# Boston Globe article on e-mountain bikes



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

This article sounds a lot like this forum

However, a new generation of electric bikes - or e-bikes - threatens to disrupt that hard-earned access, often pitting cyclists against cyclists, advocates against advocates, and even bike shops against bike shops.

E-bikes are "pedal-assisted" bikes, not motocross rigs with throttles and big engines. They've gained traction in the road and rail-trail markets, allowing folks with disabilities, injuries, or flagging fitness more opportunities to ride.

"Our position is that e-mountain bikes are motorized, and should be managed as such," said Philip Keyes, executive director of the New England Mountain Bike Association (NEMBA). "If e-mountain bikes and [human-powered] bikes begin to be managed as a single category of use, I believe it would be next to impossible to open up new areas for mountain biking, especially on land trust and conservation lands that don't allow motorized use."

Conversely, Mike Hauser, owner of Pedego Electric Bikes Boston in Belmont, said "the hard-line stance against e-mountain bikes by associations like NEMBA is a serious problem, as it is full of negativity and exclusivity."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/r...ntain-bikes/D86btoFw3lNoETRd1iSmHK/story.html


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Did you actually read the article? NS nemba guy here. You and my opinions matter not. Current rules on the books and land manager choices are what matters.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

leeboh said:


> Did you actually read the article? NS nemba guy here. You and my opinions matter not. Current rules on the books and land manager choices are what matters.


Yes I read the article, I would not of posted it otherwise. Always interesting to see if someone will respond hostility to an article. I just posted the article and a few quotes, which sound just like this forum.

Did you catch the "reviewing" current rules part?

"Spokesman Troy Wall said the state Department of Conservation and Recreation doesn't permit motorized vehicles on nonmotorized trails, but acknowledged the agency will be reviewing the policy. "

Who knows maybe MA will become enlightened like CO on this subject.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Lived here my whole life, state agencies move slooooow some times. Mt bikes are a minority trail user in some areas, huge amounts of hikers and dog walkers here. Serious amounts of budget cuts and underfunding. Some things don't even get opened during the warmer months. Like beaches and pools. So they want more meetings, policy reviews, work and enforcement? Not likely. You have no clue about the legacy, policy history and the advocacy here. None. Nemba was created more then 25 years ago because of a ban on mt biking in the Fells. Still have only about 1/2 open to bikers. More work to do. His quote" doesn't permit motorized vehicles on non motorized trails" It's the motor. Start there.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

leeboh said:


> Lived here my whole life, state agencies move slooooow some times. Mt bikes are a minority trail user in some areas, huge amounts of hikers and dog walkers here. Serious amounts of budget cuts and underfunding. Some things don't even get opened during the warmer months. Like beaches and pools. So they want more meetings, policy reviews, work and enforcement? Not likely. You have no clue about the legacy, policy history and the advocacy here. None. Nemba was created more then 25 years ago because of a ban on mt biking in the Fells. Still have only about 1/2 open to bikers. More work to do. His quote" doesn't permit motorized vehicles on non motorized trails" It's the motor. Start there.


Why would I need to start there??? Take your concerns up with the author of the article.
Since that article mentions multiple people that don't seem to agree with you that are in your neck of the woods.


----------



## dbhammercycle (Nov 15, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> Why would I need to start there??? Take your concerns up with the author of the article.
> Since that article mentions multiple people that don't seem to agree with you that are in your neck of the woods.


Come on Ken... Leeboh's 1st reponse, 2nd post in the thread which you started. Leeboh has further tried to share with you his advocacy experiences in the state he has lived his whole life. He's trying to educate, what are you doing?

Your opinion of what should be doesn't matter, only the current reality of the situation of where you ride. If that is not to your liking, then you need to advocate for yourself. Cyclists won't do it for you, horse riders and hikers most certainly won't. One way to advocate is to look at the language that governs riding on trails in your area and challenge that language or advocate that the language should be changed. Your opinion of what the "government" should or should not be allowed to do regarding your freedoms is irrelevant. If you want a revolution be a leader, not a complainer.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

^^^^ This.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

dbhammercycle said:


> Come on Ken... Leeboh's 1st reponse, 2nd post in the thread which you started. Leeboh has further tried to share with you his advocacy experiences in the state he has lived his whole life. He's trying to educate, what are you doing?


I'm posting a article I found interesting on the subject.
Article that as I mentioned in the first post is very much like how this forum is discussed.



> Your opinion of what should be doesn't matter, only the current reality of the situation of where you ride. If that is not to your liking, then you need to advocate for yourself. Cyclists won't do it for you, horse riders and hikers most certainly won't. One way to advocate is to look at the language that governs riding on trails in your area and challenge that language or advocate that the language should be changed. Your opinion of what the "government" should or should not be allowed to do regarding your freedoms is irrelevant. If you want a revolution be a leader, not a complainer.


Ah you seem to be projecting the other thread into this one that is your and Leeboh's mistake and shows I seem to be getting under the skin of a few.

Look I have read this forum for a bit and see the gang mentality that the anti e-bikers take. I for one will not back down from a fight since I find that mentality despicable when we are all bikers and should have each others backs.

Going by that article my views in the other thread are far from unique.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

KenPsz said:


> "Our position is that e-mountain bikes are motorized, and should be managed as such," said Philip Keyes, executive director of the New England Mountain Bike Association (NEMBA). "If e-mountain bikes and [human-powered] bikes begin to be managed as a single category of use, I believe it would be next to impossible to open up new areas for mountain biking, especially on land trust and conservation lands that don't allow motorized use."
> 
> https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/r...ntain-bikes/D86btoFw3lNoETRd1iSmHK/story.html


Nice circular argument.

"Our position is that e-bikes deserve no access, because if they did get access, then it would be much harder to get future access for all bikes". A statement that drips with prejudice. It all comes down to who the land trust and conservation land managers listen to. If the 'experts' on mountain biking say e-bikes are motorized, that makes everything a self-fulfilling prophecy which dooms them to motorized status. There is no objective analysis, there is just the fear of not getting new access for normal bikes, so they want to shut the closet door quickly on e-bikes in order to omit any complications later. What they don't understand, is if they were more positive about e-bikes to begin with, then the land managers may accept them as normal bikes and not as motorized bikes, and then there was nothing to worry about anyway. This is like some self-fulfilling anxiety attack people are having. How do they know it will be next to impossible to get more areas opened? They are the 'experts' labeling e-bikes as motorized, and they as the experts could label them as non-motorized as well. Are they worried that their opinion only counts when they condemn something? Are they worried that if they had a more positive outlook, things may not work out later anyway, and then they have the e-bike albatross on their neck? Completely risk-averse. Life is not about avoiding risks, it's about embracing them.

This reminds me a lot of clinical medicine. Very, very, slow to accept new ideas. It doesn't matter how many millions of people die during the decades it takes to accept alternative ideas about healthcare, it only matters that they stay 'professional', and quash any ideas that they are not 100% on board with. Better to play it safe than to have any real progress in the world, because progress threatens to force someone set in their ways to adapt.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Hey KenPsZ, 

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but maybe these guys will understand when they end up on the other side of "biking is life" and get an ebike just to keep going a little bit longer.

But maybe just work to create a group, then go and work with private land owners and see about getting a program and co-op set up.

There is plenty of privately held land that I image would love to start a business that benefits ebike riders and themselves. 

I think once a few areas have a "private trail" and a pay to use model, there will be a not so subtle shift of opinion.

Especially if public land managers and tax payer see the willingness to pay to use model can work.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Hawk258 said:


> Hey KenPsZ,
> 
> Not to put too fine of a point on it, but maybe these guys will understand when they end up on the other side of "biking is life" and get an ebike just to keep going a little bit longer.
> 
> ...


I have seen that at the boy scouts property in Marin CA and it was an AWESOME trail. With bikers checking and ticketing if you did not have a pass for the trail.

In the mean time I am reaching out to my state reps to see if I can get them to look at what CO did. Since if CO with their HUGE biking population can allow e-bikes my little state should too.

What is really weird about where I live I know of a bike shop that sells e-bikes. Yet the owner is one of the most elite snobs I have ever meet. So he is in it just for the money since he will sell something for thousands that he knows can only be ridden legally on one trail.

Great point about the getting older and e-bikes allowing people to continue to enjoy the hobby.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> I have seen that at the boy scouts property in Marin CA and it was an AWESOME trail. With bikers checking and ticketing if you did not have a pass for the trail.
> 
> In the mean time I am reaching out to my state reps to see if I can get them to look at what CO did. Since if CO with their HUGE biking population can allow e-bikes my little state should too.
> 
> ...


It's not entirely about Getting older, it's about "ability"

Leg and knee injuries can take you out at any time and many of them can just limit what you do.

In the case of "limiting" the ability I think many opinions will change.


----------



## dbhammercycle (Nov 15, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> I'm posting a article I found interesting on the subject.
> Article that as I mentioned in the first post is very much like how this forum is discussed.
> 
> Ah you seem to be projecting the other thread into this one that is your and Leeboh's mistake and shows I seem to be getting under the skin of a few.
> ...


Ken, I would have to know you and care about you for you to get under my skin.

For the record, I am not anti e-bike. I am anti-poaching, anti-douche behavior, carry in carry out, respect the land and those using and maintaining it. I am a believer in a non-motorized Boundary Waters as a potential means, hopefully fruitful, of protecting that area for example. I simply think ebikers and the associated industry need to advocate for themselves instead of piggy backing on the access granted to cyclists w/o motors. It's all about the current language governing the access to the area and the governing body, not about your feelings no matter how strong they are.

Not being unique does not imply a majority nor does it imply truth. Being a majority in a situation where you are advocating for access may certainly be of benefit, but it does not mean access is automatically granted.

If you want other trail users to advocate along with you then you need speak with them. Provide good reasons that you should act together, that you share the same goals not just the same joy of using the managed/protected land. In other words, advocate for yourself to be a part of the group not chastise the group because they don't automatically fall in line with your beliefs, regardless of whether or not those beliefs are idyllic or reality.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Also as was pointed out there is a lack of manpower to enforce laws and rules on these trails.

As a tax payer that is very concerning to me. 

But the cause isn't "just lack of funds" it is increased demand for use without an increase of funds to match.

My opinion is that maybe those demanding use of public lands should "pay to use" to help cover that deficit. 

But then again "I am an a$$#ole"

It might just see an acceptance of ebikes just to offset costs if they did have to "pay to use".

Hikers, horses riders, mountain bikers wouldn't be in such a hurry to "keep each other out".

Maybe Boobie trapping incidence would go down.

Maybe the land managers would be more willing to let other groups in.

