# Where you can & cannot legally ride E-mtbs



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Whether you like it or not, e-mtbs are here. Some places they are perfectly legal to ride on hiking/biking/equestrian trails, some places they are not allowed and other places it is not completely clear if you are allowed to ride them or not. 

Now that we have a dedicated forum for e-bikes and e-mtbs, it only seems appropriate to have a thread on known places you can and cannot legally ride them, as well as some where we can have fun arguing about the places where it is not 100% clear.

Please do your best to provide links, documents or tangible information on the known places where you can and cannot ride. As for where it is not 100% clear, simply provide whatever you got to support your point of view.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

So to get us started here is a place (well an entire state) you _can_ ride:

-looks like it is all good to ride e-bikes/e-mtbs anywhere regular bikes are allowed in the state of Delaware: 9201 Regulations Governing State Parks


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

And here is where you _cannot_ ride:

-looks like you are not allowed to ride e-bikes/e-mtbs on non-motorized trails on federal, BLM and forest service park lands: IM 2015-060, Electronic Powered Bicycles on Public Lands


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Now for a fun one... California:

As far as I can tell, you are not allowed to ride e-bikes on non-motorized state and county park trails in California, unless the land manager has given specific permission for them to be used. So basically, e-bikes are automatically banned from non-motorized state and county park trails unless specifically allowed.

However, this one is does not seem as black and white as the other two because it does not specifically call out e-bikes anywhere I can find on the California State Parks web site.

However, bicycles on trails in State Parks are regulated under Title 14, California Code of Regulations and it states:
§ 4360. Trail Use.
Unless designated by the Department, all trails are open to pedestrians and closed to all other uses. All allowable trail uses will continue as they are designated at the date of adoption of these regulations unless and until a change is made by order of the District Superintendent. The Department may establish speed limits for designated trail use for units or portions thereof. If established, these speed limits will be posted.
(a) Trails in Reserves and Preserves as defined in PRC Sections 5019.65, 5019.71 and 5019.74 may be designated for bicycle or equestrian use when the District Superintendent has determined that such use is important for public access to the area or to make important connections to other trails and where it has been determined that impacts to the resources for which the area was established will not be significant as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21068 and Section 15382, California Code of Regulations Title 14.s

Also, CVC 21113 and 21207.5. (which were included in the bill) prohibit use of any vehicles on trails and pathways (including electric bicycles) unless specific authorization has been posted by the State Park Superintendent for that park unit.

And finally, I received this email from Scott Elliott, (Superintendent for Emergency Services, Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Division Of California State Parks) in a response to an email I sent asking if Ebikes are legal to ride on California State park non-motorized trails:

"For now, the Department's stance is that all trails are closed to electric bikes unless opened by Superintendent's Order, based on CVC 21207.5 and CCR 4360, but some units may be opening trails and fire roads here and there by Superintendent's Order. We do not maintain a roster of these units at Headquarters, as there are over 280 state park units and this is a rapidly-evolving topic in State Parks and on public lands in general. So I recommend you contact the units in question, a roster of park units can be found at www.parks.ca.gov."


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Indiana Dept of Natural Resources considers e-bikes to be "motorized" and regulates them as motorized vehicles. Therefore, they cannot be ridden on any nonmotorized trails. Indiana does have motorized trails on state land. As far as I know, the properties that tend to offer ORV use tend to be reclaimed strip mines, fwiw.

DNR: Motorized

I know one private landowner that rents e-fatbikes and has roughly 25mi of trails available to explore. He also offers ATV tours, but he does have singletrack, too.

Welcome to eXplore Brown County


----------



## pxpaulx (Aug 5, 2014)

singletrackmack said:


> So to get us started here is a place (well an entire state) you _can_ ride:
> 
> -looks like it is all good to ride e-bikes/e-mtbs anywhere regular bikes are allowed in the state of Delaware: 9201 Regulations Governing State Parks


Minnesota has similar, basic and sensible rules regarding ebike usage. On my phone, not going to look the links up, but they are easy enough to locate!

I read through the Delaware regs in the link. Minnesota differs only in that ebikes can be banned from a trail if signage specifically states they are not allowed (typical no motorized vehicle signage does not apply, same as the Delaware regs linked).


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

singletrackmack said:


> Now for a fun one... California:
> 
> Also, CVC 21113 and 21207.5. (which were included in the bill) prohibit use of any vehicles on trails and pathways (including electric bicycles) unless specific authorization has been posted by the State Park Superintendent for that park unit.


Uh? Are we going to have to debate this one again?

You're still missing some of the finer points. (As it appears some DPR staff is like-wise)

Yes CVC 21113 allows a local jurisdiction to prohibit use of any vehicles on trails and pathways (including electric bicycles).

CVC 21207.5 prohibits Class 3 bikes on trails _unless permitted_ and allows Classes 1 and 2 _unless prohibited_.

The great murky debate is that between the lines (so to speak) Classes 1, 2 & 3 e-bikes are defined as regular bikes in Calif. so per CVC 21113 if a trail is open to regular bikes it then follows that it is open to _some_ e-bikes. (Classes 1 and 2)

As Superintendent Elliott mentioned it's up to the local District Superintendent to make the call; in the meanwhile it's "don't ask don't tell" in some of California's parks.

As DPR Spokesperson Weber mentioned it could be a year or more before a valid policy is hammered out.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Colorado

At the state level, they have adopted the national definition of an ebike. (750W, 20mph top speed)

http://tornado.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/2013TitlePrintouts/CRS Title 42 (2013).pdf

This summarizes the bicycle/ebike laws that are in place on state CDOT jurisdiction roadways and bike paths. They don't refer to singletrack trails since they don't own and manage any. Essentially, bikes and ebikes are the same on roads and bike lanes, you can ride an ebike on a state bike path with the motor off.

https://bicyclecolorado.org/learn/rules-of-road/#42-4-1412(1)

There isn't a broad policy within the State Park system in place at this time, each park can decide who to allow on which trails.

I assume the BLM and USFS are the same as elsewhere, they are considered motorized vehicles.

Local counties and municipalities can decide on access on bike paths, MUT's and single track trails within their park systems. For the most part, it appears they are considered motorized and as such limited to roads, bike lanes and motorized off road trails. There are a few places where they are allowed on bike paths and a few where they were, but are no longer.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

Excellent thread and it's stuck now!


----------



## Mr Cabletwitch (Apr 16, 2009)

I'm working on an ebike project and from what I can tell in Pa, the ebike by national definition is considered a pedal cycle which is what they also consider bicycles, recumbents and three wheelers. According to state law an ebike can go anywhere a but I was also just told I couldn't bring it to dirt fest so who knows.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

The last link in a 67mi multi-use single track trail was recently opened here in LA: 
You can now hike 67 miles through the Santa Monica Mountains uninterrupted - LA Times

Class 1 ebikes are permitted on all multi-use trails in the Santa Monica Mtns.


----------



## speedy25 (May 31, 2016)

Since legislators and lawmakers really dont have much of a clue what they are, they havent written concise laws about them. Carefully watch the wording- Motor vehicles does not mean the same as motorized vehicles except maybe that federal message posted earlier. Motor vehicles are those that have some sort of registration by the local BMV. Motorized can be almost anything, but since things like motorized wheelchairs and scooters for people who have mobility issues are typically allowed on trails they have to allow for electric motors.

The only state that outright bans e-bikes is New York, but you probably wont have a cop on your tail in that state, unless you are in NYC.

I've been told that in Ohio they are all supposed to be registered, but in reality there is no "plate" to show it.

Lets see what else happens.

-SP


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

I think they should be banned for anyone under 30, 

Just kidding. I can't believe the NFS and BLM are calling them motorcycles, at least in effect. 

But I'm sure it will stick awhile, as plenty consider them impure. The whole backcountry community is so divided on trail use, and the MTB exclusions from wilderness a case in point. 

My own view is we should encourage elec vehicles as much as possible. Of course a class one should be able to go places a KTM 250exe cannot. The impact to ears and trails is not the same at all. 

Very few years ago motorized cross country travel was permitted across vast areas of Idaho, now the regulations are intense. 

I say let the e-bikes free, until they become a problem, at least.  Well, really, lets allow the Mtbs into wilderness, and draw the e-bike line there. 

That would be pretty nice


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

I have been working with a Wildlife Conservation Officer(WCO) here in Pennsylvania(Pa)

He told me E-bikes are "NOT" allowed in State Game Lands(SGL) or Rail/Trails(R/T) that go through SGL which we have in our local area. He didn't say weather e-bikes are allowed on other R/Ts. The Pa Department of Conservation and Natural Resources(DCNR) has many R/Ts and a different set of rules apply there, and I'm working that as we speak...

....more in the near future


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

Just an FYI folks! I just got off the phone with the Marin County Council Boy Scouts. They just confirmed with me that Class 1&2 Pedal Assist Ebikes are allowed in all trails within Camp Tamarancho in Fairfax, Ca. If you havent been to Camp Tamarancho, its one of the best places to ride in NorCal.

I'm also in the process of confirming the trail access for E-MTBs in my other favorite trails. I'll keep you guys posted.

Just don't be a dick! Practice good trail etiquette. Woohoo!


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

You could be e bike legal in a park in a city and illegal in another park in the same city, hopefully with the new e bikes coming this will get better understood. I have rode trails that have a no ATVs sign up.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

All electric (and ICE) bikes are prohibited from soft-surface trails in Park City/Summit County (UT). There are a significant number of trails managed by Vail Resorts on private property that are a bit of a grey area, however. I do not know if Vail has made any sort of statement on what they do and do not allow. My guess would be that given the contiguity of the trails with land managed by other agencies that they are prohibited?

-Walt


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

For Washington State
In King County: Title 7 Parks and Recreation - King County


> A. No person shall travel on a trail at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event, speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with others who are complying with the law and using reasonable care. Travel at speeds in excess of 15 miles per hour shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that the person violated this section.
> B. No person shall travel on a trail in a negligent manner. For the purposes of this section "travel on a trail in a negligent manner" shall be construed to mean any form of travel on a trail in such a manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger any persons or property.
> C. For the purposes of this section "travel" shall be construed to include all forms of movement or transportation on a trail, including but not limited to foot, bicycle, horse, skateboard, and roller skates.
> D. Every person traveling on a trail shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device applicable thereto placed in accordance with applicable laws unless otherwise directed by a police officer.
> ...


