# What would get you to *not* ride your e-bike?



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*TL;DR - hostile landowners could use e-bikes as an excuse to cut off trail access and quite possibly succeed. *

A little background: In Park City, we have 3 distinct trail management groups: ski resorts (private land, they can basically do what they want), city, and county.

The ski resorts could allow motocross if they wanted to, it's not forest service land and they can cut trees, build jumps, drive bulldozers around, etc. Whether they allow e-bikes or not, there is zero threat to trail access unless Vail decides they just don't like bikes for some reason.

The city and county trails are different - something like 90% of the county trails (I'm less familiar with the land ownership on city trails) rely in part or entirely on recreation easements, mostly written in the 1990s, which specify no motorized traffic/vehicles. In other words - _the county mostly doesn't own the land the trails are on._ This is not an insignificant amount of trail, either - it's ~100 miles worth.

Most of those easements were put in place in exchange for development rights (mansions, golf courses, the usual ski town stuff) - the developers/landowners didn't *want* trails, and in many cases the current owners/HOAs/country clubs are pretty hostile to having trails pass through their property, to the point that I've been told to my face that, "we'll get you mountain bikers out of here sooner or later".

Now, while state law treats e-bikes as normal bikes, I've been told by people with more knowledge of this than me (ie, lawyers for the county) that there is _a very good chance that a judge would vacate those easements if e-bikes were allowed_ on any of the county trails that pass through private property.

Furthermore, if the county can't show that they can prevent such use, there is still a chance of losing trail access/easements even with the existing ban on e-bikes - the county has to responsibly manage the trails as part of the easement agreements and if enough people are ignoring the ban, that makes it appear that the county isn't doing their responsible-management job.

We have more and more people poaching on e-bikes and I'm wondering if just a little bit of education would help prevent that. So here's my question: *would having this information stop you from riding your e-bike on Summit County trails? Or would it be irrelevant? *

Got any clever ideas to keep people from poaching that don't involve the sheriff and tickets and lots of bad feelings? Hit me with 'em.

-Walt


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Interesting that this is Summit County in Utah. There is also Summit County here in Co., and there are trails that go right through an affluent neighborhood, right here in Breck. 

At this juncture, E-bikes aren't even allowed on the paved paths in this county, where as they are deciding if they will allow it. The paved paths in the next county over (to the west, Eagle County) do allow them. Ironically, this is the location of Vail proper.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Walt, I'm not an ebiker and I don't live anywhere near you. But I have some experience in retail and I can tell you that a very large percentage of the population do not read signs and your best bet for getting someone to read one is a billboard approach, the less you say the better the odds that someone will read it. I would push for heavy fines and then (if you are successful) broadcast that in big, bold type at the trailheads, "WARNING: $500 fine and equipment confiscation of anyone riding ebikes on these trails". You could then write about the details in smaller type for those that do read, explaining that it is private land with trail use granted based on non-motorized access and that ebikes are a threat to maintaining trail access.

If you can't get high fines established, I would still hit them with a big short message, something along the lines of ""WARNING: this is private land with trail use granted based on non-motorized access only. Any use of motorized vehicles, including ebikes, are a threat to maintaining access to these trails.

Good luck.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Trail head signs/info at some points? Bike shop/bike club outreach? Newspaper/ local FB articles? And such. So the continued poaching would get all wheeled users shut out? What about an informational flyer hand out. Get an official ( police?) person to stop e bike users and hand them an informational flyer. Info only. Are there current penalties for e bikes poaching? My 2 cents.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

These kinds of conflicts will only continue to intensify as land managers, users, and the general non-biking public begin to run into conflicts with them. Ebikes were designed with one singular purpose to skirt existing laws, regulations, and restrictions that kept motorized vehicles from bike and pedestrian traffic. Ebike discussion is 110% about access rights for motorized traffic and if anyone says differently they are incorrect. There is no other way to explain their existence.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

leeboh said:


> So the continued poaching would get all wheeled users shut out?


Poaching could get *entire easements* vacated, which would mean no more trail at all, for traffic of any kind. That is certainly a worst-case scenario, but it's possible, and in a number of cases trails pass through a half dozen different parcels - if even one decides to take action, that could be the end of the trail.

We are thinking an information desk with a volunteer at a few popular trailheads on weekend mornings. There is already a $500 fine associated with riding an e-bike on any singletrack in the county, but I am positive this has never been enforced (nor has any enforcement even been attempted, AFAIK).

-Walt


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Walt said:


> Poaching could get *entire easements* vacated, which would mean no more trail at all, for traffic of any kind. That is certainly a worst-case scenario, but it's possible, and in a number of cases trails pass through a half dozen different parcels - if even one decides to take action, that could be the end of the trail.
> 
> We are thinking an information desk with a volunteer at a few popular trailheads on weekend mornings. There is already a $500 fine associated with riding an e-bike on any singletrack in the county, but I am positive this has never been enforced (nor has any enforcement even been attempted, AFAIK).
> 
> -Walt


Imo it starts with enforcement, not having enforcement sets a poor precedent and invites misuse by any user groups.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Definitely signs at the trailhead, and as indicated not too wordy; something like "E-BIKE POACHING WILL CLOSE THIS TRAIL". Since the bike shops will be influenced by trail closures, have them inform their e-bike customers about the situation, and the suggestion about having individuals manning a desk at the trailhead sounds good too. Enforcement may be like my area where the Rangers have too much to do to police trails (FOR THOSE OBTUSE INDIVIDUALS WHO CONTINUALLY ACCUSE ME OF ADVOCATING POACHING, I'M NOT), but maybe you could increase activity by talking to the responsible group. I encountered off-duty police on two occasions who were policing areas (the city, county or some private group was paying them, but I didn't inquire). We all know that once a privilege is lost, it's mostly gone forever.


----------



## Ryder (Aug 20, 2004)

What would get me to *not* ride my e-bike?

Living in the USA! Thankfully Europe seems to be far more tolerant of them


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, we don't have *a ranger*, let alone multiple rangers. The trails at the resorts have some resort employee patrollers but there's nothing on the county trails.

We do have volunteer trail "ambassadors" (I'm one of them). I am routinely ignored when I ask people to do things like leash their dogs at the trailhead, clean up poop, or not ride their e-bike past the sign that says no e-bikes. 

First world problems, for sure. Keep the ideas coming!

-Walt


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

If I got electrocuted.


----------



## Turd (Jul 21, 2005)

When I lived in Colorado, they had gates because of livestock. Info was posted at the gate. I think it worked well because you need to get off you bike and that helps one's focus change. Info wasn't all about "the man" cool race info/community stuff. Gate also prevented Edwards from ripping into other users/kids/dogs at the happy trailhead shatshow.
Security Cameras? (could be fake)
Probably best if the county had an alternative place to ride an e

Pinebrook, who manages that?

