# Will ebikes be outlawed on public lands?



## unrooted (Jul 31, 2007)

I keep consider buying an ebike, their are only 2 things holding me back: technology is ever increasing and the possibility that they will be outlawed on public lands. Does that seem likely where you live? I’m in California, so it seems like everything is about to be outlawed…


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

Depends on where you live. Each state has their own law. Each city has their own law. Each land manager has their own law. It's going to be hard to stop ebikes on public land. I just read an article today that there has been a 1,000% increase in ebike sales over the last few years. There is also a "turf war" in some areas due to ebike regulation.

"According to PeopleForBikes, an advocacy organization for manufacturers, suppliers and cyclists, electric mountain bike sales increased by 1,000% from 2015 to 2019. LEVA, another analyst, reported more e-bikes were sold in the United States last year than electric cars. Mordor Intelligence predicts the worldwide market for battery-powered mountain bikes, valued at $5 billion in 2020, will double by 2026."

It's going to be incredibly difficult to keep ebikers out if sales are booming for them. My recommendation is that you should ride your potential ebike on trails that allow them. If you ride too much on trails that don't allow them, it can potentially hurt advocacy efforts to allow ebikes everywhere. I keep my Turbo Levo out of most bike parks in my area and mostly ride it on a local trail system 45 mins away from me. For exercise, I ride my regular bike at the local parks instead.

It's hard to keep my ebike off local trails but someone here in the WA sub-forum mentioned to me that changes are coming very soon regarding ebike access. I'm curious to see what's going to happen. Up here in WA, we have a full trail system that allows ebike access (Darrington). From what I know, the state is allowing ebikers access to the Darrington trail system to see how it goes. Kind of like a test bed to see if it's worth opening up access to other areas. 

If you are unable to keep your ebike off your local trails, just ride it with respect for other riders and ignore any negative comments.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

Hope so.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

it'll never change that every land management agency has different rules.

there will always be some trails off-limits to e-bikes. but the USFS has found a place for them that sits somewhere between nonmotorized bikes and the traditional moto crowd. They managed to carve out new territory. It's such a new decision that I'm not aware of anywhere that's made notable progress to actually open stuff up to them. But some trails will eventually.

How ebikers behave on the trails is going to play a huge role in how that shapes up, I think. Too many ebikers go ride where they shouldn't, and I think the USFS is going to be reluctant to open lots of trails for them. Too many ebikers behaving like jagoffs and they're going to get extra restrictions. But if ebikers behave themselves, I expect to see things looking better for them as time goes on.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Harold said:


> How ebikers behave on the trails is going to play a huge role in how that shapes up, I think. Too many ebikers go ride where they shouldn't, and I think the USFS is going to be reluctant to open lots of trails for them. Too many ebikers behaving like jagoffs and they're going to get extra restrictions. But if ebikers behave themselves, I expect to see things looking better for them as time goes on.


This. We recently had some overpowered ebikes flying up some sections that are fast, flowy downs. Less than a week later there was an announcement restricting their use (before that, they didn't even warrant a mention).


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

noapathy said:


> This. We recently had some overpowered ebikes flying up some sections that are fast, flowy downs. Less than a week later there was an announcement restricting their use (before that, they didn't even warrant a mention).


Thats because they were not aware of them. Once one asshat pulls off a stunt like that it sends out a red flag. They ruin it for themselves, fly under the radar and they wouldn’t be looked at by outsiders as a detrimental danger to other trail users.


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

Even if they do get outlawed, people will still ride them where they’re not allowed. That’s the current situation.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

Not this again.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

It's not like you can't ride freaking motor bikes off road.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Jayem said:


> It's not like you can't ride freaking motor bikes off road.


Exactly. Worst possible case is you'd still be able to access motorized singletrack, just like I rode today. But, there are already trails built specifically to include eBikes (and not ICE motorized) with all the proper legging so they ain't going to get shut down. But most likely is that eBikes will continue to get bigger n bigger pieces of the pie but not the whole thing. Unfortunately, mtb will lose some current access tho as hikers will need refuge from both mtb and now faster ebIkes. So I'd expect to see some areas re-evaluated and access changed to give the slowest traffic user groups some peace.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Thats because they were not aware of them.


I don't think putting that level of obliviousness onto land managers is quite accurate.

I think a more accurate assessment is "aware, but don't care" until there's a problem that warrants attention.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Harold said:


> I don't think putting that level of obliviousness onto land managers is quite accurate.
> 
> I think a more accurate assessment is "aware, but don't care" until there's a problem that warrants attention.


I’m thinking there are quite a few that are oblivious with a small percentage being aware of the obvious. Even the aware can’t tell the difference between the two at a glance. So, any trails that are closed to them, most ebike riders get a pass until they pull off a move like what was described above. And even then they have to be seen doing so. Keep in mind, we ride far and away from any lurking eyes, so 99.9% or there abouts of any ass hat moves never gets witnessed by anyone of importance.


----------



## Joe Handlebar (Apr 12, 2016)

mack_turtle said:


> Not this again.


It's not "again"....same dish, different flavor.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I’m thinking there are quite a few that are oblivious with a small percentage being aware of the obvious. Even the aware can’t tell the difference between the two at a glance. So, any trails that are closed to them, most ebike riders get a pass until they pull off a move like what was described above. And even then they have to be seen doing so. Keep in mind, we ride far and away from any lurking eyes, so 99.9% or there abouts of any ass hat moves never gets witnessed by anyone of importance.


IME, even the ones that don't truly understand mountain biking are at least aware of the fact that ebikes exist and are aware that some are riding where they probably shouldn't. Can they tell the difference between the two at a glance? Probably not. Sometimes I need a closer look to tell with how some manufacturers are building ebikes nowadays. I think the fact that this visual test requires a bit of experience to pull off quickly/easily is one reason why some land managers don't pursue it very far. Another being a lack of LEO personnel to do the actual enforcement. Not because they're that oblivious.


----------



## shwinn8 (Feb 25, 2006)

> reported more e-bikes were sold in the United States last year than electric cars.


that's not saying much considering the HUGE price tag differences and type of ebikes are unknown. I'm sure a large demographic for less expensive none mountain bike based ebikes sales are large cities where people are using them for commuting, not mountain biking


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I just came back from a car racing event over the weekend. People whizzing about back and forth on all kinds of electric bikes. Dirt bikes too, but years ago you wouldn't see the electric bikes. People charging them up with their RV generators.


----------



## Adongadoobah (Oct 9, 2021)

Does this mean OEBG "Outlaw E-Bike Gangs" will become a thing?

More importantly , Who is going to draw / composite a picture of this gang.


----------



## CRM6 (Apr 7, 2021)

noapathy said:


> This. We recently had some overpowered ebikes flying up some sections that are fast, flowy downs. Less than a week later there was an announcement restricting their use (before that, they didn't even warrant a mention).


Was the trail designated One Way? If not the ebikers did nothing wrong..... Someone got pissed and complained,therefore, ruining it for everyone? The infighting within the biking community will eventually get trails closed....


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

noapathy said:


> This. We recently had some overpowered ebikes flying up some sections that are fast, flowy downs. Less than a week later there was an announcement restricting their use (before that, they didn't even warrant a mention).


Wouldn't just making that a one-way trail (down) be a better solution? If e-bikes never warranted a mention before that, that sounds like a bit of an over-reaction. Or a huge over-reaction.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

BmanInTheD said:


> Wouldn't just making that a one-way trail (down) be a better solution? If e-bikes never warranted a mention before that, that sounds like a bit of an over-reaction. Or a huge over-reaction.


Not sure about that. Out my way, the USFS maintains all trails as 2-way. Everything. Convention means that the vast majority of them have strongly preferred riding directions. When there _is_ traffic coming the opposite direction, it's slow traffic. Hikers, horses, sloooow riders (probably going slower than hikers or horses, lol), so closing speeds are kept into a fairly consistent territory that descending riders are able to react to. Races occasionally route the course up sections that are most commonly descended.

A big management issue with ebikes is exactly this - the extra oomph of the ebike creates the possibility that some ppl will be climbing the trail MUCH faster than anyone else ever has. Closing speeds shoot up. Just for ebikes, though. And now that creates conflict issues. This isn't so much an issue with just one single trail. This is an issue with a specific _type_ of user using trails in a way that's new and inconsistent with prior use. There's a really good chance that the trail design itself can't accommodate both descending traffic and fast climbing ebike traffic because the sight lines aren't sufficient.