In Washington State Parks: http://parks.state.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/4086



> 352-32-075 WAC 352-32-075 Use of nonmotorized cycles or similar devices. (1) Whenever used in this section, nonmotorized cycle or similar device shall mean any wheeled, operator-propelled equipment that transports the operator on land, including cycles, in-line skates and skateboards, but not including wheelchairs or other devices utilized by persons with disabilities.
> (2) Operation of nonmotorized cycles or similar devices shall be permitted upon public roads in state park areas.
> (3) No operation of nonmotorized cycles or similar devices shall be permitted on trails in any state park area, except where designated and posted to specifically or conditionally permit such activity, or as specified in (b) of this subsection.
> (a) The director or designee may open or close trails to such use. This decision shall include an evaluation of factors including, but not limited to, the degree of conflict with other park users, public safety, and damage to park resources and/or facilities related to these devices. This evaluation shall include a reasonable effort to involve interested trail users of the park in question, including, at a minimum, one public meeting advertised and conducted in the region where the park is located.





> 352-20-005 WAC 352-20-005 Definitions. Whenever used in this chapter, the following terms shall be defined as indicated herein:
> (1) "Motor vehicle" shall mean any self-propelled device capable of being moved upon a road, and in, upon, or by which any persons or property may be transported or drawn, and shall include, but not be limited to, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, motor scooters, jeeps, or similar type 4-wheel drive vehicles, and snowmobiles, whether or not they can legally be operated upon the public highways.





> 352-20-020 WAC 352-20-020 Motor vehicles on roads and trails.
> (1) No person shall operate any motor vehicle on a trail in any state park area unless such trail has been specifically designated and posted for such use.
> (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle within the boundaries of a state park area except on roads, streets, highways, parking lots, parking areas, ATV areas or snowmobile trails and areas.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Where is it legal to ride on road in states and provinces can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle_laws


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

I recommend going to your county and state web pages and going through the statutes to find the ones about trails and uses. See my example from Washington in this thread. Post a link, post the text, make it unambiguous. This could be a very important thread for this forum, showing new users whether it is worth their time to buy an e-bike to ride on their local trails or whether they need to become much more active in their local districts if they want to ride legally.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Mr Cabletwitch said:


> I'm working on an ebike project and from what I can tell in Pa, the ebike by national definition is considered a pedal cycle which is what they also consider bicycles, recumbents and three wheelers. According to state law an ebike can go anywhere a but I was also just told I couldn't bring it to dirt fest so who knows.


Per PA State Code from Title 75: 
"Motor vehicle." A vehicle which is self-propelled except an electric personal assistive mobility device or a vehicle which is propelled solely by human power.
"Motor-driven cycle." A motorcycle, including a motor scooter, with a motor which produces not to exceed five brake horsepower.
"Motorized pedalcycle." A motor-driven cycle equipped with operable pedals, a motor rated no more than 1.5 brake horsepower, a cylinder capacity not exceeding 50 cubic centimeters, an automatic transmission, and a maximum design speed of no more than 25 miles per hour or an electric motor-driven cycle equipped with operable pedals and an automatic transmission powered by an electric battery or battery pack- powered electric motor with a maximum design speed of no more than 25 miles per hour.

Per PA DNCR Code Title 17: 11.207. Traffic and parking.
(a) Traffic. The following are prohibited:
(1) Operation of a vehicle on a State park road at a speed in excess of the posted limit or, where no speed limit is posted, in excess of 25 miles per hour. 
7
(2) Operation of a motor vehicle on a State park road, lane, trail or area that is posted as closed to motor vehicles, except with permission of the Department.
(3) Operation of a motor vehicle off a road or outside a parking area, except on a trail or in an area posted as open to motor vehicles, or except with written
permission of the Department.
(4) Operation of a vehicle not in obedience to official traffic-control devices.

and:
(d) All-terrain vehicles. Use of an all-terrain vehicle is permitted only as follows:
(1) In accordance with Chapter 77 of the Vehicle Code.
(2) On an area, road or trail posted for all-terrain vehicles, or with written permission of the Department under § 11.207(c) (relating to traffic and parking).
(e) Mountain bikes. Use of a mountain bike on a trail is permitted only on a trail posted for mountain biking.

So per the PA state Motor Vehicle code a motor vehicle is a vehicle defined as being self propelled, however there is a grey area as to whether a pedal driven or motor driven cycle is part of that equation and does the state park title 17 classification of motor vehicle include these other definitions? Since the PA Title 75 does not list bicycles under its title of Vehicles it is possible the intent of the DNRC Title 17 is a blanket statement including all vehicles associated with Title 75. Still a grey area and one that local PA people, who are interested in e-bike access should press with their land managers or elected officials.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

rockcrusher said:


> Where is it legal to ride on road in states and provinces can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle_laws


Wikipedia is a good place to start, but it's not entirely up to date. FYI


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Harryman said:


> Wikipedia is a good place to start, but it's not entirely up to date. FYI


agreed and since this only pertains to on road it is less relevant to this discussion on MTBR as well. Still it is nice to have a link to that resource for those that may have an e-bike and can't or don't use it off road to know if they can use it on road and where and to what extents.

It'd be great if we could get this thread to be a good compendium like the wiki page off offroad statues. As i pointed out below many states are totally ambiguous when it comes to e-bikes.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Indeed. I plan to update my post pertaining to Colorado as I see changes.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

Taken from the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space in the SF Bay Area.

"Electric bikes: Electric powered bicycles are NOT allowed, except for use by individuals with a mobility disability, and only on trails where bicycles are authorized."

Biking | Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Thanks Harryman for the info Gonna be in the sailda and Colorado springs early oct looking forward to some epic rides !!


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Harryman said:


> Colorado
> 
> At the state level, they have adopted the national definition of an ebike. (750W, 20mph top speed)
> 
> ...


I briefly looked into this and the Colorado states the following regarding motor vehicles:


> (58) "Motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle that is designed primarily for travel on the public highways and that is generally and commonly used to transport persons and property over the public highways or a low-speed electric vehicle; except that the term does not include low-power scooters, wheelchairs, or vehicles moved solely by human power. For the purposes of the offenses described in sections 42-2-128, 42-4-1301, 42-4-1301.1, and 42-4-1401 for farm tractors and off-highway vehicles, as defined in section 33-14.5-101 (3), C.R.S., operated on streets and highways, "motor vehicle" includes a farm tractor or an off-highway vehicle that is not otherwise classified as a motor vehicle. For the purposes of sections 42-2-127, 42-2-127.7, 42-2-128, 42-2-138, 42-2-206, 42-4-1301, and 42-4-1301.1, "motor vehicle" includes a low-power scooter.


They have a category for electrical bikes: 


> (28.5) "Electrical assisted bicycle" means a vehicle having two tandem wheels or two parallel wheels and one forward wheel, fully operable pedals, an electric motor not exceeding seven hundred fifty watts of power, and a top motor-powered speed of twenty miles per hour.


and this about trails use rules:


> 33-11-112. Trails enforcement
> 
> It is unlawful for any person, except a parks and recreation officer or other peace officer, to operate a motorized vehicle on a signed and designated nonmotorized trail. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 petty offense and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of one hundred fifty dollars.


Somewhat grey for Colorado.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

rider95 said:


> Thanks Harryman for the info Gonna be in the sailda and Colorado springs early oct looking forward to some epic rides !!


I know you have the ADA free pass, but just so you know, emtbs aren't legal off road anywhere in Colo Springs except on 2 dirt roads.

Plenty of fun motorized around Salida though.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

The "crappy" part of Rainbow trail would be amazing on an e-bike.

-Walt


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

That's what I was thinking Harry I was looking and it seems Salida has a lot of atv rentals so there must be atv trails , I have just put some Holy rollers on my bike sitting it up for rocky trails . And I have heard of the rainbow trail its not gonna take too good of a trail to impress me for CO I love it out west .I only have 5 days but if we don't go to moab and just ride CO I think I will be happy with that for now . With the nerve pain in my feet and legs I am interested and trying some diff Pot strains to see if maybe I can get some relief from the f**king lighting bolts shooting through them .


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Walt said:


> The "crappy" part of Rainbow trail would be amazing on an e-bike.
> 
> -Walt


Agreed



rider95 said:


> That's what I was thinking Harry I was looking and it seems Salida has a lot of atv rentals so there must be atv trails , I have just put some Holy rollers on my bike sitting it up for rocky trails ..


At least a good chunk of the Monach Crest Trail is motorized and it's as good as they come. Be aware, it's at altitude and not a casual ride for visitors. There's lots of moto options around there.

Plenty of CBD and strains that are supposed to help with pain, good luck with your search. I use some CBD salve for some of my broken bits, it helps some.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

rider95 said:


> That's what I was thinking Harry I was looking and it seems Salida has a lot of atv rentals so there must be atv trails , I have just put some Holy rollers on my bike sitting it up for rocky trails . And I have heard of the rainbow trail its not gonna take too good of a trail to impress me for CO I love it out west .I only have 5 days but if we don't go to moab and just ride CO I think I will be happy with that for now . With the nerve pain in my feet and legs I am interested and trying some diff Pot strains to see if maybe I can get some relief from the f**king lighting bolts shooting through them .


Yeah where it is legal you can ask for the strain you need and know what you are getting. Good luck.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Sequel demo forest states no motorized vehicles, does that include e bikes?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

leeboh said:


> Sequel demo forest states no motorized vehicles, does that include e bikes?


There's a thread in the NorCal forum about this topic if you care to search for it; short answer is yes no e-bikes. (Last I heard from the land manager) They have issued letters of permission for legitimately handicapped riders. Soquel is the spelling BTW.

There's a fair number of e-bike poachers using the area, the "no motorized vehicles" signs are usually vandalized in short order.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Please get this thread back on topic or it will be shut down.


----------



## mojoronnie (Feb 26, 2012)

Then in all fairness, you have to close all the threads. None stay on topic.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

mojoronnie said:


> Then in all fairness, you have to close all the threads. None stay on topic.


