# Best way to talk to eBikers when they're on illegal trails?



## misanthrope (Mar 30, 2009)

So, yeah, I'm not an eBike user but don't have any issue with them except when they're used on trails that they have been clearly prohibited -- in this case, USFS lands upon which our local snow bike trail system resides. The other night a few of us were snow biking up and down the trails on the USFS lands at our local area and came across a couple of guys we knew on e-FatBikes. I sat there as people exchanged pleasantries, biting my tongue about the legality of their actions. So...from eBike riders perspective, how would you like to be reminded about obeying the law? In point of fact, they almost certainly knew they weren't supposed to be there, so that made it a bit "tougher" from my perspective to point out their _faux pas_.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

misanthrope said:


> So, yeah, I'm not an eBike user but don't have any issue with them except when they're used on trails that they have been clearly prohibited -- in this case, USFS lands upon which our local snow bike trail system resides. The other night a few of us were snow biking up and down the trails on the USFS lands at our local area and came across a couple of guys we knew on e-FatBikes. I sat there as people exchanged pleasantries, biting my tongue about the legality of their actions. So...from eBike riders perspective, how would you like to be reminded about obeying the law? In point of fact, they almost certainly knew they weren't supposed to be there, so that made it a bit "tougher" from my perspective to point out their _faux pas_.


Were they hurting anyone or the trails? Were they helping pack down the trail for better riding conditions for everyone?

Do you go out of your way to say something to everyone you see speeding on the roads your on?

I can tell there is a concern you have what is it really?

How I personally would react would depend on how you "reminded me" that I was breaking the law. If you did "you know you are not supposed be out here on a ebike" I most likely would respond with "Yeah I know but there are few people out here and I am not hurting anyone so why is that an issue?". If you did "get the moped off our trails your breaking the law" I would at best ignore you at worse it would become and argument that should not be held on the trails.


----------



## tom tom (Mar 3, 2007)

Call 911..................:thumbsup: or tell them.............:nono:


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

No harm, no foul. America has too many rules and regulations


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

tom tom said:


> Call 911..................:thumbsup: or tell them.............:nono:


Waste 911 resources for ebikers on a trail? ah ok

Having ebikers arrested or shot is one way to keep them off the trails (being sarcastic)


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

I wouldn't bother saying anything unless they were causing damage. Would be hard to believe if they were riding on snow


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

You don't need to engage them, that's the land manager or law enforcement authorities job. Just take photos of the offending parties.


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> You don't need to engage them, that's the land manager or law enforcement authorities job. Just take photos of the offending parties.


Preferably a selfie with them so they don't suspect a thing


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

LOL!!! Some of these response are "special". Calling for getting LE involved over people daring to ride a trail and doing no harm to the trail or other users.

:madman:


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> LOL!!! Some of these response are "special". Calling for getting LE involved over people daring to ride a trail and doing no harm to the trail or other users.
> 
> :madman:


"Special" would be condoning breaking the law.


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> "Special" would be condoning breaking the law.


Is it the letter of the law or the intent. Those are two different things


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

life behind bars said:


> "Special" would be condoning breaking the law.


Do you stop anyone speeding on the local roads that pass you? 
There a thousands of laws do you get involved with those too?

Some of you act like daring to ride a ebike on a trail and having fun is committing murder.


----------



## misanthrope (Mar 30, 2009)

Well KenPsz and AC/BC, thanks to your responses I am starting to have something against e-bikers -- photos and a report to the authorities it is. I've met enough USFS personnel to know how seriously they take these things.

I suppose it was important to move this thread out of the E-Bikes forum before too many E-advocates outed themselves as what lots of pedal-heads have always thought about them...


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

misanthrope said:


> Well KenPsz and AC/BC, thanks to your responses I am starting to have something against e-bikers -- photos and a report to the authorities it is. I've met enough USFS personnel to know how seriously they take these things.
> 
> I suppose it was important to move this thread out of the E-Bikes forum before too many E-advocates outed themselves as what lots of pedal-heads have always thought about them...


I kind of already knew you had something against ebikers by the tone of your post. I doubt posts by AC/BC and myself had any impact on your views. You were just looking for input as to how to report someone for something you don't like.

This is not the only hobby I have seen this attitude in either, I just have never seen it in mountain biking in the 20+ years I have been biking. Mountain bikers always seemed to be more accepting and welcoming but guess times change.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

I simply tell them the truth, those aren't aloud here, and see where it goes from there. If you're not going to say anything, who will?


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

WHALENARD said:


> I simply tell them the truth, those aren't aloud here, and see where it goes from there. If you're not going to say anything, who will?