Does some of this have anything to do with wanting development other then recreation? Possibly give free ebikes to developers? Worked with cigarettes and drugs.


----------



## Turd (Jul 21, 2005)

To answer the question directly, nothing. No desire to ride my e-bike in PC or any bike trails I can think of. Guess poaching ski runs at night after grooming is somewhat attractive.
"if enough people are ignoring the ban, that makes it appear that the county isn't doing their responsible-management job"

That could be a problem, creating more of an issue for job security. 
Red Tape


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Pinebrook is private and officially off limits to anyone but Pinebrook HOA members. I have no idea if they have an e-bike policy but I would suspect they would be pretty anti-e if anything. Who knows. Very few people like to ride there because of the "old school" trails (ie, steep grades and switchbacks, no berms or rollers, no fun to film on a GoPro) so I can't see it becoming an e-bike destination.

The Bob's Basin (totally county land) and Road to Arcylon (crosses private land but that land belongs to POWDR corp who are all about "extreme" sports) are IMO great places to allow e-bikes. They are directional and generally have good sight lines/no real conflict issues as it's mostly bike traffic. But those are pretty limited options (maybe 10 miles of trail total). No idea if that would help solve the problem or just make it worse as people explored beyond those trails (they connect to the larger network). 

-Walt


----------



## Turd (Jul 21, 2005)

Alexander Creek is more Summit County (pc/summit area) then SLC, yet it's Salt Lake County. Maybe SLC will do Summit a favor or disservice?
Bob's Basin might be an overflow disaster, mostly for foot traffic... lower down east and west.
I'm guessing Vail will eventually pave the way and sell some hot dogs on the side.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I'd think some nice little EMPs placed at the start/end of those trails that let out un-timed, intermittent burst which would totally shut down an e-bike would be the best course of action, side effect being it would also shut down those stravatards


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

jochribs said:


> Interesting that this is Summit County in Utah. There is also Summit County here in Co., and there are trails that go right through an affluent neighborhood, right here in Breck.
> 
> At this juncture, E-bikes aren't even allowed on the paved paths in this county, where as they are deciding if they will allow it. The paved paths in the next county over (to the west, Eagle County) do allow them. Ironically, this is the location of Vail proper.


Yeah, its weird when Walt starts talking about his area, its like bizarro-land to Coloradoan's, where the Vail's and Summits are sort of the same but not quite.

Anyway, back on topic. As you stated, Summit County, CO banned ebikes on their trails, then over here in the Glenwood Springs area, there's a mostly paved Rio Grande trail that goes from Glenwood to Aspen and changes "jurisdiction" mid way as it crosses county lines. On the trail managed by Pitkin County (Aspen end of the trail), ebikes are banned, specifically due to what Walt referenced in the original post - easements galore of every shape and form, from private to city to county, to state and federal, all with non-motorized clauses. I think the Government trail in Snowmass has upwards of 30 different easements on it alone.

Then, down the road in Garfield county (Glenwood end of the trail), those transit authority clowns are actively looking to let class III (28mph) ebikes to be able to legally use their paved bike paths, the same paths that pedestrians use - totally ridiculous.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, very different Summit counties - we have fewer people and much lower elevation, and (much) crappier beer of course!

For those e-bike folks who have answered, let me rephrase: would you still ride your e-bike on these trails if you knew you could get them closed? Or would it take more (tickets, bike confiscation, law enforcement)? 

-Walt


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

I wouldn't even consider it. My wife and I and the friends we ride with consider ourselves MTB first. It would be street and path only which is still fun. That's why a "gentle reminder" like a sign might be enough. You could be dealing with a "zero tolerance" situation though and need to be more forceful.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Turd said:


> Alexander Creek is more Summit County (pc/summit area) then SLC, yet it's Salt Lake County. Maybe SLC will do Summit a favor or disservice?
> Bob's Basin might be an overflow disaster, mostly for foot traffic... lower down east and west.
> I'm guessing Vail will eventually pave the way and sell some hot dogs on the side.


AFAIK Alexander Creek/GWT/Mormon Pioneer are totally e-legal. You can make a pretty neat loop out there, especially if you add in some Lookout Peak trails. But they are also super unpopular (partially for steep grade reasons that an e-bike would solve, of course). I don't see people driving over to Mountain Dell to do their ride instead of Flying Dog, realistically.

I also don't know what the rules are for motors in the watershed. Betting SLC hasn't thought about it yet, but they might or might not allow e-bikes once they actually address the issue (could be decades, of course, this is SLC we're talking about). They are crazy protective of that watershed.

If your point was that adding more trails is a good idea to give e-bikes more access, I agree! And that land is just prime for it - but it'll take a MAJOR effort to get SLC to do anything (or even allow anything) and I'm dubious that'll ever happen.

-Walt


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Walt, first and foremost thanks for you efforts on trails and access. I know first hand what a labor of love it is. It's hard work.

I'm also an ambassador and have run into exactly the same enforcement issues that you have. One thing I have been able to do though. As you mentioned, enforcement is an issue and without it, trail rules have no teeth and can be ignored at will. As ambassadors we have even less authority, meaning zero. I was able to discuss this with our local BLM law enforcement officers and they came up with a solution. Enforcement via third party (meaning us) with a camera as evidence. The BLM guys know me and know that my judgement is sound and that I can be trusted to "enforce" our local trail rules. What they empowered me to do is to take pictures and pass them on to the officers. They then use the pictures as legal evidence with weight and they send the offender a ticket in the mail. The last guy got two tickets for $600 a piece. Now what I get to do is to talk with offenders. If they don't listen, get belligerent or their offense is so grievous, then I inform them I'm taking their picture, a picture of their license plate (that is sometimes the hard part but necessary) and I'm passing it along to an LEO. That usually stops them cold. If we can get that word out, we should see less offenses. If we can get law enforcement to empower more riders, then we have a greater ability to police (pun intended) our trails. Just a thought. Unfortunately this is the plague of our times on our trails.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

SilentFoe, that is an interesting idea and one that I will pass on to the folks in charge here. I had thought about the concept of taking pictures of license plates and such but I am uncomfortable doing that unless there's a specific process to use that information ready to go. 

Of course, I'm not out on the trails 24/7, so who knows how effective that would be, but it's something, anyway.

My preference would be to get people to understand the situation and voluntarily not bring their e-bikes. I'm not sure that is realistic.