Yep, shut em all down! Trollers just enter a few words and our discussions quickly go sideways. Aw well


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

PinoyMTBer said:


> Yep, shut em all down! Trollers just enter a few words and our discussions quickly go sideways. Aw well


If you really feel others are trolling you, don't respond to them, just press the report button and the Moderator who is in charge of this forum will get an email notification with your report.

Threads get shut down when people start responding to trolls and a flame war with no logical discussion starts to happen. The Mods do not have time to read every post in every thread on this site, so if something is just in general out of control it gets closed.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*No on Soquel*

Soquel is a no-go. If you have an ADA placard you can request individual access.

From that thread:


> "Hi Paul - Thanks for getting in touch. Since it seems it is becoming more of an issue, I will add this to the official policy to be posted next week. Currently we issue a public notice each year that includes prohibition of motorized vehicles including motorcycles and ATV's without the permission of the Forest Manager. I will also add electric assist bicycles (or "other power driven mobility devices") without the permission of the Forest Manager. The authority to enforce these prohibited activities at the state forest is located in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations and is considered a misdemeanor as prescribed by the Public Resources Code 4656.3. Someone who needs ADA accommodations should contact me to discuss and to get permission to use a zero emission e-bike under certain guidelines. So far I have given permission to one individual to use an e-bike at SDSF. Please encourage people to contact me directly with specific questions or concerns about this or any other issues at SDSF.
> 
> Angela Bernheisel
> State Forest Manager, RPF #2602"


Hope that helps.

-Walt


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

Walt said:


> Soquel is a no-go. If you have an ADA placard you can request individual access.
> 
> From that thread:
> 
> ...


Yep, it helps a lot! Goodby MTBR..see you all in the trails

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mojoronnie (Feb 26, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> If you really feel others are trolling you, don't respond to them, just press the report button and the Moderator who is in charge of this forum will get an email notification with your report.
> 
> Threads get shut down when people start responding to trolls and a flame war with no logical discussion starts to happen. The Mods do not have time to read every post in every thread on this site, so if something is just in general out of control it gets closed.


Forum rooms really don't need moderators. That can self police themselves. we're all adults, we really don't need a baby sitter to monitor conversations IMO. Eventually the trolls will be ignored and you move on. I'd rather see that than some moderator making his own interpretation of whats ok and what isn't.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

You clearly have never been on an unmoderated forum. Try pinkbike. Or 4chan.


----------



## mojoronnie (Feb 26, 2012)

Procter said:


> You clearly have never been on an unmoderated forum. Try pinkbike. Or 4chan.


Pinkbike is child's play compared to thumpertalk. But then I like uncensored forums. I don't get offended or butt hurt like so many do. An opinion is an opinion. Nothing more nothing less


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mojoronnie said:


> I don't get offended or butt hurt like so many do.


Fooled us.


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

singletrackmack said:


> And here is where you _cannot_ ride:
> 
> -looks like you are not allowed to ride e-bikes/e-mtbs on non-motorized trails on federal, BLM and forest service park lands: IM 2015-060, Electronic Powered Bicycles on Public Lands


I'm working on this. The Federal Parks have no right to do this to disabled people who need assistance.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

Harold said:


> Indiana Dept of Natural Resources considers e-bikes to be "motorized" and regulates them as motorized vehicles. Therefore, they cannot be ridden on any nonmotorized trails. Indiana does have motorized trails on state land. As far as I know, the properties that tend to offer ORV use tend to be reclaimed strip mines, fwiw.
> 
> DNR: Motorized
> 
> ...


Noted. I don't agree with penalizing disabled people. I will tell the team about it.

If anyone else knows places that are discriminate against disabled veterans or other disabled folks...please let me know.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

An ADA disability is essentially a free pass to ride an ebike on any trail. As long as your OPMD physically fits on a trail, you can likely use it.


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

Harryman said:


> An ADA disability is essentially a free pass to ride an ebike on any trail. As long as your OPMD physically fits on a trail, you can likely use it.


Well I'm being told that's not always the case and laws are being passed just to follow along with what lawmakers "think" is working in other states. I'm seeing laziness on both sides of the rules, a.k.a. the lawmakers AND officials in charge of enforcement of the rules.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

mojoronnie said:


> Forum rooms really don't need moderators.


Could be. But personally, I appreciate that these forums are moderated.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Harryman said:


> An ADA disability is essentially a free pass to ride an ebike on any trail. As long as your OPMD physically fits on a trail, you can likely use it.





Voaraghamanthar said:


> Well I'm being told that's not always the case and laws are being passed just to follow along with what lawmakers "think" is working in other states. I'm seeing laziness on both sides of the rules, a.k.a. the lawmakers AND officials in charge of enforcement of the rules.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I have always heard it interpreted as the ADA card gives exemption to any trail or path designated for foot travel, bicycle only trails were exempted from this. So, it bears some investigation to ensure that you don't run afoul of any laws.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Voaraghamanthar said:


> Well I'm being told that's not always the case and laws are being passed just to follow along with what lawmakers "think" is working in other states. I'm seeing laziness on both sides of the rules, a.k.a. the lawmakers AND officials in charge of enforcement of the rules.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


They qualify as an OPMD. I'm no expert on ADA law, but my understanding is that unless a trail is for a specific use (horses only) and the LM claims they are not appropriate, either unsafe or don't fit, a golf cart on singletrack for example, you're free to use them.

I think Slap has a lot of experience with ADA, he'll probably chime in.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Harryman said:


> An ADA disability is essentially a free pass to ride an ebike on any trail. As long as your OPMD physically fits on a trail, you can likely use it.


Not exactly; I've seen examples where single-track is "too narrow" and closed to OPDMDs. 26" max width seems to be a standard and it's considered double this for minimum trail width.

Also lots of examples of engine-driven OPDMDs being banned due to fumes and noise.

YMMV.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Moe Ped said:


> Not exactly; I've seen examples where single-track is "too narrow" and closed to OPDMDs. 26" max width seems to be a standard and it's considered double this for minimum trail width.
> 
> Also lots of examples of engine-driven OPDMDs being banned due to fumes and noise.
> 
> YMMV.


The new opdm laws allow any use on any trails as long as they are defined as acceptable uses for that trail by the LM.

ADA isn't a law. It is a set of federal nondiscrimination guidelines. Failure to follow these guidelines can open one up to a lawsuit for discrimination. You can be charged with damaged and made to make right the work.

If the land managers has designated the trail for bikes, e-bikes and even small motorcycles could be used. If they have designated appropriate use, anything could conceivable be use or suit could be filed to make the trail accessible to atvs or 4x4s.

I would bet a lot of LMs have not defined their trails yet.

sent


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*An example*

If one Googles "OPDMD trail closures" you'll get over 5000 hits most of which list OPDMD policies for various trails. Right off the top is PolicyonOtherPower-DrivenMobilityDevices which is for Palm Beach County in Florida.

So yes on e-bikes (no motos) if 30" or less in width, 800 lb combined weight (!), max speed of 5 mph (!) unless otherwise posted.

Again YMMV.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

You'd hope before getting all worked up about something, people might maybe try using the internet to do a little research. Even MTBR has as 'search' function; I suggest typing in 'disabled access' or 'ADA' if you're interested in past discussions here.

Or get it straight from the horse's mouth:

Basic facts and requirements of Department of Justice Rule on Other Power Driven Mobility Devices


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

slapheadmofo said:


> You'd hope before getting all worked up about something, people might maybe try using the internet to do a little research. Even MTBR has as 'search' function; I suggest typing in 'disabled access' or 'ADA' if you're interested in past discussions here.
> 
> Or get it straight from the horse's mouth:
> 
> Basic facts and requirements of Department of Justice Rule on Other Power Driven Mobility Devices


Sometimes it is easier to tilt against windmills.

sent


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Just because I personally was not aware of what that term meant;

OPDMD:
"other power-driven mobility device"


----------



## mojoronnie (Feb 26, 2012)

Bottom line. Poaching is the result of lack of access.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2016)

mojoronnie said:


> Bottom line. Poaching is the result of lack of access.


negative ghost rider. poaching is a mindset of the 'i'm entitled'


----------



## Scotth72 (Mar 15, 2004)

nvphatty said:


> negative ghost rider. poaching is a mindset of the 'i'm entitled'


Ding ding ding, we have a winner!


----------



## mojoronnie (Feb 26, 2012)

nvphatty said:


> negative ghost rider. poaching is a mindset of the 'i'm entitled'


 So when you exceed the speed limit going down the highway what exactly is your mindset?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mojoronnie said:


> So when you exceed the speed limit going down the highway what exactly is your mindset?


This thread is starting to veer off track....

Acusing someone of speeding on the highway has nothing to do with "Where you can & cannot legally ride E-mtbs" which is the title of this thread.

Mojoronnie - this is your final warning, stop trolling. Either stay on topic and post positive things or stop posting at all. Your personal attacks on others via subversive comments will not be tolerated.


----------



## mojoronnie (Feb 26, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> This thread is starting to veer off track....
> 
> Acusing someone of speeding on the highway has nothing to do with "Where you can & cannot legally ride E-mtbs" which is the title of this thread.
> 
> Mojoronnie - this is your final warning, stop trolling. Either stay on topic and post positive things or stop posting at all. Your personal attacks on others via subversive comments will not be tolerated.


I stated a fact. Lack of access leads to poaching. Then nvfatty said it's a mind set of entitlement. Isn't that trolling? What did that have to do with the topic?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

I was referring to your comment in which you subversively started to accuse him of speeding on the highway, that is a form of personal attack.


----------



## mojoronnie (Feb 26, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> I was referring to your comment in which you subversively started to accuse him of speeding on the highway, that is a form of personal attack.


Ok. Let me rephrase the question so I'm not accusing anyone. Does anyone break the law by exceeding the speed limit? If so, How is that a different mind set from a poachers?


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

mojoronnie said:


> So when you exceed the speed limit going down the highway what exactly is your mindset?


There is a difference between speeding on the highway occasionally and always speeding. Someone that always speeds will get caught and punished, some one that occasionally speeds may get caught but most likely will have gotten away with something briefly. This is applicable to the fact that many people occasionally break a law or two but very few people set out to break the law all the time and intentionally.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

So all forms of recreation should be allowed everywhere? Is that really your argument?

