# Federal Rules Regarding E-mtb



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Meanwhile, following a quarterly e-MTB roundtable with federal agencies on March 14, the BPSA said they expect the National Park Service (NPS) to reissue in the next few months revised guidance on electric bikes that will allow greater leniency in the interpretation of Class 1 and 3 e-bikes as bicycles. In a memo, Pizzi, the chair of the e-bike committee at BPSA, said the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering following suit and the National Forest Service is apparently under pressure from the National Ski Areas Association to create a new definition of e-bikes separate from motorized vehicles. These policy shifts could be the first moves toward e-MTBs gaining access not only at bike parks, but on a wide swath of public lands.

"It's unfolding as we speak," said Pizzi.

https://www.rei.com/blog/cycle/mammoths-trailblazing-path-for-electric-mountain-bikes


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

You are very selective about what you choose to quote.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

I would love to quote the entire article, but that would be unfair to Mr. Gully who did a fantastic job of reporting. Here is another snippet though:
"There is a lot of misinformation," said Janelle Walker, the U.S. Forest Service representative who oversaw the approval process at Mammoth. "Generally life behind bars is not aware of the different classes of e-bikes and that leads to the assumption that they are more similar to motorcycles [than bicycles]."


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

It would make a ton of sense to let local districts control things as they see fit. Got a crowded trail system with bad sight lines and a ton of users? Don't allow e-bikes. Got a wide-open system (Moab) or a ski area with directional trails (ie Mammoth)? Let them ride it all. 

Ski areas are really a no-brainer. Nobody rides up the singletrack (in most cases it's not even allowed with a few exceptions) and it's already a lift-served bike park. Nobody is causing anybody a problem with their e-bike on a deforested slope served by giant electric chairlifts. You could really probably allow dirtbikes with no real impact on users or the environment in most of the ski area bikeparks, though you'd have to make an effort to keep the mouth-breathing ones from climbing up DH trails. 

-Walt


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> I would love to quote the entire article, but that would be unfair to Mr. Gully who did a fantastic job of reporting. Here is another snippet though:
> "There is a lot of misinformation," said Janelle Walker, the U.S. Forest Service representative who oversaw the approval process at Mammoth. "Generally life behind bars is not aware of the different classes of e-bikes and that leads to the assumption that they are more similar to motorcycles [than bicycles]."


False quotes will get you nothing but banned. If you wish to have honest discussions about the subject you should expect to have slight of hand pointed out.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> False quotes will get you nothing but banned. If you wish to have honest discussions about the subject you should expect to have slight of hand pointed out.


You are very selective in your quotes...If Janelle knew how important a person you are she would have put you front and center in the quote.


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> You are very selective about what you choose to quote.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

In my opinion, it makes sense to allow electric motorized bikes in mountain bike parks.

I would hope the electric motorized bike riders have learned some lessons and absorbed the wisdom shared by the many mountain biking advocates that frequent this website and forum. One thing that concerns me, I'm speaking from a local perspective, is the lack of any organized electric motorized bike rider advocacy group. 

If legislation is passed that grants individual land managers the power to make local decisions as far as electric motorized bike access on the trails they manage, I personally see many missed opportunities that electric motorized bike riders have cost themselves by simply not representing themselves.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

Very good and positive article about ebikes.



Boulder Pilot said:


> In my opinion, it makes sense to allow electric motorized bikes in mountain bike parks.
> 
> I would hope the electric motorized bike riders have learned some lessons and absorbed the wisdom shared by the many mountain biking advocates that frequent this website and forum. One thing that concerns me, I'm speaking from a local perspective, is the lack of any organized electric motorized bike rider advocacy group.
> 
> If legislation is passed that grants individual land managers the power to make local decisions as far as electric motorized bike access on the trails they manage, I personally see many missed opportunities that electric motorized bike riders have cost themselves by simply not representing themselves.


I can tell your stance on ebikes simply by this quote "electric motorized bike riders". Why can't you simply call it an ebike or emtb? Yes, we all know it has a motor, please don't point out the obvious.

Ebikes sales are growing each year and I see more ebikes on the trails every month. I'm sure most ebike riders sees themselves as simply just another mountain biker. Why fracture our group? Ban together, unit and make the MTB community bigger and stronger! This is just my opinion as a long time mountain bike rider!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

mtbbiker said:


> Very good and positive article about ebikes.
> 
> I can tell your stance on ebikes simply by this quote "electric motorized bike riders". Why can't you simply call it an ebike or emtb? Yes, we all know it has a motor, please don't point out the obvious.
> 
> Ebikes sales are growing each year and I see more ebikes on the trails every month. I'm sure most ebike riders sees themselves as simply just another mountain biker. Why fracture our group? Ban together, unit and make the MTB community bigger and stronger! This is just my opinion as a long time mountain bike rider!


We do it due to the large number of ebikers and the industry who push for them to be referred as bicycles. As soon as that stops, we'll refer to them as ebikes or emtbs. And "ebike" does stand for electric motor bike btw, so it is reality, not sure why that would bother you.

There is a difference between "regulated as bicycles" and actually being a bicycle, no matter how it is worded.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

chazpat said:


> We do it due to the large number of ebikers and the industry who push for them to be referred as bicycles. As soon as that stops, we'll refer to them as ebikes or emtbs. And "ebike" does stand for electric motor bike btw, so it is reality, not sure why that would bother you.
> 
> There is a difference between "regulated as bicycles" and actually being a bicycle, no matter how it is worded.


When you say "we" I strongly don't believe all mountain bike riders feel like the vocal few on this website. I've only been on an ebike for several months and I don't see the negativity in the real world as I see here.

A class 1 emtb is an electric bicycle. The word electric implies there is a motor. Saying twice seems ignorant.

The article states class 1 ebikes have similar land impact as a mountain bike. Areas that allow ebikes are not reporting anymore trail user conflicts or trail damage. As ebikes gain more access, these facts will be proven more.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Emtbr’s rejoice!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

mtbbiker said:


> When you say "we" I strongly don't believe all mountain bike riders feel like the vocal few on this website. I've only been on an ebike for several months and I don't see the negativity in the real world as I see here.
> 
> A class 1 emtb is an electric bicycle. The word electric implies there is a motor. Saying twice seems ignorant.
> 
> ...


You seem to be uncomfortable with the fact that ebikes have motors. And nowhere in my post was I negative about ebikes, just staying facts. I didn't say anything about trail damage and never have.

Delve deeper into what cyclist really think about ebikes beyond people you briefly meet and you may find things are different than your current perception. Most I've talked to aren't really negative toward them, they just realize that they are different than bicycles and don't appreciate people wanting to modify the very definition of our sport to accommodate people who want to say "ebikes are bicycles; bicycles now have motors". I wouldn't play miniature golf and then tell people I played golf; I wouldn't play table tennis and tell people I played tennis. I'm not meaning to demean ebiking here, just saying they are not cycling/mountain biking; they are something different. I really don't understand why so many ebikers want to insist they are bicycles; I can only think of two possible reasons, they aren't really comfortable with admitting they're no longer bicycling or they want them lumped together to gain more access. What's wrong with just saying that you are ebiking? If someone was telling everyone that they rode a bicycle across the whole US and you later found out it was an ebike, do you really think they were being 100% honest?

Trails are a lot different here on the east coast than they are where you are. As Walt said above, where it is a lot wider and more open space without a lot of users, I think ebikes are ok. I really think ebikes will cause a lot more user conflict in areas similar to where I am. We'll see.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

mtbbiker said:


> When you say "we" I strongly don't believe all mountain bike riders feel like the vocal few on this website. I've only been on an ebike for several months and I don't see the negativity in the real world as I see here.
> 
> A class 1 emtb is an electric bicycle. The word electric implies there is a motor. Saying twice seems ignorant.
> 
> ...


The most usual ride-by comment I get is "I need to get one of those"; said to me yeaterday by a 20-something rider.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

hikerdave said:


> The most usual ride-by comment I get is "I need to get one of those"; said to me yeaterday by a 20-something rider.


As a fit thirty year old, I want one, it's way down the list of bikes to buy, but they are legal in my area. The training benefits they can provide are above and beyond any other bike when it comes to heart rate zone training.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

chazpat said:


> But saying a cycle with a motor that assists in moving it is a bicycle when the definition of a bicycle is that it is purely human powered is not a "typical word game"; got it. Again, why can't someone riding an ebike be "ebiking"? What's so dirty about being accurate? Why the desire to confuse people?


 I'll be your huckleberry! I've repeatedly said throughout years of posts, that ebiking is different and have no confusion stating it's the funnest form of cycling I've done in my life.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

chazpat said:


> You seem to be uncomfortable with the fact that ebikes have motors. And nowhere in my post was I negative about ebikes, just staying facts. I didn't say anything about trail damage and never have.
> 
> Delve deeper into what cyclist really think about ebikes beyond people you briefly meet and you may find things are different than your current perception. Most I've talked to aren't really negative toward them, they just realize that they are different than bicycles and don't appreciate people wanting to modify the very definition of our sport to accommodate people who want to say "ebikes are bicycles; bicycles now have motors". I wouldn't play miniature golf and then tell people I played golf; I wouldn't play table tennis and tell people I played tennis. I'm not meaning to demean ebiking here, just saying they are not cycling/mountain biking; they are something different. I really don't understand why so many ebikers want to insist they are bicycles; I can only think of two possible reasons, they aren't really comfortable with admitting they're no longer bicycling or they want them lumped together to gain more access. What's wrong with just saying that you are ebiking? If someone was telling everyone that they rode a bicycle across the whole US and you later found out it was an ebike, do you really think they were being 100% honest?
> 
> Trails are a lot different here on the east coast than they are where you are. As Walt said above, where it is a lot wider and more open space without a lot of users, I think ebikes are ok. I really think ebikes will cause a lot more user conflict in areas similar to where I am. We'll see.


I would of thought the "E" before emtb or ebike would be enough for most people to understand that's its electric and different than a bike.

This is a positive article about ebikes and trail access. Let's not making this into a battle!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

Gutch said:


> I'll be your huckleberry! I've repeatedly said throughout years of posts, that ebiking is different and have no confusion stating it's the funnest form of cycling I've done in my life.


+1

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> You obviously are not an advocate, or if you are you are a very poor and ineffective advocate. It's people like you that that are doing a great disservice to electric motorized bikers. Spouting off with your so-called psychic ability of an opinion to state "my stance" on electric motorized bikes on trails. Let me tell you about opinions. Pay attention here.
> 
> When I'm sitting "at the table", land managers and politicians don't give a fk about opinions. When agencies such as CDFW and USFWS are involved with trail plans, they use SCIENCE to present their case. FACTS. When one uses fallacies to argue their position people will not take you seriously.
> 
> ...


Many of the local authorities here in the Phoenix area now allow eBike access but the Tonto National forest is constrained by Federal policy, which was the subject of the article cited by the OP. Are you in favor of regional Forest Service and BLM recreational managers being empowered to designate trail access for eBikes?

Until recently there's been no distinction between an electric motorized bicycle like the Turbo Levo and a full-on off-road racing motorcycle like a KTM 450 XC-F.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> I'll be your huckleberry! I've repeatedly said throughout years of posts, that ebiking is different and have no confusion stating it's the funnest form of cycling I've done in my life.


Yes you are and I have not forgotten your years of posts and I appreciate that. I also find HikerDave to be an ebiker I can have a discussion with.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have talked with my local land manager and requested a policy change from the National Forest Service but have refrained from bothering the local Tonto National Forest; I might start with a simple statement expressing my desire that they designate additional access for eBikes; that’s asking the impossible right now because they don’t have defined power limitationd that apply to trails; possibly I’ll take a tact that they adapt the Federal rules to follow state designation.

You may be angry at a deleted post and being misidentified as a troll. Please realize that what we e-bikers have previously put up with here on this forum are deleted and locked threads when my fellow e-bikers “take the bait” and respond to unhelpful posts. At one point this got so bad that I considered the self-immolation of having my account deleted.

After performing days of trail work and introducing people to mountain biking and spending countless hours helping to develop and promote the GPX file format, in service to other mountain bikers, I felt pretty abandoned by the mountain bike community now that untreatable joint pain makes riding my regular mountain bike both painful and damaging. Some people here seem to think that people in my position should just gracefully age out and go away, but when their time comes they will feel differently.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Boulder Pilot is correct in that we need to get out and represent eBikes, so hit the trail everyone, be nice and smile.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

chazpat said:


> Yes you are and I have not forgotten your years of posts and I appreciate that. I also find HikerDave to be an ebiker I can have a discussion with.


Thanks. Mostly I try to be respectful but once in a while I'll cross the line just like anyone else.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Hey mtbbiker, you want to play games, fine. I've been around awhile and have never heard of a moderator getting away with the bullshit that you are. Censorship due to the fact that you do not have the ability to explain yourself using language is a piss poor excuse.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

Boulder Pilot said:


> Hey mtbbiker, want to play games, fine. I've been around awhile and have never heard of a moderator getting away with the bullshit that you are. Censorship due to the fact that you do not have the ability to explain yourself using language is a piss poor excuse.


When you come into the ebike forum and say "electric motorized bike riders". I can't take you seriously as this comes across as a troll. Please be respectful and hopefully you'll understand how in the past this ebike forum was more like an anti-ebiking forum.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

craigsj said:


> It is the moment you realize that is not, and has never been, the definition of a bicycle. This claim is merely one of convenience for you.


Try entering your ebike in a serious bicycle race and see how that works out.

Again, what's wrong with "ebike" and "ebiking"?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

craigsj said:


> Changing the subject now? Now it's the rules of a bicycle race and not the "definition of a bicycle"?
> 
> As for what's wrong with "ebike", no advocate has ever objected to that term. You, on the other hand, are the one justifying the deliberate avoidance of the term, the justification being as punishment for others claiming that an e-bike is a type of bike, no less. What's wrong with ebike, chazpat? Oh yeah, it doesn't have the word "motorized" in it.
> 
> Seriously, aren't these types of trolls out of bounds? This forum is for the discussion of e-bikes, not your distaste for them.


Please try actually reading my posts. Go ahead. You'll find I used the term "ebike" and I have not avoided it at all, I used it repeatedly and requested that ebikers do so as well. All I'm asking is that you likewise show respect to cyclist and mountain bikers by not referring to an ebike as a bicycle. Seems like a very simple request to me.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

craigsj said:


> Changing the subject now? Now it's the rules of a bicycle race and not the "definition of a bicycle"?
> 
> As for what's wrong with "ebike", no advocate has ever objected to that term. You, on the other hand, are the one justifying the deliberate avoidance of the term, the justification being as punishment for others claiming that an e-bike is a type of bike, no less. What's wrong with ebike, chazpat? Oh yeah, it doesn't have the word "motorized" in it.
> 
> Seriously, aren't these types of trolls out of bounds? This forum is for the discussion of e-bikes, not your distaste for them.


People got this type of behavior ingrained when the moderator was one of the biggest anti-ebike advocates and trolls on the site. It was so bad he would threaten to ban individuals if they proved him wrong or engaging in double standards. Thankfully that is no longer the case.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

craigsj said:


> Changing the subject now? Now it's the rules of a bicycle race and not the "definition of a bicycle"?
> 
> As for what's wrong with "ebike", no advocate has ever objected to that term. You, on the other hand, are the one justifying the deliberate avoidance of the term, the justification being as punishment for others claiming that an e-bike is a type of bike, no less. What's wrong with ebike, chazpat? Oh yeah, it doesn't have the word "motorized" in it.
> 
> Seriously, aren't these types of trolls out of bounds? This forum is for the discussion of e-bikes, not your distaste for them.





chazpat said:


> Please try actually reading my posts. Go ahead. You'll find I used the term "ebike" and I have not avoided it at all, I used it repeatedly and requested that ebikers do so as well. All I'm asking is that you likewise show respect to cyclist and mountain bikers by not referring to an ebike as a bicycle. Seems like a very simple request to me.





craigsj said:


> e-bikes are bikes, eMTBs are MTBs, e-bikers are cyclists and mountain bikers. If you don't understand that, it's you that has the problem.


Please take this argument to PMs.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

mtbbiker,

I understand where you are coming from now, and I could have handled this with a little more couth. I'm far from a troll, and I'm not a "hater." As you are aware, there are a lot of people that cannot understand or accept certain arguments and I admit my threshold for ignorance has gotten lower. 

I use the term "electric motorized bike" because this is the term that is used by Cal. State and US Federal agencies that I deal with. The agencies differentiate mountain bikes from motorized bikes. All of the people on this forum are wasting their time trying to convince anyone on this forum otherwise. These proponents for electric motorized bikes should, in my opinion, be trying to build and earn partnerships with all trail user groups.

mtbbiker, I realize it can be tough moderating this forum. I'm not here to cause you problems. I believe I jumped your ass earlier as a result of reading numerous posts by others, which is not cool on my behalf. So, please accept my apology and here's to respectful debate. Cheers,

Jason


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Actually, I'm just going to bail. Oddly enough, it's trolls like craigsj (see post #34, he's just begging me to come back with "motorized" but I'm not going to give him that; it's what he does continuously on this site and why he has been banned in the past) that push me toward thinking ebikes should just go away. It's people like Walt and the reasonable ebikers around who make me think they should be allowed on some trails.

mtbbiker, really wish you would ban the trolls even if they are ebikers. Seems you are all ready to delete any post that you don't deem all 100% rosy about ebikes but you're fine with ebikers abusing non-ebikers.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

chazpat said:


> Actually, I'm just going to bail. Oddly enough, it's trolls like craigsj (see post #34, he's just begging me to come back with "motorized" but I'm not going to give him that; it's what he does continuously on this site and why he has been banned in the past) that push me toward thinking ebikes should just go away. It's people like Walt and the reasonable ebikers around who make me think they should be allowed on some trails.
> 
> mtbbiker, really wish you would ban the trolls even if they are ebikers. Seems you are all ready to delete any post that you don't deem all 100% rosy about ebikes but you're fine with ebikers abusing non-ebikers.


Chazpat, you won the argument. I don't understand why you continue on. Yes, ebikes have a motor. Yes, when I tell people about my bikes, I tell them I have an ebike and an MTB. When I ride my ebike and I talk to friends I tell them I was on my ebike. I'm sure most of the people on this forum do.

I asked both of you to take your personal arguments to PMs. This thread was about an article on ebikes and as usually is getting out of control.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

Larry Pizzi, who is quoted in the article as the chair of the chair of the ebike committee at the BPSA, also is the top employee in charge of the IBD channel and marketing for Accell that took over his company Currie Technology years ago that company being an early ebike producer here in the US. Over the years he has been instrumental in advocating for ebikes at the upper levels of gov't most notably the Class laws that were first adopted by CA..

This article is discussing national policy for the NPS, Forest Service and BLM and it is only if passed going to make ebike access optional for the respective districts to either say yay or nay and give the agencies some room to maneuver with a clear legislation to guide them. I am sure that there will still be room for public comment at the local level as usually for any type of change to become effect there is a comment period. 

People getting riled up on forums about trail access isn't doing anything to either abate or aid the process and advocating for local access depends on the user group with the most to gain or lose depending on if they are hikers, horsers, mtb's or emtb's. At some point after the comment period and with letters written and meetings attended it usually seems to come to everybody more or less tolerating each other or just an outright ban on certain use. Pretty much where the state of motorized access has come to today however ebikes blur that distinction enough to create another round of discussions. 

But without the BPSA and PFB with their industry backing lobbying the upper levels for ebike acceptance, due to their interest in staying funded by the industry profits from ebike sales, it would certainly be a much longer process in regards to getting some clarity to the access issues at hand nationwide. So I guess in the end it is good for both the pro and con sides as it won't take as long as say the argument over what wheel size is the best to sort out. Yeah right.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

Yesterday i used my ebike to go work 4 hours on the trails.
I was welcomed. A woman there is a hiker who brings groups in that network of trails wich is great on fat and appreciated by dog walkers, joggers...
I see smiles, no police.


----------



## b1rdie (Mar 11, 2011)

Why should all the world be concerned with how california deals with theyr land access problems? I have done a lot of travels to pedal my bikes there and this discussion brings one very important point: One should choose another place to visit if riding ebikes.
I suggest europe, south america, africa, having also tried all of those, I can tell there are awesome places to ride anywhere else.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

If you don't want discussions about ebike access, bin the entire thread, since it is from post one, all about access. 

Boulder Pilot has more years in the mtb access trenches than I do, and I have a lot. His deleted post is dead on regarding the reality of mtb access and emtb access. It might not have been what you wanted to hear, but it's true.


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

Back to the original subject, from my perspective after only a year with an EMTB, things are definitely changing. Land managers aren't as interested in enforcing rules for rules sake. Common sense seems more common, and especially for parks that charge an entrance fee, the attitudes are more accommodating now. An experience i had recently is a good example. 

The East Bay park district in the Bay Area is currently examining their E-bike policy and had a program to allow them on certain heavily used paths, which has expired. I contacted the manager of the program and didn't receive any response, so I headed out to my local park to see what was up.

I unloaded my bike and had it leaned up against the truck between me and a parked car, so was surprised when literally 3 minutes after unloading, a ranger pulls up in a truck and gets out to talk to me. I'm thinking "Oh damn, here it comes...". 

Turns out the ranger wanted to check my bike out because he was interested in getting an EMTB. We both came from a BMX/Motocross background and took a long break from mountain biking but were attracted back by E-Bikes. I offered to let him take a spin, but he didn't want to do it while in the uniform. As a parting comment he told me that the policy is under review but most of the rangers are cool about E-Bikes and to go have fun.

The "trails" in the Bay Area are often nothing more than steep fire roads, which unassisted mountain bikers and hikers are not much interested in, but which are pretty fun on an E-bike. I rode 19 miles with over 4,000 vert on a Sunday and saw exactly zero other bikes and about 10 hikers. Just a wild theory but I think land managers could possibly see this as an opportunity to get more use on underused roads/trails and get some more $ in the budget.

Federal lands could benefit in similar ways, especially since they are seeing their budgets cut more and more:
- No need to enforce rules that don't exist, freeing up resources
- Increased use of underused remote trails and roads
- Increased fees of various types (entrance, camping, permit parking, vendors).
- Decreased conflict between adjoining lands managed under a different authority that allows E-Bikes
- Increased access for people with mild physical limitations (not disabled)

Yes, I know we've rehashed these issues over and over on here and will never agree, but I think in the real world things are changing.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> Hey mtbbiker, you want to play games, fine. I've been around awhile and have never heard of a moderator getting away with the bullshit that you are. Censorship due to the fact that you do not have the ability to explain yourself using language is a piss poor excuse.


Temporarily locked while investigated.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Re-opening for discussion regarding access and advocacy. Please keep the personal attack out of the thread.


----------



## GregB406 (Dec 19, 2005)

I'd like to see access problems get resolved. I live near Yellowstone National Park. The Park has Fall and Spring bike seasons on the roads after the cars are restricted for the winter season. Administrative traffic is often on the road, such as maintenance crews, law enforcement, and employees moving in/out for the season. Electric assist bikes aren't allowed during this time period. I view this rule as ignorant. I'm frustrated.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

GregB406 said:


> I'd like to see access problems get resolved. I live near Yellowstone National Park. The Park has Fall and Spring bike seasons on the roads after the cars are restricted for the winter season. Administrative traffic is often on the road, such as maintenance crews, law enforcement, and employees moving in/out for the season. Electric assist bikes aren't allowed during this time period. I view this rule as ignorant. I'm frustrated.


Approach the land managers, introduce yourself and explain how you feel. Nothing can change unless you try. Good luck.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

GregB406 said:


> I'd like to see access problems get resolved. I live near Yellowstone National Park. The Park has Fall and Spring bike seasons on the roads after the cars are restricted for the winter season. Administrative traffic is often on the road, such as maintenance crews, law enforcement, and employees moving in/out for the season. Electric assist bikes aren't allowed during this time period. I view this rule as ignorant. I'm frustrated.


Across the country, regulators are sorting out how to classify the two-wheelers, which are something more than a bicycle, something less than a motorcycle. The National Park Service, for its part, may soon loosen its restrictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...c551ea5a43b_story.html?utm_term=.9bd0f953831f


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

figofspee said:


> Across the country, regulators are sorting out *how to classify the two-wheelers, which are something more than a bicycle, something less than a motorcycle.* The National Park Service, for its part, may soon loosen its restrictions.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...c551ea5a43b_story.html?utm_term=.9bd0f953831f


Now if craigsj will accept this widely held point of view we should be able to have some productive dialog.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Boulder Pilot said:


> Now if craigsj will accept this widely held point of view we should be able to have some productive dialog.


FWIW that user has left MTBR so discussion should not be as derailed.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Boulder Pilot said:


> Now if craigsj will accept this widely held point of view we should be able to have some productive dialog.


The loosening of restrictions usually means treating an eBike like a bicycle, but it might take a series of laws for that to reach totality. The logic of enforcing an eBike ban is a waste of enforcement resources that typically are stretched thin to begin with.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

figofspee said:


> The loosening of restrictions usually means treating an eBike like a bicycle, but it might take a series of laws for that to reach totality. The logic of enforcing an eBike ban is a waste of enforcement resources that typically are stretched thin to begin with.


The bureaucrats have to follow the law, and the law as written requires a special vehicle classification as a type of motorized vehicle; then they have to go through the NEPA review process and public comments. Fortunately there are people in the BLM and Forest Service whose entire job is managing recreation so we're likely to see improvements in access, as long as they get the necessary resources.

That fire that I have seen burning in the distance for the last two weeks is likely to have eaten up some of those resources. For years the Feds have had to deal with firefighting eating in to their discretionary funds; once the fire money is used up recreation money gets tapped. Don't expect change to come quickly but it will come.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

hikerdave said:


> The bureaucrats have to follow the law, and the law as written requires a special vehicle classification as a type of motorized vehicle; then they have to go through the NEPA review process and public comments. Fortunately there are people in the BLM and Forest Service whose entire job is managing recreation so we're likely to see improvements in access, as long as they get the necessary resources.
> 
> That fire that I have seen burning in the distance for the last two weeks is likely to have eaten up some of those resources. For years the Feds have had to deal with firefighting eating in to their discretionary funds; once the fire money is used up recreation money gets tapped. Don't expect change to come quickly but it will come.


I would agree on NEPA, yet it seems that the USFS has decided at least in one case to not go through the review.

"Public Affairs Officer Joe Flannery elaborated on the "non-change in policy."

"There really was no decision, and I'm saying decision with a capital D," says Flannery. For official policy changes within the National Forest, the Forest Service must follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and conduct environmental impact statements or assessments.

"We didn't trigger NEPA and NEPA didn't need to be triggered."

Source: https://www.singletracks.com/blog/m...ails-after-tahoe-natl-forest-clarifies-rules/


----------



## OzarkFathom (Jul 2, 2019)

God if I had to deal with all of this crap I’d give my bike away.
Glad I can ride away from people.
Amusing how people seek out others, then ***** and whine about them.
My whole life riding bikes I never had to contend with “Federal Rules”.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

*eMTB is now allowed in Federal National Parks...*

Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed the order without fanfare Thursday, classifying e-bikes as non-motorized bikes and giving agencies 14 days to adjust their rules.

https://www.apnews.com/d22c8bb8a83c...XNMKypU1r0zT_qOzq9miOXvc9hPT1OlPcZJa56mxjab Y


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

rsilvers said:


> Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed the order without fanfare Thursday, classifying e-bikes as non-motorized bikes and giving agencies 14 days to adjust their rules.
> 
> https://www.apnews.com/d22c8bb8a83c48c0b421dc0da81efd0b?fbclid=IwAR3WDhadE33ygVEXNMKypU1r0zT_qOzq9miOXvc9hPT1OlPcZJa56mxjabY


Holy.