-Walt


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Walt said:


> SilentFoe, that is an interesting idea and one that I will pass on to the folks in charge here. I had thought about the concept of taking pictures of license plates and such but I am uncomfortable doing that unless there's a specific process to use that information ready to go.
> 
> Of course, I'm not out on the trails 24/7, so who knows how effective that would be, but it's something, anyway.
> 
> ...


We know it isn't realistic. People are people and it's all about us, screw everyone else. Whether or not you can be on the trails 24/7, you are out there 100% more than the LEO's. Get enough people involved and you'll be able to cover all of your trails, almost all of the time. That's what we are working towards.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Tracer16 (Nov 6, 2017)

I'll bite on your question Walt about wether I would ride my ebike on the trail. If it's legal then sure no problem. If it's posted no ebikes then I'm not going to do it.

It's just like asking if I'd ride my KTM 300 on the same trail.

I ride Phils trails in the Bend Oregon area. Clearly posted no ebikes. I've never ridden on those trails with my ebike nor have I seen an ebike on these trails since the postings went up. 

All this being said I am slower on my ebike than my racer friends on their epics or cross bikes. Essentially no one knows that Iam on an ebike and have had positive interaction while on it.


----------



## MikeTowpathTraveler (Aug 12, 2015)

Reading these posts, especially the last few, I guess the old ideals of what I thought constituted the "western frontier personality", that spirit of independence and will in settling those territories out there............is long out the window forever. Good grief. What happened to you folks, the ancestors of those pioneers? 

As this thread developed on early, I got to thinking the only logical conclusion is to TEAM up with the growing 250w/20mph crowd and work as one in fighting those who want to close trails off to all bicyclists. Cause folks, that is where your real problems will ultimately begin and end at. You will all lose biking privileges. The very govt you all are working alongside with right now; maybe you all don't realize that you too are in that pan of water warming up on the stove; alongside those pesky ebikers. The old advice of Ben Franklin applies here: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Easier for a Govt Rep to ban you all rather than this incessant game that seems to be ongoing now. Especially when some of those folks at the trailhead decide to hire on some good lawyers to take you on.

The ground zero for US ebikes are right close by in CA. Over in Colorado is Haibike US headquarters. Partner with them with the overall picture being that both pedal and low powered ebikes have every right to safely travel any trail open to human foot traffic. Make them put their influence to work for you. Is that an alternative worth exploring? It's sad and unfortunate that what I see here has gone in a completely opposite direction, that of "taking photographs of license plates" and passing them onto local law enforcement. 600 dollar fines. On-trail judgement of others. "Deputizing" riders. So this is what the western US has come down to, eh? The new Soviet.

I have a hard time coming to grips sometimes that I'm not so young anymore; having turned 60 last fall. Military retiree myself, there is alot of American History that was made in my general local area. On most rides, I pass by the bronze statue of Thomas Paine. My Fatboy is right next to Tom in my avatar there. Some 20 miles up river was where General Washington gathered the troops for a last ditch effort at winning a battle against his tyrannical oppressors. A bit to the north of there, the graves of a few soldiers who did not survive overlook the Delaware Canal where bikers and ebikers pedal on a wonderful spring day. Do you understand what I'm getting at here? The ground in this area is covered in the blood of those who'd rather fight and die then submit to the oppressor. And here, it seems we have gone off into that other direction.

I can have as much empathy & respect for dedicated bikers and trail builders who watch their beloved trails get torn up by a high powered semi-electric motorcycle/bicycle as anyone else. For that, I salute your efforts. But to go after the low powered mid or hub drive folks? Nah. Not right. Not when some reconciliation to the idea of joining forces as one to protect your hard fought rights to ride your trails is right there in front of you guys. Who knows? Maybe that spirit of comradery can make it's way back east again.

If you've hung with me so far, thank you. If not, can't blame you either. But I see this world on the cusp of two wheel transportation powered by a small electric motor. It's coming. Great technology, lowering prices, all ready to meet a new audience. So how do we deal with that new audience? Take photos of them if they are not up to snuff at the trailhead, or welcome them to the sport?

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

Just one person's opinion, from the sweet land of NJ, where state govt has it's foot on our throat in so many aspects of our lives here. Thanks for the consideration of your time.

Mike


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

MikeTowpathTraveler said:


> many words,
> 
> Mike


Low power/high power, there's no feasible way to seperate them. And I for one won't support anything that threatens the loss of mtb trails. That includes motorized conveyances.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

MikeTowpathTraveler said:


> blah blah blah
> 
> Mike


Ermahgerd dude.

What you fail to realize is that bikes are fighting tooth and nail to NOT be lumped in with ebikers. There is a reason they are banned and bikers aren't willing to help. We want no part of them.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Look, this has nothing to do with my (or your) personal feelings about ebikes. In this particular case, ebikes are a direct threat to trail access for everyone (both cyclists and pedestrians). And they are _already banned_ in the entire county for this reason (and others) - people who are riding e-bikes on these trails are committing a crime (though not a very serious one) and endangering everyone's access in the long term.

Again, this has nothing to do with my own feelings (ambivalent) about e-bikes, and it has nothing to do with e-bikes for transportation/commuting (which pretty much everyone here is all for and which is widely promoted here, to the extent that the county even runs an e-bike share program that is super popular).

I'd love to see an e-bike group step up and approach landowners and management agencies and get legal access. In this case that would require renegotiating a bunch of easements, and it would be a huge PITA, but them's the breaks. In the meantime, I want to stop e-bike poaching to make sure we keep the trails we have open.

-Walt


----------



## Turd (Jul 21, 2005)

Anyone have a link to an article that documents loss of access because of ebikes?


----------



## homeslice (Jun 3, 2008)

my answer: morals

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk


----------



## homeslice (Jun 3, 2008)

Turd said:


> Anyone have a link to an article that documents loss of access because of ebikes?


Anyone have proof of requiring an ebike to access blue level trails due to a handicap that doesn't require use of stable footing?

Any organizations of ebikes actually productive in trailwork efforts?

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

MIke Towpath, kind of a stretch there, to say the least. Yikes. There is no we, all land managers and rule makers already have stuff in place regulating motorized vehicles. Mt bikes are not motorized, start there. Really. There are no rights for motorized vehicles, only what the land agencies decide. People accessing public land, sure. And there are "no" low level e bikes. Once that door is opened, anything goes.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Back on topic.

Walt - I think in addition to enforcement methods, whatever path is taken there, is the need for education. Posting signs only goes so far.

I think it would be helpful to have volunteers out at the trailheads every Saturday and Sunday and on as many weekdays as possible with fliers that detail what is happening. Engage the public that is actually using the trails, stop them as they go by, no matter who they are and let them know there is a threat to the trail access and give them a flyer.