We've heard the nihilist/anarchist thing here before, but unless you want my recreational howitzer-towing bulldozer on your local trail, you might want to rethink that. The whole point is to preserve an enjoyable user experience (and the landscape) for as many people as possible. In many cases that really means only hiking works. Sometimes bikes can fit in, sometimes even motos/atvs/jeeps/etc. But there's no such thing as a "right" to recreation on public lands in/on any particular vehicle. 

-Walt


----------



## mojoronnie (Feb 26, 2012)

Walt said:


> So all forms of recreation should be allowed everywhere? Is that really your argument?
> 
> We've heard the nihilist/anarchist thing here before, but unless you want my recreational howitzer-towing bulldozer on your local trail, you might want to rethink that. The whole point is to preserve an enjoyable user experience (and the landscape) for as many people as possible. In many cases that really means only hiking works. Sometimes bikes can fit in, sometimes even motos/atvs/jeeps/etc. But there's no such thing as a "right" to recreation on public lands in/on any particular vehicle.
> 
> -Walt


And while all of that might be true, my point of poachers are born from a lack of trail access is also true. Land managers can either address it or expect it.

As for your comment that if you speed constantly you will eventually get caught? That's not true. 99 % of drivers rolling down the highway are speeding and knowingly doing it. They know an officer is not likely to site anyone driving 10 mph or less over the speed limit. My point is you can't have a double standard regarding laws. It's ok to speed but not poach is not valid.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mojoronnie said:


> Ok. Let me rephrase the question so I'm not accusing anyone. Does anyone break the law by exceeding the speed limit? If so, How is that a different mind set from a poachers?


You are seriously losing credibility here... Are you advocating Anarchy?

If exceeding the speed limit bothers you, call the police. Don't try to use speeders as an excuse to poach on trails.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

mojoronnie said:


> And while all of that might be true, my point of poachers are born from a lack of trail access is also true. Land managers can either address it or expect it.
> 
> As for your comment that if you speed constantly you will eventually get caught? That's not true. 99 % of drivers rolling down the highway are speeding and knowingly doing it. They know an officer is not likely to site anyone driving 10 mph or less over the speed limit. My point is you can't have a double standard regarding laws. It's ok to speed but not poach is not valid.


Well since poaching leads to trails being shut down but speeding doesn't lead to roads being shut down I would rather have someone speed on the highway, 9mph over, than them poach because then I will be speeding towards a closed to bikes trail. So if I am going to have a double standard I and probably most mountain bikers would rather have the one that doesn't directly effect our ability to do our hobby. Even if they lower speed limit because everyone is speeding I can still get to my favorite mountain bike trail but if they close it then no matter the speed limit I don't get to ride it.

You can paint things as black and white as possible but everything isn't black and white, just infinite shades of gray.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

How many motos do you see poaching your local trails? 

Yeah, that's what I thought. Probably none. 

Poaching stuff will only *hurt* your long term access goals. It's not a solution, especially when you could *just ride your regular mountain bike* on those same trails. Posting your poach ride (or talking about how it's acceptable to poach) on the internet is a great way to turn the entire mountain bike community against you. Then again, I think you've already done a pretty good job of that.

-Walt


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Walt said:


> So all forms of recreation should be allowed everywhere? Is that really your argument?
> 
> We've heard the nihilist/anarchist thing here before, but unless you want my recreational howitzer-towing bulldozer on your local trail, you might want to rethink that. The whole point is to preserve an enjoyable user experience (and the landscape) for as many people as possible. In many cases that really means only hiking works. Sometimes bikes can fit in, sometimes even motos/atvs/jeeps/etc. But there's no such thing as a "right" to recreation on public lands in/on any particular vehicle.
> 
> -Walt


Wait, you mean I can't just go to Yosemite and graffiti El Cap? Cuz graffiti is what I do for fun, and it's 'public' land so I should be able to do whatever I want. You people are a bunch of frigging oppressors; you should all be banned from MTBR because free speech.

My head hurts.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

mojoronnie said:


> My point is you can't have a double standard regarding laws. It's ok to speed but not poach is not valid.


What a ridiculous analogy. Speeding on the highway isn't going to get the highway shut down for everyone else.

Poaching trails certainly will....

I think it's hilarious the weak ass arguments that are being resorted to, in an inept attempt to try to justify inclusion. How would anyone think that e-bikers are going to be good for trails, or good trail stewards by your comments?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I have repeatedly tried to turn this to positive/access promoting ideas, including:
-Tamper proof power/speed regulation of e-bikes via various means (nightly software patch?)
-Lower power/speed cutoffs to allow easier uphill use but not higher speeds (ie, 750W/20mph is too much). DROP the contention that laws intended for road/bikepath use are appropriate for governing singletrack mountain bike/multiuse trails.
-Build/redesign for more directional trails and better incorporation of chokes/features/grade reversals to decrease speeds and increase enjoyment for all users.

All of those things would take money and effort to do. Call Bosch and Yamaha and Shimano and tell them to get their access ground game going. It should have been in place years ago, so they're already running late - but there's still a chance that everyone can win here. Depends on whether or not the e-bike folks want to put their money and time where their mouths are, though.

-Walt


----------



## mojoronnie (Feb 26, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> You are seriously losing credibility here... Are you advocating Anarchy?
> 
> If exceeding the speed limit bothers you, call the police. Don't try to use speeders as an excuse to poach on trails.


I'm not advocating anything, just asking fair logical questions.

As one poster said "poachers have the mind set of entitlement". So doesn't a driver knowingly speeding and breaking the law exibiting the same entitlement? It's a fair question. Poachers and speeders both knowingly break the law. True, poaching can lead to trail closures. Speeding can lead to accidents, injuries and death. Both acts exhibit a self of entitlement and consequences. there is no difference


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

mojoronnie said:


> I'm not advocating anything, just asking fair logical questions.
> 
> As one poster said "poachers have the mind set of entitlement". So doesn't a driver knowingly speeding and breaking the law exibiting the same entitlement? It's a fair question. Poachers and speeders both knowingly break the law. True, poaching can lead to trail closures. Speeding can lead to accidents, injuries and death. Both acts exhibit a self of entitlement and consequences. there is no difference


I don't want to breath more insanity into this but part of the entitlement of drivers speeding is that they are licensed and insured (usually). That does give them the sense of entitlement that they can speed a bit or drive through a yellow/orange light.

Are you advocating licensing all users that use trails? That would certainly cut down on poaching. I mean you have to compare apples to apples.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Speeding = poaching = ...murder? Anytime you break any rule, it's the same as breaking any other rule. 

Got it. 

-Walt


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

d365 said:


> What a ridiculous analogy. Speeding on the highway isn't going to get the highway shut down for everyone else.
> 
> Poaching trails certainly will....
> 
> I think it's hilarious the weak ass arguments that are being resorted to, in an inept attempt to try to justify inclusion. How would anyone think that e-bikers are going to be good for trails, or good trail stewards by your comments?


This


----------



## mojoronnie (Feb 26, 2012)

rockcrusher said:


> I don't want to breath more insanity into this but part of the entitlement of drivers speeding is that they are licensed and insured (usually). That does give them the sense of entitlement that they can speed a bit or drive through a yellow/orange light.
> 
> Are you advocating licensing all users that use trails? That would certainly cut down on poaching. I mean you have to compare apples to apples.


NO, Not at all. all I'm saying is we're all guilty of the act of self entitlement. I'm not here to argue which act of self entitlement is better or worse than the other.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

In that case, I guess we can stop with the highway analogy, right? We've determined that not all illegal actions are the same thing. Huzzah!

-Walt


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

I see this thread is well on its way to the rE-cycle bin.

It has however given me an inspiration for the "tamper-proof" legal e-bike discussion. I'll start another thread; watch for it.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

1 ebike owner and 10 different non ebike owners through this thread. Wow.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

That is actually better odds (let alone counting the hikers and bird watchers) than you face IRL, you know. We're your most sympathetic audience - might want to think about how to sell yourselves/bring something to the table/be proactive about potential problems.

-Walt


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Gutch said:


> 1 ebike owner and 10 different non ebike owners through this thread. Wow.


Wrong again; I have 3 operating e-bikes, 6 MTBs to choose from and 5 motos currently registered.

I guess I should say I have 8 motorcycles to keep the conversation lively.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2016)

Gutch said:


> 1 ebike owner and 10 different non ebike owners through this thread.


how did you quantify this??


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> Wrong again; I have 3 operating e-bikes, 6 MTBs to choose from and 5 motos currently registered.
> 
> I guess I should say I have 8 motorcycles to keep the conversation lively.


yup 8 motorcycles would be the proper designation.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Walt said:


> That is actually better odds (let alone counting the hikers and bird watchers) than you face IRL, you know. We're your most sympathetic audience - might want to think about how to sell yourselves/bring something to the table/be proactive about potential problems.
> 
> -Walt


Sell myself to who? You? I ride legal bro, thanks for the rep though. I'm glad you brought everything to the table and got the mtb movement started.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Moe Ped said:


> Wrong again; I have 3 operating e-bikes, 6 MTBs to choose from and 5 motos currently registered.
> 
> I guess I should say I have 8 motorcycles to keep the conversation lively.


Are you telling us you are pro ebike and an ebike rider? Or are you one of these guys that just collects stuff? Go ahead, send negative rep, IDC.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

nvphatty said:


> yup 8 motorcycles would be the proper designation.


I think "thumper talk" might be your spot to talk motorcycles.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Moe Ped said:


> Wrong again; I have 3 operating e-bikes, 6 MTBs to choose from and 5 motos currently registered.
> 
> I guess I should say I have 8 motorcycles to keep the conversation lively.


Or 9 "bicycles" ;-)


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Gutch said:


> Are you telling us you are pro ebike and an ebike rider? Or are you one of these guys that just collects stuff? Go ahead, send negative rep, IDC.


I'm pro e-bike; I've been playing with them for at least 20 years---I just know they don't belong in "no motorized vehicles" areas.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Moe Ped said:


> I'm pro e-bike; I've been playing with them for at least 20 years---I just know they don't belong in "no motorized vehicles" areas.


I agree. But if the rangers have no issues with them, why not?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Gutch said:


> Sell myself to who? You? I ride legal bro, thanks for the rep though. I'm glad you brought everything to the table and got the mtb movement started.


