# Should E-bikes be permitted on trails?



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

This is sort of a follow-on to the BLM E-biker policy in Utah.

Also a test of MTBR's "Polls" feature; this posting was an epic failure when attempted in the NorCal forum.

(Edit)

Sorry guys, the poll still wont work; getting this:










Would have been asking this:










In the NorCaL forum I could only get simple yes/no polls to work:

https://forums.mtbr.com/california-norcal/should-e-bikes-permitted-trails-940998.html

and

https://forums.mtbr.com/california-...kes-permitted-trails-must-pedaled-941000.html


----------



## Joules (Oct 12, 2005)

I kind of doubt you'll find many who want them on trails, at least among those who would participate in a survey [especially on here]. If I were making that sort of decision, rather than rely on a survey with obvious and well-understood bias, I'd ask "why aren't motorcycles allowed on trails?" [assuming they aren't], then decide if the same reasons apply to e-bikes. Quick thoughts on the reasons they aren't allowed in our parks: noise (doesn't apply to ebikes), skidding out/spinning wheels/damaging trails (probably not), excessive speed (maybe does).

To me, the more salient question is do you have an effective means of excluding them. Many of the e-bikes I've seen pictures of, one would have to look pretty close to differentiate them from an unpowered mtb. It just gets more muddy when you add stipulations like max wattage and if it must be pedaled - are you going to have rangers inspect every bike?

I don't have an answer, I have the same knee-jerk anti-ebike reaction as most everyone, but I am also aware there are different types and power levels out there. A 10kW electric motorcycle isn't the same thing as a 100w assist that requires pedaling. 
Enforcement would become really difficult - compare it to... a Vespa with a 100cc engine is legally a motorcycle and requires registration and a license, where one with a 49cc engine doesn't. They look similar enough that most cops can't tell the difference.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

Joules said:


> If I were making that sort of decision, rather than rely on a survey with obvious and well-understood bias, I'd ask "why aren't motorcycles allowed on trails?"


Or we could ask, "Should motorcycles be permitted on trails" Can ask that question for all trail user groups. "Should Horses / trail runners / hikers / mountain bikes / ebikes / atvs / dog walkers be permitted on trails"

This answer isn't a blanket yes or no. E-bikes should have some trail access, just like motorcycles, mountain bikes, equestrians, etc... But which trails they have access to will have to be made on a case by case basis.

Trying to ask the question in a way that can only have a "yes" or "no" answer just serves to polarized the mountain bike community.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I think a simple yes/no question serves a good purpose in drawing a coarse line. Nothing wrong with that. There is nothing final about it.

Discussion and a maturation of the issue will surely follow.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

They already have access to trails, with the other motorcycles.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

Don't write rules or laws around best case scenario - write them around abuse cases. Once you're on that mindset, there isn't a justification for trying to bring a motorized bicycle onto trails that only permit non-motorized. Hot rod and hacker culture is an awesome thing, but one of the end results will be kilowatt burst output e-bikes capable of really cool stuff, but that are also basically too fast for any sort of mixed use trail that isn't already set aside for motorized use.

There might be a lot of justification of having an eBike spec that is permissible on some specific trails (since they're not any more abusive erosion wise than horses) that aren't open to other motorized vehicles, but that will be more about a monetary interest driving a new classification than stupidly ruining the work of existing nonmotorized trails.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

If I get an ebike will that let me jump to the next trend so I don't have to stop at fatbike? Cause I'm so close to a bad decision with the Mukluk 2 that if you tell me ebikes will be cool I'll immediately accept them and get on that bandwagon.

Or not.

Motor = motorized; human powered has a been a cornerstone of advocacy for the past 25 (30+?) years. I don't want to be the one that say,"y'know how we said human powered? Well, we really mean human powered with motor assist, but don't worry, they will have the same impact normal bikes do, which is similar to hikers and less than equestrians."

Yeah, I'm not going to make that argument.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Touche', the friar.


----------



## challybert (Sep 5, 2014)

Wonder if my gym will allow a robot to lift weights and ride the tread mill for me?


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

challybert said:


> Wonder if my gym will allow a robot to lift weights and ride the tread mill for me?


And do your heart stress test for you when you get chest pains from cultivating flab?

Motorised is motorised.


----------



## challybert (Sep 5, 2014)

Ridnparadise said:


> And do you heart stress test for you when you get chest pains from cultivating flab?
> 
> Motorised is motorised.


I know and agree. I was being unsuccessfully facetious. My moped in the 80's had pedals....couldn't ride it on bike paths. Gonna be interesting to see how the line is drawn here.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

challybert said:


> I know and agree. I was being unsuccessfully facetious. My moped in the 80's had pedals....couldn't ride it on bike paths. Gonna be interesting to see how the line is drawn here.


no, you were successfully facetious. It's just me being an Aussie d!ck.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

I don't think it is really fair to compare low power e-bikes to dirtbikes. We have a lot of trouble here with dirtbikes and ATVs damaging certain trails, but if the average biker can comfortably put out 250 watts then a comparably powered e-bike isn't going to do any damage.