The more people who are informed about it, the better. Once you have every hiker, dog walker, trail runner, horseback rider and Mountain Biker out there knowing the consequences of eBike poaching, you have a much better chance of self policing by the usergroup. It cannot only be the responsibility of MTBers to notify the eBikers of the harm they could be doing.

Please note I am speaking to Walt's question for this very specific area and scenario.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

I think the LBS's that sell them should bear some of the weight when it comes to educating the buyers. For them to turn a blind eye is doing a major disservice to the customer. 

However, at the end of the day....poachers are gonna poach no matter what anyone says or does. If the trails get closed off....they will continue to ride them. They don't care about anything or anyone but themselves.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

I'm a uniformed volunteer in a CA State Park; from a far off distance I look like a ranger---up close it's obvious I don't have a badge and I'm not carrying a gun. Our duty is O.A.R; observe, advise, and report. If we "observe" a park rule/law being violated we can "advise" that the activity is not allowed and then if it is warranted we need to "report" it.

The most common violations (that I see) are dogs in the park, ground fires and bikes riding during rain closures. It's amazing how many times our advice is ignored even though a real ranger is only a radio call away. Not much respect in these modern times.


----------



## motocatfish (Mar 12, 2016)

Walt said:


> ...
> Furthermore, if the county can't show that they can prevent such use, there is still a chance of losing trail access/easements even with the existing ban on e-bikes - the county has to responsibly manage the trails as part of the easement agreements and if enough people are ignoring the ban, that makes it appear that the county isn't doing their responsible-management job.
> 
> We have more and more people poaching on e-bikes and I'm wondering if just a little bit of education would help prevent that. So here's my question: *would having this information stop you from riding your e-bike on Summit County trails? Or would it be irrelevant? *
> ...


Are there any ebike-legal trails as alternatives nearby? I'm afraid the answer to my Q is probably the answer to your Q. They _are_ going to ride somewhere.

Appealing alternatives are your only real hope, imho.

I know of a very-high traffic MUT that some folks complain about downhill mtb speeds. The solution is a planned dh bike-only flow trail with same trailheads. All designed & built by the local volunteer mtb org.

Getting land managers on board is always the hardest part.

Good luck Walt!

Catfish ...


----------



## Turd (Jul 21, 2005)

homeslice said:


> Anyone have proof of requiring an ebike to access blue level trails due to a handicap that doesn't require use of stable footing?
> 
> Any organizations of ebikes actually productive in trailwork efforts?
> 
> Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk


Comment pertains directly to the body of the subject matter of the originators post. (Fear of trail closures to peddle bikes because of ebikes) Has that ever happened? I didn't go OCD on Google, but didn't find fact or documentation. (Got a link?)

I guess my point is that regulating and shutting everything down without compromises or alternatives will lead to more 'poaching". Poaching may or may not be a bad thing to do in the grand scheme of things but it has some risks. Ebikes are here to stay but less prevalent than the internet chat paranoia. Yes, kids got fat because of video games, text messaging kills....but?
I have no clue what ebikes will do down the road. Hopefully they don't manufacturer problem that don't exist beyond personal disdain. The "HOA" of public trails is a worrisome component in the wrong hands.

I have an e-mtb, it's not my go to bike. Selfishly I do not want to see ebikes on the "MTB/MUT" trails. That's my problem, I don't I have any justifiable facts or data to backup my emotional negative response about the matter. It's somewhat entertaining to chat about it on mtbr but also very lame short term. Guess my time would be better spent to "wild west it" and continue poaching landlocked HOA "community" trails on my pedal bike that malignantly meander in and out of public land. If you live in Utah and want to ride something closer to northern New England old school trails, that's about all you can do.

Get out and ride, e or not.


----------



## MJC1973 (Dec 12, 2017)

Ryder said:


> What would get me to *not* ride my e-bike?
> 
> Living in the USA! Thankfully Europe seems to be far more tolerant of them


Exactly! I would not ride mine if I were living in the US. Far too litigious down there. Up here north of the border in Alberta, no one makes this huge fuss about emtbs on the trail. Its quite frankly, ridiculous.


----------



## kneecap (Dec 20, 2003)

well said Mike


----------



## homeslice (Jun 3, 2008)

MJC1973 said:


> Exactly! I would not ride mine if I were living in the US. Far too litigious down there. Up here north of the border in Alberta, no one makes this huge fuss about emtbs on the trail. Its quite frankly, ridiculous.


Do you even do trail work? I don't mean the 8 hours a year of raking and packing some berms with a few instagram photos to show off your advocacy work. I mean do you do enough trail work to be aware of the environmental impacts of motors on recreation trails? Mind if I ride a dirtbike on your trails? I promise you nothing will happen but if something bad does you should be fine with it anyways.

I understand not everyone gives a crap about trail erosion but I do and so do many Americans. Ebike makers aren't in the business to settle on low power engagement uphills. It's a market catered to raising motorbike culture. Ebikes should have their own trails made and used by emotorbike riders.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

We don't have quite the easement issues that Walt does in PC, but we have some. The local overarching open trail and open space advocacy organization here is working on publishing ebike maps they will distribute to LBS showing where it is legal to ride ebikes, which is on bike paths, not singletrack. No ebike signs will start appearing on trails this season. My assumption is that like every other sign in our parks "Closed for re-vegetation" and the like, that some users will be oblivious, a few will ignore them and most will heed them. 

I would guess that if the signage contained the backstory about how ebikes could be vilolating an easement, and there was a concerted effort to spread that info around the riding community, that would be the most effective since most of the riders of emtbs are mtb riders, and they'd get a clue.


----------



## Ryder (Aug 20, 2004)

homeslice said:


> Do you even do trail work? I don't mean the 8 hours a year of raking and packing some berms with a few instagram photos to show off your advocacy work. I mean do you do enough trail work to be aware of the environmental impacts of motors on recreation trails? Mind if I ride a dirtbike on your trails? I promise you nothing will happen but if something bad does you should be fine with it anyways.
> 
> I understand not everyone gives a crap about trail erosion but I do and so do many Americans. Ebike makers aren't in the business to settle on low power engagement uphills. It's a market catered to raising motorbike culture. Ebikes should have their own trails made and used by emotorbike riders.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk


Do you have any evidence that an e-bike causes significantly more damage than an AM MTB?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

homeslice said:


> Do you even do trail work? I don't mean the 8 hours a year of raking and packing some berms with a few instagram photos to show off your advocacy work. I mean do you do enough trail work to be aware of the environmental impacts of motors on recreation trails? Mind if I ride a dirtbike on your trails? I promise you nothing will happen but if something bad does you should be fine with it anyways.
> 
> I understand not everyone gives a crap about trail erosion but I do and so do many Americans. Ebike makers aren't in the business to settle on low power engagement uphills. It's a market catered to raising motorbike culture. Ebikes should have their own trails made and used by emotorbike riders.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk





Ryder said:


> Do you have any evidence that an e-bike causes significantly more damage than an AM MTB?