Sure. People like me and Harry (moreso Harry, I'm just a civilian) are the ones who actually show up to meetings with LMs and have at least a little influence. I don't make any direct decisions or anything, but my general tendency to show up/care/be polite to other grownups means I have some not-insignificant influence on trail policy in my area.

Multiply me and Harry by a whole lot of other dedicated folks around the country and you've got the audience you need to convince to be friendly or neutral about e-bikes. As of right now, you've failed to do that - which means you'll have fewer and fewer riding options going forward, or at least will have to wait a lot longer to legally ride fun new trails.

Or you can rant and rave about how e-bikes are the same as normal bikes and you should be able to do whatever you want.

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I've never said ebikes are the same as normal bikes ever. You show up at meetings and I allow trails on my land. Every bit helps. I'm not in the industry like you maybe. A lot more riding on this for you than me, unless your going to build custom ebikes!


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

What I have riding on it is future trail access (for any kind of bike) for my kids and future grandkids, honestly. I could care less about whether or not people are buying custom bikes or custom e-bikes in 10 or 20 years. Hell, I'll be long retired by then. But I hope to still be able to enjoy my local (and not so local) trails on a mountain bike. 

-Walt


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2016)

Gutch said:


> I think "thumper talk" might be your spot to talk motorcycles.


that's for the e-bike clan.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Walt said:


> What I have riding on it is future trail access (for any kind of bike) for my kids and future grandkids, honestly. I could care less about whether or not people are buying custom bikes or custom e-bikes in 10 or 20 years. Hell, I'll be long retired by then. But I hope to still be able to enjoy my local (and not so local) trails on a mountain bike.
> 
> -Walt


I agree with you Walt. I also have children and need trails open for them. Mtbs will always come first in my book.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

nvphatty said:


> that's for the e-bike clan.


That's fine, I can deal with that. I used to ride Moto x all the time, and had personal tracks to ride on my land. The amount of skills that pass to mtb riding are immeasurable. I have never had any issues in my life with anybody on mtb trails. Forums are different I see.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Gutch said:


> 1 ebike owner and 10 different non ebike owners through this thread. Wow.


 Well, this thread is about where one can and can not legally ride e bikes. Mt bikes ride the same trails, yes? Surprised? Think anyone else monitors or posts here? Trail users of all sorts, policy makers and land managers and such? Or their associates. All the trail users here have a vested interest in seeing the trails remain open. Some more than others. Sometimes it is good to look at problems through the perspectives of others. During some public meetings last year, the local LM did some polling, fact finding and info gathering about trail users, conflicts and possible solutions. Come to find out dog walkers were the biggest trail user group. Much to the surprise of the hikers and bikers butting heads. Maybe some folks might try to understand what the mt bikers are saying and the points we are trying to make.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Understood, first and foremost- I am a mtbr.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Gutch said:


> I agree. But if the rangers have no issues with them, why not?


I've got no issue if people ride them where the LMs allow them. No matter what the public thinks about how influential their input is, the final decision is theirs.

Like most trail groups, the ongoing maintenance of any trail we build becomes our responsibilty, so on that level, if ebikes prove to increase the level of wear on the trails (likely) and they don't specifically step up to help (also likely), I'll be annoyed.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Harryman said:


> Like most trail groups, the ongoing maintenance of any trail we build becomes our responsibilty, so on that level, if ebikes prove to increase the level of wear on the trails (likely) and they don't specifically step up to help (also likely), I'll be annoyed.


For sure.

One thing I think is going to be unavoidable if e-bikes are permitted and become popular on trails like we have in the northeast is trail pussification/sanitization on a previously unheard-of scale. Combine very heavy and hard to maneuver bikes with extra power/speed and a user group that by definition doesn't want to be challenged as much by terrain as real bikers and get ready for a flood of "improvements" to the trails that will likely make the b*ll**** today's sanitizers pull look like nothing in comparison. Particularly when it comes to tight turns and rock up-n-overs.; can probably just say goodbye to anything along those lines. Cuz "progress."

:madman:


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

I cannot give enough rep to slapheadmofo 

it's the firgen trooth


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Happy to take cold beer instead.


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

Just a quick note to say Delaware State Parks have updated their former language and it seems to specifically allow e-bikes. They previously just borrowed language from the DOT to define bicycles, now they allow e-bikes specifically:

"Bicycle" shall include that certain class of vehicles which are exclusively human-powered by means of foot pedals, which the driver normally rides astride, which have not in excess of 3 wheels and which may be commonly known as unicycles, bicycles and tricycles. The term "bicycle" also includes a 2- or 3-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 horsepower), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 miles per hour. (21 Del.C. §101(4)).

I was curious how long it would take them to change it from the standard DOT language which seemed to actually allow gas powered bikes as well. Perhaps Delaware is the new e-bike destination, too bad we don't have hills.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Interesting they specify operators as being 170lbs.... why is that?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> Interesting they specify operators as being 170lbs.... why is that?


To keep companies from getting their 20mph certification with a 700 lb rider aboard. 
Would be a good way to sneak in some extra wattage yo!


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

OIC.... gotcha.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

SHM, thanks for the yuk. Sorry if this is off topic; maybe I should retain those extra pounds.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> Interesting they specify operators as being 170lbs.... why is that?


It's borrowed from the Fed CPSA, which was obviously written before only small children and frail grandmothers weighed 170lbs or less. I haven't seen 170lbs myself since the last century.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> For sure.
> 
> One thing I think is going to be unavoidable if e-bikes are permitted and become popular on trails like we have in the northeast is trail pussification/sanitization on a previously unheard-of scale. Combine very heavy and hard to maneuver bikes with extra power/speed and a user group that by definition doesn't want to be challenged as much by terrain as real bikers and get ready for a flood of "improvements" to the trails that will likely make the b*ll**** today's sanitizers pull look like nothing in comparison. Particularly when it comes to tight turns and rock up-n-overs.; can probably just say goodbye to anything along those lines. Cuz "progress."
> 
> :madman:


Do you not see the segment of hardcore mtbrs that also ride their Levo hardcore? I can ride my Levo anywhere you can take your mtb. Also understand these same riders should volunteer and or donate money. Actually, it should be mandatory with every mtb/ebike sold, $20-$50 to your local chapter along with ebike rules for "your" state. Specialized has made a lot of money from me through the years and should step up and take responsibility for their ebikes. Btw, you live in a beautiful part of the country. I lived in Woodstock, VT for a few years.


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

Gutch said:


> Do you not see the segment of hardcore mtbrs that also ride their Levo hardcore? I can ride my Levo anywhere you can take your mtb. Also understand these same riders should volunteer and or donate money. Actually, it should be mandatory with every mtb/ebike sold, $20-$50 to your local chapter along with ebike rules for "your" state. Specialized has made a lot of money from me through the years and should step up and take responsibility for their ebikes. Btw, you live in a beautiful part of the country. I lived in Woodstock, VT for a few years.


No doubt east coast rocks. I like the idea of donations for local chapters. Awesome! But imo. ..education is better than mandatory because mandatory will get lost...eventually nobody would even be consciously aware that money was donated and that's no good. Right frame of mind through education would be better. Seek out individuals through social media if you are active taking videos and pictures of club events and charity rides.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Right. If you took the $20-$50 from every bike sale, those funds could go to trails and more importantly, the policeing of them. If you could patrol the heavy density areas, that would be a start. When we purchase cars, we pay mandatory registration to drive the roads, why should bikes and trails be any different. Hell, you could pay people for trail work.
Speed enforcement is the logical patrolling of any bike. Unless the ebikes create trail damage, which mine does no more than my 6fattie.

It would solve:

1)Manufacturers accountability.
2)Better and more trails.
3)Ebikes and mtbs could coexist.
4)Less accidents than current.

Just food for thought..


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Right. If you took the $20-$50 from every bike sale, those funds could go to trails and more importantly, the policeing of them. If you could patrol the heavy density areas, that would be a start. When we purchase cars, we pay mandatory registration to drive the roads, why should bikes and trails be any different. Hell, you could pay people for trail work.
> Speed enforcement is the logical patrolling of any bike. Unless the ebikes create trail damage, which mine does no more than my 6fattie.
> 
> It would solve:
> ...





Voaraghamanthar said:


> No doubt east coast rocks. I like the idea of donations for local chapters. Awesome! But imo. ..education is better than mandatory because mandatory will get lost...eventually nobody would even be consciously aware that money was donated and that's no good. Right frame of mind through education would be better. Seek out individuals through social media if you are active taking videos and pictures of club events and charity rides.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk





Gutch said:


> Do you not see the segment of hardcore mtbrs that also ride their Levo hardcore? I can ride my Levo anywhere you can take your mtb. Also understand these same riders should volunteer and or donate money. Actually, it should be mandatory with every mtb/ebike sold, $20-$50 to your local chapter along with ebike rules for "your" state. Specialized has made a lot of money from me through the years and should step up and take responsibility for their ebikes. Btw, you live in a beautiful part of the country. I lived in Woodstock, VT for a few years.


The fee or excise tax you propose only separates ebikes further away from bicycles. It seems to me that runs counter to what you wish to accomplish. Education is what is needed, let the manufacturers handle the trail funding. I would further suggest that if ebike manufacturers don't support trail maintenance or funding of new trails stop supporting them. You'll gain legitimacy through your advocacy and stewardship.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

The "fee or tax" should also pertain to regular mtb. Also, where would the funding come for speed enforcement? Education is great, but money gets s*** done.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Gutch said:


> Right. If you took the $20-$50 from every bike sale, those funds could go to trails and more importantly, the policeing of them. If you could patrol the heavy density areas, that would be a start. When we purchase cars, we pay mandatory registration to drive the roads, why should bikes and trails be any different. Hell, you could pay people for trail work.
> Speed enforcement is the logical patrolling of any bike. Unless the ebikes create trail damage, which mine does no more than my 6fattie.
> 
> It would solve:
> ...


We've had a $5 excise tax on every bike sold in the city (except little kids bikes) since 1988 that's raised over 2 million bucks which has gone towards cycling infrastructure. It's proven useful in getting grants as well. None of it has gone towards trails ofc :madman:

It's possible to do such a thing, I wasn't involved and I don't know what sort of hoops would be involved. What has also been successful elsewhere is tags on new bikes asking the buyer to donate X dollars to the local trail org or a "round up" system where you can round up your purchase at the LBS and the extra dough goes to the trail org.