Crap.

It is not "The Onion" and not April Fool's Day.

This is *huge*.

People in the east have *no* idea what this means. There are tons of trails on Federal land in the west that allow MTB but until now were off limits to ebikes.

- Ski areas on Federal land (most in the west are leases of Federal land) are now free to allow eMTBs. I was at Crested Butte for Outerbike a few weeks ago and the trail guy there said as soon as the Feds officially classified ebikes as bicycles, they would open their trails to ebikes. He said "just wait a few weeks", so he must have known this was going to happen.

- Canyonlands and Arches have had *ridiculous* policies whereby you could drive a Jeep or motorcycle on NP roads, but not ebikes. Now, White Rim, Elephant Hill, The Maze, Turret Arch Road, and all of the rest where Jeeps/motorcycles can go will be open to ebikes, as well as the pavement.

I am *very* curious to see what his means for the Moab singletrack that has been built on Federal land. Currently, most of it is off limits to ebikes. The local trail org, Trail Mix, *hates* ebikes, but there is a precedent for their policies being overridden. The trails at Dead Horse Point State Park were built by them and originally ebikes were banned, but Utah passed a law legalizing ebikes on state land everywhere that a bicycle could go, so ebikes have been allowed at Dead Horse since then.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Link to the actual order.

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/f..._through_the_use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf

The order is effective immediately.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

hold on, children. signed by the secretary of the INTERIOR, so only applies to agencies under the purview of the dept of the INTERIOR (BLM and NPS). This does not apply to USFS land (Dept of AGRICULTURE). There are very few legal mtb trails on NPS land, relatively speaking. Most of the ones I know are in the east, fwiw. The article references paved trails mostly.

Sure, it would also apply to trails on BLM land, which we don't have in the east

but this doesn't apply to ALL federal land. Not by a long shot.

and I expect lawsuits due to the lack of a public comment period, so I wouldn't expect access to be open anytime within the 30 day time period mentioned in the article as the deadline for managers to come up with an implementation strategy. I do expect delays to be announced.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

BLM, NPS, and BOR.

And probably other agencies will follow unless Trump loses the next election.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

What is weird is that it is allowing Class 1, 2, and 3. More than I would have expected.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rsilvers said:


> BLM, NPS, and BOR.
> 
> And probably other agencies will follow unless Trump loses the next election.


Purely speculative.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Harold said:


> hold on, children. signed by the secretary of the INTERIOR, so only applies to agencies under the purview of the dept of the INTERIOR (BLM and NPS). This does not apply to USFS land (Dept of AGRICULTURE). There are very few legal mtb trails on NPS land, relatively speaking. Most of the ones I know are in the east, fwiw. The article references paved trails mostly.
> 
> Sure, it would also apply to trails on BLM land, which we don't have in the east
> 
> ...


Thanks for that clarification.

I'm going to predict we will see the Dept. of Ag issuing a parallel order soon. The trail manager at Crested Butte a few weeks ago told me a change was imminent, and they are on Forest Service.


----------



## levity (Oct 31, 2011)

honkinunit said:


> this is *huge*


*huge!*


----------



## Phillbo (Apr 7, 2004)

rsilvers said:


> Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed the order without fanfare Thursday, classifying e-bikes as non-motorized bikes ]




Don't e-bikes have an e-motor on them? Does not make sense to me....


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Yes but in the early 1970s, the law was designed to ban gasoline engines (motocross bikes). 

These new class of bikes have electric motors that are 1 HP max, and are silent and non-polluting. They are no faster than human riders except they have more endurance.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

I bet Lake Tahoe knew this was coming! Bike makers aren't stupid and there's a reason why they all have been dumping tons of R&D into ebikes. Rumor has it Santa Cruz and Yeti will be coming out of the closet soon.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

The number of trails that bikes are allowed on in NPs is so small that this is irrelevant. 

Seriously. As an example, there are zero miles of off-road bike accessible trail in the closest NP to me, Rocky Mountain National Park. This order will result in zero miles of RMNP off-road trails being accessible by eBikes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> The number of trails that bikes are allowed on in NPs is so small that this is irrelevant.
> 
> Seriously. As an example, there are zero miles of off-road bike accessible trail in the closest NP to me, Rocky Mountain National Park. This order will result in zero miles of RMNP off-road trails being accessible by eBikes.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agree, but BLM access is big in the west. It will be interesting to see what will happen to some of Moab's trail built on BLM land.


----------



## Phillbo (Apr 7, 2004)

rsilvers said:


> These new class of bikes have electric motors that are 1 HP max, and are silent and non-polluting. They are no faster than human riders except they have more endurance.


"order allows motorized bikes that can go up to 28 mph to be classified as regular bikes."

I can't remember the last time I pedaled my bike 28mph on a trail.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Couple things. Yes BLM land, but no to national forest. At least now. 

Also these bikes are NOT legal yet. The order alone does not make them legal. It directs the affected agencies to change their rules to make them legal. They have 30 days to create these new rules and open for public comment. At which time there could be changes/revisions or maybe stopping it entirely. 

So change is coming, but e-bike are not legal everywhere so don't go hitting up BLM land right now. You might be ok in a couple months however.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> The number of trails that bikes are allowed on in NPs is so small that this is irrelevant.
> 
> Seriously. As an example, there are zero miles of off-road bike accessible trail in the closest NP to me, Rocky Mountain National Park. This order will result in zero miles of RMNP off-road trails being accessible by eBikes.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Unless you live near and ride on trails that do allow mtbs. Not a NP but a NPS NRA. Trails can be pretty crowded with hikers and dog walkers, we'll see how this goes, though ebikes aren't that big of a thing around here yet. I'm going by my local NPS office to renew my parking pass next week, I'll see what the rangers think.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

OTOH, this could be the beginning of the end for MTB access, as it might be easier for land managers to prohibit access to all bikes now than selectively just for ebikes.
Careful what you wish for, and all of that.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

rideit said:


> OTOH, this could be the beginning of the end for MTB access, as it might be easier for land managers to prohibit access to all bikes now than selectively just for ebikes.
> Careful what you wish for, and all of that.


Ebikers I've talked to seem to think that's an illegitimate concern.ut:


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> The number of trails that bikes are allowed on in NPs is so small that this is irrelevant.
> 
> Seriously. As an example, there are zero miles of off-road bike accessible trail in the closest NP to me, Rocky Mountain National Park. This order will result in zero miles of RMNP off-road trails being accessible by eBikes.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


True, there are no trails in RMNP *at all* that can be ridden on a regular MTB.

However, RMNP already allows ebikes on Fall River Road, which is a dirt road entirely inside park boundaries where motor vehicles are allowed. But Canyonlands and Arches ban ebikes even on pavement, at least until this order is implemented. Arcadia National Park has trails that will be opened by this order. Capitol Reef as well. I'm sure there are others. The order was needed to get the National Parks and BLM to pull their heads out of their asses over ebikes. Let's hope NFS follows.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

rideit said:


> OTOH, this could be the beginning of the end for MTB access, as it might be easier for land managers to prohibit access to all bikes now than selectively just for ebikes.
> Careful what you wish for, and all of that.


Name one trail that has been restricted or closed because of ebikes.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

honkinunit said:


> There are no trails in RMNP *at all* that can be ridden on a regular MTB.
> 
> RMNP already allows ebikes on Fall River Road, which is a dirt road entirely inside park boundaries where motor vehicles are allowed. However, Canyonlands and Arches ban ebikes even on pavement, at least until this order is implemented. Arcadia National Park has trails that will be opened by this order. Capitol Reef as well. I'm sure there are others. The order was needed to get the National Parks and BLM to pull their heads out of their asses over ebikes. Let's hope NFS follows.


Well aware. I wrote what I did for a reason.

My point was that unless you are concerned about riding an eBike on a road, this doesn't really matter. It doesn't open up trail mileage in the NPs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Not the point looking forwards.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Well aware. I wrote what I did for a reason.
> 
> My point was that unless you are concerned about riding an eBike on a road, this doesn't really matter. It doesn't open up trail mileage in the NPs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I can name hundreds of miles of trails on BLM in Colorado and Utah that could be opened to ebikes by this order, and thousands that could be opened if NFS follows suit.

All of these are BLM:

- Most of Kokopelli Trail (part is already open to ebikes)
- All of the trails in Fruita
- Lunch Loops
- Most of the trails in Moab
- Phil's World
- Canyon of the Ancients 
- Hartman Rocks
- Some areas around Pueblo Reservoir (some already allow ebikes)

That is just off the top of my head.


----------



## portnuefpeddler (Jun 14, 2016)

What? The Feds doing something that makes sense?! I don't feel like we've been "given" anything, they just came to their senses and made it right. The part of the ski areas being on federal land...so Grand Fogee rideable now (that's for you rideit, if I'm reading your thing about the Tetons correctly)?


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

It’s up to Targhee management as per their usage contract, it’s not up to the feds. Just like uphill skiing access.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

ruthabagah said:


> Agree, but BLM access is big in the west. It will be interesting to see what will happen to some of Moab's trail built on BLM land.


I would be willing to bet that the organization that built many of those trails (under the agreement that they would not allow eBikes) will no longer maintain them. Quite a slap on the face.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

Didn't the USFS base their emtb rules on BLM rules in order to be consistent?

Maybe it was the other way around...

Re-reading USFS policy, how things have changed since it was written: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd563344.pdf

IMBA changed policy in late 2017 to support class 1 emtb on non-motorized trails, so I guess them calling them a "motorized device" according to USFS was short lived. Not exactly a motorized vehicle, but "motor" was in the name, so...

Not so sure about the validity of the claims that the other countries see them as motor vehicles. Basic fact checking suggests otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle_laws#Canada

The claim that ebikes are self-propelled because they have a motor, so they match our definition of motor vehicles being self-propelled vehicles, was quite a stretch anyways.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

honkinunit said:


> I can name hundreds of miles of trails on BLM in Colorado and Utah that could be opened to ebikes by this order, and thousands that could be opened if NFS follows suit.
> 
> All of these are BLM:
> 
> ...


Does this mean trail systems like Klonzo, Mag 7 and Bar M will be open to e-bikes too? I'm assuming yes.


----------



## shreddr (Oct 10, 2009)

rsilvers said:


> Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed the order without fanfare Thursday, classifying e-bikes as non-motorized bikes and giving agencies 14 days to adjust their rules.
> 
> https://www.apnews.com/d22c8bb8a83c...XNMKypU1r0zT_qOzq9miOXvc9hPT1OlPcZJa56mxjab Y




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

From the Sustainable Trails Coalition failbook page.


"Third update: the NPS is telling park superintendents not to allow Class II e-bikes except on routes used by traditional motor vehicles. Unless, that is, the rider happens to be pedaling the Class II bike. (Question: how in the heck would the NPS enforce that? The rider can say, "I was pedaling but I'm briefly coasting.")"


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

The letter specifically calls out National Parks. Where did I miss that is also calls out BLM land?



> Today, August 30, 2019,* the National Park Service *has released a revised policy on electric pedal-assist mountain bikes.
> 
> The new policy allows electric pedal-assist bicycles to be used wherever muscle-powered bicycles are allowed. The policy *requires each National Park unit* to update their park compendium within 30 days. The policy allows *Park Superintendents the flexibility to close or open trails to pedal-assist bicycles as deemed appropriate* for park management, resource protection, or other reasons.


So when I go to Yosemite in October and want to take my bicycle on all the trails that allow bicycles, eBikes are allowed now too. Great, no both Bicycles and eBikers are allowed on ZERO hiking trails in the Yosemite Valley...... I think what is happening here is they want to clarify that it is okay for a eBike to ride on the paved Bike paths in the Parks.

Zion also does not allow bicycles on the best trails in the Valley.

The article also allows the individual park units to decide on their own if they will or will not allow them.

While this is great for the people who want to ride eBikes on Bike Paths, it is in no way a major change for the USFS. Most of the trails in the California Mountains are USFS, they are NOT National Parks.


----------



## adrenalated (Jul 3, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> The letter specifically calls out National Parks. Where did I miss that is also calls out BLM land?


Read the actual order. It applies to all lands managed by the Department of the Interior. That includes BLM and is mentioned directly in the order.
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/f..._through_the_use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Honestly, it's been pretty easy to see this coming as more and more federal lands relaxed their rules on e-bikes. This is will follow the same pattern. If this works with minimal conflict other agencies will follow suit. 

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

adrenalated said:


> Read the actual order. It applies to all lands managed by the Department of the Interior. That includes BLM and is mentioned directly in the order.
> https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/f..._through_the_use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf


welcome to the site. interesting first post.

I was reading this one:

https://corbamtb.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-08-30-NPS-E-bike-policy-PM_19-01.pdf


----------



## adrenalated (Jul 3, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> welcome to the site. interesting first post.
> 
> I was reading this one:
> 
> https://corbamtb.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-08-30-NPS-E-bike-policy-PM_19-01.pdf


Long time lurker. Thought I had posted before, but apparently not.

In any case my link is the original order from DOI. Yours is the NPS superintendent interpretation of the order as it relates to NPS (which I hadn't seen yet, so appreciate the link). As spelled out in the the original order, the BLM superintendent needs to create a similar policy document.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

And after the rules are created the matter will be open for public comment. There will most assuredly be litigation abut this as well.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

holy crap - 4 new threads on this topic today.

Good grief. LOL


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

hikerdave said:


> Thanks for the suggestion. I have talked with my local land manager and requested a policy change from the National Forest Service but have refrained from bothering the local Tonto National Forest; I might start with a simple statement expressing my desire that they designate additional access for eBikes; that's asking the impossible right now because they don't have defined power limitationd that apply to trails; possibly I'll take a tact that they adapt the Federal rules to follow state designation.
> 
> You may be angry at a deleted post and being misidentified as a troll. Please realize that what we e-bikers have previously put up with here on this forum are deleted and locked threads when my fellow e-bikers "take the bait" and respond to unhelpful posts. At one point this got so bad that I considered the self-immolation of having my account deleted.
> 
> After performing days of trail work and introducing people to mountain biking and spending countless hours helping to develop and promote the GPX file format, in service to other mountain bikers, I felt pretty abandoned by the mountain bike community now that untreatable joint pain makes riding my regular mountain bike both painful and damaging. Some people here seem to think that people in my position should just gracefully age out and go away, but when their time comes they will feel differently.


Great post.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

The National Park Service rules are out:https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/PM_19-01.pdf


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> And after the rules are created the matter will be open for public comment. There will most assuredly be litigation abut this as well.


I doubt that either IMBA or the Sierra Club would waste their money on such a lawsuit. Besides, the NPS and BLM bureaucrats wouldn't be so unprofessional that they create legal grounds for a lawsuit. They'll cross their t's and dot their i's and in six months or so eBikes will be ridden in a few more places.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

str8line said:


> Great post.


I did contact the Tonto National Forest with the suggestion that the lightly-used Carr Lakes trail system be opened to eBikes and will make a similar request to Apache-Sitgreaves for a few trails in that forest. I word these requests in a mild way to indicate that I don't expect a response; I know that they're busy people.


----------



## threepin (Nov 2, 2006)

Actually my guess is there will be a few places that currently allow bicycles or were studying expansion of bicycle access that will actually reduce access for all since there do not seem to be any exceptions for wildlife or other concerns.

I realize that i may live in an area that is not representative of the country in general but i would be very surprised if Glacier National park did not reduce the limited access currently allowed. The biggest concerns some parks have are protecting the wildlife and ecosystem and this often trumps(hah) factors such as visitor convenience and access. The likely result of merely allowing ebikes on all existing permitted roads and trails is greater numbers of users and higher average speeds. The issue with those factors is that we have both vulnerable species and potentially dangerous ones. When the impact of bicycle (both e and non-e ) access is studied they will have to consider the result of increased numbers of users, speed and possibly that the users may be less experienced in the type of environment or less aware. Glacier was studying increased bike access but wildlife concerns already really limited any possible additions to allowed trails/roads.

So it may be a win in some regions but without the ability to generate exceptions I believe there will be some collateral losses.

I based the above comments on my reading the Aug 30 letter from the Sec of Interior 
please feel free to point out if i am wrong on my interpretation.



hikerdave said:


> I doubt that either IMBA or the Sierra Club would waste their money on such a lawsuit. Besides, the NPS and BLM bureaucrats wouldn't be so unprofessional that they create legal grounds for a lawsuit. They'll cross their t's and dot their i's and in six months or so eBikes will be ridden in a few more places.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

hikerdave said:


> I doubt that either IMBA or the Sierra Club would waste their money on such a lawsuit. Besides, the NPS and BLM bureaucrats wouldn't be so unprofessional that they create legal grounds for a lawsuit. They'll cross their t's and dot their i's and in six months or so eBikes will be ridden in a few more places.


The IMBA is pro e-motorized so that points to you not really understanding the issue.


----------



## Phillbo (Apr 7, 2004)

And soon I will be able to ride my moto on the same trails.... It's begun.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

rsilvers said:


> Yes but in the early 1970s, the law was designed to ban gasoline engines (motocross bikes).
> 
> These new class of bikes have electric motors that are 1 HP max, and are silent and non-polluting. *They are no faster than human riders *except they have more endurance.


They are slower than human riders..........once you hit 20 mph on a flatish fire road, a reasonably fit rider can drop them by just going 22mph

I'm just splitting hairs here, but I'm happy they allow this. I have an injury, that has no prognosis of allowing me to return to normal, but I'm not disabled. So, this ruling is a great thing for me. It allows me to ride "normal" again on BLM trails that allows bikes.....................*LIKE FORT ORD near Monterey!!!
*


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

Phillbo said:


> And soon I will be able to ride my moto on the same trails.... It's begun.


I'm surprised they are allowing class 2 and class 3. To me, class 2 is really a moped. It has a throttle. While you have to pedal, a class 3 28 mph bike is fast on a single track.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

ziscwg said:


> I'm surprised they are allowing class 2 and class 3. To me, class 2 is really a moped. It has a throttle. While you have to pedal, a class 3 28 mph bike is fast on a single track.


That is fast but in most places power is not what keeps me under it.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Naolin (Jun 7, 2016)

Here in Vegas most of the trails are on BLM land, however even though ebikes were not allowed on the trails, no one followed the rules, and nobody enforced them. The majority of the riders that I know here don't really care either, I think that may be in part because many of the trails here take you to remote areas were there are usually zero people other then mountain bikers anyways, so running into 1 guy on an ebike during a 2 hour trail ride is more of a pleasant thing then an problem. 

As far as I see it nothing will really change, for everyone that I know riding an ebike here it was never about it not being allowed, it was always a cost thing, non of my friends are going to drop 4k on an ebike to have as a second bike. 

Every time I see an ebike post on these boards I feel that people forget that we don't all live in the same place.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

ziscwg said:


> I'm surprised they are allowing class 2 and class 3. To me, class 2 is really a moped. It has a throttle. While you have to pedal, a class 3 28 mph bike is fast on a single track.


The original order seems to allow all three, but the NPS rules say you must pedal. So I guess each area can pick which classes are allowed. All are limited to 750 watts so class-3 makes the most sense since a MTB is drag limited to around 23 mph anyway.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

threepin said:


> Actually my guess is there will be a few places that currently allow bicycles or were studying expansion of bicycle access that will actually reduce access for all since there do not seem to be any exceptions for wildlife or other concerns.
> 
> I realize that i may live in an area that is not representative of the country in general but i would be very surprised if Glacier National park did not reduce the limited access currently allowed. The biggest concerns some parks have are protecting the wildlife and ecosystem and this often trumps(hah) factors such as visitor convenience and access. The likely result of merely allowing ebikes on all existing permitted roads and trails is greater numbers of users and higher average speeds. The issue with those factors is that we have both vulnerable species and potentially dangerous ones. When the impact of bicycle (both e and non-e ) access is studied they will have to consider the result of increased numbers of users, speed and possibly that the users may be less experienced in the type of environment or less aware. Glacier was studying increased bike access but wildlife concerns already really limited any possible additions to allowed trails/roads.
> 
> So it may be a win in some regions but without the ability to generate exceptions I believe there will be some collateral losses.


This is my biggest concern with the new ruling. Around here many of the land agencies have a higher priority on conservation than on recreation. If these rules become the norm and filter down to state, county, and local land agencies we may have fewer new trails added or there may be some current trails closed as a result of a management plan update that indicates higher usage numbers due to motorized use.

One other thought / question: If the USFS adopts the same rules that ebikes are allowed everywhere that non-ebikes are allowed, does this effectively negate all of the recent work that has gone into getting bikes allowed in wilderness areas under the definition of "human-powered" and effectively eliminate any possibility that bikes will ever be allowed in any wilderness area? Or, would local jurisdictions still be allowed to make rules for specific trails or areas? If the latter is the case, would land managers have the time or make the effort to make case-by-case recommendations, or would it be easier to just make a blanket rule?


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

sgltrak said:


> One other thought / question: If the USFS adopts the same rules that ebikes are allowed everywhere that non-ebikes are allowed, does this effectively negate all of the recent work that has gone into getting bikes allowed in wilderness areas under the definition of "human-powered" and effectively eliminate any possibility that bikes will ever be allowed in any wilderness area? Or, would local jurisdictions still be allowed to make rules for specific trails or areas? If the latter is the case, would land managers have the time or make the effort to make case-by-case recommendations, or would it be easier to just make a blanket rule?


I assume there is a Trump appointee who is about to sign an order to allow all bikes into Wilderness. In 1973 someone who rode horses snuck in a change from "motorized" to "mechanized" for the ban. Now it is is time to undo that. The stronger and more unified the bike industry is, the easier it is to make the case to change that. The only growth in the bike industry is due to eBikes - 6% per year. So having eBikes join in makes for more lobbying power, not less.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

chazpat said:


> We do it due to the large number of ebikers and the industry who push for them to be referred as bicycles. As soon as that stops, we'll refer to them as ebikes or emtbs.
> 
> There is a difference between "regulated as bicycles" and actually being a bicycle, no matter how it is worded.


What defines a bicycle is that you have to pedal it for motion. Class-1 eMTB is a bicycle.

If it has a throttle, then it is arguably a moped.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

rsilvers said:


> What defines a bicycle is that you have to pedal it for motion. Class-1 eMTB is a bicycle.
> 
> If it has a throttle, then it is arguably a moped.


lol, you may want to look up the definition of "throttle". And the history of mopeds.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

I am well aware of what a moped is since I grew up with a Motobecane in the family. I rode it since I was 13.

In the early to mid 1970s, 30 US states got classifications for mopeds. They have ended up as 25 mph vehicles with capped engine displacement (50cc in my state) and twist throttles. Also in my state, they must have an automatic transmission.

They had superficial pedals that you would never consider using, even if the motor broke down. They were close to impossible to pedal and the pedals were only to escape a motorcycle classification. Because they did not require pedaling, they were not bicycles.

Class-1 eBikes are bicycles because they won't move if you don't pedal them. If you disagree, you could go edit Wikipedia to change the definition of bicycle to not include a motor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

*eMTB is now allowed in Federal National Parks...*



rsilvers said:


> I assume there is a Trump appointee who is about to sign an order to allow all bikes into Wilderness. In 1973 someone who rode horses snuck in a change from "motorized" to "mechanized" for the ban. Now it is is time to undo that. The stronger and more unified the bike industry is, the easier it is to make the case to change that. The only growth in the bike industry is due to eBikes - 6% per year. So having eBikes join in makes for more lobbying power, not less.


Any order that allows eBikes in Wilderness will be promptly challenged and almost certainly struck down. It's not grandfathered in, unlike some other user groups, and won't pass muster. Regardless of how the federal government now defines a bicycle, a motor is a motor.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rsilvers said:


> I assume there is a Trump appointee who is about to sign an order to allow all bikes into Wilderness. In 1973 someone who rode horses snuck in a change from "motorized" to "mechanized" for the ban. Now it is is time to undo that. The stronger and more unified the bike industry is, the easier it is to make the case to change that. The only growth in the bike industry is due to eBikes - 6% per year. So having eBikes join in makes for more lobbying power, not less.


No. Motors have been and always be the line of demarcation and you're delusional if you think that distinction won't continue to be made.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

There are legal definitions that differ from actual terms. For example, the ATF defined a silencer as a firearm so they can regulate it as such, even though it is not. 

A tomato is defined as a vegetable for tax purposes even though it is a fruit.

BLM has defined a bicycle with a motor of under 1 HP to not be a motorized vehicle, and there is a long-standing precedent for the CPSC to say that under 1 HP is not a motor vehicle.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rsilvers said:


> There are legal definitions that differ from actual terms. For example, the ATF defined a silencer as a firearm so they can regulate it as such, even though it is not.
> 
> A tomato is defined as a vegetable for tax purposes even though it is a fruit.
> 
> BLM has defined a bicycle with a motor of under 1 HP to not be a motorized vehicle, and there is a long-standing precedent for the CPSC to say that under 1 HP is not a motor vehicle.


The CPSC has dick to do with regulations regarding the use of trails. Again, when it comes to Wilderness the motor is and will continue to be the line of demarcation. Carry on with your unicorn hunt.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> The CPSC has dick to do with regulations regarding the use of trails. Again, when it comes to Wilderness the motor is and will continue to be the line of demarcation. Carry on with your unicorn hunt.


If motor is the line of demarcation why are bicycles banned?


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

The article that the OP linked in the first post contains factual errors, specifically and importantly the last line of the articles first paragraph, _"that will allow e-bikes on every federal trail where a regular bike can go."_

This order has the potential to grant trail and roadway access for electric motorized bikes on property managed by the National Park Service (NPS), US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).

Furthermore, the actual NPS memorandum requires Title 36-Part 4 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 4.30, specifically paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) to also govern electric motorized bikes. These Federal codes provide each park Superintendent the authority to limit or restrict trail access and impose conditions to trail access. Otherwise meaning all trails, no trails or some trails _may _ be opened for electric motorized bike access.

The Conservation groups, hiking groups and equestrian groups that do not want bikes, electric motorized or human powered, will submit public comments that will require responses, such as: What is the estimated number of electric motorized bike riders that will visit the Park? Where is the funding for staff and resources to accommodate this increase in visitors?

This Order from the Secretary of the Interior is a positive step forward for electric motorized bike access. This order also has the real possibility to test relationships and create situations where one will have to look hard at the bike industry, conservation and recreational land management policies, and fellow trail user groups. Cheers.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

Phillbo said:


> "order allows motorized bikes that can go up to 28 mph to be classified as regular bikes."
> 
> I can't remember the last time I pedaled my bike 28mph on a trail.