Sure why not there are people that hassle other people about parking in handicap spots too or the people that complain about those in front of them in the express lane with more than 20 items.

takes all kinds I guess.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

It's a trap!!! You've outed yourself as a secret agent.

Not an e-biker but it's easy to recognize the reality that unmodded pedal assist bikes pose no damage to trails or risk to other users. Are you going to take photos of anyone going over the speed limit while driving a car? Or not make a complete stop at a stop sign dispite there clearly being no traffic coming? 

E-bikes haven't been around for long and the current law is outdated in that regard. For the law to be changed people will need to engage in the activity and prove there won't be any negative consequences with e-biking. Even if e-bikes are deemed "safe" for trail use it will take years for any laws to be changed.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

KenPsz said:


> Sure why not there are people that hassle other people about parking in handicap spots too or the people that complain about those in front of them in the express lane with more than 20 items.
> 
> takes all kinds I guess.


Lets not forget those that repeat the the same nonsense to every reply on a forum.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

WHALENARD said:


> Lets not forget those that repeat the the same nonsense to every reply on a forum.


The ebike hate does get tiredsome and redundant.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

misanthrope said:


> So, yeah, I'm not an eBike user but don't have any issue with them except when they're used on trails that they have been clearly prohibited -- in this case, USFS lands upon which our local snow bike trail system resides. The other night a few of us were snow biking up and down the trails on the USFS lands at our local area and came across a couple of guys we knew on e-FatBikes. I sat there as people exchanged pleasantries, biting my tongue about the legality of their actions. So...from eBike riders perspective, how would you like to be reminded about obeying the law? In point of fact, they almost certainly knew they weren't supposed to be there, so that made it a bit "tougher" from my perspective to point out their _faux pas_.


Same way you'd handle a mtb poacher.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

misanthrope said:


> So, yeah, I'm not an eBike user but don't have any issue with them except when they're used on trails that they have been clearly prohibited -- in this case, USFS lands upon which our local snow bike trail system resides. The other night a few of us were snow biking up and down the trails on the USFS lands at our local area and came across a couple of guys we knew on e-FatBikes. I sat there as people exchanged pleasantries, biting my tongue about the legality of their actions. So...from eBike riders perspective, how would you like to be reminded about obeying the law? In point of fact, they almost certainly knew they weren't supposed to be there, so that made it a bit "tougher" from my perspective to point out their _faux pas_.


What makes you think they were riding illegally? Most usnf lands become Moto legal in the winter to accommodate the slednecks.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

You tell them off from the saddle of your horse, just like you would if they were a regular mountain biker


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

Society is shy.

Seeing ebikes on a improper trails is resolved by making internet posts where we are strong!


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

KenPsz said:


> Sure why not there are people that hassle other people about parking in handicap spots too or the people that complain about those in front of them in the express lane with more than 20 items.
> 
> takes all kinds I guess.


So you poach handicap parking spots and express lanes. Wow, your douchery knows no bounds.

I would say something to you in all three cases.

What I do when I see mountain bikers poaching ST here in Marin is..Are you a member of our local trail advocacy group? Please join, we are trying to get more trails opened up for bikes and you can help us, blah blah blah. 
Since I am anti-ebike on those trails I would say something along the same lines but I may not be as nice.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> What makes you think they were riding illegally? Most usnf lands become Moto legal in the winter to accommodate the slednecks.


Bull.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

LBB are you the new Moderator of the Ebike forum?


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

sfgiantsfan said:


> So you poach handicap parking spots and express lanes. Wow, your douchery knows no bounds.
> 
> I would say something to you in all three cases.
> 
> ...


Yup that's me all around rule breaker. LOL!!!!

Cool man you want to ask for hall passes and call the teachers when someone does not have one, have at it.

I don't live my life like a hall monitor looking for rule breakers. If you are not doing anything to harm anyone else, I don't care what you are doing. But that is my personal out look other peoples seem to be different.

Hell I have seen emtbrs on two trails I know are not ebike allowed, you know what I did? NOTHING since they were being good bikers and out having fun. Unlike the dochebag on a cyclocross bike that was running hikers off the trail because he had to get his "serious" ride in.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

figofspee said:


> What makes you think they were riding illegally? Most usnf lands become Moto legal in the winter to accommodate the slednecks.





life behind bars said:


> Bull.


I don't know about "most" but there certainly are instances where usage type changes based upon season.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I don't know about "most" but there certainly are instances where usage type changes based upon season.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Genuinely curious about this. Where does that exist for single track?

I've seen roads where that is the case. And trails that are specifically for sleds. But never trails. I would imagine because they would be incredibly unsafe at snow machine speeds, because most trails are too narrow and too twisty, for lack of a better word.