Money makes the world go round.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

richj8990 said:


> Nice circular argument.
> 
> "Our position is that e-bikes deserve no access, because if they did get access, then it would be much harder to get future access for all bikes". A statement that drips with prejudice. It all comes down to who the land trust and conservation land managers listen to. If the 'experts' on mountain biking say e-bikes are motorized, that makes everything a self-fulfilling prophecy which dooms them to motorized status. There is no objective analysis, there is just the fear of not getting new access for normal bikes, so they want to shut the closet door quickly on e-bikes in order to omit any complications later. What they don't understand, is if they were more positive about e-bikes to begin with, then the land managers may accept them as normal bikes and not as motorized bikes, and then there was nothing to worry about anyway. This is like some self-fulfilling anxiety attack people are having. How do they know it will be next to impossible to get more areas opened? They are the 'experts' labeling e-bikes as motorized, and they as the experts could label them as non-motorized as well. Are they worried that their opinion only counts when they condemn something? Are they worried that if they had a more positive outlook, things may not work out later anyway, and then they have the e-bike albatross on their neck? Completely risk-averse. Life is not about avoiding risks, it's about embracing them.
> 
> This reminds me a lot of clinical medicine. Very, very, slow to accept new ideas. It doesn't matter how many millions of people die during the decades it takes to accept alternative ideas about healthcare, it only matters that they stay 'professional', and quash any ideas that they are not 100% on board with. Better to play it safe than to have any real progress in the world, because progress threatens to force someone set in their ways to adapt.


You completely ignore the reality that in many cases the trail funding for many areas is explicitly limited to nonmotorized trail maintenance and creation.

Existing regulations cover ebikes, no matter how you cut/slice/dice it. They have a motor and thus do not qualify as nonmotorized. In certain jurisdictions they have been explicitly allowed, that does not change the existing reality in the majority of the USA. Ignoring reality and claiming hateful rhetoric from well reasoned responses intended to enlighten and educate you.

Ignoring these fundametals vis a vis trail access is foolish at best and intentionally disingenious at worst and will only succeed in limiting your trail access for the future.

Advocacy is hard work, why should you have trail access with no effort?


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Though I do find it odd that it costs $50 for a person to get 10 cord of wood with a gas powered chainsaw, yet a lower risk "ebike" can't be used on a managed trail for any price.

Imagine what $25 to $100 a year per rider could do to help forest management.

Seems kind of interesting that actual gas powered motorcycles can operate (with specific restrictions) in the national and state forests, but an item no more powerful than an electric wheel chair is denied?

Do hiking trails deny powered wheelchairs?

I see a very distinct lack of consistency. 

Even hikers are more willing to accept "mobility" vehicles on the trails.

I for one see a backlash from legally disabled individuals that "could" potentially still enjoy mountain biking with assistance.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Ebikes are more than welcome on the thousands of miles of motocycle designated trail in our national forests.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Velocipedist said:


> Ebikes are more than welcome on the thousands of miles of motocycle designated trail in our national forests.


But they aren't motorcycles. It isn't an internal combustion engine.

It doesn't require licensing nor does it meet freeway use standards.

Are electric wheel chairs and other mobility devices considered ATV's?

I don't see much difference between the 2.

https://www.cyber-sierra.com/nrjobs/review-walknchair.html


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Hawk258 said:


> Seems kind of interesting that actual gas powered motorcycles can operate (with specific restrictions) in the national and state forests, but an item no more powerful than an electric wheel chair is denied?
> 
> .


I am calling BS on your premise here, e-bikes are allowed anywhere motorcycles are.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

But it is motorized giving you access to said trails.

Lacking access to nonmotorized trails does not mean ebikes are lacking for access. I happily share singletrack with motorcycles, they have some sweet singletrack e.g. CO.

Arguments about power/assit initiation fall flat to my ears as the motor remains the proverbial elephant in the "room". 
Good luck with your advocacy, the historical context of access is varied and deep. Understanding it would seem essential to gaining more access for ebikes.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Velocipedist said:


> But it is motorized giving you access to said trails.
> 
> Lacking access to nonmotorized trails does not mean ebikes are lacking for access. I happily share singletrack with motorcycles, they have some sweet singletrack e.g. CO.
> 
> ...


And why you will be demonized by the "legally" disabled once it gains traction.

You don't see a distinction because you see black and white.

The Ebike in my opinion is a mobility assistant. Similar to many new wheel chair designs.

Which hikers are willing to allow in spite of the motor.

In fact many electric mobility devices are far more powerful than the ebike and are far larger than the ebike.

Which both fall in my opinion in the same category.

"Power assist equipment"


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

https://www.americantrails.org/reso...ibility-rule-on-power-driven-mobility-devices


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Hawk258 said:


> But they aren't motorcycles. It isn't an internal combustion engine.
> 
> It doesn't require licensing nor does it meet freeway use standards.
> 
> ...


 The HP use is a non starter. Lots of reading at the fed ADA. Got a HP card, no issues. Look at " other power mobility devices" Depends on the trail jurisdiction and if they have a designation. Like I said , lots of reading.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Hawk258 said:


> Though I do find it odd that it costs $50 for a person to get 10 cord of wood with a gas powered chainsaw, yet a lower risk "ebike" can't be used on a managed trail for any price.
> 
> Imagine what $25 to $100 a year per rider could do to help forest management.
> 
> ...


 Do you ride in MA? Guessing not. Have to pay to park. $ 4-10 per day or get a yearly pass to park at MA state parks and forests. Goes back into the ' general fund" not back to the parks.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

richj8990 said:


> Nice circular argument.
> 
> "Our position is that e-bikes deserve no access, because if they did get access, then it would be much harder to get future access for all bikes". A statement that drips with prejudice. It all comes down to who the land trust and conservation land managers listen to. If the 'experts' on mountain biking say e-bikes are motorized, that makes everything a self-fulfilling prophecy which dooms them to motorized status. There is no objective analysis, there is just the fear of not getting new access for normal bikes, so they want to shut the closet door quickly on e-bikes in order to omit any complications later. What they don't understand, is if they were more positive about e-bikes to begin with, then the land managers may accept them as normal bikes and not as motorized bikes, and then there was nothing to worry about anyway. This is like some self-fulfilling anxiety attack people are having. How do they know it will be next to impossible to get more areas opened? They are the 'experts' labeling e-bikes as motorized, and they as the experts could label them as non-motorized as well. Are they worried that their opinion only counts when they condemn something? Are they worried that if they had a more positive outlook, things may not work out later anyway, and then they have the e-bike albatross on their neck? Completely risk-averse. Life is not about avoiding risks, it's about embracing them.
> 
> This reminds me a lot of clinical medicine. Very, very, slow to accept new ideas. It doesn't matter how many millions of people die during the decades it takes to accept alternative ideas about healthcare, it only matters that they stay 'professional', and quash any ideas that they are not 100% on board with. Better to play it safe than to have any real progress in the world, because progress threatens to force someone set in their ways to adapt.


 You really have no clue as to how stuff works in MY neck of the woods here in MA. Mt bike access has been a hard fought battle, still not over. It;s not anyone user groups opinion. Its the current laws on the books regarding A, what a motorized vehicle is ( hint, they have motors) and B, how they are enforced and legislated. And, yes, some user groups have some influence, nothing is preventing the e bikers from, forming their own groups and doing their own work. Have at it. Really. How about the conservation lands with a no motorized access rule written into the charter for tax breaks and approval to become conservation land. The trails we built on so many kinds of properties were all with the understanding of human power only. Want change? Good luck with that. NS Nemba guy here. We work with state, local, county and town officials. Conservation lands, some private land owners, Some trustees organizations ( state land holdings with public access) and more. 
Avoiding risks? Hmmm. How about keeping our trails open? Familiar with the history of motorized trails use in the state? Guessing not. Dirt bikes and atvs had use, trashed the trails, got stuck with say 8 state areas in which to use the motors. Bitter taste in so many users mouths. Our work for trail access for mt bikes is far from over, adding a motorized vehicle to the mix? Not going to help at all. Good luck with your advocacy, what are you doing in your state?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Hawk258 said:


> Hey KenPsZ,
> 
> Not to put too fine of a point on it, but maybe these guys will understand when they end up on the other side of "biking is life" and get an ebike just to keep going a little bit longer.
> 
> ...


 Private land? In the Boston MA area? Maybe way up in NH or ME. Plenty of areas in which to motor up there already.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

leeboh said:


> The HP use is a non starter. Lots of reading at the fed ADA. Got a HP card, no issues. Look at " other power mobility devices" Depends on the trail jurisdiction and if they have a designation. Like I said , lots of reading.


That's stated in the link I shared.

But the point I am making is that land managers have the ability to be flexible as the DoJ has gotten out of the fight.

At this point it's on the land managers.

And at this point they are willing to play ball with ebikes, and electric powered device users.

It appears that the biggest group of "not on my trails is in the "ebike" threads.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

leeboh said:


> Private land? In the Boston MA area? Maybe way up in NH or ME. Plenty of areas in which to motor up there already.


At least you have managed bike trails.

Eastern Oregon is largely open to most usage by all equipment. But very little manicuring or trail building.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> Nice circular argument.
> 
> "Our position is that e-bikes deserve no access, because if they did get access, then it would be much harder to get future access for all bikes". .


As usual, you miss the point.

NEMBA is not against e-bike access; they are against e-bikes classified as bicycles, which would mean that a whole bunch of people that don't use motors would now be forced to take responsibility for a user group they are not a part of, in which case, every mountain bike access effort would end up being a defacto fight for e-bikes access. NEMBA's position is e-bike users should be responsible for their own access issues; basically because it's members are experienced enough to realize that adding motors to the equation is going to absolutely compromise our hard fought access in the region.

If you think you know more about access in New England than Phil (or Lee, or a hundred other people I could name just off the top of my head), you're delusional.

How the hell is this complicated for some people?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> .
> 
> The Ebike in my opinion is a mobility assistant. Similar to many new wheel chair designs.
> "


Then take it up with the federal government, who by the way doesn't share your view.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Then take it up with the federal government, who by the way doesn't share your view.


Oh really read the link the DOJ got out of the way.
Just need land managers and riders to get on the same page and find an agreeable solution.

https://www.americantrails.org/reso...ibility-rule-on-power-driven-mobility-devices


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> Oh really read the link the DOJ got out of the way.
> Just need land managers and riders to get on the same page and find an agreeable solution.
> 
> https://www.americantrails.org/reso...ibility-rule-on-power-driven-mobility-devices


Then you should get to work.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

And you should get out of the way. You are one of the roadblocks to finding a mutually agreeable solution. 

As long as there is vocal opposition between the groups all of them lose.

Because the lack of agreement. The finger pointing about who creates issues relating to trail use, and boobie trapping all create an atmosphere where many land managers aren't willing to listen to because no one wants to share, responsibility or trails with the equipment that falls in an admittedly grey area.

