# Has anyone here actually received a ticket for riding an e-bike on a trail?



## howardv (Nov 11, 2016)

Just curious. What happened? How much was the fine? Did you try to fight it in court?

One Ranger said they don't stop e-bikes because they can't prove the motor was actually being used. So an e-bike is perfectly legal if you don't use the motor. So even if you do get a ticket, it would be easily dismissed in court. 

So it just made me wonder if anyone has actually received a citation in the U.S.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

howardv said:


> So an e-bike is perfectly legal if you don't use the motor. So even if you do get a ticket, it would be easily dismissed in court.


Since you're so sure about this why don't you go be the test case?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

And, poaching is still poaching.


----------



## Larsey (Jan 14, 2004)

Class 1 e-bikes share the same laws on State trails as bicycles in Minnesota. So no help here.


----------



## howardv (Nov 11, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Since you're so sure about this why don't you go be the test case?


I'm not so sure. However, this is my understanding. This is a discussion board. Let's discuss.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

howardv said:


> I'm not so sure. However, this is my understanding. This is a discussion board. Let's discuss.


Test it out so we really have something to discuss. Go big or go home.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

howardv said:


> I'm not so sure. However, this is my understanding. This is a discussion board. Let's discuss.


It's already been discussed. An ebike is not perfectly legal if you don't use the motor.

You're taking about poaching trails and that is not allowed on this site.


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

About a year ago I took my ebike to skeggs in Northern CA. Was riding and everything was fine. Crashed on a trail and ripped my throttle cable. Had to pedal/walk back uphill to the parking lot. Ranger Rick saw me and yelled at me to come over and looked like he was gonna give me a ticket. But since I was walking my bike and had dirt on me he just told me I couldn't ride ebikes there and I left. Im not sure if he felt bad since I crashed(I was perfectly Ok) or since I was actually walking the bike back. So I almost got a ticket for riding my ebike once. 

Thinking about it Im guessing he was waiting for me. I suspect someone reported me and he was hoping to catch me on the way out. I just go to Santa Cruz if I'm gonna ebike nowadays. Much better riding there.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Phantastic79 said:


> About a year ago I took my ebike to skeggs in Northern CA. Was riding and everything was fine. Crashed on a trail and ripped my throttle cable. Had to pedal/walk back uphill to the parking lot. Ranger Rick saw me and yelled at me to come over and looked like he was gonna give me a ticket. But since I was walking my bike and had dirt on me he just told me I couldn't ride ebikes there and I left. Im not sure if he felt bad since I crashed(I was perfectly Ok) or since I was actually walking the bike back. So I almost got a ticket for riding my ebike once.
> 
> Thinking about it Im guessing he was waiting for me. I suspect someone reported me and he was hoping to catch me on the way out. I just go to Santa Cruz if I'm gonna ebike nowadays. Much better riding there.


Throttle cable? So you were riding a class 2 ebike?

Glad you weren't hurt.


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

It may be a class 3. But yeah...not supposed to ride it there so I don't. This was in the days when I was ignorant of the rules. Nowadays I don't want to bother with getting ticketed. Last I heard about Skeegs it is one of the few places that actually has ranger Rick with a radar gun giving out like $400 speeding tickets to mountain bikers.


----------



## howardv (Nov 11, 2016)

I'm glad you were Ok too. It's my understanding that only Class 2 bikes have throttles, not Class 3, but I could be wrong. And I'm talking about fully manufactured e-bikes as built you own can be anything you want.

A couple of rangers saw me on my e-bike a few weeks ago, but he just waved to say hello. Seemed they didn't care. I see lots of e-bikes in my area. 

I have never run into anyone who has been ticketed. So I was wondering if anyone has actually received one.


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

howardv said:


> I'm glad you were Ok too. It's my understanding that only Class 2 bikes have throttles, not Class 3, but I could be wrong. And I'm talking about fully manufactured e-bikes as built you own can be anything you want.
> 
> A couple of rangers saw me on my e-bike a few weeks ago, but he just waved to say hello. Seemed they didn't care. I see lots of e-bikes in my area.
> 
> I have never run into anyone who has been ticketed. So I was wondering if anyone has actually received one.


Oh...in regards to your actual question. I have seen dozens of rangers and not counting the guy that wanted to ticket me, there have only been 2 instances of rangers even noticing I was on and electric bike. And in both cases they thought it was cool and didn't mind.

The area that I almost got ticketed is notorious for having Gustapo rangers which is not typical.

I have never heard of anyone getting ticketed in my area but you shouldn't poach. Ride where it's legal.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

I have gotten some high fives and lots of wow that's really cool !


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

rider95 said:


> I have gotten some high fives and lots of wow that's really cool !


sure


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

rider95 said:


> I have gotten some high fives and lots of wow that's really cool !


Let me guess, all the rangers were just dying to take it for a spin, right?


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

mbmb65 said:


> Let me guess, all the rangers were just dying to take it for a spin, right?


No but they did agree to let e bikes on the mt bike trails on city park land that was over a year ago not one complaint or a e bike related iuess so far ,and now a nearby city has opened there mt bike trails to e bikes.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> No but they did agree to let e bikes on the mt bike trails on city park land that was over a year ago not one complaint or a e bike related iuess so far ,and now a nearby city has opened there mt bike trails to e bikes.


Where is this e-motorbiking paradise?


----------



## howardv (Nov 11, 2016)

I've had nothing but pleasant interactions with others while I was on my e-bike. The handful of negative Nellie's on this board is not a reflection of the folks I meet on the mountain.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Where I am, there are zero (yes, zero) rangers. In theory if you murdered someone on the trail or something, the sheriff would be the LEO involved. 

If things go badly or people behave poorly (this happened to a particular trail people were bombing down that's popular with hikers/families last year) the land managers just close the trail to bikes. Of course, for those folks who are the big jerks who got the trail closed in the first place, that presumably not much of a deterrent, since, once again... no rangers. 

E-bikes will gain (or lose) access based on the impression they make with LMs and the general public. If it's mostly old codgers puttering around (this is 99% of what I see) they will slowly but surely gain access all over. If they become vehicles for 20-something shredders to use to self-shuttle every trail at the city park in their armor and fullface... that will end it fast. 

It will be interesting to see what happens. 

-Walt


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

Walt said:


> Where I am, there are zero (yes, zero) rangers. In theory if you murdered someone on the trail or something, the sheriff would be the LEO involved.
> 
> If things go badly or people behave poorly (this happened to a particular trail people were bombing down that's popular with hikers/families last year) the land managers just close the trail to bikes. Of course, for those folks who are the big jerks who got the trail closed in the first place, that presumably not much of a deterrent, since, once again... no rangers.
> 
> ...


100% agree. In my opinion we won't see a lot of this(ebike terrorists) in many places. But inevitably there will be some places in which some people ruin it for everyone else. I think this may apply to regular bicycles and ebikes.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Phantastic79 said:


> 100% agree. In my opinion we won't see a lot of this(ebike terrorists) in many places. But inevitably there will be some places in which some people ruin it for everyone else. I think this may apply to regular bicycles and ebikes.


E-bikes do make it *easier* to be a jerk, in that you can get to the top of things easily and then bomb back down. Honestly that's my biggest concern, not the 2-way traffic thing (I think more directional trails would be a good thing anyway, so if e-bikes push us that way, that's probably good). Imagine if every trail had a chairlift to the top...

If people start modding/hacking/DIYing stuff, of course that's the end of it as well, but if anything is a threat to e-bikes long term success/access, I'd say it's people self-shuttling on MUTs that they'd normally be too lazy to tackle riding up.

-Walt


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

So far in my neck of the woods I've seen a decent amount of ebikes and 0 jerks. I really hope it stays that way.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Phantastic79 said:


> So far in my neck of the woods I've seen a decent amount of ebikes and 0 jerks. I really hope it stays that way.


Yes, it's pretty much 100% old guys right now. Old guys who ride bikes, in my experience, are basically never jerks on the trail.

The e-bike marketing all shows young guys shredding, but so does the marketing for, like, Viagra and adult diapers. I don't see younger (under about 50) people riding e-bikes on dirt, at least thus far.

-Walt


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

"The e-bike marketing all shows young guys shredding"

Seriously Walt? All bike marketing is about young guys shredding because that is what they do motor or not and sales is sales to the bike industry. In fact e bikes don't have to use their motor on the shreddable sections as gravity does the work. 

And yes, I am that old guy who rides eBikes, and keeps both wheels on the ground for the most part, and am not a jerk on the trail to any other users because I have years of experience interacting with people and animals on trails. I do do damage on the climbs though, but in a different way than it sounds like, not fast, but sure. Too much fun and that is what I ride bikes for.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Bigwheel said:


> Seriously Walt? All bike marketing is about young guys shredding because that is what they do motor or not and sales is sales to the bike industry. In fact e bikes don't have to use their motor on the shreddable sections as gravity does the work.


Yes, I went to considerable pains to point that out in my next sentence. Did you not read that part?

If the shred crew (because of marketing or not) decides e-bikes are their thing, access is basically over. There are some kids down the street here on the N. Shore who have DH rigs with 3kw motors on them who ride the Pupukea trails. They are a sort of holy terror on those things, but that's how HI works and other than a few tourists at the pillbox nobody is out there, so nobody cares. Bring them to the mainland on a MUT and you'd get e-bikes banned everywhere in a hot second.

To be fair, if we all locked up our rear wheels around every corner like in the ads, we'd get all bikes banned everywhere. MTB advertising has always baffled me.

-Walt


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Walt said:


> Yes, it's pretty much 100% old guys right now. Old guys who ride bikes, in my experience, are basically never jerks on the trail.
> 
> The e-bike marketing all shows young guys shredding, but so does the marketing for, like, Viagra and adult diapers. I don't see younger (under about 50) people riding e-bikes on dirt, at least thus far.
> 
> -Walt


Great, so now we'll see ads with an old guy sporting a hard-on poking his diaper while riding an ebike.

Hopefully the price of ebikes will remain high, that should keep them more in the hands of older riders. I worry that we'll see more and more cheap emtbs and they'll become a big fad, like the hover-boards of a few years ago. If that happens, hopefully they'll implode just like the hover-board trend did before they wreck it for all of us. Actually, I guess they more exploded than imploded. I'm not worried if it's just a few older and/or disabled riders on them, but if they become common, it's going to change the mtb trail riding experience around me.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Phantastic79 said:


> So far in my neck of the woods I've seen a decent amount of ebikes and 0 jerks. I really hope it stays that way.


Must be nice.....we have Ebike rider that has no regard for other trail users on our local trail. Running full boost, not yielding to other user groups and blowing by everyone whether it's safe or not. When confronted, his excuse is that he wants to go fast all the time. Yes, these are MUT's with lots of hikers and equestrians. It also doesn't help that ebikes aren't allowed in the park to begin with.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Walt said:


> If the shred crew (because of marketing or not) decides e-bikes are their thing, access is basically over. There are some kids down the street here on the N. Shore who have DH rigs with 3kw motors on them who ride the Pupukea trails. They are a sort of holy terror on those things, but that's how HI works and other than a few tourists at the pillbox nobody is out there, so nobody cares. Bring them to the mainland on a MUT and you'd get e-bikes banned everywhere in a hot second.
> -Walt


This scenario is basically what drives the fear of most of those on this site who oppose eBikes.

This scenario is also ignored by the eBike advocates who think the ONLY people who ride eBikes are nice old guys and nice handicapped guys.

There will always be good with the bad. But for the sake of peaceful discussion on this site I would ask the following:

eBike Opposers - stop assuming that everyone who posts about eBikes here want to run 3k watt DH rigs everywhere like maniacs.

eBike supports - stop putting your heads in the sand and recognize that there is valid fear from other users.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Klurejr said:


> This scenario is basically what drives the fear of most of those on this site who oppose eBikes.
> 
> This scenario is also ignored by the eBike advocates who think the ONLY people who ride eBikes are nice old guys and nice handicapped guys.
> 
> ...


That seems logical.


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> eBike supports - stop putting your heads in the sand and recognize that there is valid fear from other users.


'valid' fears which are entirely rhetorical. It's in their heads, not on the trails. It's entirely an imagined fear of something unknown to them. The fear is more to be found in the fear itself, and the prejudiced approach some are taking based on thin air.

the world went through all of this same EXACT fearmongering rhetoric with the paved/gravel city trails around the world. Fears about overpowered DIY rigs. Fears about people riding their bikes as fast as roadies, instead of half their speed. People arguing nonsensicalness of 'it's got a motor it's a motorsickel' lol - sorry that is not an argument, says nothing about reality, trail impact, user access, etc. Well it's largely been settled. I see 1/4 of the city MUT users on ebikes today, and it has worked out marvelously. I think they're maybe a bit safer because I'm not having to slow down as much to pass them on my road bike (non-e), and don't mind when they pass me. It has driven up commuter traffic on the MUT which has alleviated a fair amount of motor vehicle traffic and motivated mega spending by the cities on more and more cycling infrastructure. It's been a 12 year experiment and generally problem-free, an advance of technology making the bicycle even more of a solution than it was before.

The natural surface trails will be likewise, and it's already been settled and worked out marvelously in the EU. It has no affect on other users, MTBers or hikers enjoyment of the trails because it is still just mountain biking, looks, sounds, feels the same, even as measured by the MBA studies. Any rowdy trail destructiveness is on par with the rowdy trail destructiveness found by non-e mountain bikers and hikers - a fringe to be dealt with on its own merits just as any ugliness is dealt with by other users.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BCsaltchucker said:


> 'valid' fears which are entirely rhetorical. It's in their heads, not on the trails. It's entirely an imagined fear of something unknown to them. The fear is more to be found in the fear itself, and the prejudiced approach some are taking based on thin air.
> 
> the world went through all of this same EXACT fearmongering rhetoric with the paved/gravel city trails around the world. Fears about overpowered DIY rigs. Fears about people riding their bikes as fast as roadies, instead of half their speed. People arguing nonsensicalness of 'it's got a motor it's a motorsickel' lol - sorry that is not an argument, says nothing about reality, trail impact, user access, etc. Well it's largely been settled. I see 1/4 of the city MUT users on ebikes today, and it has worked out marvelously. I think they're maybe a bit safer because I'm not having to slow down as much to pass them on my road bike (non-e), and don't mind when they pass me. It has driven up commuter traffic on the MUT which has alleviated a fair amount of motor vehicle traffic and motivated mega spending by the cities on more and more cycling infrastructure. It's been a 12 year experiment and generally problem-free, an advance of technology making the bicycle even more of a solution than it was before.
> 
> The natural surface trails will be likewise, and it's already been settled and worked out marvelously in the EU. It has no affect on other users, MTBers or hikers enjoyment of the trails because it is still just mountain biking, looks, sounds, feels the same, even as measured by the MBA studies. Any rowdy trail destructiveness is on par with the rowdy trail destructiveness found by non-e mountain bikers and hikers - a fringe to be dealt with on its own merits just as any ugliness is dealt with by other users.


This isn't the E.U.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

The few ebikes I've seen on singletrack around here have been of this variety.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/216740222211217/permalink/260440881174484/

I know there are few levos and such roaming around, as well, neither are legal, but there isn't any enforcement aside from peer pressure. The very few rangers in the various park systemes we have aren't LEO's and can't ticket. If this was EU, I'd agree with you, I wouldn't forsee much in the way of behavioral problems beyond the usual asshats we already see. Unfortunately, it's the wild west around here for ebikes, anything goes, and faster is better.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

BCsaltchucker said:


> 'valid' fears which are entirely rhetorical. It's in their heads, not on the trails. It's entirely an imagined fear of something unknown to them. The fear is more to be found in the fear itself, and the prejudiced approach some are taking based on thin air.
> 
> the world went through all of this same EXACT fearmongering rhetoric with the paved/gravel city trails around the world. Fears about overpowered DIY rigs. Fears about people riding their bikes as fast as roadies, instead of half their speed. People arguing nonsensicalness of 'it's got a motor it's a motorsickel' lol - sorry that is not an argument, says nothing about reality, trail impact, user access, etc. Well it's largely been settled. I see 1/4 of the city MUT users on ebikes today, and it has worked out marvelously. I think they're maybe a bit safer because I'm not having to slow down as much to pass them on my road bike (non-e), and don't mind when they pass me. It has driven up commuter traffic on the MUT which has alleviated a fair amount of motor vehicle traffic and motivated mega spending by the cities on more and more cycling infrastructure. It's been a 12 year experiment and generally problem-free, an advance of technology making the bicycle even more of a solution than it was before.
> 
> The natural surface trails will be likewise, and it's already been settled and worked out marvelously in the EU. It has no affect on other users, MTBers or hikers enjoyment of the trails because it is still just mountain biking, looks, sounds, feels the same, even as measured by the MBA studies. Any rowdy trail destructiveness is on par with the rowdy trail destructiveness found by non-e mountain bikers and hikers - a fringe to be dealt with on its own merits just as any ugliness is dealt with by other users.


So you are NOT going to take my advice and will still stick your head in the sand and claim "it works in the EU" and forget that how trail access works in the US is a vastly different process then how it works in Europe.

Your inability to be reasonable and consider the valid fears that many very smart and experienced trail advocates have pointed out completely removes any credibility you think you might have with your posts.

Feel free to stop posting on this site if you will not be reasonable.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

BCsaltchucker said:


> 'valid' fears which are entirely rhetorical. It's in their heads, not on the trails. It's entirely an imagined fear of something unknown to them. The fear is more to be found in the fear itself, and the prejudiced approach some are taking based on thin air.
> 
> the world went through all of this same EXACT fearmongering rhetoric with the paved/gravel city trails around the world. Fears about overpowered DIY rigs. Fears about people riding their bikes as fast as roadies, instead of half their speed. People arguing nonsensicalness of 'it's got a motor it's a motorsickel' lol - sorry that is not an argument, says nothing about reality, trail impact, user access, etc. Well it's largely been settled. I see 1/4 of the city MUT users on ebikes today, and it has worked out marvelously. I think they're maybe a bit safer because I'm not having to slow down as much to pass them on my road bike (non-e), and don't mind when they pass me. It has driven up commuter traffic on the MUT which has alleviated a fair amount of motor vehicle traffic and motivated mega spending by the cities on more and more cycling infrastructure. It's been a 12 year experiment and generally problem-free, an advance of technology making the bicycle even more of a solution than it was before.
> 
> The natural surface trails will be likewise, and it's already been settled and worked out marvelously in the EU. It has no affect on other users, MTBers or hikers enjoyment of the trails because it is still just mountain biking, looks, sounds, feels the same, even as measured by the MBA studies. Any rowdy trail destructiveness is on par with the rowdy trail destructiveness found by non-e mountain bikers and hikers - a fringe to be dealt with on its own merits just as any ugliness is dealt with by other users.


Head, meet sand. Stick it in deep. Damn.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

And despite their claims, this is the real issue with ebikes on mtbr.com; the ebikers (not all of them but there always seems to be at least one around), not the mtb'ers.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

chazpat said:


> Hopefully the price of ebikes will remain high, that should keep them more in the hands of older riders.


Walmart will be selling $900 e-bikes in a few years. Prices will only come down. 10 years from now they'll be $400.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

vikb said:


> Walmart will be selling $900 e-bikes in a few years. Prices will only come down. 10 years from now they'll be $400.


My local Costco has these for $1000....

https://www.costco.com/Jetson-Adventure-Electric-Bike-.product.100370011.html


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

vikb said:


> Walmart will be selling $900 e-bikes in a few years. Prices will only come down. 10 years from now they'll be $400.


And like most bicycle purchases they will be taking up space in the garage after being ridden less that a handful of times.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> This scenario is basically what drives the fear of most of those on this site who oppose eBikes.
> 
> This scenario is also ignored by the eBike advocates who think the ONLY people who ride eBikes are nice old guys and nice handicapped guys.
> 
> ...


Using the words "valid fear" when describing a situation that has not yet happened to you or become common is horribly ironic. You do know what a slippery slope fallacy is, yes?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Using the words "valid fear" when describing a situation that has not yet happened to you or become common is horribly ironic. You do know what a slippery slope fallacy is, yes?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


This could be said of the reasoning made by the e-motor crowd as well. It cuts two ways.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Oh, it absolutely does. However, to use the term valid to describe a blatant fallacy struck me as horribly ironic.

Herein lies one of the major issues with using fallacies. If you accept a fallacy arguing for one position how can you refute a similar fallacy arguing the counter. As a general rule fallacies cannot be refuted expect by pointing out that they are in fact fallacies. I equate them to dividing by zero. If you do it and obfuscate it enough you can prove any number of incorrect things. 


life behind bars said:


> This could be said of the reasoning made by the e-motor crowd as well. It cuts two ways.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Why am I confused? Is this a fallacy?


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

vikb said:


> Walmart will be selling $900 e-bikes in a few years. Prices will only come down. 10 years from now they'll be $400.


Too late, they had IZip's like this with SLA Batteries on the floor 10 years ago. 








And sorry Walt, didn't see that as a disclaimer that the industry puts as much ememphasis on the shred by dino bikes, just something about young guys who ride in the dirt and something about Viagra and Diapers. Whatever, you the man! Ride on.