Having lived in states with large sledding populations, and having been on one a time or three, I haven't seen many trails for either sport that would be good for the other.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I don't know about "most" but there certainly are instances where usage type changes based upon season.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Most of the fatbiking is done in Moto legal areas because the snowmobiles keep the trails Rideable. You can't ride a fatbike on your mtbike trails when there are piles of untracked snow


----------



## jupiter58 (Jan 13, 2016)

Who cares, the authorities where I live have no intention of enforcing the law. Not going to ruin my day confronting someone who obviously does not give a **** about what others think. So many non motorized users out there that are rude and inconsiderate so whats the point?. I will ride my ebike and bikes where there are few to no humans.plenty easy to find that in Idaho.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

jupiter58 said:


> Who cares, the authorities where I live have no intention of enforcing the law. Not going to ruin my day confronting someone who obviously does not give a **** about what others think. So many non motorized users out there that are rude and inconsiderate so whats the point?. I will ride my ebike and bikes where there are few to no humans.plenty easy to find that in Idaho.


The average law enforcement agent in the USNF is something like 1 per million acres, and the likely hood that those agents are going to busy themselves sniffing around the nature of your bicycle pedalling is rather small. Considering the majority of their staff is laid off right now, a complaint would likely go nowhere, and all this is ignoring the fact that they are most likely riding in a Moto legal area. If you like confrontation and want to pick a fight, then by all means do your thing, but if they know karate, or have a gun, then there aren't many law enforcement agents who are going to come to your rescue. If you want to talk eBikes and discuss the law, you can ask them for some contact information or give them yours, without bringing up the legality subject, and discuss it when you are back in the safety of society.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> Genuinely curious about this. Where does that exist for single track?
> 
> I�ve seen roads where that is the case. And trails that are specifically for sleds. But never trails. I would imagine because they would be incredibly unsafe at snow machine speeds, because most trails are too narrow and too twisty, for lack of a better word.
> 
> ...


Since snowmachines can go anywhere, Moto legal is defined by wide boundaries of acreage sometimes by the millions. This all changes before the summer time. Many twisty fatbike trails are machine groomed with a timbersled or snowmachines. OP might think that the trails are non motorized only because snowmachines don't go there but really it is most likely because a recreational biler does not desire riding in the trees.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Genuinely curious about this. Where does that exist for single track?
> 
> I've seen roads where that is the case. And trails that are specifically for sleds. But never trails. I would imagine because they would be incredibly unsafe at snow machine speeds, because most trails are too narrow and too twisty, for lack of a better word.
> 
> ...


Like someone else mentioned it would depend on what the trails were. Also, sometimes entire areas rather than trails can be listed for over snow vehicles.

I don't know the exact rules in play and it's a national park rather than a forest but Yellowstone is an infamous example of winter motorized rules.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

Photo and report. LEOs in my area won't put much effort into enforcement, and I don't expect them to. They do want info about illegal activity on federal lands. Ignoring the regs is indicative of a selfish, FU mindset. Right up there with bad trail etiquette, not picking up after your pet and, yes, parking in handicap spaces.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Even more reason to keep emtbs as their own user group separate from mountain bikes, the "if I think it's ok then it's ok" attitude. That's human nature for you, no one ever does anything wrong, they always have a reason why it's ok for them to do it (or someone doing the same thing that they do). 

I met a guy going into some trails my mtb group maintains on NPS property. They were wet and muddy and I politely told him he shouldn't be riding. "I rode these trails 40 years ago on motorcycles" he replied (it wasn't an NPS park 40 years ago). I told him things had changed, that he would damage the trails riding now because there were big muddy spots. "That's ok, I'll ride around them". I explained that that is bad as it widens the trail. Just then, a park ranger pulled up, one that I didn't know. So the guy asked if he could ride. The park ranger admitted that he couldn't really stop him, they can't actually close the park trails despite the signs not to ride when the trails are wet and our mountain group posting if the trails are open or closed on the website, which is approved by the park service for us to do. The ranger I know is in charge of trail maintenance and would have answered differently. So the guy gives a big smile and heads off down the trail. I'm sure he decided riding muddy trails was ok, he wasn't going to hurt anything. I never have seen him show up for trail maintenance. He wasn't on an ebike, the ranger would have acted differently if he had been.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

KenPsz said:


> Yup that's me all around rule breaker. LOL!!!!
> 
> Cool man you want to ask for hall passes and call the teachers when someone does not have one, have at it.
> 
> ...


is that what you think riding mopeds on trails equates too? You have no idea what mountain bike advocacy is. Keep poaching and don't be surprised when you cross the wrong guy. You advocate poaching, you have no respect for what others have done. we don't want you, we don't need you, go back under your rock. You help no one.