Instead of fighting I think there is room for inclusion for ebikes and reasonable limits that can be laid out.

This fight should not be "traditional mountain bikers vs Ebikers". It should be about "where do we agree to share trails"

You ***** that you are still fighting for access for traditional mountain bikers. Yet because there is a divide between ebike and traditional and no honest "standard" for where they fit in the community, you just say "not my problem".

Instead of trying to find away to get them as equals in advocating for land and trail access.

I believe that ebikes actually will make more headway getting trail access because of the ADA than traditional mountain bikers will on their own.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Hawk258 said:


> And you should get out of the way. You are one of the roadblocks to finding a mutually agreeable solution.
> 
> As long as there is vocal opposition between the groups all of them lose.
> 
> ...


It is interesting how "traditional" mountain bikers are becoming more and more like the hikers and horse riders with there "get off my trails" attitudes. Hell who needs strength in numbers when you have have the power of the hall monitor.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> And you should get out of the way. You are one of the roadblocks to finding a mutually agreeable solution.


"Mutually agreeable" means all parties must be in agreement. Why should I agree?


----------



## Mt.Biker E (Mar 25, 2006)

pedal assisted by ...... wait for it.....an electric motor powered by a high capacity battery.
unless the assist is a monkey in the gear box on a tread mill a motor is a motor making it ......motorized, which by definition makes it a MOPED!


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> "Mutually agreeable" means all parties must be in agreement. Why should I agree?


Because like I said, because the ADA actually will give leverage to Ebikes and open land faster.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

And qualifying as an OPMD per ADA does not allow carte blanche use or ebikes on nonmotorized trails, it carves space for explicit exemptions. 

Your powered wheelchair is quite apt, as they are barred from most nonmotorized trails, and the ADA does not allow them access it allows for the land managers to make equivalent accomodations as the desire to allow the public at large access to mostly natural lands must be balanced with a single individual wanting access. And often times that accomodation takes the form of an alternative paved trail.

I approve of treating ebikes as OPMD contrary to the Forest Service's current stance, because it simplifies the debate, and I look forward to the marketing shift of ebike towards indoor use and the physically impaired as medical devices as required to meet the statutory definition of OPMD.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> Because like I said, because the ADA actually will give leverage to Ebikes and open land faster.


You are in for an unpleasant surprise.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> You are in for an unpleasant surprise.


Really? You don't think a few vets with dd214's and a medical discharge and disabilities couldn't make it happen?

Especially with the ADA?

Just 1 could get more done that the whole membership if this forum.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Velocipedist said:


> And qualifying as an OPMD per ADA does not allow carte blanche use or ebikes on nonmotorized trails, it carves space for explicit exemptions.
> 
> Your powered wheelchair is quite apt, as they are barred from most nonmotorized trails, and the ADA does not allow them access it allows for the land managers to make equivalent accomodations as the desire to allow the public at large access to mostly natural lands must be balanced with a single individual wanting access. And often times that accomodation takes the form of an alternative paved trail.
> 
> I approve of treating ebikes as OPMD contrary to the Forest Service's current stance, because it simplifies the debate, and I look forward to the marketing shift of ebike towards indoor use and the physically impaired as medical devices as required to meet the statutory definition of OPMD.


Never claimed it did.

And no. They are allowed where foot traffic is, must be paved or aggragated.

Read the link


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

The devil is in the details.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3vl9DoEg1qW6OvSklq9I4V&cshid=1544329343093


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Mt.Biker E said:


> pedal assisted by ...... wait for it.....an electric motor powered by a high capacity battery.
> unless the assist is a monkey in the gear box on a tread mill a motor is a motor making it ......motorized, which by definition makes it a MOPED!


So motorized wheel chairs don't belong on foot paths?

That's contrary even by many land managers rules.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> Really? You don't think a few vets with dd214's and a medical discharge and disabilities couldn't make it happen?
> 
> Especially with the ADA?
> 
> Just 1 could get more done that the whole membership if this forum.


Speaking as someone with a DD 214 in my possession and more than one "disability" that you like to tout so often, you are so out of touch with the realities of access and so unwilling to learn from others that do know something about access that you will single handedly set e-motorbike access 5 years if not permanently.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Velocipedist said:


> The devil is in the details.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3vl9DoEg1qW6OvSklq9I4V&cshid=1544329343093


Yep it is. However I believe that nothing is set in stone and can be changed.

As it is there is a point where there will be a debate in politics and court rooms where the ADA and current law will clash.

And sadly the ADA will win in the end, especially when disable vet groups get on board.

In fact I believe they will do more for "mountain biking " in regards to laws and rules than current biking groups have.

Funny how in 40 years biking has had to fight to get "3 foot" and bike lanes after getting kicked off the sidewalks.

A growing demand for bike taxes and licensing to fund the their use of the roads.

In fact many people look at bikers like entitled brats.

Bikes are also a "grey" area item. Can't use the side walk or drive through windows in many states.

Riders are being asked to have lighting, and operate more and more like a motor vehicle.

And here you are showing zero empathy to ebike riders.

Which has a far better leg to stand on with the ADA.

I could justify an ebike trail faster than I could another mountain bike trail in a court of law.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Speaking as someone with a DD 214 in my possession and more than one "disability" that you like to tout so often, you are so out of touch with the realities of access and so unwilling to learn from others that do know something about access that you will single handedly set e-motorbike access 5 years if not permanently.


You show me your dd214 and I'll show you mine.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> You show me your dd214 and I'll show you mine.


Meh, you'd just use more deflection. You're a lost cause.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Meh, you'd just use more deflection. You're a lost cause.


Put up or shut up.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> Put up or shut up.


Not shutting up and I have nothing to prove to you, Worm.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Not shutting up and I have nothing to prove to you, Worm.


You are a true blue falcon.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> You are a true blue falcon.


Someone like you? In a heart beat.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Someone like you? In a heart beat.


Will you at least give a courtesy reach around?


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

From the pdf that was shared


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Which explicitly states they are motorized and may be conditionally allowed on a case by case basis. 

Which is exactly what everyone here has been saying.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Velocipedist said:


> Which explicitly states they are motorized and may be conditionally allowed on a case by case basis.
> 
> Which is exactly what everyone here has been saying.


No it states "trail designation can change " but no exceptions allowed.

In other words: non-motorized trails no ebikes.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Read the last line.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

I was replying to your first citation of a different section , but good to see you understand the TMR.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

My personal opinion is that ebikes are on the cusp of the issue.

In terms of OPDMD's I see a spectrum. 

With wheelchairs and electric wheelchairs being on one end of the spectrum and other "electric" vehicles like the tracked chair, segways, and powered mountain skateboards on the other. With ebikes falling in the middle.

As there is a legitimate medical benefit to utilizing it.
However there is an element of "luxury" as well.

Add in that an ebike still needs some input by the user to provide power as the battery capacity is much smaller.

An unadulterated ebike isn't a threat in the grand scheme of things.

And admittedly I think there should be some consideration to sitting down and consider what types of trails and areas would best be suited for mixed usage for mountain bike and ebikes. 

Because I believe that until that happens ebikes will likely get greater consideration for trail development before mountain biking does.

Which if ebikes do get fast tracked for land use and mountain biking doesn't, many of you will only have yourself to blame.

And honestly if I were an ebiker, I wouldn't want traditional bike riders tagging along and reaping the benefits. 

Because I see ebikes as a tool to bridge the gap between "riding or not" for someone that is limited physically. 

I just hope you see you are shunning a technology that could benefit mountain bikers and those with disabilities and actually open up land access for both.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Velocipedist said:


> I was replying to your first citation of a different section , but good to see you understand the TMR.


Right which states need environmental study, designation discussion and PUBLIC OPINION to change TMR


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

And I hope you realize not everyone drinks the koolaid nor wears rose colored glasses.

Not shunning anything, simply aware of existing regulations and the resulting framework required for advocacy.

Disparate user groups can find common ground, but ebikers seem to want the horse before the cart.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Velocipedist said:


> And I hope you realize not everyone drinks the koolaid nor wears rose colored glasses.
> 
> Not shunning anything, simply aware of existing regulations and the resulting framework required for advocacy.
> 
> Disparate user groups can find common ground, but ebikers seem to want the horse before the cart.


Well those "regulations" can change with public opinion.

And I am saying ebiking "could potentially " be the greatest asset mountain biking could get.

Beyond just the ADA.

You have rules that are written that actually opens the door for trail redesignations. And a medical and fitness community that could back you and ebikes jointly.

Also as mentioned there are the disabled vets that "could" potentially put organizational weight behind all of it.

I am not saying it will be easy or that all the battles won.

However public opinion including those here are considered and heard.

I believe the best route for more land access is ebiking and mountain biking on a unified front.

If I have learned anything about government, it is empathy for the disabled and health issues are powerful thing in swaying public opinion.

And there is a good argument for social interaction and PTSD.
As well as getting active after issues such as cancer.

Which if the mountain biking community were smart would get behind ebiking just to address those 2 issues.


----------



## dstepper (Feb 28, 2004)

This is all so tiering. In my area it was the climbers against the gratify riders. The hikers against any one on a bike. The horse people against any one not on a horse. We all have the same end goal...more trail access...we don't ever get it because we are too busy infighting. If all the trails users could unite on our common goal, respect each others form of recreation maybe we could get more access. 

I am 66 years old. I have a fully rigid Selma single speed (30/22) I ride sometimes. But I mostly ride my Levo. Trail use is trail...use the solution is more trails. So much free volunteer labor ready and willing to expand access...in my eye it is the government not responding to the peoples needs. 

Meanwhile in CA I watch our lands be destroyed by fire, to me the land mangers have proven that they are not capable of managing the lands the people have entrusted them to care for.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I'm 1000% for e-bikes being considered as OPDMDs under the ADA, and I'm not a fan of how the USFS and BLM exempt themselves from it. '

I also consider the whole ADA access thing to be a fairly inconsequential rathole people get sucked into in these discussions. If what people keep saying turns out to be true and e-bikes are the new greatest thing in mountain biking, then it stands to reason that the vast majority of e-bike users will not be riding under ADA exemptions. It's really not germane in the big picture.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'm 1000% for e-bikes being considered as OPDMDs under the ADA, and I'm not a fan of how the USFS and BLM exempt themselves from it. '
> 
> I also consider the whole ADA access thing to be a fairly inconsequential rathole people get sucked into in these discussions. If what people keep saying turns out to be true and e-bikes are the new greatest thing in mountain biking, then it stands to reason that the vast majority of e-bike users will not be riding under ADA exemptions. It's really not germane in the big picture.


