# More "access" arguing



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

indytrekracer said:


> The Indiana Vehicle Code is not relevance to the lands managed by the IDNR. IDNR defines motorized bikes as vehicles on the lands they manage. You are welcome to contact the Indiana Department of Natural Resources for yourself.
> 
> I have been told directly by IDNR leadership that any bike with a motor is classified on their properties as a vehicle and not allowed on trails open to mountain bikes.
> 
> On a regular basis I am asked by bike shops and riders about the legality of riding a pedal assist bike on mountain bike trails located in Indiana State Parks and Forests. When I inform them of the IDNR's position, often times they proceed to argue with me. I am only the messenger. If you want to try to convince the IDNR that Indiana's Vehicle code supersedes their own legal definition of a vehicle, please have at it.


I have no beef with you as the "messenger" on behalf of IDNR's position. And as I said, I'm no expert on Indiana law. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. I'm just putting information out there, just as you are.

That being said, you note that IDNR calls out their definition of "vehicles" to include "motorized bicycles." But as you note, they IDNR has no definition for the term "motorized bicycle." Yet the term has to mean "something" from a legal standpoint, in order for IDNR to properly enforce its rules/regulations. So, absent any definition of a "motorized bicycle" within IDNR's own code/regulations, an appropriate method to determine the definition/meaning, our American system of legal interpretation encourages, if not outright requires, looking at other related state laws for illumination. The process of looking to other state laws (in the absence of a definition in another state law) is entirely appropriate and relevant in this case, as I see it.

Still, agencies say what they want to say all the time, regardless of whether it's backed up with a sound legal foundation.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Michigan officially recognizes different clarifications of ebikes. However



> To placate mountain bikers, the bill prohibits e-bikes on nonmotorized natural surface trails, unless approved by local or state authorities.


The push to classify ebikes is headed by the same people who run People for Bikes a bicycle industry lobby group.

Michigan becomes 7th state to adopt model e-bike classification | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

So I was in a comments conversation with the president of Pedego Electric Bikes, the biggest bike brand in the US. Their ebikes, including their mountain bikes, have 6 modes of assist:

PedalSense

Level 0 allows you to ride normally without any assistance.
Levels 1-4 use a state of the art torque sensor to deliver proportional assistance based on how hard you pedal
Level 5 provides full power whenever you pedal – it doesn’t matter how hard
Levels 1-5 all have a throttle override for full power on demand>
And Level 6 is throttle only without any automatic pedal assistance

Is this a Class 1 ebike? It is 500W and limited to 20mph but it does have a throttle. 
Does any of the legislature say that for ebikes to be ridden in bike lanes and bike paths, they must be ridden in a "proportional assistance" mode? Or as long as the bike qualifies, anything goes?

I'm just asking, not meaning to set off anything. Mods, please move if you think this should be in another thread.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

A throttle is a throttle, even if you're not using it. Bikes like that are class 2.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

I think it's a clever move to promote a standardized classification in legislation in various states. Differentiation sets the stage for allowing _some_ segments (or at least one segment) of e-bikes on various types of trails. Now, instead banning all ebikes on natural-surface trail, they have the option of only banning class 2 and class 3. This is the camel's nose under the tent and it's how e-bike enthusiasts are going to get class 1 e-bikes on mountain bike trails, eventually.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Cuyuna said:


> I think it's a clever move to promote a standardized classification in legislation in various states. Differentiation sets the stage for allowing _some_ segments (or at least one segment) of e-bikes on various types of trails. Now, instead banning all ebikes on natural-surface trail, they have the option of only banning class 2 and class 3. This is the camel's nose under the tent and it's how e-bike enthusiasts are going to get class 1 e-bikes on mountain bike trails, eventually.


Yes, but no matter how well the classifications are written how will they be able to tell the difference between a class 1 bike or a class 2, 3.. etc on the trail?


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Lemonaid said:


> Yes, but no matter how well the classifications are written how will they be able to tell the difference between a class 1 bike or a class 2, 3.. etc on the trail?


or a vehicle that started out as class 1, 2 or 3 and has been hacked out of spec?