Nice ride today nonetheless. Love me some Forest Bathing and 24 mile single track rides, even ran across some Japanese hikers getting their bath on also. And a mini car show on the way home.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Using the words "valid fear" when describing a situation that has not yet happened to you or become common is horribly ironic. You do know what a slippery slope fallacy is, yes?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Ah Tucker, read back through this and try again.

val·id
ˈvaləd/Submit
adjective
(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

So a "basis in logic" or "reasonable" is open to opinion, unlike a "fact". So in Kluerejr's opinion, it is a "valid fear". And that's not even getting into the meaning of "fear". Who's to say if someone's fear is valid to that person?

And in regards to slippery slope, likewise it is open to someone's opinion. True, none of us have a crystal ball but, since I think this started from my post and my fears and the trails I ride, which I'm *guessing* you haven't, I think I'm in a better position to form an opinion on what would happen to *my* experience if they become common (and that's pretty loosely defined and specific to me) on the trails *I* ride. That may be a completely invalid fear to you based on your own experience, but it is not to me.

So if someone is truly interested in getting ebikes on trails, they would be better served to work to alleviate mtb'ers' fears rather than merely arguing. But it is my understanding that you really are not interested in ebikes.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

It's a valid fear that pedelecs will lead to nuclear war and total annihilation of the Earth. It hasn't happened in Europe but who owns the most nukes? US. Pedelec supporters who don't worship me for my very prudent and grounded fear need to burned at the stake.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Linktung said:


> It hasn't happened in Europe...


Europe has very different land access situations and e-bikes will not be limited to pedelecs or a specific class. There is nobody who is going to validate that e-bikes meet a specific class or have not been hacked with higher power/throttle, etc... Once you let motors on the trails there will be all sorts of them on the trail.

Like Walt points out access is going to be 1) only human powered bikes, 2) human powered + electric motor bikes or 3) no bikes at all.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Those poor Europeans, no internet access for purchasing a motor, and soldiers at every trailhead. We are free here in the US which is why oppression is so important.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Then maybe you should work to get the US regulations for ebikes to match the European regulations. Or do you not like that part of the "it works in Europe"?


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

chazpat said:


> Then maybe you should work to get the US regulations for ebikes to match the European regulations. Or do you not like that part of the "it works in Europe"?


Why would you assume I don't work for regulation change? What do you suggest I do?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Don’t you guys drink coffee before arguing?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Linktung said:


> Why would you assume I don't work for regulation change? What do you suggest I do?


Because you have made zero mention of it, you just post that it works in Europe so we should assume it will work here, despite US regs being different.

So HAVE you worked to change the regulations? If so, why are you asking me would you should do? Surely you can figure that out if you really want to. And you never answered me when I asked if you have any commercial ties to ebikes.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Don't you guys drink coffee before arguing?


I'm drinking it now!


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> Ah Tucker, read back through this and try again.
> 
> val·id
> ˈvaləd/Submit
> ...


Seperating the words out does not change the irony. You're simply attempting to alter context, another fallacy. Furthermore, hiding behind the it's an opinion so it can't be wrong mantra is yet another fallacy. It's still horribly ironic and poor choice of words.

Thanks for providing a working example for the "divide by zero" descriptor. I really appreciate it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

chazpat said:


> Because you have made zero mention of it, you just post that it works in Europe so we should assume it will work here, despite US regs being different.
> 
> So HAVE you worked to change the regulations? If so, why are you asking me would you should do? Surely you can figure that out if you really want to. And you never answered me when I asked if you have any commercial ties to ebikes.


Yes....just curious....I am a child laborer in a bafang factory in China who wants to see more orders come in but fears pedelecs in US will ultimately destroy the Earth through nuclear war. It is an internal conflict that i must face everyday.


----------



## PierreR (May 17, 2012)

The park service for the Cuyahoga National Park (tow path) in Ohio USA are very aggressive for issuing citations even if you don't have your battery. You can apply for a special disability permit to allow you to ride. Many other good options in the area. 

I talked my way out of a ticket once. At 11:00 PM a few blocks from my house on pavement. I just installed a 2000 lumen head lamp and did not have it adjusted. Cop blinked me the brights but I could not move the headlamp. Stopped me did sobriety test and wanted to ticket me for no license plate. Could not get him to listen to the fact that it was a bicycle and I had just installed the lamp and was trying it out. Eventually got him to acquiesce but he was not comfortable with it.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

Walt said:


> Where I am, there are zero (yes, zero) rangers. In theory if you murdered someone on the trail or something, the sheriff would be the LEO involved.
> 
> If things go badly or people behave poorly (this happened to a particular trail people were bombing down that's popular with hikers/families last year) the land managers just close the trail to bikes. Of course, for those folks who are the big jerks who got the trail closed in the first place, that presumably not much of a deterrent, since, once again... no rangers.
> 
> ...


You nailed it, Walt. Those are my fears exactly. Once the stigma against ebikes is gone for the "Red Bull Rampage" style riders every singletrack trail becomes a potential self-shuttle shredfest. That, and other trail users have to deal with riders coming at them at 10+ mph from two directions. With no budget for enforcement, land managers will respond to complaints by closing trails.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Seperating the words out does not change the irony. You're simply attempting to alter context, another fallacy. Furthermore, hiding behind the it's an opinion so it can't be wrong mantra is yet another fallacy. It's still horribly ironic and poor choice of words.
> 
> Thanks for providing a working example for the "divide by zero" descriptor. I really appreciate it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


And thank you for demonstrating why ebikes should not be on this site, they just draw in people more interested in flat out arguing than actually having a meaningful discussion. I'm sure you could find another site that would better meet your needs since that is what you constantly demonstrate you are interested in, not bicycles.

I'm not attempting to alter anything, just pointing out that the subject matter is a lot more complicated than you care to delve into. You're not interested in understanding these fears, you just want pick apart someone's methods rather than their actual points. It's just a sparring match to you, no interest in making any progress in the issues.

I'm dropping out of this thread, tired of wasting time with these stupid arguments. Go ahead and post more and consider it "a win".


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

veloborealis said:


> You nailed it, Walt. Those are my fears exactly. Once the stigma against ebikes is gone for the "Red Bull Rampage" style riders every singletrack trail becomes a potential self-shuttle shredfest. That, and other trail users have to deal with riders coming at them at 10+ mph from two directions. With no budget for enforcement, land managers will respond to complaints by closing trails.


And when closing a trail to bikes doesn't work, land managers will respond with nukes. Pro-assist is just a code name for anti-earth-nihilist.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> And thank you for demonstrating why ebikes should not be on this site, they just draw in people more interested in flat out arguing than actually having a meaningful discussion. I'm sure you could find another site that would better meet your needs since that is what you constantly demonstrate you are interested in, not bicycles.
> 
> I'm not attempting to alter anything, just pointing out that the subject matter is a lot more complicated than you care to delve into. You're not interested in understanding these fears, you just want pick apart someone's methods rather than their actual points. It's just a sparring match to you, no interest in making any progress in the issues.
> 
> I'm dropping out of this thread, tired of wasting time with these stupid arguments. Go ahead and post more and consider it "a win".


I've already stated my purpose, in a conversation you were involved in, and it is not arguing. Understanding the fears and allowing that the fears have a place in logical decision making are two completely disparate concepts. Fears, especially those without precedence, have no place in setting a policy or in making decisions. For example, I'm terrified of flying, to the point of phobia. I am resigned to my death the moment the plane begins rolling until the gate opens. Is it rational, absolutely not. As such it's not something that enters into the decision making process when I have to visit China or India for work.

Fear is an emotion. An argument founded in emotion is a fallacy. When one says I have a valid fallacy do you not see the humor in that? As someone who sees the potential in a loose alliance and who sees a replay of history beginning in how other groups' access are being attacked arguments based in fallacy are worse than useless. They are detrimental. Advocacy is going to change. It will increasingly be fought on the national level and in the courts. As such every dollar and person in support becomes increasingly more important.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

veloborealis said:


> You nailed it, Walt. Those are my fears exactly. Once the stigma against ebikes is gone for the "Red Bull Rampage" style riders every singletrack trail becomes a potential self-shuttle shredfest. That, and other trail users have to deal with riders coming at them at 10+ mph from two directions. With no budget for enforcement, land managers will respond to complaints by closing trails.


It's not going to take e-bikes to do that. The Sierra Club has already taken steps to attempt to make Rampage the face of mountain biking in the eye of the unknowing public.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It's not going to take e-bikes to do that. The Sierra Club has already taken steps to attempt to make Rampage the face of mountain biking in the eye of the unknowing public.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Aided and abetted by industry advertising. Yet the SC's efforts have not gained significant traction with land managers outside, say, Marin Co. and areas with similar demographics. Ebikes in the hands of the most aggressive riders has the potential, imo, to take the message nationwide. Industry is already actively marketing to those riders. If the stigma that it's "cheating" falls away, look out.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

veloborealis said:


> Aided and abetted by industry advertising. Yet the SC's efforts have not gained significant traction with land managers outside, say, Marin Co. and areas with similar demographics. Ebikes in the hands of the most aggressive riders has the potential, imo, to take the message nationwide. Industry is already actively marketing to those riders. If the stigma that it's "cheating" falls away, look out.


Actually, aided and abetted by mountain bike advocacy groups. They embraced the linking of the Rampage site to mountain biking in general with open arms. Again, they are not going to need traction with local land managers. It will happen above that level.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

veloborealis said:


> Aided and abetted by industry advertising. Yet the SC's efforts have not gained significant traction with land managers outside, say, Marin Co. and areas with similar demographics. Ebikes in the hands of the most aggressive riders has the potential, imo, to take the message nationwide. Industry is already actively marketing to those riders. If the stigma that it's "cheating" falls away, look out.


Land managers could give a rats ass about claims of cheating, or that with a motor, you can now keep up with your faster buddies. It's all about impact, both physical and social, and laws. The same thing that mtbs went through.

What we did wrong, and what the industry/pro ebike is again doing wrong, is ignoring and minimizing the concerns of those who control access. I started riding mtbs in 1985, when they were few and far between, and seeing another person on a mtb was a reason to rejoice. Since they were brand new, there weren't any policies in place, you could ride a bicycle anywhere you wanted. Freedom man, ride wherever, who cares? Once a certain density was reached though, and bikes became visible to the general public, opponents arose and land managers began to close off trails. In their opinion, bikes caused too many problems, so why should they bother?

Mountain bikers gained acceptance, very, very slowly over the years by forming orgs and being good neighbors and stewards. We started bike patrols, to quell the fears of the hikers. We learned how to maintain trails, then to design and build them, both because we wanted new trails and the land managers had a backlog of work they couldn't accomplish on their own. We went from being a nuisance, to being a valued partner.

These are the concerns land mangers have with emtbs, in no particular order. And, they're not ignorant fools, they know they are not motos, almost all have ridden them and are becoming increasingly familiar since it's an issue they all have to deal with.

1) Greater speed, and it's impact on other users.

2) Greater distance traveled, and it's impact on the trails

3) Greater power and torque, and it's impact on the trails

4) Legal issues. While in some states, ebikes are no longer legally a Motor Vehicle under DOT regs, they still are motorized, which can present problems with easments, and property funding. If you have a piece of property that doesn't allow motorized vehicles, you're either SOL, or there will be a bunch of legal hurdles needed to resolve that.

5) No resources for enforcement

6) No enforcement on what can be sold as an ebike, passing the buck to them

7) Their daily experience that idiots will idiot, and they will show up on self proclaimed "ebikes" that aren't even close.

8) No data on the impact of 750w emtbs, no idea what they will really even be like.

I've stated it many times before, all of those issues are solveable, but the party line of "It's just a bicycle" doesn't solve any of them, so you're back to why should the LM bother?

Deal with those problems and there would be a lot of emtb access, and less of the "fear". Ignore it, and it'll end up like the early days of mtbs, where we lost access and never were able to get those places back.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I've already stated my purpose, in a conversation you were involved in, and it is not arguing. Understanding the fears and allowing that the fears have a place in logical decision making are two completely disparate concepts. Fears, especially those without precedence, have no place in setting a policy or in making decisions. For example, I'm terrified of flying, to the point of phobia. I am resigned to my death the moment the plane begins rolling until the gate opens. Is it rational, absolutely not. As such it's not something that enters into the decision making process when I have to visit China or India for work.
> 
> Fear is an emotion. An argument founded in emotion is a fallacy. When one says I have a valid fallacy do you not see the humor in that? As someone who sees the potential in a loose alliance and who sees a replay of history beginning in how other groups' access are being attacked arguments based in fallacy are worse than useless. They are detrimental. Advocacy is going to change. It will increasingly be fought on the national level and in the courts. As such every dollar and person in support becomes increasingly more important.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I think most of the policies we have to follow are set because of fear. We cant't go 120 on the roads because fear of an accident. I cant just blow by a horse on the trails for fear of scaring the horse. I can't go as fast as I want downhill because hikers fear we will crash in to them. We cant have campfires certain times of the year for fear of lighting the forest on fire. 
These things have happened in the past, but not everywhere they are outlawed. No one has ever been killed by a car going 120 down my street but it is still illegal.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> I think most of the policies we have to follow are set because of fear. We cant't go 120 on the roads because fear of an accident. I cant just blow by a horse on the trails for fear of scaring the horse. I can't go as fast as I want downhill because hikers fear we will crash in to them. We cant have campfires certain times of the year for fear of lighting the forest on fire.
> These things have happened in the past, but not everywhere they are outlawed. No one has ever been killed by a car going 120 down my street but it is still illegal.


No, speed limits are not set based upon fear. They are set based upon engineering and traffic studies, even in the great state of California. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...SBtwQFggoMAE&usg=AOvVaw1oMFVJf1wJgY1Eph4bMLmg

You actually refuted your own argument about horses and campfires, "these things have happened in the past. Yes, they have happened in the past and the number of ready examples are plentiful, ie not an unfounded fear. Crafting policy around something that has happened with clear causal evidence is not the same as doing so for "well it could happen".

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, speed limits are not set based upon fear. They are set based upon engineering and traffic studies, even in the great state of California. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...SBtwQFggoMAE&usg=AOvVaw1oMFVJf1wJgY1Eph4bMLmg
> 
> You actually refuted your own argument about horses and campfires, "these things have happened in the past. Yes, they have happened in the past and the number of ready examples are plentiful, ie not an unfounded fear. Crafting policy around something that has happened with clear causal evidence is not the same as doing so for "well it could happen".
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


So, It's not an unfounded fear that people are worried about bikes with motors scaring horses and hikers, because that is what they are. Bikes with motors, capable of going much faster.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> So, It's not an unfounded fear that people are worried about bikes with motors scaring horses and hikers, because that is what they are. Bikes with motors, capable of going much faster.


Nice try, no seriously, I chuckled out loud at this so thanks for that. Circular reasoning at its finest. And, no, your statements do not really prove anything. If anything they condemn bikes without motors more as those bikes will be able to more easily achieve a higher maximum speed than a Class 1.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Nice try, no seriously, I chuckled out loud at this so thanks for that. Circular reasoning at its finest. And, no, your statements do not really prove anything. If anything they condemn bikes without motors more as those bikes will be able to more easily achieve a higher maximum speed than a Class 1.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Thank you for the chuckle. Believe me, the fear of getting hit, in my opinion is a horrible reason for bikes to be banned, that is the main reason trails are closed where I live. Unfortunately it is a real reason trails are closed though.

Thank you for the chuckle though, I can't tell you how many times I have heard on this forum that one of the main reasons for ebikes is the twice as far in half the time. We are talking double or triple the uphill speeds of real bikes. Downhill speeds going up, exactly what hikers and horses want.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Thank you for the chuckle. Believe me, the fear of getting hit, in my opinion is a horrible reason for bikes to be banned, that is the main reason trails are closed where I live. Unfortunately it is a real reason trails are closed though.
> 
> Thank you for the chuckle though, I can't tell you how many times I have heard on this forum that one of the main reasons for ebikes is the twice as far in half the time. We are talking double or triple the uphill speeds of real bikes. Downhill speeds going up, exactly what hikers and horses want.


That's not what you said, you said much higher speeds which isn't true. Now had you said ebikes have a much higher average speeds increasing the likelihood of such an encounter you would have a better argument, one that is dubious, made even more so by your hyperbole, at best, but still better. I'm glad you are able to laugh at your inability to intelligently frame your thoughts. It helps keep things light hearted and less antagonistc.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> That's not what you said, you said much higher speeds which isn't true. Now had you said ebikes have a much higher average speeds increasing the likelihood of such an encounter you would have a better argument, one that is dubious, made even more so by your hyperbole, at best, but still better. I'm glad you are able to laugh at your inability to intelligently frame your thoughts. It helps keep things light hearted and less antagonistc.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Arguing over minutia seems to be your currency in these discussions, which in truth isn't productive. But, if it makes you feel superior then please carry on. Putting you on ignore now and I heartily encourage othwers to do the same.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Arguing over minutia seems to be your currency in these discussions, which in truth isn't productive. But, if it makes you feel superior then please carry on. Putting you on ignore now and I heartily encourage othwers to do the same.


And your problem is ignoring minutia. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. If you ignore the details constantly it leads to confusion. Therein lies your problem.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Muy bueno....


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> That's not what you said, you said much higher speeds which isn't true. Now had you said ebikes have a much higher average speeds increasing the likelihood of such an encounter you would have a better argument, one that is dubious, made even more so by your hyperbole, at best, but still better. I'm glad you are able to laugh at your inability to intelligently frame your thoughts. It helps keep things light hearted and less antagonistc.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Seriously tuckerjt07? You must walk around feeling like Spock in a room full of Kirks and McCoys. Your aura of smug superiority must come from your human side. What a condescending pedantic fool.

Disingenuous, too, because contrary to the statement above you seem to enjoy being antagonistic and come across as anything but light hearted. If you are anything like your internet persona in real life, you quite possibly have a type of OCD that compels you to be hypercritical of minor faults in others.

I might hire you as my lawyer, but you would have to pay me to have a beer or ride a bike with you.

Got that off my chest. Like LBB, time for me to hit the ignore button.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

veloborealis said:


> Seriously tuckerjt07? You must walk around feeling like Spock in a room full of Kirks and McCoys. Your aura of smug superiority must come from your human side. What a condescending pedantic fool.
> 
> Disingenuous, too, because contrary to the statement above you seem to enjoy being antagonistic and come across as anything but light hearted. If you are anything like your internet persona in real life, you quite possibly have a type of OCD that compels you to be hypercritical of minor faults in others.
> 
> ...


Not at all. However, when someone goes out of their way to insult or belittle someone it is always a good idea to make sure that your logic is sound the next time you try the same thing.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Whiptastic (Mar 14, 2016)

vikb said:


> ... access is going to be 1) only human powered bikes, 2) human powered + electric motor bikes or 3) no bikes at all.


Or 4) more trail access

Think about it more objectively and open your minds @all... ;-)


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Whiptastic said:


> Or 4) more trail access
> 
> Think about it more objectively and open your minds @all... ;-)


Emtbs are going to lead to new mtb trails?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Harryman said:


> Emtbs are going to lead to new mtb trails?


They could.


----------



## OhioPT (Jul 14, 2012)

Harryman said:


> Emtbs are going to lead to new mtb trails?


I would say quite possibly. I know that's not the narrative that you are used to, but hear me out. 
What is the number one cause of mtb trails getting shut down, or never opened to begin with? Opposition groups: hikers, horse back riders, fringe environmentalists.

How are these groups able to get the upper hand to shut down trails? Numbers and money. The mountain bike community is relatively small in the grand scheme of things. Lets face it, mountain biking is a tough sport. You not only have to have a certain skill set to avoid injury, but you also have to be really fit to enjoy it. Whereas with horseback riding all you have to do is hang on for the ride, once you buy the horse (in general horse people = lots of disposable income). Just about anyone of average fitness can hike, so again, that's obviously a massive user group.

What does the mountain biking community need to keep the trails we have and get new ones? Numbers, money (lobbyist, donations, etc), and volunteers. We also need to demonstrate proper trail etiquette, but that has WAY more to do with the person in the saddle, than it does if it has a small electric motor or not.

Will e-bikes increase the amount of people wanting mtb trails? Absolutely.

Will it lead to a better financial position of mtb trail advocates as a whole? Yes. More people in riding clubs, more people paying memberships dues to IMBA (if it can recover from their recent issues), more people buying bikes to keep bike shops open and bike companies profitable. More people who have lots of money and land finally "seeing the light" because now they can participate in our sport.

The reason I keep hearing from mtb users that are opposed to e-bikes on mtb trails is that they are worried that it may give the opposition groups more ammo to shut down trails because they can claim it will lead to increased trail conflicts and "danger". I would say that trail conflicts are highly possibly in high traffic areas, so it would be wise to restrict e-bikes on those trails, but that should be up to the specific land manager. The danger argument is ridiculous. The most danger for other users on a trail is when a rider is descending because of the speeds (can easily be > 20 mph), or when someone rides carelessly. E-bikes are only "significantly" faster than regular bikes when riding uphill, and it's going to be less than 20 mph, and it's a hell of a lot easier to stop when gravity is working against you, vs when you are descending.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> They could.


We've been waiting.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Gutch said:


> They could.