I agree it isn't. My point However that as long as individuals in the community aren't even willing to consider letting "individuals" with physical limitations that are recognized as "legal disabilities" or supports them, then we don't get anywhere and everyone loses.

I stated some fair limits for ebikes, and expectations.

But even those were disregarded.

There is many benefits for traditional mountain bikers that ebikes could bring to the table.

The AMA argument is just 1 stepping stone.

But there is a market for the "luxury" side which could contribute to trail funding.

But I think public opinion is the first thing that needs to be addressed and I think working with ebikes might be more beneficial to mountain biking in general.

But even if traditional mountain bikers supported "strictly medical" like cancer recovery, PTSD, or other "limiting but not disqualifying issues" it wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Who cares what mountain bikers think?
We don't write the rules.

Similarly, who cares what hypothetical 'guidelines' you set out?
You don't write policy, your list of limits is never going anywhere farther than your head. Complete waste of time to discuss them.

When I set out to change the 'no bicycles' rules on my local trails, do you think I was dumb enough to think spending a bunch of time going onto Audubon / Sierra Club / Earth First forums and arguing endlessly with random anonymous tree-huggers scattered across the planet was the way to make it happen? Why do e-bike proponents feel the need keep trying to convince mountain bikers that we should somehow be responsible for doing all of your access work for you? Instead of wasting your time rambling on and on here, if you want to actually make a changer, get the hell off of MTBR and start doing something useful instead.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> Who cares what mountain bikers think?
> We don't write the rules.
> 
> Similarly, who cares what hypothetical 'guidelines' you set out?
> ...


Actually public opinion is important as stated in a link below

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3vl9DoEg1qW6OvSklq9I4V&cshid=1544329343093

Well because those "new trail designations" likely will include "new trails" and where ebikes and mountain bikes overlap will open those trails to mountain biking as well.

Horse trails could be redesigned to ebikes with speed limits imposed which could add trails for mountain biking as well.

There is many ways ebikes could contribute access to mountain biking.

Though if mountain bikers don't play along those trails could be taken from mountain bike users.

Except:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3vl9DoEg1qW6OvSklq9I4V&cshid=1544329343093

Additionally ebikes and mountain bikes have more in common than anything else on the trails. And when it is time to sit down and hammer out new trails they will look and see who benefits most. And if mountain bikers don't speak up on ebike accessible on existing mountain bike trails then you won't get a choice.

And if you start sharing and offering specific solutions for ebikes, then they may be more likely to consider making new trails in area where mountain bikes currently don't have any access to accommodate ebike use.


----------



## Mt.Biker E (Mar 25, 2006)

what i find disgusting is from the get go ebike promoters have been pushing the handicap propaganda machine from day 1. SO i ask myself why? Why would a marketing machine pick this as their battle cry? They rebrand the Moped to ebike because the type of motor changes from gas to electric. Its nothing more than a way to circumvent and defer the conversation from the fact that its a MOPED. And MOPEDS are motorized and banned from trails. Electric moped or gas moped its still a moped. It still has a motor and battery that needs a special salt bath to put out.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Mt.Biker E said:


> what i find disgusting is from the get go ebike promoters have been pushing the handicap propaganda machine from day 1. SO i ask myself why? Why would a marketing machine pick this as their battle cry? They rebrand the Moped to ebike because the type of motor changes from gas to electric. Its nothing more than a way to circumvent and defer the conversation from the fact that its a MOPED. And MOPEDS are motorized and banned from trails. Electric moped or gas moped its still a moped. It still has a motor and battery that needs a special salt bath to put out.


Because it worked.

Ebikes now have a stronger argument and some legal backing in the ADA.

Which is a powerful tool.

And there is a strong argument for it.

Does it enable individuals with certain limitations to be more be active? Yes.

And that's important. Government loves making voters and tax payers feel like they did something.

Empathy is a powerful weapon in policy making.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Mt.Biker E said:


> what i find disgusting is from the get go ebike promoters have been pushing the handicap propaganda machine from day 1. SO i ask myself why? Why would a marketing machine pick this as their battle cry? They rebrand the Moped to ebike because the type of motor changes from gas to electric. Its nothing more than a way to circumvent and defer the conversation from the fact that its a MOPED. And MOPEDS are motorized and banned from trails. Electric moped or gas moped its still a moped. It still has a motor and battery that needs a special salt bath to put out.


And no mopeds and ebikes are not banned anymore.

The only ones limiting motorized vehicles are the land managers.

Which as stated DOJ opened the door in 2010 for all motorized equipment in national parks.

https://www.americantrails.org/reso...ibility-rule-on-power-driven-mobility-devices

A new rule that would allow persons with mobility disabilities to drive virtually any vehicle on trails.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

As stated Ebikes have more power in regards to policy making because of the ADA.

Moutain bikers should see this as an opportunity to work with the ebike community and figure out suggestions to include them in the group.

As land managers are going to be forced legally to open more access to ebikes.

And if mountain bikers don't start getting on board will lose trails because of the natural obvious overlap.

If mountain bikers are a bit more willing to develop shared trails, new trails for ebikers would likely be created that "could" be mountain bike friendly.

Horse trails could be redesigned for shared ebike/mountain bike use and keep bigger bikes and atvs out.

New trails in areas that don't currently have mountain bike trails could be opened.

But many of you can't see past the "it's got a motor" to understand.

Mountain biking doesn't have the ADA in its corner.

Ebikes do.

https://electricbikereport.com/amer...ails-to-trails-to-cyclists-with-disabilities/


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> As stated Ebikes have more power in regards to policy making because of the ADA.
> 
> Moutain bikers should see this as an opportunity to work with the ebike community and figure out suggestions to include them in the group.
> 
> ...


Aligning mountain bikes with the motorized crowd is a non starter, it's been covered on here extensively.


----------



## Mt.Biker E (Mar 25, 2006)

mopeds are banned from all state and town lands in CT and the land managers & deep are 100% on board with it. 
Using the handicapped as a means to self promote is shameful, morally repugnant and disgusting.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Aligning mountain bikes with the motorized crowd is a non starter, it's been covered on here extensively.


Well let's see who gets further. I am willing to bet ebikes get trail access faster than mountain biking does.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Mt.Biker E said:


> mopeds are banned from all state and town lands in CT and the land managers & deep are 100% on board with it.
> Using the handicapped as a means to self promote is shameful, morally repugnant and disgusting.


You are right... it is. But guess what, it worked.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> As stated Ebikes have more power in regards to policy making because of the ADA.
> 
> Moutain bikers should see this as an opportunity to work with the ebike community and figure out suggestions to include them in the group.
> 
> ...


Trust me, I'm intimately familiar with what the ADA guidelines are and what they do and don't do. You are reading a whole bunch of stuff into them that simply doesn't exist.

The ADA does NOT force anyone to build trails, particularly private citizens. 
The ADA does NOT remotely have the power to say "if you don't come out in support of opening trails to general motorized use, you will lose access to them".

Sorry man, but you really, really don't understand how any of this stuff works. If you did, you would realize that thinking allowing a vehicle as an OPDMD has nothing at all to do with allowing it for general use. It applies ONLY to legitimately disabled folks, full stop. They have not interest or business with anything outside that narrow area. 
Your idea of using the ADA guidelines as some sort of way to pressure mountain bikers to start building trails for e-bikes 'or else' is nothing more than baseless wishful thinking.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> Well let's see who gets further. I am willing to bet ebikes get trail access faster than mountain biking does.


Ummmm...mountain bikes ALREADY have that. Unless you have a time machine in your garage, your bet has been long lost for decades.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Here are just some of the battles.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...to-use-electric-bikes-on-nonmotorized-trails/

https://www.singletracks.com/blog/t...ning-access-trails-around-us-surprising-ways/

https://herrerabeutler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398808

https://www.adventure-journal.com/2017/11/imba-changes-policy-support-e-bikes-non-motorized-trails/

https://www.bouldercounty.org/open-space/management/e-bikes/

You might wake up and smell which way things are going


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> Ummmm...mountain bikes ALREADY have that. Unless you have a time machine in your garage, your bet has been long lost for decades.


Sorry I should say "more"


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw0gXtEqh-4Kwq_3uChBREMr&ust=1544493748984681

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw2M9E2FqVCBKNgokG4OrpG2&ust=1544494062350726


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> Here are just some of the battles.
> 
> https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...to-use-electric-bikes-on-nonmotorized-trails/
> 
> ...


Dude, I don't know if you have some sort of comprehension issues or something (it really seems you do) but I've said countless times I fully support allowing e-bikes as OPDMDs. Reading is fundamental.

Again, use under ADA guidelines has nothing to do with general access. And once again to address your comprehension problem, I also see little to no issue with allowing low-powered e-bikes on most MTB trails. But they are NOT mountain bikes, and mountain bikers have no responsibility to take up the charge for them whatsoever. 
If you would actually listen to what some of the people here with advocacy experience tell you, you'd stop wasting your time trying to force people to pretend that e-bikes and mountain bikes are the exact same thing and start trying to convince the powers that be that e-bikes can be a legitimate user group based on their own unique characteristics.

Or just keep whining about how the 'haters' are keeping you down, and see how that works out for you. Mountain bikers don't owe e-bikes a single thing, and wishing won't make it so. E-biker advocacy needs to grow up and start walking on it's own rather than crying for mountain bikers to pick them up and carry them.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> Dude, I don't know if you have some sort of comprehension issues or something (it really seems you do) but I've said countless times I fully support allowing e-bikes as OPDMDs. Reading is fundamental.
> 
> Again, use under ADA guidelines has nothing to do with general access. And once again to address your comprehension problem, I also see little to no issue with allowing low-powered e-bikes on most MTB trails. But they are NOT mountain bikes, and mountain bikers have no responsibility to take up the charge for them whatsoever.
> If you would actually listen to what some of the people here with advocacy experience tell you, you'd stop wasting your time trying to force people to pretend that e-bikes and mountain bikes are the exact same thing and start trying to convince the powers that be that e-bikes can be a legitimate user group based on their own unique characteristics.
> ...


If the IMBA is on board I believe you should be too.

Because as I stated and the links show the Ebike community is winning. They have public support, legal support and representation in government mountain biking doesn't.

And as illustrate in the links ebikes are being lumped in with mountain and road bikes.

And will win. I am saying ebikes will carry you if you start seeing the shift in policy making


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> If the IMBA is on board I believe you should be too.
> 
> Because as I stated and the links show the Ebike community is winning. They have public support, legal support and representation in government mountain biking doesn't.
> 
> ...


The IMBA doesn't mean dick in most parts of the country, their time has passed.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> The IMBA doesn't mean dick in most parts of the country, their time has passed.


And why they were intelligent about supporting class 1 ebikes.