Off topic, there are other threads for this. This thread isn't about if ebikes damage trails. It's about legal agreements that were made where landowners received some type of compensation (maybe being allowed to build) for allowing trails for non-motorized access through their property. The owners have what they want and would be happy to find a legal reason to block access to the trails. They could legally argue that ebikes are motorized (sorry, but any lawyer who couldn't successfully argue that isn't much of a lawyer) and that there is no way to stop them so access should be terminated for all. If the agreement was to allow foot traffic only and the threat was mountain bikers poaching the trails, it would be pretty much the same type of thing.

And a tall fence around the property would pretty much stop everyone from using the trails if the landowner won. Of maybe they would build additional buildings where the trails are, idk.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

The carrot used to entice land owners to grant a recreational easement is sometimes a tax break; if they're able to break the agreement they'll lose the tax benefit. (Although they could just switch to a conservation easement with no public access and enjoy the same)

E-bikers need to hammer home the 750 watt rule; with that they can claim parity with equestrian access ("one horsepower") and distance themselves from motor vehicles. Too bad there's so much cheating on the 750 W limit!


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

homeslice said:


> Do you even do trail work? I don't mean the 8 hours a year of raking and packing some berms with a few instagram photos to show off your advocacy work. I mean do you do enough trail work to be aware of the environmental impacts of motors on recreation trails? Mind if I ride a dirtbike on your trails? I promise you nothing will happen but if something bad does you should be fine with it anyways.
> 
> I understand not everyone gives a crap about trail erosion but I do and so do many Americans. Ebike makers aren't in the business to settle on low power engagement uphills. It's a market catered to raising motorbike culture. Ebikes should have their own trails made and used by emotorbike riders.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk





Ryder said:


> Do you have any evidence that an e-bike causes significantly more damage than an AM MTB?


Humans do a lot of damage. Limiting access and not allowing motors in a particular area is for population control first and foremost. Unlike what seems to be your only concern with regards to natural habitats, those charged with protecting them have a lot more important concerns other than protecting some man made trails that disrupt the habitats they are protecting in the first place.

Being only concerned with protecting what you care about (in this case the trails you ride) is a poor way to go about trying to gain access.


----------



## Ryder (Aug 20, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> Humans do a lot of damage. Limiting access and not allowing motors in a particular area is for population control first and foremost. Unlike what seems to be your only concern with regards to natural habitats, those charged with protecting them have a lot more important concerns other than protecting some man made trails that disrupt the habitats they are protecting in the first place.
> 
> Being only concerned with protecting what you care about (in this case the trails you ride) is a poor way to go about trying to gain access.


Wow...making a lot of assumptions there based on one sentence from me. How do you know what my concerns are with natural habitats? Not grouping all e-bikers into some homogeneous lump to fit your world view by any chance? (that is what assumption looks like by the way)

Also since I am in the UK I really don't give a hoot about access issues int he US I was just curious whether there was any evidence of increased trail damage from e-bikes.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Ryder said:


> Also since I am in the UK I really don't give a hoot about access issues int he US I was just curious whether there was any evidence of increased trail damage from e-bikes.


Then perhaps you should not comment on a thread that is specifically about trail access in the US.

This thread belongs in trail advocacy section, not the eBike section.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Ryder said:


> Wow...making a lot of assumptions there based on one sentence from me. How do you know what my concerns are with natural habitats? Not grouping all e-bikers into some homogeneous lump to fit your world view by any chance? (that is what assumption looks like by the way)
> 
> Also since I am in the UK I really don't give a hoot about access issues int he US I was just curious whether there was any evidence of increased trail damage from e-bikes.


Like I said, trail damage is not a very big concern as far protecting a habitat, so why so much focus on it?

As far as grouping, there is a non-motorized group and a motorized group. There may be difference within each group, but none of those differences would exclude one or another from their defined group. If it has a motor, it has a motor. There are people who will missbehave in each group and I am not assuming one group is worse than the other. Also, this is an internet forum and most here don't know anything about one another, so assumptions are everywhere. If that is a problem for you, then don't post anything.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Well, if you’re riding in an area that you know is banned going in, you’re basically an a** hat. Obviously never owned land and are most likely very immature. Time and place for everything. I’ve had so many trespassers on my land hunting while it’s clearly posted that it pisses me off to no end!


----------



## justin70 (Sep 17, 2007)

The great abortion debate rages on...I mean, the ebike debate rages on.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

justin70 said:


> The great abortion debate rages on...I mean, the ebike debate rages on.


What debate? They're motorized, that has been decided.


----------



## Jvimpty (Jun 2, 2010)

Ryder said:


> Do you have any evidence that an e-bike causes significantly more damage than an AM MTB?


Some findings here from a questionably funded and implemented set of studies:

Environmental impact greater than MTB and less than dirtbike: 
http://b.3cdn.net/bikes/c3fe8a28f1a0f32317_g3m6bdt7g.pdf

"Soil displacement and erosion from Class 1 eMTBs will likely fall somewhere between those caused by mountain bikes and motorcycles. It is expected that they will much more closely resemble those of mountain bikes.
• It is expected that Class 1 eMTBs may lead to greater soil displacement under certain conditions, such as through turns, including bermed turns; on ascents and descents; and where there are abrupt changes in trail conditions."

Social impact noted in this gem:
http://b.3cdn.net/bikes/1e7ebf1906be7477f3_6fm6bibgu.pdf

The main findings of the survey are as follows:
• Survey bias: Respondents tend to skew toward those with strong opinions.
• Strong opinions: "eMTBs are a form of motorized recreation" (76%) and "eMTBs will threaten access" for traditional mountain bicyclists (72%).

Both of these "interesting" studies were funded by e-bike lobby/industry. We need better and more eMTB research on impacts to trails, trail systems and trail system users. These studies need to align with the diversity of protected area's lands and management contexts.

Both of these studies were completed when IMBA was still relatively solvent in 2015/2016. Their 2016 990 makes it seem like someone crashed the ship pretty hard: https://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/content/resources/2018-01/IMBA_990_2016.pdf

Hope they can recover, but that is probably a different thread.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

MJC1973 said:


> Exactly! I would not ride mine if I were living in the US. Far too litigious down there. Up here north of the border in Alberta, no one makes this huge fuss about emtbs on the trail. Its quite frankly, ridiculous.


Come to BC we'll make a fuss.