28 mph is not that fast.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Policy Memorandum 19-01
To: Regional Directors
Associate and Assistant Directors
Superintendents
Chief, United States Park Police
From: Deputy Director
Exercising the Authority of the Director
Subject: Electric Bicycles
Purpose
Electric bicycles (e-bikes) are appearing in national parks with greater frequency. This Policy 
Memorandum (Memorandum) addresses this emerging form of recreation so that the National 
Park Service (NPS) can exercise clear management authority over the use of e-bikes within the 
National Park System.
This Memorandum defines "e-bikes" consistent with Federal law and a majority of State laws 
and provides for their use and regulation on the same basis as bicycles without power assist 
capabilities ("traditional bicycles").
Background
Definition of E-bikes
An e-bike is a two- or three-wheeled cycle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of 
less than 750 watts (1 h.p.) that provides propulsion assistance. 
A Federal definition of "low speed electric bicycle" is included in the Consumer Product Safety 
Act.
1
Many States have adopted policies for regulating e-bikes consistent with this Federal 
definition, including in some cases a labeling requirement identifying an e-bike's compliance 
with the following classifications:
1 15 U.S.C. 2085 states: "For purposes of this section, the term 'low-speed electric bicycle' means a two- or three-
wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum 
speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 
pounds, is less than 20 mph."2
"Class 1 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides 
assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle 
reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. 
"Class 2 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used 
exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle 
reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. 
"Class 3 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides 
assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle 
reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. 
Devices with electric motors of 750 watts (1 h.p.) or more of power and not included as Class 1, 
Class 2 or Class 3 in the classification system above should be managed as motor vehicles under
36 CFR part 4. Under 36 CFR 4.10, motor vehicles are allowed on park roads and on routes and 
areas designated for off-road motor vehicle use. 
Benefits of E-bikes
E-bikes advance Healthy Parks Healthy People goals to promote parks as a health resource by 
supporting a healthy park experience that is accessible, desirable, and relatable to people of all 
abilities, and by minimizing human impact through the expansion of active transportation 
options in parks. Specifically, e-bikes can:
• Increase bicycle access to and within parks. E-bikes make bicycle travel easier and more 
efficient, because they allow bicyclists to travel farther with less effort.
• Expand the option of bicycling to more people. E-bikes provide a new option for people 
who want to ride a bicycle but might not otherwise do so because of physical fitness, age, 
or convenience, especially at high altitude or in hilly or strenuous terrain.
• Mitigate environmental impacts. When used as an alternative to gasoline- or diesel-
powered modes of transportation, e-bikes can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fossil 
fuel consumption, improve air quality, and support active modes of transportation for 
park staff and visitors. Similar to traditional bicycles, e-bikes can decrease traffic 
congestion, reduce the demand for vehicle parking spaces, and increase the number and 
visibility of cyclists on the road.
Policy
E-bikes are allowed where traditional bicycles are allowed. E-bikes are not allowed where 
traditional bicycles are prohibited, including wilderness areas. Except on park roads2 and other 
2 Park road means the main-traveled surface of a roadway open to motor vehicles that is owned, controlled or 
otherwise administered by the NPS. 36 CFR 1.4. Roads include bicycle infrastructure that is part of a road such as 
bike lanes and shoulders.3
locations where use of motor vehicles by the public is allowed, operators may only use the power 
provided by the electric motor to assist pedal propulsion of an e-bike. The intent of this policy is 
to allow e-bikes to be used for transportation and recreation in a similar manner to traditional 
bicycles. 
Regulations for traditional bicycles in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of 36 CFR 4.30 relate to
closures and other use restrictions, other requirements, and prohibited acts.
• Paragraph (f) allows superintendents to limit or restrict or impose conditions on bicycle 
use or close any park road, trail, or portion thereof to bicycle use after taking into 
consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, and other 
management activities and objectives.
• Paragraph (g) states that bicycle use is subject to (1) certain NPS regulations that apply to 
motor vehicles;3 and (2) State laws regarding bicycles that are not otherwise addressed by 
NPS regulations.
4

• Paragraph (h) prohibits possessing a bicycle in wilderness and contains NPS safety 
regulations for the use of bicycles.
5
This Memorandum requires that these provisions also govern the use of e-bikes so that the use of 
e-bikes and traditional bicycles are generally regulated in the same manner. Superintendents 
may limit or restrict or impose conditions on bicycle use, including specific limitations on e-bike 
use, or may close any park road, parking area, administrative road, trail, or portion thereof to 
such bicycle use and/or e-bike use, or terminate such condition, closure, limit or restriction after:
(1) Taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, 
and other management activities and objectives; and
(2) Notifying the public through one or more methods listed in 36 CFR 1.7.
Any such bicycle or e-bike closures and restrictions should be included in the park compendium. 
Superintendents should understand State and local rules addressing e-bikes so that the use of e-
bikes within a park area is not restricted more than in adjacent jurisdictions, to the extent 
possible.
NPS staff should gather and maintain information about the use of e-bikes within the park area, 
including information about impacts and visitor use patterns. This information may inform 
future decision making about the use of e-bikes within the National Park System. 
3 Specifically, sections 4.12 (Traffic control devices), 4.13 (Obstructing traffic), 4.20 (Right of way), 4.21 (Speed 
limits), 4.22 (Unsafe operation), 4.23 (Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs), and 4.30(f) (Closures and 
other use restrictions). 
4 State laws concerning the definition, safety operation, and licensing of e-bikes vary from State to State. A growing 
number of States use the three-class system to differentiate between the models and speeds of e-bikes. 
5 Specifically, paragraphs (h)(2)-(5) (relating to designated wilderness and operation during periods of low visibility, 
abreast of another bicycle, and with an open container of alcohol).4
Required Actions
Superintendents are directed to manage e-bikes consistent with this Memorandum under the 
authority in 36 CFR 1.5(a)(2). This authority allows superintendents to designate areas for a 
specific use or activity, or impose conditions or restrictions on a use or activity.
Superintendents must take the following actions as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days 
after the issuance of this Memorandum or the introduction of e-bikes in the park area, whichever 
is later:
1. Insert the following language in the park compendium:
The term "e-bike" means a two- or three-wheeled cycle with fully operable pedals 
and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.). 
E-bikes are allowed in [insert name of park] where traditional bicycles are allowed.
E-bikes are prohibited where traditional bicycles are prohibited. Except where use of
motor vehicles by the public is allowed, using the electric motor to move an e-bike
without pedaling is prohibited. 
A person operating an e-bike is subject to the following sections of 36 CFR part 4 that 
apply to the use of traditional bicycles: sections 4.12, 4.13, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, and 
4.30(h)(2)-(5). 
Except as specified in this Compendium, the use of an e-bike within [insert name of 
park] is governed by State law, which is adopted and made a part of this 
Compendium. Any violation of State law adopted by this paragraph is prohibited.
2. Comply with the requirements in 36 CFR 1.5, including the requirement to provide 
adequate public notice in accordance with 36 CFR 1.7.
3. Comply with all applicable laws implicated by the compendium action, including the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The compendium action will 
ordinarily fall within the categorical exclusion specified in section 3.3.D.3 of the 
National Park Service NEPA Handbook for which documentation is required.6
No Third Party Enforceability
This Memorandum is intended only to improve internal management of the NPS, and is not 
intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at 
law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities 
or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
-------End of Policy Memorandum-------
6 "Minor changes in programs and regulations pertaining to visitor activities." National Park Service NEPA 
Handbook (2015), section 3.3.D.3 (p. 36).


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> If motor is the line of demarcation why are bicycles banned?


Google it, it was not in the original Wilderness bill.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

str8line said:


> 28 mph is not that fast.


It's relative. 28 mph to a pedestrian is pretty damned fast.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Google it, it was not in the original Wilderness bill.


How do you explain your statement "the line of demarcation is, was and will be a motor" when bicycles are banned?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> How do you explain your statement "the line of demarcation is, was and will be a motor" when bicycles are banned?


As I posted earlier, bicycles were not banned in the original Wilderness bill, Google it for the details of how the ban came to be. Educate yourself before making any more uniformed comments so you don't look more the fool.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

The original Wilderness Bill is irrelevant if it can be changed at any point, to anything, for any reason. The line of demarcation cannot be a motor if bicycles are banned. Bicycles were banned in 1984 because a powerful lobbying group, Sierra Club, wanted them banned. Now, a powerful lobbying group, EBikers, is increasingly interested in aquiring access and Wilderness is a new frontline in the battle.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

rsilvers said:


> I am well aware of what a moped is since I grew up with a Motobecane in the family. I rode it since I was 13.
> 
> In the early to mid 1970s, 30 US states got classifications for mopeds. They have ended up as 25 mph vehicles with capped engine displacement (50cc in my state) and twist throttles. Also in my state, they must have an automatic transmission.
> 
> ...





rsilvers said:


> *There are legal definitions that differ from actual terms.* For example, the ATF defined a silencer as a firearm so they can regulate it as such, even though it is not.
> 
> A tomato is defined as a vegetable for tax purposes even though it is a fruit.
> 
> BLM has defined a bicycle with a motor of under 1 HP to not be a motorized vehicle, and there is a long-standing precedent for the CPSC to say that under 1 HP is not a motor vehicle.


Exactly. Hopefully someone will fix the wikipedia entry. The government can say vehicles that use an electric motor under 750 watts will be regulated as bicycles but that does not magically make the motor go away and make it a bicycle. As I've asked repeatedly, why are many ebikers so desperate to be thought of as riding a bicycle? You're not riding under your own power, there is a motor assisting you, or even completely powering you in some cases. Just enjoy it for what it is without trying to latch onto an existing sport, it's ok.

And here is the definition of "moped", from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moped

Definition of moped
: a lightweight low-powered motorbike that can be pedaled

Ok, you guys don't want your ebikes to be referred to as mopeds (even though they meet that definition); we don't want your electric motor bikes to be referred to as bicycles. Why can't we do that?


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Ebike lobbying is nothing compared to SC and equestrian lobbies.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

rideit said:


> Ebike lobbying is nothing compared to SC and equestrian lobbies.


You mean the lobbying groups that EBikers just trounced on a federal level?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Who is “we” that you speak of? Pretty bold to speak on behalf of ALL mtbrs, considering some are now riding ebikes. Can you foresee ebikes being the majority in the future? I can. I mean Harley Davidson is sponsoring the X games! New generations coming.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I define an Ebike in my dictionary as FUN. I define a mtb or road bike as FUN. I really don’t get the major fear factor over allowing ex mtbrs to ride some trails, BFD. I’m not personally attacking you Chazpat. The ebike definition has been beaten to death 80 times over!


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

I know a few that prefer to be called big bones.
No reason to fight.
The wise man never fights, he never loose.
It is all about ego.
Silent motor.
Hidden battery.
Just like the ones saying not as long as my knees are good but they ride cars.
Ebikes are great but they will not eliminate parking problems.
They will not diminish pollution.
They will not eliminate car traffic 
as long as we see 90% of the time 1 ass / car.
If you have a 1 ass car changing might help.
If you have a 1 ass SUV ...


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

life behind bars said:


> As I posted earlier, bicycles were not banned in the original Wilderness bill, Google it for the details of how the ban came to be. Educate yourself before making any more uniformed comments so you don't look more the fool.


Why are you so caustic? I've been reading your posts and nearly every one is antagonistic.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

I don't get MTB people being anti eMTB. I mean I totally understand not wanting one for a list of reasons (harder to set and reach typical cycling goals, and heavy). But how they get angry when others want them is just so weird to me.

It's like people who have a manual transmission car getting angry at an automatic. Yes, it's lame to get an automatic in certain cars - like a Miata or Honda S2000. And yes, certain eBikes are certainly lame, like the step-through commuter ones. But a DCT automatic in a McLaren is not lame, and a Pivot Shuttle is not lame.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

*eMTB is now allowed in Federal National Parks...*

I have no problem with eBikes riding trails where they are permitted. I simply don't want access for regular bikes compromised because of them. The Wilderness access issue is certainly going to be hurt with the new federal guidelines. Being codified as bicycles doesn't change the fact that they have motors, which an organization like the SC will rightly try to use to deny access to all "bicycles", as the Feds have no defined them. Motorized and human powered.

Additionally, I'm worried about new, very unfit and inexperienced people getting in way over their heads. One of the things about non-shuttle/lift based riding that keeps safety incidents low is the fact that people generally understand their limits and act accordingly. Fitness gained through long rides builds experience and knowledge; an eBike completely circumvents that. This past weekend, I gave a water bottle to a woman on an eBike at 9500ft in CO. I also had to provide directions to another guy on an eBike. Both of them were way over their heads and an eBike put them way outside the radius of what their fitness alone would allow. Simply put, I expect a lot more use of SAR in areas where those resources are already stretched quite thin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

"I simply don’t want access for regular bikes compromised because of them"

True. While I don't share that concern, it is the only argument that I cannot refute as it is something some people will try to do. 

On the other hand, eBikes are the only category of bikes growing in sales. So it will make the bike lobby stronger to fight Sierra Club. Think about it like this - Porsche owners hated when they came out with SUVs. But, Porsche was in financial trouble back then. Now they have so much money from SUV sales that they have used it to come out with more and better 911 models.

So bike companies can use this extra money for more lobbying for bikes.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

The order includes all three classes of ebikes and is an order with no room for local jurisdictions to impose restrictions on different classes of bikes. What that means is if BLM wants to regulate ebikes, they will have to regulate regular bikes along with them. 
For you unfamiliar with BLM, that would include most trails in southern Utah, such as Moab, Hurricane, and St George, Las Vegas, NV, Sandy Ridge OR, and Boise ID, just to name a few. Bureau of Reclamation also falls under the Dept of Interior, which usually includes land around some large reservoirs that have trail networks around them. Regular mountain bikes are now officially one and the same as class 1,2, and 3 ebikes on all lands administered by Dept of Interior.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

That is my only argument as well. As a matter of fact, I will get a mt. Ebike myself in the next few years to ride the 400 plus moto legal trails in the Big Holes (Idaho), but I don’t want them on the human powered only trails. Or, more importantly, having my mtb access that we worked so fVcking hard for compromised.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Who is "we" that you speak of? Pretty bold to speak on behalf of ALL mtbrs, considering some are now riding ebikes. Can you foresee ebikes being the majority in the future? I can. I mean Harley Davidson is sponsoring the X games! New generations coming.


I never said "All mtbrs", just like I said "many ebikers", but I think many mtbrs feel like I do. It's hard to foresee the future.

New generation? Yep:

_According to a report from Newzoo, a market analytics company, 380 million people worldwide will watch eSports this year, including 165 million eSports enthusiasts (a term that describes frequent viewers, as opposed to occasional viewers). _
------
_Electronic sports also known as eSports goes all the way back to the late nineties. ESports is now becoming accepted as a sport and competitive gamers are now being identified as athletes within society. ESports has even been introduced in colleges in the form of an intercollegiate athletic sport.
_
------
_Esports will be a medal event at the 2022 Asian Games - a traditional sporting event - while the Premier League, Uefa and Formula 1 are among the sporting organisations who have launched their own esports leagues._



Gutch said:


> I define an Ebike in my dictionary as FUN. I define a mtb or road bike as FUN. I really don't get the major fear factor over allowing ex mtbrs to ride some trails, BFD. I'm not personally attacking you Chazpat. The ebike definition has been beaten to death 80 times over!


I'm with you on allowing them on some trails, just not on all trails. If there is anything we all have learned on this site, it is that trails and situations vary greatly.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> I have no problem with eBikes riding trails where they are permitted. I simply don't want access for regular bikes compromised because of them. The Wilderness access issue is certainly going to be hurt with the new federal guidelines. Being codified as bicycles doesn't change the fact that they have motors, which an organization like the SC will rightly try to use to deny access to all "bicycles", as the Feds have no defined them. Motorized and human powered.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


+One


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

str8line said:


> Why are you so caustic? I've been reading your posts and nearly every one is antagonistic.


Look at the drivel I'm replying to for a clue.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

chazpat said:


> I'm with you on allowing them on some trails, just not on all trails. If there is anything we all have learned on this site, it is that trails and situations vary greatly.


Trails and situations vary greatly with any type of bikes/riders. Some inexperienced riders ride trails they are not ready for. Should we ban beginners/intermediates on certain trails? How about we ban bikes over 20 years old? Bikes with 1.9 tire size? Fully rigid bikes?

I'm just not comfortable with someone on a 30 year old bike with ancient geometry and 1.9 tires on a fully rigid chassis coming downhill towards me. They are a hazard. They skid. They wobble. All their weight on the front wheel. Those cantilever brakes.

And people running too much pressure in their tires... they just have no traction. It's dangerous! We should mandate pressure checks.


----------



## KRob (Jan 13, 2004)

*eMTB is now allowed in Federal National Parks...*



rideit said:


> OTOH, this could be the beginning of the end for MTB access, as it might be easier for land managers to prohibit access to all bikes now than selectively just for ebikes.
> Careful what you wish for, and all of that.


Yeah, the second part of that edict could possibly be construed to ban mountain bikes.

E-bikes shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed; and
c) E-bikes shall not be allowed where other types of bicycles are prohibited.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> I have no problem with eBikes riding trails where they are permitted. I simply don't want access for regular bikes compromised because of them. The Wilderness access issue is certainly going to be hurt with the new federal guidelines. Being codified as bicycles doesn't change the fact that they have motors, which an organization like the SC will rightly try to use to deny access to all "bicycles", as the Feds have no defined them. Motorized and human powered.
> 
> Additionally, I'm worried about new, very unfit and inexperienced people getting in way over their heads. One of the things about non-shuttle/lift based riding that keeps safety incidents low is the fact that people generally understand their limits and act accordingly. Fitness gained through long rides builds experience and knowledge; an eBike completely circumvents that. This past weekend, I gave a water bottle to a woman on an eBike at 9500ft in CO. I also had to provide directions to another guy on an eBike. Both of them were way over their heads and an eBike put them way outside the radius of what their fitness alone would allow. Simply put, I expect a lot more use of SAR in areas where those resources are already stretched quite thin.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree that some people could get in over their head. But you can walk into a motorcycle dealer and buy a bullet bike and have never ridden a motorcycle in your life.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

str8line said:


> Trails and situations vary greatly with any type of bikes/riders. Some inexperienced riders ride trails they are not ready for. Should we ban beginners/intermediates on certain trails? How about we ban bikes over 20 years old? Bikes with 1.9 tire size? Fully rigid bikes?
> 
> I'm just not comfortable with someone on a 30 year old bike with ancient geometry and 1.9 tires on a fully rigid chassis coming downhill towards me. They are a hazard. They skid. They wobble. All their weight on the front wheel. Those cantilever brakes.
> 
> And people running too much pressure in their tires... they just have no traction. It's dangerous! We should mandate pressure checks.


As the people you are describing fall under mountain biking, we'll own them. But we don't want to tied to the group with motors when someone shows up with a 1500W "bicycle", since there is no way to easily distinguish what is under 750W and what is over, and no one to check anyway. So it's a "bicycle" causing issues and the mountain bikers fall into the group being blamed. As I've said over and over, I think they are fine on some trails. On the heavily used NPS NRA trails around me, I think they very well may be an issue. If they are, it will probably be difficult to separate bicycles from ebikes at that point, as has been pointed out, the average hiker can't really tell them apart, they'll just complain about "bicycles".

Hey, I hope I am wrong. But just a quick google and you can easily find ebikers talking about riding overpowered ebikes, with suggestions of "just slow down when you pass a ranger" and similar. Even on this site, someone posted about a 1000W motor and got responses like "it's ok, the case is stamped 750W" and "it's just a little over". A guy on my Nextdoor website advertised a Mongoose he added a motor to, said it cut out at 22mph and had a throttle and that it was trail legal. I asked him politely to correct his ad (he also advertised that he does ebike conversions) but he didn't.


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

chazpat said:


> As the people you are describing fall under mountain biking, we'll own them. But we don't want to tied to the group with motors when someone shows up with a 1500W "bicycle", since there is no way to easily distinguish what is under 750W and what is over, and no one to check anyway. So it's a "bicycle" causing issues and the mountain bikers fall into the group being blamed. As I've said over and over, I think they are fine on some trails. On the heavily used NPS NRA trails around me, I think they very well may be an issue. If they are, it will probably be difficult to separate bicycles from ebikes at that point, as has been pointed out, the average hiker can't really tell them apart, they'll just complain about "bicycles".
> 
> Hey, I hope I am wrong. But just a quick google and you can easily find ebikers talking about riding overpowered ebikes, with suggestions of "just slow down when you pass a ranger" and similar. Even on this site, someone posted about a 1000W motor and got responses like "it's ok, the case is stamped 750W" and "it's just a little over". A guy on my Nextdoor website advertised a Mongoose he added a motor to, said it cut out at 22mph and had a throttle and that it was trail legal. I asked him politely to correct his ad (he also advertised that he does ebike conversions) but he didn't.


There's always douchebags no matter what activity it is. Whether it's cheating on the motor or going down hill like a wild man scaring the shizz out of hikers. 
The vast majority of the people are going to buy an E bike ride it enjoy it and you're not even gonna know they're riding one. I've been riding 1 for 6 months put 1100 miles on it and it never had one person say O that's an E bike. Used to be an absolute die hard mountain biker, rode an ebike because my neighbor had it went and bought one and will never go back. At this point the government has changed the game and I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out.......

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

WOOT!! A bigs thanks to emtbassocation this is great news for all of us !


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

chazpat said:


> But we don't want to tied to the group with motors when someone shows up with a 1500W "bicycle", since there is no way to easily distinguish what is under 750W and what is over, and no one to check anyway. So it's a "bicycle" causing issues and the mountain bikers fall into the group being blamed. As I've said over and over, I think they are fine on some trails. On the heavily used NPS NRA trails around me, I think they very well may be an issue. If they are, it will probably be difficult to separate bicycles from ebikes at that point, as has been pointed out, the average hiker can't really tell them apart, they'll just complain about "bicycles".
> 
> Hey, I hope I am wrong. But just a quick google and you can easily find ebikers talking about riding overpowered ebikes, with suggestions of "just slow down when you pass a ranger" and similar. Even on this site, someone posted about a 1000W motor and got responses like "it's ok, the case is stamped 750W" and "it's just a little over". A guy on my Nextdoor website advertised a Mongoose he added a motor to, said it cut out at 22mph and had a throttle and that it was trail legal. I asked him politely to correct his ad (he also advertised that he does ebike conversions) but he didn't.


I don't know what to say to that. It is like saying that if leashed dogs are allowed on a trail, then some people will walk them unleashed and give all dog owners a bad name. Yeah. That happens. It will happen to eBikes 1/10000 times less because bike conversions almost always suck and they end up on the street only as electric mopeds. The good bikes are the brands like Specialized, Trek, Pivot, Focus, Giant, etc. They are all Class-1.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Chazpat is a fellow mtbr and has concerns, just like I do. No worries. In time we’ll find out if ebikes are compatible with the surroundings. I’m sure we’ll see a few asshats, but that’s the norm. I’m a little upset that BLM is up to class 3. IMO not cool on singletrack. Maybe they’ll reduce to class 1 as all the manufacturers are producing and downplay?


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

Gutch said:


> Chazpat is a fellow mtbr and has concerns, just like I do. No worries. In time we'll find out if ebikes are compatible with the surroundings. I'm sure we'll see a few asshats, but that's the norm. I'm a little upset that BLM is up to class 3. IMO not cool on singletrack. Maybe they'll reduce to class 1 as all the manufacturers are producing and downplay?


? Does anybody build a class 3 at this point that is singletrack rideable?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Not that I’m aware of, thank god. I think the industry knows more than we think. $ talks and we will produce. Class 1 will look pretty clean imo.


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

Sweet singletrack ride.









Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

Now were talking.









Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

That is what I have coming on Wednesday. A 2020 Turbo Levo Comp in black.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

moabmark said:


> ? Does anybody build a class 3 at this point that is singletrack rideable?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


Keep in mine even Class-3 is limited to 750 watts. So a Turbo Levo with the speed limit removed will become a Class-3 and have a max speed limited by air drag to about 23 mph.

The only way to hit 28 is with a road bike design that has taller gears and with you holding the bar drops.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Gutch said:


> I'm a little upset that BLM is up to class 3. IMO not cool on singletrack. Maybe they'll reduce to class 1 as all the manufacturers are producing and downplay?


There is no meaningful difference between Class-1 and Class-3 for singletrack because they are both 750 watts. Speed is limited by drag for a MTB riding position. I know this because I removed the speed limiter on a Turbo Levo and it could not go over 23mph on level ground and not over 13 mph on a 9.5% grade with a 64kg rider.

The 28 mph is for road bikes with low-rolling resistance tires and less drag.

Class-3 being allowed is great because it means you can remove the limiter on a Class-1 and not have that surgey feel as it cuts off at 20.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

moabmark said:


> ? Does anybody build a class 3 at this point that is singletrack rideable?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


Bulls E-Stream Evo 45 AM - Bulls makes great bikes.

https://www.bullsbikesusa.com/e-stream-evo-45-am.html


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Go back to the first three months of this forum: every prediction that was made by pro ebikers is coming true. All the anti’s pissed and moaned then laughed at predictions of increased and near universal access. Who is laughing now? Ha! Ha! 

I knew there was a reason I kept lurking here....... I’m really enjoying seeing some of the loudest voices here against ebikes eat crow! LOL! I can’t keep the grin off of my face.......


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

WoodlandHills said:


> Go back to the first three months of this forum: every prediction that was made by pro ebikers is coming true. All the anti's pissed and moaned then laughed at predictions of increased and near universal access. Who is laughing now? Ha! Ha!
> 
> I knew there was a reason I kept lurking here....... I'm really enjoying seeing some of the loudest voices here against ebikes eat crow! LOL! I can't keep the grin off of my face.......


Right on! The name calling by even the Mods on MTBR was uncalled for we have proven our point and facts won out over BS and e hate


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> Go back to the first three months of this forum: every prediction that was made by pro ebikers is coming true. All the anti's pissed and moaned then laughed at predictions of increased and near universal access. Who is laughing now? Ha! Ha!
> 
> I knew there was a reason I kept lurking here....... I'm really enjoying seeing some of the loudest voices here against ebikes eat crow! LOL! I can't keep the grin off of my face.......


Did you read the order? It still allows for individual park units and other land managers to ban eBikes at their discretion, very similar to how the State Laws in California work.

But it is nice to see how some people are still jumping to conclusions.

This new order is great for allowing eBikes on the paved paths in the National Parks where they had been banned due to the motor. I don't know of many national parks where Mechanized Bicycles are currently allowed on "trails" since most of those trails are hiking only.

I see this as a major win for BLM land where the rules made no sense considering most BLM land has motorcycle trails on it as well.

This order still has no bearing on the USFS rules.

Who exactly is eating crow?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jeezus.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

I’m not sure how much larger the writing on the wall needs to be for some people to see it. Is there any way to spin this so it looks like a win for the anti’s? If so, I’m sure we will hear it soon, LOL.

Sorry, but I can’t stop laughing.........


----------



## stiksandstones (Oct 7, 2004)

These elitist type of thoughts, should have a caveat; meaning, I've see one local pro XC chick-who wins events, giving 'skills' clinics, and she is one of the sketchiest riders i've seen. So-experience doesn't mean you won't get in over your head, i've seen pros still suck...I've seen people get on an eMTB after being moto riders for years, and they are quite good at MTB. Don't assume everyone on a eMTB is a squirrel or will be unprepared.

I guess the point is, much like "etiquette", there has always been asshole MOUNTAIN BIKERS on the trail, making a bad name for us all, and there has been ill-prepared MTBers, or riders 'unexperienced', this is an issue of MTB, its not an "eMTB" vs "MTB" argument.



