# Yes, multiple use can work well.



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

The nearest trailhead to my house is a popular one:


DSC09281 by unoh7, on Flickr

That's a weekday at 3pm

It is one access point to a large system:

DSC09278-2 by unoh7, on Flickr

And close in you will run into horses, hikers, mtbers, and motorbikes:
DSC09277 by unoh7, on Flickr

Must be a real mess right?

DSC09264 by unoh7, on Flickr

DSC09259 by unoh7, on Flickr

DSC09246 by unoh7, on Flickr

Obviously the evil, lazy and fat motorbikes make it someplace you don't want to ride:

DSC09254 by unoh7, on Flickr

In fact it's widely considered to be one of the best mtb destinations in the state. I meet mtb riders from all over.

DSC09275 by unoh7, on Flickr

These guys were from I don't where, but they asked directions, obviously had never ridden here before. Every time I ride here, I see people from other states and countries on mtn bikes. Multiple use has not injured this system's reputation.

For those who believe e-bikes are the devils spawn, I hope you stay away. This is a place where we like to share the backcountry, not ban people who are doing no more damage than us. It is working very well 


DSC09280 by unoh7, on Flickr
Could not agree more


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Haha. Popular. 

Come to the PCMR lot sometime. Idaho popular is sparsely used even by UT standards.

Looks like fun, though. Glad you've got some moto trails you can ride!

-Walt


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> The nearest trailhead to my house is a popular one:.....................


As opposed as I am to electric bikes sharing the same legal description as bicycles I have absolutely no problem determining what is or isn't allowed on multi-use trails on an individual basis. Have fun!


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

I very much appreciate the positive tone 

@JB Logically, a euro class one e-bike is not the same as either a mtb, or a KTM 300, though it's alot closer as far as the forest is concerned, to the former. Just like a horse is not a hiker, and the guy/gal on the horse is getting around with some serious help compared to the hiker, so a Levo is not a motorless mtb. It should be a vehicle in it's own class, and where it can go in the backcountry should be determined by it's impact to both the land and other users. 

I think it's a whole new thing. 

What I hope will happen, and there is already a loophole in the NFS rules which allows local fine tuning of the motorized/non-motorized rules, is that cooler heads are going to prevail and you will be able to take your Levo alot more places than your KTM. 

That's would be a huge positive. Right now the choice is "mtb torture" or "Travis Pastrana". It's way past time for some middle ground, I believe.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I generally agree that land managers should be free to make decisions on individual situations as they see fit. And they should feel free to experiment with what works and doesn't. I'm guessing in ID, and many other more rural places, motos and non-motos will continue to coexist nicely. 

On the vast majority of what we now call "mountain bike trails", though, motorized probably is a no-go.

-Walt


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> .... Just like a horse is not a hiker,


Exactly, and an electric bike is not a bicycle. If people would just call a horse a horse I think there might be a lot less animosity all around, trying to slide in under loopholes and arguing semantics about what is or isn't a motor is what tees me off. I don't think there's a place for them on lots of trails because I believe their impact could be potentially tremendous (not trail damage). If they earn their way there on their _own_ merit, and by popular vote I'll just shut up and ride, but until then.....


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Lots of good points; seems (TO ME) that a big consideration is that different areas have conditions the rest of the group don't know about. Also, different rules all over. For instance, I've always thought that CO was God's country for riding, and relatively under utilized like other areas in UT, NV and northern CA that I've visited. Never realized that the trails are crowded. Where I reside (maybe because I've been here for so long and know where they are), nearly empty trails are plentiful (if one desires crowds, that's possible too). For instance, on a couple of Saturdays one month my wife and I rode two different trails (MTB); on one we saw nobody in an 8 mile, 3000'+ ascent either going up or returning. On the other of about the same length, but 2000' ascent, we saw two ICE motorcycles and two hikers. Also, state rules differ considerably; like it or not, in CA (and the riders had no influence, manufacturers wrote the bill), Class 1, 2 & 3 electric bicycles by state law are removed from the motorized category and allowed on some MTB trails. Can't stop anyone from riding legal trails.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

I really have to cringe when I hear that class 1 Pedelecs are going to "ruin it", and result in more mtb closures.

Here is the problem:





That kind of riding in the backcountry is why there is any battle at all for mtn bikes. In 30 years I have never seen such reckless riding in the backcountry by motorcycles. Now, it's remote and chances are they saw nobody. Most of those trails are actually motorized, believe it or not. I would normally not say a word about this kind of riding, but when I hear e-bikes bashed for impact they don't have, and then I watch this......

As far as access, e-bikes are a scapegoat. What you see in that video is the problem, I think. And that behavior is totally illegal, I'd add. If you ride like that on public lands...you are good...but you should not lecture ANYONE about what they ride and where they ride it...


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

TY Flucod 

Here to contrast with the video in the post above yours, is us in the backcountry on our EVIL motorcycles (the big ones), me in the lead:






If your were a horseback rider or hiker, who would you rather share the trail with?

For extra credit you can watch my buddy try to kill me on our trials bikes LOL:





No transportation is completely safe 

For those convinced motorcycles ruin trails, watch those again and look close. I know we are near stuck in the mud in the start of the first one, but it's one discreet bit on the trail which is fully "open". Needs a wood bridge for sure. In general these trails, open to motorcylces for more than 30 years, show very light impact.

That doesn't mean there are not places near the cites where too many motorbikes are on too steep of trails and they are tearing it up, riding like it's a motocross track, riding like the mtbers shown earlier, but with a real engine.

What it means is: we should not generalize about users and how access is going impact the trails or us. 