So I would vote option 2 (250 watt bikes allowed). Of course the real issue would be enforcing said limit... _(edit: as Joules said.)_


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I think that before anything happens the issue would be the political fallout of mtb being seen to support any type of motorized access to trails. Regardless of the truth of the effect of such machines the image of us supporting machines works against us.


----------



## jp08865 (Aug 12, 2014)

No.


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

How long have we fought to separate human powered from motorized in an attempt to gain access? This completely obliterates the line. There is no such thing as semi motorized. If it is anything other an person powered, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

No drive motors of any type.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

A minor point of correction, but "if the average biker can comfortably put out 250 watts" is a stretch. A strong amateur racer might hold 250 watts for about 30 to 60 minutes, but that's a pretty hard effort for anybody who isn't a elite/pro rider. Elite/pros produce something like 350 watts for an hour or two, but even for them that's pinning it.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Mark E said:


> A minor point of correction, but "if the average biker can comfortably put out 250 watts" is a stretch. A strong amateur racer might hold 250 watts for about 30 to 60 minutes, but that's a pretty hard effort for anybody who isn't a elite/pro rider. Elite/pros produce something like 350 watts for an hour or two, but even for them that's pinning it.


Fair point, I'm not sure if the 250 W limit is peak or continuous.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Is it strictly muscle powered or not? Does it have a motor or not? Is the trail restricted to non motorized uses or not? Those seem like a fairly strait forward questions to me.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

Define "trails".


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

alphazz said:


> Define "trails".


When I started to create this poll I was tempted to include "single track" in the description but then realized that "e-bike" is a very general term and in balance just using the simple term "trail" was more appropriate.

Had MTBR allowed me to I would have liked to have crafted a more comprehensive poll but WYSIWYG.

If somebody has a specific area in which they'd like to see e-bikes promoted or banned then I suggest you start a fresh poll with whatever specifics are seen fit.

But if this helps you decide which way to vote in the NorCal poll consider the definition to be "multi-use single track trails designated as non-motorized on public land".


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

pliebenberg said:


> But if this helps you decide which way to vote in the NorCal poll consider the definition to be "multi-use single track trails on public land".


Shouldn't the question be "should.............. allowed on trails designated "non motorized?" On trails that allow motorized use there would be no question if they are allowed or not.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

There are different kinds of public land .


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

alphazz said:


> There are different kinds of public land .


Oh my god...


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

New e-bikes editorial posted to Outside's website -- a well-considered essay I think.

Why We Shouldn't Hate on E-Bikes | The Cycle Life | OutsideOnline.com


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

So what this article reveals is that the elements of the discussion here on MTBR hits the same arguments but is actually more civil.

How about that?!


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Mark E said:


> New e-bikes editorial posted to Outside's website -- a well-considered essay I think.
> 
> Why We Shouldn't Hate on E-Bikes | The Cycle Life | OutsideOnline.com


Mark E, you represent IMBA. If IMBA decides that pedal assisted, motorised access is what their members want them to support, then it makes a very clear statement that IMBA is self-invested, self-intrerested and prepared to snub its corporate nose at the thing that gave IMBA life - MTB.

You as IMBA rep have posted an article where another IMBA face sees motorised bikes as something of benefit. You mean it benefits IMBA! IMBA is in conflict with the recreation that bore it and this smells terribly like rats leaving a sinking financial ship and looking for another to support its own profligacy.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Ridnparadise said:


> Mark E, you represent IMBA. If IMBA decides that pedal assisted, motorised access is what their members want them to support, then it makes a very clear statement that IMBA is self-invested, self-intrerested and prepared to snub its corporate nose at the thing that gave IMBA life - MTB.
> 
> You as IMBA rep have posted an article where another IMBA face sees motorised bikes as something of benefit. You mean it benefits IMBA! IMBA is in conflict with the recreation that bore it and this smells terribly like rats leaving a sinking financial ship and looking for another to support its own profligacy.


To be fair; the article linked and the other articles linked from there are just reporting the stances of many individuals, both pro and con e-bike. That one IMBA emeritus is riding a throttle e-bike on fire roads in Colorado does not IMHO suggest that IMBA is going to begin advocating for e-bikes.

I thank Mark E for bringing this to our attention so we can comment on it.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

Easy tiger. I thought it was a well-written essay that would be of interest to people on this discussion thread. IMBA's position on e-bikes is still that they are perfectly acceptable on trails where motorized recreation is allowed.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*What is troubling...*



Mark E said:


> Easy tiger. I thought it was a well-written essay that would be of interest to people on this discussion thread. IMBA's position on e-bikes is still that they are perfectly acceptable on trails where motorized recreation is allowed.


...is IMBA's Mike Van Able's comment; "We drew a real bright line, but I think we're going to have to draw another line."