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

I don't really care about e-bikes. I have never seen one on a trail, but I have to tell you guys that reading this thread, it's like reading a series of Mike Sandman rants. Just replace e-bike with mountain bike and there you are.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

epic said:


> I don't really care about e-bikes. I have never seen one on a trail, but I have to tell you guys that reading this thread, it's like reading a series of Mike Sandman rants. Just replace e-bike with mountain bike and there you are.


I think the name you are looking for is 'Vandeman'.

Dare I say the loony's name.


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

jochribs said:


> I think the name you are looking for is 'Vandeman'.
> 
> Dare I say the loony's name.


****ing autocorrect.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Smart alec answer to the original question: First I'd have to own and e-bike, and that seems to be going the wrong direction, so ......

Initial thoughts on how to keep ebikes off trails - EMP canons. 

Some thoughts/questions about Park City easements: What was the reasoning behind the initial inclusion of the no motorized vehicles clause? I be it was primarily a noise consideration at the time, because no one - and I mean no one was considering the notion of an electric anything. An e-bike may have a hum noticeable at a distance of several feet, but it's hardly noisy. Now, I'm no e-Bike advocate (ok, I think they're a great commuting/utility bike idea, but let's keep it on the road) but it seems like maybe someone needs to see if that motorized legaleese can be twisted to somehow apply specifically to ICE equipped conveyance or, barring my EMP canon idea, I suspect you're basically screwed because of human nature. There will ALWAYS be that one jackhole that ruins it for everyone else.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Cotharyus said:


> There will ALWAYS be that one jackhole that ruins it for everyone else.


/thread


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I'm not entitled to ride my bike on hiking trails that are closed to bikes and don't do it. Why is this simple concept so difficult to understand for so many?


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

delete - not relevant to the OP question


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Walt, breaking the law is easy, doing the right thing is a big more challenging; exp when no one is around to care.

The only reason ebikes would avoid non ebike trails is if they have an alternative trail nearby; as in “ebikes stay left”.

Good luck, hopefully the trail access issues remain under control.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

jochribs said:


> I think the name you are looking for is 'Vandeman'.
> 
> Dare I say the loony's name.


He only appears if you repeat his name five time while looking into a mirror.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

In regards to posting signage about e-bike use, I think it's a double edge sword, particularly in the OP's case. 

On the positive side, you may get a few people who are unaware that they are poaching with E-bikes to stop doing so. You'll probably also get other mountain bikers to put more social pressure on e-poachers to quit. I'll leave that up to you as whether that is a good thing or not.

On the negative side, posting signs like "E-BIKING WILL CLOSE THIS TRAIL" can easily work against you. It may make a few more e-poachers think twice, but it also advertises to everyone that doesn't want to share the trail with bikers that there is an easy way to get them (E-bikers and mountain bikers both) shut out. 

In a more traditional public land manager scenario, I think an education and low key signage campaign is a good faith gesture that will keep the traditional MTB community in better standing with the land manager and less likely to be lumped in with e-bikes and banned. 

In a scenario with a bunch of private land owners with individual easements, an education and signage campaign may actually lead to more complaints. And a bunch of complaints may be all it takes for one of the easements to fall through.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Well, just to update - I've encountered 2 more groups of e-bike riders this week. Both were polite and friendly - and completely ignored my requests not to ride on closed trails, even after I explained the reason for the policy.

Sigh.

-Walt


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Walt said:


> Well, just to update - I've encountered 2 more groups of e-bike riders this week. Both were polite and friendly - and completely ignored my requests not to ride on closed trails, even after I explained the reason for the policy.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> -Walt


And in a couple of years, they'll wonder why the trail that they once rode their e-bikes on is now under a fence and mansion with no trespassing signs everywhere.


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

Walt said:


> Well, just to update - I've encountered 2 more groups of e-bike riders this week. Both were polite and friendly - and completely ignored my requests not to ride on closed trails, even after I explained the reason for the policy.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> -Walt


Closed. Do you mean closed to E-bikes or just plain closed? Did you see any mountain bikers on the closed trail?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

epic said:


> Closed. Do you mean closed to E-bikes or just plain closed? Did you see any mountain bikers on the closed trail?


Closed to e-bikes, to clarify. There are a couple of trails around here that are hiking only but they probably only constitute 1% of the total system mileage. E-bikes are (for the reasons spelled out in the OP) banned on all the singletrack.

-Walt


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Jvimpty said:


> Both of these studies were completed when IMBA was still relatively solvent in 2015/2016. Their 2016 990 makes it seem like someone crashed the ship pretty hard: https://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/content/resources/2018-01/IMBA_990_2016.pdf
> 
> Hope they can recover, but that is probably a different thread.


FYI, if you go to guidestar and look at IMBA returns, in 2016 they reported via two different entities. The one domiciled in CA that you link to, with a dramatic decrease in income and no assets at year end, and a new entity "IMBA-CO' that had 6.3 million in revenue in 2016. They are still on the decline IMO, but not as badly as it would appear by looking at just the one 990. And of course they aren't helping themselves any by linking to the worst of the two returns on their own website. I hope the successor to IMBA is more effective (and less welcoming of e-motors).


----------



## Turd (Jul 21, 2005)

Might need to recant my gate + signage. Tried that at the residential dumpster. Contractor's removed postings, destroyed cameras and continued to dump crap.
Regardless, I still believe lift service and shuttle stains are more detrimental to trails and foot trafic lobbying opinions. If you want to be a purest, e-bikes are more true to the sport then sitting your fat ass on a chairlift.
Probably best to fold the cards and just get on the class 1 bandwagon. The euroes got it right with the mellower e in the first place.
Guess the only bright side of all of this is the movement to wider and lower psi tires. That trend groomers the deer and foot traffic back to buff.


----------



## rebel1916 (Sep 16, 2006)

epic said:


> I don't really care about e-bikes. I have never seen one on a trail, but I have to tell you guys that reading this thread, it's like reading a series of Mike Sandman rants. Just replace e-bike with mountain bike and there you are.


I had the same thought. Of course almost every trail system in my area started out as dirt bike trails, sooooooooo


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

rebel1916 said:


> I had the same thought. Of course almost every trail system in my area started out as dirt bike trails, sooooooooo


I do have some concerns about e-bikes impacting trail advocacy work in SOME locations, but actual environmental damage to the trails isn't one of them.

It's all a matter of perspective. A lot of our trails started as moto trails as well. Virtually all of them are in forested areas that have been clear cut before (often several times) and most of them will be clear cut again.

Yet, we regularly hear about how much environmental damage mountain bikes do.

Here are a couple of pictures of a local hiking only trail that is too sensitive to allow mountain bikes on (adjacent trails in the network are open to bikes).