The problem isn't necessarily with 2-way traffic in general. Slow climbing bikes are effectively no different than hikers or horses in my area. Which riders have to be ready to yield to, anyway. But fast-climbing ebikes? That's a different interaction. If the managers were to make just the trail with the conflict one-way descending for bikes, they'd push the issue onto the next trail that's commonly ridden as a descent. So really they'd have to change _all_ the trails like it to one-way descending trails. Which is going to piss enough people off because of the way that it would change how the trail network is used that it's not necessarily the best option.

It's long been something public lands users have had to deal with, that one person behaving badly can ruin it for everyone else. Not just with relation to bikes. In my area, a big area popular with camping got shut down to camping because a group of people completely trashed the place 2 summers ago. People who like off-roading have had to deal with getting kicked out of areas because some in their community trash the trails they're permitted to use. Ebikers need to get used to it, because it applies to them, too. And it will apply to them in some cases and not ppl on nonmotorized bikes, because there's a fundamental difference between them that's readily distinguished - the battery and motor - which changes how they can be used. It's easy for land managers to single them out.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Harold said:


> Not sure about that. Out my way, the USFS maintains all trails as 2-way. Everything. Convention means that the vast majority of them have strongly preferred riding directions. When there _is_ traffic coming the opposite direction, it's slow traffic. Hikers, horses, sloooow riders (probably going slower than hikers or horses, lol), so closing speeds are kept into a fairly consistent territory that descending riders are able to react to. Races occasionally route the course up sections that are most commonly descended.
> 
> A big management issue with ebikes is exactly this - the extra oomph of the ebike creates the possibility that some ppl will be climbing the trail MUCH faster than anyone else ever has. Closing speeds shoot up. Just for ebikes, though. And now that creates conflict issues. This isn't so much an issue with just one single trail. This is an issue with a specific _type_ of user using trails in a way that's new and inconsistent with prior use. There's a really good chance that the trail design itself can't accommodate both descending traffic and fast climbing ebike traffic because the sight lines aren't sufficient.
> 
> ...


This describes the situation exactly. The speed they were riding up the trail was something in excess of 20mph. Didn't help matters that they didn't even slow down for oncoming ridiers.

The signs stating "no motorized vehicles" had been there for years, but the behavior created an unsafe situation. It was an easy decision to enforce/clarify the rules already in place.

(This is why we can't have nice things.)


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Harold said:


> Not sure about that. Out my way, the USFS maintains all trails as 2-way. Everything. Convention means that the vast majority of them have strongly preferred riding directions. When there _is_ traffic coming the opposite direction, it's slow traffic. Hikers, horses, sloooow riders (probably going slower than hikers or horses, lol), so closing speeds are kept into a fairly consistent territory that descending riders are able to react to. Races occasionally route the course up sections that are most commonly descended.
> 
> A big management issue with ebikes is exactly this - the extra oomph of the ebike creates the possibility that some ppl will be climbing the trail MUCH faster than anyone else ever has. Closing speeds shoot up. Just for ebikes, though. And now that creates conflict issues. This isn't so much an issue with just one single trail. This is an issue with a specific _type_ of user using trails in a way that's new and inconsistent with prior use. There's a really good chance that the trail design itself can't accommodate both descending traffic and fast climbing ebike traffic because the sight lines aren't sufficient.
> 
> ...


This is a good post. Shows that the issue is much more nuanced and complicated than many realize. That is why so many land managers have been having a hard time implementing new guidelines and rules for eBikes on the trails they manage.

Look at a place like Jeffco - they have a great program because of a few factors that will never apply to other trail systems:

Ranger Enforcement - I put this at the top because it is the thing missing from most riding area's. Without the rangers there is no one to ensure the rules are followed which is important to ensure the rules work.
Directional Trails - forcing a trail traffic to flow the same direction eliminates the problem of closing speeds on blind corners.
Even/odd days for trail user groups - Some of the trails are for Bikes and eBikes ONLY on specific days and for Horses or hikers ONLY on other days.

eBike proponents love to throw around Jeffco as a blanket reason to make eBikes legal everywhere, but they have very specific rules and enforcement that make it work. 

Other trail systems don't have rangers, or they don't have rangers that can actually do anything and that is why this issue can be so complicated.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

noapathy said:


> This describes the situation exactly. The speed they were riding up the trail was something in excess of 20mph. Didn't help matters that they didn't even slow down for oncoming ridiers.
> 
> The signs stating "no motorized vehicles" had been there for years, but the behavior created an unsafe situation. It was an easy decision to enforce/clarify the rules already in place.
> 
> (This is why we can't have nice things.)


Is it known what machines they were riding? Was it something that was modded to give it extra power, a bolt-on kit, or was it one of those shady products they bought online that's just a dressed up e-motorcycle?


----------



## kevjob (Jan 25, 2021)

BmanInTheD said:


> Wouldn't just making that a one-way trail (down) be a better solution? If e-bikes never warranted a mention before that, that sounds like a bit of an over-reaction. Or a huge over-reaction.


We have one way bike only trails here now, not a ton but COMBA etc... are working on creating more. Another couple county parks are alternating odd days horses and hikers, even days bikers. I think they are both good ideas to help curb interactions between the groups. I have seen hikers on bike only days and let them know it is not a good idea as they trail they were on is fast and has some blind corners.


----------



## CRM6 (Apr 7, 2021)

noapathy said:


> This describes the situation exactly. The speed they were riding up the trail was something in excess of 20mph. Didn't help matters that they didn't even slow down for oncoming ridiers.
> 
> The signs stating "no motorized vehicles" had been there for years, but the behavior created an unsafe situation. It was an easy decision to enforce/clarify the rules already in place.
> 
> (This is why we can't have nice things.)


I call BS.... They were not Class 1 to be going that fast uphill,unless modified or another class.... Again just speculating? No proof or real information? This kind of rhetoric is going to affect the whole biking community.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> Directional Trails - forcing a trail traffic to flow the same direction eliminates the problem of closing speeds on blind corners.
> Even/odd days for trail user groups - Some of the trails are for Bikes and eBikes ONLY on specific days and for Horses or hikers ONLY on other days.


Pretty sure that most of the land managers in my area keep _everything_ two-way is because they want everyone to be behaving on the trails as though they should expect other users coming the other way. With bikes that can descend well _also_ being good enough climbers that people are willing to ride them here, the limits of safe/comfortable passing speeds get pushed a bit. But a user going at more than triple the usual climbing speed changes closing speeds in a huge way and blows up the needed sight lines. My area is a temperate rainforest with _thick_ understory vegetation and it's not so easy to just open up the sight lines to give riders the distance they need to react.

We do have a trail system that does the even/odd days for user groups. Hikers can do whatever, but horses and bikes alternate. It's been like that for decades now and works reasonably well. It works here because the trails consist of 4 discrete loops that are easily grouped into pairs. The pairs alternate. Other trail systems in the area can't do this because the layout is too complex.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

CRM6 said:


> I call BS.... They were not Class 1 to be going that fast uphill,unless modified or another class.... Again just speculating? No proof or real information? This kind of rhetoric is going to affect the whole biking community.


Did you pay attention to his original post about it? He specifically said they were over-powered. Therefore, not Class 1.


----------



## CRM6 (Apr 7, 2021)

Harold said:


> Did you pay attention to his original post about it? He specifically said they were over-powered. Therefore, not Class 1.


How does he know they were doing 20plus? Did he have a radar gun? No.... just speculation....


----------



## Josh_W (Aug 30, 2010)

I was running a parallel path to the local paved bikeway yesterday when I saw what looked like a fat e-bike cruising along, pedals not moving. As it passed I heard the distinct "putt-putt-putt" of a gas motor and realized it was a fat-tire moped. How about _that _flavor of "pedal-assisted"?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

CRM6 said:


> How does he know they were doing 20plus? Did he have a radar gun? No.... just speculation....



Or. An educated guess. It isn't implausible that speed can be reasonably estimated by the average human. Casting aspersions doesn't help the conversation by the way.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

CRM6 said:


> How does he know they were doing 20plus? Did he have a radar gun? No.... just speculation....


The report I heard actually said 30 (from a couple experienced riders on 2 different days), but I toned it down to avoid this kind of response. Honing in on pointless details to derail/discredit or just missing the point of what's clearly a user-created situation? My point was it's the behavior and not the specific machine.