Le Duke said:


> ......
> Additionally, I'm worried about new, very unfit and inexperienced people getting in way over their heads. One of the things about non-shuttle/lift based riding that keeps safety incidents low is the fact that people generally understand their limits and act accordingly.
> .....
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> I'm not sure how much larger the writing on the wall needs to be for some people to see it. Is there any way to spin this so it looks like a win for the anti's? If so, I'm sure we will hear it soon, LOL.
> 
> Sorry, but I can't stop laughing.........


Yet you try to spin it as a win for motorized bicycles when it is clearly inconsequential in the "whole". I wouldn't laugh quite yet as to not look more so the fool.


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Yet you try to spin it as a win for motorized bicycles when it is clearly inconsequential in the "whole". I wouldn't laugh quite yet as to not look more so the fool.


Please expound......

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

rsilvers said:


> "I simply don't want access for regular bikes compromised because of them"
> 
> True. While I don't share that concern, it is the only argument that I cannot refute as it is something some people will try to do.
> 
> ...


Good post.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

life behind bars said:


> Yet you try to spin it as a win for motorized bicycles when it is clearly inconsequential in the "whole". I wouldn't laugh quite yet as to not look more so the fool.


How many times a day do you call people fools on here? I don't know who runs this place but you should have your moderator privileges revoked. Even your signature is calling people backstabbing assholes.


----------



## PurpleMtnSlayer (Jun 11, 2015)

moabmark said:


> Please expound......
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


Please dont


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

PurpleMtnSlayer said:


> Please dont


Oh come on, I've never seen someone so full of.......

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Calls to ban all bicycles now.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/...KPfb9ztnGtpj4xWGRyi8IqaZ5Yv00TS6fjMmPt1H9hUcs


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

life behind bars said:


> Calls to ban all bicycles now.
> 
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/...KPfb9ztnGtpj4xWGRyi8IqaZ5Yv00TS6fjMmPt1H9hUcs


We should ban all bikes. They are dangerous! They go too fast and even children can ride them. Just a hazard.


----------



## ULEWZ (Dec 10, 2017)

str8line said:


> How many times a day do you call people fools on here? I don't know who runs this place but you should have your moderator privileges revoked. Even your signature is calling people backstabbing assholes.


I second that motion. Please revoke his privileges as a Moderator as he clearly brings hate and discontent with every post. His negativity is unbefitting a moderator.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> Calls to ban all bicycles now.
> 
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/...KPfb9ztnGtpj4xWGRyi8IqaZ5Yv00TS6fjMmPt1H9hUcs


Looks like bikes are already a problem at the Estero trail in Point Reyes. From the NPS website

"The maximum number of bicyclists in any one group is 10. Larger groups of cyclists will have to divide into groups no larger than 10. This size restriction is necessary for the safety of cyclists using public roadways and authorized trails within the Park. These roadways and trails are narrow and winding and will not safely accommodate large numbers of bicyclists."

One guy who makes his living chronicling hiking trails calling out one particularly popular scenic trail where hikers get annoyed by bicyclists does not justify your fear.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Is the eMTB section really for people who are anti-eMTB?

This was my objection to the new BLM rules postings being moved to the trail advocacy area. When I posted that thread, I wanted to share the good news with pro eMTB people, not the trail builders who are bitter about eMTBs existing.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Calls to ban all bicycles now.
> 
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/...KPfb9ztnGtpj4xWGRyi8IqaZ5Yv00TS6fjMmPt1H9hUcs


This is just an opinion, not a fact or call to arms. And for the record, Marin County bike riders (MTB or Roadies) have been jerks for a long time and probably need a ban.... I used to ride there between 2000-2010 and user conflicts between roadies, MTB and hikers were a daily occurrence often requiring the cops to be called upon.


----------



## stiksandstones (Oct 7, 2004)

For what it's worth...
I've been to a few eMTB meet ups, summits, etc.....one that I went to in March of this year, was attended by the calif state park represenatives. After a day spent talking about the good of eMTB, how they are NOT motorcycles, they are not throttle bikes (educating them on different classes, which they had no idea there were different types), they even went outside and rode some, was a great day. BUT, we got into these break out groups, I sat at a table with Bosch sales guy, trek sales guy, a local dealer, myself, and the cal state parks people. Their head guy chimed in "Listen, we've sat here all day and learned some good stuff about these bikes, but-we didn't ask for this, we are not asking for more people in the parks, we are understaffed, under budgeted and under resourced, we can't even clean garbage let alone cover more people in the park riding bikes".....I did feel a bit for him and his team he went on to say "My job is to let the citizens of calif. enjoy our open spaces, but, it gets harder and harder when we are not given the tools we need to maintain the parks".

That being said, I live in OC, ride all of our parks (I ride acoustic bike 80% of the time) and it's never, or rarely THAT crowded. There are times, often that I dont see anyone riding, so I am not so sure the MTB 'overcrowding' is a real thing.

Anyway, just a little anecdote from a real chat with a parks person.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> Calls to ban all bicycles now.
> 
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/...KPfb9ztnGtpj4xWGRyi8IqaZ5Yv00TS6fjMmPt1H9hUcs


From the Article:


> At sites where eBikes would be legal, the biggest potential for showdowns is on the walkway in Yosemite Valley. It gets heavy use from visitors on walks with cameras or using the low-speed rental bicycles. Mix an eBike into the crowd and you've got the potential for conflict.
> 
> But not everywhere. At Yosemite, I traced my 50 favorite hikes, including those out of Yosemite Valley, Tuolumne Meadows and along Glacier Point Road. Turns out eBikes wouldn't be permitted at any of them. Same thing at Sequoia & Kings Canyon, 52 out of 52. At Point Reyes, they would be allowed for stretches of roughly 3 miles or less - not worthy of the ease and speed of an eBike - on a few trails, including the popular Bear Valley Trail.
> 
> ...


While it is just a comment from a Journalist, it does show that it will now become easier for Mountain Bikes to be banned from trails where they already had access due to the definition change by this order.

I don't think anyone can predict the future and say for certain that will happen for all the trails effected by this order, but no one can honestly say it will not cross the minds of those opposed to this ruling.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Meanwhile in the northeast, nothing has changed.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

ruthabagah said:


> This is just an opinion, not a fact or call to arms. And for the record, Marin County bike riders (MTB or Roadies) have been jerks for a long time and probably need a ban.... I used to ride there between 2000-2010 and user conflicts between roadies, MTB and hikers were a daily occurrence often requiring the cops to be called upon.


That is just an opinion, and a stupid one at that


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

Klurejr said:


> From the Article:
> 
> While it is just a comment from a Journalist, *it does show that it will now become easier for Mountain Bikes to be banned from trails *where they already had access due to the definition change by this order.
> 
> I don't think anyone can predict the future and say for certain that will happen for all the trails effected by this order, but no one can honestly say it will not cross the minds of those opposed to this ruling.


How does it show that?

Yeah it sucks when your city is booming and traffic jams get horrible and your trails aren't empty like they used to be. But arguing for the exclusion of a user is like arguing for the exclusion of all users. Again, it's a slippery slope and we've already been there done that getting bikes onto hiking trails.

Where I live trails are being built. Overuse could become a concern as population grows but let's not blame specific user groups.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

str8line said:


> How does it show that?


My reasoning is that before the order went into effect Mountain Bikes were allowed on some trails in NPS and BLM land and eBikes were not allowed.

Now that the DOI Order has gone out, eBikes and Pedal Bikes share the same definition. So by default anywhere a Pedal Bike is allowed, an eBike (as defined in the order) is allowed.

So _if_ a land manager decides to continue to ban eBikes, they will also by default be banning pedal bikes since the ban would have to be on Bicycles to also remove the eBikes. I did not see language in there to continue to define bicycles and eBikes are different modes of transport. That was the point that Journalist was making, the only way to ban eBikes now is to also ban bicycles since they are by definition the same thing as far as the Federal order is concerned.

The big question that no one has the answer to at this point is; Will a NPS unit or BLM land manager decide to continue the ban on eBikes for specific trails? We just don't know how this will shake out yet, lots of speculation so far on these boards. But it is a wait and see right now.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> the point that Journalist was making, the only way to ban eBikes now is to also ban bicycles since they are by definition the same thing as far as the Federal order is concerned.


Good thing none of us ever brought up that possibility as a concern in the past...

:skep:


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> My reasoning is that before the order went into effect Mountain Bikes were allowed on some trails in NPS and BLM land and eBikes were not allowed.
> 
> Now that the DOI Order has gone out, eBikes and Pedal Bikes share the same definition. So by default anywhere a Pedal Bike is allowed, an eBike (as defined in the order) is allowed.
> 
> ...


Section 5 b ii allows for some wiggle room so it's not an absolute.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

mtbbiker said:


> Very good and positive article about ebikes.
> 
> I can tell your stance on ebikes simply by this quote "electric motorized bike riders". Why can't you simply call it an ebike or emtb? Yes, we all know it has a motor, please don't point out the obvious.
> 
> Ebikes sales are growing each year and I see more ebikes on the trails every month. *I'm sure most ebike riders sees themselves as simply just another mountain biker. Why fracture our group? Ban together, unit and make the MTB community bigger and stronger! This is just my opinion as a long time mountain bike rider!*


Well said.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

stiksandstones said:


> Their head guy chimed in "Listen, we've sat here all day and learned some good stuff about these bikes, but-we didn't ask for this, we are not asking for more people in the parks, we are understaffed, under budgeted and under resourced, we can't even clean garbage let alone cover more people in the park riding bikes".....I did feel a bit for him and his team he went on to say "My job is to let the citizens of calif. enjoy our open spaces, but, it gets harder and harder when we are not given the tools we need to maintain the parks".
> 
> That being said, I live in OC, ride all of our parks (I ride acoustic bike 80% of the time) and it's never, or rarely THAT crowded. There are times, often that I dont see anyone riding, so I am not so sure the MTB 'overcrowding' is a real thing.
> 
> Anyway, just a little anecdote from a real chat with a parks person.


Who is "their head guy"? The CA State Parks Director is a woman.

And CA State Parks gets help from MTB groups. Except when they reject them. Which in some (but not all) districts they do, even after years of partnerships. Perhaps this was a district rep, in a district which supports these partnerships? If they were at an MTB summit I bet they are.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

str8line said:


> How many times a day do you call people fools on here? I don't know who runs this place but you should have your moderator privileges revoked. Even your signature is calling people backstabbing assholes.


Right on !!!


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

rider95 said:


> Right on !!!





ULEWZ said:


> I second that motion. Please revoke his privileges as a Moderator as he clearly brings hate and discontent with every post. His negativity is unbefitting a moderator.





str8line said:


> How many times a day do you call people fools on here? I don't know who runs this place but you should have your moderator privileges revoked. Even your signature is calling people backstabbing assholes.


There are no rules that moderators shouldn't have any opinions and who are you tell moderators that they shouldn't have opinions? If you want impartial moderators then you will be willing to ante up cash to use this site because the moderators are unpaid volunteers who clean up their assigned forums and then play here with the rest of you by the same rules you run by. If you feel you the moderator has broken the terms of use here then report the post but many, many users call out other users based on their beliefs and we don't remove them from the forum.

As I stated this is volunteer. If you want moderators that are just moderators you better be willing to pay for that privilege as having someone hang out here with no opinion but spend time reviewing the posts and making sure things go right cost money. If you think this a forum that would be better with a paid subscription I suggest you post a thread in the Site Feedback forum for ownership to consider.

Otherwise you are stuck with volunteers who float through the forums based on their interests. If you are interested in what forum a moderator has powers in here is a link to review: https://forums.mtbr.com/showgroups.php if they aren't posting in the forum they volunteer in then they are pretty much at the same level as any other user and even if they are in their forum they are allowed to have opinions and express them. They have no powers and no ability to do anything but provide input, on which ever side of an issue they see fit. Moderators are not judges required to be able to see both sides and adjudicate independently without bias, they are just volunteers on a forum about our expensive toys. Relax a bit.

If you have issues I suggest you send FC a PM and state your case to him. He could revoke the status of the moderator but that'd be up to him or the owners of the forum.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Electric Bicycles (e-bikes) in National Parks

May superintendents restrict the use of e-bikes or close areas to e-bikes under certain circumstances?

Yes. Superintendents may restrict or impose conditions upon the use of e-bikes, or close locations to the use of e-bikes, after taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, and other management activities and objectives. If warranted by these criteria, superintendents may manage e-bikes, or particular classes of e-bikes, differently than traditional bicycles in particular locations. For example, a superintendent could determine that a trail open to traditional bicycles should not be open to e-bikes, or should be open to class-1 e-bikes only.

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/biking/e-bikes.htm

I'll go ahead and take this opportunity to encourage ebikers to please police your own. I imagine most of you are responsible riders. I'm not worried about the elderly ebikers or those with disabilities. But as I mentioned before, a little googling turns up ebike enthusiasts who are not. These people could easily cause problems for your sport as well as mine. I've gotten on to mountain bikers who were not representing the sport well to other trail users. Let's all be good trail users.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Klurejr said:


> From the Article:
> 
> While it is just a comment from a Journalist, it does show that it will now become easier for Mountain Bikes to be banned from trails where they already had access due to the definition change by this order.
> 
> I don't think anyone can predict the future and say for certain that will happen for all the trails effected by this order, but no one can honestly say it will not cross the minds of those opposed to this ruling.


Dude- your a great guy I'm sure, but man you are always poking at a shroud of evidence that proves ebikers to be the anti-Christ. WTH, as mtbr.com welcomes ebike forums, why are you against the beliefs of your piers?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Y’all act like we are a bunch of newbs and never ridden a mtb. Why so much hate? If you guys would support your fellow cyclists it’d be cool. I understand the risk of trail access, but that’s way blown out of proportion with theories etc.. Just ride and be polite to anyone sharing the love of 2 wheels, I mean wtf? We all pay taxes and nobody owns the damn land. And another thing, what’s wrong with motors? Are y’all a bunch of pansies that can’t handle power? Shits getting old, I’m out.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

sfgiantsfan said:


> That is just an opinion, and a stupid one at that


no fact. I rode every single trails in Marin time and time again. Keep on trolling bro


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

ruthabagah said:


> no fact. I rode every single trails in Marin time and time again. Keep on trolling bro
> 
> View attachment 1276461


I mean that's a pretty blatant violation of the no personal attacks rule. I won't hold my breath to see if he is publicly admonished.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I mean that's a pretty blatant violation of the no personal attacks rule. I won't hold my breath to see if he is publicly admonished.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


So why is it ok for A Mod to personally call me names in my case a super Mod ?? is the rules you spout for everyone???


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I mean that's a pretty blatant violation of the no personal attacks rule. I won't hold my breath to see if he is publicly admonished.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Reputation falls outside of the spectre of moderation. That is strictly up to you to control.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## levity (Oct 31, 2011)

Gutch said:


> ... Shits getting old, I'm out.


^ +1


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

rider95 said:


> So why is it ok for A Mod to personally call me names in my case a super Mod ?? is the rules you spout for everyone???


Use the report post button. That is what it is there for. If you feel like you have been attacked for whatever reason you can also always send a link to FC. Complaining into the ether isn't going to get you anything.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

rockcrusher said:


> Reputation falls outside of the spectre of moderation. That is strictly up to you to control.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk


Oh, this just got good...

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Oh, this just got good...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


yep... the bias of the moderation team on this site is getting old...


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

ruthabagah said:


> yep... the bias of the moderation team on this site is getting old...


I need a ruling from fc because I've got some stuff I'd love to bomb into some individuals' rep comments. However, I'm 99.9% certain that he's patently incorrect. If abusive PMs are against the rules I think it follows that abusive rep comments are as well.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

IMO the “Rep” function serves zero purpose and creates more damage than good.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Gutch said:


> IMO the "Rep" function serves zero purpose and creates more damage than good.


I mean it did get people talking about ghosts so...

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> Meanwhile in the northeast, nothing has changed.


 Not so. Seems that e bikes can now be used on all the carriage roads in Acadia NP. Think 20' wide dirt roads. Wheeee.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Dude- your a great guy I'm sure, but man you are always poking at a shroud of evidence that proves ebikers to be the anti-Christ. WTH, as mtbr.com welcomes ebike forums, why are you against the beliefs of your piers?


You are going to have to clarify your statement here. I have said nothing to make claims that eBikers are the anti-christ, even the place you quoted me was not negative towards eBikers. My point was that there is already a ton of backlash on the order that is defining eBikes as Bicycles and giving them access to the same trails bicycles are allowed on. One of the first articles written about it plainly states that the author is willing to sacrifice bicycle access if it means keeping eBikes off the trails. I did not write that article and I did not say I agree that sacrificing bicycle access was a worthy cause. In fact I believe the opposite. I am personally fine with this new order and would be fine with it moving to the USFS lands as well, but I understand that many hiking and equestrian groups are going to fight it tooth and nail, and that some trails that currently allow bicycles might not in the future if the powerful hiking and equestrian groups push hard enough and get what they want.



Gutch said:


> IMO the "Rep" function serves zero purpose and creates more damage than good.


I agree with you there. I prefer the sites that allow users to +/- specific posts. One website I frequent even has the ability to automatically hide a post if it has a threshold of enough - votes on it.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I mean it did get people talking about ghosts so...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Gonna be in Bentonville Sunday for a week of riding. I'm assuming it's all Ebike friendly? I know you live around there. Any advice on trails besides the obvious? The backwoods, gnarly techy stuff, you know the pucker kind?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Fair enough, I now know your stance on Ebike access and I agree with you that the USFS should adopt the same policy. 👍


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Oh, this just got good...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Yeah, but no. Unlike pm or posts I have no ability to modify or change reputation. As I said previously you need to reach out to ownership if you feel slighted by your bad reputation, it is a function most moderators would welcome disappearing from the forums.

I don't have the time, nor do any of the other volunteers here, to run down and vet everyone's complaints about reputation. As much as you think moderation is wily nily I usually am forced to read through an entire thread to understand the context, sides, and arguments to determine which user crossed what line and if it was a violation of the site guidelines, which have now disappeared in the site turn over.

So as I said you control your reputation. Stop complainting about so much stuff and just participate and maybe you will receive much less vitriole and bad rep.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Gutch said:


> Gonna be in Bentonville Sunday for a week of riding. I'm assuming it's all Ebike friendly? I know you live around there. Any advice on trails besides the obvious? The backwoods, gnarly techy stuff, you know the pucker kind?


It's all e-bike friendly except for Hobbs which is kind of murky on the technicality of it being legal. For gnarly stuff you're going to want to hit Fitzgerald, Coler, and the two trail systems in Eureka Springs. Back 40 is a great burn out the miles ride and Slaughter Pen is the OG and definitely worth hitting.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

rockcrusher said:


> Yeah, but no. Unlike pm or posts I have no ability to modify or change reputation. As I said previously you need to reach out to ownership if you feel slighted by your bad reputation, it is a function most moderators would welcome disappearing from the forums.
> 
> I don't have the time, nor do any of the other volunteers here, to run down and vet everyone's complaints about reputation. As much as you think moderation is wily nily I usually am forced to read through an entire thread to understand the context, sides, and arguments to determine which user crossed what line and if it was a violation of the site guidelines, which have no
> 
> ...


I never said I care about reputation and no one asked you to control reputation. However, abusive messages are against the TOS. Now if you are saying I can go write whatever I like about you in your reputation comments with zero repercussions just say so and we can be done.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I never said I care about reputation and no one asked you to control reputation. However, abusive messages are against the TOS. Now if you are saying I can go write whatever I like about you in your reputation comments with zero repercussions just say so and we can be done.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Sounds like you are looking for permission to be abusive to other members of this site.

Returning hate for hate is not a great policy to have.

PM's can be reported if you have someone sending you personal attacks via PM.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Sounds like you are looking for permission to be abusive to other members of this site.
> 
> Returning hate for hate is not a great policy to have.
> 
> PM's can be reported if you have someone sending you personal attacks via PM.


The original ask didn't get through so trying another approach. Someone reported an abusive reputation comment in this thread and the response from moderation was rep is the wild west and you can say whatever you like and it will not be policed. I even commented that I did not think that that was correct. There was confusion that A. I was complaining about my rep, not even my post. B. That the rep score was being asked to be changed, content was what was solely being discussed.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The original ask didn't get through so trying another approach. Someone reported an abusive reputation comment in this thread and the response from moderation was rep is the wild west and you can say whatever you like and it will not be policed. I even commented that I did not think that that was correct. There was confusion that A. I was complaining about my rep, not even my post. B. That the rep score was being asked to be changed, content was what was solely being discussed.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Thanks for clarifying.

Rep is a weird system and the best that can be done is a mod can send a PM to the person making the rude comments in the rep posting. To be fair, the comment that was posted was not calling the user a bad name, but was questioning the users post, even if it was using foul language, it was not really a personal attack. It is a pretty common thing for people in this country to say "WTF are you talking about" when they are questioning another persons comments.... I don't really like it myself, but if ruthabagah is seriously hurt by it Rockcrusher is right, he will need to reach out to fc or MTBRadmin to have it removed. they are the only ones with those sorts of admin rights on the site.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> Rep is a weird system and the best that can be done is a mod can send a PM to the person making the rude comments in the rep posting. To be fair, the comment that was posted was not calling the user a bad name, but was questioning the users post, even if it was using foul language, it was not really a personal attack. It is a pretty common thing for people in this country to say "WTF are you talking about" when they are questioning another persons comments.... I don't really like it myself, but if ruthabagah is seriously hurt by it Rockcrusher is right, he will need to reach out to fc or MTBRadmin to have it removed. they are the only ones with those sorts of admin rights on the site.


Context was mentioned earlier. Considering the source has perpetuated multiple attacks across various mediums it was read in that light.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Lawsuit!!!!!


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

Bike Duel GO


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Klurejr said:


> Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> Rep is a weird system and the best that can be done is a mod can send a PM to the person making the rude comments in the rep posting. To be fair, the comment that was posted was not calling the user a bad name, but was questioning the users post, even if it was using foul language, it was not really a personal attack. It is a pretty common thing for people in this country to say "WTF are you talking about" when they are questioning another persons comments.... I don't really like it myself, but if ruthabagah is seriously hurt by it Rockcrusher is right, he will need to reach out to fc or MTBRadmin to have it removed. they are the only ones with those sorts of admin rights on the site.


Thank you for the clarification.

I was reviewing my "reputation" and it seems that the same 2-3 users have been the source of all the negative I have received so far. When you give kids a button, they'll press it until their finger hurt. When you give troll a button, they'll press it until their finger bleed...

Happy riding y'all!


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

ruthabagah said:


> Thank you for the clarification.
> 
> I was reviewing my "reputation" and it seems that the same 2-3 users have been the source of all the negative I have received so far. When you give kids a button, they'll press it until their finger hurt. When you give troll a button, they'll press it until their finger bleed...
> 
> Happy riding y'all!


Well, someone's got to supply the negative reinforcement for your persecution complex. Happy to help.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

ruthabagah said:


> Thank you for the clarification.
> 
> I was reviewing my "reputation" and it seems that the same 2-3 users have been the source of all the negative I have received so far. When you give kids a button, they'll press it until their finger hurt. When you give troll a button, they'll press it until their finger bleed...
> 
> Happy riding y'all!


FWIW you can only rep someone once and then need to rep something like 100 other folks before you can return, which prevents the clicky clicky of the red button or buddy repping with the green button.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> Thank you for the clarification.
> 
> I was reviewing my "reputation" and it seems that the same 2-3 users have been the source of all the negative I have received so far. When you give kids a button, they'll press it until their finger hurt. When you give troll a button, they'll press it until their finger bleed...
> 
> Happy riding y'all!


Uhmmm, no.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The original ask didn't get through so trying another approach. Someone reported an abusive reputation comment in this thread and the response from moderation was rep is the wild west and you can say whatever you like and it will not be policed. I even commented that I did not think that that was correct. There was confusion that A. I was complaining about my rep, not even my post. B. That the rep score was being asked to be changed, content was what was solely being discussed.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


I am going to say let people fight their own battles. You needn't be the unofficial forum police. As I have said numerous times if you feel you have been unfairly targeted or the guidelines (which are MIA with the new forum ownership, as I have mentioned) are not being adhered too in your opinion direct your concerns to FC directly as he is the only one that can address Reputation comments or can review whether moderators or other users are operating outside the boundaries of what he deems is the forum guidelines.

I have also mentioned this is a free forum. You don't pay to play here so you get volunteers with opinions. You could certainly suggest to FC that there should be a paywall and he hire people to do the moderating but I would wager that MTBR would quickly become a shell of what it was but maybe he is looking into that anyway. However currently you are stuck with moderating by volunteers. If you don't like them or their methods suggest to FC that he put you in the driver seat for a forum or 2 and see how well you do in being fair and even with the anonymous internet. It ain't fun.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I never said I care about reputation and no one asked you to control reputation. However, abusive messages are against the TOS. Now if you are saying I can go write whatever I like about you in your reputation comments with zero repercussions just say so and we can be done.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Knock yourself out, my sense of self worth is not bound by my reputation or comments therein. It is a useless system, systematically abused, and not monitored by ownership or moderators. The only people that can review and adjust it are currently at this point ownership and FC, you cannot directly report rep and it means jackshit to anyone except maybe moderators who can look at a person in the reds history of posts to determine if they are a serial puppet user or someone that came in with an agenda to stir **** up. Otherwise I would wager most folks give a flying **** about it. I mean most users have a full green striped from 1000 posts on anyway. Go to the user list and sort by rep and see who has the largest rep and the worst rep. The worst ones are users that came and went, the highest is so meaningless that it goes pages and pages with users all having a full bar of green.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

rockcrusher said:


> I am going to say let people fight their own battles. You needn't be the unofficial forum police. As I have said numerous times if you feel you have been unfairly targeted or the guidelines (which are MIA with the new forum ownership, as I have mentioned) are not being adhered too in your opinion direct your concerns to FC directly as he is the only one that can address Reputation comments or can review whether moderators or other users are operating outside the boundaries of what he deems is the forum guidelines.
> 
> I have also mentioned this is a free forum. You don't pay to play here so you get volunteers with opinions. You could certainly suggest to FC that there should be a paywall and he hire people to do the moderating but I would wager that MTBR would quickly become a shell of what it was but maybe he is looking into that anyway. However currently you are stuck with moderating by volunteers. If you don't like them or their methods suggest to FC that he put you in the driver seat for a forum or 2 and see how well you do in being fair and even with the anonymous internet. It ain't fun.


I moderate in other places. It's actually quite easy being fair and balanced with the correct approach. Don't moderate topics about which you are passionate and do not moderate in threads in which you are already otherwise engaged. Neglecting either of those things isn't moderation. It's bully pulpiting.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Who cares?


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Uhmmm, no.


well yeah, but you've constantly been wrong around here, so no worries.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I moderate in other places. It's actually quite easy being fair and balanced with the correct approach. Don't moderate topics about which you are passionate and do not moderate in threads in which you are already otherwise engaged. Neglecting either of those things isn't moderation. It's bully pulpiting.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Seeing as you seem to fight other people's battles for them I have a hard time imagining that you are fair and balanced. In many of these posts you have made regarding things that are wrong with MTBR it takes me awhile to realize that you are advocating for someone else.