They see the legal momentum ebikes have and don't want to lose. As stated by the IMBA

IMBA's Board of Directors updated its 2015 position on eMTBs to now read:

IMBA is supportive of Class 1 eMTB access to non-motorized trails when the responsible land management agency, in consultation with local mountain bikers, deem such eMTB access is appropriate and will not cause any loss of access to non-motorized bikes. IMBA recognizes that changes in design, technology and the numbers of eMTB users is evolving, and believes these bikes can be managed in a sustainable way for both the environment and other trail users.

In other words, "we support ebikes as long as we still get access"

Which any person with 3 brain cells will understand is "ebikes can make us lose trails, and if we are on board we can gain more trail access because of class1 ebikes".

IMBA sees the Ebike community winning and doesn't want pushed out, and maybe sees an opportunity to gain land access with ebikes by not being an outright opponent to ebikes.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> If the IMBA is on board I believe you should be too.
> 
> Because as I stated and the links show the Ebike community is winning. They have public support, legal support and representation in government mountain biking doesn't.
> 
> ...


I seriously have no idea what it is you're trying to say. Are you still confusing ADA access with the bigger picture?

IMBA has done nothing for me. All of a sudden, they're going to sweep in and...do what? Cuz e-bkes? What does that even mean?

How the hell are e-bikes going to 'carry me'? Can you give any sort of concrete example that's based even remotely in reality?

It reads like you're just throwing around a bunch of non-sequiturs.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> In other words, "we support ebikes as long as we still get access"
> 
> Which any person with 3 brain cells will understand is "ebikes can make us lose trails, and if we are on board we can gain more trail access because of class1 ebikes".


Maybe people with 3 brain cells understand it that way. I'm rocking a good few more than that myself, so I understand it quite a bit more accurately.

Explain how in the real world e-bikes gaining access will take mine away.

If you convince me of that, then I will change my opinion from 'I have no problem with them getting more access' to 'I need to actively fight them to save MTB access'. Which, in case you haven't noticed (obviously you haven't actually) is EXACTLY the argument that many of the people you whine about being 'haters' are saying.

You really should try to think things through a lot better. Now you're making opponents points for them.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> I seriously have no idea what it is you're trying to say. Are you still confusing ADA access with the bigger picture?
> 
> IMBA has done nothing for me. All of a sudden, they're going to sweep in and...do what? Cuz e-bkes? What does that even mean?
> 
> ...


Let's look.

Ebikes are already gaining ground in policy making, 
Ebikes are being linked with traditional biking
Ebikes have legal backing
Ebikes are fighting for the same type of trail usage.
Ebikes have already won on the federal level because of the ADA. (Segways and powered mountain skateboards too)

The mountain bike community will be forced to share their trails either way you go.

And with current laws in ebikes corner they will gain access to areas mountain bikes haven't.

Finding a mutual agreement with ebiking where the 2 intersect would help you.

Otherwise the ATV and motorbike community will reap those benefits more.

Let's not forget there are disabilities that are recognized that give ebikes lots of power in the courts. Like IBS, it really doesn't take much.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> .
> Ebikes have already won on the federal level because of the ADA. (Segways and powered mountain skateboards too)


 Then please explain why you can't ride an e-motorbike on non motorized trails in National Forests and B.L.M. land.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Then please explain why you can't ride an e-motorbike on non motorized trails in National Forests and B.L.M. land.


At the moment because of those land manager policies, which as illustrated are losing ground and fighting in court.

And as shown many are buckling because they are fighting a law bigger than them.

Even the USFS has a policy in place to open areas to ebikes.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> At the moment because of those land manager policies, which as illustrated are losing ground and fighting in court.
> 
> And as shown many are buckling because they are fighting a law bigger than them.
> 
> Even the USFS has a policy in place to open areas to ebikes.


uhmmm, okay.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

USFS: Mammoth Bike Park First in the Country to Allow E-Bikes - The Loam Wolf


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> USFS: Mammoth Bike Park First in the Country to Allow E-Bikes - The Loam Wolf


That's a private company that leases land how exactly does this fit in the scheme of things?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Does this mean we can all park in the handicap parking spaces 'cause the government regulated businesses to have them? Is that how this works?

And Hawk, you seem to have missed some of the context in what you posted:

_IMBA is supportive of Class 1 eMTB access to non-motorized trails *when the responsible land management agency, in consultation with local mountain bikers, deem such eMTB access is appropriate *and will not cause any loss of access to non-motorized bikes._

All they are trying to do is keep the support of the manufacturers ($$) but they put in an out because they know they do not have the right to tell anyone what has to be done with their land/trails.

Seems to me, the ebikers here would be a lot further along if they tried to work with the mountain bikers instead of the "they are bicycles so you have to allow us" attitude so many of them have. As others have often said, ebikers are their own worse enemy.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> That's a private company that leases land how exactly does this fit in the scheme of things?


The United States Forest Service (USFS) has approved e-bike usage in the Mammoth Bike Park, making it the first bike park on USFS land to allow e-bikes.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

chazpat said:


> Does this mean we can all park in the handicap parking spaces 'cause the government regulated businesses to have them? Is that how this works?
> 
> And Hawk, you seem to have missed some of the context in what you posted:
> 
> ...


I think I stated that "both" need to reach an agreement repeatedly.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

chazpat said:


> Does this mean we can all park in the handicap parking spaces 'cause the government regulated businesses to have them? Is that how this works?
> 
> And Hawk, you seem to have missed some of the context in what you posted:
> 
> ...


No... but you are saying that ebikes don't belong on "bike trails" which effects ada users.

And as illustrated ebikes are getting access without your support.

Which if you pay attention would open access to traditional biking faster.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Hawk258 said:


> I think I stated that "both" need to reach an agreement repeatedly.


As for manufacturer money... maybe. But the NEMBA and IMBA are no longer even on the same page anymore.

IMBA sees that "some support" vs outright opposition is in the mountain bike communities best interests.

Let's not forget that some mountain bike groups have tried to use law to "stop ebikes access" in bills.

FAQ/Resources - Sustainable Trails Coalition


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> As for manufacturer money... maybe. But the NEMBA and IMBA are no longer even on the same page anymore.
> 
> IMBA sees that "some support" vs outright opposition is in the mountain bike communities best interests.


NEMBA doesn't oppose e-bikes, we simply don't want to take responsibility for them.

I don't get why you fail to understand this. Go back and read all the words.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> No... but you are saying that ebikes don't belong on "bike trails" which effects ada users.


Actually, trails with that are primarily designated as bike trails are exempt from ADA OPDMD access guidelines. This is precisely how I was able to thwart one angle our local anti-bike forces tried to use against us.

Do what I did and talk directly with the trails experts at the ADA (which I have done a number of times) and you might learn something.

You blow lots of hot air but have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> The United States Forest Service (USFS) has approved e-bike usage in the Mammoth Bike Park, making it the first bike park on USFS land to allow e-bikes.


They also got approved to put in chairlifts and sell tickets.
You think that means you can go do that anywhere you want now?

Get a grip man.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> Actually, trails with that are primarily designated as bike trails are exempt from ADA OPDMD access guidelines. This is precisely how I was able to thwart one angle our local anti-bike forces tried to use against us.
> 
> Do what I did and talk directly with the trails experts at the ADA (which I have done a number of times) and you might learn something.
> 
> You blow lots of hot air but have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.


Funny that's not what it states in the USFS policy.

I quote "it is essential that no opdmd exceptions not be made to the TRM designation"


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> They also got approved to put in chairlifts and sell tickets.
> You think that means you can go do that anywhere you want now?
> 
> Get a grip man.


Yeah, his using that as an example and doubling down on it really shows his ignorance.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> Funny that's not what it states in the USFS policy.


I didn't say anything about the USFS, I said ADA. 
I've also said many times that I don't think the USFS should be able to opt out of the ADA guidelines as they and the BLM currently do.

Try keeping up. Again, reading all the words will help.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Silentfoe said:


> Yeah, his using that as an example and doubling down on it really shows his ignorance.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


You gotta love when clueless newbs go on a splaining rampage. :lol:


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> No... but you are saying that ebikes don't belong on "bike trails" which effects ada users.
> 
> And as illustrated ebikes are getting access without your support.
> 
> Which if you pay attention would open access to traditional biking faster.


Please show me where I said that. Like most here, I think they are fine on some trails, but not all trails. Unless you have really traveled and ridden a lot of trails in different areas, you are not aware of all the situations to be able to judge if ebikes are appropriate on a trail.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

And if you haven't noticed, all of the hiking trails have not been made wheelchair accessible.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

chazpat said:


> And if you haven't noticed, all of the hiking trails have not been made wheelchair accessible.


I didn't say they were, but many have been, and more are.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

chazpat said:


> Please show me where I said that. Like most here, I think they are fine on some trails, but not all trails. Unless you have really traveled and ridden a lot of trails in different areas, you are not aware of all the situations to be able to judge if ebikes are appropriate on a trail.


I apologize I did say "you" I should have said "many here"


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Silentfoe said:


> Yeah, his using that as an example and doubling down on it really shows his ignorance.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Actually there are discussions to use tickets to limit traffic on trails.

As for lifts that is a different argument.

Ebikes are user funded, lifts would be public funded.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> The United States Forest Service (USFS) has approved e-bike usage in the Mammoth Bike Park, making it the first bike park on USFS land to allow e-bikes.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with public lands.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Which has absolutely nothing to do with public lands.


So why is the United States forest service (a government entity) opening "public lands" for a private entity?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> So why is the United States forest service (a government entity) opening "public lands" for a private entity?


That's what they do in a lease agreement.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> That's what they do in a lease agreement.


Actually they are "permitted" but usfs holds usage control. Which means it is a private entity operating on public land.

Which means they have to follow the rules of usfs.

And as such the USFS created specific policy for public land.

Which would open other public lands to future policy changes in the future based on mammoth.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> Actually they are "permitted" but usfs holds usage control. Which means it is a private entity operating on public land.
> 
> Which means they have to follow the rules of usfs.
> 
> ...


Sure, whatever you say.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Sure, whatever you say.


I do.

The news of ebikes coming to Mammoth is big for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it signals the continued growth in interest in electric bikes. But perhaps more importantly, Mammoth actually sits on about 3,500 acres of*U.S. Forest Service*lands. Until now, the USFS has been reluctant to allow ebikes on any of its trails, but it is granting permission for riders to use them at Mammoth on a trial basis to help further study the impact of these bikes on the environment there. The other Forest Service lands that surround Mammoth are still strictly off limits.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw3pS1EHoqBJNi56C59ojHKJ&ust=1544503700370678


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> View attachment 1228303
> 
> 
> Funny that's not what it states in the USFS policy.
> ...


You clearly don't understand get the gist of the TMR you linked (nor did you quote it correctly).