Either way, please go elsewhere if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Harold said:


> Did you pay attention to his original post about it? He specifically said they were over-powered. Therefore, not Class 1.


Today I learned that they clarified that Class 1 are to be allowed (LBS sells them and the owner does a ton for the local scene, so that helps). These things were something more amped up. I don't have more details than that. Personally, I have no qualms with people riding e-bikes responsibly. But, since the world seems to have an abundance of idiots, that means regulations.


----------



## Nails (Sep 25, 2020)

They will never be outlawed only given more and more access. The Americans with Disabilities Act will be used to sue for access and they can’t be denied.


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

noapathy said:


> My point was it's the behavior and not the specific machine.


Imagine that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Nails said:


> They will never be outlawed only given more and more access. The Americans with Disabilities Act will be used to sue for access and they can’t be denied.


What does this have to do with the vast majority of e-bikers, who don't have a disability?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Nails said:


> They will never be outlawed only given more and more access. The Americans with Disabilities Act will be used to sue for access and they can’t be denied.


Using the ADA related to ebikes (specifically emtbs) is on somewhat shaky ground. Specifically because strong, fit, able-bodied riders buy them so they can climb faster and squeeze in more downhill runs in a given amount of time.

e-handcycles and such are in a totally different category

There's also some nuance to the ADA, as well. Not all trails in the woods are required to be ADA-compliant.


----------



## CRM6 (Apr 7, 2021)

noapathy said:


> The report I heard actually said 30 (from a couple experienced riders on 2 different days), but I toned it down to avoid this kind of response. Honing in on pointless details to derail/discredit or just missing the point of what's clearly a user-created situation? My point was it's the behavior and not the specific machine.
> 
> Either way, please go elsewhere if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation.


So,which was it 30 20 or a CR250? Im adding plenty to the converstation,you are ignoring the fact that you are part of the problem.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Our local multiuser, multidirectional trail has allowed e-bikes. So far I've only seen around 5, but 1 of them was definitely not a Class1, and probably the most in your face trail abuser you could ask for. Definitely a moto-guy with a new toy.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

Blaming the whole segment of e-bike riders for the actions of a few asshats on modified mopeds is a bit disingenuous. Just like gun safety and abortion, the best answer usually lies in the middle somewhere in the range of reasonableness.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> What does this have to do with the vast majority of e-bikers, who don't have a disability?


as much as it's had an impact on expanding access for the OHV crowd? 

(hint: not a thing.)


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

BmanInTheD said:


> Blaming the whole segment of e-bike riders for the actions of a few asshats on modified mopeds is a bit disingenuous. Just like gun safety and abortion, the best answer usually lies in the middle somewhere in the range of reasonableness.


What rock have you been living under?

Putting additional restrictions on an entire group because of a few asshats is the way the world works.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Harold said:


> What rock have you been living under?
> 
> Putting additional restrictions on an entire group because of a few asshats is the way the world works.


It's like people don't remember school. It's easiest to just go to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Harold said:


> What rock have you been living under?
> 
> Putting additional restrictions on an entire group because of a few asshats is the way the world works.


Same rock as CRM, apparently. I'm sure he has something "smart" to say, but I won't see it. Too bad land managers don't have an "ignore" button. 😂


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Harold said:


> There's also some nuance to the ADA, as well. Not all trails in the woods are required to be ADA-compliant.


True.
As a matter of fact, any trail with a primary designation of being a biking trail is exempt.
LMs can also do a trail inventory/evaluation and create specific exemptions based on certain criteria.


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

Harold said:


> What rock have you been living under?
> 
> Putting additional restrictions on an entire group because of a few asshats is the way the world works.


Same attitude hikers had against mtb'er.

Now mtb'er have against fellow bikers. 

Punishing all for the actions of a few is a wrong


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Just a reminder. Make your point without making personal attacks, things like calling or implying someone is stupid count as a personal attack.

Also - if you do get a warning, don't taunt the mod who gave it to you lest you receive a 1 month ban as a warning.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Bacon Fat said:


> Same attitude hikers had against mtb'er.
> 
> Now mtb'er have against fellow bikers.


And "Class 1" e-bikers have against 'Class 2/3" e-bikers, or anyone with a better motor/different throttle set-up for that matter.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

unrooted said:


> I keep consider buying an ebike, their are only 2 things holding me back: technology is ever increasing and the possibility that they will be outlawed on public lands. Does that seem likely where you live? I’m in California, so it seems like everything is about to be outlawed…


I don't think you have to worrry about ebikes being banned. The corporations that benefit from selling ebikes will make sure of it.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Klurejr said:


> This is a good post. Shows that the issue is much more nuanced and complicated than many realize. That is why so many land managers have been having a hard time implementing new guidelines and rules for eBikes on the trails they manage.
> 
> Look at a place like Jeffco - they have a great program because of a few factors that will never apply to other trail systems:
> 
> ...


I'm glad some places are putting in the effort to nail down enough guidelines to make things safer / less confrontational. Was there an adjustment period or pushback? People tend to not like change in my experience. I'm guessing the Rangers helped with some of that, but there must be other examples of good ways to allow safe e-bike integration.

In my example, it was an immediate response that was pretty quickly followed by a more more tempered one (which I honestly thought would just be a blip in the conversation about poor behavior to be quickly forgotten). Anyway, sorry for the distraction.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mike_kelly said:


> I don't think you have to worrry about ebikes being banned. The corporations that benefit from selling ebikes will make sure of it.


This hasn't worked out very well at all for the motorized crowd in the region of the country I live in.
They are banned practically everywhere on public lands in the northeast.


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> And "Class 1" e-bikers have against 'Class 2/3" e-bikers, or anyone with a better motor/different throttle set-up for that matter.


I haven't seen this in my area at all. 

E-banner's whole platform is based on what could happen and 3rd hand stories that keep changing.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

The best thing that can happen is that eBikes land universally with their own categories and management. 

Like it or not, prior to eBikes - most matters were simpler. Motorized was motorized. Bikes/mechanized was understood to be human powered. And all major agencies honored those distinctions and, even in patch-work areas - the access categories were portable and interchangeable. You might still have a hard stop at say a wilderness boundary, but the delineation was easy and obvious.

^A whole lotta policy, land acquisition and management was established with these parameters.

But eBikes are a disrupter. The desire to blend what was traditionally human powered with lowish powered motors has put all the agencies into a state of uncertainty. By and large, existing rules place eBikes in motorized. But to move them out, place them in their own category or equate them with human powered - well, that brings more challenges.

Agency access policy needs to be settled. Legal issues regarding how land is titled controlled, acquired, easements may need to be examined. EAR might need to be reperformed. Public input required. Funding sources might be impacted. If there is limited appetite, what controls are in place to enforce say Class 1 vs. eMoto or Class 3 if there is limit to what is feasible on a given trail? What about other "e" vehicles - can you / should you exclude scooters, hoverboards, drones, etc?

What I find irksome, is that eBikes caused the disruption and now they are impatient AF because they are not just immediately granted in wholesale. Sorry you bought a toy without understanding the rules but most natural lands existing policy mostly meant you are motorized. But you are free to petition for change just like any other user group. Sorry it's not on your personal timeline but land access has multiple stakeholders with competing wants - that's why there is a process. You have to share and not just with other users and wildlife - all future users too. Honor the rules.


----------



## kevjob (Jan 25, 2021)

noapathy said:


> I'm glad some places are putting in the effort to nail down enough guidelines to make things safer / less confrontational. Was there an adjustment period or pushback? People tend to not like change in my experience. I'm guessing the Rangers helped with some of that, but there must be other examples of good ways to allow safe e-bike integration.
> 
> In my example, it was an immediate response that was pretty quickly followed by a more more tempered one (which I honestly thought would just be a blip in the conversation about poor behavior to be quickly forgotten). Anyway, sorry for the distraction.


I live in Jeffco county. They had a pilot program to test ebikes on trails and got feedback from trail uses, rangers, land managers etc... Had public meetings to listen to positve and negative feedback and decided on making e bikes legal on the trails in Jeffco. Having one way bike only and odd even days seems to really help. There will be always azzhats that abuse the privelege.

White ranch has longhorn downhill bike only trail that is the funnest trail I ride. To get to it though is a beast of climb on double track so you can pass people safely as does Mt Falcon. Both of those do not have odd even day restrictions. Centinnial Cone has odd even days only on weekends.