As far as you charge that moderators are abusing their power I have not seen any posts deleted that were deleted because they were counter to a moderators belief. A moderator calling you out is not different than any other user calling you out or you calling a moderator out. Neither of these are examples of a bully pulpit but examples of discourse in a public forum. If you have examples where a thread has been deleted where your opinion was different than a moderators and it was deleted for that reason then I would concur that you were being silenced with the moderator's power but again most threads are deleted because they become part of a flame war, or are grossly off topic to the OP, or are argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I looked back through the last 3 months of your posts and saw nothing that was moderated in your history of posts. I went through the list of posts deleted in the last month and didn't see any that were deleted because of personal bias. I saw a lot of deleted posts from flame wars, some troll posts from now banned users, and some spam posts, mostly bitcoin and others, from spammers.

I know you won't believe any of this as I have a position of power and you will discount what I am saying but I am even and fair in all adjudication I do here at MTBR, wear my heart on my sleeve when it comes to my belief and humbly acknowledge when I am in the wrong.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

ruthabagah said:


> well yeah, but you've constantly been wrong around here, so no worries.
> View attachment 1276649


Yeah like I said rep is a broken system. Specific users can rep all day and return to give negative rep. I hope the new system deletes the rep, would much prefer an upvote/downvote system or better nothing.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> well yeah, but you've constantly been wrong around here, so no worries.
> View attachment 1276649


And you wonder why you get tagged, but not by the same users over and over as you spuriously claimed. Thanks for validating the point.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> And you wonder why you get tagged, but not by the same users over and over as you spuriously claimed. Thanks for validating the point.


What point? I have checked your post history (yeah, slow day at work...) and you don't make points. Like ever. You just casually jump on post that you barely understand and make a one line snappy comment, to stir the pot. You mostly live in denial and your call/predictions for a "E Apocalypse" have yet to materialize.

Anyway... Have, what you think is fun, with this one LBB, and feel free to add to my reputation as usual, I love red anyway.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

ruthabagah said:


> What point? I have checked your post history (yeah, slow day at work...) and you don't make points. Like ever. You just casually jump on post that you barely understand and make a one line snappy comment, to stir the pot. You mostly live in denial and your call/predictions for a "E Apocalypse" have yet to materialize.
> 
> Anyway... Have, what you think is fun, with this one LBB, and feel free to add to my reputation as usual, I love red anyway.


From the point of view of a bicycle traditionalist, a ruling that equates electric bicycles with human-powered bicyclists IS the apocalypse as they see their dream of wilderness access melt away. Even I, a newly-minted eBiker, don't think that eBikes should be managed the same as human-powered bicycles.

I will continue to advocate for increased eBike access in the National Forests closest to my home; it is absurd that my eBike is subject to environmental restrictions designed for motorcycles with 25 to 50 times the power and double the gross weight. And yes, I've tried out moto trails and it wasn't a great experience; those trails are designed for motors a lot more powerful than mine - lots of steep hills and sandy washes killed my battery in no time. At least the trails weren't busy so I didn't get in anyone's way. (I did this decades ago on my human-powered bike too and it wasn't a great experience then either - lots of short steep climbs with no real payoff of sustained downhill riding).


----------



## Visicypher (Aug 5, 2004)

Have we really been at this thing long???? And you are correct, it is NOT fun.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It's all e-bike friendly except for Hobbs which is kind of murky on the technicality of it being legal. For gnarly stuff you're going to want to hit Fitzgerald, Coler, and the two trail systems in Eureka Springs. Back 40 is a great burn out the miles ride and Slaughter Pen is the OG and definitely worth hitting.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


 Thank you!


----------



## etacata (Mar 3, 2010)

can we ride blm trails now on ebikes or wait till end of the month?


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

etacata said:


> can we ride blm trails now on ebikes or wait till end of the month?


Personally, I am waiting for an official communications of the local district I'd like to ride late October.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Boulder Pilot said:


> I use the term "electric motorized bike" because this is the term that is used by Cal. State and US Federal agencies that I deal with. The agencies differentiate mountain bikes from motorized bikes. All of the people on this forum are wasting their time trying to convince anyone on this forum otherwise. These proponents for electric motorized bikes should, in my opinion, be trying to build and earn partnerships with all trail user groups.
> Cheers,
> 
> Jason


Nice


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

etacata said:


> can we ride blm trails now on ebikes or wait till end of the month?


No you can't. This is from P4B

"While it has been reported that the Secretarial Order immediately opened up all DOI lands to e-bikes this in not accurate. The Sec Order creates a process by which each agency within the DOI that manages public lands will creat a new policy for e-bikes that are specific to each agency. "

By the end of september each agency is supposed to report back to the Sec of Int any laws or regulations that that limit its ability to make policy changes and a timeline for recieving public comments on the proposed rules.

I don't think you'll be riding by October either. I have seen this happen in Marin and as soon as they take this step, the law suits start and all access is postponed.


----------



## CruzSS (Feb 5, 2004)

My biggest concern over the years I have been riding is expanding trail access for MTB's. I worry that this new order by Interior will reduce the number of trails I can pedal my bike on. So I wrote this to explain my concerns https://annoyedcyclist.wordpress.com/2019/09/06/winning-might-be-losingfor-electric-mountain-bikes/

Sent from my Pixel 3 using ****************android_app_mtbr


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

CruzSS said:


> My biggest concern over the years I have been riding is expanding trail access for MTB's. I worry that this new order by Interior will reduce the number of trails I can pedal my bike on. So I wrote this to explain my concerns https://annoyedcyclist.wordpress.com/2019/09/06/winning-might-be-losingfor-electric-mountain-bikes/
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using ****************android_app_mtbr


Your fears a justified.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The original ask didn't get through so trying another approach. Someone reported an abusive reputation comment in this thread and the response from moderation was rep is the wild west and you can say whatever you like and it will not be policed. I even commented that I did not think that that was correct. There was confusion that A. I was complaining about my rep, not even my post. B. That the rep score was being asked to be changed, content was what was solely being discussed.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


The abusive reputation comment was "what the **** are you talking about".

I still don't know what the **** he's talking about.


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

sfgiantsfan said:


> No you can't. This is from P4B
> 
> "While it has been reported that the Secretarial Order immediately opened up all DOI lands to e-bikes this in not accurate. The Sec Order creates a process by which each agency within the DOI that manages public lands will creat a new policy for e-bikes that are specific to each agency. "
> 
> ...


I read this as saying each dept has 30 days to change their policies to match this memo? Also states at bottom no legal challenge can be brought against this policy? Whatever that means?









Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## tinfang (Sep 2, 2019)

Klurejr said:


> My point was that there is already a ton of backlash on the order that is defining eBikes as Bicycles and giving them access to the same trails bicycles are allowed on.


There is nothing new in the classification. Federal law has stated for well over a decade that these low speed electric bicycles cannot be considered motor vehicles. It is this exact language that prompted questions of clarification to the Government as a precursor to lawsuits. In the fight of commerce and regulated products Congress wins over opinions, and even policies of government entities. As the law stands, groups maintaining trails on public land could fight a growing population of users in public opinion and very soon in courts and they would lose because the people who make laws will not cede their authority to regulate commerce. Want to change it - change the law.

What if hiking groups ban people with pacemakers from pedestrian only access - it is an assist motor and after all, "a motor is a motor".

The writing is on the wall, the market share analysis tells you all you need to know about how this will play out over time. My advice to advocacy groups is bring the new ebikers in to the fold, work with them and change the law to define only Class I bikes as bicycles (much like BC rules). Building these new people into already existing groups could have a potentially giant shift from hikers to cycling as the dominant voice of outdoor recreation in the future. Pretending you are going to keep the billions of dollars soaking into the bicycle market from ebikes showing up on your trails is folly.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

^^^ Don't confuse a DOT hiway ruling in the consumer protection classification with rules for off road biking. Much different context. New England rider here. Not so much in the way of national parks here, except for Acadia in Maine. Most of the rule makers , land mangers and stake holders are local, town and regional. I'm sure they are watching and looking carefully though. No one is going to classify a pacemaker as a motor, really?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> ^^^ Don't confuse a DOT hiway ruling in the consumer protection classification with rules for off road biking. Much different context. New England rider here. Not so much in the way of national parks here, except for Acadia in Maine. Most of the rule makers , land mangers and stake holders are local, town and regional. I'm sure they are watching and looking carefully though. No one is going to classify a pacemaker as a motor, really?


The ruling applies to much more than just National Parks...

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

leeboh said:


> ^^^ Don't confuse a DOT hiway ruling in the consumer protection classification with rules for off road biking. Much different context. New England rider here. Not so much in the way of national parks here, except for Acadia in Maine. Most of the rule makers , land mangers and stake holders are local, town and regional. I'm sure they are watching and looking carefully though. No one is going to classify a pacemaker as a motor, really?


15 U.S.C. § 2085 is the CPSC law and it is the document that equates eBikes with bikes on trails and pathways in 75 percent of Federal lands according to the DOI order. When reading the Order from Secretary Bernhardt, it is unlikely that the remaining 25 percent (USFS) has any legs to stand on for eBikes as motorized because of the CPSC law. State legislatures are quoting 15 U.S.C. § 2085 as the document which they base their decision to equate eBikes with nonmotorized on trails as well.
DOI order:
4 Policy. Consistent with governing laws and regulations: 
a) For the purpose ofthis Order, "e-bikes" shall mean "low-speed electric bicycle" as 
defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2085 and falling within one of the following classifications: 
i) "Class 1 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a 
motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance 
when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour; 
ii) "Class 2 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a 
motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing 
assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour; and 
iii) "Class 3 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a 
motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance 
when the bicycle reaches the speed of28 miles per hour. 
b) E-bikes shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed; and 
c) E-bikes shall not be allowed where other types of bicycles are prohibited.


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The ruling applies to much more than just National Parks...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Go up a dozen posts and read it. It discusses bring current policies in line with the consumer protection act.....

Edit sorry quoted wrong post.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

moabmark said:


> Go up a dozen posts and read it. It discusses bring current policies in line with the consumer protection act.....
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


I'm not sure why you think I should reread it?

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## moabmark (Sep 19, 2018)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I'm not sure why you think I should reread it?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


I miss quoted you my bad.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

tinfang said:


> There is nothing new in the classification. Federal law has stated for well over a decade that these low speed electric bicycles cannot be considered motor vehicles. It is this exact language that prompted questions of clarification to the Government as a precursor to lawsuits. In the fight of commerce and regulated products Congress wins over opinions, and even policies of government entities. As the law stands, groups maintaining trails on public land could fight a growing population of users in public opinion and very soon in courts and they would lose because the people who make laws will not cede their authority to regulate commerce. Want to change it - change the law.
> 
> *What if hiking groups ban people with pacemakers from pedestrian only access - it is an assist motor and after all, "a motor is a motor". *
> 
> The writing is on the wall, the market share analysis tells you all you need to know about how this will play out over time. My advice to advocacy groups is bring the new ebikers in to the fold, work with them and change the law to define only Class I bikes as bicycles (much like BC rules). Building these new people into already existing groups could have a potentially giant shift from hikers to cycling as the dominant voice of outdoor recreation in the future. Pretending you are going to keep the billions of dollars soaking into the bicycle market from ebikes showing up on your trails is folly.


To add to that, but make no real contribution:

Wouldn't horses be considered a biological motor? Worse yet, you don't have to put out any effort to get a horse to move. Even worse than that, horses leave "residue" behind.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Gutch said:


> Gonna be in Bentonville Sunday for a week of riding. I'm assuming it's all Ebike friendly? I know you live around there. Any advice on trails besides the obvious? The backwoods, gnarly techy stuff, you know the pucker kind?


How are you liking Bentonville? You're not part of the Jeremy McGrath, Jimmy Johnson, Brian Lopes, Hans Rey, a Redbull Cross racer and a few other big names group that's in town and riding e-bikes are you?

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Not bad, rode Slaughter, back 40, Hobbs, Coler, and am traveling to Fitzgerald today. Hey do we ride “the best trail ever” clockwise or counter? Thx man.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Gutch said:


> Not bad, rode Slaughter, back 40, Hobbs, Coler, and am traveling to Fitzgerald today. Hey do we ride "the best trail ever" clockwise or counter? Thx man.


I want to say clockwise but can't remember. There's a Fitzgerald trail conditions page on Facebook where you could ask.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

These threads always come for circle several times over! Arguing over speed cutoff when it’s already set at 20mph is pointless. 
Class 1, 2 & 3 bikes going up normal climbs unless under an elite rider, YOU will not hit 20mph. I don’t know why people against ebikes aways try to peddle this argument. 
Only flats or slight up hills will you can reach 20mph and if going slight up hills, it’s still a strong push! 
Point downhill and you can easy surpass 20mph, but so can bikes. Our top speeds on downhill single track are regulated by the trail and skill set of the rider not the cutoff speed. 


A throttle on a 250watt bike is not going to be any faster than a Class 1 bike


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Here's a bike made from a kit. It has pedals, so I guess it's still a bicycle, and since it is home made it doesn't have a class sticker, so I suppose you could call it whatever class you want. Pretty cool, it will do 100 kph on flat pavement!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mtbbiker said:


> A throttle on a 250watt bike is not going to be any faster than a Class 1 bike


Until it's hot rodded beyond 250 watts. Don't pretend it isn't happening.


----------



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

mtbbiker said:


> These threads always come for circle several times over! Arguing over speed cutoff when it's already set at 20mph is pointless.
> Class 1, 2 & 3 bikes going up normal climbs unless under an elite rider, YOU will not hit 20mph. I don't know why people against ebikes aways try to peddle this argument.
> Only flats or slight up hills will you can reach 20mph and if going slight up hills, it's still a strong push!


Maybe you can't but I found myself giggling the other day when I was climbing a ~15% slope and looked down to see I was doing 19mph. I'd probably be doing good to maintain 5 or 6 mph on my bike.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

life behind bars said:


> Until it's hot rodded beyond 250 watts. Don't pretend it isn't happening.


Can you show me a class 1 production (Levo, Trazer, Powerfly, Giant) bike that has been hotrod giving it more power?


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Maybe you can't but I found myself giggling the other day when I was climbing a ~15% slope and looked down to see I was doing 19mph. I'd probably be doing good to maintain 5 or 6 mph on my bike.


Awesome, you must be a good climber


----------



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

mtbbiker said:


> Awesome, you must be a good climber


I'm ok for an amateur of my age but give me a class 1 and I will absolutely school any pro on the planet 

I really don't care and wasn't trying to boast, just refuting your blanket statement.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm ok for an amateur of my age but give me a class 1 and I will absolutely school any pro on the planet
> 
> I really don't care and wasn't trying to boast, just refuting your blanket statement.


And I'm still stating majority of the people on ebikes cannot hold 20mph up a 15% grade. You are a good climber.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

bpressnall said:


> Here's a bike made from a kit. It has pedals, so I guess it's still a bicycle, and since it is home made it doesn't have a class sticker, so I suppose you could call it whatever class you want. Pretty cool, it will do 100 kph on flat pavement!


That thing looks pretty different from the factory Class 1, 2 or 3 bikes that can be bought off the shelf. Will be interesting to see what happens when a guy shows up at a National Park with one of those monsters and tries to ride it thinking he qualifies under this new Order. I don't think the Rangers will be fooled.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

mtbbiker said:


> A throttle on a 250watt bike is not going to be any faster than a Class 1 bike


Assuming the speed cut off limit is respected, all Class 1 and 2 ebikes are equal in top powered speed, 20 mph, it doesn't matter if you activate the motor by turning pedals or turning a throttle. Not that the speed cut off is respected by many.

A US legal 750w Class 1 would have more available power and torque than the 250w ebikes currently being ridden regardless of if it has a throttle or not, which would enable the rider to add roughly 1500w to their effort. As gradients increase they'd be able to crush the current crop of emtbs while climbing. Assuming it's a piece of trail you can go fast on anyway.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> Assuming the speed cut off limit is respected, all Class 1 and 2 ebikes are equal in top powered speed, 20 mph, it doesn't matter if you activate the motor by turning pedals or turning a throttle. Not that the speed cut off is respected by many.
> 
> A US legal 750w Class 1 would have more available power and torque than the 250w ebikes currently being ridden regardless of if it has a throttle or not, which would enable the rider to add roughly 1500w to their effort. As gradients increase they'd be able to crush the current crop of emtbs while climbing. Assuming it's a piece of trail you can go fast on anyway.


The biggest difference in Class 1 and 2 for mountain bikes is that the latter offers much more potential for trail erosion.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> The biggest difference in Class 1 and 2 for mountain bikes is that the latter offers much more potential for trail erosion.


Possibly, but I would guess a bigger reason is that when someone is being propelled without pedaling it becomes impossible to argue that they are on a bicycle, even if speed and torque capabilities are identical.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Possibly, but I would guess a bigger reason is that when someone is being propelled without pedaling it becomes impossible to argue that they are on a bicycle, even if speed and torque capabilities are identical.


Personally, I couldn't care less about if someone is pedaling or not. It doesn't effect and doesn't effect other trail users if ridden in a responsible manner. The issue is the ability to roost that's present with a throttle.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> The issue is the ability to roost that's present with a throttle.


That ability also exists for pedal assist, and they could easily limit torque just like they limit speed.

I get that you don't care about the pedaling thing and as far as e-bikes go I really don't care either. I'm just saying that it could never be sold to the public at large as being the same as a bicycle in regards to backcountry access. Therefore pedals.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> Possibly, but I would guess a bigger reason is that when someone is being propelled without pedaling it becomes impossible to argue that they are on a bicycle, even if speed and torque capabilities are identical.


The interior secretary doesn't seem to share the opinion that class 2 ebikes aren't bicycles, his order is to give them the same access. We'll see if local blm agencies have the leeway and interest in implementing the separation of classes.


----------



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

Harryman said:


> The interior secretary doesn't seem to share the opinion that class 2 ebikes aren't bicycles, his order is to give them the same access. We'll see if local blm agencies have the leeway and interest in implementing the separation of classes.


I guess that shouldn't surprise me, probably they're be a new interior secretary soon anyway though.

Well then why not class 3? That's bs discrimination! The rider controls their actions on the trail after all.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> That ability also exists for pedal assist, and they could easily limit torque just like they limit speed.
> 
> I get that you don't care about the pedaling thing and as far as e-bikes go I really don't care either. I'm just saying that it could never be sold to the public at large as being the same as a bicycle in regards to backcountry access. Therefore pedals.


The potential to roost with a throttle is exponentially higher than with pedal only actuation. Frankly it's not even close.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> The potential to roost with a throttle is exponentially higher than with pedal only actuation. Frankly it's not even close.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Now you're talking like the anti-class 1 crowd, complaining of problems that have yet to occur.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Now you're talking like the anti-class 1 crowd, complaining of problems that have yet to occur.


Nope, have I advocated for excluding them based off of those things? From a regulatory standpoint that's the only minute difference. I can think of four, maybe five, places on 250+ miles of trail that it would even potentially be a problem. Like I said I have zero issues with them.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> Nope, have I advocated for excluding them based off of those things? From a regulatory standpoint that's the only minute difference. I can think of four, maybe five, places on 250+ miles of trail that it would even potentially be a problem. Like I said I have zero issues with them.


So you don't advocate excluding class 2's but admit they "offer much more potential for soil erosion" and their potential to roost is "exponentially higher." Fair enough and I won't argue that. Curious though, based on that would you advocate excluding class 3's?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> So you don't advocate excluding class 2's but admit they "offer much more potential for soil erosion" and their potential to roost is "exponentially higher." Fair enough and I won't argue that. Curious though, based on that would you advocate excluding class 3's?


Would seem to go against his regular 'ally or lose all access' screed.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> I guess that shouldn't surprise me, probably they're be a new interior secretary soon anyway though.
> 
> Well then why not class 3? That's bs discrimination! The rider controls their actions on the trail after all.


Yep. They all have the same power and torque, so if they're all considered low power by the feds, it's hard to argue they're different in their jurisdictions.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> So you don't advocate excluding class 2's but admit they "offer much more potential for soil erosion" and their potential to roost is "exponentially higher." Fair enough and I won't argue that. Curious though, based on that would you advocate excluding class 3's?


An expontial of a tiny number is still a tiny number, so no, I don't see the need to exclude them. It's all relative. No, I don't advocate excluding class 3s. The trails I ride have the ability to easily achieve the same speeds with no assist and there have not been any major issues so I don't see the need at this point.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

*Good article in Outside Magazine summarizing "The Order"*

https://www.outsideonline.com/2402117/public-lands-ebikes

Well done, IMHO.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I don't understand how requiring e-bikes to be pedal-assist only “decreases regulatory burden” on land managers and rangers. Another short-sighted and less-than-thought-out policy from this administration.


----------



## shreddr (Oct 10, 2009)

chazpat said:


> Try entering your ebike in a serious bicycle race and see how that works out.
> 
> Again, what's wrong with "ebike" and "ebiking"?


These fat slackers entered their emtb's in a serious race 

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/results-emtb-msa-world-championships-2019.html


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

shreddr said:


> These fat slackers entered their emtb's in a serious race
> 
> https://www.pinkbike.com/news/results-emtb-msa-world-championships-2019.html


wow... fat slackers.... typical prejudice and misrepresentation.

lets take just 2 of the name on this list, as an example.

https://www.velonews.com/tag/maghalie-rochette

Seem pretty fit to me....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_Absalon

Won gold at the Olympics....


----------



## shreddr (Oct 10, 2009)

ruthabagah said:


> wow... fat slackers.... typical prejudice and misrepresentation.
> 
> lets take just 2 of the name on this list, as an example.
> 
> ...


Was my sarcasm completely lost on you?


----------



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

ruthabagah said:


> wow... fat slackers.... typical prejudice and misrepresentation.


I believe shreddr's comment was tongue & cheek.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

shreddr said:


> Was my sarcasm completely lost on you?


E-posers have little sense of irony or sarcasm, are clumsy with the mtb lexicon.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

honkinunit said:


> https://www.outsideonline.com/2402117/public-lands-ebikes
> 
> Well done, IMHO.


The Wilderness Society and Wilderness Watch have gone full crazy. I rarely hear their names anymore except when it comes to opposing pro-(e)bike legislation. It's a huge positive when Backcountry Horsemen concede that the anti-(e)bike stance is a bad look and start embracing reality.


----------



## shreddr (Oct 10, 2009)

bsieb said:


> E-posers have little sense of irony or sarcasm, are clumsy with the mtb lexicon.


I'm not sure what e-posers are. I ride an emtb and I am not a poser, just a long time rider having a great time with the new technology. I am really surprised at the level of bravado of the purists, no wonder I quit racing I couldn't stand myself anymore


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

shreddr said:


> Was my sarcasm completely lost on you?


Yep... Sorry.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

3 parks already made a decision it seems.

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2019/...r-grand-teton-and-yellowstone-national-parks/


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> 3 parks already made a decision it seems.
> 
> https://www.eastidahonews.com/2019/...r-grand-teton-and-yellowstone-national-parks/


Bicycles are restricted to pavement in those parks, no?


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Bicycles are restricted to pavement in those parks, no?


There are a couple of MTB trails in Yellowstone. I rode the Mt Washburn one a couple of years ago. Mostly dirt road, no singletrack.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

ruthabagah said:


> There are a couple of MTB trails in Yellowstone. I rode the Mt Washburn one a couple of years ago. Mostly dirt road, no singletrack.


The trails would be the next step for the eBike lobbyists. EBikers are a user group that aren't content with being the doormat of our public lands. There is no blanket stipulation that regular bikes can't be banned (where eBikes are allowed), so we can keep that restriction in place as most mountain bikers have accepted their position at the bottom of the totem pole.


----------



## tom tom (Mar 3, 2007)

Look at this......Not one e-bike track causing the severe trail erosion.........


----------



## rancher52 (Aug 16, 2019)

tom tom said:


> Look at this......Not one e-bike track causing the severe trail erosion.........


Wheres the Horse tracks. 


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## richardjohnson (Sep 12, 2016)

figofspee said:


> The trails would be the next step for the eBike lobbyists. EBikers are a user group that aren't content with being the doormat of our public lands. There is no blanket stipulation that regular bikes can't be banned (where eBikes are allowed), so we can keep that restriction in place as most mountain bikers have accepted their position at the bottom of the totem pole.


dang you are weird.


----------



## richardjohnson (Sep 12, 2016)

tom tom said:


> Look at this......Not one e-bike track causing the severe trail erosion.........


I think you meant to post this in the thread about ebike erosion for 2016.

I don't think I have read a post from anyone in the last 2 years or more regarding their exception to ebikes being about erosion. Heck even the federal rules don't mention erosion. This is a weird thing to post in this thread.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

figofspee said:


> The trails would be the next step for the eBike lobbyists. EBikers are a user group that aren't content with being the doormat of our public lands. There is no blanket stipulation that regular bikes can't be banned (where eBikes are allowed), so we can keep that restriction in place as most mountain bikers have accepted their position at the bottom of the totem pole.


 Just wow. Do you have a clue as to how trail access and advocacy work? What trails in what state do you ride on?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

richardjohnson said:


> dang you are weird.


Your analysis would have more impact if your avatar wasn't some random picture of a creepy old dude.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Just wow. Do you have a clue as to how trail access and advocacy work? What trails in what state do you ride on?


Apparently the work is being done by lobbiest and, according to some in this thread, courtrooms, just like you were told it was moving to.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Apparently the work is being done by lobbiest and, according to some in this thread, courtrooms, just like you were told it was moving to.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Lobbyists don't build trails, people do. Let us know when you get a new trail approved in a national park.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

I am pretty happy with the trails that we have and not in search of more trails, but maybe I would care if there were not tons within a 15 minute drive and tons more within a 35 minute drive. I just want Pedlec to be able to ride them without a medical waiver because I think they should be able to.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Lobbyists don't build trails, people do. Let us know when you get a new trail approved in a national park.


The post I quoted nor my post had anything to do with actual building of trails. However, in your example you even admit you need approval before you can build. Lobbiest are one mechanism to get said approval.

Also your national park qualifier is pretty specific considering that is only a fraction of the land the NPS manages. Additionally, singletrack mountain bike trails do exist and more are being built.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> more are being built.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Where?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tom tom said:


> Look at this......Not one e-bike track causing the severe trail erosion.........


You should probably find out what 'erosion' actually means.

It's not that.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Where?


Predictably you just ignore all the issues with your post and latch on to one tiny idea.

You're going to have to read to find it though because I'm not sure how this site found out about it already.

https://www.adventure-journal.com/2...l-park-properties-that-allow-bikes-on-trails/

Oh, by the way, those are also going to be e-bike legal the day they open.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Predictably you just ignore all the issues with your post and latch on to one tiny idea.
> 
> You're going to have to read to find it though because I'm not sure how this site found out about it already.
> 
> ...


Not a thing in there that even points to new trails in national parks.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Not a thing in there that een points to new trails in national parks.


"(soon, not yet)"

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

rancher52 said:


> Wheres the Horse tracks.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Exactly right. Horses do more damage to trails than any bike of any kind. For some reason horsey people delight in riding right after it rains. 1200 lbs in wet dirt...hoof holes for days. Then the hoof holes harden and bake in the sun. So fun to ride. (Not!)


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

tom tom said:


> Look at this......Not one e-bike track causing the severe trail erosion.........





richardjohnson said:


> I think you meant to post this in the thread about ebike erosion for 2016.
> 
> I don't think I have read a post from anyone in the last 2 years or more regarding their exception to ebikes being about erosion. Heck even the federal rules don't mention erosion. This is a weird thing to post in this thread.