Why would they magically create more trail access?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

OhioPT said:


> I would say quite possibly. I know that's not the narrative that you are used to, but hear me out.
> What is the number one cause of mtb trails getting shut down, or never opened to begin with? Opposition groups: hikers, horse back riders, fringe environmentalists.
> 
> How are these groups able to get the upper hand to shut down trails? Numbers and money. The mountain bike community is relatively small in the grand scheme of things. Lets face it, mountain biking is a tough sport. You not only have to have a certain skill set to avoid injury, but you also have to be really fit to enjoy it. Whereas with horseback riding all you have to do is hang on for the ride, once you buy the horse (in general horse people = lots of disposable income). Just about anyone of average fitness can hike, so again, that's obviously a massive user group.
> ...


Exactly. Great post. I 100% agree. This is the positive side, that many opposers can't see. Obviously Harryman works hand in hand with some LM's and understands the nuts and bolts of things. Im wondering if the LM's he talks to see this side? Also geographically I'm sure LM's also view some things differently.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

OhioPT said:


> I would say quite possibly. I know that's not the narrative that you are used to, but hear me out.
> What is the number one cause of mtb trails getting shut down, or never opened to begin with? Opposition groups: hikers, horse back riders, fringe environmentalists.
> 
> How are these groups able to get the upper hand to shut down trails? Numbers and money. The mountain bike community is relatively small in the grand scheme of things. Lets face it, mountain biking is a tough sport. You not only have to have a certain skill set to avoid injury, but you also have to be really fit to enjoy it. Whereas with horseback riding all you have to do is hang on for the ride, once you buy the horse (in general horse people = lots of disposable income). Just about anyone of average fitness can hike, so again, that's obviously a massive user group.
> ...


That's exactly how it can work and has worked with great success for other groups. I'm not sure what is so hard to grasp about this concept. The only thing I can come up with is what has been shown in this thread. Framing arguments from emotion rather than looking at it from a logical perspective seems to be the biggest blocker.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

E-bikes will not create more mountain bike trails, because e-bikers are too busy arguing that e-bikes don't have motors. Maybe if you guys start doing some actual advocating for e-bike trails and building new trails, we'll all have more trails. Until then, mountain bikers will have to fight to maintain the access we have.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

How about you look at it like this.. It has been very hard to impossible to gain more access in the area that I live. The opponents have exaggerated, lied, sued to stop mountain bikes from increased access to trails and it is working. 

I am part of an advocacy group that has 3k members in one county. I know that if the all the ebikers in my area came together and went in front of these people and said the things most of you say on here they would probably just blow up the mountain to keep us off. All bikes not just your motorized bikes. They don't care if you are handicapped, old, tired, just looking for a different way to exercise. I have heard them tell horror stories about mtn bikes and end their bs with....now they have motors and you can't tell them apart from the other bikes. 

This is not emotional, this is fact. They were about to ban ebikes completely recently and some people spoke up and got them to re-think it. They did say that on the few trails they allowed ebikes on, top speed of 6mph. That is fine with me.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Emtbs shouldn’t be allowed in jammed up sensitive ride areas. I’ve also never claimed they are the same as my Mtb and yes they have an electric motor. I also see the benefits to them and personally enjoy riding them.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Gutch said:


> Emtbs shouldn't be allowed in jammed up sensitive ride areas. I've also never claimed they are the same as my Mtb and yes they have an electric motor. I also see the benefits to them and personally enjoy riding them.


Gutch, you're one of the good ones.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Thanks man. Being a mtbr and coming from a person that has always enjoyed cycling it’s important to identify that this is a new sport. JMO- I think most emtbrs that are mtbrs feel this way, or should. I think in our area we have more issues from tourists on trails. I understand they are a huge income boost to the local establishments, but dang they probably don’t even donate money to help chapters. 

My fear of emtbs is newbs running throttle ebikes and the current 750w regulations. 250 IMO is plenty.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Gutch said:


> Exactly. Great post. I 100% agree. This is the positive side, that many opposers can't see. Obviously Harryman works hand in hand with some LM's and understands the nuts and bolts of things. Im wondering if the LM's he talks to see this side? Also geographically I'm sure LM's also view some things differently.


Obviously, it depends on the local situation you find yourself in. Where I live, in Colorado Springs, no one is trying to kick mtbers off of any trails, equestrians have no organized group, and they're not out to get us. We all get along for the most part. In fact, because of our history of fighting for access, we've been working for years to increase our numbers, our social networks and our bank account. We can turn out more people to public meetings than any other group, and use our money to pay for trails, which only raises our profile and standing with other users. Everyone uses and likes the trails we build.

I think people overestimate the power that money has in land use decisions. While I could see it being used to try to manipulate public opinion, like in an election. Management isn't up for a vote. At upper levels, I'm sure you can twist arms if you carry enough weight, which often means someone who has an awful lot of money, but that isn't at specific trail access level. Money does pay for trails, but contrary to what some people think, orgs just can't go build whatever trails they want, and then decide who gets to use it. That's all on the LM's, we have to work within their parameters.

Plus, at least here, there's a number of different agencies that own the land. Parks depts of different towns, county park, state park, land owned by the Utility, and USFS. That's a lot of individuals to influence.

Land managers don't care how healthy the bike industry is, or the tourist industry, or if the LBS are selling anything, no more than librarians do. If the people who run your local burg see ebikes as a way to put more money in their coffers, then they could have some influence, but they don't directly pull the strings in most cases.

There are two schools of thought it seems. One, which is that almost all emtb riders will come from the existing pool of mtbers. Two, is that emtbs will develop a new population of riders. Based on what I see on ebike forums, it's mostly mtb riders on emtbs in Europe, or past mtbers. Emtbs are expensive, and riding on true singletrack as a beginner still isn't that easy, even with a motor. Since most mtb riders aren't involved in access, I don't see them becoming involved just because they're on a emtb.

So, could emtbs lead to building new trails? Sure, in the right situations, where someone can make a buck off of it. If they're legal in some riding destination, and the powers that be think it'll lead to increased visits. Will it lead to emtbers creating an org and building new trails themselves? Nah, I really doubt it. People respond and get involved in political issues, which is what advocacy is, when they are about to lose something, not to get something. If you couldn't ride ebikes on the trails before, and you still can't now which is the situation in most of the country, you're not going to find ebike riders out with pitchforks and torches in front of the parks dept.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I was hoping you’d chime in. I personally don’t have any dealings with any LM’s. I value your information. You make a clear point without personal attacks. Very tactful.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Gutch, you're one of the good ones.


He does seem fairly reasonable, doesn't he?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> Obviously, it depends on the local situation you find yourself in. Where I live, in Colorado Springs, no one is trying to kick mtbers off of any trails, equestrians have no organized group, and they're not out to get us. We all get along for the most part. In fact, because of our history of fighting for access, we've been working for years to increase our numbers, our social networks and our bank account. We can turn out more people to public meetings than any other group, and use our money to pay for trails, which only raises our profile and standing with other users. Everyone uses and likes the trails we build.
> 
> I think people overestimate the power that money has in land use decisions. While I could see it being used to try to manipulate public opinion, like in an election. Management isn't up for a vote. At upper levels, I'm sure you can twist arms if you carry enough weight, which often means someone who has an awful lot of money, but that isn't at specific trail access level. Money does pay for trails, but contrary to what some people think, orgs just can't go build whatever trails they want, and then decide who gets to use it. That's all on the LM's, we have to work within their parameters.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you said as it stands currently and as it fits your locale. I do believe that in the future money, ie funding, will become much more important. Also, in some areas, especially where there is no federal land and the public vs private land demarcation line is very blurred, some builders do have the leeway to build what, where and for who they want.

I guess you could say I would like to see the two groups work together as I think it has long term benefits, but that I want to see it happen in areas like I described. Ultimately, it is a much lower risk and puts e-bikes in control of their own destiny based on their own merits. If they end up being great trail users and do not cause conflict they have hard evidence of where and how it has worked. If they cannot demonstrate acceptable behaviors then it is on them and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## OhioPT (Jul 14, 2012)

Why do you assume that people who ride e-bikes won't build trails? Are you aware of how many famous mtb trails there are in the US that were originally built by motorcycle riders? Are you aware that many professional offroad motorcycle racers, who are among the most physically fit athletes in the world, also ride mountain bikes, road bikes, and now have e-bikes? 

Just because someone rides a bike with a motor does not mean they are lazy. You can get a hell of a workout (equal to a normal bike) on an e-bike if you keep the assist level low, while covering more distance in the same amount of time. The time is all made up on the climbs.


----------



## Tracer16 (Nov 6, 2017)

So I assume by the non responses and the usual arguing on this forum that the answer to the OP's question is that no one has received or has heard of anyone receiving a ticket on their ebike


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Where I ride I see zero enforcement anywhere. It would be awful hard to write someone a ticket, with no one around. I understand this may not be the case elsewhere.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

OhioPT said:


> Why do you assume that people who ride e-bikes won't build trails? Are you aware of how many famous mtb trails there are in the US that were originally built by motorcycle riders? Are you aware that many professional offroad motorcycle racers, who are among the most physically fit athletes in the world, also ride mountain bikes, road bikes, and now have e-bikes?
> 
> Just because someone rides a bike with a motor does not mean they are lazy. You can get a hell of a workout (equal to a normal bike) on an e-bike if you keep the assist level low, while covering more distance in the same amount of time. The time is all made up on the climbs.


I don't think he, Harryman, is calling anyone lazy. I think he is looking at a few things and extrapolating. One being how hard it is to build legal trail where he is located. Then once approval is granted how many actually put in effort, labor or monetary, to building it. Those coupled with the relatively low numbers, currently, of e-bikers are where he is coming from I believe. As hard as it is to believe not everyone is attacking or out to get you.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## OhioPT (Jul 14, 2012)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I don't think he, Harryman, is calling anyone lazy. I think he is looking at a few things and extrapolating. One being how hard it is to build legal trail where he is located. Then once approval is granted how many actually put in effort, labor or monetary, to building it. Those coupled with the relatively low numbers, currently, of e-bikers are where he is coming from I believe. As hard as it is to believe not everyone is attacking or out to get you.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Sorry, I may have misread what Harryman was trying to state. If I am wrong then I apologize.

I am a mountain bike rider, so I don't think anyone is out to get me. Just presenting a different perspective.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

OhioPT said:


> Sorry, I may have misread what Harryman was trying to state. If I am wrong then I apologize.
> 
> I am a mountain bike rider, so I don't think anyone is out to get me. Just presenting a different perspective.


As far as advocacy goes, everyone is equally lazy. I was too until I finally figured out the trails weren't just here, or build themselves. I'm not angry about it, it's human nature. The reality is that a very, very small percentage of trail users will trade their free time to create new trails. And then people will always complain about those too lol.

Ride on


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

Harryman said:


> Emtbs are going to lead to new mtb trails?


Or perhaps the exploration of old trails? I find that I am much more apt to see where a trail leads and not care if it's all downhill to a dead end meaning I have to back track than in the past. Or riding on old systems that are not in use much. Which granted are totally doable by human propulsion, but are just as well done with assist to better explore with a more linear fun factor.









This one needs just a little undergrowth management and some riding in and hard to make out from the camera angle, it's in the center of the shot to the left of the bike leaning against the tree. But it is some great Old School track broken up with sharp turns, ups and downs and lot's of roots and off camber that is my fun factor focus more than flow type trails with stunts and jumps.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Using the words "valid fear" when *describing a situation that has not yet happened* to you or become common is horribly ironic. You do know what a slippery slope fallacy is, yes?


https://bicycling.com/news/a20032253/your-strava-data-could-be-used-to-ban-cyclists-from-trails/



> The Los Alto Hills city council banned cycling recently in Byrne Preserve, a 55-acre nature park in town used by hikers, equestrians, and until recently, mountain bikers. In its explanation of the ban, the city council specifically referenced Strava speed data, asserting that mountain bikers, who i*n some instances clock speeds over 20mph, ride too fast for multi-use trails.*


In case you have not noticed, the main "valid fear" of those on this site who are heavily involved in gaining access to public lands for MTB use is that of speed. eBikes have the potential to give faster speeds to more and more individuals who could not achieve them without a motor.

When more and more trail users start traveling those speeds on managed lands, the land managers will take notice and a precedent has already been set in this particular case.

I know you don't like me because of my personal view of eBikes Tucker, I saw you trying to make a case to the new ownership, but you cannot argue your way out of this one. The precedent has been set, bicycles (including eBikes) HAVE BEEN BANNED DUE TO SPEED. That is a pretty good basis for fear of more trail closures.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I’ve always said Strava is the killer. Were they going downhill on mtbs?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> https://bicycling.com/news/a20032253/your-strava-data-could-be-used-to-ban-cyclists-from-trails/
> 
> In case you have not noticed, the main "valid fear" of those on this site who are heavily involved in gaining access to public lands for MTB use is that of speed. eBikes have the potential to give faster speeds to more and more individuals who could not achieve them without a motor.
> 
> ...


First Junior, my name is not Tucker. I've told you this once before. Second, your view on e-bikes has nothing to do with my disdain for your moderation style. Your injection of personal beliefs, viewpoints and world views into how you moderate is petty. Whether it is posting the last word in a debate you are in and immediately locking the thread thereafter, selective moderation, telling people in one subforum to get over people trolling them there because they have opposing viewpoints but telling them they had better not do the same due to site rules or leaving posts of a political nature up that you agree with but removing those you disagree with. You don't enforce site rules, you bend site rules to enforce your world view. I also feel it is petty to call someone out for doing as they were asked by the new owners, @mtbradmin.

Now, that we have cleared up your thinly veiled personal attacks let's discuss the issue. First, you illegally poach trails so I do not know what leg you have to stand on when discussing access issues as that has been a proven reason for trail closures as well. From the bottom of the article you linked



> If you're out for a hike on a trail closed to bikes, your data could provide fodder for mountain-bike opponents looking to prove you're using trails illegally.


Second, the argument around speed is absurd. There is no discernable difference in the top speed of the two. If you bothered to do more than skim the article you would see the arbitrary speed that was too fast was 20 mph. At what speed does a Class 1 motor shut off? The only place e-bikes are consistently and markedly faster are on climbs. Granted they can carry a constant speed for a longer time duration allowing their average speed to be higher. However, let's be honest here when has the average speed ever been the issue? Anytime this argument comes up in threads unrelated to e-bikes it always revolves around people bombing the downs, a place where e-bikes have no distinct advantage. So if speed is truly your concern that is an issue that is shared commonly.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Of course they were. Knuckleheads pumping their chest for the world to see. If anyone is so damn fast they should be getting paid to ride on a closed course. This represents nothing about emtbs. If y’all owned one you’d know that 9 out of 10 guys can ride downhill faster on their mtb. Never cared for Strava. This is proof that Strava can kill trail access, in case people are to dense to know otherwise.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Gutch said:


> I've always said Strava is the killer. Were they were going downhill?


I believe in this particular case yes, it was downhill speeds.

My point is that speed was the issue, not what kind of bike it was (pedal vs eBike).

eBikes give the potential for less fit riders to hit higher speeds on MUT's, which in turn causes many riders who are familiar with what gets a trail shutdown to fear what the future holds if eBikes continue to grow in popularity to the point where they are more common then they are now.

eBike or Pedal Bike, Speed is a major concern for Land Managers when they consider trail safety.

Maybe every single person ever who buys an eBike will always ride it slow on the MUT's and will never modify the motor or battery to be able to go faster than stock, and thus will never be the cause of a MUT being closed to bikes....... But I doubt it, there are always going to be those few that will ruin it for the rest.

The average person on a pedal bike cannot maintain the sort of speeds that can cause land managers to fear without gravity helping them.
The average person on an ebike can maintain the sort of speeds that can cause land managers to fear without gravity helping them.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> I believe in this particular case yes, it was downhill speeds.
> 
> My point is that speed was the issue, not what kind of bike it was (pedal vs eBike).
> 
> ...


You're back to the slippery slope with the worry about e-bikers breaking the rules at a higher rate than mountain bikers and the worry of them modding and then riding illegally.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You're back to the slippery slope with the worry about e-bikers breaking the rules at a higher rate than mountain bikers and the worry of them modding and then riding illegally.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


And what would be the correct way to view these facts in your opinion?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> And what would be the correct way to view these facts in your opinion?


They're not facts in the manner you are using them. In your case you are linking disparate "facts" and saying "A must be true because B can happen and C can happen", classic circular logic, a fallacy. B and C are not directly related to A therefore they have no direct bearing on the validity of A.

You didn't even bother to attempt to establish a higher rate of rule breaking.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Strava rider on a Mtb loss that access and could lose more by the sounds of it.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> https://bicycling.com/news/a20032253/your-strava-data-could-be-used-to-ban-cyclists-from-trails/
> 
> In case you have not noticed, the main "valid fear" of those on this site who are heavily involved in gaining access to public lands for MTB use is that of speed. eBikes have the potential to give faster speeds to more and more individuals who could not achieve them without a motor.
> 
> ...


You are just speculating... again. There are always outliers. There will always be a local authority that does crazy things. But the bulk of discussions on here about eBikes is on BLM and USFS land. And so far, I haven't seen anything from BLM and USFS that alludes to the reason for their position on eBikes other than the fact that it has a motor. So, they lumped them in with the OHVs. You may think that disparity in speeds on MTB trails is a significant issue... but it would be 10 times worse with a class 1 eBike on an OHV trail.

In addition, the only concerns a land manager would have with Strava speeds would likely be downhill speeds. Most eBike riders will admit readily that they are NOT as fast downhill on an eBike than a conventional MTB. So, your point is kinda moot.

So, until BLM and USFS come out and state that their policies are based on eBike speed, then you are just cherry picking data that seems to support your biased position.

But if you were a "glass is half full" kind of guy, you'd recognize that most eBikers are also MTBers. They aren't simply a separate group of people. You'd recognize that eBikes have the ability to increase trail usage. And with the increase in demand, there is the ability to lobby for additional access. eBikes could actually INCREASE trail access. If the MTB community was smart, they'd capitalize on the leverage created by eBike momentum. But instead, you create discontent among similar trail users. The lack of unity is far more harmful to the issue of trail access than a class 1 eBike.

eBikes are just not going to go away just because a bunch of MTBers whine about them. So, the only real question is... does the MTB community perpetuate an adversarial relationship with eBikers, or does the MTB community accept them as brethren and leverage off of them?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Gutch said:


> I've always said Strava is the killer. Were they going downhill on mtbs?


I hate Strava, it promotes bad behavior that didn't exist before, since you coudn't win imaginary races on your own. On the slightly plus side, it shows land managers that hikers and trail runners poach way more than cyclists do.

OT, I know.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> They're not facts in the manner you are using them.


The only fact that matters, and the one I was highlighting is that SPEED is the reason bikes were banned from that particular park. Had nothing to do with the bikes being Pedal/human driven or having a motor on it.

You still have not answered my question.



Gutch said:


> Strava rider on a Mtb loss that access and could lose more by the sounds of it.


Plenty of eBikers use strava too, but their data can show faster than average speeds on both flat ground and climbs than what an average person on a pedal bike can show. I have only seen a handful of eBikes where I ride each week, and one time we were climbing the same section of a trail. It is steep and I am of average fitness, so I was going about 2mph, walking pace. The man on the eBike was going 3-4 times my speed. Yes this is anecdotal, but it is what I have personally seen. If that rider posted his ride to strava and lets just hypothesize that he rode the same exact route as me, it would show him having a faster average speed for the entire ride, would that be enough to close the trail if a land manager saw it? I don't know, but I would say probably not. But that is just one anecdotal case.

I would actually really like to ride a ped-elect on one of my normal routes just to see how much faster I could do the route with a motor helping me along.



Jim_bo said:


> You are just speculating... again. There are always outliers. There will always be a local authority that does crazy things. But the bulk of discussions on here about eBikes is on BLM and USFS land.


1> It is the outliers that we need to be worried about, they are the ones who can jeopardize trail access for the majority. That is what happened in NorCal, it was not the average person who was running above 20mph and posting it to strava that got the trails closed, it was a small percentage of strava data, but the Land Managers clung to it and used it.
2> I am not talking about losing access to MUT's in places where eBikes are already banned. But since you brought it up, if eBikers begin to regularly ignore the posted rules about not riding on MUT's n BLM and USFS land, do you think that will be good for access or bad for it? Where I ride there are no nearby trails that are BLM or USFS managed. Most of the riding in San Diego is managed by the local city and in some cases the state or county.

As you can see, everyone can have a civilized discussion of eBikes and trail access without resorting to name calling, but we all need to be reasonable.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> But if you were a "glass is half full" kind of guy, you'd recognize that most eBikers are also MTBers. They aren't simply a separate group of people. You'd recognize that eBikes have the ability to increase trail usage. And with the increase in demand, there is the ability to lobby for additional access. eBikes could actually INCREASE trail access.


So, current mtb riders who want more trails, which is pretty much every mtb rider, start riding emtbs. They still want more trails. How is the demand increasing? And who is going to start lobbying for increased access? The same people who are now, or the people who didn't have an interest in it before? I don't follow this logic, which is tossed out from time to time.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> You still have not answered my question.


You asked a question about facts. Seeing as how you have yet to provide facts pertaining to this discussion how am I supposed to answer what, by default, becomes a nonsensical question?