People have also kicked around the idea of a specific licensing fee like we have for ORV's. I can't see singling out ebikes like that ever gaining traction though.

I wouldn't expect the manufacturers to step up with money unless they felt ebike access was severely threatened and therefore their sales. While it might be different elsewhere, the ony bike industry money we ever see is from companies that are local to us. SRAM has always been extremely supportive, as well as Rotor and SRM. SRAM donates a lot of money and time worldwide to bike related projects FWIW.

Bell gives out annual grants, AFAIK, they're the only industry player that does so.


----------



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

Gutch said:


> funds could go to trails and more importantly, the policeing of them.


"Policing" and "speed enforcement" are obnoxious words in any context but they are especially vulgar in the pleasant atmosphere of a mountain trail, I go there specifically to escape such notions for a short while.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I hear you. I wouldn't be overly excited to see police on mtbs giving tickets either, but it "could" help the "speed" issue everyone is concerned about. It may also keep your trails open and safer. There's no way they could patrol the trails that are way out, but I don't think those are a concern for anybody.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Right. If you took the $20-$50 from every bike sale, those funds could go to trails and more importantly, the policeing of them. If you could patrol the heavy density areas, that would be a start. When we purchase cars, we pay mandatory registration to drive the roads, why should bikes and trails be any different. Hell, you could pay people for trail work.
> Speed enforcement is the logical patrolling of any bike. Unless the ebikes create trail damage, which mine does no more than my 6fattie.
> 
> It would solve:
> ...





Voaraghamanthar said:


> No doubt east coast rocks. I like the idea of donations for local chapters. Awesome! But imo. ..education is better than mandatory because mandatory will get lost...eventually nobody would even be consciously aware that money was donated and that's no good. Right frame of mind through education would be better. Seek out individuals through social media if you are active taking videos and pictures of club events and charity rides.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk





Gutch said:


> I hear you. I wouldn't be overly excited to see police on mtbs giving tickets either, but it "could" help the "speed" issue everyone is concerned about. It may also keep your trails open and safer. There's no way they could patrol the trails that are way out, but I don't think those are a concern for anybody.


Proactive not reactive. Stem it at the source instead of bringing more negative attention to our trail systems. Relying on authorities to be the solution is a recipe in disaster for all cyclists.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

The problem with your rationale is they are already here and will grow way faster than the traditional mtb sector. I also am a strong supporter of the 250w pedelec class one only for trails and 750w for roads. The wattage should be stamped on the bb to make checking easier. I know I'm not gonna mod my Levo and loose any warranty. I mean how fast do you really want to go on a bike?!


----------



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

Gutch said:


> I hear you. I wouldn't be overly excited to see police on mtbs giving tickets either, but it "could" help the "speed" issue everyone is concerned about. It may also keep your trails open and safer.


That electric bikes have the potential to increase traffic and speed on trails has been my main objection to them from the get-go. It's not even remotely a problem now where I'm at but if regs blend bikes with motors I could foresee conflicts and cops becoming the norm of the backcountry future. I think there needs to be a clear and legal distinction between bicycles and e-bikes.


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

Gutch said:


> The problem with your rationale is they are already here and will grow way faster than the traditional mtb sector. I also am a strong supporter of the 250w pedelec class one only for trails and 750w for roads. The wattage should be stamped on the bb to make checking easier. I know I'm not gonna mod my Levo and loose any warranty. I mean how fast do you really want to go on a bike?!


1500w for me and I don't care for 40mph. I do like the torque it has for hills though. I got some huge hills on my land and around the house. The pedal assist is a blast!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Absolutely, and the ebike should not be more than 250w on the trail. I own one and know they are not that crazy. More ebike sales also supports the industry in general and continued growth for component companies.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Voaraghamanthar said:


> 1500w for me and I don't care for 40mph. I do like the torque it has for hills though. I got some huge hills on my land and around the house. The pedal assist is a blast!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Don't you have the custom mongoose with slicks?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Voaraghamanthar said:


> 1500w for me and I don't care for 40mph. I do like the torque it has for hills though. I got some huge hills on my land and around the house. The pedal assist is a blast!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I don't think anyone cares much (here) what you do on your own land or on roads/paved paths. 1500w on a MUT would be, um, bad.

If I were a manufacturer, I'd be making darn sure I keep my customers at 250w, but I don't think the industry is going to stay there for long.

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Gutch said:


> Don't you have the custom mongoose with slicks?


I bought a dolomite fat bike for my then 7 year old son. Amazing, shimano shifters, disc brakes etc for $175! I used to race mongoose bmx bikes when I was young. Great bike. 
My favorite was Red Line.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Reality on the ground in where I live:

There is effectively zero on-trail policing. This will not change.
There is no government agency building mountain bike trails, or funding them.
Trails are built, maintained, and self-policed by users.
"The Industry" serves zero purpose beyond separating you from your money. Bike shops are not involved in trail building/advocacy except for maybe a very few and in a minor way.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Walt said:


> I don't think anyone cares much (here) what you do on your own land or on roads/paved paths. 1500w on a MUT would be, um, bad.
> 
> If I were a manufacturer, I'd be making darn sure I keep my customers at 250w, but I don't think the industry is going to stay there for long.
> 
> -Walt


Oh hell ya! I believe there is a method to their madness at 250w.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gutch said:


> More ebike sales also supports the industry in general and continued growth for component companies.


Not to come across as a wise ass, but who cares?

I don't work in the bike industry, nor do I feel any duty as far as ensuring it's profitability. Means zilch to me, my riding experience, or our trails as far as a I figure.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Strong bike sales, industry = more riders, acceptance and awareness of our sport.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

We have many component companies in our area and they employ many people and support our trails. That revenue and employment brings in a cool mtb vibe along with more beer establishments!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Strong bike sales, industry = more riders, acceptance and awareness of our sport.


That isn't always a good thing, look at the sh!t storm e-bikes are with neophyte users and 4000 watts.


----------



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

Gutch said:


> Strong bike sales, industry = more riders, acceptance and awareness of our sport.


Honestly I don't mean this in any sort of disrespectful or bad way but depending on who you talk to "our sport" wants nothing to do with electric propulsion or the growth that may come with it.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Power in numbers. Those examples are the extreme. If ebikes allow or help lazy or obese people to get outside and ride, I'm all for it. Far too many kids dont get enough exercise and fresh air. That is why I'm for the pedelec, you stop-it stops.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> Honestly I don't mean this in any sort of disrespectful or bad way but depending on who you talk to "our sport" wants nothing to do with electric propulsion or the growth that may come with it.


No doubt, who wants to share your favorite trails with more cyclists, regardless what they ride.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Power in numbers. Those examples are the extreme. If ebikes allow or help lazy or obese people to get outside and ride, I'm all for it. Far too many kids dont get enough exercise and fresh air. That is why I'm for the pedelec, you stop-it stops.


This is an end run around e-bikes having to do their own advocacy. E-bikes are not going to shirt tail on mountain bike access.


----------



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

Gutch said:


> No doubt, who wants to share your favorite trails with more cyclists, regardless what they ride.


^really not where I'm coming from at all


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Gutch said:


> The "fee or tax" should also pertain to regular mtb. Also, where would the funding come for speed enforcement? Education is great, but money gets s*** done.


Why should mountain bikers pay for e-bike issues?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Wouldn't you want $20 to go to your local chapter from every bike sale? I'm assuming you are an IMBA member?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> ^really not where I'm coming from at all


You mentioned growth, I'm guessing more trail users.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

tiretracks said:


> This is an end run around e-bikes having to do their own advocacy. E-bikes are not going to shirt tail on mountain bike access.


I wouldn't be so sure about that statement.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Strong bike sales, industry = more riders, acceptance and awareness of our sport.


We're already very widely accepted and there's no shortage of riders. Acceptance though will dwindle if we allow 'the industry' to redefine bicycles as now all of a sudden having motors. And fast.

Be nice if there were even more local builders/maintainers/advocates (though we've got tons right now), but that doesn't start with the industry in any way IME. No matter how many e-bikes they sell, the only thing it's going to do is add more work for those of us out there creating and maintaining trails today. Bigger faster bikes with less capable riders trying to take them through trails not designed for them...I can't imagine trying to pull the trials-ish type moves typical on many of our trails here on a 50lb pig of a bike, motor or not.

Typical e-bikers are going to be looking for a much less challenging experience than that, and not likely to want to be wrestling them around slow tight corners or up and over glacial erratics every 50 feet. Sally lines will proliferate, obstacles will be pussified to no end. It's one thing smashing a bottom bracket into a rock outcropping, it's another smashing a mid-drive motor housing into it. I can't see a set-up such as the Levo lasting long at all being regularly bashed into sharp rocks; people are definitely going to be dumbing down trails a lot to keep from dinging up their rigs. It'll be worse than frigging Strava and the rise of the XC 29er rolled together when it comes to keeping the trails tight and techy.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

It's definitely different flowing on a 50# pig! The scene is always different but the same depending on where you live /ride.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about that statement.


Okay, hide and watch.


----------



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

Gutch said:


> You mentioned growth, I'm guessing more trail users.


Nope, more user groups tagging onto another established one.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gutch said:


> It's definitely different flowing on a 50# pig! The scene is always different but the same depending on where you live /ride.


No doubt. And I know there are plenty of places where the trails are very different from our area and would be a lot more e-bike friendly. Hell, I can't count the times I've seen pics of what are considered 'trails' that I would classify as a lot closer to dirt roads. Don't see why e-bikes would be much of an issue on stuff like that; actually seems that most of the pics I see in this sub-forum fall into that class.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I think you can look at surfing for an instructive example. If you paddle out to a surf break almost anywhere accessible by automobile in the US, you will end up in a monster lineup of a zillion people. It sucks. I spend time on the North Shore every year and I basically don't even bother (note that I'm not saying I'm a good surfer). It's not fun - there's a limited supply of waves and even if you get up at 4am, you won't have a chance at a lot of them. 