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Lemonaid said:


> Yes, but no matter how well the classifications are written how will they be able to tell the difference between a class 1 bike or a class 2, 3.. etc on the trail?





vikb said:


> or a vehicle that started out as class 1, 2 or 3 and has been hacked out of spec?


Their problem, not mine. I have no doubt they'll find a way depending on what the law says and the importance of the violation.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> I think it's a clever move to promote a standardized classification in legislation in various states. Differentiation sets the stage for allowing _some_ segments (or at least one segment) of e-bikes on various types of trails. Now, instead banning all ebikes on natural-surface trail, they have the option of only banning class 2 and class 3. This is the camel's nose under the tent and it's how e-bike enthusiasts are going to get class 1 e-bikes on mountain bike trails, eventually.


I'm really surprised you would say this. The "camel's nose under the tent" is what so many of us who are against allowing ebikes on non-motorized trails have been saying.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Cuyuna said:


> The difference is that I say it with admiration for a clever tactic, and with hope that it's a successful one.


You surely meant deceit instead of tactic? Don't worry, land managers are already aware of this deceitful ploy.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> You surely meant deceit instead of tactic? Don't worry, land managers are already aware of this deceitful ploy.


_All_ tactics are labeled deceitful by the other side of any given issue.

Anyway, :yawn: can't find the :shrug: smiley. Doesn't affect me.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I agree that this tactic (poach and hope for widespread adoption/acceptance) is the only remaining avenue for offroad e-bikes given how much land is already off limits. Whether you think that's an acceptable tactic I suppose depends on how much you're wiling to risk bike access overall (the nightmare scenario where e-bikes are common and indistinguishable, and all bikes end up limited to bike parks/banned from MUTs) and the potential for fines/arrest if there are problems and LMs decide to bring in law enforcement and make examples of a few people. 

It probably didn't have to be that way, but that's what you ("you" meaning the manufacturers who apparently didn't spend any time thinking about this) get for not doing the groundwork/advocacy in advance. 

-Walt


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Walt said:


> I agree that this tactic (poach and hope for widespread adoption/acceptance) is the only remaining avenue for offroad e-bikes given how much land is already off limits. Whether you think that's an acceptable tactic I suppose depends on how much you're wiling to risk bike access overall (the nightmare scenario where e-bikes are common and indistinguishable, and all bikes end up limited to bike parks/banned from MUTs) and the potential for fines/arrest if there are problems and LMs decide to bring in law enforcement and make examples of a few people.
> 
> It probably didn't have to be that way, but that's what you ("you" meaning the manufacturers who apparently didn't spend any time thinking about this) get for not doing the groundwork/advocacy in advance.
> 
> -Walt


I don't know what tactic _you_ are talking about. What _I_ am referring to has nothing to do with poaching, which is illegal. The legislation in Michigan has nothing to do with poaching either, it simply establishes legislative categories for e-bikes. I don't want high-powered e-bikes with throttles and large motors on the trails that I ride. On the other hand I have precisely zero concerns about class 1 e-bikes anywhere that conventional mountain bikes are allowed. By establishing those categories broadly, in 7 states now, it allows land managers something other than a blanket ban on _all_ "e-bikes". It doesn't demand it...it only _allows_ it. It's a start.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> I don't know what tactic _you_ are talking about. What _I_ am referring to has nothing to do with poaching, which is illegal. The legislation in Michigan has nothing to do with poaching either, it simply establishes legislative categories for e-bikes. I don't want high-powered e-bikes with throttles and large motors on the trails that I ride. On the other hand I have precisely zero concerns about class 1 e-bikes anywhere that conventional mountain bikes are allowed. By establishing those categories broadly, in 7 states now, it allows land managers something other than a blanket ban on _all_ "e-bikes". It doesn't demand it...it only _allows_ it. It's a start.


Maybe you don't know the meaning of the idiom you used?

a camel's nose (under the tent) - A small, seemingly innocuous act or decision that will lead to much larger, more serious, and less desirable consequences down the line.