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

I usually look the other way. It's the libertarian in me, not the ebike advocate in me. 

Unless I see someone kicking up rooster tails, I just assume people are being responsible stewards of the trail.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

I really wouldn't care one bit. I wouldn't report them, I wouldn't say anything to them, I really wouldn't give them a second thought.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> Sure why not there are people that hassle other people about parking in handicap spots too


Yup. That's me.

The last time there was no guy to "hassle" but his lifted Jeep was taking up a space that is reserved for the elderly or folks who deserve a handicap placard. As fate would have it there was a local cop parked 20 yards away.

I parked in a non-HC spot, shuffled, slowly, using my cane, over to the cop, explained that there was evidence of a douchebag nearby, and went in to shop.

When I finished shopping I came out to see the douchebag's Jeep blocked in by the cop and getting a ticket.

Admitting that you think it's ok to park in handicap spots speaks volumes about your lack of character. Thanks for the insight.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> I don't live my life like a hall monitor looking for rule breakers. If you are not doing anything to harm anyone else, I don't care what you are doing.


Taking a handicap space from the elderly or folks with a disability does harm them.

Only a douchebag would ignore that fact.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

They're not allowed on USFS trails, correct?


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

Crankout said:


> They're not allowed on USFS trails, correct?


Electric motor bicycles are only allowed on moto-legal USFS trails.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

10 guys illegally riding together- issue. A few dudes on frozen snow trail fatbikes, wgaf. Bigger things to worry about. The hiker with the dog not on the leash? More mtbrs poach trails than emtbs, just look at the numbers.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

sfgiantsfan said:


> is that what you think riding mopeds on trails equates too? You have no idea what mountain bike advocacy is. Keep poaching and don't be surprised when you cross the wrong guy. You advocate poaching, you have no respect for what others have done. we don't want you, we don't need you, go back under your rock. You help no one.


Mountain bikes got their start by poaching hiking trails......

Clearly we do need e-bikers since it's so hard to gain access in some areas. The more people advocating for bikes in general will increase the pressure to gain trail access.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Fajita Dave said:


> Mountain bikes got their start by poaching hiking trails......
> 
> Clearly we do need e-bikers since it's so hard to gain access in some areas. The more people advocating for bikes in general will increase the pressure to gain trail access.


But a motor makes them something other than a bicycle. Some trail systems would be lost entirely and permanently by the inclusion of motorized conveyances of any type.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> But a motor makes them something other than a bicycle. Some trail systems would be lost entirely and permanently by the inclusion of motorized conveyances of any type.


And some wouldn't.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> But a motor makes them something other than a bicycle. Some trail systems would be lost entirely and permanently by the inclusion of motorized conveyances of any type.


The peddalling aspect makes them something like a bicycle. The idea that allowing eBikes would open the door to all motorized equipment, is no different then saying by banning eBikes we now need to ban all forms of human powered travel because there is an unavoidable human powered aspect of eBikes.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Didn't this thread get moved out of this forum now it got moved back?

What is crazy about many of the posts on here is they sound a whole lot like comments about mountain bikers on the Sierra club site. So congratulations many of you have become just like the enemies of mountain bikers in your tone and content.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

There’s no question emtbs have muddied up the water concerning good mtb karma. The “reality” is that they are not going to fade away. What to do? Accept them and join forces for more strength, or fight against them? Keeping in mind that ALOT if not most have/are fellow mtbrs that may belong to your chapter. Now the water is muddier. The industry has made it this way, not the few consumers that post here. How can ebikers and mtbrs co exist? First, I think there definitely has to be a distinction amongst them. Secondly, emtbrs need to advocate for more- new trails to be created and the industry should be funding them, although we know that will never happen.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> And some wouldn't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Only an e-motorbiker would see that as an acceptable outcome.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Gutch said:


> There's no question emtbs have muddied up the water concerning good mtb karma. The "reality" is that they are not going to fade away. What to do? Accept them and join forces for more strength, or fight against them? Keeping in mind that ALOT if not most have/are fellow mtbrs that may belong to your chapter. Now the water is muddier. The industry has made it this way, not the few consumers that post here. How can ebikers and mtbrs co exist? First, I think there definitely has to be a distinction amongst them. Secondly, emtbrs need to advocate for more- new trails to be created and the industry should be funding them, although we know that will never happen.


I was with you until your last part. Should emtbrs advocate for trails then exclude traditional mtbrs like is being done to them? Or should we all join together to get more trails for all of us? Since like it or not hikers and horseback riders make no distinction and if it has two wheels they want it out of the woods.