The TMR you included is the USFS saying 'we won't allow motorized vehicles on non-motorized trails even as ADA OPDMDs because we believe we have already determined their inappropriateness for use on said trails in our initial determination of them as non-motorized'.

You do understand that right?


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Here is what I believe will be determined. 

Class 1's will have equal access to most bike trails without many restrictions. 
Class 2's will be allowed access to a smaller selection of trails with speed limits. 
Class 3 and 4 will be allowed mixed trail use where atv/motor bikes and mountain biking are shared. Like some single lane.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> You clearly don't understand get the gist of the TMR you linked (nor did you quote it correctly).
> 
> The TMR you included is the USFS saying 'we won't allow motorized vehicles on non-motorized trails even as ADA OPDMDs because we believe we have already determined their inappropriateness for use on said trails in our initial determination of them as non-motorized'.
> 
> You do understand that right?


In the same policy it states.








"New trail riding opportunities for ebikes on existing non-motorized trails maybe considered, and redesignated as motorized trails"

In otherwords non-motorized trails will have to be made "motorized" and current users will have to share anyway

Which they are doing the environmental analysis in mammoth.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> In the same policy it states.
> View attachment 1228310
> 
> 
> ...


No, it says "maybe". Quite the stretch of logic to jump from "maybe" to "will have to be".


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Maybe is also not "never" either.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> No, it says "maybe". Quite the stretch of logic to jump from "maybe" to "will have to be".


They are already on step one of reclassifying trails.

And someone is going to have to share.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> Maybe is also not "never" either.


No ****. Don't hold your breath waiting.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> No ****. Don't hold your breath waiting.


I see more effort Getting them in than keeping them out.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> I see more effort Getting them in than keeping them out.


Uhm yeah. It's been pretty easy keeping them out, don't expect that will change either.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Uhm yeah. It's been pretty easy keeping them out, don't expect that will change either.


Well the tools that are keeping them out are disappearing. 
Without the DoJ there isn't much left in the way.

You got the EPA sure... but if the USFS is doing an impact study on mammoth, then the USFS aren't actively opposed to ebikes.

And honestly even if it is a stunt to appease ebikers, I believe they will find that they might have a winner to limit ATV and motorcycles instead.

Ebikes Would be more ecologically sound. Which actually would help mountain biking too.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

But as someone just said...


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Just to be clear I support class 1 ebikes. These are the bikes I believe would benefit mountain bikers gaining land access.
Class 1 ebikes are for those individuals with limiting health issues. Because the user has to provide their own power. And I believe would be easier to defend under ADA medical value.

Class 2 is debatable but generally I see less value to it in terms of inclusion. Due to the fact no effort has to be made.

Class 3 and 4 are luxury and can deal with their own crap.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> Just to be clear I support class 1 ebikes. These are the bikes I believe would benefit mountain bikers gaining land access.
> Class 1 ebikes are for those individuals with limiting health issues. Because the user has to provide their own power. And I believe would be easier to defend under ADA medical value.
> 
> Class 2 is debatable but generally I see less value to it in terms of inclusion. Due to the fact no effort has to be made.
> ...


Class 4 ebike? What is that? Class 4 would be classified as mopeds and motorcycles.

And again, who is going to check that someone is riding the proper class? Do you really think they will license them (one of the features that they are sold under is that they don't require a license) and that that would bring in enough revenue to hire people and provide the equipment to monitor all of the trails?

Why don't ebikers push for new regulations for emtbs that require a large red "class 1 ebike" decal be affixed to the downtube by the manufacturer and then clear coated over? It would still be counterfeited but it would be better than nothing. I just don't see the ebike community addressing the concerns associated with them being given access to the trails, rather a lot of them just want to say that they are bicycles so give us access.


----------



## Mt.Biker E (Mar 25, 2006)

there are zero hiking trails in my state that accessible to handicap people. We do have miles & miles of rail trail, which is more suited for handicap people as its wide and accessible to emergency personal. I do think ebikes have a place on the rail trail and roads if we the main point is they are for handicapped and disabled people. That makes sense to me due to the accessibility and safety reasons.


----------



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

Hawk258 said:


> The only ones limiting motorized vehicles are the land managers.


Yay for land managers!


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

chazpat said:


> Class 4 ebike? What is that? Class 4 would be classified as mopeds and motorcycles.
> 
> And again, who is going to check that someone is riding the proper class? Do you really think they will license them (one of the features that they are sold under is that they don't require a license) and that that would bring in enough revenue to hire people and provide the equipment to monitor all of the trails?
> 
> Why don't ebikers push for new regulations for emtbs that require a large red "class 1 ebike" decal be affixed to the downtube by the manufacturer and then clear coated over? It would still be counterfeited but it would be better than nothing. I just don't see the ebike community addressing the concerns associated with them being given access to the trails, rather a lot of them just want to say that they are bicycles so give us access.


Well there is a very easy way. Class 1s have to pedel and Cannot exceed 20 mph from the motor alone. These have much smaller batteries and are typically physically indistinguishable from mountain bikes. Some have motors on the bottom bracket others on the front and rear hub.

Class 2-4 if they are going up hill and not pedeling it's not a mtb or class1. also have throttles.

3-4 are also much larger. Have bigger batteries and some have dual wheel front ends. These have a very large battery in the lower tube.

The similarities end pretty quickly after class 2.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Please explain rail trail?


----------



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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_trail

Why pedal assist to meet class 1 criteria? To make it look more like a bicycle?


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

That's the standard. Class 1 is 750w output or less (1 hp) must be pedel assist and not exceed 20mph.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Mt.Biker E said:


> there are zero hiking trails in my state that accessible to handicap people. We do have miles & miles of rail trail, which is more suited for handicap people as its wide and accessible to emergency personal. I do think ebikes have a place on the rail trail and roads if we the main point is they are for handicapped and disabled people. That makes sense to me due to the accessibility and safety reasons.


I guarantee that there are quite a number of hiking trails in your state (every state) that are used by people with disabilities on a regular basis.

You also really seem to miss the point of the ADA OPDMD guidelines almost completely. The whole reason for them is to allow disabled access to trails that likely aren't accessible to standard wheelchairs.






Quick video from an event that Leeboh and I attend regularly to give you an idea. There were a number of adaptive motorized vehicles there for people to try out as well as what you see in the video. Though motorized vehicles typically aren't allowed on these trails (or most trails in the state), the ADA guidelines allow exceptions precisely so things like this can go on.

Also, I don't understand why so many people (pretty arrogantly IMHO) assume that disabled people aren't better judges of what they can handle than complete strangers who know absolutely nothing about what their limitations are and aren't. You worry about you; just because someone has some sort of physical or health issues, it doesn't mean they're idiots.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_trail
> 
> Why pedal assist to meet class 1 criteria? To make it look more like a bicycle?


Well how many of the trails listed on this site for CT are rail trail?

Connecticut Accessible Easy Trails | Accessible Nature


----------



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

Hawk258 said:


> That's the standard. Class 1 is 750w output or less (1 hp) must be pedel assist and not exceed 20mph.


Yes I know that, I asked why pedal assist. Why not a conventional throttle option?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Hawk258 said:


> And you should get out of the way. You are one of the roadblocks to finding a mutually agreeable solution.
> 
> As long as there is vocal opposition between the groups all of them lose.
> 
> ...


 You seem to have fanciful leaps of imagination and whole lot of what ifs. Yikes. There is no " equal" in mt bikes and motorized vehicles. Do your own advocating, mt bikers aren't going to do it for you. There are huge differences across the US in term of access, trail usage as well as state, federal and local rules. One shoe will not fit all. You quote some random , limited in scope articles that don't even begin to represent the big picture. Maybe you should do some reading about the different riding areas you seem to cast a rosy picture of " this will happen" USFS, BLM and so on. CA seems to be the test case with some limited trail runs, start there. E bikes are welcome to use motorized trails, some area have lots of that, enjoy.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> I guarantee that there are quite a number of hiking trails in your state (every state) that are used by people with disabilities on a regular basis.
> 
> You also really seem to miss the point of the ADA OPDMD guidelines almost completely. The whole reason for them is to allow disabled access to trails that likely aren't accessible to standard wheelchairs.
> 
> ...


I think that is one of the issues "I see" in terms of the "class 1" ebike. There are many people who can benefit legally disabled or otherwise. And the "ban them all" kind of stinks of lack of basic empathy.

I agree there is no place for class 3-4.
And class 2 I believe is a debate on own.

But I believe class 1 has the best footing in terms of ADA and inclusion into the mtb sphere of influence and mutual agreement and sharing.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Hawk258 said:


> Please explain rail trail?


 And there's your sign.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

leeboh said:


> You seem to have fanciful leaps of imagination and whole lot of what ifs. Yikes. There is no " equal" in mt bikes and motorized vehicles. Do your own advocating, mt bikers aren't going to do it for you. There are huge differences across the US in term of access, trail usage as well as state, federal and local rules. One shoe will not fit all. You quote some random , limited in scope articles that don't even begin to represent the big picture. Maybe you should do some reading about the different riding areas you seem to cast a rosy picture of " this will happen" USFS, BLM and so on. CA seems to be the test case with some limited trail runs, start there. E bikes are welcome to use motorized trails, some area have lots of that, enjoy.


Read further. There is more above that comment that addresses "advocating" that I have stated.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

leeboh said:


> And there's your sign.


Leeboh look at what was stated for that comment then look at my following comment on trail accessibility.


----------



## Mt.Biker E (Mar 25, 2006)

Converted old train tracks. This is the one of the areas near me: 
https://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2716&Q=493304&deepNav_GID=1650

The rail trail section near my house is 28 miles and you can hook it up to other sections and ride all day if you wanted to.

I don't see why pedal assist needs to go 20 mph. At that point its more than assisting, its propelling and that makes it a moped.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Fixing


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Mt.Biker E said:


> Converted old train tracks. This is the one of the areas near me:
> https://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2716&Q=493304&deepNav_GID=1650
> 
> The rail trail section near my house is 28 miles and you can hook it up to other sections and ride all day if you wanted to.
> ...


A bike rider in decent shape can exceed 1.5 hp and 20 mph on flat ground


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> Yes I know that, I asked why pedal assist. Why not a conventional throttle option?


Then it would be a class 2 I didn't make the designation


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> I think that is one of the issues "I see" in terms of the "class 1" ebike. There are many people who can benefit legally disabled or otherwise. And the "ban them all" kind of stinks of lack of basic empathy.
> 
> I agree there is no place for class 3-4.


You're wanting to limit disabled people from using the equipment they've determined to be best for themselves because they're not working hard enough for you? Who's the elitist now?

Or is this really nothing to do with actual disabled use for you and 100% about finding some sort of angle you can to exploit to benefit yourself?

