonna police thousands of miles of trails there is no effort now and I don't see it happening.

Advocacy rules are placed by government groups and we have no say maybe that should change, rather than begging for use of lands we should have the right to vote for what we want.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

Harryman said:


> If you're responding to me, I didn't say that. The majority of ebikes available today don't have the power to do more damage than a clyde rding aggressively. I expect that to change in the future however.
> 
> Tell me how ebikes won't harm advocacy efforts instead.


As far as I know, the only group of people who are expressing concerns about ebikes are bikers. If we spent more time getting along there would be fewer problems to worry about.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

Harryman said:


> Tell me how ebikes won't harm advocacy efforts instead.


 I feel there are enough smooth trails already, I ready for some good old washed out ditches and boulder strewn creek beds! Much easier to maintain!


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

NEPMTBA said:


> Advocacy rules are placed by government groups and we have no say maybe that should change, rather than begging for use of lands we should have the right to vote for what we want.





> I feel there are enough smooth trails already, I ready for some good old washed out ditches and boulder strewn creek beds! Much easier to maintain!


"Advocacy rules"?

It seems clear you don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about or how public lands are managed in this country.



alphazz said:


> As far as I know, the only group of people who are expressing concerns about ebikes are bikers. If we spent more time getting along there would be fewer problems to worry about.


That's because there are few or none on the trails at this point in the US, the anti bike crowd don't even know they exist yet.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

If anyone believes there are not organized anti-mtb groups out there that will use e-bikes as part of their strategy for keeping all bikes off trails, I would assume that they are not familiar with trail advocacy at all, or have been very, very lucky in their experiences.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

Phantom Duck!

Rick "Super Hunky" Sieman's SAHARA CLUB BLOG! | race-deZert


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Given how many trails are closed every year due to conflicts between out of control MTBers and everyone else, perhaps the MTB world should clean their own house first? If MTBers as a class seem to be antagonizing other trail users to the point that access to trails is constantly in jeapordy it seems to me that ebikes are the least of your worries. 

It is as if you all are afraid that people who take up ebiking will begin to act like typical MTB riders! A classic case of projecting the faults you see in yourself and your peers onto others........


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> Given how many trails are closed every year due to conflicts between out of control MTBers and everyone else.


Oh, and how many is that, based on your in-depth knowledge? 
Wanna share some examples? Or is this just something else you made up?

Talk about projecting...


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

There is always a problem with hikers! They walk anywhere they want spreading across the trail in packs. Do not hold their line and wander into the path of mt bikers, 

I'm sick of the we(mt bikers) have to yield to them. Walking is much more controllable than a mt bike is, and we are a bigger animal. They should have to yield to us!

I'm sick of shouting on your left, right, or whatever I have to only to find out the hiker has earbuds in and never heard me coming! 

How a bout a few "NO HIKERS ALLOWED" trails!

Ranting is so much fun!
I'm done now...LOL


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> Oh, and how many is that, based on your in-depth knowledge?
> Wanna share some examples? Or is this just something else you made up?
> 
> Talk about projecting...


 I was going by what I read in the "Speeding tickets on trails" thread over in the General Discussion forum and other threads here. Are you saying that there aren't any trail closure or access problems for MTBs? If so, that's fantastic! That means there's no reason not to share multi-use trails with Class 1 ebikes too.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

How are you going to stop this from being confused with your "legal" 750w e-bike. Just a mash of the throttle to 40mph. And it's just getting started here. 3000w coming to a trail near you soon enough.

"I'm just going to climb this hill without pedalling" "it can totally spin out" "places where this wouldn't be allowed"

OK.... sure, no problems. How you're going to allow class 1 e-bikes, but not have one of these following right behind you... "Oh, I thought e-bikes were allowed here?". Give me a break.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

No, crawling when you are too drunk to stand is.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> Given how many trails are closed every year due to conflicts between out of control MTBers and everyone else,


I doubt there are any trails closed due to "out of control" mountain bikers, since out of control mountain bikers are few and far between. The belief among those who hate bikes though is that we all go too fast since we move faster than they do, scare away wildlife, cause the most trail damage, go off trail the most and are rude since we prefer to pass them. Just that we exist and are allowed where they were first is supremely annoying to them. The fact that none of the above is true, doesn't change their perception or that they still beat those drums in every public meeting and letter to the editor that they write.

Depending on the local and the power they hold, they can either be ignored by the land agent, placated in some way or dictate policy. Lumping motorized bicycles in with conventional bicycles could lead to closures, a land agent might decide that it's easier to ban all bikes in a quarrelsome area than to try to regulate which ones are legal and which ones are not. Based on what I have seen in the past 10 years of being involved, I can guarantee that allowing moto on non moto trails will be a leading argument against future trail access. Will it mean no more new trails? No, of course not, but it will make it harder for most of us and will cost some of us new trails.