There is zero benefit to further segmentation and fighting in this hobby, but that seems to be what purist want because god forbid someone buy their climb where you suffered to get it. Worry about your self not other people since we are all out in the woods to have a good time. We has bikers do have very distinct set of opponents that want us all out of the woods. Hoping you can placate them with "see we fight emtbrs" is not going to win you any points with those opposition groups.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Only an e-motorbiker would see that as an acceptable outcome.


Only someone without an argument would attempt to portray my post as accepting any outcome.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> Since like it or not hikers and horseback riders make no distinction and *if it has two wheels they want it out of the woods.*


This is false. Why do you continue to make stuff up to suit your warped narrative?

Based on my advocacy experience (i.e. sitting across the table from hiker and equestrian advocates) two wheels with a motor is a major issue vs. two wheels that are human powered.

That's the reason why we have maintained and/or expanded access locally - human powered vs. motors.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> We has bikers do have very distinct set of opponents that want us all out of the woods.


True, and those who want to change the definition of mountain biking to include motors gives them a whole shitload of ammo.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> True, and those who want to change the definition of mountain biking to include motors gives them a whole shitload of ammo.


This thread is electronic gold. If any anti-bike access organizations or individuals are looking for ammo against bikes or what appear to be bikes, as a whole, this thread delivers.

If mountain bikers hope to ever gain access to Wilderness areas, they need create a clearly defined line between themselves and e-bikers. If federal regulations change to allow e-bikes on non-motorized federal land trails, that will be the end of any argument for bikes in Wilderness. The two ends are fundamentally incompatible.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

og-mtb said:


> This is false. Why do you continue to make stuff up to suit your warped narrative?
> 
> Based on my advocacy experience (i.e. sitting across the table from hiker and equestrian advocates) two wheels with a motor is a major issue vs. two wheels that are human powered.
> 
> That's the reason why we have maintained and/or expanded access locally - human powered vs. motors.


2 wheels with an engine is far different then 2 wheels with a crankset and a silent assistance motor. Your attempts to make an eBike look bad only makes regular mtbs look worse. In the real world, nobody sees a distinction between assisted and unassisted bikes and all the concern trolling, thought-terminating cliches, and white-knighting of mtb bullies on the internet forums is going to change reality.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

KenPsz said:


> I was with you until your last part. Should emtbrs advocate for trails then exclude traditional mtbrs like is being done to them? Or should we all join together to get more trails for all of us? Since like it or not hikers and horseback riders make no distinction and if it has two wheels they want it out of the woods.
> 
> There is zero benefit to further segmentation and fighting in this hobby, but that seems to be what purist want because god forbid someone buy their climb where you suffered to get it. Worry about your self not other people since we are all out in the woods to have a good time. We has bikers do have very distinct set of opponents that want us all out of the woods. Hoping you can placate them with "see we fight emtbrs" is not going to win you any points with those opposition groups.


 I have been a mtber waaay before emtbs hit the market. The "distinction" between the two, does not mean that we can't get along. Maybe if emtbrs bring more trails to the table, mtbrs may see them as more acceptable? It doesn't matter what I think because I'm not a LM. I just want fellow posters to know my viewpoints on the issue. I just ask that both sides keep an open mind.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> This thread is electronic gold. If any anti-bike access organizations or individuals are looking for ammo against bikes or what appear to be bikes, as a whole, this thread delivers.
> 
> If mountain bikers hope to ever gain access to Wilderness areas, they need create a clearly defined line between themselves and e-bikers. If federal regulations change to allow e-bikes on non-motorized federal land trails, that will be the end of any argument for bikes in Wilderness. The two ends are fundamentally incompatible.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Riding in the Wilderness is great, you should try it.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

This brings to mind the whole idea of the social contract, doesn't it? 

I mean on the one hand the argument is: what one person does doesn't affect me, so why should I care, right? On the other hand, isn't there a social contract within a society to follow the rules? If everyone just turns a blind eye to them, don't we spiral into lawlessness?

Obviously, this is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but shouldn't we all hold each other accountable?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

chuckha62 said:


> This brings to mind the whole idea of the social contract, doesn't it?
> 
> I mean on the one hand the argument is: what one person does doesn't affect me, so why should I care, right? On the other hand, isn't there a social contract within a society to follow the rules? If everyone just turns a blind eye to them, don't we spiral into lawlessness?
> 
> Obviously, this is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but shouldn't we all hold each other accountable?


I agree! We all need to hold the law breakers in the Federal Agencies accountable for their illegal persecution of non-motorized (eBikes included) travelers.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

figofspee said:


> I agree! We all need to hold the law breakers in the Federal Agencies accountable for their illegal persecution of non-motorized (eBikes included) travelers.


Wait... Non-motorized equals eBikes? You lost me, there.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

chuckha62 said:


> Wait... Non-motorized equals eBikes? You lost me, there.