Klurejr said:


> The only fact that matters


To make it even more nonsensical you asked a question about facts, plural, but then say only one, singular, matters... 
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

I edited my above post to include the following paragraph after Klurejr responded... so I'm reposting:

In addition, the only concerns a land manager would have with Strava speeds would likely be downhill speeds. Most eBike riders will admit readily that they are NOT as fast downhill on an eBike than a conventional MTB. So, your point is kinda moot.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> 2> I am not talking about losing access to MUT's in places where eBikes are already banned. But since you brought it up, if eBikers begin to regularly ignore the posted rules about not riding on MUT's n BLM and USFS land, do you think that will be good for access or bad for it? Where I ride there are no nearby trails that are BLM or USFS managed. Most of the riding in San Diego is managed by the local city and in some cases the state or county.


I think we both know someone who has openly condoned poaching and illegally riding trails that are closed to bikes. Would said e-bikers not then be following this person's example?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> As you can see, everyone can have a civilized discussion of eBikes and trail access without resorting to name calling, but we all need to be reasonable.


If you are suggesting that these few posts amounts to overall reasonable eBike discussions... or that YOU are consistently reasonable... then we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Jim_bo said:


> I edited my above post to include the following paragraph after Klurejr responded... so I'm reposting:
> 
> In addition, the only concerns a land manager would have with Strava speeds would likely be downhill speeds. Most eBike riders will admit readily that they are NOT as fast downhill on an eBike than a conventional MTB. So, your point is kinda moot.


It absolutely is moot and nonsensical. So is the assertion that e-bikers break rules on trails they are riding legally at a higher rate than non e-bikers.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> First Junior, my name is not Tucker. I've told you this once before. Second, your view on e-bikes has nothing to do with my disdain for your moderation style. Your injection of personal beliefs, viewpoints and world views into how you moderate is petty. Whether it is posting the last word in a debate you are in and immediately locking the thread thereafter, selective moderation, telling people in one subforum to get over people trolling them there because they have opposing viewpoints but telling them they had better not do the same due to site rules or leaving posts of a political nature up that you agree with but removing those you disagree with. You don't enforce site rules, you bend site rules to enforce your world view. I also feel it is petty to call someone out for doing as they were asked by the new owners, @mtbradmin.


I could not agree with this more. I have been publicly chastised, had my threads closed and even suspended because of this one moderator's absurdly biased agenda and his abuse of his micro-authority. And all of this has happened in threads where posters with a similar world view to our super moderator get a pass for blatant and continuous rules violations.

A clear, open and strong bias on a topic are the exact opposite of moderation. If you want to be part of the debate and champion your cause... fine! Strip the super moderator title and do so like us commoners. But if you want to be a super moderator, then you simply cannot have such an open, hostile bias and claim to be a reasonable moderator.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Harryman said:


> So, current mtb riders who want more trails, which is pretty much every mtb rider, start riding emtbs. They still want more trails. How is the demand increasing? And who is going to start lobbying for increased access? The same people who are now, or the people who didn't have an interest in it before? I don't follow this logic, which is tossed out from time to time.


I'm not going to answer your questions if you are going to be obtuse. If you can't see how eBikes create an additional demand, then you should not be part of the conversation.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Jim_bo said:


> You are just speculating... again. There are always outliers. There will always be a local authority that does crazy things. But the bulk of discussions on here about eBikes is on BLM and USFS land. And so far, I haven't seen anything from BLM and USFS that alludes to the reason for their position on eBikes other than the fact that it has a motor. So, they lumped them in with the OHVs. You may think that disparity in speeds on MTB trails is a significant issue... but it would be 10 times worse with a class 1 eBike on an OHV trail.
> 
> In addition, the only concerns a land manager would have with Strava speeds would likely be downhill speeds. Most eBike riders will admit readily that they are NOT as fast downhill on an eBike than a conventional MTB. So, your point is kinda moot.
> 
> ...


Please show me the data that says because some one bought a bike, (any bike, bike,dirt bike, quad) that trails were just opened up for them. LM could give a **** that you bought an ebike. People have been being bikes for decades and they don't open trails for them. This is your slippery slope argument.

Harry is right, according to you, it's mountain bikers buying these so if anything there are now fewer mountain bikers advocating for mounting bike trails. Now a bunch are advocating for e-bike trails.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Please show me the data that says because some one bought a bike, (any bike, bike,dirt bike, quad) that trails were just opened up for them. LM could give a **** that you bought an ebike. People have been being bikes for decades and they don't open trails for them. This is your slippery slope argument.
> 
> Harry is right, according to you, it's mountain bikers buying these so if anything there are now fewer mountain bikers advocating for mounting bike trails. Now a bunch are advocating for e-bike trails.


That's easy, these two dudes named Walton bought some bikes and we now have 100s of miles of great singletrack right out our backdoors. Sometimes it only takes the right person buying the bike.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> I'm not going to answer your questions if you are going to be obtuse. If you can't see how eBikes create an additional demand, then you should not be part of the conversation.


I'm not being obtuse at all. You said because some people will switch from mtbs, to emtbs, there will be an increase in demand for new trails, which will lead to new trails. I'm pointing out that everyone always wants new trails, hikers, trail runners, mtb and emtb riders. Unless there is a new population of people being added into that mix, there won't be an increase in demand. Explain to me how it will increase if "most eBikers are also MTBers. They aren't simply a separate group of people.".

Nor do I believe, based on what I've seen over the past decade plus of working with volunteers, there will be an increase in the population of people who will work for new trails because of ebikes, unless it's a new population they can draw from. Demand is the easy part of advocacy, it doesn't get you very far on it's own.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Ebikers using Strava? Now that is IMO, pretty lame ****. WTF is it? Duracell vs Energizer? 😂


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Harryman said:


> I'm not being obtuse at all. You said because some people will switch from mtbs, to emtbs, there will be an increase in demand for new trails, which will lead to new trails. I'm pointing out that everyone always wants new trails, hikers, trail runners, mtb and emtb riders. Unless there is a new population of people being added into that mix, there won't be an increase in demand. Explain to me how it will increase if "most eBikers are also MTBers. They aren't simply a separate group of people.".
> 
> Nor do I believe, based on what I've seen over the past decade plus of working with volunteers, there will be an increase in the population of people who will work for new trails because of ebikes, unless it's a new population they can draw from. Demand is the easy part of advocacy, it doesn't get you very far on it's own.


You strike me as a smart guy, so I'm not sure why you are asking such obvious questions. But I'll humor you:

-I said MOST eBikers are also mountain bikers. This means some percentage are new to trail riding because of ebikes. Increased demand.

-i know of several long time eBikers, who because of age or injury, are no longer able to ride mtb. Ebikes keep them on the trail. Less attrition, more demand.

-i currently have 4 mtbs. If a new person wants to ride, I'll make a bike available to him so he can be exposed to the sport. Many people are still intimidated by the physical aspects. But if I had an eBike, less intimidation, more opportunity for initial exposure. More demand.

These are just a few scenarios. I'm sure there are more. And I'm not trying to be critical, but when speaking about creating a new niche of trail users and feigning ignorance of how that could possibly increase demand is very obtuse.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

It's funny that there is all this manufactured concern about ebikes and trail speeds. And people generally agree that Strava causes speed problems and bad trail behavior. But we get all these anti eBikers and not one person demanding to ban Strava.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> It's funny that there is all this manufactured concern about ebikes and trail speeds. And people generally agree that Strava causes speed problems and bad trail behavior. But we get all these anti eBikers and not one person demanding to ban Strava.


Good luck with that one, Strava is so deeply embedded that anything short of nuclear holocaust will fail to bring it down. And I don't subscribe to the extremely dubious theory that Strava is the root of all evil in the cycling sphere. Human nature is.


----------



## slowpoker (Jun 4, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> It's funny that there is all this manufactured concern about ebikes and trail speeds. And people generally agree that Strava causes speed problems and bad trail behavior. But we get all these anti eBikers and not one person demanding to ban Strava.


Then you're not paying attention. All I see about strava, here, is hate. Hard to ban it when you don't know if someone riding next to you is using it.


----------



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

slowpoker said:


> Then you're not paying attention. All I see about strava, here, is hate. Hard to ban it when you don't know if someone riding next to you is using it.


Ha ha, that's a big 10-4!

Strava is awesome, it motivates me to ride more and to expand my limits. I can score a kom and make friends on the trail on the same day. Jerks are jerks.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> You strike me as a smart guy, so I'm not sure why you are asking such obvious questions. But I'll humor you:
> 
> -I said MOST eBikers are also mountain bikers. This means some percentage are new to trail riding because of ebikes. Increased demand.
> 
> ...


You're also assuming that anyone who is not a mtb rider and new to riding an emtb is not an existing trail user as well? Doesn't already hike, trail run, ride horses, walk their dog on the local singetrack? Those people all already want more trails too, we're all part of that big pool.

You should check out some of the Ebike and emtb forums, there just isn't a large number of emtb riders who aren't current or past mtb riders in the EU or here. Some, to be sure, but I don't think it's going to be a significantly large number of people, not enough to make a difference really. There's no evidence that I can find that that is the case.

Riding ebikes on bike paths though, that's a completely different story, the majority there are new to bikes, or haven't ridden a bike since they were a kid.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

For what it's worth, both Harry and I have decades of advocacy/trailbuilding experience (me more on the advocacy side, I'm pretty incompetent operating machinery or flagging actual alignments). I think the thing to remember is that, at best, 1% of mountain bikers do *anything* for trails, and most of those just show up to National Trails Day type events and spend a couple hours digging - which is both fun and low commitment/easy to schedule/comes with beer and lunch afterwards.

What some people here are proposing is that e-mtb folks will show up on the *advocacy* side, and I find that laughable - because now we're talking 1% of that 1%. Advocacy for keeping trails open or getting new ones approved consists of:

-Sitting through interminable county/city/open space meetings where you will have to listen to every neighborhood crank drone on for their allotted 5 minutes - during the evening when you'd rather be having dinner/putting your kids to bed/relaxing, or maybe during the middle of the day so you have to miss work. BYOB for the afterparty.

-Being really friendly and polite and competent so much that your input is actually wanted by the folks making the decisions - especially when those folks aren't very friendly and you have to make a really good impression. There is a lot of turning the other cheek involved, I'll just leave it at that. 

-More meetings! Got approval from one gov't entity? Now you need 5 private landowners to modify their easements! Now you need to get the HOA next to the trailhead to sign off on 20 new parking spots! Now you need to face a whole new set of jerks and cranks.

Getting trails approved is like going to the dentist or doing your taxes or sitting in mandatory sexual harassment training at work for an entire week. It's not fun at all. Nobody wants to do it, and hence very few people do. There are no immediate rewards, and based on my experience, 75% of your efforts will end in failure.

I'd love to see e-bikers step up on this kind of stuff. I'd love to see *anyone* step up. But like Harry, I have actually done this stuff - so I know that (for rational reasons) 99.9% of everyone isn't interested. I'd be surprised if that changed because of motors on bikes.

-Walt


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> Good luck with that one, Strava is so deeply embedded that anything short of nuclear holocaust will fail to bring it down. And I don't subscribe to the extremely dubious theory that Strava is the root of all evil in the cycling sphere. Human nature is.


So, you're making the argument that complaining about technology won't stop it, and technology itself doesn't create bad behavior, rather bad people do. Hmmmm. Compelling. I wonder where I've heard these arguments before?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Walt said:


> For what it's worth, both Harry and I have decades of advocacy/trailbuilding experience (me more on the advocacy side, I'm pretty incompetent operating machinery or flagging actual alignments). I think the thing to remember is that, at best, 1% of mountain bikers do *anything* for trails, and most of those just show up to National Trails Day type events and spend a couple hours digging - which is both fun and low commitment/easy to schedule/comes with beer and lunch afterwards.
> 
> What some people here are proposing is that e-mtb folks will show up on the *advocacy* side, and I find that laughable - because now we're talking 1% of that 1%. Advocacy for keeping trails open or getting new ones approved consists of:
> 
> ...


You're not arguing against ebikes. Your arguing against mtb trail apathy. Completely different argument.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Walt said:


> For what it's worth, both Harry and I have decades of advocacy/trailbuilding experience (me more on the advocacy side, I'm pretty incompetent operating machinery or flagging actual alignments). I think the thing to remember is that, at best, 1% of mountain bikers do *anything* for trails, and most of those just show up to National Trails Day type events and spend a couple hours digging - which is both fun and low commitment/easy to schedule/comes with beer and lunch afterwards.
> 
> What some people here are proposing is that e-mtb folks will show up on the *advocacy* side, and I find that laughable - because now we're talking 1% of that 1%. Advocacy for keeping trails open or getting new ones approved consists of:
> 
> ...


Personally I think you are making a large assumption that access battles will look the same going forward as they always have. Looking at how other groups access battles have evolved against some of the same groups aligned against mountain bikers I don't see that happening. Local advocacy will remain vital and important but there will also be a need for big money, more than is currently available, to be spent on the national level.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> So, you're making the argument that complaining about technology won't stop it, and technology itself doesn't create bad behavior, rather bad people do. Hmmmm. Compelling. I wonder where I've heard these arguments before?


You mean like the "I have a motor so I can go faster" arguments? You're chasing your tail with your tortured logic again.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Personally I think you are making a large assumption that access battles will look the same going forward as they always have. Looking at how other groups access battles have evolved against some of the same groups aligned against mountain bikers I don't see that happening. Local advocacy will remain vital and important but there will also be a need for big money, more than is currently available, to be spent on the national level.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


That *might* be true, but if it is, it'll be a sea change from how things have worked for 30 years (or longer if you look at non-bike trail orgs before the 1980s). Trail decisions (even on NFS/BLM land) have always been made by the local community/local LMs.

Why are you saying that will change now?

If e-bikers start a new version of IMBA (RIP) or something along those lines, awesome. More power to them.

-Walt


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> You're not arguing against ebikes. Your arguing against mtb trail apathy. Completely different argument.


No it's not, I've yet to see one e-biker advocate for anything at the many public meetings since e-motorbikes started to become a blip on the screen. Walt's 1% of 1% comment is really being quite generous.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Walt said:


> That *might* be true, but if it is, it'll be a sea change from how things have worked for 30 years (or longer if you look at non-bike trail orgs before the 1980s). Trail decisions (even on NFS/BLM land) have always been made by the local community. Why are you saying that will change now?
> 
> If e-bikers start a new version of IMBA or something along those lines, awesome. More power to them.
> 
> -Walt


There are various reasons. The first is that the motorized OHV groups have always been target number one for various environmental and primitive recreation orgs. That battle is becoming increasingly more difficult, expensive and time consuming. Their members want to see results and so that is what they will have to provide. Mountain bike groups today look a lot like the OHV groups when they were first being attacked. Local to regional mainly, most advocacy on the local level, some but not a lot of national legislative and legal experience, fragmented, pitting user group against user group and even major angst with what national level groups exist.

Already one can see them trying two of their tried and true tactics. The first is pitting user group against user group using the more established and entrenched group to strangle the newer ones out. This is two-fold. It accomplishes the goal of a win and it also removes the number of potential opponents when they move on the more established group. The second is creating a perception in the public's eye tying the view of the sport to its most extreme aspects. The Rampage site is a good example of this. We know its history but the public at large hears iconic, historically important mountain bike site and that becomes mountain biking to them.

Their preferred battle ground is the court system and they have perfected its use to a science. They are able to get the government to pay them to sue the government in many instances. It takes the decisions out of local hands. The courts have even been used to shut down private trail systems.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

The OHV folks (in which I include myself) have been consistently losing access for the last 2 decades. There's a tiny fraction of the riding now that there was in the 90s when I was racing hare scrambles - because the west got crowded (comparatively crowded). It really wasn't crazy wacko environmentalists (who I despise as well) - it was more people on the trails who didn't want to get buzzed by/hear/smell motos and complained to the LMs/city council. 

As user density goes up, higher speed traffic just has to go - it's pretty simple. 

BRC was almost completely unsuccessful at stopping/reversing that trend, so if that's your model... good luck. I think it indeed could end up being the same situation around many areas in the west where population is growing fast - bikes won't fit in on a trail with 100 users per mile. 

-Walt


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Walt said:


> The OHV folks (in which I include myself) have been consistently losing access for the last 2 decades. There's a tiny fraction of the riding now that there was in the 90s when I was racing hare scrambles - because the west got crowded (comparatively crowded). It really wasn't crazy wacko environmentalists (who I despise as well) - it was more people on the trails who didn't want to get buzzed by/hear/smell motos and complained to the LMs/city council.
> 
> As user density goes up, higher speed traffic just has to go - it's pretty simple.
> 
> ...


The losing access trend has started to turn. There have been several large victories in recent years. Off the top of my head without the BRC there would be no Hammers or Rubicon and those are just the two biggest icons I can think of while bonked after a training session.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You asked a question about facts. Seeing as how you have yet to provide facts pertaining to this discussion how am I supposed to answer what, by default, becomes a nonsensical question?


The fact stated is that riders SPEED caused the trail to be closed to all bike traffic. Stop playing with words and stick to that one fact. Now, convince me that eBikes will NOT add to the problem of speed on the trails. Convince me that some bad apples will not ride their eBikes faster than they should on MUT's on flat land and uphill and record it using Strava? So far all you have done and continue to do it attack others on a personal level and play a game of grammar.



Jim_bo said:


> I could not agree with this more. I have been publicly chastised, had my threads closed and even suspended because of this one moderator's absurdly biased agenda and his abuse of his micro-authority. And all of this has happened in threads where posters with a similar world view to our super moderator get a pass for blatant and continuous rules violations.
> 
> A clear, open and strong bias on a topic are the exact opposite of moderation. If you want to be part of the debate and champion your cause... fine! Strip the super moderator title and do so like us commoners. But if you want to be a super moderator, then you simply cannot have such an open, hostile bias and claim to be a reasonable moderator.


You are making a very big assumption that I am the one closing your threads. I am not the only moderator on this site who has mod privileges in this section, I just happen to be vocal about my moderation as a service to the users here so they know why things get moved or deleted.

What if I was 100% for eBikes and censored anyone who made comments against them, would that seem fair to you? GO back and re-read ALL the eBike threads for the past few years, until people start name-calling I am content to let both sides present their points.

You make some big assumptions about moderation, but you have no idea what is going on around here.

I am not Anti-ebike, I sit right in the middle on this topic. My main goal in moderation in this sub-forum is to keep the arguing and name calling down. But one constant issue is Pro-Ebikers with blinders on coming in here and spouting off how everyone else just needs to get with the program because eBikes are coming and there is nothing anyone can do about it. These sorts of comments cause others to post up that they disagree. Are you saying that the eBike section of a Mountain Bike forum should be some sort of safe space where people can discuss any eBike regardless of wattage or discuss riding eBikes on trails where they are prohibited without anyone calling them out on it?

Frankly I would rather this entire section of MTBR be removed to just avoid all this back and forth.

If I was 100% against eBikes(which I am not) and used my power to back up that sort of viewpoint, then all Pro-eBike posts, no matter how well worded would just disappear and I would never make a comment about it. You would never even know it was me.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> The fact stated is that riders SPEED caused the trail to be closed to all bike traffic. Stop playing with words and stick to that one fact. Now, convince me that eBikes will NOT add to the problem of speed on the trails. Convince me that some bad apples will not ride their eBikes faster than they should on MUT's on flat land and uphill and record it using Strava? So far all you have done and continue to do it attack others on a personal level and play a game of grammar.


There is no burden to convince you. In fact you skipped over the post where I provided an in depth response on the subject. Beyond that you're employing both a slippery slope and an argument from ignorance, meaning if one can't prove something it must be true, fallacy. We've already been over this, I believe this is the third time in this thread. You're making a sweeping assumption that e-bikers will break rules at a higher rate without a single piece of evidence. No, I have not attacked a single person personally. I have attacked flawed arguments and in your case what I view to be terrible job performance. Neither of those qualifies as a personal attack.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> There is no burden to convince you. In fact you skipped over the post where I provided an in depth response on the subject. Beyond that you're employing both a slippery slope and an argument from ignorance, meaning if one can't prove something it must be true, fallacy. We've already been over this, I believe this is the third time in this thread. You're making a sweeping assumption that e-bikers will break rules at a higher rate without a single piece of evidence. No, I have not attacked a single person personally. I have attacked flawed arguments and in your case what I view to be terrible job performance. Neither of those qualifies as a personal attack.


You and Jim both continue to prove time and time again that you are not willing to be reasonable and just use words like "slippery slope" and "ignorance" when you chose to not deal with the reality of the situation. At least now everyone who reads your posts knows you have zero credibility since you cannot face the fact that recorded speed has resulted in closed trails.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> You and Jim both continue to prove time and time again that you are not willing to be reasonable and just use words like "slippery slope" and "ignorance" when you chose to not deal with the reality of the situation. At least now everyone who reads your posts knows you have zero credibility since you cannot face the fact that recorded speed has resulted in closed trails.


No, I recognized speed closed that trail. I also recognized that it was not an e-biker but a normal biker traveling at over 20mph, a speed at which alll assist from a Class 1 e-bike ceases to be provided. On that grounds your attempt to correlate event that to anything to due with an e-bike is severely flawed and nonsensical. Since there is no supporting evidence all of your assertions are hypotheticals and as such are nothing but employments of a slippery slope fallacy.