Rich,

thanks for pointing out the obvious.

I will say I am working day and night trying to figure out how I (180lbs on a 50 ebike) cause more erosion than my buddy who is 210lbs and riding a 30lbs stumpjumper.

I think I will get there and figure it out, but my sarcasm credits might need replenishing first.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

It’s simple, you have the capability of riding three times as much in a day with similar effort, that’s three times the potential wear and tear.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

rideit said:


> It's simple, you have the capability of riding three times as much in a day with similar effort, that's three times the potential wear and tear.


That is a cool thing.
Rescue 3x faster.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

And 3 times the chance of a mishap.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

rideit said:


> It's simple, you have the capability of riding three times as much in a day with similar effort, that's three times the potential wear and tear.


 I see your point, but then what do we do with that alien-like XC rider who can do 3x my normal distance?

Maybe I should have prefaced my comment with "When going the same distance.............."


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

33red said:


> That is a cool thing.
> Rescue 3x faster.


it would be nice to be able to keep up with a few of the XC riders around here. They ride further and faster than I could ever do.

You could also self-rescue in some situations.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

ziscwg said:


> I see your point, but then what do we do with that alien-like XC rider who can do 3x my normal distance?
> 
> Maybe I should have prefaced my comment with "When going the same distance.............."


They are such outliers, they are basically a statistical anomaly. Which is offset by the freak doing 5 runs on the ebike!


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Ebikes and Trump- make mtbing great again.. love it.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Dude- your a great guy I'm sure, but man you are always poking at a shroud of evidence that proves ebikers to be the anti-Christ. WTH, as mtbr.com welcomes ebike forums, why are you against the beliefs of your piers?





ruthabagah said:


> 3 parks already made a decision it seems.
> 
> https://www.eastidahonews.com/2019/...r-grand-teton-and-yellowstone-national-parks/


The person who wrote that article obvious had no idea Class 2 throttle bikes are included in this order and by this orders definition are eBikes......



> The operator of an e-bike may only use the motor to assist pedal propulsion. The motor may not be used to propel an e-bike without the rider also pedaling, except in locations open to public motor vehicle traffic. Motorbikes with a throttle are not e-bikes.


Also this comment by life long bicycle hater MV is too funny.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> The person who wrote that article obvious had no idea Class 2 throttle bikes are included in this order and by this orders definition are eBikes......


Nothing in that quote is inaccurate. It is poorly worded but not inaccurate.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> The person who wrote that article obvious had no idea Class 2 throttle bikes are included in this order and by this orders definition are eBikes......
> 
> Also this comment by life long bicycle hater MV is too funny.
> 
> View attachment 1281475


Regarding he who must not be named's comment on NEPA; there's a gigantic loophole for Class I, II, III eBikes; a finding of no significant impact will make the process of admitting eBikes pretty easy from an environmental point of view; all that's left is satisfying land managers that user conflicts between eBikes and other users will be minimal.

Ride responsibly out there.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Nothing in that quote is inaccurate. It is poorly worded but not inaccurate.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


It was not accurate, he stated: "Motorbikes with a throttle are not e-bikes." A class 2 eBike is a "motorbike with a throttle" if you take the words at face value, which many who read that will. Yes I know you and many like you will argue semantics that a class 2 eBike is not a "motorbike", but that word is not clearly defined the way "motorcycle" is defined. A class 2 eBike with a throttle is a bike with an electric motor on it that can be propelled without spinning the cranks, Motorbike to many.

Do you always feel the need to attack everything others say in an effort to prove them wrong?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> It was not accurate, he stated: "Motorbikes with a throttle are not e-bikes." A class 2 eBike is a "motorbike with a throttle" if you take the words at face value, which many who read that will. Yes I know you and many like you will argue semantics that a class 2 eBike is not a "motorbike", but that word is not clearly defined the way "motorcycle" is defined. A class 2 eBike with a throttle is a bike with an electric motor on it that can be propelled without spinning the cranks, Motorbike to many.
> 
> Do you always feel the need to attack everything others say in an effort to prove them wrong?


As defined by the NPS and BLM, which is what is being discussed, a class 2 e-bike is defined as a bicycle. That is not semantics. That is a statement of fact. Also, I'm pretty sure site rules say you cannot call them motorbikes but I could be wrong.

I did not attack you. I even stated it was poorly worded. However it now seems you knew that and were attempting to leverage it to cloud the issue for some reason.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I’d stick a fork in this thread and call it done.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> As defined by the NPS and BLM, which is what is being discussed, a class 2 e-bike is defined as a bicycle. That is not semantics. That is a statement of fact. Also, I'm pretty sure site rules say you cannot call them motorbikes but I could be wrong.
> 
> I did not attack you. I even stated it was poorly worded. However it now seems you knew that and were attempting to leverage it to cloud the issue for some reason.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Yes, it is a statement of fact that the NPS and BLM classify a class 2 ebike as a bicycle for regulations, it does not change the fact that it is a bike with a motor though. And I believe the "site rules say you cannot call them motorbikes" only applies within the ebike forum, which this isn't.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Does not matter what the BLM and NPS define as an eBike, that is not what I was pointing out as inaccurate information in the article linked. 

The Author of that article is claiming that "motorbikes" with Throttles are NOT eBikes. That is not correct. That would lead people who are reading that article to believe that on BLM and NPS trails where bicycles are currently permitted that NO Bikes with Throttles would be allowed. That is not accurate. The Order clearly includes Class 2 Throttle driven eBikes to be part of the ruling to be allowed where Bicycles are currently permitted. Thus "motorbikes", "motorized bikes", "motorized bicycles", "eBikes", "e-mopeds" that are specifically rated as Class 2 eBikes ARE ALLOWED where bicycles are permitted post Order.

Electric Motorcycles would not be allowed.

Now maybe the Author was intending to apply his statement to Electric Motorcycles, but that is not what he wrote. Sloppy journalism. In the United States the term "motorbike" is not commonly used to describe Motorcycles. It could be very confusing to the general public when they read it.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Does not matter what the BLM and NPS define as an eBike, that is not what I was pointing out as inaccurate information in the article linked.
> 
> The Author of that article is claiming that "motorbikes" with Throttles are NOT eBikes. That is not correct. That would lead people who are reading that article to believe that on BLM and NPS trails where bicycles are currently permitted that NO Bikes with Throttles would be allowed. That is not accurate. The Order clearly includes Class 2 Throttle driven eBikes to be part of the ruling to be allowed where Bicycles are currently permitted. Thus "motorbikes", "motorized bikes", "motorized bicycles", "eBikes", "e-mopeds" that are specifically rated as Class 2 eBikes ARE ALLOWED where bicycles are permitted post Order.
> 
> ...


That would be applicable except the author clearly stated that e-bikes, specific to Class 2s in this case, cannot be operated as motorbikes, ie they have to be pedaled, unless they are on motorized approved trails.

Once you start pedaling, for the context of the article due to how the BLM and NPS define them, it ceases to be a motorbike under the rules.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> That would be applicable except the author clearly stated that e-bikes, specific to Class 2s in this case, cannot be operated as motorbikes, ie they have to be pedaled, unless they are on motorized approved trails.
> 
> Once you start pedaling, for the context of the article due to how the BLM and NPS define them, it ceases to be a motorbike under the rules.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


But don't you think that is an issue, that as soon as the rider stops pedaling and just uses the twist throttle, it is no longer a bicycle but transforms into a motorbike? With just about zero people to enforce that they are not using the throttle, what percentage of class 2 riders will not use the twist throttle?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> But don't you think that is an issue, that as soon as the rider stops pedaling and just uses the twist throttle, it is no longer a bicycle but transforms into a motorbike? With just about zero people to enforce that they are not using the throttle, what percentage of class 2 riders will not use the twist throttle?


Short answer, no, not an issue.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Short answer, no, not an issue.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Real answer, yes it might become an issue, or no it might not. But we will have to wait and see.

The eBikes that will be ridden on the Paths in National Parks are going to be beachcruiser and commuter style eBikes, they are not going to be eMTB's. The people riding them are going to be the same people we see riding those style bikes on the boardwalks at the beach, around the local towns n such. They are going to be tourists, and for many it will be their first time on a motorized Conveyance. If they are renting Class 2 eBikes you can bet they wont be pedaling. I see these kinds of riders and bike all the time here in San Diego, they are not pedaling.

So, if they are not pedaling are they breaking the law? Based on what I read of that ORDER Class 2 eBikes are defined as Bicycles, I don't recall it specifically calling out that people riding a Class 2 had to be pedaling.

For BLM dirt trails I forsee an entirly different scenario. Those will mostly be eMTB's, and considering most BLM trails are not as crowded as NPS paths where bicycles are permitted there will be less issues, possibly none.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

In regards to Class 2 throttle. 
To me it seems to be clear the intent of DOI Order 3376
“Purpose. This Order is intended to increase recreational opportunities for all Americans, especially those with physical limitations”

This is why I believe class 2 is being allowed. There are a lot of people who aren’t lucky enough to have good genes or have been in accidents that now have limited mobility with their legs. Having a throttle is a must for them. 

All 3 classes of ebikes follow the guidelines of the Consumer Product Safety Act: means low power electric motor less than 750watts (1hp). Plus everything that’s been talked about before. 

What does that mean? All 3 classes have the same type of acceleration power. If a person is using only the throttle, they will not be accelerating very fast with only 1hp available! The fastest way to accelerate on any 3 classes is pedaling with all your might. 
Put the same person on all 3 classes of bikes & that person will reach 20mph at about the same time regardless of throttle as long as they are pedaling their hearts out. Only the class 3 will continue to accelerate to 28mph, but if it’s a mountain bike, the gearing will limit its top speed. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Real answer, yes it might become an issue, or no it might not. But we will have to wait and see.
> 
> The eBikes that will be ridden on the Paths in National Parks are going to be beachcruiser and commuter style eBikes, they are not going to be eMTB's. The people riding them are going to be the same people we see riding those style bikes on the boardwalks at the beach, around the local towns n such. They are going to be tourists, and for many it will be their first time on a motorized Conveyance. If they are renting Class 2 eBikes you can bet they wont be pedaling. I see these kinds of riders and bike all the time here in San Diego, they are not pedaling.
> 
> ...


Based on my area's experience there is no issue with any type of e-bike so for me it's not really wait and see. It's an informed opinion based on actual real world experience. The order reads something to the effect of "the rider must be actively pedaling throttle equipped bikes". There are also dirt, single-track trails, current and in construction, in both National Parks and NPS sites.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Based on my area's experience there is no issue with any type of e-bike so for me it's not really wait and see. It's an informed opinion based on actual real world experience. The order reads something to the effect of "the rider must be actively pedaling throttle equipped bikes". There are also dirt, single-track trails, current and in construction, in both National Parks and NPS sites.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


See that is the great thing about all the different places we live, we experience different things. Some national parks are very crowded and having throttle equipped class 2 eBikes might cause issues.

Yes there are a few dirt paths and trails in National parks that will fall under this order, but compared to the number of hiking trails and the number of trails on BLM land they are not even a drop in the bucket.

I am going to Yosemite in a few weeks, I am bringing my cruiser bike since the only paths to ride in the valley are paved bike paths. I don't expect to see many eBikes on those paths so soon after the order, but come next summer there might be a way to rent them in the valley and ride them all over the place, and we will have to wait and see if Class 2 throttle driven eBikes are part of that equation and whether or not people will pedal when they dont have to and whether or not the Park Rangers are going to bother enforcing that.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

mtbbiker said:


> In regards to Class 2 throttle.
> To me it seems to be clear the intent of DOI Order 3376
> "Purpose. This Order is intended to increase recreational opportunities for all Americans, especially those with physical limitations"
> 
> ...





tuckerjt07 said:


> The order reads something to the effect of "the rider must be actively pedaling throttle equipped bikes".


I agree that it doesn't really matter if the rider is controlling the motor via pedals or a twist throttle, but the order doesn't seem to agree with that.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> See that is the great thing about all the different places we live, we experience different things. Some national parks are very crowded and having throttle equipped class 2 eBikes might cause issues.


As are the trails here. On a nice weekend day the user density is unbelievable, which is a great thing, yet still no issues.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> I agree that it doesn't really matter if the rider is controlling the motor via pedals or a twist throttle, but the order doesn't seem to agree with that.


Their house, their rules. I imagine there were some very compelling reasons due to legal wording of various items that caused the order to be written as it was.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> As are the trails here. On a nice weekend day the user density is unbelievable, which is a great thing, yet still no issues.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


where is that?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> where is that?


Bentonville

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Based on my area's experience there is no issue with any type of e-bike so for me it's not really wait and see. It's an informed opinion based on actual real world experience. The order reads something to the effect of "the rider must be actively pedaling throttle equipped bikes". There are also dirt, single-track trails, current and in construction, in both National Parks and NPS sites.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


I would like to second that: Where I ride, emtb are plenty, and no issues have been reported.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Bentonville
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Drove 14 hours to Bentonville with 4 guys, rented a house, and rode everyday for a week. I was the only one with an emtb, had a blast. I think it was probably a 3 to 10 ebike to mtb ratio. Their is some crazy Red Bull rampage stuff there! Cool town with good bike vibe. Heck the police lady gave us the lay of the land as she was an avid mtbr. Seemless integration of ebikes. One area there was a group of at least 25 people and probably at least 10 were Levo's.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Gutch said:


> Drove 14 hours to Bentonville with 4 guys, rented a house, and rode everyday for a week. I was the only one with an emtb, had a blast. I think it was probably a 3 to 10 ebike to mtb ratio. Their is some crazy Red Bull rampage stuff there! Cool town with good bike vibe. Heck the police lady gave us the lay of the land as she was an avid mtbr. Seemless integration of ebikes. One area there was a group of at least 25 people and probably at least 10 were Levo's.


Glad you enjoyed it. Our public use ideminity laws allow for some crazy stuff to be built. If I remember correctly you were looking for some techy stuff. They just cut a new trail at Coler for the enduro called The Waterfall, hate you didn't get to ride it.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

ruthabagah said:


> I would like to second that: Where I ride, emtb are plenty, and no issues have been reported.


Do you guys work within the land agencies? How would you know what's been reported? I work closely with my land agents, and I only hear about the worst of the worst. Genuinely curious


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Glad you enjoyed it. Our public use ideminity laws allow for some crazy stuff to be built. If I remember correctly you were looking for some techy stuff. They just cut a new trail at Coler for the enduro called The Waterfall, hate you didn't get to ride it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


 Yeah man, thanks for the riding tips. I was actually riding coler when they were working on the Enduro course. Pretty cool that a guy cruises around all day on a Trek ebike to make sure everybody is ok and no one is bleeding out or anything. Never seen that before. I will say I prefer my local dirt here as it is dirt. Very rocky in Bentonville. Definitely a fun trip. Tahoe next year.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Gutch said:


> Yeah man, thanks for the riding tips. I was actually riding coler when they were working on the Enduro course. Pretty cool that a guy cruises around all day on a Trek ebike to make sure everybody is ok and no one is bleeding out or anything. Never seen that before. I will say I prefer my local dirt here as it is dirt. Very rocky in Bentonville. Definitely a fun trip. Tahoe next year.


You're welcome. You got to meet Andrew Lester. He manages the park, came from New England and is an all around great guy. He's actually helping ram through the changes we needed to get part of Coler NICA certified for a race.

It's a good thing he cruises like he does though. They do have to do the occasional extraction. I had to call 911 during the enduro because someone got in over their head, assuming, on Cease and Decist and it went horribly wrong.

Here is the aforementioned Waterfall, even though it's suffering massive GoPro effect. Further down the trail there was a big creek gap.

https://www.facebook.com/779779171/posts/10157965754399172/

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ericvtt78 (Sep 14, 2019)

Hello

Europe is full of e-bikes. Many young people use them to do more kms, not because they are disabled.

The disabled people are the Troy Horse of the the industry to introduce e-bikes to every people, young or old, disabled or healthy. To make money. As much as they can.

You can read this article (in french) to see the future in your lands with this new rules:

Dans les Alpes bavaroises, les VTT électriques irritent

https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/nat...avaroises-les-vtt-electriques-irritent_137067


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ericvtt78 said:


> Hello
> 
> Europe is full of e-bikes. Many young people use them to do more kms, not because they are disabled.
> 
> ...


Thankfully, we're not in Europe.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

ericvtt78 said:


> Hello
> 
> Europe is full of e-bikes. Many young people use them to do more kms, not because they are disabled.
> 
> ...


I am in Montreal, Quebec.
All that bashing is nothing else than bashing.
It is always this way.
New comers are not welcome.
People move to the Laurentians to be closer to nature than they say stop construction **they** take away my beautifull view.(the new comers)
About 40 years ago they started doing cycling path, now they are considered multi-users. I could say the electric wheelchairs should be illegal, same for skateboards, same for inline skaters, same for dog walkers, same for cops who park there for no good reason, same for cellphone users... ...
Snowboarders were not welcome, same for fatbikes than those activities are seen on TV and become cool. Just ad a tiny wheel and pretend it is your electric wheelchair. Smile at the bashers they are miserable, no need to waste energy on them.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

33red said:


> I am in Montreal, Quebec.
> All that bashing is nothing else than bashing.
> It is always this way.
> New comers are not welcome.
> ...


 Thank goodness we are not Canada either.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

ericvtt78 said:


> Hello
> 
> Europe is full of e-bikes. Many young people use them to do more kms, not because they are disabled.
> 
> ...


this article does not cover anything about the future of our land.... its the same craptalk about ebikes, reported from the german point of view...


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Thankfully, we're not in Europe.


You would not survive 2 min there.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Harryman said:


> Do you guys work within the land agencies? How would you know what's been reported? I work closely with my land agents, and I only hear about the worst of the worst. Genuinely curious


I work closely with land managers, some directly affected by the recent DOI Order.

Now, there are some people that argue that an E-mtb is the "same" as a mountain bike. Based upon this argument, they conclude E-mtb'ers should have trail access wherever mountain bikers have trail access. The recent DOI Order directs land managers within DOI jurisdiction to manage E-mtbs using the same regulations used for mountain bikes.

What has been discussed with me regarding E-mtb access by those responsible to manage federal property set aside not for recreation but for wildlife and habitat conservation, property that rarely allows for mountain biking access, can be broken down into two categories: E-mtb's and E-mtber's.

One of the things that has pissed off land managers that I have personally spoken with is the classification system developed by the e-bike industry. The previous argument was that "Class 1 E-mtbikes" are ok, Class 2 & 3 not ok. The manufacturers know that there is no way in hell that any local, State or Federal agency has the personnel and financial resources to regulate and enforce such a system, and it is well documented on the internet, this website included, that this Class system is meaningless. When an industry creates a system that does not address land managers responsibilities to protect habitat and wildlife, this is viewed as insulting. And disrespectful.

Another factor of e-mtb's is the fact it has a motor. Many agencies rely on grants and funding from sources that stipulate non-motorized use. This fact, often overlooked by keyboard advocate warriors, but not by those that advocate for mountain bike access, is critical for trail access. If funding is lost, trail access is reduced due to an agency unable to adequately manage the recreational component of their Mission.

The recent DOI Order states its purpose is to expand access for more people. The Order does not include funding to provide for all the new people gaining access. This oversight is quite common in politics.

I acknowledge that there are some areas, maybe many areas, where an influx of a new trail user group will not negatively affect trail user experiences nor wildlife and habitat. *It makes sense to me and there are no factual arguments one can produce to deny e-mtb access under these conditions, regardless of so-called Classification.*

It makes no sense to me to provide blanket trail access for *any* trail user group on lands managed to protect wildlife and habitat resources. Land Managers must be able to decide which trails are appropriate for trail users.

Let's take Arkansas for example, since it is a very popular bike riding destination. There's around 3 million people distributed across approximately 53,000 square miles. I live in a County of 3.3 million people distributed across 325 square miles. I can confidently state the recent DOI Order will not negatively impact the entire State of Arkansas.

Land Managers in my area will be retaining the ability to manage the properties they are entrusted to protect. They will decide if e-mtb's are an appropriate use and also if they are compatible to existing conditions.

We all, whether we e-mtbike or not, should demand that our land managers to be able to decide on local trail access since they are the ones that know their properties, know how much help they can count on from the local trail using community, and know how not to get in the crosshairs of anti-recreational organizations that are well funded and biased.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

^Valid points, I completely agree.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Harryman said:


> Do you guys work within the land agencies? How would you know what's been reported? I work closely with my land agents, and I only hear about the worst of the worst. Genuinely curious


I don't work within the LM or the bike industry, but I have been working with various LM, at the local, federal and private level for over almost 30 years on conservation / land development / EPA regulations issues.

I have my contacts, and even if ebikes are not my primary motivations to talk to them, they all know that I have been riding them and we often use this as an "ice breaker" before discussing business matters.... Lately, Ebikes have been a hot topic, and even the more "reluctant" LM I talk to, have admitted that the Ebike apocalypse did not happen in their jurisdiction once they were allowed...


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Boulder Pilot said:


> I work closely with land managers, some directly affected by the recent DOI Order.
> 
> Now, there are some people that argue that an E-mtb is the "same" as a mountain bike. Based upon this argument, they conclude E-mtb'ers should have trail access wherever mountain bikers have trail access. The recent DOI Order directs land managers within DOI jurisdiction to manage E-mtbs using the same regulations used for mountain bikes.
> 
> ...


Well written comment and I fully agree with your conclusion.

One comment though:

"Many agencies rely on grants and funding from sources that stipulate non-motorized use. This fact, often overlooked by keyboard advocate warriors, but not by those that advocate for mountain bike access, is critical for trail access. If funding is lost, trail access is reduced due to an agency unable to adequately manage the recreational component of their Mission."

Interestingly enough I know of multiple Land owner or Trusts, that have recently modified their covenant to exclude ebikes from the non-motorized stipulation. They may not contribute financially, but own the land.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> Let's take Arkansas for example, since it is a very popular bike riding destination. There's around 3 million people distributed across approximately 53,000 square miles. I live in a County of 3.3 million people distributed across 325 square miles. I can confidently state the recent DOI Order will not negatively impact the entire State of Arkansas.


Thank you for pointing that out Boulder. A blanket order that effects so many diverse area's and treats them all with the same set of rules is not a good thing.

I get the feeling that some of the more Extremely Pro or Anti eBike guys that post on this site get hung up on "how it works" on the trails they ride, and don't take into consideration the situation can be 100% different a few states, counties or Cities away from them.

I fully support the decision making being done at the local level.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

ruthabagah said:


> Well written comment and I fully agree with your conclusion.
> 
> One comment though:
> 
> ...


I want to be sure I understand this correctly. You are stating that private land owners that have allowed the public to access non motorized trails on private property are allowing e-mtbs to access the same trails? If so, this a positive step for e-mtb'ers.

This thread was started with Federal rules and regulations as the topic so I'm going to stick to the thread topic moving forward.

The main issue I have with all "blanket" rulings is the fact the people making the rulings have no fking idea how their ruling will negatively affect any one area. When land managers are not able to fulfill their responsibility to manage their property, the power of influence ramps up. Mountain bikers that have no respect for rules and that poach trails in areas of my County will back up this statement, having learned first hand of the power of influence.

I am not and have never been against e-mtbike trail access opportunities. I have been and I am more so now due to this DOI Order a firm believer and advocate that 
e-mountain bikers be treated as a separate trail user group. They should want to be considered separate anyways due to the amount of stupid sh!t and problems mountain bikers cause themselves.

When land management decisions about trail access are being considered, the criteria and information used to reach a decision includes estimated usage and how this usage will affect habitat, trail user experiences, etc.

Looking at this from only a trail maintenance perspective, I believe we all can agree that adding "X" amount of new trail users will create "Y" amount of trail maintenance. As long as there are enough new trail users that will perform at least "Y" amount of trail maintenance, there will be no credible argument against the new trail users creating a net gain of habitat destruction.

Looking at this from only a trail user experience perspective, of course adding "X" amount of new trail users will create "Y%" of new trail user conflicts. Land managers factor this in to their decisions, this is not a bad or good thing, it's simply a fact to consider. If there are trails that are currently heavily used, and reported incidents (trail user conflicts) are frequent, it makes no sense to encourage more trail users to access an trail that cannot manage current capacity. In this instance, it makes more sense to propose more shared use trails.

I have advocated against mountain bike access on heavily used hiking trails that did not offer much of a trail user experience. The potential for conflict was 100%, to "fight" simply based upon the principle of whatever does not benefit riders in the big picture.

It is the "Big Picture" that many of us sometimes fail to consider when we want something.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

I think a lot of people, both pro and anti ebike, would agree that "The Order" was a blunt force instrument and maybe a little overreaching, but quite frankly, it was necessary because some of the local land use managers for both NPS and BLM were saying NO ebikes PERIOD, even when that attitude was simply ridiculous. Our land managers should not be gatekeepers based on personal or even local bias, their access decisions should be based on real life observation and fact, and they should actually make efforts to make those observations and gather those facts. That wasn't happening in many areas, and perhaps the most egregious situation was Arches and Canyonlands banning ebikes even on pavement, and even on 4x4 roads where lifted Jeeps and highly modified dirt bikes are allowed, along with MTBs. Apparently Canyonlands has relented as a result of "The Order", I do not know about Arches. BLM is still refusing access to the trails on BLM in Moab. I would think pushing back against your bosses' bosses' bosses' boss would be a career limiting move, but maybe they don't care? 

NPS and BLM irrational positions on Class 1 ebikes contributed at least partially to the backlash in the opposite direction in the form of "The Order". I hope they have learned the lesson that as land managers, they need to be flexible and forward thinking, not simply gatekeepers charged with giving a kneejerk and 100% inflexible "NO" to every request that comes along, especially when that "NO" flies in the face of all logic.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

honkinunit said:


> I would think pushing back against your bosses' bosses' bosses' boss would be a career limiting move, but maybe they don't care?


One thing to remember regarding bureaucracy, and in particular federal ones, is that the individuals will often take the very, very long view when faced with making any decisions, especially ones they don't want to make. Interior Secretaries come and go, while the rank and file BLM people are there forever. I see it all the time, people will sit on their hands for years and come up with reasons why they can't implement this or that. I'm not saying that things aren't going to change with this order, or others, but I doubt there are many in the trenches worrying about what David Burnhardt wants.

In 100% agreement on the changes so far in Moab though, just flat out stupid you couldn't ride an ebike on a road.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Harryman said:


> One thing to remember regarding bureaucracy, and in particular federal ones, is that the individuals will often take the very, very long view when faced with making any decisions, especially ones they don't want to make. Interior Secretaries come and go, while the rank and file BLM people are there forever. I see it all the time, people will sit on their hands for years and come up with reasons why they can't implement this or that. I'm not saying that things aren't going to change with this order, or others, but I doubt there are many in the trenches worrying about what David Burnhardt wants.
> 
> In 100% agreement on the changes so far in Moab though, just flat out stupid you couldn't ride an ebike on a road.