For me just getting back into the sport last year after 20 years off the bike, it is amazing to me what these emtb and mtb bikes can do, the trails they build with berms, jumps etc... nothing like what I used to ride back in the mid 90's. I am 51 and have a knee issue that keeps me from riding my mtb everyday, so far on the 2 rides I have on my emtb I think I can ride everyday either alternating mtb to emtb or 3 days on emtb and 2 on mtb a week. That is why I bought the emtb and to self shuttle longhorn multiple times a day!


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

Bacon Fat said:


> Now mtb'er have against fellow bikers.


Nope, I don’t consider moped riders to be participating in the same pastime. You’re not a “fellow biker” as far as I’m concerned.

As for the estimated climbing speed someone mentioned earlier, several months ago I made a similar statement and got shouted down by the designated moped mouthpieces here on MTBR. Not that it’s special but I am certified in my state for visual estimation of speed. Not that we would let facts get in the way of rhetoric.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

slapheadmofo said:


> This hasn't worked out very well at all for the motorized crowd in the region of the country I live in.
> They are banned practically everywhere on public lands in the northeast.


So you have no jeep-roads/4x4 roads/dirt roads? I'm not very familiar with back East, but I don't think there is the amount of public land access like out in the West, vast forests with access roads, primitive roads, etc...


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

Blatant said:


> Nope, I don’t consider moped riders to be participating in the same pastime. You’re not a “fellow biker” as far as I’m concerned.
> 
> As for the estimated climbing speed someone mentioned earlier, several months ago I made a similar statement and got shouted down by the designated moped mouthpieces here on MTBR. Not that it’s special but I am certified in my state for visual estimation of speed. Not that we would let facts get in the way of rhetoric.


Well, if you don't know the difference between a moped and class 1 ebike, then maybe you can get a state certification in visual determinations of 2 wheeled vehicles.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Blatant said:


> Nope, I don’t consider moped riders to be participating in the same pastime. You’re not a “fellow biker” as far as I’m concerned.
> 
> As for the estimated climbing speed someone mentioned earlier, several months ago I made a similar statement and got shouted down by the designated moped mouthpieces here on MTBR. Not that it’s special but I am certified in my state for visual estimation of speed. Not that we would let facts get in the way of rhetoric.


Another aspect I recently encountered is them zipping up climbs that are "unclimbable" on regular bikes. Combinations of grades and obstacles that are just not passable by 99.99% of riders, including the elite, so the expectation in these locations is that you won't encounter two-way bike traffic. There are lots of places that aren't actually "one way" trails, but for traditional intents and purposes, that is the way they function. Now that dynamic is changing and again, it's adding new complexity that wasn't originally anticipated or part of the previous operating environment. The question again and again is, "does the trail system support this use?", meaning, does everyone get to share the trail, or does a specific use cause lopsided consequences/effects that negatively impact the other users? Objectively, this is not the same for every trail and use.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Jayem said:


> So you have no jeep-roads/4x4 roads/dirt roads? I'm not very familiar with back East, but I don't think there is the amount of public land access like out in the West, vast forests with access roads, primitive roads, etc...


there's a classification of roads that is REALLY rare in the eastern part of the US that's more broadly available in the west. And it tends to be the jeep road/4x4 road classification. Some areas have more gravel roads than others (these are typically passable in any passenger car), but totally unimproved "dirt" roads are extremely uncommon. The rain we get plus the aforementioned asshats tearing them up makes for very, very few public access options. Most places with true 4x4 trails tend to be discrete offroad parks. Most of which are private. Public offroad parks are pretty rare in general.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Harold said:


> there's a classification of roads that is REALLY rare in the eastern part of the US that's more broadly available in the west. And it tends to be the jeep road/4x4 road classification. Some areas have more gravel roads than others (these are typically passable in any passenger car), but totally unimproved "dirt" roads are extremely uncommon. The rain we get plus the aforementioned asshats tearing them up makes for very, very few public access options. Most places with true 4x4 trails tend to be discrete offroad parks. Most of which are private. Public offroad parks are pretty rare in general.


Kind of like Texas public lands...extremely rare, few and far-between. Dirt bikes are used at tracks and on private land mostly.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

There's really a huge disparity in the amounts of public lands between the west and the east (Texas isn't west  ). This changes the land-use dynamic, completely.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

dysfunction said:


> There's really a huge disparity in the amounts of public lands between the west and the east (Texas isn't west  ). This changes the land-use dynamic, completely.


Yep, it's middle.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Bacon Fat said:


> I haven't seen this in my area at all.


You should sign up for MTBR.com. 
See it all the time there.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Jayem said:


> Kind of like Texas public lands...extremely rare, few and far-between. Dirt bikes are used at tracks and on private land mostly.


kinda. though I lived in E. TX and had lots of public land around. but I get your point.

what bugs me a lot is that the poor behavior of people on what 4wd stuff IS available (spinning their tires in the mud, flinging it everywhere) means that there's not much stuff accessible in the east that's good for light off-road driving. A lot of it is pretty nasty and requires major vehicle mods.

I remember the summer I spent in southern Utah and there was a massive amount of jeep road that was just a bit too much for passenger vehicles, but doable for most stock or lightly modified vehicles with ground clearance and true 4wd. we just don't have very much of that in the east. I found some not far from me last fall, and it was 3mi long. really not much.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jayem said:


> So you have no jeep-roads/4x4 roads/dirt roads? I'm not very familiar with back East, but I don't think there is the amount of public land access like out in the West, vast forests with access roads, primitive roads, etc...


There are plenty of old logging roads and doubletrack around (consider that the northeast has been populated a lot longer than most of the rest of the country, so there are old roads and trails pretty much everywhere in the woods) but practically none of them allow motorized use.

While there is a good amount of public land, almost none of it is federal, aside from some National Forest and a bit of seashore. Pretty much everything is state or town-owned. We definitely do not have huge swaths of emptiness like the southwest.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

The east had been settled long before TR became president. That's really the source of the difference.

We have so much public land here, we rent it to foreign companies to strip mine.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Klurejr said:


> This is a good post. Shows that the issue is much more nuanced and complicated than many realize. That is why so many land managers have been having a hard time implementing new guidelines and rules for eBikes on the trails they manage.
> 
> Look at a place like Jeffco - they have a great program because of a few factors that will never apply to other trail systems:
> 
> ...


This could never work in my area due to the soil types. The clay soil is simply destroyed by the equestrians. That's a yard stick.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Rod said:


> This could never work in my area due to the soil types. The clay soil is simply destroyed by the equestrians. That's a yard stick.
> 
> View attachment 1985868


That looks vaguely familiar. I think I tried riding there once (or someplace just like it). Section 30? The few horse riders I ran across were super friendly even though we're not supposed to get along. Maybe they just felt sorry for me.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Rod said:


> This could never work in my area due to the soil types. The clay soil is simply destroyed by the equestrians. That's a yard stick.
> 
> View attachment 1985868


oh man.... that mud is bad. In Places like Penesquitos Canyon in San Diego the Rangers close the trails to all use after storms just to prevent that sort of thing from happening. But not all trail systems have rangers to enforce trail closures. No one should be out in a trail system like that when it is that muddy. no one.


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

The simple answer is no, they will not be outlawed. Government does not like taking a step backwards or admitting a mistake. There is an excellent article in USA TODAY about e-bikes and the raging battle. This tells the story on the lobbying effort by the manufacturers and the reason the Department of Interior classified the eBike as a non-motorized vehicle. The real shame is that those who would actually benefit from an eBike may be penalized and limited because able bodied riders just think it is a blast to ride them fast.


----------



## TimTucker (Nov 9, 2011)

Harold said:


> Did you pay attention to his original post about it? He specifically said they were over-powered. Therefore, not Class 1.


IMO, Class 1 is overpowered to be the "starting point".

I still think there should be a Class 0 with a top assist speed somewhere in the 10-15mph range that allows for evening out the efforts on a ride but keeps the rider moving at a pace that's closer to what a "normal" rider might travel.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

TimTucker said:


> IMO, Class 1 is overpowered to be the "starting point".


EU has the pedelec at 250W and 15mph cutoff.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

noapathy said:


> That looks vaguely familiar. I think I tried riding there once (or someplace just like it). Section 30? The few horse riders I ran across were super friendly even though we're not supposed to get along. Maybe they just felt sorry for me.