So when you used it, it sounded to me like you were saying "let's convince them class 1 ebikes are ok" with the intent of shoving that door wide open for more powerful motorized bikes once the nose is in. But now you seem to be contradicting that.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Maybe you don't know the meaning of the idiom you used?
> 
> a camel's nose (under the tent) - A small, seemingly innocuous act or decision that will lead to much larger, more serious, and less desirable consequences down the line.
> 
> So when you used it, it sounded to me like you were saying "let's convince them class 1 ebikes are ok" with the intent of shoving that door wide open for more powerful motorized bikes once the nose is in. But now you seem to be contradicting that.


Well, let me clarify for you what I was saying and hopefully end your confusion once again. I don't consider class 1 e-bikes on MTB trails to be undesirable.

And it's not "let's convince them e-bikes are OK", it's "let's separate out the classes of e-bikes because there are many different variations with different mechanisms and different implications".

You are ass-uming far more than is actually there.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yes, the phrase is not usually used that way (ok, it's never used that way), hence our confusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel's_nose

FWIW, too, the classification system is widespread at this point. Assuming land managers feel they can actually distinguish between/enforce rules about different classes of bike, it indeed might allow class 1 bikes to eventually get access to places they're currently banned.

It will be interesting to see how the problem of enforcing that sort of rule/dinstinguishing between classes is handled - I know that around here, there was basically no consideration of even attempting to do so, it was just an immediate ban once we started seeing e-bikes (of all sorts) show up.

-Walt


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> Well, let me clarify for you what I was saying and hopefully end your confusion once again. I don't consider class 1 e-bikes on MTB trails to be undesirable.
> 
> And it's not "let's convince them e-bikes are OK", it's "let's separate out the classes of e-bikes because there are many different variations with different mechanisms and different implications".
> 
> You are ass-uming far more than is actually there.


Then learn to use idioms properly or don't use them at all. Otherwise, people will ass-ume you mean what the idiom means.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

chazpat said:


> Then learn to use idioms properly or don't use them at all. Otherwise, people will ass-ume you mean what the idiom means.


This

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Then learn to use idioms properly or don't use them at all. Otherwise, people will ass-ume you mean what the idiom means.


Grammar, spelling, and use of idiom notwithstanding, are you clear on my meaning now?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Cuyuna said:


> Grammar, spelling, and use of idiom notwithstanding, are you clear on my meaning now?


I *think* you mean that having classes of e-bike recognized by state law is a good thing.

I agree. I further agree that class 1 15.5/250 bikes (EU standard) could fit in just fine almost everywhere.

I am not sure it will matter for access to trails, since there's not any way to quickly distinguish between the classes, and the US class 1 is WAY faster and more powerful than the EU spec.

-Walt


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

CA law (the last time I read it) stated that beginning in 2017 all OEM bikes must have their "class" clearly identified, but, like anything else, the bikes could be modified.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> Grammar, spelling, and use of idiom notwithstanding, are you clear on my meaning now?


Glad to see I'm not the only one who gets the personal attacks. I saw the posts that were deleted.

Putting aside the arguments of technicalities, I think this thread illuminates very clearly that a "one size fits all" ban on any type of trail use (be it eBikes, equestrian, OHV, etc) is inappropriate. Any ban should be particular to a state or region as the conditions in one area may support a ban where conditions in another may not. But obviously, a ban on ALL federal land is asinine and should be rightly disputed by all trail users.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Plenty of places to ride motorized vehicles on fed property.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> Plenty of places to ride motorized vehicles on fed property.


This is such a BS position to take. By this same absurd logic, your local land managers should be able to show you an old corn field and say that is your new MTB riding area and there is plenty place for you to ride on it. Hogwash!

Unless you have never ridden an MTB on single track, you should know that it is far more about the appropriateness of trails moreso than simply quantity. OHV trails are designed and used by dirt bikes, quads, etc. They are very different than MTB trails.