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, to be clear - I don't think class 1 ebikes are any sort of problem on MUTs basically anywhere in terms of impact on the trail or environment. I'm pretty doubtful that they have much more/different impact on other trail users than normal mountain bikes. I have loads of retired/creaky kneed friends and neighbors who I'd love to go ride with. 

That's not the question here, though. The question is whether people will respect a ban because of a specific legal issue (easement language says no motors). It looks like (so far) they won't. Hopefully that won't mean a big problem/trail closures in the future here. 

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Are they locals or tourists? The bigger problem is the tourists, I find.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Having been involved with the discussions regarding ebikes with various land managers, here are their concerns:

Distance - Many/most emters report riding @ twice as far in the same amount of time, which in many urban interface type trail systems, means more laps of the same loops. It's effectively double the impact per rider. 

Speed/social interactions - higher climbing speeds and in the flats increases the closing speeds leading to potentially more negative interactions. 

Enforcement - They have no funding in place for enforcment. Couple that with the increasingly complex types of ebikes available and they have no way to police what sort of ebikes are actually on their trails. They know that if they allow any, they will be allowing all. Even if they ban them, they know there will still be emtbs on their trails, just fewer. 

No data- Our laws allow faster and more powerful emtbs than are being ridden now, and are allowed in Europe, our only population they can reference. The Imba study was with a (now) older 250w emtb, it's hardly indicitive of what the impact of a 750w emtb will be 5 years from now. 

They really don't care that ebikes can't roost, or that your wife can ride with you, or you can keep up with your buddies. And, contrary to what the industry would like, they don't consider them bicycles, they consider them a new class of vehicle, and to be clear, they aren't necessarily anti - ebike, most think they are really cool, just not appropriate everywhere.

Claiming they are just bikes and exactly the same will never gain emtbs more access, only providing solutions to the above concerns will.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Harryman said:


> Having been involved with the discussions regarding ebikes with various land managers, here are their concerns:
> 
> Distance - Many/most emters report riding @ twice as far in the same amount of time, which in many urban interface type trail systems, means more laps of the same loops. It's effectively double the impact per rider.
> 
> ...


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Gutch said:


> Good post. Do the land managers you talk to are solely in Colorado? I know the issues would be the same elsewhere, but just curious. Also, do they see any positives economically for the community? I agree 750w is way overboard.


I think the bike industry screwed the pooch by not going with the EU standards, but that's their problem, not mine.

Colorado/Colorado Springs area specifically. Local land managers are embracing ebikes on bike paths, and there is a company or two starting to do tours on them, since we have a partial tourist economy and cool parks to pedal through. There will likely be more, but like jeep tours, I don't expect them to contribute alone in a significant way. We just started a bike share program, which will add ebikes at some point in the future. If they survive lol. Bikes and outdoor rec are big business here though, and growing quickly.


----------



## raisingarizona (Feb 3, 2009)

life behind bars said:


> Imo it starts with enforcement, not having enforcement sets a poor precedent and invites misuse by any user groups.


Enforcement costs $, who's going to pay for that?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

raisingarizona said:


> Enforcement costs $, who's going to pay for that?


The recipient of the citations. It's already been covered. Photographic and video evidence is enough to convict.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> The recipient of the citations. It's already been covered. Photographic and video evidence is enough to convict.


How many tickets does a LEO have to hand out for out of compliance ebikes to cover his salary, vehicle, and overhead per day? At least around here since rangers aren't peace officers, they can't cite anyone, so you need a cop. The only way ebikers could ever raise enough money to pay for enforcement would be via an anual fee or use tax, like a OHV sticker program. Not the easiest thing to get buy in on, or passed.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Harryman said:


> How many tickets does a LEO have to hand out for out of compliance ebikes to cover his salary, vehicle, and overhead per day? At least around here since rangers aren't peace officers, they can't cite anyone, so you need a cop. The only way ebikers could ever raise enough money to pay for enforcement would be via an anual fee or use tax, like a OHV sticker program. Not the easiest thing to get buy in on, or passed.


It does not have to be done full time. How many citations does a law enforcement officer have to hand out to motorists to cover his/her salary? This argument is a red herring.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> It does not have to be done full time. How many citations does a law enforcement officer have to hand out to motorists to cover his/her salary? This argument is a red herring.


You said the recipent of the citations were going to cover the cost of enforcement, please do the math for me, and show me how that works out.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Harryman said:


> You said the recipent of the citations were going to cover the cost of enforcement, please do the math for me, and show me how that works out.


I already posted this but here it is again. Photos and video submitted by volunteers costs nothing and is more than enough to get convictions. How much does that cost?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Posted by volunteers, gives the right to citation and fine someone? If that’s the case, I’ll hang out at my local downhill and fine all the big brahs going waaay to fast on a normal SS bike, oh, the horror and no motor!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Posted by volunteers, gives the right to citation and fine someone? If that's the case, I'll hang out at my local downhill and fine all the big brahs going waaay to fast on a normal SS bike, oh, the horror and no motor!


You have reading comprehension difficulties.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

And you my friend have in-security issues. If Ebikes scare you that much, I wish I had your worries. Rather, larger things to worry about.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> And you my friend have in-security issues. If Ebikes scare you that much, I wish I had your worries. Rather, larger things to worry about.


Facepalm.


----------



## 1-track-mind (Aug 11, 2005)

I would quit riding my e-bike if someone stole it.


----------



## Bjorn2Ride (Apr 4, 2017)

There is zero enforcement. Zealous anti-eBikers tend to be the kind of guys who get killed and eaten by mountain lions, so they aren't a real threat. If anyone ever approaches me, I'll just speak Spanish. This issue will be settled over time as more and more people buy eMTBs. The folks who think they "own" public land because of years of advocacy and trail maintenance are fighting a misguided battle.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> There is zero enforcement. Zealous anti-eBikers tend to be the kind of guys who get killed and eaten by mountain lions, so they aren't a real threat. If anyone ever approaches me, I'll just speak Spanish. This issue will be settled over time as more and more people buy eMTBs. The folks who think they "own" public land because of years of advocacy and trail maintenance are fighting a misguided battle.


 Did you even read the OP? By laws on agreements of non motorized access. How about just follow the laws in place? Buy an e bike I can ride it anywhere? Let me know how that works out for you. This had nothing to do with the trail workers but motorized access laws, ugh.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> There is zero enforcement. Zealous anti-eBikers tend to be the kind of guys who get killed and eaten by mountain lions, so they aren't a real threat. If anyone ever approaches me, I'll just speak Spanish. This issue will be settled over time as more and more people buy eMTBs. The folks who think they "own" public land because of years of advocacy and trail maintenance are fighting a misguided battle.