Same trail just a little farther north. I'm torn with equestrians. They're a friendly group, but their disregard to the trails causes pictures like the one above. 




Klurejr said:


> oh man.... that mud is bad. In Places like Penesquitos Canyon in San Diego the Rangers close the trails to all use after storms just to prevent that sort of thing from happening. But not all trail systems have rangers to enforce trail closures. No one should be out in a trail system like that when it is that muddy. no one.


That's the thing, there are no trail closures here. We get more rain than Portland or Seattle combined with freeze/thaw, which creates the perfect storm for these situations. This was our 10 mile race loop at one point.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

TimTucker said:


> IMO, Class 1 is overpowered to be the "starting point".
> 
> I still think there should be a Class 0 with a top assist speed somewhere in the 10-15mph range that allows for evening out the efforts on a ride but keeps the rider moving at a pace that's closer to what a "normal" rider might travel.


I don't disagree



Carl Mega said:


> EU has the pedelec at 250W and 15mph cutoff.


This seems a lot more reasonable to me for a "base level" emtb.

Narrow natural surface trails are a totally different environment than trying to avoid being run over by vehicle traffic on the roads.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

I don't think I would want an eBike if it was limited to 10 mph and 250w, when I test rode my buddy's Levo the best part was hitting 15mph on a climb I can only max out at 5mph under my own power. The smile on my face was so big because there was such a big difference from pedal only to ped-elec, at least twice as fast with 3x as fasts in bursts. If I had the cash I would own one right now and love every min of speeding uphill on the double tracks we have with good sightlines.

I think the market in the US knew that as well as they were getting started, hence the push that was made for the current Class system.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> I don't think I would want an eBike if it was limited to 10 mph and 250w, when I test rode my buddy's Levo the best part was hitting 15mph on a climb I can only max out at 5mph under my own power. The smile on my face was so big because there was such a big difference from pedal only to ped-elec, at least twice as fast with 3x as fasts in bursts. If I had the cash I would own one right now and love every min of speeding uphill on the double tracks we have with good sightlines.
> 
> I think the market in the US knew that as well as they were getting started, hence the push that was made for the current Class system.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

Harold said:


> What rock have you been living under?
> 
> Putting additional restrictions on an entire group because of a few asshats is the way the world works.


That might be true but that doesn't make it right. No one these days wants to discuss anything rationally and reasonably, the just wanna get as far in their corner as they can and surround themselves with their favorite echo chamber. I've been out from under a rock long enough to know that we weren't always like this. Have fun in that corner.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

BmanInTheD said:


> That might be true but that doesn't make it right. No one these days wants to discuss anything rationally and reasonably, the just wanna get as far in their corner as they can and surround themselves with their favorite echo chamber. I've been out from under a rock long enough to know that we weren't always like this. Have fun in that corner.


The problem really is, it doesn't matter what a bunch of enthusiasts think. It only matters what land managers, and those who enforce whatever rules are decided upon do.

This whole thing is so toxic for land use advocacy...


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

dysfunction said:


> The problem really is, it doesn't matter what a bunch of enthusiasts think. It only matters what land managers, and those who enforce whatever rules are decided upon do.


This is key.

Also it matters what other powerful trail user groups think and how actively they lobby the land managers. The only way to know is to show up to City Council meetings or other public meetings where the land managers are present and lobby your case to them.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

BmanInTheD said:


> I've been out from under a rock long enough to know that we weren't always like this


damn, you're old


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

BmanInTheD said:


> That might be true but that doesn't make it right. No one these days wants to discuss anything rationally and reasonably, the just wanna get as far in their corner as they can and surround themselves with their favorite echo chamber. I've been out from under a rock long enough to know that we weren't always like this. Have fun in that corner.


Out of all the people to single out and call adversarial, you pick @Harold ? And with @Klurejr peeking in? Bless your heart. 😂


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Harold said:


>


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

noapathy said:


> Out of all the people to single out and call adversarial, you pick @Harold ? And with @Klurejr peeking in? Bless your heart. 😂


I found it comical, there has been nothing but reasonable discussion in this thread.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

BmanInTheD said:


> That might be true but that doesn't make it right. No one these days wants to discuss anything rationally and reasonably, the just wanna get as far in their corner as they can and surround themselves with their favorite echo chamber. I've been out from under a rock long enough to know that we weren't always like this. Have fun in that corner.


If you were a land manager you would have to stop the conflicts. You don't want to spend your time on this so you're going to take the path of least resistance. As Harold pointed out earlier, you would need to rework your entire trail system for e bike usage if it was done correctly. Nobody has the time or inclination to do that with current government staffing levels, which are the lowest they've ever been in my area.


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

I have yet to come across an e-bike on one of my local trails. However, I was talking to another MTB rider this past weekend and he did complain about an encounter, (not a negative encounter). On a very flat trail, the MTB rider was on a slight hill and an eBike rider came up behind him and asked to pass. This trail has a lot of wider areas that allow passing. A little while later, on a flat part, the MTB rider caught up to the eBike rider. Unfortunately, it took a while to pass because of the narrow trail. This trail is not posted in regards to allowing or banning eBikes. The MTB rider went to the ranger station just to inquire if eBikes are allowed. He was informed that in Michigan, if the trail is not posted allowing e-Bikes, the default is they are not allowed. However, there are no resources to police the trails so there is nothing they can do. I have yet to hear anyone complain about the eBikes on trails in my immediate area. Keep in mind, here in Michigan, we are flat landers so long climbs to us are pimples to you Western State folk.


----------



## quadzilla411 (Feb 25, 2015)

Rod said:


> If you were a land manager you would have to stop the conflicts. You don't want to spend your time on this so you're going to take the path of least resistance. As Harold pointed out earlier, you would need to rework your entire trail system for e bike usage if it was done correctly. Nobody has the time or inclination to do that with current government staffing levels, which are the lowest they've ever been in my area.


 Well around here there is a lot of ebikes, me included, and since my area is a destination MTB area for out of staters too. So, a lot of bike traffic on the trails and personally I don't see MTB and EMTB conflict and I am starting my third year sharing the trails. There is conflict between bikers and hikers primarily due to rudeness of bikers and a basic fact that the trails have been in place for years, two way and many many more bikers. 

As far as land managers and rule and policy changes, I have been told by the office but not the head manger himself that they are going with a "no decision" policy as this leaves the old policy in place and that is "no motor". The reason for this is that the horse people will sue if any change is proposed and this is after some movement to change and modify the existing rules. This is after the controlling agency went thru all current protocol to get a change in place. 

So, it is what it is the horse people will never change and have the resources to fight on. For me and people I Ebike with we have ways we deal with it and get along. 

I guess a question I have is, If a trail is no motor with signage are adjacent trails OK if there is no signage even so the area is the same?


----------



## Morningdove (7 mo ago)

AZ just made the legal, except each city can pass it's own restrictions, so Sedona and Scottsdale have banned them off the trails, but the rest don't


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Morningdove said:


> AZ just made the legal, except each city can pass it's own restrictions, so Sedona and Scottsdale have banned them off the trails, but the rest don't


Most of AZ is federally managed anyway.


----------



## LMS Dave (6 mo ago)

I was kind of down on ebikes but decided to demo a Santa Cruz Heckler for 4 hours. It was fun and I went faster up and about the same down. I can see why people like them and why they are so popular.

The infamous MROSD Board of directors voted to allow ebikes on a vey small number of uninteresting trails despite significant interest.








Biking


Sixteen open space preserves are open to mountain biking. Here's what you should know.




www.openspace.org





Apparently several people pleaded for ebikes because it was a way to get outdoors, exercise and the board just said no despite people's input. Common sense laws against reckless cyclists, equestrians or whatever group should be enforced when necessary. 

The vast majority of bikers including ebikes are out for exercise, fresh air doing a sport cyclist love. Ebikes are very popular and it's a shame to see places to ride ebikes drastically reduced for dubious reasons.


----------



## BatesEV (Apr 19, 2021)

So after reading through all of this and thinking why not have something put in place right from the beginning. So here in California motorized off highway vehicles need to have a tag. The tags are color coded to identify which days they can be used. Those funds go into managing land use. If a regulation can be put in place on ebikes it can trickle down to help agencies identify.