A class 1 eBike is identical to an MTB with the exception of the motor, and is clearly most appropriate for use on an MTB trail. To dispute that would be folly. So, to take something like a class 1 eBike, and restrict its use to only OHV trails would be similar to restricting MTBs only to paved bike lanes. It is an inappropriate match of vehicle and trail.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Jim_bo said:


> This is such a BS position to take. By this same absurd logic, your local land managers should be able to show you an old corn field and say that is your new MTB riding area and there is plenty place for you to ride on it. Hogwash!
> 
> Unless you have never ridden an MTB on single track, you should know that it is far more about the appropriateness of trails moreso than simply quantity. OHV trails are designed and used by dirt bikes, quads, etc. They are very different than MTB trails.
> 
> A class 1 eBike is identical to an MTB with the exception of the motor, and is clearly most appropriate for use on an MTB trail. To dispute that would be folly. So, to take something like a class 1 eBike, and restrict its use to only OHV trails would be similar to restricting MTBs only to paved bike lanes. It is an inappropriate match of vehicle and trail.


I've ridden quite a bit on a mountain bike in Moab on moto trails, as well as around Colorado Springs and in Rabbit Valley. It works out just fine, actually. If you have open sight lines and know what to expect, no problems. With an e-bike it would work even better.

Now, you don't see many hikers on most of those trails, it's true. But bikes+motos tends to work fine. I actually "raced" a timekeeping enduro on a mountain bike once, and wasn't dead last.

-Walt


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> This is such a BS position to take. By this same absurd logic, your local land managers should be able to show you an old corn field and say that is your new MTB riding area and there is plenty place for you to ride on it. Hogwash!
> 
> Unless you have never ridden an MTB on single track, you should know that it is far more about the appropriateness of trails moreso than simply quantity. OHV trails are designed and used by dirt bikes, quads, etc. They are very different than MTB trails.
> 
> A class 1 eBike is identical to an MTB with the exception of the motor, and is clearly most appropriate for use on an MTB trail. To dispute that would be folly. So, to take something like a class 1 eBike, and restrict its use to only OHV trails would be similar to restricting MTBs only to paved bike lanes. It is an inappropriate match of vehicle and trail.


 Hmmm, not my position, it's the land manger and the rules and regs they follow. Ya know, motorized vehicle and such. So an OHV trail would be ok with say a 3,000 watt e motorcycle/ 2,000, 1,000? A 1,000 watt e bike? Appropriate to group human powered users and motorized vehicles together? Yup. Lots of hand wringing for someone who claims not to own an e bike? Financial/ business interest perhaps? No matter, MA rules classify bikes as human powered, motorized vehicles as something else. Cali has seen fit to let class one e bikes on some of the multi use trails, will see how that shakes out in a few years. And that little piece of " exception of the motor" sums it up. And I do pedal my mt bike on paved roads, bike paths and dirt roads it seems to work fine. E bike would work as well. Cheers.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> Hmmm, not my position, it's the land manger and the rules and regs they follow. Ya know, motorized vehicle and such. So an OHV trail would be ok with say a 3,000 watt e motorcycle/ 2,000, 1,000? A 1,000 watt e bike? Appropriate to group human powered users and motorized vehicles together? Yup. Lots of hand wringing for someone who claims not to own an e bike? Financial/ business interest perhaps? No matter, MA rules classify bikes as human powered, motorized vehicles as something else. Cali has seen fit to let class one e bikes on some of the multi use trails, will see how that shakes out in a few years. And that little piece of " exception of the motor" sums it up. And I do pedal my mt bike on paved roads, bike paths and dirt roads it seems to work fine. E bike would work as well. Cheers.


I didn't say it was your position. I said it is a BS position. I assume you don't have a guilty conscience.

I'm glad that you pedal your MTB on paved roads. But that is different than being told that you are restricted to only those roads and no off-road riding. I think your point is a bit obtuse.

I think you miss the bigger point. Land managers are like water. They are going to look for the path of least resistance. That's why it is in all trail users interest to send the message that the path of least resistance is NOT to deny access... to ANY user. We should hold land managers to a higher standard. For once we allow them to start denying access to groups based on arbitrary and capricious grounds, then that will only have a negative effect on you in the long run. You can't reasonably say that its OK for access to be denied to another group on questionable grounds without expecting that tomorrow, your access will be restricted on questionable grounds.