In the context of:

_"Mike Van Abel, IMBA's executive director, pointed out that it's not IMBA's mission to help the industry grow its sales. "Our goal is stewardship of public lands," he said. "But the industry needs our help because we can geek out on that stuff (public land issues) pretty deep."

NICA's McInerny defined a strategy for IMBA and the industry to consider:

No throttles.
Put an IMBA representative on the BPSA committee.
Suppliers selling e-bikes should support IMBA.
Suppliers need to educate retailers about where and how e-bikes should be ridden.
Suppliers and retailers need to aggressively educate consumers about e-bike etiquette.
Enforce a sense of civility on trails.
But Van Abel pointed out that IMBA has drawn a line at the moment on where e-bikes fit in public land use.

"We drew a real bright line, but I think we're going to have to draw another line," he said."_

(From _Bicycle Retailer and Industry News_ by Marc Sani, published August 25, 2014)

IMBA's exhibiting some wiggle room.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

That e-bikes give a benefit is not an issue. We can wish them well. Whether we choose to advocate for access on non-motorized trails is another thing altogether.


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

IMBA is, IMO, clearly stating that e-MTB are a form of motorized use, while recognizing that others are arguing otherwise.


----------



## Maday (Aug 21, 2008)

That's easy... *No* e-"motor"bikes


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

I've been fearing this discussion for the past 3 years, ever since Gregg did an e-bike review.

There's no science yet for or against eBike impacts, user injury rates, increased number of people outside on bikes, etc. But there is an access discussion many of us play a part in day/week in and out and there are immediate impacts and reactions to our work and efforts there... 

TL;DR.........

From an advocate's point of view, and a steward of the land, human powered trails and access to non-motorized trails are absolutely clear in that there is not room for ebikes. 

There's still much advocacy work to be done for human powered mtb.

We as mtb advocates have not minced our words with our Land Manager/Owner Partners, we aren't advocating for motorized access and have stated we won't go there or be the gateway user to motorized. And we've done a good job of keeping out word. Its about integrity to people we've asked to trust us, and who growingly, have given us that trust.

If a trail already includes motorized access, no worries.

We fought the,"its likely the increased traveling speeds mean that risk, severity, and incidence of injury will all be increased as well," battles. We did the work and still have to deal with these arguments and discussions without eBikes in the mix, and we're making progress because we have put our money where our mouth is. 

I can appreciate sponsorship $ incentives & allure for IMBA from eBikes, but to come back to the negotiating table and state that one of the prime directives, "Human Powered," is now a suggestion/nuance, I can't take that and I think our partners won't either. Our adversaries will certainly take it and run...

If IMBA changes where their line is drawn, they'll lose my membership $ and I'll be sure as heck to spread that message to local shops, riders, and land managers. If eBikes want access, there's nothing stopping them from forming IeMBA and funding their own studies, research, operating etiquette, and organized advocacy.


PS - Generally speaking shops don't sell access or etiquette, they sell bikes.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

It is a rare shop, indeed, that direct cyclist about when and where to ride or how to support access.


----------



## jfk (Feb 5, 2009)

The first I heard of the whole E-Bike debate was an unlikely source: The Spokesmen #110 ? In Our Jammies « The Spokesmen Cycling Roundtable Podcast These guys are mostly roadies, but they are civil. The lawyer, Jim Moss, brought up two points that I have not seen mentioned:
1. The new E-bikes are pretty much indistinguishable from a normal mountain bike, at least for a lay person. Especially while they are moving. 
2. From what they mention it seems modifying the power output may be easy to accomplish.

I figure e-bikes are coming one way or another. I think any limitation should be based on congestion. If these are used way off the beaten path, great. Its a larger world of mountain biking. I would prefer not see them on local trails that see a lot of traffic already.

It's going to be challenging as there is never the available resource for enforcement.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

jfk said:


> The first I heard of the whole E-Bike debate was an unlikely source: The Spokesmen #110 ? In Our Jammies « The Spokesmen Cycling Roundtable Podcast These guys are mostly roadies, but they are civil. The lawyer, Jim Moss, brought up two points that I have not seen mentioned: 1. The new E-bikes are pretty much indistinguishable from a normal mountain bike, at least for a lay person. Especially while they are moving. 2. From what they mention it seems modifying the power output may be easy to accomplish. I figure e-bikes are coming one way or another. I think any limitation should be based on congestion. If these are used way off the beaten path, great. Its a larger world of mountain biking. I would prefer not see them on local trails that see a lot of traffic already. It's going to be challenging as there is never the available resource for enforcement.


 Respectfully, the last thing I want to see out in the backcountry is some Mutt on an ebike, especially after I spent 5 or 6 hours using my own power to get there. Motors preempt them from non-motorized trail use and should remain so. We fought long and hard to win sometimes scant privileges and to see that thrown away so that someone that cant even be bothered to expend any energy and feels entitled to the same privilege can is simply wrong. atmo


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

thefriar said:


> I've been fearing this discussion for the past 3 years, ever since Gregg did an e-bike review.