They make all this more difficult than it needs to be. When they came out with an electric vehicle they didn’t debate if it was a car and needed to follow the same rules and regulations. Why is a thing with bikes. If it has a certain sized motor or speed capability then it is a motorcycle. Even on bike paths and bike lanes I get asshats that think speedway on ebikes.

There are two sides to this. One is government reach but manufactures and governments need to handle this for the overall safety and protection of land use. I’m more not a fan of some ebike users than the bikes themselves. Once ecosystems are destroyed it takes years/decades to recover. Look at what Crested Butte had to do with its public lands and dispersed camping. People aren’t always responsible enough to know what’s right.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

CRM6 said:


> Was the trail designated One Way? If not the ebikers did nothing wrong..... Someone got pissed and complained,therefore, ruining it for everyone? The infighting within the biking community will eventually get trails closed....


This is exactly what's going to happen. Land managers don't care about ebikes, because the impacts are the same. Hikers and equestrians hate ALL bikes, so ebikes make no difference there. It's the elitist analog riders who go crying to land managers that will tilt the scales the wrong directions. They'll just close the trails to ALL bikes because they're sick of hearing it and don't have the staff to enforce anything, and then ALL bikers will ride them illegally.

As for ebikes being banned from public lands? Good luck with that. Never gonna happen.

My suggestion is that if you live in a place where there's so many people that all trail access is a fight, move someplace with fewer people and ride whatever you want. Nobody can complain about it if there's nobody else on the trails.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

BatesEV said:


> So after reading through all of this and thinking why not have something put in place right from the beginning. So here in California motorized off highway vehicles need to have a tag. The tags are color coded to identify which days they can be used. Those funds go into managing land use. If a regulation can be put in place on ebikes it can trickle down to help agencies identify.
> 
> They make all this more difficult than it needs to be. When they came out with an electric vehicle they didn’t debate if it was a car and needed to follow the same rules and regulations. Why is a thing with bikes. If it has a certain sized motor or speed capability then it is a motorcycle. Even on bike paths and bike lanes I get asshats that think speedway on ebikes.
> 
> There are two sides to this. One is government reach but manufactures and governments need to handle this for the overall safety and protection of land use. I’m more not a fan of some ebike users than the bikes themselves. Once ecosystems are destroyed it takes years/decades to recover. Look at what Crested Butte had to do with its public lands and dispersed camping. People aren’t always responsible enough to know what’s right.


This is a solution looking for a problem. To date, the only "problems" being caused by actual ebikes (not emotos) are that a tiny percentage of trail users complain about them for no other reason than having a motor. Conflicts are virtually non-existent where they've been given equal access.

As you said, when EV's came around, nobody looked to treat them differently than any other car. The same should apply to e-bicycles. e-motos, e-mopeds, and all things with more than 750watts? Hell yes, treat them the same as their ICE counterparts - registration and plates should be required.


.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Conflicts are virtually non-existent where they've been given equal access.


Funny you keep touting this despite dozens of reputable users on this very site providing personal accounts of conflicts........

While I agree that sky is not falling as some would have you think, but conflicts are still happening and will continue to happen in greater numbers as the number of eMTB's increase. If you really want all Mountain Bikers and eMTBers to be on the same page stop pretending they are not different and that conflict is not possible.


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

It has been 4 months since this topic when to bed. Why was it necessary to poke the beehive again?


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

jimglassford said:


> It has been 4 months since this topic when to bed. Why was it necessary to poke the beehive again?


Because CJ can’t drop it. He loves the controversy and is 100% convinced his motorized ebike is the same as a human powered bicycle


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> Funny you keep touting this despite dozens of reputable users on this very site providing personal accounts of conflicts........
> 
> While I agree that sky is not falling as some would have you think, but conflicts are still happening and will continue to happen in greater numbers as the number of eMTB's increase. If you really want all Mountain Bikers and eMTBers to be on the same page stop pretending they are not different and that conflict is not possible.


Please show me officially documented accounts from land managers about ebikes causing problems, or where access has been rescinded because it caused problem. Comments (factual or not) from ebike hating randos on the internet don't count, and neither do accounts of rebel youths on e-motos terrorizing suburban streets and trails. 

Until then, I'll maintain my position that ebikes don't cause significant problems when integrated into existing trail systems....just like the land managers who oversee trails where ebikes have been integrated.

.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Please show me officially documented accounts from land managers about ebikes causing problems, or where access has been rescinded because it caused problem. Comments (factual or not) from ebike hating randos on the internet don't count, and neither do accounts of rebel youths on e-motos terrorizing suburban streets and trails.
> 
> Until then, I'll maintain my position that ebikes don't cause significant problems when integrated into existing trail systems....just like the land managers who oversee trails where ebikes have been integrated.
> 
> .


I never claimed to have documented accounts for land managers, I specifically said that we have had direct reports from reputable MTBR members. Because you cannot tell the difference between Crital thinking being expressed and what you call "eBike hating randos" has ZERO bearing on that fact. I am personally one of those site members who has experienced conflict. I also do not think that my experience is enough to ban eBikes, a few of my friends have eMTB and I ride with them on my local trails where this conflict happened. I am not an eBike hating anything, but I am reasonable enough to understand this is a complicated issue without a simple solution.

You really need to get your head out of the sand and understand there is more to this issue than your rose colored glasses view of it.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> I never claimed to have documented accounts for land managers, I specifically said that we have had direct reports from reputable MTBR members. Because you cannot tell the difference between Crital thinking being expressed and what you call "eBike hating randos" has ZERO bearing on that fact. I am personally one of those site members who has experienced conflict. I also do not think that my experience is enough to ban eBikes, a few of my friends have eMTB and I ride with them on my local trails where this conflict happened. I am not an eBike hating anything, but I am reasonable enough to understand this is a complicated issue without a simple solution.
> 
> You really need to get your head out of the sand and understand there is more to this issue than your rose colored glasses view of it.


The thing is, it IS a simple solution....give class 1 ebikes access to all trails traditional bikes have access to. Every single place it's been tried around the globe has been nothing short of a rousing success for the trail going populations at large. All this talk of it being a complicated problem, and needing more studies, and different rules here and there, is nothing but a smoke screen. Another way to delay the inevitable.

We all know the saying "lead, follow, or get out of the way"....you and everyone like you needs to do everyone a favor, and get out of the way.

.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

You know I think this issue is different at different locations. Rather than just knee jerk cutting access off because the the potential for a bad player it would be nice to implement a test period. Give it a couple weeks of closely monitored access to eMTB. If there are no conflicts and everyone gets along fine, which I think is the case in many locations, then let if open for a temporary period. If there are bad apples that ruin the whole then go ahead and lock it down. But find out don't just close it off just because it is theoretically possible. In my location we all get along fine.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mike_kelly said:


> You know I think this issue is different at different locations.


That is what I have been trying to get CJ to understand for a long time now. He firmly believes a one-size fits all solution will work everywhere.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

mike_kelly said:


> You know I think this issue is different at different locations. Rather than just knee jerk cutting access off because the the potential for a bad player it would be nice to implement a test period. Give it a couple weeks of closely monitored access to eMTB. If there are no conflicts and everyone gets along fine, which I think is the case in many locations, then let if open for a temporary period. If there are bad apples that ruin the whole then go ahead and lock it down. But find out don't just close it off just because it is theoretically possible. In my location we all get along fine.


This is exactly what has been done in a ton of places across the country, and not one of them has rescinded access. I am 100% in favor of "trial period" implementation of ebikes being treated the same as analog, being made permanent after one year.



Klurejr said:


> That is what I have been trying to get CJ to understand for a long time now. He firmly believes a one-size fits all solution will work everywhere.


Treating ebikes the same as analog has worked everywhere it's been tried bro. There's no need to do it differently based on the biases and what-if's of other user groups. Make it a trial period if you want, it won't matter.

.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Treating ebikes the same as analog has worked everywhere it's been tried bro. There's no need to do it differently based on the biases and what-if's of other user groups. Make it a trial period if you want, it won't matter.


eBikes are not allowed in OC Parks, eBike users are poaching anyway, there are trail conflicts being reported.


but sure, keep your head in the sand and ignore that.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> there are trail conflicts being reported.


Prove it. Something more than just the odd anecdotal example. Real conflict that would warrant banning them from the park. Old ladies being run over? Collisions resulting from too much uphill speed (where downhill rider speed isn't a - if not the - primary factor)?

Please show us documented verifiable reports involving class 1 eMTB's. I'll wait.