Unless we hold land managers accountable and demand that the default always be to full access unless there is clear and convincing evidence that limited access is necessary, then we invite them to restrict our access simply because they don't want to have to deal with us.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Around here, people *demand* no motors on trails - across all user groups. Full stop. Land managers hear that loud and clear. 

It's probably too late for most of these places. The policies are in place, and it's going to be *incredibly* hard to change that. The advocacy effort (and self-regulation to EU standards by manufacturers) should have started 5 years ago when the bikes were still on the drawing board, not now when a casual youtube search finds you a ton of videos of moto dudes doing burnouts on electric devices of all sorts and you can find all sorts of forum conversations about modifying your e-bike to go faster and poaching trails. 

That's a shame because there are a ton of trail systems where it wouldn't be a problem. 

C'est la vie.

-Walt


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> I didn't say it was your position. I said it is a BS position. I assume you don't have a guilty conscience.
> 
> I'm glad that you pedal your MTB on paved roads. But that is different than being told that you are restricted to only those roads and no off-road riding. I think your point is a bit obtuse.
> 
> ...


 We? Hmm, expecting hikers, dog walkers, horse folk and some mt bikers to take the side of e bikes? Best of luck with that. There is no we. I'm OK with no e bikes on muti use off road trails, lots of other places are open to motos. The negative will be when the mt bikes and e bikes get all lumped together and ALL get banned. Seems you have lots of meetings to go to, attend user forums, conservation commissions, and trail work days. Let me know how that works out.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Walt said:


> Around here, people *demand* no motors on trails - across all user groups. Full stop. Land managers hear that loud and clear.
> 
> It's probably too late for most of these places. The policies are in place, and it's going to be *incredibly* hard to change that. The advocacy effort (and self-regulation to EU standards by manufacturers) should have started 5 years ago when the bikes were still on the drawing board, not now when a casual youtube search finds you a ton of videos of moto dudes doing burnouts on electric devices of all sorts and you can find all sorts of forum conversations about modifying your e-bike to go faster and poaching trails.
> 
> ...


I do not disagree with your point about people demanding no motors on trails. But who are we if we base policy on mob rules? If people demanded that no Trek bikes, or 29'ers be on the trails, would we consider policy to ban them as well?

I also agree with your point of political inertia making reversing a policy very difficult. That is EXACTLY why I have been so adamant about pointing out the fact that class 1 eBikes are NOT legally banned on non-motorized BLM and USFS trails. I'm pointing out that there IS NOT INERTIA!! There is no policy to reverse! In fact, there appears to be no policy at all concerning class 1's. So, NOW is the time to have these rational discussions about how policy should be implemented concerning class 1 eBikes. For if we simply acquiesce to an unlawful policy by BLM and USFS, then eventually they WILL correct the law while no one is looking and class 1 eBikes WILL be legally banned.

You are 100% correct when you say that there are a ton of trail systems where class 1 eBikes would be no problem. And policy should reflect such.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Dude, don't start with the "it's not really a ban" BLM black helicopter thing again. There's nobody that wants to hear that. Again, that sort of claim just alienates people who *might* be allies.

-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> I do not disagree with your point about people demanding no motors on trails. But who are we if we base policy on mob rules? If people demanded that no Trek bikes, or 29'ers be on the trails, would we consider policy to ban them as well?


Policy isn't made based on mob rules, it's a rookie mistake to assume it is. I'm involved as a stake holder in policy discussions regarding ebikes at the local parks, state parks, state legislation level, with IMBA and P4B, either directly or through an intermediary. Land managers welcome general public input, and then turn to stakeholder groups and individuals, like Walt, to get their opinion, which carries more weight. They also research an issue, and consult with other land mangers to see how they have dealt with it. It's not a popularity contest, it's about balancing what the public wants with protecting the resource.