MTBR briefly had an e-bike forum, right? I don't think I imagined that.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Are motor assisted sleds on ski slopes coming too? :madman:


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

evasive said:


> MTBR briefly had an e-bike forum, right? I don't think I imagined that.


It did.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

jfk said:


> 1. The new E-bikes are pretty much indistinguishable from a normal mountain bike, at least for a lay person. Especially while they are moving.


This is why I have the challenge I do. The only way to eliminate them being used is to just ban all bikes, if you have an anti-mtb element already that's "accomodating" to our use, this is an easy way to fully regulate (eliminate) it... we can't tell the difference and we don't have resources to police what's what, so better to eliminate the probability...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I found this in one of my emails. a member in October encouraged us to start laying groundwork for a position on e-bikes. I ran across this:

"The question of accessibility must be addressed: we should sympathize with those are, though time, injury or disability unable to pedal to the top of the hill. But all athletic sports are this way. Are runners allows to use Segways? Are climbers allowed jet packs? It's rough, but it's just life. "

I thought it expressed a fundamental "feeling" i had, too, but could not put it into words.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

thefriar said:


> This is why I have the challenge I do. The only way to eliminate them being used is to just ban all bikes, if you have an anti-mtb element already that's "accomodating" to our use, this is an easy way to fully regulate (eliminate) it... we can't tell the difference and we don't have resources to police what's what, so better to eliminate the probability...


HOHA's must be shaking with excitement, dreaming of the day when land managers -- fed up with hikers, equestrians *and mountain bikers* complaining about e-bikers riding non-motorized trails -- reclassify "non-motorized" trails as "non-mechanized" trails and do away with all wheels on many awesome trails :bluefrown:


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I found this in one of my emails. a member in October encouraged us to start laying groundwork for a position on e-bikes. I ran across this:
> 
> "The question of accessibility must be addressed: we should sympathize with those are, though time, injury or disability unable to pedal to the top of the hill. But all athletic sports are this way. Are runners allows to use Segways? Are climbers allowed jet packs? It's rough, but it's just life. "
> 
> I thought it expressed a fundamental "feeling" i had, too but could not put it into words.


This is why I don't think the "not physically capable" argument holds water. There simply are places that we as a society have determined that should be accessible by strictly muscle and lung power. Yes, there are many people who for whatever reason do not have the physical capability to ride a bike to the top of a hill, or climb a mountain, or hike long distances. There are a lot of places where we make accommodations for folks like that, and places we don't.
I expect some day in the not too distant future due to aging, I'll be unable to hop on a bicycle and pedal it up steep hills or long distances. Or maybe I'll injure myself badly enough that my mobility will be severely limited. So be it. I won't insist that I be allowed to ride a motorized vehicle - no matter how small the motor - in places that are the domain of leg and lung. Yes, it is harsh, but that's the way life can be. The good news for when that day comes, there are still plenty of places and things in the outdoors that I'll be able to go. 
To me the line between something that is not muscle and lung powered is pretty easy to follow. To make that ambiguous with some difficult to enforce guideline such as X amount of watts is OK, but over that isn't is unenforceable in the best of circumstances, let alone what is currently typical. 
No doubt some of the rhetoric and vitriol you see in these discussion is a bit over the top but that only obfuscates the discussion. You can be against motor assist vehicles on trails designated for non motorized use without being against their general use in appropriate, legal areas. 
It really does mystify me why this is as contentious as it is.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Empty_Beer said:


> HOHA's must be shaking with excitement, dreaming of the day when land managers -- fed up with hikers, equestrians *and mountain bikers* complaining about e-bikers riding non-motorized trails -- reclassify "non-motorized" trails as "non-mechanized" trails and do away with all wheels on many awesome trails :bluefrown:


It doesn't take much for a few people to turn the most mundane discussion into a grand conspiracy theory.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

FWIW the poll in the NorCal forum that was linked from this thread is closed; the "no" vote prevailed with about a 73% majority (106 "no" to 39 "yes").

Pretty solid victory for us "no" folks.

The long-term prognosis not so much; with approaching 5000 views and only 145 votes there's a huge group out there who could change the direction of things if they stepped up.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

pliebenberg said:


> FWIW the poll in the NorCal forum that was linked from this thread is closed; the "no" vote prevailed with about a 73% majority (106 "no" to 39 "yes").
> 
> Pretty solid victory for us "no" folks.
> 
> The long-term prognosis not so much; with approaching 5000 views and only 145 votes there's a huge group out there who could change the direction of things if they stepped up.


"Victory"?


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

zrm said:


> It doesn't take much for a few people to turn the most mundane discussion into a grand conspiracy theory.


How do you see the growth of e-bikes playing out 10-15 years down the road? According to the rudimentary poll, a good 33% of your mtb buddies will be tooling around on these things. Ya think they'll stick to OHV parks?


----------



## mykel (Jul 31, 2006)

On first blush - from me a big NO.