You keep claiming it's a problem, because you say so, but fail to provide a single shred of evidence, or examples of access being given and then rescinded because it turned out to be a problem. The only thing you've been successful in demonstrating here is your anti-ebike agenda despite all known objective data.

.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

_CJ said:


> Prove it. Something more than just the odd anecdotal example. Real conflict that would warrant banning them from the park. Old ladies being run over? Collisions resulting from too much uphill speed (where downhill rider speed isn't a - if not the - primary factor)?
> 
> Please show us documented verifiable reports involving class 1 eMTB's. I'll wait.
> 
> ...


You both are making claims with no backup. It doesn't work any more CJ to say that it has worked everywhere. Let's call this a draw.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

mike_kelly said:


> You both are making claims with no backup. It doesn't work any more CJ to say that it has worked everywhere. Let's call this a draw.


It's not a draw. Kruger and his anti-access brethren are wrong.

e-bikes are treated the same as traditional bikes on thousands of miles of non-motorized trails, in thousands of jurisdictions, with hundreds of thousands of miles ridden, and there are no documented cases of it creating an outsized problem, of access having been rescinded, or of access for traditional MTB's being negatively effected.

These are observational facts, not conjecture or speculation as is so often thrown around by so many on this site.

.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

There are also more thousands of miles of non-motorized trail where land managers have choosen to prevent eMTB access. The reality is that there are bad boys out there that don't like to follow rules. There are bad players in normal MTB's. Land Managers take the easy way out and just say no. If we could accept the euro standard of class1 only it would have been alot easier to gain access.
You undermind your case when you make claims like "there are no documented cases of it creating an outsized problem". I don't think you have access to comprehensive documentation on all trails everywhere to make this statement in a debate.
I would agree that in places I have ridden I have seen no conflicts but I have not ridden on every trail everywhere. Klurejr has experienced bad situations himself. You have to respect that.
We are not going to gain access yelling across the divide.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

_CJ said:


> It's not a draw. Kruger and his anti-access brethren are wrong.
> 
> e-bikes are treated the same as traditional bikes on thousands of miles of non-motorized trails, in thousands of jurisdictions, with hundreds of thousands of miles ridden, and there are no documented cases of it creating an outsized problem, of access having been rescinded, or of access for traditional MTB's being negatively effected.
> 
> ...


Where did you look for these “documented” cases?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Sir kayakalot said:


> Where did you look for these “documented” cases?


he didn't. he just knows........ It is like arguing with a 2 year old....


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> he didn't. he just knows........ It is like arguing with a 2 year old....


Then don't argue....


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mike_kelly said:


> Then don't argue....


When you made a valid point of calling it a draw I did stop. CJ could not and kept digging his grave......


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

mike_kelly said:


> There are also more thousands of miles of non-motorized trail where land managers have choosen to prevent eMTB access. The reality is that there are bad boys out there that don't like to follow rules. There are bad players in normal MTB's. Land Managers take the easy way out and just say no. If we could accept the euro standard of class1 only it would have been alot easier to gain access.
> You undermind your case when you make claims like "there are no documented cases of it creating an outsized problem". I don't think you have access to comprehensive documentation on all trails everywhere to make this statement in a debate.
> I would agree that in places I have ridden I have seen no conflicts but I have not ridden on every trail everywhere. Klurejr has experienced bad situations himself. You have to respect that.
> We are not going to gain access yelling across the divide.


Those trails weren't ruled off limits to ebikes because land managers decided they were actually a problem, they were deemed off limits in response to the elitists, Sierra Club, Wilderness Warriors, etc. screaming for them to be banned "before it's too late" despite having no documentable evidence that they would create a problem (just like Kruger and others on this forum).

In the town I used to live in, it went further than that. The land manager announced that class 1 would be legal everywhere MTB's were legal, but then had to retract the policy "for further review" when all the angry old hiker/biker type groups threatened to pull funding AND sue the city. That's not an ebike problem, that's a gate-keeper problem.

In a broader view, Colorado passed a law saying ebikes were to be treated the same as all other bikes, but left the door open for them to be banned by local muni's, and as expected, the elitist communities filled with monied "earth first" activists wasted no time in putting up the gates. Meanwhile, others have enacted no such polices, and have had no problems. This includes all state parks in Colorado and the hundreds of miles of single-track multi-use bi-directional trails in them.

This whole argument is just dumb. Integration has been successful everywhere it's been implemented, period.

.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Those trails weren't ruled off limits to ebikes because land managers decided they were actually a problem, they were deemed off limits in response to the elitists, Sierra Club, Wilderness Warriors, etc. screaming for them to be banned "before it's too late" despite having no documentable evidence that they would create a problem (just like Kruger and others on this forum).
> 
> In the town I used to live in, it went further than that. The land manager announced that class 1 would be legal everywhere MTB's were legal, but then had to retract the policy "for further review" when all the angry old hiker/biker type groups threatened to pull funding AND sue the city. That's not an ebike problem, that's a gate-keeper problem.
> 
> ...


Your argument so far has been that ALL anecdotal stories of conflict do not count because they are not in some sort of official record, and then go forward and provide a ton of Anecdotal evidence to support your side of the argument?

Are you serious man?

It is not fair to decide what anecdotal evidence can and cannot be considered just because it does not meet your narrative.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

In our county, the Natural Resources Department allowed Class-1 eBike use on soft surface trails for 8 months during 2020-2021 to determine if class-1 eBike use would be compatible with other uses on soft surface trails in the area. The department concluded, based on the results of their study, that eBike use is not compatible on the soft surface trails and rescinded access. They allowed continued access on hard surface rec paths. This is one of several land agencies that manages open space in our area of Colorado. Here is a link to the documentation of the study:





E-bike Study (Natural Resources)


Electric Motorized Bike (E-Bike) Study Results Update (5/24/21) E-bike access on natural surface trails expands at Parks and Open Spaces managed by Larimer




www.larimer.gov


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

sgltrak said:


> In our county, the Natural Resources Department allowed Class-1 eBike use on soft surface trails for 8 months during 2020-2021 to determine if class-1 eBike use would be compatible with other uses on soft surface trails in the area. The department concluded, based on the results of their study, that eBike use is not compatible on the soft surface trails and rescinded access. They allowed continued access on hard surface rec paths. This is one of several land agencies that manages open space in our area of Colorado. Here is a link to the documentation of the study:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Seems that this 'study' was really more of a 'survey' and it really only shows that those who responded were mostly against allowing e-bikes yet doesn't contain much, if any, sort of empirical evidence that show that there were any sort of actual issues, for example, that e-bikes cause more degradation to trail surfaces or that there were actual safety incidents, etc.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

slapheadmofo said:


> Seems that this 'study' was really more of a 'survey' and it really only shows that those who responded were mostly against allowing e-bikes yet doesn't contain much, if any, sort of empirical evidence that show that there were any sort of actual issues, for example, that e-bikes cause more degradation to trail surfaces or that there were actual safety incidents, etc.


I didn't follow the details of the study / survey closely. My understanding was that they looked at ranger reports and polled trail users during the trial period. Numerous studies have shown that eBikes don't cause any more trail damage than mountain bikes per mile traveled, so it seems that should be a non-issue unless they were concerned about the number of eBikers and additional miles traveled by eBike users over mountain bikers degrading the trails. I don't know if the ranger reports contained incidents. I do know that a couple of the land agencies in our area prioritize conservation over recreation and the local recreation organizations (biking, running, hiking, and equestrian) have encountered this for quite a while while advocating for additional trails to be built. Perhaps that agency bias may have had an effect on the outcome.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

sgltrak said:


> I didn't follow the details of the study / survey closely. My understanding was that they looked at ranger reports and polled trail users during the trial period. Numerous studies have shown that eBikes don't cause any more trail damage than mountain bikes per mile traveled, so it seems that should be a non-issue unless they were concerned about the number of eBikers and additional miles traveled by eBike users over mountain bikers degrading the trails. I don't know if the ranger reports contained incidents. I do know that a couple of the land agencies in our area prioritize conservation over recreation and the local recreation organizations (biking, running, hiking, and equestrian) have encountered this for quite a while while advocating for additional trails to be built. Perhaps that agency bias may have had an effect on the outcome.


Like I said. This isn't an ebike problem, it's a gate keeping problem. The "conclusion" was reached in response to the protest of the anti-access crowd.