The mistake the industry, and the ebike community has made is to push the irrational claim that a 250w Class 1 ebike is the same as a bike, and to ignore the possibility of potential problems that are evident. Which have been discussed at length here and in almost every other thread in this forum. Land managers want to see the whole picture before they make their decisions, strapping a motor to a bicycle does present challenges to a land manager, all of which can be mitigated, all of which require resources and commited individuals. Which, I've yet to see offered. Mtbs and moto groups pony up plenty of time and money to mitigate their drain on a trail system, but ebikers? * crickets *

If the industry was up front about it, that the impact of emtbs is going to vary from mtbs, and presented possible solutions to that different impact, and worked with land managers to identify the best types of trail systems to integrate emtbs into, they'd gain far, far more access than they will with the current strategy. P4B is actually working on something like that, so maybe the industry is coming around to that point of view, it's a bit early to tell.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Walt said:


> Dude, don't start with the "it's not really a ban" BLM black helicopter thing again. There's nobody that wants to hear that. Again, that sort of claim just alienates people who *might* be allies.
> 
> -Walt


Walt,

I gotta lot of respect for you. And if you want to be alienated because you simply don't want to recognize the plain language of the law, then I can't stop you. However, I'd prefer that you simply take a look at the evidence and recognize that there is some merit to the point rather than dismissing it simply because it is not popular. I'll remind you that the only poster, to my knowledge, who is competent to for a professional legal opinion on this issue concurs with my point.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Jim_bo said:


> Walt,
> 
> I gotta lot of respect for you. And if you want to be alienated because you simply don't want to recognize the plain language of the law, then I can't stop you. However, I'd prefer that you simply take a look at the evidence and recognize that there is some merit to the point rather than dismissing it simply because it is not popular. I'll remind you that the only poster, to my knowledge, who is competent to for a professional legal opinion on this issue concurs with my point.


From what I read, the "only one legally qualified" guy once argued that "just because it has a motor doesn't make it motorized".... again the rest of could be wrong...


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Harryman said:


> Policy isn't made based on mob rules, it's a rookie mistake to assume it is. I'm involved as a stake holder in policy discussions regarding ebikes at the local parks, state parks, state legislation level, with IMBA and P4B, either directly or through an intermediary. Land managers welcome general public input, and then turn to stakeholder groups and individuals, like Walt, to get their opinion, which carries more weight. They also research an issue, and consult with other land mangers to see how they have dealt with it. It's not a popularity contest, it's about balancing what the public wants with protecting the resource.


Completely agree. But that balancing must be rational and fairly done. To simply deny access to an entire class of trail users simply because there is "balance" is wrong. We should not accept that. To deny access because there are real, tangible, measurable reason as to why access should be denied is reasonable. So far, the only thing I have seen from USFS and BLM is their illegal policy of "all eBikes are banned because they have motors". As many reasonable people have stated, there are tons of trails where a class 1 eBike is appropriate and should not be banned. There are no studies stating that a class 1 eBike has more impact than a MTB. From the land manager's perspective, they should not care if the bike is powered by a human or a motor. They should only care about impact. So, clearly a blanket ban is not appropriate. It's only coincidental that they erroneously tried to tie policy to existing law which would not apply to class 1 eBikes.



> The mistake the industry, and the ebike community has made is to push the irrational claim that a 250w Class 1 ebike is the same as a bike, and to ignore the possibility of potential problems that are evident.


While I don't disagree with this point, I also recognize that the mistake is that the land managers have failed to acknowledge the fact that a class 1 eBike is practically identical to a MTB in terms of impact. Thusly, they ignore the possibility that NO PROBLEMS exist beyond they problems inherent to MTBs.



> Land managers want to see the whole picture before they make their decisions


I disagree with that completely. USFS and BLM have both professed policy (although it is not legal policy) that is NOT based on the whole picture. It is a knee jerk reaction and an attempt to pigeon-hole all eBikes as being the same thing as an OHV.



> Mtbs and moto groups pony up plenty of time and money to mitigate their drain on a trail system, but ebikers? * crickets *


Again, I disagree. I say that in large part, the MTBer and the class 1 eBiker are the same person. The trails already exist and clearly the class 1 eBike is appropriate for those trails.