However, on thinking about it a bit more - a qualified maybe.

As I just turned 50 and got contemplating how many more years I have left; the thought of having something that can keep me riding longer is intriguing. 
Amongst the guys I ride with, I am now the oldest and the slowest at climbing, but still mid-pack on teh downs. Age ranges from 20's to 50.
I know that the future brings more slow, pain and longer recovery. 

If I want to keep riding with this or a similar crew, when the time comes I would look at an e-bike in the viegn of the Cube Stereo.
Limited power and speed, ya gotta pedal to get an assist, - so no turning of a throttle. Currently a bit big and clunky - but when I may be ready for one in 15-20 odd years they should have the tech down solid. Use the assist on the ups so the guys don't miss their kids birthdays waiting for me - then while still having a bit of energy - school the young-ones on they way down.

I don't want to see someting that looks more like a moto-cross bike than a standard trail-bike, with enough power to wheelie uphill.
However an assist style that boosts your input, with limited power and speed could be the middle-ground. 

No effort = no e-assist. This I may be able to get behind. Trails access would be the issue. I can see this type of bike accepted a bit easier - you have to look close to realize its an e-bike.

However, I don't think it will happen though - the majority of e-bikes will be made more like mopeds or scooters with too much power, no pedalling required etc. 
These types I can see being the norm, and therefor not allowed on trials as it should be.

I can't beleive I just went there....bit of a verbal dump - but hope you got the jist of it anyway.


----------



## jekylljim (Nov 10, 2014)

In my opinion - No.

I know electric bikes have been around for a while but I think in this day and age I am so sick and tired of EVERYTHING in life becoming "assisted" its pathetic. OK, e-bikes might allow someone to ride if they cannot physcially ride a "pushbike" or should I say "P-bike" which is absolutely great, other than that, its a load of nonsense. 

Like parking sensors on cars, one day, no one will be able to park without them, same goes for sat navs and map reading. And these stupid gearboxes you get today, one day, no one will know what clutch is... so, I digress massively for which I apologize but I hope at least someone can see my point.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Empty_Beer said:


> How do you see the growth of e-bikes playing out 10-15 years down the road? According to the rudimentary poll, a good 33% of your mtb buddies will be tooling around on these things. Ya think they'll stick to OHV parks?


Which rudimentary poll is that?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

zrm said:


> Which rudimentary poll is that?


Who knows???

If referring to the referenced NorCal MTBR poll it's 26.90% of our "buddies" will be out on e-bikes.

Yeah rudimentary, ain't no Gallup or Harris poll but did the best I could. 'Spose in a year's time or so I may post it again but with a couple of paragraphs with more descriptors to make it more conditional. The question would probably read:

"Should the _able-bodied_ be permitted to ride low-power e-bikes on multi-use single-track trails on public lands?"

Descriptors would include what was meant by "able-bodied", "low-power" and "trails". (OK 3 paragraphs!)

BTW at the federal level the Justice Dept. has already proclaimed that those with mobility disabilities can use OPDMD's on trails accessible by pedestrians. The question remains as to whether or not an e-bike would qualify as an OPDMD; there's plenty of room in the ADA wording to allow for banning them at a local level.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

pliebenberg said:


> Who knows???
> 
> If referring to the referenced NorCal MTBR poll it's 26.90% of our "buddies" will be out on e-bikes.
> 
> ...


Maybe I'm missing something but asking if something should be permitted is a lot different than asking if you plan on participating in said activity.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

zrm said:


> Maybe I'm missing something but asking if something should be permitted is a lot different than asking if you plan on participating in said activity.


Fair enough, being as this last poll was about _permission_ howabout you starting a poll asking about _participation_?


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

jekylljim said:


> In my opinion - No.
> 
> I know electric bikes have been around for a while but I think in this day and age I am so sick and tired of EVERYTHING in life becoming "assisted" its pathetic. OK, e-bikes might allow someone to ride if they cannot physcially ride a "pushbike" or should I say "P-bike" which is absolutely great, other than that, its a load of nonsense.
> 
> Like parking sensors on cars, one day, no one will be able to park without them, same goes for sat navs and map reading. And these stupid gearboxes you get today, one day, no one will know what clutch is... so, I digress massively for which I apologize but I hope at least someone can see my point.


Though I understand where you are coming from with this, almost everything about my bike is set up to make riding easier or more convenient. I guess you could take this all the way from dropper posts and suspension down to the concept of the wheel. Unless you are running trails naked if feel this is probably true for everyone. 

Can't say much for the next 10-15 years (I hope), but I will be buying an E-bike whenever age or disability prevents me from riding unassisted.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

It would be extremely foolish to let the motorized camel get his ebike nose under the non-motorized trail tent.