Management decisions aren't always based on facts either, there's a state park here where the head ranger doesn't like bikes and uses ancient completely disproven arguments to back up his decision to ban them on a new trail because he can. This will provide a neat solution for people like that. "I don't have the resources to police bikes, no bikes for you"


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> I was going by what I read in the "Speeding tickets on trails" thread over in the General Discussion forum and other threads here. Are you saying that there aren't any trail closure or access problems for MTBs? If so, that's fantastic! That means there's no reason not to share multi-use trails with Class 1 ebikes too.


Dude, how do you manage to get through a frigging day operating at this level?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> Dude, how do you manage to get through a frigging day operating at this level?


 And yet I managed to earn enough to retire at 55 with a six figure income...... Funny old world ain't it?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

And yet there are obviously some things money can't buy.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

Kinda reminds me of the 16 year old kid with his first car...
...being a Ford Pinto he has no idea if what fast is.

Who assigned hikers to be speed police? Furthermore "who" is assigned to judge my riding skills and weather I'm in control? A hiker assuming his own personal interpretation of how a mt biker should interface with the trail is hilarious. I feel hiking is too slow but I'm not out yelling it at others!

I have never had a problem with hikers. The only reason I ask for "No Hiking" trails in certain areas is to allow higher speed flowy, fast trails to be used to their potential and in a safer manner.

I feel we need a restructure anyway. Hikers are the slowest users of the trails and should stay off to the right, all others pass on the left!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for blazing past people on the trails, but just like the hiker is out on the trail for a great experience, so am I. Give me some trails, that are fast, flowy, and no hikers are allowed! I want to see physical signs "NO HIKING" on this trail!

E-Bikes...Ok, let's see, when mt biking entered onto trails we had very few trails, now we are kinda in charge of the big picture by working to gain all we did. What's to say the e-bike crew won't be the next big thing and take trails to a whole new level? Will you or I like the level they assume Maybe? Or maybe not! Will mt bikers loose some trails to e-bike use? Hell ya! How much did hikers loose when mt bikes came on the scene?


----------



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

NEPMTBA said:


> Who assigned hikers to be speed police? Furthermore "who" is assigned to judge my riding skills and weather I'm in control? A hiker assuming his own personal interpretation of how a mt biker should interface with the trail is hilarious. I feel hiking is too slow but I'm not out yelling it at others!
> 
> I have never had a problem with hikers. The only reason I ask for "No Hiking" trails in certain areas is to allow higher speed flowy, fast trails to be used to their potential and in a safer manner.
> 
> I feel we need a restructure anyway. Hikers are the slowest users of the trails and should stay off to the right, all others pass on the left!


If speed isn't an issue what's the problem with motos on multi-use trails? Why discriminate against them?

Anything that requires adding "rules" to abide by in the wilderness totally defeats the purpose of going there in the first place IMHO. Also there are plenty of bike parks that don't allow hiking already.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

NEPMTBA said:


> What's to say the e-bike crew won't be the next big thing and take trails to a whole new level? Will you or I like the level they assume Maybe? Or maybe not! Will mt bikers loose some trails to e-bike use? Hell ya! How much did hikers loose when mt bikes came on the scene?


Judging by the fact that we're talking about people that feel they need to add a motor to a bicycle in order to ride it, I don't think there's really all that much chance they're going to be doing anywhere near the amount of actual physical work that MTBers do. If they were into working that hard, they wouldn't have felt they had to add motors to their bikes in the first place.

Hikers lost nothing to MTBs. They've still got their old trails, none of which disappeared, plus endless miles of new and (and better IMO) ones.

The trails 'lost' due to e-bikes will be lost not only to real bikers, but to e-bikers as well. Trying to slide in on the coat-tails of MTBers hard work is going to end up screwing us and shooting themselves in the foot at the same time. E-bikers don't seem to understand this at all; they appear to have little understanding of or concern with access issues. Just want to play with their new toys wherever they want, screw the consequences.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> Give me some trails, that are fast, flowy, and no hikers are allowed! I want to see physical signs "NO HIKING" on this trail!


You seem to be the head of nepmtba, unless it's just a social riding club, I find it hard to believe that you aren't familiar with how the process of building legal trails on public land works. A sense of entitlement means little when all user groups have to be considered, which cuts both ways.

Single use trails are great where appropriate and you can manage to get approval for them. It's difficult. Talk is cheap, get to work, change the future.


----------