No, I did not say "ignorance". I said an "argument from ignorance" which carries a totally seperate meaning than the word you cherry picked. As such you not only straw manned me but launched an ad hominem attack.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> The fact stated is that riders SPEED caused the trail to be closed to all bike traffic. Stop playing with words and stick to that one fact. Now, convince me that eBikes will NOT add to the problem of speed on the trails. Convince me that some bad apples will not ride their eBikes faster than they should on MUT's on flat land and uphill and record it using Strava? So far all you have done and continue to do it attack others on a personal level and play a game of grammar.


You seem to be the one playing with words. You point out that downhill speeds caused trails to be closed and then made the assumption that eBikes will exacerbate this. But as I said before, most MTBers will agree that they can ride a conventional MTB faster downhill than an eBike. You make wild assumptions and conflate eBikes to overall greater speed and then form a moot point.

If you are really worried about bike speed, the thing that has really increased downhill speed is long travel suspension. Why aren't you attacking bikes with more than 150mm of travel? Could it be that you are simply cherry picking data to suit your agenda?



> You are making a very big assumption that I am the one closing your threads. I am not the only moderator on this site who has mod privileges in this section, I just happen to be vocal about my moderation as a service to the users here so they know why things get moved or deleted.


You are making the assumption that I am talking about this section.



> What if I was 100% for eBikes and censored anyone who made comments against them, would that seem fair to you? GO back and re-read ALL the eBike threads for the past few years, until people start name-calling I am content to let both sides present their points.


What a distortion. I have been personally attacked by anti-eBikers more times than I care to count, yet you say/do nothing while you have publicly chastised me multiple times while I have not personally attacked anyone at all. If you really want to pull this thread, we can make an entire post concerning your biased moderation practices.



> I am not Anti-ebike, I sit right in the middle on this topic. My main goal in moderation in this sub-forum is to keep the arguing and name calling down. But one constant issue is Pro-Ebikers with blinders on coming in here and spouting off how everyone else just needs to get with the program because eBikes are coming and there is nothing anyone can do about it. These sorts of comments cause others to post up that they disagree. Are you saying that the eBike section of a Mountain Bike forum should be some sort of safe space where people can discuss any eBike regardless of wattage or discuss riding eBikes on trails where they are prohibited without anyone calling them out on it?


I am saying exactly what I am saying. You have a clear and open bias towards pro-eBikers. You frequently turn a blind eye to blatant and repeated forum rules violations made by anti-eBikers, yet you are hyper critical of pro-eBikers.



> Frankly I would rather this entire section of MTBR be removed to just avoid all this back and forth.


No one forces you to moderate in sections where you are not a primary moderator. You can just ignore all the "back and forth". Or, if it causes you such distress... you could simply leave.



> If I was 100% against eBikes(which I am not) and used my power to back up that sort of viewpoint, then all Pro-eBike posts, no matter how well worded would just disappear and I would never make a comment about it. You would never even know it was me.


But then you would have to wrestle with your guilty conscience. No... you are clearly biased, but you want to make yourself believe that you are not.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> You and Jim both continue to prove time and time again that you are not willing to be reasonable and just use words like "slippery slope" and "ignorance" when you chose to not deal with the reality of the situation. At least now everyone who reads your posts knows you have zero credibility since you cannot face the fact that recorded speed has resulted in closed trails.


This is another example of what I have talking about. Your clear and open bias against eBikes comes through brilliantly in this one-sided post.

When you say that we can't be reasonable, what you mean is that having a dissenting opinion is unreasonable. Given that a class 1 eBike will stop assisting at 20mph, it's top speed on flat or uphill ground could reasonably be assumed to be no more above 20mph than a conventional MTB. However, downhill speeds can be much greater than 20mph. So you post an article about excessive downhill speeds and twist logic to assume that is applicable to eBikes. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that conventional MTBs are faster downhill than an eBike.

Then you slide in the little disguised personal attack. You claim that we have "zero credibility" and you incite mob mentality by declaring everyone can see it. And your super-moderator status is clearly intended to add momentum to discrediting those with dissenting opinions from your own. However, your allegation that we lack credibility is only based on irrelevant points you have made. No one has disputed that recorded speeds have resulted in closed trails. That's something that you have made up. But I have argued that the recorded speeds which resulted in trail closures exceed those that would likely be attributed to an eBike. And you refuse to acknowledge that fact. Do you now have zero credibility?

The way you cherry pick data against eBikes, make wild assumptions and actively seek to discredit those with dissenting opinions make you a terrible moderator. You in fact are NOT a moderator despite your site privileges. You are an activist... and a irreparably biased one at that.

Now the question is... is another moderator going to chastise you for your personal attacks which are clear violations of the forum rules? Or do the rules only apply to those who disagree with you?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

You are both missing the point. It was speed that caused the trail to be closed. Whether that speed was from riding downhill with gravity proving the propulsion or it comes from someone with a motor on their bike pushing them fast on flats and uphill makes no difference. The only thing the Land Managers are concerned with is the speed.

Stick to that one fact, speed closed the trail.

Speeds in excess of 20mph come from the following sources:
[*]Gravity pushing a Bike (pedal or eBike) downhill
[*]A pro-rider in very good shape sprinting on flat ground
[*]eBikes (non-class 1) set to max power on flat ground
[*]eBikes with very aggressive mods riding uphill.

That is the only point I am trying to make.

There is a slippery slope here, more riders on eBikes means more chances for bad encounters between bikes traveling at a higher rate of speed because they have a motor to propel them beyond what they could do on a pedal only bike. Like anything, we cannot predict the future one way or the other, but to deny that there is a possibility for this to happen is sticking your head in the sand. I will readily admit that perhaps ZERO eBike riders will abuse the bikes and ride too fast in the wrong places. I will also admit that perhaps all eBikers will make huge strides in opening up trail access by attending all the local trail management meetings and work days to promote eBikes.

I do not think that is likely, but I am not saying it won't happen. You continue to say eBikers will not cause trail closures with speed issues..... but you really cannot say that for sure, you and many others want to stick to the claim that they are coming and we just need to deal with it and nothing bad will happen.

Jim - you received a 7-day timeout in the past for your behavior in the past, I ran that time-out past all the moderators and many of them were in favor of a perma-ban, but I stuck to my word and kept it at 7-days. If someone has attacked you on a personal level, please use the report function to send it to all the moderators of this section so it can be dealt with. Help us Help you.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> You are both missing the point. It was speed that caused the trail to be closed. Whether that speed was from riding downhill with gravity proving the propulsion or it comes from someone with a motor on their bike pushing them fast on flats and uphill makes no difference. The only thing the Land Managers are concerned with is the speed.
> 
> Stick to that one fact, speed closed the trail.
> 
> ...


Just like you can't say for sure that they will, the very definition of a slippery slope fallacy. Please show me where I have stated e-bikers will not cause closures do to speed?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

This thread is starting to become relevant to the discussion here:

http://forums.mtbr.com/california-socal/e-bike-new-normal-1083498.html#post13744301

Yes, it is just one user and yes it is anecdotal.

But to claim that no eBiker is going to abuse the power of the motor is ridiculous. Speed is an issue that needs to be addressed. Motor or no Motor.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Just like you can't say for sure that they will, the very definition of a slippery slope fallacy. Please show me where I have stated e-bikers will not cause closures do to speed?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


So, What do you think? Can eBikers speed be the cause of future trail closures, yes or no? Stop hiding behind words and make a point. By attacking the point I was making, you are implying you feel the opposite, or at least have a different view on it. What is that view?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> So, What do you think? Can eBikers speed be the cause of future trail closures, yes or no? Stop hiding behind words and make a point. By attacking the point I was making, you are implying you feel the opposite, or at least have a different view on it. What is that view?


I'll rephrase your second question so that it is not a loaded question, "can [any] bikers...", yes. By asserting I feel the opposite you are employing a false dilemma. It's not that simple. There is not enough information to form a sound opinion on the matter. Personally I think you are using circular reasoning and confusing correlation with causation to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> You are both missing the point. It was speed that caused the trail to be closed. Whether that speed was from riding downhill with gravity proving the propulsion or it comes from someone with a motor on their bike pushing them fast on flats and uphill makes no difference. The only thing the Land Managers are concerned with is the speed.
> 
> Stick to that one fact, speed closed the trail.
> 
> ...


I think you're actually a little off here.

On flat ground, I can maintain 20mph for long, long periods of time under my own power. Not sprinting. Hours.

On a 5% climb, I can go 10-14mph, depending on surface, elevation and trail conditions. Not sprinting. Long periods of time.

On an e-bike, I can hit the 20mph limiter on mellow (4-5%) climbs. I know this because I've done it. For long periods.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I'll rephrase your second question so that it is not a loaded question, "can [any] bikers...", yes. By asserting I feel the opposite you are employing a false dilemma. It's not that simple. There is not enough information to form a sound opinion on the matter. Personally I think you are using circular reasoning and confusing correlation with causation to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


So for now you have no opinion on the matter because there is not enough information.

But you are very happy to come in here and tell others their opinions on the matter are wrong.

So what you are doing is stiring up the pot a bit with each of your posts while staying "neutral" on the matter.

Seeing a park totally closed to ALL bikes because of speed it not turning a molehill into a mountain. It is the end result of bad behavior. Bad Behavior that in the past could ONLY happen on gravity fed trails. It is not a far fetched thought to think it can now happen on trails that are level or from users on high powered eBikes going uphill.

Something that was only an issue on some trails is now an issue on all trails.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> I think you're actually a little off here.
> 
> On flat ground, I can maintain 20mph for long, long periods of time under my own power. Not sprinting. Hours.
> 
> ...


You are an above average rider, I have seen your strava rides. I ride once a week and cannot maintain those sorts of speeds, but if I had an eBike I could.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> So, What do you think? Can eBikers speed be the cause of future trail closures, yes or no? Stop hiding behind words and make a point. By attacking the point I was making, you are implying you feel the opposite, or at least have a different view on it. What is that view?


Tuckerjt07 is correct, your question is loaded... much like, "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It is much more of an indictment than a legitimate question. But, to play your silly game with you, sure... eBikers speed COULD be the cause of future trail closures. However, that is nothing more than wild speculation. We could also say that meteors falling from the sky COULD cause trail closures as well. So, since you seem to loathe discussion of real data and you insist on wallowing around in speculation, you must admit the fact that when speculating, you are remiss unless you discuss likelihoods. And the evidence that you have presented clearly shows that if speed will be an issue that closes trails, the likelihood is that it will be due to conventional MTBs and not eBikes.

So, let's start a list of issues you conveniently refuse to acknowledge or address:

-eBikes are generally slower downhill than conventional MTBs

-Long travel suspension is directly responsible for increased downhill speeds and for the trail closures you cite

-you do have a clear bias against eBikes and those who are pro-eBike

-you have presented NO EVIDENCE that eBikes will result in trail closures. Rather you have shown how MTBs cause trail closures and conflate that to eBikes

And to dredge up the past a bit... previously I made the point that the federal legal definition of a motor vehicle does not encompass a class 1 eBike. My point is supported by the plain language of the CFRs and it was also agreed upon by the only attorney on this site who openly claimed to be an attorney. Yet you refused to acknowledge the fact that there might be a legal problem with declaring all class 1 eBikes to be illegal on non-motorized trails. You even went so far as to demand that discussing the plain language of the law was a rules violation. This is bias. This is not moderation.

You clearly have a problem being open to differing opinions. If someone has an opinion different than your own, then it is they who must be unreasonable. If someone post real facts/data (like the verbatim language of the law), you declare it to be a rules violation.

I am far less concerned about your narrow-minded opinion concerning your cherry picked data than I am about your biased moderation. It is moderators like you who stifle open discussions. It is moderators like you that perpetuate the animosity between groups with differing opinions. It is moderators like you who ensure that every eBike discussion turns into a cesspool.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> So for now you have no opinion on the matter because there is not enough information.
> 
> But you are very happy to come in here and tell others their opinions on the matter are wrong.
> 
> ...


Where did I say I had no opinion? Read the last sentence in the post you quoted.

Furthermore, why are you insisting on using unsubstantiated, sensationalist falsehoods to prop up your arguments? You claim that this could "ONLY" happen with gravity's assistance and in the very next post admit you've seen evidence to the contrary.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> Jim - you received a 7-day timeout in the past for your behavior in the past, I ran that time-out past all the moderators and many of them were in favor of a perma-ban, but I stuck to my word and kept it at 7-days. If someone has attacked you on a personal level, please use the report function to send it to all the moderators of this section so it can be dealt with. Help us Help you.


Like I said, if you want to start a post concerning your moderating practices vs my past behavior... I'm willing to participate. I'll put my past behavior up against yours without hesitation. Just tell me when.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> You are an above average rider, I have seen your strava rides. I ride once a week and cannot maintain those sorts of speeds, but if I had an eBike I could.


So you discount Le Duke by suggesting that he is "above average". However, you seem to base your anti-eBike positions on speculation of statistical outlier data.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> You clearly have a problem being open to differing opinions.


lol


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

Whew! Hard to keep up with this thread! I am pretty new to these issues, currently building an ebike project, long time mtb’er. 

No ebikes allowed on natural surface trails where I live in WA, so my ebike will remain a commuter. No big deal to me either way.

Has anyone heard the front lines mtb podcast episodes on emtbs? Pretty interesting and even handed imho. 

After listening, I’d say Walt is spot on with his comments. Two takeaways were:

1. Emtbs are here and they’re not going away, and as riders and trail stewards, we all have a responsibility to “bring them into the fold” and we *should* try to include this new segment into the mtb community. 

2. Ebike industry reps are not really playing well with others, and are basically trying to push their way into a delicate space that has been created by the tireless efforts of people like Walt (the advocates, trail builders and board members).

Just as a side note, it is super easy to DIY a very high powered emtb, that can go as fast as you want to go. I bought a kit for my cargo bike project (Bafang BBSHD) that can be programmed to take 1500 watts or more, with no 20mph limit. Putting that kit on a DH bike would create a way faster and more powerful machine than a class 1 or 2 emtb, but it could easily be “disguised” to look like one. The kit is easily installed and costs $600.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

18/21 said:


> Just as a side note, it is super easy to DIY a very high powered emtb, that can go as fast as you want to go. I bought a kit for my cargo bike project (Bafang BBSHD) that can be programmed to take 1500 watts or more, with no 20mph limit. Putting that kit on a DH bike would create a way faster and more powerful machine than a class 1 or 2 emtb, but it could easily be "disguised" to look like one. The kit is easily installed and costs $600.


 But no one would ever do that, Right?


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> But no one would ever do that, Right?


Huh? I brought it up because people certainly would/will do that. It would seem like a step in the right direction if ebike advocates acknowledged that not all emtbs belong on the same trail system as regular bikes.

One comment in the front lines podcast episodes really stuck out in my mind. It came from the executive director of our local org, Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance. She said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that her office gets calls all the time from bike shops, riders, and general public about where ebikes can be ridden, what the rules are etc. But she has never had one call from an ebike industry rep. The other guests on the podcast were from other mtb orgs, and they all said pretty much the same thing (Specialied being one exception in one situation). Ebike distributors, promoters, and reps are pretty much just hoping to cash in, without acknowledging the complexities of land use issues that these orgs deal with every day.

I don't mind the fact that EMBA is pretty much responsible for making sure that emtbs will not be allowed on trails around here. I'm super grateful for the hard work they do. But I do think that more people on bikes is always good. And ebikes are bikes.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

18/21 said:


> Just as a side note, it is super easy to DIY a very high powered emtb, that can go as fast as you want to go. I bought a kit for my cargo bike project (Bafang BBSHD) that can be programmed to take 1500 watts or more, with no 20mph limit. Putting that kit on a DH bike would create a way faster and more powerful machine than a class 1 or 2 emtb, but it could easily be "disguised" to look like one. The kit is easily installed and costs $600.


And my point is proven for me by someone else.

When those bikes become more common and start shredding around at speeds over 20mph on Multi-use Trails with Hikers and Horseback riders.......

It is amazing to me that some users on this site cannot fathom a correlation between speed and trail closures.... But I guess we will have to wait for evidence of an eBike's speed causing the problem before they will put the 2 together.

I am going to take a break from anymore responding to Jim or Tucker for now.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

18/21 said:


> And ebikes are bikes.


Nope, they are something different but not a bike.


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> Nope, they are something different but not a bike.


Well, our state legislature disagrees. Class 1, 2, and 3 are bicycles. Doesn't mean they can go everywhere a non-ebike can go, but it's an important point to repeat that they *are* bikes, for those of us that are sick of gridlock, crappy public transit, and the million other reason to get out of your car.

Like I said, I'm fine with them being banned from natural surface trails until a lot more work has been done. But the ridiculous infighting and put downs on this site are misplaced, imo. Because ebikes allow an option for people who would not normally ride their bicycle to work or the grocery store, every ebike mile is one less car mile! These things need to be accepted and encouraged as a transportation alternative with massive potential. I really don't understand the fear/animosity, although I used to feel the same way myself...


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

18/21 said:


> 1. Emtbs are here and they're not going away, and as riders and trail stewards, we all have a responsibility to "bring them into the fold" and we *should* try to include this new segment into the mtb community.


This has been my point all along.



> 2. Ebike industry reps are not really playing well with others, and are basically trying to push their way into a delicate space that has been created by the tireless efforts of people like Walt (the advocates, trail builders and board members).


For a large part, eBike industry is the MTB industry. All the big MTB names are making eBikes: Specialized, Pivot, Cannondale, Intense, etc... We as a community should be demanding their involvement.



> Just as a side note, it is super easy to DIY a very high powered emtb, that can go as fast as you want to go. I bought a kit for my cargo bike project (Bafang BBSHD) that can be programmed to take 1500 watts or more, with no 20mph limit. Putting that kit on a DH bike would create a way faster and more powerful machine than a class 1 or 2 emtb, but it could easily be "disguised" to look like one. The kit is easily installed and costs $600.


Nice side note. That was like pouring gas on a fire.

My point is not that your side note is not true, but that it is irrelevant. We would not tolerate banning diesel trucks because someone could remove the catalytic converter. We would not tolerate banning semi-automatic rifles because someone may convert one to full-auto. We would not tolerate banning sports cars with top speeds in excess of 150mph because someone may violate a speed limit. So why would we even make an issue of banning class 1 eBikes because someone may do an illegal conversion to it? It is wrong and unAmerican at its core to punish the many for what MIGHT be the actions of the few.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> And my point is proven for me by someone else.
> 
> When those bikes become more common and start shredding around at speeds over 20mph on Multi-use Trails with Hikers and Horseback riders.......
> 
> ...


....and therein lies the problem. You take a point of conjecture from one person, point to it and claim that it is PROOF of your biased perspective! You don't seem to practice any objectivity. It's as if you see the world through a straw.

Take a look above. I responded to 18/21's "side note". While it may or may not be an issue, I showed a different perspective that is reasonable and plausible. Yet you run off and say that it is PROOF!! It's as if you are trying to outwardly show a lack of objectivity.

Sure, some jerks could mod their eBike and scare some horses. They could also outfit their eBikes with rocket launchers and use them to shoot down airplanes. But that illegal behavior does nothing to de-ligitimize eBikes as a whole.

I'm not sure why you claim that you're taking a break from responding to me and tuckerjt07, you haven't really responded to any of the legitimate points we have made so far. You really should do something before you decide to take a break from it.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> And my point is proven for me by someone else.
> 
> When those bikes become more common and start shredding around at speeds over 20mph on Multi-use Trails with Hikers and Horseback riders.......
> 
> ...


Perhaps in your mind your point is proven. However, out here in the real world you are still severely lacking any evidence to move beyond the hypothetical stage.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

How about we just stop the bickering? We are all mtbrs and really none of us are LM’s, so...


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

Jim_bo said:


> This has been my point all along.
> 
> For a large part, eBike industry is the MTB industry. All the big MTB names are making eBikes: Specialized, Pivot, Cannondale, Intense, etc... We as a community should be demanding their involvement.
> 
> ...


Maybe you're right and it's not even worth mentioning. But if I was on the emba board and considering how to craft a rule that would introduce ebike access to our painstakingly built and maintained trails, it would be relevant to me.

The big factor (I think) for groups like emba is this: in the funding sources that are used to drive projects (grants, trusts, donations, etc.), one big common theme requirement is "non motorized". Ebike advocates can repeat to infinity that ebikes are non-motorized, but that dog just won't hunt if you look closely at the language in a lot of those funding sources. It just is what it is, for now.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> How about we just stop the bickering? We are all mtbrs and really none of us are LM's, so...


No, we are not all mtbrs and you don't know who is a land manager and who is not. Mountain Bikes do not have motors.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

18/21 said:


> Well, our state legislature disagrees. Class 1, 2, and 3 are bicycles. Doesn't mean they can go everywhere a non-ebike can go, but it's an important point to repeat that they *are* bikes, for those of us that are sick of gridlock, crappy public transit, and the million other reason to get out of your car.
> 
> Like I said, I'm fine with them being banned from natural surface trails until a lot more work has been done. But the ridiculous infighting and put downs on this site are misplaced, imo. Because ebikes allow an option for people who would not normally ride their bicycle to work or the grocery store, every ebike mile is one less car mile! These things need to be accepted and encouraged as a transportation alternative with massive potential. I really don't understand the fear/animosity, although I used to feel the same way myself...