If you have a new type of vehicle that is obviously appropriate for a type of trail that is already defined, who has the burden of proving that it is not appropriate? This is the core question. Do the users of the new vehicle have the burden to PROVE that the new vehicle is appropriate (in the case of class 1 eBikes, this has already been done)? Or, do the land managers have the burden to PROVE that they are not appropriate? Obviously, my perspective is that access should be assumed until land managers can clearly show compelling reason why access should be restricted.



> If the industry was up front about it, that the impact of emtbs is going to vary from mtbs, and presented possible solutions to that different impact, and worked with land managers to identify the best types of trail systems to integrate emtbs into, they'd gain far, far more access than they will with the current strategy. P4B is actually working on something like that, so maybe the industry is coming around to that point of view, it's a bit early to tell.


If you want to criticize the industry for not leading eBike production with legal lobbying, I can see your point, but I don't necessarily agree. It seems to me that legal lobbying carries far more weight AFTER demand has been established rather than before.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> Walt,
> 
> I gotta lot of respect for you. And if you want to be alienated because you simply don't want to recognize the plain language of the law, then I can't stop you. However, I'd prefer that you simply take a look at the evidence and recognize that there is some merit to the point rather than dismissing it simply because it is not popular. I'll remind you that the only poster, to my knowledge, who is competent to for a professional legal opinion on this issue concurs with my point.


 So just get on your e bike, get ticket, contest the " illegal laws" , hire a lawyer get your e bike impounded, let it go though the courts, lose, appeal, wait 2-4 years and come back here with your findings. Oh, wait, you don't have an e bike. Why again are you advocating here again? Tyranny?


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

There's a whole lot of conjecture written before me. I think the biggest point that was missed by the writer was the fact that there was precedence before mountain bikes were allowed on some trails to in fact have them banned in the first place due to their mechanical nature. Meaning.... we are lucky to have places to ride mountain bikes in many areas in the first place and they are still banned in most if not all National Parks. That being said, the line of demarcation between an OVH and a bike seems (as far as I can tell) is the fact that one has a motor and the other doesn't. As far as I know there aren't any clearer ways do differentiate one from the other. If anyone can tell me a good reliable way to tell the difference between an emtb and an OVH I think we can start a discussion.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Great point. eBikes are an enigma. For many of them, they are neither MTB nor are the OHV. The one thing that's clear is that painting all eBikes with one brush is wrong. This is illuminated by the absurd analogy of me attaching a 5v computer cooling fan motor to the drive train on my MTB. It is a motor, and it does contribute to propulsion (although not very much), but obviously that doesn't transform my MTB into an OHV. Several states have adopted the concept of classes of eBikes. Obviously a 10,000W bike with suspension, power and weight similar to that of a dirtbike is an OHV and should be regulated as such. But by the same token, a 250W, pedal assist eBike with suspension, power and weight akin to a normal MTB is more appropriately regulated as an MTB. Some states (i.e. Utah) have actually written this into law. So precedence exists. 

There is a lot of grey area, but one thing that is clear is saying "if it has a motor, it is a motorized vehicle" and then restricting that bike to OHV trails only is wrong.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> ... a 250W, pedal assist eBike with suspension, power and weight akin to a normal MTB is more appropriately regulated as an MTB.


I would make the distinction that they should be regulated 'similarly to' (or even 'identically to') MTBs, but never 'as' MTBs. This protects MTB interests from being lumped in with any of issues that may arise around e-bike use.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

To be clear, the UT law was intended to keep people from having to carry insurance/registration when operating an e-bike on bike paths and public roads. It has basically nothing to do with any of the trails in the state outside of state parks (which are mostly reservoirs for boating/fishing). Local LMs and Federal LMs control at least 90% of the trails in the state and e-bikes are considered a separate thing and managed as such on pretty much all of them. 

And that's probably how it should be - leave local decisions up to local folks. If everyone wants e-bikes on the trails, great. If they don't, that's also fine. They're the people that know the trails, usage patterns, sight lines, etc. 

-Walt


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> I would make the distinction that they should be regulated 'similarly to' (or even 'identically to') MTBs, but never 'as' MTBs. This protects MTB interests from being lumped in with any of issues that may arise around e-bike use.