I have faith you will catch up, just don't keep me waiting too long.


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> Should emtbrs advocate for trails then exclude traditional mtbrs like is being done to them? Or should we all join together to get more trails for all of us? Since like it or not hikers and horseback riders make no distinction and if it has two wheels they want it out of the woods.


I get along fine with hikers and horsie riders, I'm not saying that someone on an electric bike might not either though.

You keep using the word "purist". Are you ok with electric motorcycles having full access as long as they promise to adhere to some predetermined speed limit? What about petrol ones with really good mufflers, pedals  and emission controls? Or are you just another purist but one with different limits?


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

figofspee said:


> I have faith you will catch up, just don't keep me waiting too long.


Seriously? I'm not an advocate of calling eBikes motor vehicles, but if you can't agree that adding a motor makes them motorized, then you'll never find a base level in order to start the access conversation.

The distinction between motor vehicle and motorized vehicle has been made.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> In the real world, nobody sees a distinction between assisted and unassisted bikes


You obviously know absolutely nothing about access and advocacy.

Where the hell are people like this coming from? Cocksure and clueless is quite a winning combination, I'll tell ya...


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

On our trails, which cross a lot of private land subject to recreation easements, we have to say something, because if enough ebikes are out there, it will just take a couple of annoyed landowners (many of whom hate *all* recreation but signed on to the easement to get their development permits) to close down whole trail systems. 

Luckily people have mostly taken their e-bikes elsewhere. When I do say something, I generally am ignored, either politely or sometimes not. C'est la vie.

-W


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

chuckha62 said:


> Seriously? I'm not an advocate of calling eBikes motor vehicles, but if you can't agree that adding a motor makes them motorized, then you'll never find a base level in order to start the access conversation.
> 
> The distinction between motor vehicle and motorized vehicle has been made.


I seem to have a recollection of him posting in a thread that he has a divine right to ride where ever he wants and "the man" is persecuting him for not allowing this. Or some nonsense like that.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

chazpat said:


> I seem to have a recollection of him posting in a thread that he has a divine right to ride where ever he wants and "the man" is persecuting him for not allowing this. Or some nonsense like that.


Got it, thanks! Well then... Let's all stick it to the man! Whoot!


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Walt said:


> On our trails, which cross a lot of private land subject to recreation easements, we have to say something, because if enough ebikes are out there, it will just take a couple of annoyed landowners (many of whom hate *all* recreation but signed on to the easement to get their development permits) to close down whole trail systems.
> 
> Luckily people have mostly taken their e-bikes elsewhere. When I do say something, I generally am ignored, either politely or sometimes not. C'est la vie.
> 
> -W


So for those trails it is not so much e-bikes specifically but the number of bikers in total?


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> You obviously know absolutely nothing about access and advocacy.
> 
> Where the hell are people like this coming from? Cocksure and clueless is quite a winning combination, I'll tell ya...


Instead of making a snide comment to figofspee why don't you address the comment you quoted?
Because that comment is valid.

I read an article where die hard e-bike haters were talking to the writer of the article about how they hate e-bikes etc... to only be told about 10 had ridden past them and did they notice. The people said no then repeated how they could spot and hated e-bikes. This was in an article about the how Colorado did their pilot test.

If you think you are going to placate those like hikers and horseback riders by opposing e-bikes you're wrong.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

figofspee said:


> In the real world, nobody sees a distinction between assisted and unassisted bikes


This is demonstrably false.

In the real world the BLM, USFS, many California State Parks, local land managers, etc. see a distinction between normal bikes and electric motor bicycles.

That's why those agencies restrict where electric motor bicycles can be ridden.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Only someone without an argument would attempt to portray my post as accepting any outcome.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Way to ASSume I was portraying you in any light. Carry on.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> I get along fine with hikers and horsie riders, I'm not saying that someone on an electric bike might not either though.
> 
> You keep using the word "purist". Are you ok with electric motorcycles having full access as long as they promise to adhere to some predetermined speed limit? What about petrol ones with really good mufflers, pedals  and emission controls? Or are you just another purist but one with different limits?


I have had mixed interactions with horseback riders and hikers. I am always nice to both but then I see serious purist that are causing conflicts by not slowing down, not giving way etc....

We have been over this I am all for e-bikes sharing the trails. The strawman of petrol is like the anti-gun argument of going from pistols to nuclear bombs, it is nothing but a dramatic comment to elicit a response. There is not a slippery slope that will be caused by having e-bikes allowed on the trails.

Is interesting though the "purist" label does seem to of hit a nerve. Not sure why though since you have made your views clear that you are a purist as to what you view a mountain bike is.