You can pedal your bike as long as you can walk, and you can walk as long as you can pedal your bike. Well into your 90's at least, if you don't get too fat.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

I know a number of older people who are limited in how far they can walk. And I would be surprised if laws did not already exist in many places to allow users with disabilities to use motorized wheelchairs/scooters on non-motorized paths.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

cerebroside said:


> Though I understand where you are coming from with this, almost everything about my bike is set up to make riding easier or more convenient. I guess you could take this all the way from dropper posts and suspension down to the concept of the wheel. Unless you are running trails naked if feel this is probably true for everyone.
> 
> Can't say much for the next 10-15 years (I hope), but I will be buying an E-bike whenever age or disability prevents me from riding unassisted.


Yes, but YOU still supply the power to the wheels.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

zrm said:


> Yes, but YOU still supply the power to the wheels.


That was more in reference to the parking sensor/gps/automatic gearbox derail. To clarify my position, I don't think people should have a right to use e-bikes unless they have some disability for which assistance is necessary. On the other hand I don't have any particular problem others using with e-bikes unless they are causing excessive trail damage, access issues, etc. At least in my area I think trail damage would be the only concern, and I think a power limiting standard would mitigate that, assuming it could be enforced...


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

One of our locals took an e-MTB along to a charity ride. 100km of road riding with so much of the ride being above the top speed of the bike that he apparently hit multiple walls trying to pedal the heavy pile of junk and keep up with his mates on road bikes. Perhaps the limitations of the machine will see it die out, although e-bikes would have suited the London Olympics "MTB" course. 

I think it would be a risky thing to allow "disabled" riders access deep into the bush. Machine failure = rescue required if you cannot walk out. Respect for the disabled and political correctness must have a limit. Yusain Bolt will not be running sub-10 second 100m races at age 70 and that is just fact. 

An e-bike is like botox for the "disabled". It doesn't change the fact that someone else has to be responsible for infrastructure to support disabled access. You can't have disabled toilets without ramps, rails etc and you can't provide a backcountry experience (passively or actively) for the disabled without managing infrastructure support like dedicated evacuation services. Where and at what point of support does it stop when you face a very vocal and justified group in the disabled.....

E-bikes are not a device for the disabled, but a mechanised toy that offers a profit for manufacturers. I don't want them on my trail system. Don't get me wrong, I can see how they would be a huge asset climbing steep and long trails in the alps to take in the view, but in this modern world it is only a matter of time before someone disabled challenges a land manager after they get stuck on a trail system. The can of worms is just too big.

MTB is MTB - a human uses their own strength to get the bike places, not dissimilar to carrying a backpack. e-bikes are mechanised machines which could destabilise decades of MTB advocacy adding a whole new conflict of interest MTB does not need. Say no to e-bikes on trails.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Mountain biking is an inherently risky sport, and I know of a number of people locally who have been evacuated because of injury. I have also been on rides where walking out is basically not an option (due to remoteness).
I feel like this is a bit of a moot point. Eventually someone with a disability is going to want to use one of these on a trail, and I get the impression that a lot of places are not going to be in a position to say no.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^That is utter bunk, you can't take a motorized bike on a trail just because you are disabled. You may ride your motorized wheelchair anywhere hiking is accomodated but that is as far as it goes.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

bsieb said:


> ^That is utter bunk, you can't take a motorized bike on a trail just because you are disabled. You may ride your motorized wheelchair anywhere hiking is accomodated but that is as far as it goes.


According to the homework slapheadmofo has done and the links he's posted, that's not the case. One of his examples posted below:

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/accessible/OPDMD-DOJ-requirement-basic.html


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

bsieb said:


> ^That is utter bunk, you can't take a motorized bike on a trail just because you are disabled. You may ride your motorized wheelchair anywhere hiking is accomodated but that is as far as it goes.


So if some rich retiree with nothing else to do decides to sue your local club for access you're going to have the funding to fight it? Based on our last budget I don't think we would.
What the outcome of that would be would depend a lot on the wording of the relevant laws where you live I guess. And denying people with disabilities access doesn't exactly make for great press if they decide to make a fuss about it.

Either way, if a lot of riders start getting older and looking at these things as options there will be a lot of pressure. Just speculating.

_Edit: I also feel that if E-bike access is going to be inevitable then mountain bikers would be a lot better off getting on it early and getting some low power limit standards set, rather than ending up with a whole ton of pedal-added motorbikes out there._


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

If e-bike access is inevitable, it makes sense that it is identified as a *new user group*. Rather than try to limit something you are not part of, base the argument on history. Historically walkers, equestrians, MTB, orienteering etc have identified as and negotiated with land managers as identifiable user groups.