You want to talk stupid? You still can't ride an ebike on the paved bike paths in Moab, even the one running along Highway 191 to the north, which gains 600 feet of elevation in two miles and has grades as steep as 6%. You can coast a road bike down that bike path at 40MPH, but they don't want Class 1 ebikes going 11 MPH uphill? Of course, this is a local issue, not a Federal one. The 191 bike path is on top of the former highway roadbed, and ebikes are legal on all public roads in Utah, but somehow Grand County thinks, I don't know, they need to save the fragile egos of the local bike shop bros? There are some people out there who are rabidly anti-ebike, but eventually they'll be shown the light, I'm sure. The shops get Euros all day long wanting to rent ebikes to ride around town and on the paths. Eventually they'll pressure Grand County to call off the dogs so they can rent ebikes without having to tell the mystified tourists that they have to ride in traffic if they rent one.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

honkinunit said:


> I think a lot of people, both pro and anti ebike, would agree that "The Order" was a blunt force instrument and maybe a little overreaching, but quite frankly, it was necessary because some of the local land use managers for both NPS and BLM were saying NO ebikes PERIOD, even when that attitude was simply ridiculous. Our land managers should not be gatekeepers based on personal or even local bias, their access decisions should be based on real life observation and fact, and they should actually make efforts to make those observations and gather those facts. That wasn't happening in many areas, and perhaps the most egregious situation was Arches and Canyonlands banning ebikes even on pavement, and even on 4x4 roads where lifted Jeeps and highly modified dirt bikes are allowed, along with MTBs. Apparently Canyonlands has relented as a result of "The Order", I do not know about Arches. BLM is still refusing access to the trails on BLM in Moab. I would think pushing back against your bosses' bosses' bosses' boss would be a career limiting move, but maybe they don't care?
> 
> NPS and BLM irrational positions on Class 1 ebikes contributed at least partially to the backlash in the opposite direction in the form of "The Order". I hope they have learned the lesson that as land managers, they need to be flexible and forward thinking, not simply gatekeepers charged with giving a kneejerk and 100% inflexible "NO" to every request that comes along, especially when that "NO" flies in the face of all logic.


Again, the NPS is saying they can restrict ebikes as they see necessary, it's not just a blanket order that everything must now be open to ebikes:

_May superintendents restrict the use of e-bikes or close areas to e-bikes under certain circumstances?

Yes. Superintendents may restrict or impose conditions upon the use of e-bikes, or close locations to the use of e-bikes, after taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, and other management activities and objectives. If warranted by these criteria, superintendents may manage e-bikes, or particular classes of e-bikes, differently than traditional bicycles in particular locations. For example, a superintendent could determine that a trail open to traditional bicycles should not be open to e-bikes, or should be open to class-1 e-bikes only._

I kind of doubt they would publish this if it was really going against their boss's boss's etc. The order should cause them to better evaluate the acceptance of ebikes and certainly on pavement and 4x4 roads, but don't be surprised if they don't have 100% access everywhere.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

chazpat said:


> Again, the NPS is saying they can restrict ebikes as they see necessary, it's not just a blanket order that everything must now be open to ebikes:
> 
> _May superintendents restrict the use of e-bikes or close areas to e-bikes under certain circumstances?
> 
> ...


That's fine with me; one of the nice things about eBiking is that you're far less dependent on gravity for fun; a trail without the payoff of a nice downhill run that wouldn't be preferred by mountain bikers could easily be popular with eBike riders.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Annnndddd....today Arches and Canyonlands officially opened every trail/road open to MTBs to ebikes. Also, Natural Bridges (no opportunities off pavement there) and Hovenweep (same deal). 

Finally. 

For Canyonlands, this means White Rim, Elephant Hill, roads in the Maze, the Confluence Overlook and Colorado River overlook roads, among others, are now open to ebikes. In Arches, the Tower Arch 4x4 road and the Salt Valley road are open. All of the paved roads are open as well. 

All told, several hundred miles opened up. 

These are all roads where Jeeps and licensed dirt bikes were allowed previously. It made zero sense to ban ebikes on these roads.


----------



## stiksandstones (Oct 7, 2004)

Today is the deadline right? for the land managers to respond to the executive order.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

stiksandstones said:


> Today is the deadline right? for the land managers to respond to the executive order.


Yes.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

I'm shocked that the only thing coming out of BLM about ebikes is the sound of crickets.

Actually, there is *one* thing I found. BLM is in the cycle of of doing an Environmental Assessment for its travel plans for part of SW Colorado. In the EA, it specifically mentions that regardless of which Alternative is selected, ebikes will be allowed on trails where bicycles are allowed, even if the "No Action" alternative is chosen.

I get the feeling that this is how "The Order" is going to roll out. Very slowly.

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front...018-13_EA_TRFO_TAP1_Preliminary_ePlanning.pdf


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

I would be interested in hearing what regulation the BLM can base a ticket on. Before "the order" they were ticketing eBikes on the basis of the recreation director's wishy washy suggestion that eBikes are exclusively self-propelled. Now that "the order" destroys that suggestion, is there a judge that will uphold a ticket for treating an pedal assist eBike like a bicycle? "The Order" isn't a stand alone order either, it is mostly an assertion that Federal Agencies are ignoring §1512.2 and Order 3366 by segregating bikes and eBikes. At this point, the BLM can't treat eBikes like motor vehicles and there are no laws regarding the use of eBikes to fall back on. What LEO/judge is going to put themselves between a low level land manager and the most powerful government representative of US public lands?


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

From the EA for SW Colorado, which is the first mention of "The Order" I have found in an official BLM document, the managers don't think ebikes need to be allowed until implementation of Section 5 of "The Order". That was supposed to have been done as of 9/30, including "provide appropriate public guidance regarding the use of e-bikes on public lands within units of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, lands managed by BLM, and lands managed by BOR." If this has happened for any trails in Colorado or on BLM in Utah, I can't find it. 

Politics.


----------



## ericvtt78 (Sep 14, 2019)

The new Specialized Kenevo

*The 2020 Specialized Kenevo Aims to Replace Your Shuttle Truck*

"It's designed to be a shuttle truck or chairlift replacement"

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/first...d-kenevo-gets-even-more-gravity-oriented.html

yes, the bikes industry is thinking about the disabled people with their e-bikes


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

ericvtt78 said:


> The new Specialized Kenevo
> 
> *The 2020 Specialized Kenevo Aims to Replace Your Shuttle Truck*
> 
> ...


I'll bet Paul Basagoitia would love one.

https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a28186407/paul-basagoitia-bike/


----------



## OzarkFathom (Jul 2, 2019)

People 
Crave 
Politics

Control.
Human Control.
Control myself.
Avoid controlling humans.
Happy, Free, Human enjoying my bike.
Gravity, trees, and rocks my only external contentions......


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

*The latest word from the BLM*

https://www.blm.gov/programs/recreation/e-bikes

https://www.blm.gov/policy/ib-2020-003


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Pretty clear. Thank you for posting this


----------



## levity (Oct 31, 2011)

*a few key words...*

Yes, thanks you GW!

The first link seems clear enough:

"Guidance released on October 22, 2019 enables visitors to use these bicycles with a small electric motor (less than 1 horsepower) power assist in the same manner as traditional bicycles.

But the second link suggests District Managers may be able to fight approval:

"As the BLM works to implement fully SO 3376, District or Field Managers should, as appropriate to address local situations (my emphasis), use the exclusion to the definition of off-road vehicle at 43 CFR 8340.0-5(a)(3) to authorize the use of Class I, II, and III e-bikes, as those terms are defined in section 4 of SO 3376, where other types of bicycles are allowed. In considering when and where to authorize the use of e-bikes, District or Field Managers should take into account the policy set forth in SO 3376 that the use of e-bikes in the pedal assist mode and traditional bicycles without an electric pedal assist should be treated generally in the same manner.

In the event that a District or Field Manager is considering denying the use of low-speed electric bicycles in a specific location, a written explanation must be submitted to and approved by the State Director."

Another link seems to imply broad approval - https://www.blm.gov/press-release/b...nal-opportunities-public-lands-electric-bikes

"The BLM will now permit visitors to use low-speed e-bikes on BLM roads, trails and designated areas where traditional bikes are allowed."


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

Hopefully I didn't read it wrong but I found it interesting that a local land manager has to submit an ebike ban to be approved by the state authority for the particular state. I am hoping that this will force Moab to open up all biking trails to ebikes. In other words, there would have to be a good reason for banning other than "I don't like ebikes". I understand there are areas where that would be appropriate but not in Moab.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

There’s really no place an ebike should be banned if bikes are allowed cuz ebikes have no more impact than a bike.

It’s always been about principles.


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

Nurse Ben said:


> There's really no place an ebike should be banned if bikes are allowed cuz ebikes have no more impact than a bike.
> 
> It's always been about principles.


I am talking about ebikes in the context of the BLM rules. If I remember right they allow throttles now. A throttle might not be appropriate on a heavy foliage MUT with blind corners and drop offs. Like the kind of exposed trails where the rider can die. I was an early adopter of the Turbo Levo (3yrs now). I remember the early firmware allowed crazy take off speed. There were places in Moab where you could bump the pedal and get launched off a cliff if you weren't careful. Of course it doesn't have a throttle but you get the idea. Cheers


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Giant Warp said:


> I am talking about ebikes in the context of the BLM rules. If I remember right they allow throttles now. A throttle might not be appropriate on a heavy foliage MUT with blind corners and drop offs. Like the kind of exposed trails where the rider can die. I was an early adopter of the Turbo Levo (3yrs now). I remember the early firmware allowed crazy take off speed. There were places in Moab where you could bump the pedal and get launched off a cliff if you weren't careful. Of course it doesn't have a throttle but you get the idea. Cheers


People on ATV's and motorcycles go over cliffs every year in Moab. E-bikers should have the same opportunities as everyone else.


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

Touche. I am all about personal responsibility. Do you think a throttle would be wise on Captain Ahab?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Giant Warp said:


> Touche. I am all about personal responsibility. Do you think a throttle would be wise on Captain Ahab?


As long as Bubba, who hasn't been on a bike in 20 years, signs a waiver absolving the local SAR teams from having to look for his 245lb corpse after he launches himself off of Ahab or TWE, I'm fine with it.

I mean, god knows the SAR guys in Moab are already busy enough without having to look for the bodies of even more people that have no business being out there in the first place.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Giant Warp said:


> Hopefully I didn't read it wrong but I found it interesting that a local land manager has to submit an ebike ban to be approved by the state authority for the particular state. I am hoping that this will force Moab to open up all biking trails to ebikes. In other words, there would have to be a good reason for banning other than "I don't like ebikes". I understand there are areas where that would be appropriate but not in Moab.


You can take it to the bank, the vast majority of singletrack around Moab is going to remain closed to ebikes. Trail Mix *hates* ebikes, and they run the show there. The only singletrack that *might* open would be the trails north of Klondike. And *maybe* Bar-M, but not Klonzo.

The district manager will write a letter with all of the usual BS arguments, and the trails on BLM like LPS/UPS/Jimmy Keen/Porcupine, Ahab, Navajo Rocks, Klonzo trails, Mag 7, etc. will all remain closed.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> As long as Bubba, who hasn't been on a bike in 20 years, signs a waiver absolving the local SAR teams from having to look for his 245lb corpse after he launches himself off of Ahab or TWE, I'm fine with it.
> 
> I mean, god knows the SAR guys in Moab are already busy enough without having to look for the bodies of even more people that have no business being out there in the first place.


I've seen plenty of out of shape riders on 20 year old hardtails on those trails. Should we require a license to ride?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Giant Warp said:


> Touche. I am all about personal responsibility. Do you think a throttle would be wise on Captain Ahab?


I think a throttle would be just fine on Ahab, why not? It's not like there have been endless streams of moto riders inadvertently launching off of cliffs in Moab from day 1.

The reality is that the BLM ruling opens up anything that can sort of pass as a legal ebike to singletrack unless it's explicitly banned. The quaint idea that making a trail only Class 1 legal will mean only 250w Class 1 emtbs will be on it is a fantasy.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

honkinunit said:


> I've seen plenty of out of shape riders on 20 year old hardtails on those trails. Should we require a license to ride?


Do their 20 year old hardtails have throttles that, should they mistakenly touch them the wrong way, launch them off of one of the many cliff faces in that area?


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Do their 20 year old hardtails have throttles that, should they mistakenly touch them the wrong way, launch them off of one of the many cliff faces in that area?


I have three Class 1 eMTBs, and none of them "have throttles that, should they mistakenly touch them the wrong way, launch them off of one of the many cliff faces in that area".


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

honkinunit said:


> I have three Class 1 eMTBs, and none of them "have throttles that, should they mistakenly touch them the wrong way, launch them off of one of the many cliff faces in that area".


That's great. Not everyone on an e-bike is going to be riding a Class 1 e-bike.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> That's great. Not everyone on an e-bike is going to be riding a Class 1 e-bike.


Tell you what: you can choose to strap a rocket on your regular bike today... How many people do it? None. The fact that they exist (class 2) doesn't make them the norm on the trails... I have been riding cyclocross/mtb for 40 years and EMTB for almost 3 years now: I have NEVER seen a class 2 on a trail.


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

Even Gondola serviced ski mountains with a trail to the parking lot, I have seen skiers go up the "Trail Out" / "Run Out" it saves them a $50 for the gondola ride itself. On a mountain its even easier to ride up. I mountain biked down ski mountains in the early 1980's before it even became a thing, same went for skiing on the short 4' skis. This is of course back when some ski mountains banned snow boards. These days I know a days ski pass is $100 and undoubtedly to take your mountain bike there would be the same price, and for that kind of money, I'd rather go to a place like Whistler/Blackcomb near Vancouver British Columbia.

The difference is of course the ski mountain is private land or leased from the governments crown land corp.



Walt said:


> It would make a ton of sense to let local districts control things as they see fit. Got a crowded trail system with bad sight lines and a ton of users? Don't allow e-bikes. Got a wide-open system (Moab) or a ski area with directional trails (ie Mammoth)? Let them ride it all.
> 
> Ski areas are really a no-brainer. Nobody rides up the singletrack (in most cases it's not even allowed with a few exceptions) and it's already a lift-served bike park. Nobody is causing anybody a problem with their e-bike on a deforested slope served by giant electric chairlifts. You could really probably allow dirtbikes with no real impact on users or the environment in most of the ski area bikeparks, though you'd have to make an effort to keep the mouth-breathing ones from climbing up DH trails.
> 
> -Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

ruthabagah said:


> Tell you what: you can choose to strap a rocket on your regular bike today... How many people do it? None. The fact that they exist (class 2) doesn't make them the norm on the trails... I have been riding cyclocross/mtb for 40 years and EMTB for almost 3 years now: I have NEVER seen a class 2 on a trail.


I see more class 2 than class 1 on my local trails, I gess we cancel each other out...


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Harryman said:


> I see more class 2 than class 1 on my local trails, I gess we cancel each other out...


Since you are in Co too, chances are we are riding the same trails, so which one? Are they single tracks, or city path?

Again, zero class 2 sightings in any of the trails I have been riding (state parks from FoCo to trinidad, Jeffco parks, mountain jeep roads).


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Meanwhile in Tahoe...

As the 2019 field season winds to a close, the Tahoe National Forest would like to share an update on class 1, pedal-assisted E-bike use on recommended routes and trails:
• No observed increase in trail degradation nor resource damage occurred as a result of class 1, pedal-assisted E-bike use on Tahoe National Forest routes or trails.
• No trail conflicts were reported or observed between class 1, pedal-assisted E-bike users and other recreationalists on Tahoe National Forest roads or trails.
• There were no reported accidents or injuries due to E-bike use of any class type on Tahoe National Forest routes or trails.
• Tahoe National Forest trail and recreation managers did observe an increase in the diversity of skill levels and age groups utilizing E-bikes to access Tahoe National Forest routes and trails. This included both class 1, pedal-assisted E-bike use, and other classes of E-bikes utilizing motorized routes.




__ https://www.facebook.com/TahoeNF/posts/2360414850886769


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

ruthabagah said:


> Meanwhile in Tahoe...
> 
> As the 2019 field season winds to a close, the Tahoe National Forest would like to share an update on class 1, pedal-assisted E-bike use on recommended routes and trails:
> • No observed increase in trail degradation nor resource damage occurred as a result of class 1, pedal-assisted E-bike use on Tahoe National Forest routes or trails.
> ...


Good to have some actual studied findings instead of conjecture.

As to the second point on trail conflict, does the report state how many miles of trails and how many users? The Crux of any trail conflict issue has to do with number of people per mile of trails. In remote places where one can go for a hike or ride and only encounter a small handful of people, trail conflicts will be minimal. In more urban area's where the trails are very crowded, especially on weekends, where one will encounter 10's if not 100's of people on the trail the number of trail conflicts has the opportunity to become higher. In some locals the Hikers and MTBer's have good relationships already and adding in a few Class 1 eBikes will not even be noticed. In other places the Hikers and bird watchers HATE 2-wheeled anything, so those groups will be vocal with or without reason. Marin is a good example of that.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

Harryman said:


> I see more class 2 than class 1 on my local trails, I gess we cancel each other out...


I'm is SO CA and on actual dirt trails all I see are only class 1 as well. But go to the beach or road and all bets are off.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

ruthabagah said:


> Meanwhile in Tahoe...
> 
> As the 2019 field season winds to a close, the Tahoe National Forest would like to share an update on class 1, pedal-assisted E-bike use on recommended routes and trails:
> • No observed increase in trail degradation nor resource damage occurred as a result of class 1, pedal-assisted E-bike use on Tahoe National Forest routes or trails.
> ...


Great post and thanks for the link! 
I don't remember exactly we're I read it, but I could've sworn I saw something similar about AZ as well.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> In some locals the Hikers and MTBer's have good relationships already and adding in a few Class 1 eBikes will not even be noticed. In other places the Hikers and bird watchers HATE 2-wheeled anything, so those groups will be vocal with or without reason. Marin is a good example of that.


No disrespect intended, but I hike on occasion around Laguna Beach: Aliso Woods or Laguna Coast Park. My GF & I almost always have to jump quickly to a side to avoid from getting run over. So far it's always been an MTB, but it can easily be an emtb as well. I get the feeling most hikers tolerate bikers and I only hike occasionally. As a bike rider, I make it a point to always greet people and there are always a few you can tell don't want to say a thing because you are on a bike. I

Personally I think it's naive to believe there is a good relationship between hikers and bikers. I bet, if there was good way to get MTB's off the trail, hikers would take it. That's why MTBs and emtbs should you unite to become a larger trail advocacy group.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

Please someone what is specific about class 2?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

33red said:


> Please someone what is specific about class 2?


Hand twist throttle instead of cranks assist throttle.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

ruthabagah said:


> Since you are in Co too, chances are we are riding the same trails, so which one? Are they single tracks, or city path?
> 
> Again, zero class 2 sightings in any of the trails I have been riding (state parks from FoCo to trinidad, Jeffco parks, mountain jeep roads).


Lots of riding in the front range, it doesn't look like we overlap. The only state park I very infrequently ride is Cheyenne Mtn state park. I stay out of Jeffco. Otherwise, trails generally local to me in the springs in various park systems and USFS. It's rare to see a class 1 on bike paths, I think I've seen two in the last several years, class 2 and kit bikes are the ebikes of choice. On singletrack, it's about 40/60 between class 1 and 2. With more Chinese middrives hitting the market, it'll become increasingly hard to tell the difference.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Harryman said:


> Lots of riding in the front range, it doesn't look like we overlap. The only state park I very infrequently ride is Cheyenne Mtn state park. I stay out of Jeffco. Otherwise, trails generally local to me in the springs in various park systems and USFS. It's rare to see a class 1 on bike paths, I think I've seen two in the last several years, class 2 and kit bikes are the ebikes of choice. On singletrack, it's about 40/60 between class 1 and 2. With more Chinese middrives hitting the market, it'll become increasingly hard to tell the difference.


I've ridden Moab, Rabbit Valley, Jeffco and multiple state parks, certainly hundreds of rides at this point, and I have *never* seen a Class 2 ebike on the trails, and I know what I'm looking for. I've never seen one on the 4x4 roads above Boulder where I ride, either.

I commute on the US36 bike path quite a bit, and I've only even seen a couple of Class 2s on there, and they were bolt upright **** bikes being piloted by people who have probably hung them in the garage forever by now.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mtbbiker said:


> No disrespect intended, but I hike on occasion around Laguna Beach: Aliso Woods or Laguna Coast Park. My GF & I almost always have to jump quickly to a side to avoid from getting run over. So far it's always been an MTB, but it can easily be an emtb as well. I get the feeling most hikers tolerate bikers and I only hike occasionally. As a bike rider, I make it a point to always greet people and there are always a few you can tell don't want to say a thing because you are on a bike. I
> 
> Personally I think it's naive to believe there is a good relationship between hikers and bikers. I bet, if there was good way to get MTB's off the trail, hikers would take it. That's why MTBs and emtbs should you unite to become a larger trail advocacy group.


No disrespect taken.

But i do sense you did not fully read my post. I mentioned that some trails will have conflict when large groups of MTB's and hikers use the same trails and some would not. I live in Oceanside, less than an hour from laguna Beach and the trail system I frequent does not have the trail sharing issues you are describing.

It all comes down to each individual trail system and the issues that particular system has to deal with. That is why I am in favor of the local Trail Managers having full control of the rules set forth for said trail system, blanket rules meant to apply to every single trail in the city/county/state/nation are not a good thing.

What works in Laguna Beach is not necessarily going to work in Oceanside, or Fort Collins, or Upstate New York......


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

honkinunit said:


> I've ridden Moab, Rabbit Valley, Jeffco and multiple state parks, certainly hundreds of rides at this point, and I have *never* seen a Class 2 ebike on the trails, and I know what I'm looking for. I've never seen one on the 4x4 roads above Boulder where I ride, either.
> 
> I commute on the US36 bike path quite a bit, and I've only even seen a couple of Class 2s on there, and they were bolt upright **** bikes being piloted by people who have probably hung them in the garage forever by now.


There is a Pedego dealer 500 feet from a park that backs up to the USFS and is laced with popular riding trails, I wouldn't be surprised if that had an effect. Just goes to show there aren't any universal truths regarding how people behave in parks. Wait, I'm wrong, they don't pick up bags of poop, that one is indisputable.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

At one point not long ago, Pedego wasn't manufacturing/selling class 1 ebikes. They had eMTBs but one of their selling points was that all their ebikes had throttles, claiming that is what customers wanted (most did have pedal assist as well). I guess they realized they were missing out not having class 1 and removed the throttles from at least some of their eMTBs.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Harryman said:


> There is a Pedego dealer 500 feet from a park that backs up to the USFS and is laced with popular riding trails, I wouldn't be surprised if that had an effect. Just goes to show there aren't any universal truths regarding how people behave in parks. Wait, I'm wrong, they don't pick up bags of poop, that one is indisputable.


Absolutely agree on your last point on poop. Yeah, only pedego and radrover still sell Class 2 bikes that could pretend to be on a trail. Sales of class 2 have been so abysmal in Colorado that most LBS aside from the pedego store do not keep them in stock. Unless you are in the springs were they all ride a class 2... I thought it would be boulder...


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

There seem to be general confusion, or lack of information concerning E-bikes on BLM land around Moab.

Are they allowed until the local land managers implement restrictions? Are they not allowed until land managers release policy that they are legally allowed?

The caption of the photo in this article states that they are allowed to use BLM trails.

https://moabtimes.com/2019/10/25/federal-agencies-reaffirm-support-of-e-bikes-on-public-lands/

MTB Project is now labeling trails such as Captain Ahab and Mag 7 as e-bike legal.

Just wondering what the deal is.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

mlx john said:


> There seem to be general confusion, or lack of information concerning E-bikes on BLM land around Moab.
> 
> Are they allowed until the local land managers implement restrictions? Are they not allowed until land managers release policy that they are legally allowed?
> 
> ...


FWIW, anyone can change the ebike status of trails on mtb project, or at least request the change. I take what I see on any of the online trail mapping sites with a grain of salt, I've yet to see one that is reliably accurate about anything.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

When the National Parks released their statement on the Order, eBikes were automatically equated with bicycles as far as access goes. The BLM has released their statement on the Order, so they would in theory be obligated to equate the two. Should they determine that a trail is worthy of an eBike ban, they would have to go through the proper channels to create a law that will apply to the situation. The former laws that applied to eBikes were designed for motor vehicles and extended to eBikes. Those laws can no longer be used because of the order. When the laws are ambiguous, they work in your favor because a judge cannot hold you accountable for breaking an ambiguous law according to U.S. Code § 706.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

figofspee said:


> When the National Parks released their statement on the Order, eBikes were automatically equated with bicycles as far as access goes. The BLM has released their statement on the Order, so they would in theory be obligated to equate the two. Should they determine that a trail is worthy of an eBike ban, they would have to go through the proper channels to create a law that will apply to the situation. The former laws that applied to eBikes were designed for motor vehicles and extended to eBikes. Those laws can no longer be used because of the order. When the laws are ambiguous, they work in your favor because a judge cannot hold you accountable for breaking an ambiguous law according to U.S. Code § 706.


You understand that literally none of this is law, right?

Your insistence on repeatedly referring to a change in policy as "law" is concerning to me as an American taxpayer. Our educational system has obviously failed you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sunderland56 (Aug 27, 2009)

https://www.blm.gov/download/file/fid/35157

_E-bikes should not be used on a trail or road that is currently limited to non-OHV or non-motorized use only, unless a BLM District or Field Manager issues a decision authorizing their use in accordance with applicable law_


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

sunderland56 said:


> https://www.blm.gov/download/file/fid/35157
> 
> _E-bikes should not be used on a trail or road that is currently limited to non-OHV or non-motorized use only, unless a BLM District or Field Manager issues a decision authorizing their use in accordance with applicable law_


If you are caught violating this suggestion, the BLM officer will call your mom and tell her what a bad kid you are as punishment... Paternalistic land agencies aren't good at ceding power.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

sunderland56 said:


> https://www.blm.gov/download/file/fid/35157
> 
> _E-bikes should not be used on a trail or road that is currently limited to non-OHV or non-motorized use only, unless a BLM District or Field Manager issues a decision authorizing their use in accordance with applicable law_


Do you think that a single appointed official is capable of creating or augmenting an actual LAW?

Holy crap, guys. The law authorizes officials to create policy and regulation. They cannot create law.

That's up to the House, Senate and POTUS.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Do you think that a single appointed official is capable of creating or augmenting an actual LAW?
> 
> Holy crap, guys. The law authorizes officials to create policy and regulation. They cannot create law.
> 
> ...


Please inform the ATFE of that.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Please inform the ATFE of that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Boom. Excellent


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

ruthabagah said:


> Boom. Excellent


3 cheers for twitter, flashy headlines and sick one liners, they are a lot of fun. 
There is a lot more process involved than one guy at an agency signing a one-pager.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

aoliver said:


> 3 cheers for twitter, flashy headlines and sick one liners, they are a lot of fun.
> There is a lot more process involved than one guy at an agency signing a one-pager.
> 
> https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations


I don't know what you think your link shows. They, the ATF, recently went as far as to not prosecute a brazen, repeat offender who was blatantly giving them the bird, figuratively, while hosting build parties because they found out that their policy they were enforcing as law, ie people have been sent to jail using this policy, actually ran afoul of federal law. What makes it even more interesting is that they believe that by not prosecuting the guy their policy somehow still supersedes federal law.

So yes, the precedent is more than set where unaccountable, appointed officials codify laws outside the framework of the Constitution. Because, despite what they say, the head of the agency, any agency really, can, and has, push through regulations with no regard to the input process.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

figofspee said:


> If you are caught violating this suggestion, the BLM officer will call your mom and tell her what a bad kid you are as punishment... Paternalistic land agencies aren't good at ceding power.