Sometimes, a throttle is best for some people. That should be left up to them, not us.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> You're wanting to limit disabled people from using the equipment they've determined to be best for themselves because they're not working hard enough for you? Who's the elitist now?
> 
> Or is this really nothing to do with actual disabled use for you and 100% about finding some sort of angle you can to exploit to benefit yourself?
> 
> As if the answer isn't obvious...


I am trying to be inclusive of ebikes.

I am not trying to "ban them all" I am trying to find a mutually agreeable middle ground without the "all or nothing " debate.

As for type 2 I have stated it would be a debate on it's own. But I didn't say it doesn't have a place in the conversation.

Just the class 1 is in my opinion shouldn't even be a debate.

But here we are


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> I am trying to be inclusive of ebikes.
> 
> I am not trying to "ban them all" I am trying to find a mutually agreeable middle ground without the "all or nothing " debate.


Then why are you rambling into all this discussion about ADA access then? 
Has nothing whatsoever to do with general use.

Oh wait - you think it can be exploited by claiming you are disabled by IBS so you can ride wherever you want. I forgot you mentioned that ploy earlier.


----------



## Mt.Biker E (Mar 25, 2006)

on single track uphill for extended periods? If its assist it shouldn't go faster uphill than you can pedal. AT that point its a motorized vehicle/moped and goes beyond assistance.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Hawk258 said:


> I am trying to be inclusive of ebikes.
> 
> I am not trying to "ban them all" I am trying to find a mutually agreeable middle ground without the "all or nothing " debate.


Do you do any actual on the ground, sit in endless mind numbing meetings advocacy work or are you just trying endlessly argue over minutia?


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> Then why are you rambling into all this discussion about ADA access then?
> Has nothing whatsoever to do with general use.
> 
> Oh wait - you think it can be exploited by claiming you are disabled by IBS so you can ride wherever you want. I forgot you mentioned that ploy earlier.


I didn't say "I" would. I stated that "legal disability" covers a wide spectrum including IBS.


----------



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

Hawk258 said:


> A bike rider in decent shape can exceed 1.5 hp and 20 mph on flat ground


The most elite sprinters in the world can generate close to that power, momentarily.

A good rider who trains a fair amount might average 20mph but an average rider can't. Not even close.


----------



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

Hawk258 said:


> Then it would be a class 2 I didn't make the designation


Seems like that could leave some people with joint mobility issues high and dry.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Do you do any actual on the ground, sit in endless mind numbing meetings advocacy work or are you just trying endlessly argue over minutia?


I am sitting here with a group of people that have influence over decision making as stated before.

It needs public support. Including the mountain bike community.

Which both USFS and IMBA both utilize.

I am trying to get at least some of the members to at least get pass the "ban them all" and see there is opportunity

I am also pointing out that if they keep pushing ebikes into "motorcycles/atv" designations they will likely lose non-motorized trails to ebikes and atv/motorcycles.

Also as a sibling to an individual with a destroyed knee I do thank those that do much more work in advocating.

But there is an element in this group that seem to lack basic empathy.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> Seems like that could leave some people with joint mobility issues high and dry.


I agree, but there isn't "any" agreement on any ebike period.


----------



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

More power and a throttle would be more inclusive for many disabled folks. I think the pedal assist requirement is only to make them look like a bicycle.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> The most elite sprinters in the world can generate close to that power*, momentarily.
> 
> A good rider who trains a fair amount might average 20mph but an average rider can't. Not even close.
> 
> *Hawk wrote that people can generate 1.5 lhp but apparently edited it out before I clicked reply.


I did not say how long, but the average person can hit 1.2 hp momentarily.

No I said 1.5hp.
An athlete can hit 2 hp momentarily.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> More power and a throttle would be more inclusive for many disabled folks. I think the pedal assist requirement is only to make them look like a bicycle.


I don't know I didn't create the classification.

We can't even get the one closest to traditional bike operations in...


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

I really have to wonder at the simple minded thinking that equates ebikes to mini-bikes, motorcycles, mopheads etc.... 

But then people that don't like something will grab at anything to justify their dislike, so there is that.


----------



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

Hawk258 said:


> No I said 1.5hp.
> An athlete can hit 2 hp momentarily.


Yeah I did some bad math, the best sprinters can max @1,500 watts or more but the average Joe isn't going to make over 1,000. No way. Do you have a power meter?

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...he-numbers-are-pretty-mind-blowing-359140/amp


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> I really have to wonder at the simple minded thinking that equates ebikes to mini-bikes, motorcycles, mopheads etc....
> 
> But then people that don't like something will grab at anything to justify their dislike, so there is that.


Because, motors. Motors are and always will be the line of demarcation in what is a human powered activity. Why is that lost on you?


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> Yeah I did some bad math, the best sprinters can max @1,500 watts or more but the average Joe isn't going to make over 1,000. No way. Do you have a power meter?
> 
> https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...he-numbers-are-pretty-mind-blowing-359140/amp


750w = 1 hp


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

KenPsz said:


> I really have to wonder at the simple minded thinking that equates ebikes to mini-bikes, motorcycles, mopheads etc....
> 
> But then people that don't like something will grab at anything to justify their dislike, so there is that.


Gee, if you think real hard, you will figure out that they all have one thing in common...


----------



## Mt.Biker E (Mar 25, 2006)

this is why


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Because, motors. Motors are and always will be the line of demarcation in what is a human powered activity. Why is that lost on you?


Slapheadmofo this right here... it's a pretty common attitude.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> I really have to wonder at the simple minded thinking that equates ebikes to mini-bikes, motorcycles, mopheads etc....
> 
> But then people that don't like something will grab at anything to justify their dislike, so there is that.


 It's, wait for it ( the motor) Seems simple enough to understand. Dislike? No. Not legal, in many places ya know, rules and all. It's motorized. And it's the land managers and decision makers making that clarification. Not the trail users.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawk258 said:


> I am trying to get at least some of the members to at least get pass the "ban them all" and see there is opportunity


Most people here have been past that since long, long before you ever showed up to try to rehash a bunch of old worthless arguments. Try reading what people are actually saying rather than just hiding behind your bunker mentality and screaming 'hater!' at anyone that isn't in lockstep with your generally uninformed opinions. You just may learn something.


----------



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

Hawk258 said:


> 750w = 1 hp


Yes, more than most can generate. 1-150 average is typical.


----------



## Hawk258 (Nov 24, 2018)

Mt.Biker E said:


> this is why


All these bikes are "obviously " battery operated.

Also as stated, you can deal with those individuals as it is obvious they are speeding and you can have them ticketed.

And easily proven.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Hawk258 said:


> I am sitting here with a group of people that have influence over decision making as stated before.
> 
> It needs public support. Including the mountain bike community.
> 
> ...


 This thread started with quotes on the Bosotn Globe article. So that's MA and the surrounding states concerning our trail use in our area. "All politics is local" Tip O'Neil quote. No BLM or much federal land around here. Some wilderness and National forest up North. Why don't you try to get your advocacy done in your neck of the woods ( OR?) and get back to us. Really. Try to get broad agreement on anything, across the whole US? Ummm good luck with that. The HP and ADA stuff is a separate issue. No one is pushing anything. The e bikes are motorized. Must be some motorized trails/roads out that way? Yes? Do your own support. What mt bike groups are you working with in OR? And your jumps to conclusions? That's rich. And wild. Cheers.


----------



## Mt.Biker E (Mar 25, 2006)

Yes the high capacity battery powers an brushless electric motor. Just as liquid fuel such as gasoline powers a combustion motor. A motor is a motor, and a power source is a power source. Which makes all of them a motorized vehicle, in this case its a bicycle making it something called a MOPED. 
The fuel source and type motor, throttle or assist is mute because its all the same thing.....wait for it.....motorized.
Speeding on trails in CT isn't a thing because of the terrain. Adding a motor would allow moped users to go uphill at a much greater rate than pedaling. It would effectively be the same as running a moto on the single track. Its dangerous more so because its quiet.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

The self indulgent paranoia expressed on this website is unfortunate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-powered_transport
Human-powered transport is the transport of person(s) and/or goods using human muscle power.

Pedal assist bikes primarily rely on human power thus they are human powered and protected as such.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

figofspee said:


> The self indulgent paranoia expressed on this website is unfortunate.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-powered_transport
> Human-powered transport is the transport of person(s) and/or goods using human muscle power.
> ...


There are many laws in many jurisdictions that contradict this simplistic (at best) statement.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

rideit said:


> There are many laws in many jurisdictions that contradict this simplistic (at best) statement.


Show me a court upholding an intelligent challenge of such 'laws'


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> Show me a court upholding an intelligent challenge of such 'laws'


Show me a court that accepts Wiki as an absolute authoritative source on any subject.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

figofspee said:


> The self indulgent paranoia expressed on this website is unfortunate.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-powered_transport
> Human-powered transport is the transport of person(s) and/or goods using human muscle power.
> ...


 Back at ya. Wikipedia? Uhh, anyone can edit or put in an entry. Try this, go to the USFS, BLM or any number of state, local or other jurisdiction and check out the rules and regs concerning motorized vehicles. Lots, lots of variations and definitions too. Court challenge? Go get a ticket, let us know what happens. Really.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> Show me a court that accepts Wiki as an absolute authoritative source on any subject.


 Not even Judge Judy.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Show me a court that accepts Wiki as an absolute authoritative source on any subject.


Oh boy.....


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

leeboh said:


> Back at ya. Wikipedia? Uhh, anyone can edit or put in an entry. Try this, go to the USFS, BLM or any number of state, local or other jurisdiction and check out the rules and regs concerning motorized vehicles. Lots, lots of variations and definitions too. Court challenge? Go get a ticket, let us know what happens. Really.


I would love to get a ticket but the laws have already progressed to allow assist, and the places that appear to 'ban' them have a look the other way approach to enforcement.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> I would love to get a ticket but the laws have already progressed to allow assist, and the places that appear to 'ban' them have a look the other way approach to enforcement.


Ha ha! Keep believing that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> The self indulgent paranoia expressed on this website is unfortunate.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-powered_transport
> Human-powered transport is the transport of person(s) and/or goods using human muscle power.
> ...


Uh boy.

The article says nothing about 'but it's just a small motor'. It says human powered is ...wait for it...human powered! Wicked shocka!


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

leeboh said:


> Back at ya. Wikipedia? Uhh, anyone can edit or put in an entry.


Correct! Anyone can edit that entry, so the entire world accepts the definition as stated.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> Correct! Anyone can edit that entry, so the entire world accepts the definition as stated.


Only in your entire very special world.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Ha ha! Keep believing that.


Gladly!


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Only in your entire very special world.


I was agreeing with you.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

figofspee said:


> I would love to get a ticket but the laws have already progressed to allow assist, and the places that appear to 'ban' them have a look the other way approach to enforcement.