Are you a "People For Bikes" shill?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Jim_bo said:


> For a large part, eBike industry is the MTB industry...
> 
> My point is not that your side note is not true, but that it is irrelevant. We would not tolerate banning diesel trucks because someone could remove the catalytic converter. We would not tolerate banning semi-automatic rifles because someone may convert one to full-auto. We would not tolerate banning sports cars with top speeds in excess of 150mph because someone may violate a speed limit. So why would we even make an issue of banning class 1 eBikes because someone may do an illegal conversion to it? It is wrong and unAmerican at its core to punish the many for what MIGHT be the actions of the few.


Cannondale made a full-on motorcycle years ago. That didn't make bikes and motorcycles the same industry then, and it doesn't now.

Those things you listed are enforceable. E-bike regulations are much less so. Apples and oranges, or bikes and motorcycles.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> .....to de-ligitimize eBikes as a whole.


Something must be legitimized before it can be de-legitimized. The simple fact that e-bikes are not universally accepted everywhere human powered bikes are elegantly illustrates that an e-bike is not an equivalent to a "normal" bike. Claiming that an e-bike is the same as a normal bike is not a legitimate argument.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

18/21 said:


> Maybe you're right and it's not even worth mentioning. But if I was on the emba board and considering how to craft a rule that would introduce ebike access to our painstakingly built and maintained trails, it would be relevant to me.


I really mean no disrespect, but if that's your position, I'd hope you wouldn't be on such a board. Punishing the many for what the few MIGHT do is wrong to a level that it transcends this whole eBike debate.



> The big factor (I think) for groups like emba is this: in the funding sources that are used to drive projects (grants, trusts, donations, etc.), one big common theme requirement is "non motorized". Ebike advocates can repeat to infinity that ebikes are non-motorized, but that dog just won't hunt if you look closely at the language in a lot of those funding sources. It just is what it is, for now.


You are correct. And the language with those projects have been around for a long time. It's clear that the "non motorized" language you speak of refers to OHVs. Ebikes didn't exist when that kind of language was drafted. But the world evolves. And it is up to groups like emba to ensure that we evolve with it. If that was not the case, the buggy whip maker would have been successful in demanding that we not allow "horseless carriages" on the streets.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Cannondale made a full-on motorcycle years ago. That didn't make bikes and motorcycles the same industry then, and it doesn't now.
> 
> Those things you listed are enforceable. E-bike regulations are much less so. Apples and oranges, or bikes and motorcycles.


Can you look at a rifle and tell if it has been modified to fully automatic? Can you drive by a diesel pickup and tell if it has a catalytic converter? No and no. Again, enforcement is the burden of the land managers and difficulty of doing so is not a legitimate reason for banning anything.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

watermonkey said:


> Something must be legitimized before it can be de-legitimized. The simple fact that e-bikes are not universally accepted everywhere human powered bikes are elegantly illustrates that an e-bike is not an equivalent to a "normal" bike. Claiming that an e-bike is the same as a normal bike is not a legitimate argument.


No one claimed that an eBike was the same as a normal bike, but then you have failed to define what a normal bike is. However, the claim was that several states define class 1 and 2 eBikes as bicycles. But you are right, they are not universally accepted. However, I don't know of ANYTHING that is universally accepted.


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> Are you a "People For Bikes" shill?


Haha, nope just a lurker and seldom poster. Mountainbiker24 actually got my attention with a thread he started on endless sphere, the diy ebike forum. I get into huge bitchfests with those guys, but there's a ton of knowledge on there and I am brand new to ebikes.

I used to feel the same way as some of you about ebikes. It's cheating ffs! Mountain biking is supposed to be hard! The hours you have to put in to fitness are the same hours required to build your skills! I still feel that way to a certain extent, I've been a cyclist for a long long time. And I still have no real interest in getting an emtb; I ride several times a week on local single track like I've been doing for 25 years.

But I don't drive to the trailhead if I can help it, and I don't drive to work. Traffic sucks! Are we forgetting that in these discussions? Ebike people are not the enemy. I see way more in common, than in conflict.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

18/21 said:


> we all have a responsibility to "bring them into the fold"


Disagree.

If it's something you want to do, then that's fine. But not by any stretch of the imagination is it any sort of responsibility or duty to be put upon MTB advocates.

It always confuses me as to why it seems to be generally accepted among many e-bikers that mountain bikers somehow owe them something as far as fighting for their trail access for them. We don't, us just we don't go around demanding other user groups fight our access fights and build our trails for us. Have yet to see any good explanation as to why e-bikers can't address their own advocacy issues, and why for some reason, now I'M supposed to do it for them. 

I've put in tons of time sitting in meeting and writing emails to get trails created, along with countless ours of physical work. I would suggest that guys like jimbo and tucker with seemingly endless free time to argue in circles on the internet be the ones to go try to actually accomplish what they want in real life rather than demand others handle everything for them.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

18/21 said:


> Ebike people are not the enemy. I see way more in common, than in conflict.


In most cases you are correct but the motor puts entirely too much at risk.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Disagree.
> 
> If it's something you want to do, then that's fine. But not by any stretch of the imagination is it any sort of responsibility or duty to be put upon MTB advocates.
> 
> It always confuses me as to why it seems to be generally accepted among many e-bikers that mountain bikers somehow owe them something as far as fighting for their trail access for them. We don't, us just we don't go around demanding other user groups fight our access fights and build our trails for us. Have yet to see any good explanation as to why e-bikers can't address their own advocacy issues, and why for some reason, now I'M supposed to do it for them.


You don't advocate, you build, so no, no one expects you to advocate for them...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You don't advocate, you build, so no, no one expects you to advocate for them...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


You can't build until you advocate.

This you would know if you knew anything.


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

Jim_bo said:


> I really mean no disrespect, but if that's your position, I'd hope you wouldn't be on such a board. Punishing the many for what the few MIGHT do is wrong to a level that it transcends this whole eBike debate.
> 
> You are correct. And the language with those projects have been around for a long time. It's clear that the "non motorized" language you speak of refers to OHVs. Ebikes didn't exist when that kind of language was drafted. But the world evolves. And it is up to groups like emba to ensure that we evolve with it. If that was not the case, the buggy whip maker would have been successful in demanding that we not allow "horseless carriages" on the streets.


No disrespect taken, it's the internet and I'm a noob without an avatar. Ha.

Come on man. If I was on the emba board, I would be obligated to think about potential outliers and worst-case-scenarios that could affect trail access for all the members. That's not "punishing the many", that's just doing your duty as a board member. And I think that's what they did when they decided, "no ebikes on the trails." It just had too much potential conflict with existing funding requirements. Maybe/hopefully that will change.

I agree with you that times change, funding language can change (if a grantor decides to change a grant for instance), and ebikes are here for good. But ebike advocates have to work WITH the established orgs and start showing up, which really has not been happening according to emba.

I do think that emtbs and all the corporate money behind them could actually lead to more miles of trail. But it can only happen by winning people over with enthusiasm and a willingness to join ranks, not by out-debating and minimizing the concerns of the human powered crowd. Just my .02


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> Disagree.
> 
> If it's something you want to do, then that's fine. But not by any stretch of the imagination is it any sort of responsibility or duty to be put upon MTB advocates.
> 
> ...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to slapheadmofo again.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> You can't build until you advocate.
> 
> This you would know if you knew anything.


Oh I'm aware. Has your stance changed since the last time we discussed this and you said you had no more desire to advocate and just wanted to build?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> -eBikes are generally slower downhill than conventional MTBs


This actually doesn't seem to be true past anecdotal reports here. Once people start to time them they appear to be just as fast, or slightly faster, and I'm not trying to turn that into an issue because the DH speeds are effectively the same, so it's not. It's the extra weight apparently, keeping the frame more stable and is evident enough that gravity racers are looking at adding weight to their bikes.

https://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/news/article/orange-bikes-strange-329-dh-weight-52611/

https://dirtmountainbike.com/e-bikes/e-mtb-vs-mtb-downhill/











https://ebike-mtb.com/en/emtb-vs-enduro/


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Oh I'm aware. Has your stance changed since the last time we discussed this and you said you had no more desire to advocate and just wanted to build?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


No. I never 'desired' to be an advocate, but it's a part of the game when you decide to build new trails. I'll do it when I have to, but would much rather be out doing the actual building of the trails I fought to get approved. I sure as hell don't feel that it's my duty or responsibility to do it for user groups that I'm not a part of that seem too entitled or whatever to do it for themselves.

Why exactly is it that you waste all your time arguing here instead of getting involved in actually doing something that might make a difference anyway? Seems pretty lame - with all the hours you spend at it, wouldn't it make more sense to actually take your game onto the court? Or are you just more of the spectator/critic/Monday morning QB type?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Why exactly is it that you waste all your time arguing here instead of getting involved in actually doing something that might make a difference anyway? Seems pretty lame - with all the hours you spend at it, wouldn't it make more sense to actually take your game onto the court? Or are you just more of the spectator/critic/Monday morning QB type?


Who says I don't and who is to say that this isn't my "court". I've stated numerous times what I would like to see happen. Locally we don't have these issues at all. Here we have people who are clearly passionate about and advocate. Even toning down the animosity and rhetoric to something approaching civilized discussion between those individuals and the people local to them would be a win in my opinion at this point. If you'd like to hear what my end vision is I'm more than happy to share it with you in private but the atmosphere is too charged to bring it public at this moment. The message would get lost in the fray.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> Disagree.
> 
> If it's something you want to do, then that's fine. But not by any stretch of the imagination is it any sort of responsibility or duty to be put upon MTB advocates.
> 
> ...


I hear ya. It's a pretty outrageous idea to say that mtb advocates have a responsibility to welcome in the emtb crowd, but there's a decent argument for it. Highly recommend listening to episodes 36-39 if you're interested: 
Front Lines MTB â€" A podcast for the people that truly make Mountain Biking happen. LINK


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Who says I don't and who is to say that this isn't my "court". I've stated numerous times what I would like to see happen. Locally we don't have these issues at all. Here we have people who are clearly passionate about and advocate. Even toning down the animosity and rhetoric to something approaching civilized discussion between those individuals and the people local to them would be a win in my opinion at this point. If you'd like to hear what my end vision is I'm more than happy to share it with you in private but the atmosphere is too charged to bring it public at this moment. The message would get lost in the fray.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Little late to put that cat back in the back, dontcha think?

I'd like to hear it. And again, as always, I can't say I have a problem with low powered PAS bikes on the vast majority of MTB trails I know. But based on my experience, I simply don't think it's a good idea to let the line be blurred between human powered and motor-assisted use from a MTBer perspective.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

18/21 said:


> I hear ya. It's a pretty outrageous idea to say that mtb advocates have a responsibility to welcome in the emtb crowd, but there's a decent argument for it.


I have no problem welcoming them; I'm a pretty friendly guy and love seeing people out enjoying the trails, particularly ones I've had a hand in creating. I don't feel any burning desire to fight their battles for them though. That takes a lot of passion, and having no dog in the fight, I lack that, and I'l go ahead and assume that the majority of MTB trail builders and advocates are in the same boat.

At this time, I don't own or ride an e-bike (if I'm going to have a motor, I prefer ICE, a throttle and a bunch of HP personally ). If I decide at some point that I want to, then that would be a different story.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

18/21 said:


> I hear ya. It's a pretty outrageous idea to say that mtb advocates have a responsibility to welcome in the emtb crowd, but there's a decent argument for it. Highly recommend listening to episodes 36-39 if you're interested:
> Front Lines MTB â€" A podcast for the people that truly make Mountain Biking happen. LINK


I can't say I've got the time to listen to all of it. I started, but seems that much of the early stuff is more intended as a primer for those that aren't really familiar with the 'issue'. As a former moderator of this sub-forum, I'm going to assume I'm pretty caught up on much of what they're going to present. If you can point me to some sections in particular that pertain to your point that mountain bikers bear some responsibility to go out and push for e-bike access, I'd be happy to check them out. Or if there's a transcript, even better.


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> I have no problem welcoming them; I'm a pretty friendly guy and love seeing people out enjoying the trails, particularly ones I've had a hand in creating. I don't feel any burning desire to fight their battles for them though. That takes a lot of passion, and having no dog in the fight, I lack that, and I'l go ahead and assume that the majority of MTB trail builders and advocates are in the same boat.
> 
> At this time, I don't own or ride an e-bike (if I'm going to have a motor, I prefer ICE, a throttle and a bunch of HP personally ). If I decide at some point that I want to, then that would be a different story.


 Copy that, my other bike is a big orange two stroke that says, "braaaap." 
?


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

Yeah, the first episode is definitely a primer and not too interesting. The final episode (39) is the one that really gets down to why EMBA and the other orgs pretty much reject emtbs from existing trail networks, and it makes sense. The "stewardship equals acceptance and encouragement of other users" idea is kind of presented in episode 37, especially the interview with "the angry mountain biker". Both hosts admit that they don't really get/don't want to own an emtb, but basically suggest that embts really are coming and everyone will benefit by bringing them into the fold early and offering them a place at the table. The implication is that emtb riders will learn the ropes of advocacy, building, ethics, and just plain old etiquette, rather than being the outcasts who don't feel like they have to get along or necessarily play by the rules. It's an interesting discussion.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

18/21 said:


> Yeah, the first episode is definitely a primer and not too interesting. The final episode (39) is the one that really gets down to why EMBA and the other orgs pretty much reject emtbs from existing trail networks, and it makes sense. The "stewardship equals acceptance and encouragement of other users" idea is kind of presented in episode 37, especially the interview with "the angry mountain biker". Both hosts admit that they don't really get/don't want to own an emtb, but basically suggest that embts really are coming and everyone will benefit by bringing them into the fold early and offering them a place at the table. The implication is that emtb riders will learn the ropes of advocacy, building, ethics, and just plain old etiquette, rather than being the outcasts who don't feel like they have to get along or necessarily play by the rules. It's an interesting discussion.


I'm down with that. I'm far from the 'purist' type; I don't feel there should be any sort of fitness litmus test for people to enjoy public trails if they're doing it responsibly and I have no issue with motorized recreation in general. There are certain distinctions that have been made very clear over the years when it comes to presenting MTBing as a strictly human-powered activity, and that has been instrumental in gaining us a lot of access. There is definitely a down side to letting those lines get blurred.

I also tend to take the opinions of most people in 'The Industry' with a big grain of salt. Maybe if I saw more of them on the other end of a shovel or sweating through another endless Cons Com meeting, I'd feel differently. Around here, it's grass roots all the way and some faraway company's profit margin doesn't mean ****.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The losing access trend has started to turn. There have been several large victories in recent years. Off the top of my head without the BRC there would be no Hammers or Rubicon and those are just the two biggest icons I can think of while bonked after a training session.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I don't think so. It's just starting. As more Forests start to implement forest plan revision under the 2012 planning rule, I think we're going to see more losses, especially in the backcountry. The environmental and wildlife groups understand the agency processes better, and they have a deeper pool of motivated constituents. What we're going to see is backcountry trails taken away, and more development of front country planned recreational networks. Some will call that a win- that's IMBA's position.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Jim_bo said:


> Can you look at a rifle and tell if it has been modified to fully automatic? Can you drive by a diesel pickup and tell if it has a catalytic converter? No and no. Again, enforcement is the burden of the land managers and difficulty of doing so is not a legitimate reason for banning anything.


That's the exact reason many mountain bikers are concerned about losing trail access! Land managers may find it easier to just ban everything than try to deal with e-bikes that are difficult to distinguish from mountain bikes, if they have the resources to enforce anything at all.

18/21 - glad you made it over here! I think you have some good things to add to the discussions.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

mountainbiker24 said:


> That's the exact reason many mountain bikers are concerned about losing trail access! Land managers may find it easier to just ban everything than try to deal with e-bikes that are difficult to distinguish from mountain bikes, if they have the resources to enforce anything at all.


I'm pro ebike and have to agree, this is the nut in the shell. However, where mbr24 and I ride, there is no way in hell they will shut down our trail systems.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gutch said:


> I'm pro ebike and have to agree, this is the nut in the shell. However, where mbr24 and I ride, there is no way in hell they will shut down our trail systems.


Yeah, I don't see much possibility of widespread trail closures here either (though the moto guys probably didn't 25 years ago either). I think the bigger issue would be a chilling effect on new trail approvals.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

18/21 said:


> Both hosts admit that they don't really get/don't want to own an emtb, but basically suggest that embts really are coming and everyone will benefit by bringing them into the fold early and offering them a place at the table. The implication is that emtb riders will learn the ropes of advocacy, building, ethics, and just plain old etiquette, rather than being the outcasts who don't feel like they have to get along or necessarily play by the rules. It's an interesting discussion.


I can only comment on how it is where I live, but we don't own the table and can't offer anyone a seat. The LM's do that once you've proven your value, which takes a while.

We as an organization have recieved absolutely zero comments or contacts from anyone supportive of etmbs on the local trails, so I don't expect we'll hear from anyone wanting any advice. There are a few of us on mtbr who have offered a roadmap on how as an organization you could gain leverage with your local LM's, but no one wants to hear it.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Around here, the only reputation e-bike folks have earned is that they ignore signs and poach - Basin Rec keeps putting up bigger and more obvious signs, and every time I speak to someone on the trail about it, they claim "I didn't know". Then instead of going somewhere else, they continue with their ride.

Some of the signs have been vandalized/removed, too. Lovely.

That's probably the opposite of the behavior that will get you a seat at the table with LMs, but c'est la vie. 

-Walt


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Gutch said:


> I'm pro ebike and have to agree, this is the nut in the shell. However, where mbr24 and I ride, there is no way in hell they will shut down our trail systems.


Yeah, we're relatively safe here in Western NC. However, with the rapid rise in trail users at places like DuPont, I wouldn't be surprised to see more hiking-only trails around the most popular hiking destinations. I will admit that e-bikes would not be the cause of that. I do have my reservations about e-bikers that poach Bent Creek, which may or may not have an impact on mountain bike trail access there. I doubt it, but I wouldn't be surprised either way. Given the Federal regulations that run Pisgah, I don't see much risk of losing trail access because of e-bikes there. It's the highly used trails and/or individual land managers that concern me when it comes to calling e-bikes "mountain bikes".


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

mountainbiker24 said:


> That's the exact reason many mountain bikers are concerned about losing trail access! Land managers may find it easier to just ban everything than try to deal with e-bikes that are difficult to distinguish from mountain bikes, if they have the resources to enforce anything at all.


You miss the point. In no other situation would we tolerate banning an activity because it would be easier for law enforcement to not have to figure out how to enforce the law. That's why we as a community should make it clear that this would be intolerable.

Another point that people are missing is that you don't have to own an eBike to be pro eBike. I don't have one nor do I plan on getting one. But I recognize that they are coming. So we can resist them and make them a liability, or we can embrace them and make them an asset. The choice seems clear to me.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Jim_bo said:


> You miss the point. In no other situation would we tolerate banning an activity because it would be easier for law enforcement to not have to figure out how to enforce the law. That's why we as a community should make it clear that this would be intolerable.
> 
> Another point that people are missing is that you don't have to own an eBike to be pro eBike. I don't have one nor do I plan on getting one. But I recognize that they are coming. So we can resist them and make them a liability, or we can embrace them and make them an asset. The choice seems clear to me.


No, you're missing the point. This is different, because mountain bikers have been fighting for trail access since the '70s, and the inability or unwillingness of many land managers to differentiate and enforce e-bikes could easily lead to broad closures of trails that we worked hard for. The things you mentioned are either worth enforcing or have huge money behind them. Arguing that my concern is invalid because you can't think of an example is very close-minded.

Your second point is your opinion. I fail to see how mountain bikers embracing e-bikes is a win-win. Obviously most of us see them coming. That's why we're here posting. It's not so much resisting change as it is protecting our investments. There are legitimate concerns about speed differences, poaching, diy kits, and the inability to differentiate classes of e-bikes that make it clear to me that it is wise to define e-bikes as different than bicycles. I don't care about what specific laws say about it right now. That has nothing to do with concerns about trail closures in other areas.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

mountainbiker24 said:


> No, you're missing the point. This is different, because mountain bikers have been fighting for trail access since the '70s, and the inability or unwillingness of many land managers to differentiate and enforce e-bikes could easily lead to broad closures of trails that we worked hard for. The things you mentioned are either worth enforcing or have huge money behind them. Arguing that my concern is invalid because you can't think of an example is very close-minded.


No, you're missing the point... no you're missing the point... etc....
The idea of banning something because government can't figure out how to regulate it is reprehensible to liberty. This is not an eBike issue, but an issue of what free men in a free country should expect from their government. If you think it's ok for government to just randomly start banning things simply because they think enforcing reasonable regulation would be to hard... then we have MUCH bigger problems than eBikes.

There are two different kinds of Americans. One type would gladly accept the crumbs that fall from the master's table. The other recognizes that public lands belong to the public and they will demand access to these lands unless there is compelling reasons not to have access. It's up to you to decide which group you are in.