MTB should not become part of the argument for (or against) e-bikes and e-biking. MTB specific trails were designed and built for mountain bikes, not e-bikes or any other user, regardless of (dis)ability. If e-bikes have a future in the bush, then let e-bikers make that future on new trail for them and see where that goes.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

evasive said:


> According to the homework slapheadmofo has done and the links he's posted, that's not the case. One of his examples posted below:
> 
> Basic facts and requirements of Department of Justice Rule on Other Power Driven Mobility Devices


I can't speak for all situations, but so far the BLM has ruled ebikes are not permitted on bike trails. The FS dealt with the issue in forming our current trail plan, using the DOJ Assessment Factors:

"What do you need to do for your trail to be ready for March 15th when the DOJ rules on other power-driven mobility devices go into effect?
The DOJ rules requires an entity open to the public to make reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, or procedures to allow the use of other power-driven mobility devices by individuals with mobility disabilities, UNLESS: that entity can document that it has completed an assessment of the facility, trail, route or area, before the person requesting use of the device arrived onsite, and the entity found that class of other power-driven mobility device could not be used in that location due to one or more of the following DOJ assessment factors:
DOJ Assessment Factors:

(a) "The type, size, weight, dimensions, and speed of the device;
(b) The volume of pedestrian traffic (which may vary at different times of the day, week, month, or year);
(c) The design and operational characteristics (e.g., whether its service, program, or activity is conducted indoors, its square footage, the density and placement of stationary devices, and the availability of storage for the device, if requested by the user);
(d) Whether legitimate safety requirements can be established to permit the safe operation of the other power-driven mobility device in the specific facility; and
(e) Whether the use of the other power-driven mobility device creates a substantial risk of serious harm to the immediate environment or natural or cultural resources, or poses a conflict with Federal land management laws and regulations."
If one of those issues prevents the use of a specific class of other power-driven mobility device.
Those are the only factors a public entity is to use in determining whether a particular class of other power-driven mobility device may be allowed in a specific location."


----------



## mtbty (Jun 15, 2012)

We have this rule/law at our trails where I live. It says that trails are not open to motorized use, doesn't matter if it's a gas or electric motor, motors of any kind are not allowed. 

But we also have trails in other areas that are open to motorcycles and mountain bikes, so those would be the trails for a motor powered bike, electric or gas.

Why is this so hard for people to get?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Maybe it is a simple function of the facility provided by the wheel. The improved power, range, and the possibilities brook no exclusion.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Even though they're banned for general public use, they're pretty likely still okay for handicapped accessibility. Of course I'm no expert, so maybe there's something in place that exempts certain areas or types of areas, but even Wilderness areas allow powered wheelchairs. They do make a some clear distinctions that would keep e-bikes,etc out though.

"Forest Service Manual 2353.05
"Wheelchair or Mobility Device. A device, including one that is battery-powered, that is designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is *suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area.* A person whose disability requires use of a wheelchair or mobility device may use a wheelchair or mobility device that meets this definition anywhere foot travel is
allowed."

Application: *"Designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person" means that the original design and manufacture of the device was only for the purpose of mobility by a person who has a limitation on their ability to walk.* A wheelchair or mobility device, even one that is a battery powered, that meets this definition is allowed anywhere foot travel is allowed.

"Suitable for indoor pedestrian use" means the device would be allowed to be used inside a mall,
etc."

Without those little nuggets, which I'm guessing aren't spelled out so specifically at most places, from what I understand it would be pretty tough to legally deny a legitimately handicapped person from using pretty much anything they want under a certain size and power from accessing just about any trail that's designated as a hiking trail. Trails that are designated mtb trails get a pass. ("A trail has a single primary designated use, but can have multiple managed uses" is the way I recall it.) You don't have to guarantee the trail is passable or anything, but in many cases, you can't say 'no, you can't go there'.

When it comes to disabled accessibility, I think many LMs could be surprised to find it's a lot more complicated (and open) than you'd probably think. I know I was surprised, though it's not like it was anything I'd ever really considered much to begin with. And the intent is good. I mean, you'd have to be kind of a dink to not want to cut a break on the whole purity of effort thing when it comes to somebody that's legitimately disabled. Also, as a group, I wouldn't think the kind of people who fake disabilities are often the same people that are going to be interested in riding mtb trails. I really don't see this ever developing into some sort of major issue anywhere and I personally can think of situations where I'd welcome e-bike use. Think about if one of your long time riding buddies got hurt while serving in such a way he lost a a good percentage of his lung capacity, or a kid in the same situation due to cystic fibrosis, etc. An e-bike could really be a godsend to someone like that who really wants to ride but is just physically screwed when it comes to getting all aerobic. Personally, I think that's a legitimate use and I don't have a problem with it.

Ironically, since this only applies to 'hiking' and not 'biking' trails, if you're somewhere that has separate designated trails, you'd could only deny access to the bike trails and not the hiking trails, regardless whether they allow mountain bikes in the first place.

That's probably a one in a million thing though. As far as e-bikes on trails in general, they're motorized. I don't even understand how there's a discussion.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

bsieb said:


> The DOJ rules requires an entity open to the public to make reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, or procedures to allow the use of other power-driven mobility devices by individuals with mobility disabilities,* UNLESS: that entity can document that it has completed an assessment of the facility, trail, route or area, before the person requesting use of the device arrived onsite*, and the entity found that class of other power-driven mobility device could not be used in that location


Doing this trail by trail assessment proactively and having it on file is key if someone is concerned about the disabled access angle. Again, seems to me this would be such a rare thing, most LMs wouldn't find it worth doing. Seems that if it ever did become an issue, it's a pretty easy thing to get past, as you said.