 Wow. Which laws, what state, what jurisdictions? I think you will find reality much different than where you live. MA rider here. Not allowed , save for 8 or so places that allow motorized vehicles. Where do you ride, Mr( I guess) Fig? What parks ?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

leeboh said:


> Wow. Which laws, what state, what jurisdictions? I think you will find reality much different than where you live. MA rider here. Not allowed , save for 8 or so places that allow motorized vehicles. Where do you ride, Mr( I guess) Fig? What parks ?


Doesn't matter which State as the protections are relevant anywhere in the US.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

figofspee said:


> Doesn't matter which State as the protections are relevant anywhere in the US.


 Facts would prove otherwise.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> Pedal assist bikes primarily rely on human power thus they are human powered and protected as such.


Define 'protected'.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Are there also rivers called naïveté, obtuse, and willfully ignorant?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

figofspee said:


> The self indulgent paranoia expressed on this website is unfortunate.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-powered_transport
> Human-powered transport is the transport of person(s) and/or goods using human muscle power.
> ...


So&#8230; wikipedia left out the word "primarily"?

Give a kid a scotch and water that is primarily water then explain to the judge that it was just water since it was primarily water and see how that goes for you.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

figofspee said:


> Pedal assist bikes primarily rely on human power thus they are human powered and protected as such.


nope.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

127.0.0.1 said:


> nope.


You might want to look into federal law on that skippy.

s. Thus, electric bicycles are regulated by the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, and must comply with the* bicycle* safety standards at 16 C.F.R. Part
1512. In addition, electric bicycles are *explicitly not "motor vehicles"* for the purposes of federal
law, and are not subject to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration vehicle standards.
As a practical matter, Public Law 107-319 ensures that electric *bicycles* are designed,
manufactured, and tested like traditional bicycles for the purposes of consumer product safety
law. The main provisions of Public Law 107-319 are codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2085.
Under federal law, an electric *bicycle* is referred to as a "low-speed electric bicycle," which is
defined as "a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of
less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered
solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20
mph." Significantly, this definition provides a maximum assisted speed that an electric *bicycle*
can travel when being powered only by the motor, but does not provide a maximum assisted
speed for when an electric *bicycle* is being powered by a combination of human and motor
power.

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/static.peopleforbikes.org/uploads/E-Bike Law Primer v3 (1).pdf

Gee no mention of motorcycle, moped or any of the other claims you anti-ebike folks want to make. But sure a lot of references to BICYCLE.

BOOM! (drops mic and walks away)


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> You might want to look into federal law on that skippy.
> 
> s. Thus, electric bicycles are regulated by the Consumer
> Product Safety Commission, and must comply with the* bicycle* safety standards at 16 C.F.R. Part
> ...


No, a lot of references to "powered". Selectivity is selective.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Hmm, great, first time here Ken? That's all well and good for roads and CSP laws. Nothing to do with access to off road trails in da woods. Try again.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

leeboh said:


> Hmm, great, first time here Ken? That's all well and good for roads and CSP laws. Nothing to do with access to off road trails in da woods. Try again.


Federal definition take is it up with them, since that definition is being used by the industry in their lobbying efforts.

I get it though FUDDS come in all shapes and sizes and hobbies.

Also I would appreciate you not using my first name like you know me. Because I doubt our real name is leeboh and I really hate when anonymous cowards want to shorten my username.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> You might want to look into federal law on that skippy.
> 
> s. Thus, electric bicycles are regulated by the Consumer
> Product Safety Commission, and must comply with the* bicycle* safety standards at 16 C.F.R. Part
> ...


The CPSC regulates the sale of electric bikes. Not usage.

To repeat, not usage.

You might want to look into federal law about ebike usage, skippy.

Start with the BLM and USFS policies that limit ebike usage to only trails that are legal for motorized vehicles.

(pick up that mic lest you continue to embarrass yourself)


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

I won't be offended if you call me Lee. I would expect you to know the definitions, what they mean and where they would be properly applied. Or your arguments have no merit, kind of like what a few of us have been saying. Cheers.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

leeboh said:


> I won't be offended if you call me Lee. I would expect you to know the definitions, what they mean and where they would be properly applied. Or your arguments have no merit, kind of like what a few of us have been saying. Cheers.


Well nice to meet you Lee.

As I just posted in the other thread there is conflict between DOT definitions and other federal agencies. A conflict that needs to be address to clear up much of this.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

og-mtb said:


> The CPSC regulates the sale of electric bikes. Not usage.
> 
> To repeat, not usage.
> 
> ...


Sales drive usage.

(drops mic again)


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

KenPsz said:


> You might want to look into federal law on that skippy.
> 
> s. Thus, electric bicycles are regulated by the Consumer
> Product Safety Commission, and must comply with the* bicycle* safety standards at 16 C.F.R. Part
> ...


You might wanna pick your mic back up, and see my above post about denial.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

rideit said:


> You might wanna pick your mic back up, and see my above post about denial.


Your point would be what????

Federal definition for sales is ebikes 750watts and below are bicycles. Sales drive usage.

I wonder who is in denial.

E-bike sales totaled $10.4 million in October and $108 million year to date through that month. The YTD number is up 46 percent over the prior year.

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/stu...dollars-units-down-trend-through#.XA7tk3ZKiAk

he fastest-growing bicycle type in the market right now is electric. E-bike sales totaled $77.1 million in 2017, up 91 percent over the previous year. Sales of electric bikes have grown more than eightfold since 2014.

https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/...ntain-and-electric-bicycles-leading-the-pack/


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

The only conflict is in your mind as everything you have cited concerns wildly different federal entities way with different jurisdiction. 

To wit, DOT law has no impact on the FS TMR. The FS has made abundantly clear that ebikes are motorized and used accordingly.

Ebikers need to convince the FS and land managers not mtn bikers. 

Follow the rules and work to change them if you feel excluded, fairly common sense one would think...


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

KenPsz said:


> Your point would be what????
> 
> Federal definition for sales is ebikes 750watts and below are bicycles. Sales drive usage.
> 
> ...


All that doesn't change the fact that they are illegal on tons of trails. Get it?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> Sales drive usage.
> 
> (drops mic again)


And laws define the use. Arrogance (mistaken as it is) isn't going to work here.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> Sales drive usage.
> 
> (drops mic again)


Lol. Not in the real world of trail access.

You might want to read around the ebike forum a bit, this has all been covered ad nauseum.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

KenPsz said:


> Sales drive usage.
> 
> (drops mic again)


Clueless poster of the week! You win a prize!


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

KenPsz said:


> Well nice to meet you Lee.
> 
> As I just posted in the other thread there is conflict between DOT definitions and other federal agencies. A conflict that needs to be address to clear up much of this.


According to your logic, cars are actually allowed on single track, as there are billions of them.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> As a practical matter, Public Law 107-319 ensures that electric *bicycles* are designed,
> manufactured, and tested like traditional bicycles for the purposes of consumer product safety


This is what the CPSC applies to. NOT where you can or can't use them.

You have to be trolling; no one can be this obtuse (feel free to read 'obtuse' as a whole bunch of more pointed observations).


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> Define 'protected'.


Attempts at restricting personal choice will be thwarted in a court of law.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> Define 'protected'.


Attempts at restricting personal choice in this category exposes a land manager to lawsuits and Federal investigations on the basis of constitutional rights violation and/or discrimination.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

leeboh said:


> Facts would prove otherwise.


Go on, share your facts, I would like to know how a land manager would defend themselves should I face them in front of a Judge.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

rideit said:


> Clueless poster of the week! You win a prize!


Not so fast, figofspee is going to give him a (battery powered) run for the money!


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

lol @ figofspee


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> Attempts at restricting personal choice in this category exposes a land manager to lawsuits and Federal investigations on the basis of constitutional rights violation and/or discrimination.


So I can sue land managers for not letting me use my bicycle any damn place I want, cuz pedals/Constitution? Yeah, okay. Have another one.

Why is it that many of the e-bike proponents that wander in here are all about whack-job "we're going to restructure the entire government from the ground up ' tin-foil hat crap? I miss the reasonable guys like Gutch and Fos'l, etc. You newbs are too crazy and willfully ignorant to even carry a reasonable conversation.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

figofspee said:


> Attempts at restricting personal choice in this category exposes a land manager to lawsuits and Federal investigations on the basis of constitutional rights violation and/or discrimination.


Good luck with that.

What makes you think you'll be successful, where others have failed?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> Good luck with that.
> 
> What makes you think you'll be successful, where others have failed?


Arrogance coupled with a poor grasp on reality?


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> Sales drive usage.


Nope. You're wrong again. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or simply slow.

Legal ebike usage is governed by rules, regulations and laws. Those rules, regulations and laws are decoupled from sales figures. And the CPSC has nothing to do with where someone can legally use an ebike.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> Arrogance coupled with a poor grasp on reality?


Yeah. There are gigantic communities (see: off road moto) of people who have lost access in certain areas. But, apparently THIS GUY is the one who is going to make the compelling argument where all others have previously failed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> So I can sue land managers for not letting me use my bicycle any damn place I want, cuz pedals/Constitution? Yeah, okay. Have another one.
> 
> Why is it that many of the e-bike proponents that wander in here are all about whack-job "we're going to restructure the entire government from the ground up ' tin-foil hat crap? I miss the reasonable guys like Gutch and Fos'l, etc. You newbs are too crazy and willfully ignorant to even carry a reasonable conversation.


The black-helicopter whackadoo stuff goes over really well at city council meetings, though, right?

We actually had a guy in Boulder back in the day who would show up to *every* meeting about anything to rant about taxation-is-theft/the UN is behind the socialist bike-share program/etc. It was a mix of hilarious and sad. He personally probably pushed a number of people in charge to do the opposite of what he wanted just by being nuts and a bit of an asshole.

-Walt


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Walt said:


> The black-helicopter whackadoo stuff goes over really well at city council meetings, though, right?
> 
> We actually had a guy in Boulder back in the day who would show up to *every* meeting about anything to rant about taxation-is-theft/the UN is behind the socialist bike-share program/etc. It was a mix of hilarious and sad. He personally probably pushed a number of people in charge to do the opposite of what he wanted just by being nuts and a bit of an asshole.
> 
> -Walt


Yeah, we goaded a few eco-nazi/EarthFirsters into showing their true stripes at a number of town meetings regarding trail access. They went from spending decades being viewed by many as local environmental 'experts' to laughing stocks within the course of a year. It was fun tearing them down; they were genuine assholes.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> Good luck with that.
> 
> What makes you think you'll be successful, where others have failed?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Just the opposite.

What makes you think a land manager would succeed where others have failed?


----------