> Your second point is your opinion. I fail to see how mountain bikers embracing e-bikes is a win-win. Obviously most of us see them coming. That's why we're here posting. It's not so much resisting change as it is protecting our investments. There are legitimate concerns about speed differences, poaching, diy kits, and the inability to differentiate classes of e-bikes that make it clear to me that it is wise to define e-bikes as different than bicycles. I don't care about what specific laws say about it right now. That has nothing to do with concerns about trail closures in other areas.


News flash! ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION IS OPINION!!!

You will see that which you choose to see, as will everyone else. If you don't want to see benefit in MTBrs embracing eBikes, especially class 1, then that's more a statement about who you are than about eBikes. But the one common thing amongst highly successful people is that they see opportunity where others do not. I'm saying that there is opportunity in embracing class 1 eBikes. It creates an entirely new niche in our sport (much like downhill was a new niche when it first became popular).

When downhill began emerging, the MTB community could have said, "Mountain Bikes are pedaled to the top of hills... they aren't shuttled!" MTBrs could have argued that downhill bikes aren't really MTBs and downhill riders aren't really MTBrs. But they didn't. They embraced the new niche. Now, there is a whole new attraction that brings tons of awareness, public support and money into our sport. And, there is a ton of crossover.

Class 1 eBikes may not be a traditional MTB, but they are a close first cousin. The trials they are designed to ride on are the same trails that MTBs ride on. There is an obvious cross-link and appeal between class 1 eBikes and MTBs. But you and the other anti-eBikers should just keep on clinging to the past while ignoring the opportunities of the future. We'll just have to wait for the future to arrive before we will see whose opinion was right.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> The idea of banning something because government can't figure out how to regulate it is reprehensible to liberty.


Electric bikes are not banned.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

For all those "MTBs don't have motors" people who are stuck in their comfortable familiar ruts... think about this: Video gaming is being considered to become an Olympic sport! Ten years ago (or even today), how many of you would have said: "video games are not a sport!!" And yet the world continues to evolve despite your demands that it stay the same.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> For all those "MTBs don't have motors" people who are stuck in their comfortable familiar ruts... think about this: Video gaming is being considered to become an Olympic sport! Ten years ago (or even today), how many of you would have said: "video games are not a sport!!" And yet the world continues to evolve despite your demands that it stay the same.


Dang, if only people were more enlightened back then I could have been a pro Astroids player and banked millions!

*electric bikes are not banned*


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> Electric bikes are not banned.


That's the spirit JB. Although "poaching" talk isn't allowed, according to this thread you aren't likely to get a ticket. Same goes with Wilderness areas, people have a right to ride and there is little enforcement so it's not banned actively.


----------



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

Linktung said:


> That's the spirit JB. Although "poaching" talk isn't allowed, according to this thread you aren't likely to get a ticket. Same goes with Wilderness areas, people have a right to ride and there is little enforcement so it's not banned actively.


lol, nice twist! Of course I mean they're not banned in the same way cars aren't banned. Electric bikes are allowed anywhere motor vehicles are, which is about 90% of the planet. Hopefully they'll never be permitted in areas with a "no motor vehicles" sign posted.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Jim_bo said:


> No, you're missing the point... no you're missing the point... etc....
> The idea of banning something because government can't figure out how to regulate it is reprehensible to liberty. This is not an eBike issue, but an issue of what free men in a free country should expect from their government. If you think it's ok for government to just randomly start banning things simply because they think enforcing reasonable regulation would be to hard... then we have MUCH bigger problems than eBikes.
> 
> There are two different kinds of Americans. One type would gladly accept the crumbs that fall from the master's table. The other recognizes that public lands belong to the public and they will demand access to these lands unless there is compelling reasons not to have access. It's up to you to decide which group you are in.
> ...


You really try hard to sound smart, but there is very little substance to your posts.

1. This is not a free country, nor is any other country on Earth. Things are banned all the time because people can't be trusted to use them properly. Drugs/medications, pets, vehicles, bicycles, and the list goes on have and/or still are banned in certain situations because people misuse them and regulating them just doesn't make sense. Take liability, for example. Things are banned all the time because of liability reasons. Liability exists because it is impossible or impractical to control and regulate what people do.

2. You continue to state your opinions like they are fact.

3. I see benefits to e-bikes in certain situations, but I don't believe it is wise to fully embrace e-bikes as the same as mountain bikes. If you can't understand that, then that says a lot about you.

4. Many mountain bikers were resistant to downhill, because people started riding at higher speeds down hills on more capable bikes. It's still an issue, as it's used constantly here in an attempt to claim hypocrisy. People generally don't wear full body armor and full face helmets on busy cross country trails, either.

5. E-bikes have motors, much like motorcycles do. Motorcycles also ride similar terrain as mountain bikes.  I'm clinging to trail access, not the past, and I'm focusing on the future by being critical of the classification of e-bikes.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

Klurejr said:


> This scenario is basically what drives the fear of most of those on this site who oppose eBikes.
> 
> This scenario is also ignored by the eBike advocates who think the ONLY people who ride eBikes are nice old guys and nice handicapped guys.
> 
> ...


LOL you forgot something

moderators - enforce the forum rules or convince the site to change them

http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/read-before-you-post-ebike-forum-rules-1022310.html


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Linktung said:


> That's the spirit JB. Although "poaching" talk isn't allowed, according to this thread you aren't likely to get a ticket. Same goes with Wilderness areas, people have a right to ride and there is little enforcement so it's not banned actively.


Since when isn't that allowed? A certain super mod has condoned and actively called for it to happen. Albeit not with e-bikes but it's still poaching.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

ryguy79 said:


> LOL you forgot something
> 
> moderators - enforce the forum rules or convince the site to change them
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/read-before-you-post-ebike-forum-rules-1022310.html


I'm glad you caught that. Just another example of selective enforcement when it fits his narrative.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I'm glad you caught that. Just another example of selective enforcement when it fits his narrative.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Yep. Both the forum rules and the enforcement are ridiculous.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

You guys are free to start/find your own e-bike forum if you can't handle real discussion about mountain bikes. In fact, why don't you form a support group for people that don't know how to deal with big boy conversations.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You guys are free to start/find your own e-bike forum if you can't handle real discussion about mountain bikes. In fact, why don't you form a support group for people that don't know how to deal with big boy conversations.


The fact that you think those posts are limited in scope to the discussion at hand or even have anything to do with mountain bikes in general is telling.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You guys are free to start/find your own e-bike forum if you can't handle real discussion about mountain bikes. In fact, why don't you form a support group for people that don't know how to deal with big boy conversations.


You win the prize for missing the point!


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The fact that you think those posts have anything to do with the discussion at hand or even mountain bikes in general is telling.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


EXACTLY! None of these posts have ANYTHING to do with mountain biking! That's the whole point!

These last few posts are about a few posters not getting the protection from life that they "need". It's whining about the exact thing you are apparently fighting for, which is freedom. You're just like most people today. You want freedom from opposition, not real freedom.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

mountainbiker24 said:


> EXACTLY! None of these posts have ANYTHING to do with mountain biking! That's the whole point!
> 
> These last few posts are about a few posters not getting the protection from life that they "need". It's whining about the exact thing you are apparently fighting for, which is freedom. You're just like most people today. You want freedom from opposition, not real freedom.


Nope, it's not about protection or freedom. Try again.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

ryguy79 said:


> You win the prize for missing the point!


For once, maybe you guys can spell out, specifically and without the bullsh!t, what your point/agenda is.

Here's what I've taken from this thread. You want:

1. People to ignore the fact that e-bikes have motors and call them "mountain bikes".

2. People to blindly agree with your opinions, because there can't possibly any other ways to look at things. Especially the future of mountain biking.

3. Protection from moderators against anybody that disagrees with your opinions or questions your logic.

4. Freedom to do whatever you want without any responsibility. Based on what other people have worked for. Entitlement comes to mind.

Tell me. What point did I miss?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> It creates an entirely new niche in our sport (much like downhill was a new niche when it first became popular).
> 
> When downhill began emerging, the MTB community could have said, "Mountain Bikes are pedaled to the top of hills... they aren't shuttled!" MTBrs could have argued that downhill bikes aren't really MTBs and downhill riders aren't really MTBrs. But they didn't. They embraced the new niche. Now, there is a whole new attraction .


History lesson:

The first mountain bikes were downhill bikes.
The first mountain bike race was a downhill race.
Downhill has been part of mountain biking since day 1.
Downhill has arguably been the major driver for both rider and equipment advancements in the sport since beginning.

Motors, not so much.

Just had to give the same lesson in another thread. Always funny when people try to revise the history of the sport to fit their agenda.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

mountainbiker24 said:


> For once, maybe you guys can spell out, specifically and without the bullsh!t, what your point/agenda is.


That's the funny thing. It was.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> For once, maybe you guys can spell out, specifically and without the bullsh!t, what your point/agenda is.


Since you don't want to think for yourself here goes. The site made a big deal about e-bike forum rules a while back, which I linked to in my post. Klurejr, who made that post, is clearly ignoring it. More than anything, its about inconsistent, hypocritical moderation.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

ryguy79 said:


> Since you don't want to think for yourself here goes. The site made a big deal about e-bike forum rules a while back, which I linked to in my post. Kluejr, who made that post, is clearly ignoring it. More than anything, its about hypocritical moderation.


Oh it goes well beyond this subforum.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Linktung said:


> Same goes with Wilderness areas, people have a right to ride and there is little enforcement so it's not banned actively.


Yes, it is banned actively. And, not only will you be cited, you run a very real risk of asset seizure.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

ryguy79 said:


> Since you don't want to think for yourself here goes. The site made a big deal about e-bike forum rules a while back, which I linked to in my post. Klurejr, who made that post, is clearly ignoring it. More than anything, its about inconsistent, hypocritical moderation.


Yeah. So point number 3. Basically, you're being a whiny, entitled brat. The fact that this sub forum even exists is more than enough for e-bikes, in my opinion.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Oh it goes well beyond this subforum.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Agreed. I just saw this the title of this thread while browsing and assumed he would be in here, ignoring the rules he made a big stink about again. Sure enough, I was right!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Yeah. You're being a whiny little b!tch. The fact that this sub forum even exists is more than enough for e-bikes, in my opinion.


Please don't resort to name calling, this thread needs to stay open.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Yeah. You're being a whiny little b!tch. The fact that this sub forum even exists is more than enough for e-bikes, in my opinion.


LOL. I love your internet tough guy act. If you can't see the humor of the moderation here, which has NOTHING to do with you, you need to chill out.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Please don't resort to name calling, this thread needs to stay open.


Once I saw that post I put the odds of it getting locked at 90%.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. You posters are making enemies on this forum with your close-mindedness, false logic and entitled attitudes. I'm not against e-bikes in most places. I also recognize that e-bikes have motors and the potential to do tremendous damage to mountain bike access in the future. The unfortunate reality is that a few of you refuse to consider those views, and I will never side with e-bikes because of you guys. It is personal at this point.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

life behind bars said:


> Please don't resort to name calling, this thread needs to stay open.





ryguy79 said:


> LOL. I love your internet tough guy act. If you can't see the humor of the moderation here, which has NOTHING to do with you, you need to chill out.


I would love for every single thread on e-bikes to get locked. The only good that comes from these is that people are exposed to opposition. I shouldn't have called him that, but I like to be honest.

As far as me being an Internet tough guy, well, I'll say the same thing to your face. I'm not secretive about where I am. I don't find this conversation funny. I see it as a fairly accurate representation of where we are as a society. Should I have called anybody a b!tch? No. Does it change how I feel? No.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I've said it once, and I'll say it again. You posters are making enemies on this forum with your close-mindedness, false logic and entitled attitudes. I'm not against e-bikes in most places. I also recognize that e-bikes have motors and the potential to do tremendous damage to mountain bike access in the future. The unfortunate reality is that a few of you refuse to consider those views, and I will never side with e-bikes because of you guys. It is personal at this point.


LOL, my beef is with the poor moderation here, not you, and not ebikes.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

ryguy79 said:


> LOL, my beef is with the poor moderation here, not you, and not ebikes.


So how does that fit into this thread?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ryguy79 said:


> LOL, my beef is with the poor moderation here, not you, and not ebikes.


This thread has largely not needed moderation and any complaints about moderation should be taken to Site Issues imho.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> So how does that fit into this thread?


This thread is essentially about trail access for ebikes. Super Moderator Kluerjr posted forum rules which clearly state that is not allowed in this forum, but then actively participated in the discussion in this thread. I don't know how to be more clear. I'm being critical of his job as moderator, nothing else. This thread is relevant as a clear example that either the forum rules are stupid, his moderation/enforcement is poor, or both.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

The hate and bickering coming from the ebike haters is ridiculous....


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

ryguy79 said:


> This thread is essentially about trail access for ebikes. Super Moderator Kluerjr posted forum rules which clearly state that is not allowed in this forum, but then actively participated in the discussion in this thread. I don't know how to be more clear. I'm being critical of his job as moderator, nothing else. This thread is relevant as a clear example that either the forum rules are stupid, his moderation/enforcement is poor, or both.


Thank you for taking the time to connect the dots for me. I didn't know which rule you were referring to. I apologize for calling you a whiny b!tch. If I'm going to be banned, I should have saved it for a couple of these other posters.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> The hate and bickering coming from the ebike haters is ridiculous....


And calling people that have legitimate concerns "haters" helps how?


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

ryguy79 said:


> This thread is essentially about trail access for ebikes. Super Moderator Kluerjr posted forum rules which clearly state that is not allowed in this forum, but then actively participated in the discussion in this thread. I don't know how to be more clear. I'm being critical of his job as moderator, nothing else. This thread is relevant as a clear example that either the forum rules are stupid, his moderation/enforcement is poor, or both.


We aren't supposed to talk about trail access? Guess I did not read the rules...?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

ruthabagah said:


> The hate and bickering coming from the ebike haters is ridiculous....


I'll take the heat for most of the "hate" by e-bike haters. I have a strong desire that e-bikes be classified as e-bikes. I don't hate e-bikes, but I am struggling to find common ground with people like you and jim_bo.

By the way, is "hater" a name? Should I be offended?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

18/21 said:


> We aren't supposed to talk about trail access? Guess I did not read the rules...?


I believe trail access threads are supposed to be in the trail advocacy and maintenance thread, or whatever it's called. Most threads in the e-bike forum turn into an access debate, because e-bikes. I'm just as guilty as anybody for hijacking a thread and turning it into a trail access thread, but I try to stay on topic. I didn't see the conversation turn in this thread coming. Caught me with my pants down...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

The rules are in flux until the new admin. clarifies them according to a post made by kjr, civility has not been suspended though.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> And calling people that have legitimate concerns "haters" helps how?


Having concerns is a good thing. Discussing them is what this forum is all about. Making up rules, stories about the upcoming ebike apocalypse and personal attack on members not sharing your point of view, is hate. Just like over half of your post on this sub forum.

One thing you and your gang fail to understand is that ebike riders where not a "spontaneous generation" group that all the sudden discovers mtb. We have been riding, advocating, building trails, for a long time. We just decided to try something different, something new and it works for us.

Just respect the difference, and let us ride where the law allow us to ride. And if that means changing trail access in some part of the country, then be it. It will only benefit the MTB community as a whole.

So far we have yet to find one instance of ebikes closing trail access.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

ruthabagah said:


> Having concerns is a good thing. Discussing them is what this forum is all about. Making up rules, stories about the upcoming ebike apocalypse and personal attack on members not sharing your point of view, is hate. Just like over half of your post on this sub forum.
> 
> One thing you and your gang fail to understand is that ebike riders where not a "spontaneous generation" group that all the sudden discovers mtb. We have been riding, advocating, building trails, for a long time. We just decided to try something different, something new and it works for us.
> 
> ...


The hypocrisy is frustrating! You say that the discussions are good, and then you proceed to call us haters while demanding we respect e-bikers on your terms. No. Just no.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> Having concerns is a good thing. Discussing them is what this forum is all about. Making up rules, stories about the upcoming ebike apocalypse and personal attack on members not sharing your point of view, is hate. Just like over half of your post on this sub forum.
> 
> One thing you and your gang fail to understand is that ebike riders where not a "spontaneous generation" group that all the sudden discovers mtb. We have been riding, advocating, building trails, for a long time. We just decided to try something different, something new and it works for us.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your "opinion", remember that most of us have them and that having them doesn't make us "haters". Minimizing other posters "opinions" by calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a "hater" doesn't garner much goodwill either.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

18/21 said:


> We aren't supposed to talk about trail access? Guess I did not read the rules...?


Or modifying bikes past Class 1/2.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

life behind bars said:


> The rules are in flux until the new admin. clarifies them according to a post made by kjr, civility has not been suspended though.


haha, then maybe he should consider removing the link to the e-bike forum rules from his signature.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> So far we have yet to find one instance of ebikes closing trail access.


But many examples of "unauthorized" access which would probably put that access at risk. So, bend it anyway you want but the truth is as usual something different than the portrayal you present.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Thank you for your "opinion", remember that most of us have them and that having them doesn't make us "haters". Minimizing other posters "opinions" by calling anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't garner much goodwill either.


Just a quick list of some recent posts. you will recognize yours I am sure:

"Along with every other use. They are also I.C.E. centric, the last thing mountain bikers need to align themselves with. You wouldn't happen to sit on the board would you?"

"The same should be said of you, the one spouting the same tired rhetoric of the unicorn hunting e-motor bike fans."

"Come on, you're smart enough to know a pedal assist still has a throttle. Just because it is controlled through the pedals does not magically turn it into a non-throttle. My car doesn't have a twist..."
"Ok, I have it figured out, tuckerjt07 is a neural network that just talks in circles without really saying anything. Wow, that is pretty impressive, seemed like a real human for awhile. We all fell..."
"How brain dead is it to say that a motor on a bike makes it not motorized."
"Ebikers are like the gill netting for fish, I am riding here, there is no motor on my bike, that's what the law says. You should all give me a seat at the table... blah blah f'ing blah"
"ruthagaba is about as believable as your stupid stories about how every person you meet on the trails loves your ebike and just can't wait to get one."

And that's not hate?


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

mountainbiker24 said:


> The hypocrisy is frustrating! You say that the discussions are good, and then you proceed to call us haters while demanding we respect e-bikers on your terms. No. Just no.


I quote"I'll take the heat for most of the "hate" by e-bike haters. I have a strong desire that e-bikes be classified as e-bikes. I don't hate e-bikes, but I am struggling to find common ground with people like you and jim_bo."

So you take the heat for the hate, yet you cannot be called a hater?

ok....


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> But many examples of "unauthorized" access which would probably put that access at risk. So, bend it anyway you want but the truth is as usual something different than the portrayal you present.


Unauthorized access is a problem that plagues both sides.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

ruthabagah said:


> I quote"I'll take the heat for most of the "hate" by e-bike haters. I have a strong desire that e-bikes be classified as e-bikes. I don't hate e-bikes, but I am struggling to find common ground with people like you and jim_bo."
> 
> So you take the heat for the hate, yet you cannot be called a hater?
> 
> ok....


You can call me whatever you want. It really doesn't bother me. That doesn't make your post any less hypocritical.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You can call me whatever you want. It really doesn't bother me. That doesn't make your post any less hypocritical.


Well, looks like it's bothering you, since you continue bringing it up.

Anyway, lets go back to the topic:

"Has anyone here actually received a ticket for riding an e-bike on a trail?"


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

ruthabagah said:


> Well, looks like it's bothering you, since you continue bringing it up.
> 
> Anyway, lets go back to the topic:
> 
> "Has anyone here actually received a ticket for riding an e-bike on a trail?"


Your hypocrisy bothers me. Not the name.

Yes, let's continue talking about poaching and getting, or not getting away with it. 🙄


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

ruthabagah said:


> And that's not hate?


No. It's not.

Now stop being a baby.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Fines and asset seizures have been levied against mountain bikers for poaching trails in wilderness areas and in national parks both.


Do any of these instance involve the biker riding an ebike?


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

ruthabagah said:


> Do any of these instance involve the biker riding an ebike?


Do you think the outcome would have been any different if they had?


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Your hypocrisy bothers me. Not the name.
> 
> Yes, let's continue talking about poaching and getting, or not getting away with it. 🙄


Do you have any evidence of poaching or just making it up, again?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> Do any of these instance involve the biker riding an ebike?


The point was made that poaching does not have consequences, my response is to demonstrate that they do. Take it as you will.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

ryguy79 said:


> Do you think the outcome would have been any different if they had?


Just wondering since some of the members on this sub forum are specifically concerned about the impeding ebike apocalypse. I am sure that if an ebike was caught poaching, this would have made the national news.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> The point was made that poaching does not have consequences, my response is to demonstrate that they do. Take it as you will.


Thank you for the clarification. I just wanted to verify, since the topic of this forum is:

"Has anyone here actually received a ticket for riding an e-bike on a trail?"


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

ruthabagah said:


> Do you have any evidence of poaching or just making it up, again?


I do. Top and bottom of pic were taken maybe 50 feet apart.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

Not getting caught doesn't equal being the right thing to do.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> Thank you for the clarification. I just wanted to verify, since the topic of this forum is:
> 
> "Has anyone here actually received a ticket for riding an e-bike on a trail?"