.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> Your argument so far has been that ALL anecdotal stories of conflict do not count because they are not in some sort of official record, and then go forward and provide a ton of Anecdotal evidence to support your side of the argument?
> 
> Are you serious man?
> 
> It is not fair to decide what anecdotal evidence can and cannot be considered just because it does not meet your narrative.


Bro, what I've posted is "observational data". There are thousands of miles of trails open to ebikes around the country, where land managers have the ability to rescind access, yet access continues to remain open after several years and hundreds of thousands of miles ridden. Those are facts, which are entirely different than the unverifiable anecdotes generated by a handful of anti-access randos on the internet.


.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Bro, what I've posted is "observational data". There are thousands of miles of trails open to ebikes around the country, where land managers have the ability to rescind access, yet access continues to remain open after several years and hundreds of thousands of miles ridden. Those are facts, which are entirely different than the unverifiable anecdotes generated by a handful of anti-access randos on the internet.
> 
> 
> .


you are a RANDO on the internet - your observational data is no different from my observational data or any other MTBR users observational data.

Please get off your high horse. YOUR DATA IS NOT BETTER THAN OTHERS DATA WITHOUT DOCUMENTED PROOF - which you have ZERO of.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> you are a RANDO on the internet - your observational data is no different from my observational data or any other MTBR users observational data.
> 
> Please get off your high horse. YOUR DATA IS NOT BETTER THAN OTHERS DATA WITHOUT DOCUMENTED PROOF - which you have ZERO of.














.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

Ok ante up or fold. I want to see the data sited with references in all cases.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Since you do not seem to get it CJ - any more posts touting personal option as fact and citing that everyone should "just know" without actual studies to link to will be removed and warning points will be issued. You have received your first warning point and your postulating post was removed.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Oh, the hypocrisy.



.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

I guess "somebody" decided to show their hand.

There can never again be any question about where MTBR stands on the issue of ebike access. Posts detailing the continued success of integration will be deleted.

Thanks McGruber!

.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

_CJ said:


> I guess "somebody" decided to show their hand.
> 
> There can never again be any question about where MTBR stands on the issue of ebike access. Posts detailing the continued success of integration will be deleted.
> 
> ...


MTBR is not anti ebike. The majority of people who are members here are not against ebikes. What you don’t get is how you keep yammering and hammering your opinions as fact, without producing anything to back it up, therefore making it nothing more than an opinion. You jump at every chance for controversy, and you are not setting a good example of how ebikers can get along with people that don’t have motors on their bikes.


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

I'm in France right now and was in two bike shops yesterday, looking for a bike box.

Both shops sales of mountain bikes are 90 percent e bikes.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

rod9301 said:


> I'm in France right now and was in two bike shops yesterday, looking for a bike box.
> 
> Both shops sales of mountain bikes are 90 percent e bikes.
> 
> Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


Is it because of a population that wants to transition from a regular bike to an e-bike or is it because it is something new? I remember when I lived in Indiana about 25 years ago, there was this huge increase in imported motor scooters. I am sure there was a technical name for them. A friend of mine owned a used car dealership and added these to the mix. He could not get his hands on enough of them and could ask a huge premium. Eventually, those who must have the newest toy were all satisfied and then sales plummeted. Fast forward to the fat tire trend a few years ago. The local bike shops here in Michigan had the same issue as everyone had to have one. After a few years, they just stopped selling. The manufacturers are going to look for new toys to sell. Will the eBike demand die down and if so, what will be the replacement.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

jimglassford said:


> Is it because of a population that wants to transition from a regular bike to an e-bike or is it because it is something new? I remember when I lived in Indiana about 25 years ago, there was this huge increase in imported motor scooters. I am sure there was a technical name for them. A friend of mine owned a used car dealership and added these to the mix. He could not get his hands on enough of them and could ask a huge premium. Eventually, those who must have the newest toy were all satisfied and then sales plummeted. Fast forward to the fat tire trend a few years ago. The local bike shops here in Michigan had the same issue as everyone had to have one. After a few years, they just stopped selling. The manufacturers are going to look for new toys to sell. Will the eBike demand die down and if so, what will be the replacement.


This. I have a plus bike and I rarely ride it now because of circumstances. But it’s not going anywhere, because I love it. The big up front cost and potential expensive repairs weeds many out of the ebike market. People who mountain bike on a regular basis, even with interruptions to their riding, come back to it because they love it. I suspect a large percentage of people who want easier access to the sport will have outdated, expensive, ebikes collecting dust in their expensive homes. I’m not anti ebike. 

Ebikes in certain markets are money makers. The current crop of high end FS bikes are so capable there’s no reason to upgrade when then next generation is released, partly because they are so expensive. 

I have a carbon AM uber bike. It’s not necessary. A alloy bike that weighs 2lbs more, fitted with good wheels would be just as fun. I think bike companies will have to go back to the drawing boards and come up with cost effective options for this economy. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

In 2015 we rode in northern Italy. Beautiful separated paved bike path over the Alps/Dolomites. Stopped at a high-end road bike shop. Wonderful selection of the best road bikes in the world. In 2019 we went back and did the same ride. Over 50% of the riders were on ebikes. The high-end bike shop now sold 80% ebikes and less than 10% high end road bikes to stay alive.

The new Scott Lumen begs the questiion why does it cost $18000 for a bike when my 2019 Hyundai Kona cost $19,000. The Hyundai is considerably more complex to make. Something just does not add up.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

mike_kelly said:


> In 2015 we rode in northern Italy. Beautiful separated paved bike path over the Alps/Dolomites. Stopped at a high-end road bike shop. Wonderful selection of the best road bikes in the world. In 2019 we went back and did the same ride. Over 50% of the riders were on ebikes. The high-end bike shop now sold 80% ebikes and less than 10% high end road bikes to stay alive.
> 
> The new Scott Lumen begs the questiion why does it cost $18000 for a bike when my 2019 Hyundai Kona cost $19,000. The Hyundai is considerably more complex to make. Something just does not add up.
> 
> View attachment 2013080


Because people are willing to pay the ridiculous price


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

Sir kayakalot said:


> Because people are willing to pay the ridiculous price


Exactly. What the market will bear.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Sir kayakalot said:


> MTBR is not anti ebike. The majority of people who are members here are not against ebikes. What you don’t get is how you keep yammering and hammering your opinions as fact, without producing anything to back it up, therefore making it nothing more than an opinion. You jump at every chance for controversy, and you are not setting a good example of how ebikers can get along with people that don’t have motors on their bikes.


Thank you.


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

jimglassford said:


> Is it because of a population that wants to transition from a regular bike to an e-bike or is it because it is something new? I remember when I lived in Indiana about 25 years ago, there was this huge increase in imported motor scooters. I am sure there was a technical name for them. A friend of mine owned a used car dealership and added these to the mix. He could not get his hands on enough of them and could ask a huge premium. Eventually, those who must have the newest toy were all satisfied and then sales plummeted. Fast forward to the fat tire trend a few years ago. The local bike shops here in Michigan had the same issue as everyone had to have one. After a few years, they just stopped selling. The manufacturers are going to look for new toys to sell. Will the eBike demand die down and if so, what will be the replacement.


They had e mountain bikes in Europe for over 10 years, is not a NEW thing, maybe for you.

It's because it's easier to go uphill, just like the dinner plate cassettes make it easier.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

rod9301 said:


> They had e mountain bikes in Europe for over 10 years, is not a NEW thing, maybe for you.
> 
> It's because it's easier to go uphill, just like the dinner plate cassettes make it easier.
> 
> Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


In reference to post 127 - is the increase in popularity in a sense a fad? In America ebikes have been here a few years. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## raisingarizona (Feb 3, 2009)

Americans are so freakin uptight over dumb sh%t.

E-bikes are the future as well as pay to play riding zones. You don't need ski lifts for a bike park with e-bikes.

The anti e-bike sentiments are moot anyways as long as land managers of public lands continue to lack the ability to enforce the regulations. They sure can't now and I highly doubt that's going to change.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

raisingarizona said:


> Americans are so freakin uptight over dumb sh%t.
> 
> E-bikes are the future as well as pay to play riding zones. You don't need ski lifts for a bike park with e-bikes.
> 
> The anti e-bike sentiments are moot anyways as long as land managers of public lands continue to lack the ability to enforce the regulations. They sure can't now and I highly doubt that's going to change.


Thank you.

.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Thread closed.


----------