----------



## Lightyear (Dec 17, 2014)

My aunt, who at her age or in her physical shape has no business being on a decent mountain bike trail, has recently gotten into the ebike thing. Which is awesome for her, she gets some exercise going to the store and riding around the golf course she lives on, but now she's thinking of getting a mountain ebike. I've spent yesterday adjusting her derailleur on her street version and listening to her talk about wanting to get out and ride trails. I just think it would be dangerous, it's going to give some people who don't really have the skill the confidence and that could hurt not only them but others.


----------



## cmc4130 (Jan 30, 2008)

I think for specifically-designated trails and bike parks, they could be kind of awesome.

Think of all the Downhill possibilities--you can now ride DH at places that do not have ski lifts.

But, you guys are right, these are being promoted as something you can ride anywhere. Check out this 



 Dude is a MX/FMX rider who hauling ass through regular parks, bmx jumps, ditches, etc.


----------



## UncleTrail (Sep 29, 2007)

Lightyear said:


> My aunt, who at her age or in her physical shape has no business being on a decent mountain bike trail, has recently gotten into the ebike thing. Which is awesome for her, she gets some exercise going to the store and riding around the golf course she lives on, but now she's thinking of getting a mountain ebike. I've spent yesterday adjusting her derailleur on her street version and listening to her talk about wanting to get out and ride trails. I just think it would be dangerous, it's going to give some people who don't really have the skill the confidence and that could hurt not only them but others.


I feel the same way about people who buy Harley's but have never owned a moto... but I would never make that decision for them by passing laws.

I bought my dog from this guy in Casper. Tragic story. He died shortly after I met him. Hell of a nice guy.
Casper man fulfills lifelong dream, dies three miles later


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

cmc4130 said:


> I think for specifically-designated trails and bike parks, they could be kind of awesome.
> 
> Think of all the Downhill possibilities--you can now ride DH at places that do not have ski lifts.
> 
> ...


Man, that looks so foolish to me. Specially with the full MX gear when little kids in t-shirts on BMX bikes are outjumping him.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

This from inside a local district. An unofficial, informed opinion:

"[We] have no policy on E bikes specifically, but, as a "motorized vehicle," they're currently not allowed on EBRPD trails. The only exception is for "mobility assistance devices," and we're not allowed to ask what someone's need for mobility assistance is. For example, "Fictitious Name Here" could probably get a pass as a senior citizen.

From a practical standpoint, unless we got complaints, I wouldn't think we'd be out in force to protect the public from a quiet bike that didn't look much different from the others. About five years ago, the Contra Costa Centre (at the PH BART Station) wanted us to allow Segway's and electric bikes on the Iron Horse and Contra Costa Canal Trails. We successfully beat that back then, but I suspect electrics aren't going away."


----------



## Oldfatbaldguy (Nov 4, 2010)

I dont know how I landed on this old thread, or why it seems important enough to comment, but there is a post on P2 that suggests that when enough e-bikers get together and create a niche for themselves...

I have an old ankle/leg injury that makes it tough to walk long distances, or middle-distances without orthotic shoes. I can pedal a bike just fine, for as long as I want. Indeed, that was part of the beginnings of MTN biking for me: I could ride, then hike to a scenic point, fishing spot, etc.

I volunteer a lot with a local bike club; we have Thursday trail days in the snow-free months and I made it to all but 2 in 2014: I feel I have earned my right to ride.

I dont have an E-bike, and probably will not in the near future. If I did get one, it would not be useful on a lot of singletrack because of the issues presented, and e-bike users probably will NOT band together to create their own niche. And all that is OK.

OTOH, if grandpa wants to mow my lawn and paint the garage next summer so I could have more trail time, I COULD be persuaded to lobby for his team...


----------



## 50cents (Oct 30, 2014)

Oldfatbaldguy said:


> I dont know how I landed on this old thread, or why it seems important enough to comment, but there is a post on P2 that suggests that when enough e-bikers get together and create a niche for themselves...
> 
> I have an old ankle/leg injury that makes it tough to walk long distances, or middle-distances without orthotic shoes. I can pedal a bike just fine, for as long as I want. Indeed, that was part of the beginnings of MTN biking for me: I could ride, then hike to a scenic point, fishing spot, etc.
> 
> ...


Curious what your and others will answer in this post ( http://forums.mtbr.com/trail-buildi...ipenpradise-bsieb-tr-944056.html#post11672566 ).

I personally love the eBike concept of allowing individuals to ride with there younger riding buddies and hope that in the US eBikes will be accepted as aids to keep old guys and gals out on trails they have ridden and possibly helped to create or maintain for many years.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

I totally support people riding e-bikes on trails that allow motorized traffic.


----------