I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with this rational point.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with this rational point.


Thanks. That's been pretty much my take since day one. 
Got no problem with e-bikes in general, just want to keep them as a separate line-item from MTBs when it comes to access, even if they end up with all the same permissions. This should make them a non-issue to anyone concerned with how they could potentially affect MTB access I'd think.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with this rational point.


And yet you do. Constantly. Ebikes, of any type are NOT mountain bikes and should not be lumped in with them for any access issue. You even went so far as to say that ebikers are in fact represented at the land managers table because mountain bikers are, and they are the same thing. Do you even know what you're demanding any more?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## IMrider (Sep 16, 2008)

I've been reading this thread and the one that got shut down.

I'm in Fort Collins, CO and we have tons of REALLY good local trails that are free. Some are paved within the city and others are on our open space land. The off road trails have great sections that resemble Moab in certain areas. ALL of these trails are NON-Motorized for hiking, biking and horses. The trails were voted on and approved to exclude motorized travel. Our city and the surrounding areas have upheld this designation and I fully support that. Changing it now would really make voters question approving future funding.

I've also ridden and raced off road motorcycles for 40 years. I would absolutely love to be able to throw a wild e-bike on my 1UP USA rack and hit the local mountain bike trails. It takes a lot of planning and effort to ride motorcycles off road.

Limiting the motors and batteries will NEVER work. Too many people with the ability to modify firmware, batteries, motors, etc. I've seen a guy with a Ride Kick trailer going 40mph down one of our major roads in the bike lane. Thank God he isn't on our paved trails with little kids. He'd kill them if they hit.

At what point do these get thrown in the mix?
KTM - READY TO RACE


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> And yet you do. Constantly. Ebikes, of any type are NOT mountain bikes and should not be lumped in with them for any access issue. You even went so far as to say that ebikers are in fact represented at the land managers table because mountain bikers are, and they are the same thing. Do you even know what you're demanding any more?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Do you just come here to troll people? There are many people who have complained about your incessant personal attacks. I definitely am one of them. I've said it before, you and I are never going to agree apparently. So again, just put me on ignore and stop trying to drag reasonable, civil conversation into an argument.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Looks like a blast to ride, but not with the requisite pedals, 20 mph top speed, PAS and 750w motor.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

IMrider said:


> Limiting the motors and batteries will NEVER work. Too many people with the ability to modify firmware, batteries, motors, etc. I've seen a guy with a Ride Kick trailer going 40mph down one of our major roads in the bike lane. Thank God he isn't on our paved trails with little kids. He'd kill them if they hit.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> On the contrary, banning class 1 eBikes on MTB trails across the entire country is absurd because there is no ability to consider the appropriateness of local conditions.


Do you have anything demonstrating that this is something that is actually happening, or that any groups actually exist with this as their stated goal? You seem to bring it up often, but I'm not aware that this is any sort of issue in real life. Sure, there are some individuals that would agree with it, but to the best of my knowledge there's nothing at all going on to justify your level of concern regarding a national class-1 e-bike ban..


----------



## IMrider (Sep 16, 2008)

Jim_bo, the FS and BLM consider them the same as motorcycles. You can read their definition and ban. One of the other threads talked about donating $$ at the time of purchase to your local club. Instead, they should have to register as an off road vehicle and pay for and display an OHV tag just like other motorized users. They cost $25/year here in Colorado and they give you search and rescue which is a pretty nice benefit. That money goes to help maintain trails and keep areas open. 

You make my point by stating that it surrounds class 1 ebikes. There is no possible way to police this so it's WFO for any ebike. Do you actually ride a stock bicycle that you bought from the LBS? If you do, you are one of the VERY few.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> Do you just come here to troll people? There are many people who have complained about your incessant personal attacks. I definitely am one of them. I've said it before, you and I are never going to agree apparently. So again, just put me on ignore and stop trying to drag reasonable, civil conversation into an argument.


 A troll stirs up **** without facts. Unfortunately for you, I know most of the facts and have insider info that I freely share. I don't put you in ignore because your ideas are a cancer and you constantly need to be called out on them.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------