I will admit as someone else has mentioned that e-bikes blur the black/white line that many are clinging to. I have personally have no problems with e-bikes on the trails as long as they are good trail users like most (but not all) mountain bikers currently.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Walt said:


> On our trails, which cross a lot of private land subject to recreation easements, we have to say something, because if enough ebikes are out there, it will just take a couple of annoyed landowners (many of whom hate *all* recreation but signed on to the easement to get their development permits) to close down whole trail systems.
> 
> Luckily people have mostly taken their e-bikes elsewhere. When I do say something, I generally am ignored, either politely or sometimes not. C'est la vie.
> 
> -W


To that point, I wonder if the typical citizen (pedestrian, etc) could distinguish an ebike from a regular bike? Some brands/models are more obvious than others, of course.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

og-mtb said:


> This is demonstrably false.
> 
> In the real world the BLM, USFS, many California State Parks, local land managers, etc. see a distinction between normal bikes and electric motor bicycles.
> 
> That's why those agencies restrict where electric motor bicycles can be ridden.


Yet those same agencies are using e-bikes for trail monitoring and maintenance.

For the average person using the trail there is no distinction. Well that is unless you get all upset because someone bought their climb and you suffered (oh sorry enjoyed the pain) of the climb.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

KenPsz said:


> So for those trails it is not so much e-bikes specifically but the number of bikers in total?


Um, no. Read it again. The easements specify "no motorized use" or similar. It would be trivial for an annoyed landowner to claim that the LM (Basin Recreation district) isn't enforcing the no-motors rule sufficiently and close the trail to everyone/void the easement.

As long as no motors are involved, all they can do is glare at us angrily from the their golf course/McMansion/helipad.

-W


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> This thread is electronic gold. If any anti-bike access organizations or individuals are looking for ammo against bikes or what appear to be bikes, as a whole, this thread delivers.
> 
> If mountain bikers hope to ever gain access to Wilderness areas, they need create a clearly defined line between themselves and e-bikers. If federal regulations change to allow e-bikes on non-motorized federal land trails, that will be the end of any argument for bikes in Wilderness. The two ends are fundamentally incompatible.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


LOL!!!! You folks really need to go spend some time on hiking and horse forums. You are not going to buy good will with those folks by selling out e-bikes to get you access. Those folks want ALL mechanized vehicles out of the woods they make no distinctions. Instead we should all be banding together since numbers are power.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> LOL!!!! You folks really need to go spend some time on hiking and horse forums. You are not going to buy good will with those folks by selling out e-bikes to get you access. Those folks want ALL mechanized vehicles out of the woods they make no distinctions. Instead we should all be banding together since numbers are power.


The e-motorbike crowd/industry already sold themselves out, don't worry about mountain bikers.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

KenPsz said:


> Yet those same agencies are using e-bikes for trail monitoring and maintenance.


Our LMs use motos, quads, and even small cats for trail maintenance. They have since long before E-bikes were a thing. That doesn't mean they want everyone out there in their Piston-Bully.

I mean, that's basically equivalent to saying, "well, the ski patrol have snowmobiles, so I should be able to ride one on the hill too." Making that argument just makes you look silly.

-W


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Walt said:


> Um, no. Read it again. The easements specify "no motorized use" or similar. It would be trivial for an annoyed landowner to claim that the LM (Basin Recreation district) isn't enforcing the no-motors rule sufficiently and close the trail to everyone/void the easement.
> 
> As long as no motors are involved, all they can do is glare at us angrily from the their golf course/McMansion/helipad.
> 
> -W


I was looking for clarification since you did not indicate it was marked "no motorized use".

So this as an example of mountain bikers not getting good will by fighting e-bikes on those trails. The land owners still hate that you are there, they just can do anything about it at this point. But if those land owners had their way mountain bikes would also not be allowed.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

KenPsz said:


> I was looking for clarification since you did not indicate it was marked "no motorized use".
> 
> So this as an example of mountain bikers not getting good will by fighting e-bikes on those trails. The land owners still hate that you are there, they just can do anything about it at this point. But if those land owners had their way mountain bikes would also not be allowed.


What do you mean? It's an example of mountain bikers keeping access only if e-bikes stay off. I made no argument about generating goodwill. The landowners in question don't like hikers, trail runners, dogs, or anyone else recreating near them either.

To be fair, though, future recreation easements and other agreements with landowners will be affected by the behavior of all parties.