More to your point, the ones that have received citations aren't talking about it on here. MTBR is but a small bit of the cycling universe after all. So to cite anything that is posted or not posted here is folly. You can however take verifiable events and extrapolate for yourself likely outcomes of certain illegal actions.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

But. There are anecdotal stories of E-motorbikers receiving citations in the mail recently after being photographed poaching BLM non-motorized trails. The reporter of these actions leaves me with no reason to doubt the veracity of the claims either.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> The rules are in flux until the new admin. clarifies them according to a post made by kjr, civility has not been suspended though.


This. I am waiting on the new ownership to make a decision, until then I am not moving threads out of the eBike section or closing them unless they become uncivil. Users who make disgusting suggestions to the Mods will get a time-out though. Keep it civil or risk a time-out.

To be clear, opposition viewpoints do not make one a "hater".

Also, moderators are allowed to have and express opinions, and are encouraged to engage on the forums.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> But. There are anecdotal stories of E-motorbikers receiving citations in the mail recently after being photographed poaching BLM non-motorized trails. The reporter of these actions leaves me with no reason to doubt the veracity of the claims either.


Anecdotal is the key word. Since there is a lot of emotions around ebikes, we probably need more than that to build or rest a case. There will always be poachers, MTB or EMTB riders.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

ruthabagah said:


> Do you have any evidence of poaching or just making it up, again?


Seriously? Did you read the title? Would anybody ask if people were getting tickets or fines if they were riding legally?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Also, moderators are allowed to have and express opinions, and are encouraged to engage on the forums.


But they should not be allowed to flaunt site rules while doing so.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> There will always be poachers, MTB or EMTB riders.


You answered your own question. It's probably beyond any reasonable doubt that you could expect that an e-motorbiker has been cited for poaching, and I believe that reasonable people would agree with me on that.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Klurejr said:


> To be clear, opposition viewpoints do not make one a "hater".
> 
> .


Perfect. Now is it acceptable that other member of this forum, with obvious bias against ebikes, are not called upon when they use the following words in their statement about other members with dissenting opinions?

"brain dead, baby, stupid"? And that's just one page.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

ruthabagah said:


> Perfect. Now is it acceptable that other member of this forum, with obvious bias against ebikes, are not called upon when they use the following words in their statement about other members with dissenting opinions?
> 
> "brain dead, baby, stupid"? And that's just one page.


Someone pointed out the blatantly obvious and inarguable fact that PAS e-bikes have a pedal actuated throttle and you consider that an example of 'hate'?

Uhhh...okay...


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> You answered your own question. It's probably beyond any reasonable doubt that you could expect that an e-motorbiker has been cited for poaching, and I believe that reasonable people would agree with me on that.


I actually would be surprised if anyone has been cited. It's simple math: according to you and some other members here, land managers have a bias against ebikes. So they wouldn't miss an opportunity to let the world know that they caught one of them (just like NYC did late last year).


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

life behind bars said:


> Please don't resort
> 
> 
> ruthabagah said:
> ...


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

ryguy79 said:


> I do. Top and bottom of pic were taken maybe 50 feet apart.


Anyone can place a sign. I could place a sign that says that everyone has to pay me $20, but given I have no authority to make that demand, I don't anticipate people will be lining up to pay me.

Your pictures, while compelling to those who are anti-eBikes, doesn't tell most of the story. By what authority was the sign placed? Is the trail state, local or federal? What class of eBike is in the picture? Etc.

I could make all sorts of assumptions about these pictures. If I assume that's a class 1 eBike and I assume that this is BLM or USFS land, then I would say that this person is in fact NOT poaching and he is riding legally.

Provide some details if you want your point to be considered seriously.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> The idea of banning something because government can't figure out how to regulate it is reprehensible to liberty. This is not an eBike issue, but an issue of what free men in a free country should expect from their government. If you think it's ok for government to just randomly start banning things simply because they think enforcing reasonable regulation would be to hard... then we have MUCH bigger problems than eBikes.
> 
> There are two different kinds of Americans. One type would gladly accept the crumbs that fall from the master's table. The other recognizes that public lands belong to the public and they will demand access to these lands unless there is compelling reasons not to have access. It's up to you to decide which group you are in..


Political talk is not allowed on this site. You are not pushing some sort of political agenda. Stop. Another post like this will get you a perma-ban.

The Land Managers put the rules for trail access in place, you have a problem with that, take it up with the Land Mangers, do not post this sort of "liberty first" agenda on this site.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

ruthabagah said:


> Perfect. Now is it acceptable that other member of this forum, with obvious bias against ebikes, are not called upon when they use the following words in their statement about other members with dissenting opinions?
> 
> "brain dead, baby, stupid"? And that's just one page.


No, it is not acceptable. Use the "report" feature on the posts in question to alert a mod to deal with it.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> No, it is not acceptable. Use the "report" feature on the posts in question to alert a mod to deal with it.


Make sure you are OK with your report being made public as well before doing so though.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> I actually would be surprised if anyone has been cited. It's simple math: according to you and some other members here, land managers have a bias against ebikes. So they wouldn't miss an opportunity to let the world know that they caught one of them (just like NYC did late last year).


This a joke, right?


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

Jim_bo said:


> Anyone can place a sign. I could place a sign that says that everyone has to pay me $20, but given I have no authority to make that demand, I don't anticipate people will be lining up to pay me.
> 
> Your pictures, while compelling to those who are anti-eBikes, doesn't tell most of the story. By what authority was the sign placed? Is the trail state, local or federal? What class of eBike is in the picture? Etc.
> 
> ...


Its state land managed by Michigan DNR. DTE trail. I don't feel the need to prove anything further to you.

DTE Energy Foundation Trail


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> But. There are anecdotal stories of E-motorbikers receiving citations in the mail recently after being photographed poaching BLM non-motorized trails. The reporter of these actions leaves me with no reason to doubt the veracity of the claims either.


When I think of "e-motorbikes", I think of OHVs like an Alta, a dirt bike.

For the sake of discussion, Would we all agree that a class 1 pedal assist mtb is not in the same category as an e-motorbike? One puts out between 20-50 horsepower and 100 lbs/ft of torque, the other one adds a 250 watt assist to the riders pedal power. 250 watts plus average rider watts is less than the total watts of an unassisted pro rider.

In my opinion, emtbs (at least class 1) and mtbs are not apples and oranges, they're Granny Smith and Red Delicious. Not saying that I would ever buy one or that I think they should immediately be allowed on trail networks without lots and lots of discussion, research, outreach, and work. Not at all. But the class 1 bikes are just not that big of a deal and I don't see the threat. Bring them into the fold I say.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> This a joke, right?


I don't do jokes. I do fact, based on evidences. You should try.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

18/21 said:


> When I think of "e-motorbikes", I think of OHVs like an Alta, a dirt bike.
> 
> For the sake of discussion, Would we all agree that a class 1 pedal assist mtb is not in the same category as an e-motorbike? One puts out between 20-50 horsepower and 100 lbs/ft of torque, the other one adds a 250 watt assist to the riders pedal power. 250 watts plus average rider watts is less than the total watts of an unassisted pro rider.
> 
> In my opinion, emtbs (at least class 1) and mtbs are not apples and oranges, they're Granny Smith and Red Delicious. Not saying that I would ever buy one or that I think they should immediately be allowed on trail networks without lots and lots of discussion, research, outreach, and work. Not at all. But the class 1 bikes are just not that big of a deal and I don't see the threat. Bring them into the fold I say.


Nope, cloak it whatever euphamism you want to but it's a motorbike.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> I don't do jokes. I do fact, based on evidences. You should try.


And here I thought we were going to be reasonable.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

BTW: I found the real picture.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

you probably wear tin foil hats too.

FAQ : DTE Energy Foundation Trail
Motorized vehicles, including electric-assist bicycles and mopeds will not be allowed on the trail.


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> Nope, cloak it whatever euphamism you want to but it's a motorbike.


Interesting. So would you say that every commuter who rides an ebike to work or school is actually riding a motorcycle, and not a bicycle? Therefore they should be riding fully out in the lane with other motor vehicles and not allowed to use the shoulder or bike path? Again, we're talking class 1, 250 watt, pedal assist ebikes.

Not trying to be argumentative, but most would agree that these city commuters are bikes, and I'd say every city needs a lot more of them. But if these urban commuters are defined as "bicycles", which they are in my state and most other places, then a class 1 emtb must also be a bicycle. Doesn't mean they're allowed on natural surfaces, or that they'll ever make it onto the trails around here.

Calling them e-motorbikes just for the sake of being pejorative misses what the real enemy is: too much traffic.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> View attachment 1208668
> 
> 
> BTW: I found the real picture.


Spreading misinformation should be a permaban.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

18/21 said:


> For the sake of discussion, Would we all agree that a class 1 pedal assist mtb is not in the same category as an e-motorbike? One puts out between 20-50 horsepower and 100 lbs/ft of torque, the other one adds a 250 watt assist to the riders pedal power. 250 watts plus average rider watts is less than the total watts of an unassisted pro rider.


I'd venture that there isn't anyone here who seriously believes an ebike and a motorcycle are the same thing, it really comes down to those who believe they are simply a bicycle, and those that think that they are a different type of vehicle altogether. Not bicycle, not motorcycle. US legal ebikes are regulated like mopeds in the EU, as an example.

FYI, current 250W mid drive motors top out at somewhere north of 500w at peak, with assist levels now over 400%. So, input 125w on your own, get 500w added on top of that. Class 1 ebikes are allowed 750w, which is @ 1500w peak, so it's not an insignificant amount of power on hand.


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

Harryman said:


> I'd venture that there isn't anyone here who seriously believes an ebike and a motorcycle are the same thing, it really comes down to those who believe they are simply a bicycle, and those that think that they are a different type of vehicle altogether. Not bicycle, not motorcycle. US legal ebikes are regulated like mopeds in the EU, as an example.
> 
> FYI, current 250W mid drive motors top out at somewhere north of 500w at peak, with assist levels now over 400%. So, input 125w on your own, get 500w added on top of that. Class 1 ebikes are allowed 750w, which is @ 1500w peak, so it's not an insignificant amount of power on hand.


Agreed, and I'm fine with them being regulated. Hell I would even be willing to pay for tabs for my cargo bike if it means I get to continue enjoying car-free commuting, kid hauling, and grocery getting while side-stepping the chronic gridlock in my region.

Regarding wattage, you're correct (at least in my state), but for some reason the class 1 bikes I see at shops are usually 250w. I've ridden one and it was a nice little boost.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> Political talk is not allowed on this site. You are not pushing some sort of political agenda. Stop. Another post like this will get you a perma-ban.
> 
> The Land Managers put the rules for trail access in place, you have a problem with that, take it up with the Land Mangers, do not post this sort of "liberty first" agenda on this site.


You have got to be kidding me.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

18/21 said:


> Agreed, and I'm fine with them being regulated. Hell I would even be willing to pay for tabs for my cargo bike if it means I get to continue enjoying car-free commuting, kid hauling, and grocery getting while side-stepping the chronic gridlock in my region.
> 
> Regarding wattage, you're correct (at least in my state), but for some reason the class 1 bikes I see at shops are usually 250w. I've ridden one and it was a nice little boost.


I'd love an ecargo bike, I just can't come up with reason enough to buy one yet.

The traditional bike companies are currently selling emtbs for the EU market where the money is, and they're 250w EU spec, the speed limit is software regulated, so it's easy to set them up for the different cutoffs.

Non traditional ebike companies, who are only slightly edging into emtbs, are making 750w-1000w efat and commuter ebikes, with hub motors. There are midrive motor systems out there, both Chinese and European, which are far more powerful than the EU spec, which the makers are planning to software limit the power to suit whatever country's spec. We'll see decent "750w" emtbs fairly soon.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

18/21 said:


> Interesting. So would you say that every commuter who rides an ebike to work or school is actually riding a motorcycle, and not a bicycle? Therefore they should be riding fully out in the lane with other motor vehicles and not allowed to use the shoulder or bike path? Again, we're talking class 1, 250 watt, pedal assist ebikes.
> 
> Not trying to be argumentative, but most would agree that these city commuters are bikes, and I'd say every city needs a lot more of them. But if these urban commuters are defined as "bicycles", which they are in my state and most other places, then a class 1 emtb must also be a bicycle. Doesn't mean they're allowed on natural surfaces, or that they'll ever make it onto the trails around here.
> 
> Calling them e-motorbikes just for the sake of being pejorative misses what the real enemy is: too much traffic.


Do some research please. This has been beaten to death many times. The vehicle code is different. Yes they are not considered motor vehicles on the roads and paths so you won't need insurance/reg/lic. This does not change the fact that they have a motor. LM's can make their own decision on them. No matter what jimbo thinks.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

ruthabagah said:


> Having concerns is a good thing. Discussing them is what this forum is all about. Making up rules, stories about the upcoming ebike apocalypse and personal attack on members not sharing your point of view, is hate. Just like over half of your post on this sub forum.
> 
> One thing you and your gang fail to understand is that ebike riders where not a "spontaneous generation" group that all the sudden discovers mtb. We have been riding, advocating, building trails, for a long time. We just decided to try something different, something new and it works for us.
> 
> ...


It's not any different than making up stories about the pending ebike euphoria you guys dream about. "We buy ebikes, of course they will just open up all trails for us, the law says my bike does not motor so I can ride anywhere a bike can ride"

The difference poaching on a real bike, you are on a trail closed to bikes, you will get a ticket but they will never close the trail to hikers. Poach on an ebike, it is likely you're poaching a trail already open to mtbs, like that guy in the picture. Now you are running the risk of getting it closed to bikes and ebikes. "Can't tell them apart, they are slower than mtbs etc," all the normal stories you tell. As you blow by hikers at pro level speeds, uphill. Mountain bikes will be lumped in with the ebikes when this happens.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> History lesson:
> 
> The first mountain bikes were downhill bikes.
> The first mountain bike race was a downhill race.
> ...


Interesting point; but where the sport of DH biking began (Marin County, Calif.) MTBing is severely restricted.

I suspect e-biking will follow a similar route if it "takes off"; and since since they're "just bicycles" MTBing will slide down the slippery slope into the abyss.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

You can always come and ride here, we'll be fine. :thumbsup:


----------



## 18/21 (Sep 27, 2017)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Do some research please. This has been beaten to death many times. The vehicle code is different. Yes they are not considered motor vehicles on the roads and paths so you won't need insurance/reg/lic. This does not change the fact that they have a motor. LM's can make their own decision on them. No matter what jimbo thinks.


I've done some research, thanks. It's just a name, but classifying them as "bicycles" within the motor vehicle code is essential to making sure they can expand as a transportation alternative. In the mtb perspective, of course they're not "simply bicycles", just like they're not simply motorbikes. They're different, and they don't work on most mtb trail networks at this point because of all the reasons discussed in this thread already.

Just does not make sense to get this fired up about ebikes. They're a great, great thing.

Ok gotta go do a Costco run on my two-wheeled battery-powered SUV.


----------



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

18/21 said:


> It's just a name, but classifying them as "bicycles" within the motor vehicle code is essential to making sure they can expand as a transportation alternative.


^That's pretty much the only reason I'm opposed to them.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Please do not tire yourself out by going in circles as to what to call them, what I have found that works best on this site is to call anything that is Class 1, 2 or 3 an eBike.

Anything bigger and faster is open season for being called a motorbike or motorcycle etc.....

Class 1, 2 and 3 eBikes are not Electric Motorcycles. I think the term electric motorbike is more controversial since in some parts of the world Motorbike and motorcycle are interchangeable words. No one I know in SoCal calls motorcycles, motorbikes.

When I think of a motorbike I think of those bicycles with a small lawnmower engine in them. And those sorts of rides are still different than an eBike.



As to the point about them being considered a Bicycle by the vehicles code to avoid insurance for Commuter eBikes and the like.... well that has ZERO to do with trail access. The vehicle code applies to paved surfaces, streets and sidewalks.

California took it a step further and made law that states Class 1 and Class 2 eBikes shall be considered a Bicycle for legal reasons when it comes to trail access, however the Governing agencies for the trails have the right to overrule that statement and make their own decisions as they see fit when it comes to access.

Some trail systems in California has decided to not allow eBikes on trails, some have not made a stand and thus the state law allows them, some have expressly allowed them.

This causes confusion since it is now up the user to do some research and find out if the eBike they just spent thousands of dollars on is legal where they want to ride it.

Most of this has been discussed to death over and over again in this forum.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Moe Ped said:


> Interesting point; but where the sport of mountain biking began (Marin County, Calif.) MTBing is severely restricted.
> .


fify

I think that's got more to do with Marin than mountain bikes.


----------



## Whiptastic (Mar 14, 2016)

OhioPT said:


> Will e-bikes increase the amount of people wanting mtb trails? Absolutely.


:thumbsup:


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Wanting is easy.
Doing is another story.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

I'm confused about the rules of this forum.

The moderators participate in open violation of the rules on a regular basis as many posts of this thread point out. Many of the members also do so even more egregiously than the moderators. However, it seems that when someone who has different opinions from the moderators posts on this site, the moderators (i.e. supermoderator) become hyper-critical of the rules.

Again, it's difficult to find anyone who is publicly chastised on this site despite the gross rules violations. However, it seems that I am publicly chastised frequently. Coincidentally, I hold opposing viewpoints to the supermoderator.

Case in point, our supermoderator posts this public tongue-lashing towards me:



> Political talk is not allowed on this site. You are not pushing some sort of political agenda. Stop. Another post like this will get you a perma-ban.


So, when it comes to discussing lobbying for trail access, persuading the policies of BLM/USFS, maintaining public opinion, interpretation of the law to meet one's agenda, and literally just about everything that has ever been posted about eBikes, can someone please explain to me how none of this is about politics??? Because I think it is ALL about politics.

To be clear, if you are talking about land management, you are talking about politics. If you are talking about public policy, you are talking about politics. If you are talking about laws and regulations, you are talking about politics. If you are talking about the way public servants perform their duties, you are talking about politics.

So, it seems that the rules of this forum are: it's ok to talk about politics. Heck, the title of this entire thread is about politics. However, we pretend it's not politics. That is until someone posts something that the supermoderator doesn't like and finds difficult to refute... and THEN, it's rules-violation politics!!!

So to be clear again, this post is NOT about the politics of land management; federal, state or local governments; or the founding principles of our country. This post is about the politics of the moderation of this site. The biased moderation and the abuse of moderators' micro-authority has got to stop.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Jim_bo said:


> To be clear, if you are talking about land management, you are talking about politics. If you are talking about public policy, you are talking about politics. If you are talking about laws and regulations, you are talking about politics. If you are talking about the way public servants perform their duties, you are talking about politics.












Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Instead of continually polluting this thread with the incessant whining go start a thread in Site Issues.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Instead of continually polluting this thread with the incessant whining go start a thread in Site Issues.


Instead of continually polluting this thread with incessant whining about, what you term as, the whining in this thread in response to events in this thread go start a thread in Site Issues.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

There are two different kinds of Americans. One type would gladly accept the crumbs that fall from the master's table. The other recognizes that public lands belong to the public and they will demand access to these lands unless there is compelling reasons not to have access. It's up to you to decide which group you are in..


This is the politics he is talking about and the type that should get you banned. You are saying either be like you(the way YOU perceive yourself) or we are bunch of slaves. Get over yourself.

Having a motor on your bike is a compelling reason to most sane people.


----------



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

sfgiantsfan said:


> Get over yourself.


You're forgetting that Jimbo is the reasonable one with an open mind.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

sfgiantsfan said:


> > There are two different kinds of Americans. One type would gladly accept the crumbs that fall from the master's table. The other recognizes that public lands belong to the public and they will demand access to these lands unless there is compelling reasons not to have access. It's up to you to decide which group you are in..
> 
> 
> This is the politics he is talking about and the type that should get you banned. You are saying either be like you(the way YOU perceive yourself) or we are bunch of slaves. Get over yourself.


sfgiantsfan makes a good point you know.....


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> sfgiantsfan makes a good point you know.....


Until you can reconcile all of your abuses of your micro authority and your blatant violations of the forum rules, you have no moral authority to make such judgement. By the same standards sfgiantfan uses, you should have been banned a long time ago.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> Until you can reconcile all of your abuses of your micro authority and your blatant violations of the forum rules, you have no moral authority to make such judgement. By the same standards sfgiantfan uses, you should have been banned a long time ago.


You could petition the admin. for your money back.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Jim_bo said:


> Until you can reconcile all of your abuses of your micro authority and your blatant violations of the forum rules, you have no moral authority to make such judgement. By the same standards sfgiantfan uses, you should have been banned a long time ago.


Your posts have been worthless this entire thread. You've been looking for arguments, not discussions, and you're doing e-bikers no favors. I've been enjoying this, honestly.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Your posts have been worthless this entire thread. You've been looking for arguments, not discussions, and you're doing e-bikers no favors. I've been enjoying this, honestly.


We are all entitled to our opinions, as long as it's jimbo's, if not we are closed minded slaves


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

sfgiantsfan said:


> we HAVE A closed HIVEmind


Corrected to better reflect the reality of the situation.


----------