The REWARD for turning in a motorized vehicle on BLM singletrack is $250, I imagine the fine is several times that amount.

But he's selectively quoting, missing this part:


> Question: Are e-bikes allowed on BLM trails due to SO 3376?
> Answer: As the BLM works to fully implement SO 3376, District or Field managers should use the exclusion to the definition of off-road vehicle (OHV) at 43 CFR 8340.0-5(a)(3) to authorize the use of Class I, II, and III e-bikes where ever bicycles are allowed, provided they are operated in the pedal assist mode.


If someone quotes something with a link, follow the link for the full story.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

§ 8340.0-5 Definitions.
As used in this part:

(a) Off-road vehicle means any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding:

(1) Any nonamphibious registered motorboat;

(2) Any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency purposes;

(3) Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved;

(4) Vehicles in official use; and

(5) Any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies.

(b) Public lands means any lands the surface of which is administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

(c) Bureau means the Bureau of Land Management.

(d) Official use means use by an employee, agent, or designated representative of the Federal Government or one of its contractors, in the course of his employment, agency, or representation.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Interesting BLM news From:

"William Perry Pendley serves as the Bureau of Land Management's Deputy Director for Policy and Programs, exercising authority of the director."

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/201...ion-e-bikes-make-public-lands-more-accessible


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> Interesting BLM news From:
> 
> "William Perry Pendley serves as the Bureau of Land Management's Deputy Director for Policy and Programs, exercising authority of the director."
> 
> https://www.deseret.com/opinion/201...ion-e-bikes-make-public-lands-more-accessible


Opinion pieces aren't "news".


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Opinion pieces aren't "news".


When the author is capable of actually making actual changes to have policy align with his views it's not an "opinion piece". If you want to get mad at someone over that comment get mad at the editor for allowing the stock title template to be used.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> When the author is capable of actually making actual changes to have policy align with his views it's not an "opinion piece". If you want to get mad at someone over that comment get mad at the editor for allowing the stock title template to be used.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


And there you go jumping to conclusions again. SMH.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> And there you go jumping to conclusions again. SMH.


William Perry Pendley serves as the Bureau of Land Management's Deputy Director for Policy and Programs, exercising authority of the director.

I translated this in English so that you can re-read it. And stop syh while reading that might help for comprehension. Actually, never mind, its you, just carry on.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

ruthabagah said:


> Interesting BLM news From:
> 
> "William Perry Pendley serves as the Bureau of Land Management's Deputy Director for Policy and Programs, exercising authority of the director."
> 
> https://www.deseret.com/opinion/201...ion-e-bikes-make-public-lands-more-accessible


"Who knows, maybe my son will be willing to saddle up with his old man and tempt those high-mountain passes again. I hope so - and I hope to see you all out there with us."

This right here is why eBikes are capable of breaking down the doors to places regular bikes never would. When old people in comfortable high power jobs want to use them, there is no net incentive to siding with the anti-wheel people. This deserves it's own thread.

Also this:
"In Tuesday's meeting, BLM Park Ranger Gary Keeling said the BLM hasn't "really advertised" that trails are open to e-bikes, but when someone asks, they tell them e-bikes of any class are allowed."
https://www.summitdaily.com/news/steamboat-considers-changing-e-bike-rules/

And this:
"That's a good segue into what we're doing over in Hale Lake, that we will make special designations where e-bikes can operate," she said.

As for any changes in regulations, Canfield said the USFS would only be looking at the lowest classifications, the pedal assist, "because with the other, you start getting up to 28 mph and that could cause problems. It almost is a mini motorcycle.".

She expects the USDA to be under some pressure to review the e-bike rules, she said.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ruidosonews.com/amp/2488069001


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> And there you go jumping to conclusions again. SMH.


And what "conclusion" did I jump to?

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ericvtt78 (Sep 14, 2019)

https://www.bikemag.com/news/equestrians-sue-forest-service-over-e-mtb-access/


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

I have noticed that the bow hunters in Utah were out in force this year with e*fat bikes. Even though some horse folks might not like ebikes, many hunters that might side with the horses are also game to the ebike. [see what I did there]


----------



## stiksandstones (Oct 7, 2004)

ericvtt78 said:


> https://www.bikemag.com/news/equestrians-sue-forest-service-over-e-mtb-access/


I am no lawyer, far from it-but the suit seems to make a point about passing this rule to allow eMTBs without public knowledge or comment period...at least the national forest ruling was given that public notice and time to comment and each land manager to respond?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

stiksandstones said:


> I am no lawyer, far from it-but the suit seems to make a point about passing this rule to allow eMTBs without public knowledge or comment period...at least the national forest ruling was given that public notice and time to comment and each land manager to respond?


From what I read you are correct. Which essentially does nothing to block access if that area is dead set on it. It would effectively just delay it.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Forest Service officially looking into expanding eBike access in areas they are currently banned:
https://www.fs.fed.us/visit/e-bikes


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> Forest Service officially looking into expanding eBike access in areas they are currently banned:
> https://www.fs.fed.us/visit/e-bikes


and the entire order is being challenged in the courts.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Which lawsuit are you referring to?


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/ind...-advisory-group-following-secret#.Xf4veEdKi00

Park Service disbands e-bike advisory group over secret lobbying concerns

WASHINGTON (BRAIN) - The National Park Service, facing a lawsuit from conservation groups for allowing e-bikes on non-motorized trails, disbanded a bike-industry group that has been accused of secret lobbying for that access.

The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and a coalition of conservation groups are suing to restore a ban on e-bikes on NPS non-motorized trails. According to the suit, the E-bike Partner & Agency Group's meetings with the staff of Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and Deputy NPS Director P. Daniel Smith violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires transparency to prevent secret lobbying.

"This e-bike call will conclude our 'Partner and Agency' calls. ... This is to ensure that we avoid any conflict with the Federal Advisory Committee Act," said an email from an NPS official to colleagues dated Oct. 9 and obtained by PEER through the Freedom of Information Act.

In another email obtained by PEER, a U.S. Forest Service official expressed concern about the meetings because they were not open and didn't include anyone outside e-bike and mountain bike advocates.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this month, contends the group did not give public notice of its meetings. PEER said the group included only e-bike and mountain biking advocates.

The International Mountain Bicycling Association initially said it participated in quarterly interagency and partner e-bike meetings. It later clarified that those meetings were with the E-bike Partner & Agency Group.

"As a nonprofit educational organization representing mountain bikers, not the bicycle industry, IMBA engages with the federal government on many levels," IMBA said in a statement to BRAIN. "IMBA was an invited participant in quarterly interagency and partner e-bike meetings. IMBA participated to represent and protect access for traditional, non-motorized mountain bikes, to be an educational resource, and to advocate for the importance of public process and independent management of e-MTBs.

"IMBA's e-MTB position emphasizes the need for e-MTBs to be managed separately from traditional mountain bikes and encourages a public process to determine where e-MTB access is appropriate."

PeopleForBikes issued a statement to BRAIN, saying it has worked with policymakers for several years on e-bike access.

"PeopleForBikes took the lead in 2014 to educate federal, state, and local policymakers on the e-bikes and the manner in which they are addressed in a variety of policy sectors. An important objective of this work is to synchronize terms and policies across government entities so that access rules are easy for everyone to understand. Federal land management agencies are critical to this evolution, as many of the best biking experiences in the U.S. are on federal public lands.

"Since September 2017, PeopleForBikes has provided education and outreach on electric bicycles to land managers and nonprofit partners ultimately charged with understanding and/or managing their use. These stakeholder groups expressed interest and knowledge gaps in e-bike demographics; sales data; use patterns; research and statistics; and policies across states, localities, and agencies. Our groups met to share knowledge around these topics. We were joined by numerous nonprofit organizations who provided their opinions and expertise on recreation management specific to e-bike use."

The Adventure Cycling Association also was part of the E-bike Partner & Agency Group but would not comment on the lawsuit or the group's disbanding.

An NPS spokesperson said the service disagrees with the lawsuit's premise and didn't respond to a request to comment on dissolving the e-bike group.

The lawsuit filed in District of Columbia District Court claims that the Park Service violated its own regulations that may not be set aside by administrative fiat; improperly evaded legally required environmental reviews; and came from an official, Smith, who lacked the authority to issue such an order.

In August, the Department of Interior ruled all classes of e-bikes will be regulated as traditional pedal bicycles on non-motorized federal lands, which includes the NPS and Bureau of Land Management. That decision allows agencies to regulate e-bikes as they see fit, just like with traditional bikes.

Co-plaintiffs are Wilderness Watch, Marin Conservation League, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Save Our Seashore, and three impacted individuals.

This is the second lawsuit against allowing e-bikes on non-motorized trails in the past two months. A group of trail and forest advocates sued the U.S. Forest Service in October for allowing Class 1 e-bikes on non-motorized trails in the Tahoe National Forest in California without first conducting a public study. While the Department of Interior oversees the NPS, the Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over the forest service.

Class 1 e-bikes are pedal assist only with no throttle and have a maximum powered speed of 20 mph.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

mtnbikej said:


> https://www.bicycleretailer.com/ind...-advisory-group-following-secret#.Xf4veEdKi00
> 
> Park Service disbands e-bike advisory group over secret lobbying concerns
> 
> ...


We have had 2 lawsuits so far. One directed at the trails in Tahoe and one directed at trails in National Parks.

The BCHA lawsuit directed at the Forest Service is good for eBike access as it forces their hands to change the laws Nationally rather then in small pockets.

The PEER lawsuit is directed at singletrack trails in the NPS, or .0000001 percent of the singletrack affected by the DOI order. This lawsuit highlights how pathetic bike access is in our National Parks.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

figofspee said:


> The BCHA lawsuit directed at the Forest Service is good for eBike access as it forces their hands to change the laws Nationally rather then in small pockets.


Could one other possible result of this lawsuit be the loss of all bike access in some areas if the land agency decides that prohibiting all bikes would be easier than trying to discern the difference between eBikes and non-eBikes?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

sgltrak said:


> Could one other possible result of this lawsuit be the loss of all bike access in some areas if the land agency decides that prohibiting all bikes would be easier than trying to discern the difference between eBikes and non-eBikes?


The Agency is the Tahoe National Forest. You could ask them what the outcome might be, as they are a better source of information about their intent then I am. They took down the part of the website that showed what trails they determined riding an eBike acceptable.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

sgltrak said:


> Could one other possible result of this lawsuit be the loss of all bike access in some areas if the land agency decides that prohibiting all bikes would be easier than trying to discern the difference between eBikes and non-eBikes?


yes, that is one possible result.

for now though all we can do is speculate.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sgltrak said:


> Could one other possible result of this lawsuit be the loss of all bike access in some areas if the land agency decides that prohibiting all bikes would be easier than trying to discern the difference between eBikes and non-eBikes?


It would be a highly unlikely result.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It would be a highly unlikely result.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Your perspective in Arkansas is very different from mine in Montana.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

evasive said:


> Your perspective in Arkansas is very different from mine in Montana.


Local perspective has little to nothing to do with it if you are talking about the suit against Tahoe.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-media/press-2019/20191210-e-bikes.htm

Concord, NH - Today, Governor Chris Sununu issued the following statement after signing on to a letter with Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona regarding the classification of E-Bikes by the National Forest Service:

"E-Bikes are an invaluable tool to ensure that individuals of all abilities are able to access and enjoy the Granite State's great outdoors," said Governor Chris Sununu. "I urge the National Forest Service to reconsider the classification of E-Bikes as motor vehicles in an effort to expand opportunity and access to all that New Hampshire has to offer."


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-media/press-2019/20191210-e-bikes.htm
> 
> Concord, NH - Today, Governor Chris Sununu issued the following statement after signing on to a letter with Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona regarding the classification of E-Bikes by the National Forest Service:
> 
> "E-Bikes are an invaluable tool to ensure that individuals of all abilities are able to access and enjoy the Granite State's great outdoors," said Governor Chris Sununu. "I urge the National Forest Service to reconsider the classification of E-Bikes as motor vehicles in an effort to expand opportunity and access to all that New Hampshire has to offer."


Considering the near total absence of MTB trails in most the WMNF this really isn't much to get excited about. Kinda like being getting permission to use a motorboat in Death Valley.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Considering the near total absence of MTB trails in most the WMNF this really isn't much to get excited about. Kinda like being getting permission to use a motorboat in Death Valley.


You realize his request isn't limited to a single forest right?

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You realize his request isn't limited to a single forest right?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


 It's NH, so yes Slap is correct. A few other NF lands exist in NH. mostly small with really steep hiking trails.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> It's NH, so yes Slap is correct. A few other NF lands exist in NH. mostly small with really steep hiking trails.


It's not just NH. It's NH's governor, along with AZ's, asking for a policy change on a national level.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

https://www.governor.nh.gov/news-media/press-2019/documents/e-assist-bikes.pdf

PDF of the govenors asking for the Forest Service to change the rules on a national level, for those who didn't follow through and read the letter before commenting.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Local perspective has little to nothing to do with it if you are talking about the suit against Tahoe.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


It does if you're trying to predict how that ball might bounce, which you are. My perspective is shaped by considerable experience with the USFS and the Backcountry Horsemen- which as I said, is likely to be different than yours.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

evasive said:


> It does if you're trying to predict how that ball might bounce, which you are. My perspective is shaped by considerable experience with the USFS and the Backcountry Horsemen- which as I said, is likely to be different than yours.


I'm not predicting which way the ball will bounce. In fact I can comfortably make the statement without predicting the outcome of the suit due to what it's about. In the case of Tahoe the suit is not about access but rather process. It is also a localized issue. Neither one of those things lends to any measurable form of impact on a macro level. The only potential thing would be more due dillegence in the public commenting phase.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Watching my local forest district spending years jumping through hoops and countless dollars in response to a lawsuit about not going through NEPAs for trail use for trails that were grandfathered in when the properties BECAME USFS land a hundred+ years ago, don't underestimate the power of lawsuits to delay implementing pretty much anything.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> Watching my local forest district spending years jumping through hoops and countless dollars in response to a lawsuit about not going through NEPAs for trail use for trails that were grandfathered in when the properties BECAME USFS land a hundred+ years ago, don't underestimate the power of lawsuits to delay implementing pretty much anything.





tuckerjt07 said:


> From what I read you are correct. Which essentially does nothing to block access if that area is dead set on it. It would effectively just delay it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Not underestimating it all.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## levity (Oct 31, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> ... Kinda like being getting permission to use a motorboat in Death Valley.


Badwater, DVNP, March 2005









but no eBoats allowed, only human powered craft


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I'm not predicting which way the ball will bounce. In fact I can comfortably make the statement without predicting the outcome of the suit due to what it's about. In the case of Tahoe the suit is not about access but rather process. It is also a localized issue. Neither one of those things lends to any measurable form of impact on a macro level. The only potential thing would be more due dillegence in the public commenting phase.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


This will have an effect on a macro level, just not what the BCHA are hoping for. This lawsuit will speed up the process of the USFS equating eBikes with regular bikes on a national level so that groups like the BCHA cannot sue local Forest Agencies anymore. This lawsuit also inspires the USFS to expand access to all three eBikes classes, partially to spite the the BCHA and partially to protect against any future lawsuits. The only long term real change on a local level is that I would expect either covert or overt retaliation against horsepeople from the TNF. The BCHA cut off their nose to spite their face on this one.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

figofspee said:


> This will have an effect on a macro level, just not what the BCHA are hoping for. This lawsuit will speed up the process of the USFS equating eBikes with regular bikes on a national level so that groups like the BCHA cannot sue local Forest Agencies anymore. This lawsuit also inspires the USFS to expand access to all three eBikes classes, partially to spite the the BCHA and partially to protect against any future lawsuits. The only long term real change on a local level is that I would expect either covert or overt retaliation against horsepeople from the TNF. The BCHA cut off their nose to spite their face on this one.


That's one possible outcome but it's not the most likely scenario.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Suing people you rely on for permits, access, and infrastructure rarely works in your favor. It is an attack they won't soon forget, especially considering government workers don't like being bossed around by lowly citizens.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

figofspee said:


> Suing people you rely on for permits, access, and infrastructure rarely works in your favor. It is an attack they won't soon forget, especially considering government workers don't like being bossed around by lowly citizens.


This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of how advocacy works. It is not uncommon for mountain biking advocates to be siding with USFS in one courtroom and against USFS in another. If one is stupid enough to make this process personal, well, then you stupid people.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boulder Pilot said:


> This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of how advocacy works. It is not uncommon for mountain biking advocates to be siding with USFS in one courtroom and against USFS in another. If one is stupid enough to make this process personal, well, then it's illegal and a huge fiscal liability.(If from the USFS side)


Fify

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

If one is stupid enough to make this process personal, well, then you stupid people.

Oh the irony


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

levity said:


> Badwater, DVNP, March 2005
> 
> View attachment 1304201
> 
> ...


HA! I knew I should've looked into that better before using it as an example.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You realize his request isn't limited to a single forest right?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Yup.

"in an effort to expand opportunity and access to all that New Hampshire has to offer".

He definitely specifically mentioned NH though, to which I was responding. The WMNF is pretty much the only game in the state as for as NF goes. Not much for MTB trails for the most part, with a few notable exceptions.

We've got a member on here who has played a key role in creating much of the good stuff up there. I'd be curious to get his take. Maybe e-bikers will organize and start building more, area could use it. Tough going terrain-wise though.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Yup.
> 
> "in an effort to expand opportunity and access to all that New Hampshire has to offer".
> 
> ...


I recommend actually reading the entirety of the article and the linked material provided within it.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I recommend actually reading the entirety of the article and the linked material provided within it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


I did.

My comments were clearly, obviously and specifically regarding the WMNF and NH and stand true. Nothing more nothing less. Relax.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> I did.
> 
> My comments were clearly, obviously and specifically regarding the WMNF and NH and stand true. Nothing more nothing less. Relax.


I find it kind of odd that you'd say it's nothing to get excited about when I can think of over 100 miles off the top of my head that it would effect and you single out a national forest, out of how many, that has no real mountain bike trail network.

It's actually a huge deal that could potentially effect thousands of miles of trail all throughout the country.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I'm not predicting which way the ball will bounce. In fact I can comfortably make the statement without predicting the outcome of the suit due to what it's about. In the case of Tahoe the suit is not about access but rather process. It is also a localized issue. Neither one of those things lends to any measurable form of impact on a macro level. The only potential thing would be more due dillegence in the public commenting phase.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


These types of land use questions almost always come down to process, and precedent can be important in USFS decision making.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

evasive said:


> These types of land use questions almost always come down to process, and precedent can be important in USFS decision making.


Precedent is important. However, again, in this case the precedent being set is not going to ultimately impact access. It has the potential to impact the speed at which decisions are ultimately made but that's where the scope of influence ends.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

figofspee said:


> Suing people you rely on for permits, access, and infrastructure rarely works in your favor. It is an attack they won't soon forget, especially considering government workers don't like being bossed around by lowly citizens.


I'm not sure I'd you're basing this on experience, but from my own this is entirely wrong. Agency staff see that as a routine part of their job ever since the environmental NGO community started going after NEPA processes. They may not be thrilled about it, but they expect it. There aren't a lot of projects that don't get litigated in some regions. Sometimes a lawsuit (or threat of one) from another side helps them steer the ship down the middle, too.

Believe it or not, it's not unheard of for agency staff to welcome some lawsuits that can budge management decision making in favorable directions.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> you single out a national forest, out of how many, that has no real mountain bike trail network.


I find it odd that no matter how clearly something is stated and explained to you, you seem completely unable to comprehend it.

Go play e-lawyer with someone else; you bore me.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> I find it odd that no matter how clearly something is stated and explained to you, you seem completely unable to comprehend it.
> 
> Go play e-lawyer with someone else; you bore me.


The fact that you're now cherry picking and consciously ignoring the part where you erroneously called it no big deal just leads more credence to the fact, that no, you did not read all the material before posting.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The fact that you're now cherry picking and consciously ignoring the part where you erroneously called it no big deal just leads more credence to the fact, that no, you did not read all the material before posting.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


I cherry picked from the beginning, and made it perfectly clear that that was exactly what I was doing. No one else has any trouble understanding that aside from you.

Maybe you think it's a big deal, I don't.

Derrr.....


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> I cherry picked from the beginning, and made it perfectly clear that that was exactly what I was doing. No one else has any trouble understanding that aside from you.
> 
> Maybe you think it's a big deal, I don't.
> 
> Derrr.....


Uh huh

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

figofspee said:


> This will have an effect on a macro level, just not what the BCHA are hoping for. This lawsuit will speed up the process of the USFS equating eBikes with regular bikes on a national level so that groups like the BCHA cannot sue local Forest Agencies anymore. This lawsuit also inspires the USFS to expand access to all three eBikes classes, partially to spite the the BCHA and partially to protect against any future lawsuits. The only long term real change on a local level is that I would expect either covert or overt retaliation against horsepeople from the TNF. The BCHA cut off their nose to spite their face on this one.


We've had local trail systems shut down and a million bucks spent to reroute them over a multi year process in response to just the threat of a lawsuit in our local USFS district. If you think that having a national level decision will end lawsuits at the local level about that decision, you're dreaming.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

The TNF was violating national law by allowing eBikes on nonmotorized trails. The foundation of the lawsuit against the TNF is that they can't do that. If the National law is changed to allow eBikes the same rights as bicycles, then the threat of lawsuit diminishes greatly. One need only look at the amount of lawsuits (zero) directed at land managers of the BLM who are currently allowing ebikes on nonmotorized trails (many) and you will see the logic of the Forest Service in allowing eBikes on nonmotorized trails Nationwide. The fact that the lawsuit comes from a user group that, despite being the most dangerous and most destructive, enjoys ninety something percent access to the Forest, won't go unnoticed. Regardless of the individuals agreement with the context of the lawsuit, nobody in the Forest Service wants excessive lawsuits that will shrink the Forest Service's already puny resources.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

I am not sure about what it is like in other parts of the country, but in California BLM land already has a huge amount of Motorized vehicle access in the form of OHV use, Motorcycles, Side by Sides, Buggies, trucks, etc. I spent a big part of my Teens riding Dirt Bikes on BLM single track. 

The national Forrest's in my area are very different, there are some limited areas of single track for motorcycles, but most of the access for OHV is on Dirt Roads.

It makes sense that none of the groups who would typically file suit for environmental reasons have not engaged for eBike use on BLM land. But that could change.

I don't think we will see the same with regard for National Forrest.

The very idea of "one size fits all" rules working for every single trail system is bonkers to me.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

The typical groups that sue for environmental reasons haven't sued individual national park offices about their allowing ebikes on the same infrastructure as bicycles, and very few have signed into the PEER lawsuit. If they plan to ramp up the lawsuits for the USFS, they are setting a terrible precedent by ignoring National Parks.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

figofspee said:


> The typical groups that sue for environmental reasons haven't sued individual national park offices about their allowing ebikes on the same infrastructure as bicycles, and very few have signed into the PEER lawsuit. If they plan to ramp up the lawsuits for the USFS, they are setting a terrible precedent by ignoring National Parks.


Mostly because the number of trails that allow bikes on them in the NPS is so small as to be inconsequential.

The one "trail" that DOES allow bikes that I've seen is a glorified rail trail.

I doubt there are any actual dirt mountain bike trails in an actual National Park. Sure, there are lands managed by the National Park Service that allow them, but they aren't NPs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> Mostly because the number of trails that allow bikes on them in the NPS is so small as to be inconsequential.
> 
> The one "trail" that DOES allow bikes that I've seen is a glorified rail trail.
> 
> ...


https://www.bicycling.com/rides/a20041577/mountain-biking-in-national-parks-hell-yeah/

There is few trails that are affected, but if they allow eBikes on even one piece of nonmotorized singletrack in the National Park, then they are setting a precedent. The National Parks are a much easier avenue for environmental outrage than BLM and even USFS and that is why PEER most likely chose that route. The problem is that the wealthy older folks are both the biggest consumers of eBikes and the biggest donors to these environ'mental' organizations. The Sierra Club is completely absent in this discussion because it won't move the needle donation wise in a positive donation. PEER misrepresents the Order's position as allowing ebikes on all national park trails in an attempt to drum up outrage:

"The Code of Federal Regulations indicate that motorized vehicles shall not be used in certain circumstances," he said. "And so in order for that to be changed, the Park Service does need to go through the rule-making process to make those changes. With regard to using e-Bikes on many trails in the National Park System, we think that's a bad idea. We're concerned that once the camel's nose is under the tent that we may see the entire camel inside one day, and so we're very concerned that these processes be followed and that a wide array of public input is sought and listened to.

"I think the public in general, at least from my experience, would like to see some places on this Earth where there aren't motorized, mechanized, devices," Francis added. "In certain parks, conflicting uses is also a concern. Maybe in some urban parks e-Bikes might make sense. In Shenandoah National Park, in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, in the Blue Ridge Parkway, on backcountry trails, we think it's a bad idea. We have horseback riders and hikers, fallen trees, and reduced law enforcement staff, reduced capacity to handle accidents and injuries. There's a whole host of reasons why we think e-Bikes are inappropriate in many of our parks."

The Environmental groups erroneously view the Order as affecting every trail in every national park. They are cool with eBikes on some nonmotorized singletrack though, which makes their opposition to the Order all the more ignorant.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> I doubt there are any actual dirt mountain bike trails in an actual National Park. Sure, there are lands managed by the National Park Service that allow them, but they aren't NPs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nope, Hot Springs National Park has one, dirt singletrack, under construction.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

The only property from that link that is actually an NP and will have (not yet) single track that will allow bikes is Cuyahoga.

One (1) park.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> The only property from that link that is actually an NP and will have (not yet) single track that will allow bikes is Cuyahoga.
> 
> One (1) park.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That would be two parks at a minimum then.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

figofspee said:


> https://www.bicycling.com/rides/a20041577/mountain-biking-in-national-parks-hell-yeah/


I live two miles from a NPS managed park that allows mountain bikes, as Le Duke mentioned, it is not a National Park but rather a NPS National Recreation Area. We have 7 miles of mtb trail (hikers allowed) as well as another 3 miles of what I call "the flats", a wide crushed granite path along the river. The Park Service recently bought an old farm that backs up to another section of the park and the NPS has talked about creating a multiuse path through that section and the newly acquired parkland, though I doubt it would be mtb type trail at all. But I'll take it as it would allow me to connect "the flats" via bike lane to the new path to another bike lane on my road bike, connecting two of my standard road routes that are not safely connected at this time.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

The number of National Parks that allow mountain bikers again isn't all that relevant, but here is more:

https://www.active.com/mountain-biking/articles/7-great-national-parks-for-mountain-bikers/slide-4


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> That would be two parks at a minimum then.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


Which other National Park allows mountain bikes on single track?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Which other National Park allows mountain bikes on single track?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You skipped right past it. I've already posted it.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You skipped right past it. I've already posted it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


I'm riding my rollers right now, reading this on my phone. Can you cut me a break and re-post that information? Thanks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> I'm riding my rollers right now, reading this on my phone. Can you cut me a break and re-post that information? Thanks.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hot Springs, it's been in the works for a while but just got officially greenlit. It links up two decent sized trail systems that were otherwise spit. Admittedly Hot Springs is weird due to it being an actual city and a park all at once.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk


----------