Please come ride here and find out about "zero enforcement" by anti ebike zealots.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

"So here's my question: would having this information stop you from riding your e-bike on Summit County trails? Or would it be irrelevant?"

Walt, I read your post and I want to share my personal experience. My experience involves mountain bikers ignoring requests and signage to stay off of trails that were not legally open to the public. Signage was sporadic. Poorly signed. Every time a sign was placed it would be torn down and thrown far within a week, and more likely a day or two. Land owner contacted TV news stations and newspapers to educate the public that these trails are not open to the public, on numerous occasions. Land owner spent numerous hours, weekdays, weekends, mornings, evenings, stopping trespassers and informing them to turn around. Land owner went back to the media to inform the public that citations would be given out if this behavior did not cease.

After over a year it became very evident that the threat of being fined was not a deterrent. Education of the public, from on the spot direct contact, to numerous TV and newspaper stories, may have convinced some to abide the rules but there were still hundreds, thousands that for what ever reason did not feel the rules applied to them.

The land owner had hoped that the handful or two riders that received citations over a years time would pass on their experience and would be enough to stop the behavior. Riders would hear about some unlucky rider, people would chill, ride other areas for a while until the "heat" died down, then business as usual.

What effectively put an end to blatant disrespect of authority and failure to abide by the rules was the arrest, citation and confiscation of the bikes of 52 riders within 36 hours.

Walt is looking for an answer that deals with human behavior, not so much with a mode of transportation. Yes, I'm aware Walt mentioned he is looking for ideas that do not involve the sheriff or citations. I am also aware of human behavior. 

Walt also mentions a situation that should concern all riders, human powered or electric motorized. When riders choose to ignore rules and laws, these are acts of disrespect. Disrespect to the land manager. Disrespect to everyone that chooses to abide by the rules and laws. Disrespect to the people that try to work with the land managers to keep the privilege of existing trail access and create more trail access for all residents and visitors of their town, city. 

The people with this sense of entitlement don't care if their actions have any affect on anyone as long as their actions do not negatively affect them. So when the land manager gets called out by a governing board, a State of federal agency, a group of private land owners that collectively have the power to allow or deny the public access to many miles of trails, when they get called out and publicly accused of not doing their job, and this verbal assault and humiliation is due to the behavior of riders, one can imagine the extra work and effort that is required to hold onto what access is available. 

There are instances where a land manager may believe that ignoring the demands to do their job will result in one of their responsibilities (managing a trail user group) being lifted from them (banning a trail user group) will result in a much easier workload. A politely worded letter acknowledging their situation along with an offer to assist in any way possible because it would suck to have to deal with a lawsuit, especially if one was dreaming how they could do the least amount of work until they were eligible for retirement.

Walt already knows this but for some of you in a situation like this, when your access is being challenged, you must step up. You must not allow others to make irresponsible policies. Whenever decision makers threaten any shared trail user group, if you are a shared trail user, you better get informed and you better get ready to fight. Hey, I don't like running over and wearing a face full of horse$hit but banning access to an entire user group must be the last option of consideration after all others have been attempted in good faith.

What I hope the electric motorized riders take from this is there is nothing meaningful to be gained arguing on the internet, trying to convince anyone on a forum, hell, just trying to have an intelligent conversation, to try to have mountain bikers agree with you. Whether it is about watts, speed limits, benefits to disabled folks, claims of similar negative effects to habitat as mountain bikes. 

What the manufacturers failed to do, which in turn has created or at least nurtured some of the animosity towards electric motorized bikers, they failed to earn the respect from the multitude of land managers. An effort to understand the challenges and issues that land managers would face and develop solutions to address and mitigate these issues would have been the responsible thing to do. Motivated by profit and having influence over the national mountain biking advocacy organization, manufacturers invested in a marketing strategy that appealed to emotions, made claims that equate electric motor output to human effort and lastly thought they could take the efforts, relationships, trust and earned respect from the mountain biking advocacy community and give it away as some kind of bonus gift with each electric motorized bicycle they sold.

I don't have an issue with people that want to ride electric motorized bikes. I don't care why someone wants to ride one and no one has to defend their choice to ride one. My issue is with the manufacturers thinking the benefits of hard earned mountain biking advocacy efforts were theirs for the taking. 

I only speak for myself, and I'm not directing my opinion to any specific person, but it doesn't matter if someone thinks you are lazy, thinks you may lack skills and get in over your head, thinks you are definitely going to hod rod your motor, thinks you are less of a person for passing their ass going uphill. What matters is what the decision making land managers think. I was partying and bbq'in last night with friends, and one asked me if I was aware of all the division between mountain bikers and electric motorized bicyclists. I asked what happened, was there a brawl at the trailhead? He said he was talking about the interaction on mtbr. He said he never has met one yet on the land he manages.

Sorry Walt, I should have stopped before making this incedible margarita. 

Good luck Walt.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> "So here's my question: would having this information stop you from riding your e-bike on Summit County trails? Or would it be irrelevant?"
> 
> &#8230;
> 
> ...


That was an incredibly good margarita, thanks.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Boulder Pilot said:


> "Snip"


As someone who wades in the advocacy trenches almost every day, I can attest that BP speaks the truth. :thumbsup:


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Boulder Pilot, I think that is probably eventually (mass citations/fines/bike seizures) the only way people will change their behavior.

We've already had some small signs removed/destroyed.

Sigh.

-Walt


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> What matters is what the decision making land managers think.


The most important thing stated.

when users on this site say things like "eBikes are coming, get used to it" I cringe. if the Land Mangers agree to them, great, if they don't, it is the fault of those who think they are inevitable and coming and nothing can stop them.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Klurejr said:


> The most important thing stated.
> 
> when users on this site say things like "eBikes are coming, get used to it" I cringe. if the Land Mangers agree to them, great, if they don't, it is the fault of those who think they are inevitable and coming and nothing can stop them.


And the people saying that likely don't know any land managers.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> There is zero enforcement. Zealous *anti-eBikers tend to be the kind of guys who get killed and eaten by mountain lions*, so they aren't a real threat. If anyone ever approaches me, I'll just speak Spanish. This issue will be settled over time as more and more people buy eMTBs. The folks who think they "own" public land because of years of advocacy and trail maintenance are fighting a misguided battle.


This is crassly insensitive considering what just happened here in WA.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Given the complete lack of reading comprehension displayed in this thread, I have no doubt that signs would be a waste of resources.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> The folks who think they "own" public land because of years of advocacy and trail maintenance are fighting a misguided battle.


Seriously? I see it paying dividends every day I don't see motorized vehicles on the trails. The rest of your post should have gotten you banned.


----------