-W


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Walt said:


> Our LMs use motos, quads, and even small cats for trail maintenance. They have since long before E-bikes were a thing. That doesn't mean they want everyone out there in their Piston-Bully.
> 
> I mean, that's basically equivalent to saying, "well, the ski patrol have snowmobiles, so I should be able to ride one on the hill too." Making that argument just makes you look silly.
> 
> -W


It is always interesting how there are exceptions for government. .
I was not making an argument it was an observation.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

KenPsz said:


> I was looking for clarification since you did not indicate it was marked "no motorized use".
> 
> So this as an example of mountain bikers not getting good will by fighting e-bikes on those trails. The land owners still hate that you are there, they just can do anything about it at this point. But if those land owners had their way mountain bikes would also not be allowed.


Just to be clear, the trails are heavily/clearly signed for both "no motorized" and more specifically "e-bikes prohibited". You have to ride past at least 2 big signs at any of the trailheads.

-W


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Walt said:


> What do you mean? It's an example of mountain bikers keeping access only if e-bikes stay off. I made no argument about generating goodwill.
> 
> -W


I used your example to back what I said in an earlier post that was not a quote from you. Since many seem to want to sacrifice e-bikers as a way to keep access, which is not going to buy any good will and thus access with those that want bikers gone.

Those land owners want you off period, e-bikes or no e-bikes.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Walt said:


> Just to be clear, the trails are heavily/clearly signed for both "no motorized" and more specifically "e-bikes prohibited". You have to ride past at least 2 big signs at any of the trailheads.
> 
> -W


OK I am on a forum how would I know how the trails are signed? 
You are frankly on the bleeding edge of this fight. As you have mentioned the e-bikers are there and the land owners already hate bikers(of all types). So is it a better tactic to try to bring e-bikers into the fold and get rules changed or wait until those land owners use those evil horrible devlish e-bikers as a reason to close the trails?

People are going to be people and break the laws if they can get away with it. We see it every day driving on the roads with people speeding, texting while driving etc... There is way more enforcement for those laws than trail access like this.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Doesn't matter how to talk to them.....they know they are not allowed, but continue to poach anyway.

I've had some riders say thanks for the information....I have had riders who wanted to stop and throw down.

They don't care either way.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

KenPsz said:


> I used your example to back what I said in an earlier post that was not a quote from you. Since many seem to want to sacrifice e-bikers as a way to keep access, which is not going to buy any good will and thus access with those that want bikers gone.


Now I'm just confused. If you weren't responding to me, why did you quote my post?

In our case, we're not "sacrificing" anyone (or, in your opinion, are we also "sacrificing" ATV riders who'd like to rip around, if we ask someone on an ATV not 
to use the trail?)

I mean, nothing motorized was *ever* allowed. How can we be taking away something (e bike access) that was never there in the first place?

We're just asking everyone to obey the rules agreed to by all parties in exchange for access to the trails. I don't want people building campfires and throwing parties on the trails, or mining for coal on the trails either. Seems pretty simple.

-W


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Walt said:


> Now I'm just confused. If you weren't responding to me, why did you quote my post?
> 
> In our case, we're not "sacrificing" anyone (or, in your opinion, are we also "sacrificing" ATV riders who'd like to rip around, if we ask someone on an ATV not to use the trail?) We're just asking everyone to obey the rules agreed to by all parties in exchange for access to the trails. Seems pretty simple.
> 
> -W


Your's was a good quote for my point, that is why I quoted it.

OK I'm done since you have now gone the nuclear weapon argument with ATV riders. You just want an argument and I am trying very hard for you to see a different way and I can tell when it is a waste of my time.

What ever you ride have a good time.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

chuckha62 said:


> Seriously? I'm not an advocate of calling eBikes motor vehicles, but if you can't agree that adding a motor makes them motorized, then you'll never find a base level in order to start the access conversation.
> 
> The distinction between motor vehicle and motorized vehicle has been made.


Motor vehicle-wikipedia
A motor vehicle, also known as motorized vehicle or autonmotive vehicle, is a A SELF PROPELLED vehicle.

As soon as an eBike requires human propulsion to move, it fails the motorized definition.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

mtnbikej said:


> Doesn't matter how to talk to them.....they know they are not allowed, but continue to poach anyway.
> 
> I've had some riders say thanks for the information....I have had riders who wanted to stop and throw down.
> 
> They don't care either way.


Physical fights over tail use? Yeah now that sounds like a lot of the crazies over on hiking forums.

sigh......


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> Is interesting though the "purist" label does seem to of hit a nerve. Not sure why though since you have made your views clear that you are a purist as to what you view a mountain bike is.
> 
> I will admit as someone else has mentioned that e-bikes blur the black/white line that many are clinging to. I have personally have no problems with e-bikes on the trails as long as they are good trail users like most (but not all) mountain bikers currently.


But a slightly more powerful electric bike? What do you have against throttles and pedal-free electric bikes? You're a class 1 ebike purist.


----------