PS when did I first buy a mtb? 1984. I've owned one ever since.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

What it means is, we should treat e-bikes like we treat mountain bikes and motorcycles. On a case-by-case basis. That trail is not heavily populated compared to many other trails, but it is a fine example of a place where multi-use has been successful. I can point out many examples where it has not been successful and where e-bikes are a potentially volatile ingredient. You as much as anyone has generalized e-bikes as a bicycle deserving equal access in all situations, which is wrong. This thread has a positive tone, and I don't want to change that, but let's be clear and consistent: there are places where e-bikes belong, but they are not mountain bikes and deserve a different designation.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

I advocate eMTB's where they're legally allowed. Nobody here can say that a given trail is more or less acceptable to any form of traffic (hiker, dog walker, runner, MTBer, eMTBer, equestrian, whatever) than the Rangers who (AFAIK) make the rules for a given area. I advocate riding where they say we can ride. So far, in CA that's all the places where gas guzzling trucks are allowed and the Santa Monica Mountain trails. My statements about eMTB's relate to what has been found by experiment (they do no more trail damage than MTB's; on true MTB trails - not a long fire road climb - they are slower than a fast rider) and my observations that riders go no faster when descending (probably slower) on eMTB's than MTB's and that I've never seen a first time rider on a trail on an eMTB, but I've seen several long time, older MTB riders on them.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

uhoh7 said:


> I really have to cringe when I hear that class 1 Pedelecs are going to "ruin it", and result in more mtb closures.
> 
> Here is the problem:
> 
> ...


It isn't mountain bikers fighting against mountain bikers for access. Mountain bikers are not trying to get more trails closed to other mountain bikers. It is people that do not want any bikes on the trails with them. They will use the fact that you can go 20 mph up/down on flats to get ALL bikes banned. The fact that you can not tell just by looking that it has a motor is worse for mtbs.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

sfgiantsfan said:


> It isn't mountain bikers fighting against mountain bikers for access. Mountain bikers are not trying to get more trails closed to other mountain bikers. It is people that do not want any bikes on the trails with them. They will use the fact that you can go 20 mph up/down on flats to get ALL bikes banned. The fact that you can not tell just by looking that it has a motor is worse for mtbs.


Never has happened, and pure speculation to predict it could. Would be many years before e-bikes are even seen regularly on trails. All evidence is that speed does not much differ, uphill yes e-bike is faster. DH all evidence is mtb is faster. What to hikers/horseman complain about?

Meanwhile, another of the countless local motorized/multiple use single tracks. Look at what these terrible motorcycles are doing:

L1050140 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1050166 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1050169 by unoh7, on Flickr

How far can your ride your motorbike in the backcountry of idaho? Below note the ridgeline on the western horizon. You can ride to it, and then circle the whole ridgeline, and just move further west from there 

L1050186 by unoh7, on Flickr

To the east?

L1050188 by unoh7, Multiple motorized ST all the way to the low shoulders of the distant peaks.

Trail Conditions? The less traffic the more primitive in general. I rode 5 hours and saw one track.  Trails where motorcycles are more often seen are usually in the best condition, and of course those which have been rebuilt in the last 5 years (many) are even better, since the overly steep bits are gone.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

Enough with motorcycle bs. IDGAF about ebikes on multi use moto allowed trails. I've seen no one in any of the ebike threads complain about people riding ebikes on trails where motos are allowed. Nor have I seen anyone call motorcycles evil. 

Don't try to make a case for all based on one part of the country with very low population density. Things are certainly not the same on the front range in CO.

My problem (and yes I disagree with states that just treat them as normal bikes) are people that pretend they're just bikes. It has nothing with to do with trail damage. Just admit they're a different animal and should be treated as such.


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> Meanwhile, another of the countless local motorized/multiple use single tracks.


What is the issue then? Why insist on horning in on mtb & hiking trails as well?


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

ryguy79 said:


> Don't try to make a case for all based on one part of the country with very low population density. Things are certainly not the same on the front range in CO.
> 
> My problem (and yes I disagree with states that just treat them as normal bikes) are people that pretend they're just bikes. It has nothing with to do with trail damage. Just admit they're a different animal and should be treated as such.


Then why try to make the case the e-bikes should be treated the same everywhere? Not sure you do, but many others do. The title of the thread says Multiple Use CAN work, and of course that implies there are conditions for it to work well, which have to do with density.

The same logic should apply to 250w pedelecs on mtb trails. In high density, overused trails, I can understand resistance. But Idaho is not the only place with seldom used non-motorized trails which allow mtbs, but few people use at all.

No good reason to ban e-mtbs from those trails, that I have heard. 

I have admitted the pedelec is a distinct animal from the beginning. It's not a traditional motorcycle or even remotely close to one. It's not a mtb because it has an electric motor and a battery.

The point of the "motorcycle BS" is that they share many many trails well where I live, and also don't demand other users stay off "their" trails. So I also feel e-mtbs should be able to share uncongested mtb trails, where the loud and big conventional motorcycles are restricted. 

Is that really such an extreme view?

L1050147 by unoh7, on Flickr


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Idaho and the type of trails you ride are the exception. Nobody wants to kick anyone off empty motorized trails. Almost all the mountain bikers in the US share the trail with many other users, and that's where our focus is here.

You could probably ride a nuclear powered tracked vehicle on your trails and not have a problem. That's great. But it's not the reality for 99% of us.

-Walt


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> No good reason to ban e-mtbs from those trails, that I have heard.


You've heard multiple good reasons but never acknowledge or respond to them. Are you a politician?


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Along the course of this discussion, I gained a new insight - can we begin to call these contraptions an e-horse?

We already have used Iron Horse (loco) and Steel Horse (moto) similarly so I'm proposing E-Horse... Let the horse people help your fight for your access. I think it's a great compromise - plus it has historical precedence and your user groups probably have more in common as far as human effort/exertion is concerned. You should strongly consider this suggestion.


----------