Mountain biking isn't there yet, of course, but I actually think there are already *too many* mountain bikers at least in certain parts of the world. I live somewhere with *literally* 500 miles of singletrack in a 10 mile radius of my house, and I still avoid a LOT of trails on weekends. Admittedly, I'm in a resort town, but at this point more riders would make the experience *worse* for everyone (though more profitable for me, I suppose?)

In some places, more trails can definitely go in (artificial surf breaks/reefs are starting to be a thing too) but in a lot of cases in urban/suburban areas the available land is pretty much tapped out.

Basically, I don't see the "attract tons more people to the sport" aspect (if it's true) as a good thing, particularly. Making things drastically easier usually means crowds of yahoos (go to a moto/OHV area trailhead sometime). 

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

tiretracks said:


> Okay, hide and watch.


Im waiting for any kind of solution from you, besides "ban them" that will never happen everywhere. Til then , I'll go hide..


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

That's probably my favorite public place to ride my ebike. It's the world's only bike park in a cave. There's no segregation on "type" of bike......most have never heard of bans on ebikes...but some are aware. Regardless, it's fun and nobody cares about banning bikes.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I can go do an epic 4-5 hr ride and see maybe 8-10 bikers. I get it. It's kind of like any sweet spot or favorite restaurant, crowded and sharing sucks! Sweet ski resorts, packed lines for lifts, I go out mtbing to not see people and clear head. I've ridden east coast, west coast, up north etc and the one thing in common most all the riders riding there are thinking is "where the hell are all these riders coming from!" It's pretty cool when it's on the down low. I still want the sport of biking to thrive.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Voaraghamanthar said:


> That's probably my favorite public place to ride my ebike. It's the world's only bike park in a cave. There's no segregation on "type" of bike......most have never heard of bans on ebikes...but some are aware. Regardless, it's fun and nobody cares about banning bikes.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Wow, that's off the chain!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Im waiting for any kind of solution from you, besides "ban them" that will never happen everywhere. Til then , I'll go hide..


It doesn't need to happen everywhere. It will be selective.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

tiretracks said:


> It doesn't need to happen everywhere. It will be selective.


Exactly. There are places where motorcycles can be ridden relatively safely, places where e-bikes can be ridden relatively safely, and places mountain bikes can be ridden relatively safely. Those places won't always be the same trails, and that's the way it should be. Riding a mountain bike is a priviledge, not a right. I don't expect to be able to ride my bike in a sensitive environment on an unstable trail or down the freeway. It's not an exclusivity thing or an entitlement thing. It's common sense and sustainability. Of course, there are times when electric assist can enable people to ride a bike that otherwise wouldn't be able to, and I'm sure exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis.

Unfortunately, it's going to be practically impossible for land managers and rangers to differentiate between mountain bikes, e-bikes, and electric motorcycles. It would be even more difficult to enforce any regulations.

So what it comes down to is who is willing to enforce any regulations, who is just going to let any bike on the trails, and who is going to say "f-it" and ban all bikes. E-bikers generally avoid this issue, which is the crux for my existance in the e-bike forum.


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

It's pretty cool.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

That looks like a ton of fun! I always feel like I'm just in the way at places like that. I'm not talented or gutsy enough to make the most of those features.


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

The whole trail has side trails alongside the main where you can watch. Which is mostly the trails you will see an ebike on, but they (skilled riders) get in each other's way more than ebikes. It's wide enough to handle all skill levels.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Exactly. There are places where motorcycles can be ridden relatively safely, places where e-bikes can be ridden relatively safely, and places mountain bikes can be ridden relatively safely. Those places won't always be the same trails, and that's the way it should be. Riding a mountain bike is a priviledge, not a right. I don't expect to be able to ride my bike in a sensitive environment on an unstable trail or down the freeway. It's not an exclusivity thing or an entitlement thing. It's common sense and sustainability. Of course, there are times when electric assist can enable people to ride a bike that otherwise wouldn't be able to, and I'm sure exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> Unfortunately, it's going to be practically impossible for land managers and rangers to differentiate between mountain bikes, e-bikes, and electric motorcycles. It would be even more difficult to enforce any regulations.
> 
> So what it comes down to is who is willing to enforce any regulations, who is just going to let any bike on the trails, and who is going to say "f-it" and ban all bikes. E-bikers generally avoid this issue, which is the crux for my existance in the e-bike forum.


What issues are you insinuating ebikers avoid? What issues have I avoided? You hide behind mtbing because it's established then point the finger at something new. You don't have to like ebikes, that's your choice. The trails are not yours to determine who rides where, that's the LM call unless of course you allow trails on your own land like this "ebiker" does.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Voaraghamanthar said:


> It's pretty cool.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Where is this?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Where is this?


Kentucky.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Gutch said:


> What issues are you insinuating ebikers avoid? What issues have I avoided? You hide behind mtbing because it's established then point the finger at something new. You don't have to like ebikes, that's your choice. The trails are not yours to determine who rides where, that's the LM call unless of course you allow trails on your own land like this "ebiker" does.


Try reading the last paragraph. Actually, try reading the rest of my post, too.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Voaraghamanthar said:


> The whole trail has side trails alongside the main where you can watch. Which is mostly the trails you will see an ebike on, but they (skilled riders) get in each other's way more than ebikes. It's wide enough to handle all skill levels.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


I've checked that place out online - ridiculously cool. :thumbsup:


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

Just one of 4 parks I go to regurlarly. Mostly I ride to fishing spots that has bike trails to get around the lake. I ride Deams Lake and Patoka more than anything. Those lakes, among the other 3 parks, are in Indiana.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## hiphopopotamus (Feb 8, 2016)

That's a cool underground bike scene.

When you hit a jump is there a chance of being impaled by a stalactite?


----------



## rad3144 (Sep 28, 2016)

Voaraghamanthar said:


> It's pretty cool.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Looks like I need to make a trip to Kentucky that place is awesome

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

No you won't hit things from the ceiling. And there is way more to this cave than just the bike park. Also. Downtown Louisville has a killer BMX and skate park. Be sure to check out 4th Street live for night life. Lastly. The best time to visit this area....although crowded, is right up to the Kentucky Derby. Google Thunder over Louisville. It's one of the best fireworks show in the USA. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

I have zero interest in growing the sport. Having ridden since almost day one of mtbs existence, when it was rare to even see another bike, being ridden, or on a car, I think theres plenty of riders out there now, more is not going to make it better. 

Just ask yourself if you want to see more riders on your favorite trail. Thanks, but I don't.

Unless you make money from selling bike related products, I don't see the attraction.


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

During your visit to this area. Be sure to check out Horseshoe Casino. It has a lot of fun and has seen major celebrity stars appear to perform . People from AC/DC to KISS. From David Copperfield to Larry the Cable Guy. Again. If you visit during the Kentucky Derby, your chance of meeting a celebrity is quite high. I've met a LOT over the years.....Cheech and Tommy will always be my two favorites.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

A buddy of mine lost his life in Afghanistan. The community came together and created a bike park in honor of him and his passion....which is mountain biking. Dale was one awesome dude and we shared that passion in bikes. No doubt some of us veterans have given it all to grow the sport.

This park opens to the public this October but I've already been there on the few trails that were allowed to be ridden during construction.

Rest in peace Dale. I miss ya buddy.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Ever live in a state that's "anti" bike? Not much fun. Trail Access set aside, you either have a passion for two wheels or you don't. Hell Im a roadie, mtbr, ebiker, dirt bike rider and have owned a Harley in the past. I don't care what you ride, as long as you're responsible.
I love seeing new riders and families joining the sport of biking, let it grow and get the respect it deserves.


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

Gutch said:


> Ever live in a state that's "anti" bike? Not much fun. Trail Access set aside, you either have a passion for two wheels or you don't. Hell Im a roadie, mtbr, ebiker, dirt bike rider and have owned a Harley in the past. I don't care what you ride, as long as you're responsible.
> I love seeing new riders and families joining the sport of biking, let it grow and get the respect it deserves.


I like you Gutch. You're alright in my book.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Thanks, differences set aside about ebikes, I'm sure most all on here share that same common bond. Years ago, those jumps would be very enticing! Now my bones and my balls are saying "hell no!"


----------



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

Gutch said:


> Trail Access set aside, you either have a passion for two wheels or you don't.


Not true. I've owned a few motorcycles and like them fine but I never had a passion for them, to me they're just fun and economical transport. Now bicycles, that's love. A completely different animal in my view.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Cool


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Gutch said:


> Cool


If you truly had passion, you wouldn't be fighting so hard to risk trail access.

P.s. Did you actually read my earlier post, yet?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Ever live in a state that's "anti" bike? Not much fun. Trail Access set aside, you either have a passion for two wheels or you don't. Hell Im a roadie, mtbr, ebiker, dirt bike rider and have owned a Harley in the past. I don't care what you ride, as long as you're responsible.
> I love seeing new riders and families joining the sport of biking, let it grow and get the respect it deserves.


I live in a state that's incredibly pro-bike, but also very anti-motor when it comes to trails. We bikers get a ton of respect, while the motorized groups get little to none (this situation is based on the different groups' actual respective histories, not just some unfounded bias). E-bikers need to prove themselves to the powers-that-be if they're ever going to get broad access around here, and again, I don't feel it's fair or reasonable at all for them to think that they can just dump that responsibility onto mountain bikers shoulders and go on their merry e-way.

I don't really care what people ride either. We like motors in my family too; we ride snowmo, moto and ATV as well as BMX and MTB. Bikinghas a special place among all those as it's the one thing we can go almost anywhere and be 100% legal and welcomed. Nice feeling that I don't feel like giving up just to boost some the bottom line of a few distant strangers that don't know or care about our local situation one bit.

My 12 year old is all about 2 wheels, even if you put him on 4. 
FWIW, I get the whole 'stupid rules' thing too - he's still 4 years away from legally being able to operated his ATV, even in our own yard.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

mountainbiker24 said:


> If you truly had passion, you wouldn't be fighting so hard to risk trail access.
> 
> P.s. Did you actually read my earlier post, yet?


I don't know what to say to you. While you were posting, I was out riding my road bike. Now I'm gonna throw on the food bag. Your right, I have no passion.


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

Just when the conversation was getting good....and now I'm like......










Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> I live in a state that's incredibly pro-bike, but also very anti-motor when it comes to trails. We bikers get a ton of respect, while the motorized groups get little to none (this situation is based on the different groups' actual respective histories, not just some unfounded bias). E-bikers need to prove themselves to the powers-that-be if they're ever going to get broad access around here, and again, I don't feel it's fair or reasonable at all for them to think that they can just dump that responsibility onto mountain bikers shoulders and go on their merry e-way.
> 
> I don't really care what people ride either. We like motors in my family too; we ride snowmo, moto and ATV as well as BMX and MTB. Bikinghas a special place among all those as it's the one thing we can go almost anywhere and be 100% legal and welcomed. Nice feeling that I don't feel like giving up just to boost some the bottom line of a few distant strangers that don't know or care about our local situation one bit.
> 
> ...


That's crazy! 16 yrs old on your own land? Wow.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Voaraghamanthar said:


> Just when the conversation was getting good....and now I'm like......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As far as clowns go, that's some twisted ****!


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

I know right. I'm gonna laugh my azz off when they show up on trails.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



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

Scary clowns are coming to trails?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Well if ebikes are legal on trails, cool. If it doesn't work out, I'll sell it and continue riding my 6fattie. "We have to prove ourselfs.." Bull****. I'll prove MYSELF on my ebike. No different than knucklehead riders on mtbs, Moto, whatever. This is not a team sport.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> Scary clowns are coming to trails?


Yes, they are already here.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> Scary clowns are coming to trails?


We got it covered.


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

tiretracks said:


> We got it covered.
> 
> View attachment 1098850


Cool. The ebike guys don't need to step in and help then. You guys got this.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gutch said:


> This is not a team sport.


It is when it comes to access. Nothing less than an undeniable fact. The reason we enjoy the access we have is ONLY because of people pulling together to prove ourselves worthy of that access, and to continuing to pull together to earn the respect and trust of LMs though sweat equity, generally good behavior, and the ability to coexist with other user groups. E-bikes have none of that currently, being the new kid on the block, so you absolutely DO need to prove yourselves.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gutch said:


> That's crazy! 16 yrs old on your own land? Wow.


Yup - gotta be 16 to ride one larger than 90cc. Even then, there's practically no legal riding on any state or town lands. ATVers screwed themselves early on around here by having the mindset that they could go wherever they wanted and someone else would be a happy to clean up after them. Didn't work and they no only lost basically all legal riding over time, they also screwed the moto guys who had been doing perfectly fine for many many years and had lots of places to ride until they were banned through guilt by association with ATVs. Lumping e-bikes in with mountain bikes is a perfect parallel of this situation; someone would need to be blind or willfully ignorant not to see it.


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

Another place I did some riding. This trail is just outside Iwakuni, Japan. It sees MTB and ebikes both. You can buy a battery for your bike when you land. Just ship it home at the end of your trip. They are a lot cheaper over there...insidious how much cheaper.

Great food and lots to do in Japan. American Civilians can stay on base at the hotel. I did a 120 mile ride on a cross country bike while there....from Iwakuni to Hiroshima and back. So much fun. The real treat is the Cherry Blossom Festival...and the bike trail rides to see ancient Samurai Homes and Dojo's. Those are tourist sites now. This is a country that LOVES bikes. No egos found there....you just ride and leave all goofy stuff people say about a bicycle behind....enjoying the scenery. It's awesome! Lol.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Voaraghamanthar said:


> Cool. The ebike guys don't need to step in and help then. You guys got this.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Odd that you voluntarily exclude yourself.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> Yup - gotta be 16 to ride one larger than 90cc. Even then, there's practically no legal riding on any state or town lands. ATVers screwed themselves early on around here by having the mindset that they could go wherever they wanted and someone else would be a happy to clean up after them. Didn't work and they no only lost basically all legal riding over time, they also screwed the moto guys who had been doing perfectly fine for many many years and had lots of places to ride until they were banned through guilt by association with ATVs. Lumping e-bikes in with mountain bikes is a perfect parallel of this situation; someone would need to be blind or willfully ignorant not to see it.


No worries, I own and ride a Levo. Bring on the trail access. That's my view, so be it. Did I tell ya'll this is my only bike and I just started riding last week? These pety discussions are getting nowhere.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I have no idea what that means.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, I think the moto/atv thing is instructive, because I was riding motos when a lot of that went down, and the complaints you'll hear from (now banned) moto riders are similar - ATVs make it much too easy for people to get out and trash trails, throw trash everywhere, and also get themselves in trouble in the backcountry. The bar is set too low by ATVs, and those folks are the people that got all motorized stuff banned from a ton of places in the 1990s and 2000s. 

Riding a moto takes a fair amount of skill on trails, and it's intimidating and physically exhausting enough that there's inherenty a limited number of people who want to ride them that way. ATVs are a different story - and they attract the lazy, noobs, and children/elderly people who have no business riding around on a motor vehicle on dirt. LOTS of them. They don't read signs, they go where they shouldn't, they leave trash everywhere, and they have to be rescued a lot. Everyone hates ATVs (though of course they have plenty of legit uses) and a typical trail area that allows ATVs will have basically zero hikers/mountain bikers/etc, because the place will generally be wrecked and filled with morons.

So the lesson is basically that making things easy might not be good. Maybe e-bikes will be fine. My nightmare is that they make riding uphill so casual that tons of morons descend on every trail system. Growing the sport isn't good if the people taking it up are going to ruin the experience for everyone else.

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> I have no idea what that means.


What it means is a am a seasoned cyclist. Obviously I understand how trail usage works. I rode Moto x on a track. I think people are getting a little excited about the ebike trail access. 250w is not a big deal. If I was some punk and didn't give a hoot, it would suck for everyone. If there becomes a scene where ebike wattage is an issue, the only thing to do is enforce speed limits. You don't have to worry where you live, they will probably always be banned. Other areas the riding is pretty vast and see seldom riders. I'm obviously never going to be viewed as your hard core cyclist in your guys eyes, because I also own a Levo. I'm fine with that. If there was 20 ebike owners on this forum and only a few opposed, things might look different. I'm one of the guys that owns land and allows trails for people to enjoy. I'm not some dude that rips trails, doesn't contribute, then gets on forums and *****es! This thing will shake out in time.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gutch said:


> . You don't have to worry where you live, they will probably always be banned.


I don't think they need to be or really care much if they are or not; just don't want them equivocated with mountain bikes. We also are lucky enough to have private landowners like yourself in m area who are generous enough to allow us trails on their land. I know for a fact a couple of them would have an issue with motors coming into the equation in any way, shape of form. If someone were riding an e-bike around here, they would have no way of knowing whether they are on land where they are perfectly fine, of if they are somewhere they could potentially be causing an issue for all of us if they cross paths with the wrong person. The situation changes a number of times during a typical ride, as instead of huge tracts of public land, a lot of the riding up here is across patchworks of properties, each with their own unique flavor when it comes to who and what is acceptable. This is exactly the type of place where the 'go wherever bikes can go' mentality will screw it for mountain bikers. It's not that I've got anything against e-bikes, but I know embracing them would be terrible for mountain biking where I live.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> I don't think they need to be or really care much if they are or not; just don't want them equivocated with mountain bikes. We also are lucky enough to have private landowners like yourself in m area who are generous enough to allow us trails on their land. I know for a fact a couple of them would have an issue with motors coming into the equation in any way, shape of form. If someone were riding an e-bike around here, they would have no way of knowing whether they are on land where they are perfectly fine, of if they are somewhere they could potentially be causing an issue for all of us if they cross paths with the wrong person. The situation changes a number of times during a typical ride, as instead of huge tracts of public land, a lot of the riding up here is across patchworks of properties, each with their own unique flavor when it comes to who and what is acceptable. This is exactly the type of place where the 'go wherever bikes can go' mentality will screw it for mountain bikers. It's not that I've got anything against e-bikes, but I know embracing them would be terrible for mountain biking where I live.


That's understood, and a viable concern. They are not the same as mtb's. My Levo rides like my 6fattie, just heavier. There's no question you can haul the mail with it and you'll be grinning from ear to ear. (Maybe, I do) That said, you need the right situation to truly enjoy it. Kinda like overkill if you ride in a dense over populated area of riders, dogs etc.
I will be pro active in my area for trail access with a cap of 250w pedelec with no throttle. That would help cut back on the over wattage guys that are going full gas, maybe. It does not do anymore trail damage and is dead silent. Funny, my brother used to be NYS cross country champ for a few years, now 50 he bought an efatbike and he tells me it's funniest time he's had on a bicycle in years. We grew up in the woods in the hardwood lumber industry.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Gutch said:


> 250w is not a big deal.


I think this is true but we've already seen examples *even on this forum* of people immediately modifying their stock 250w bikes. Further, if I were buying an e-bike, why the heck wouldn't I be buying the most powerful/fastest one? Manufacturers know that, and they'll be building bikes accordingly (or looking the other way at modifications) and adding power to compete.

It probably would have been good for everyone (manufacturers included) if the various (CA, UT, etc) legislation on e-bikes had specifically limited the 750w=bicycle treatment to vehicles operated on the *roadways*, since that legislation was specifically aimed at preventing people from having to register/license them.

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Correct. Honestly, 20% assist in eco mode will get you rolling pretty good and allow you to cover some ground. Anymore than 250w and your straying quite a ways from the bicycle and into the electric motorcycle arena, IMO. Also, if you want to cover some ground you need to conserve energy or your baked!


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, the 250w bikes are IMO not going to appeal to the shredder/shuttler/fullface crowd much. A little bit much to handle on the DH, not shredding berms uphill - so they'll mostly just help people who don't want to (or can't) work super hard to do big climbs/rides. 

I don't think they'll stay there, though. There's too much incentive to add power and speed for both consumers and manufacturers, and as of now, there's what amounts to a legal loophole allowing 750w. That's setting aside the problem of modifying/reprogramming/DIY stuff, of course. 

-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

It's pretty clear that People4Bikes has no intention of rolling back their legislation to 750w road / 250w dirt, no matter how much sense it makes. They changed it to make it clear that ebikes are allowed on hiking trails in UT & TN, and was pushing the same at InterBike. If you want to make it a reality, make it happen locally. If that's what states and locales adopt, then it will carry some weight. 

Contact your local LMs and make your case.


----------



## michaeldorian (Nov 17, 2006)

Voaraghamanthar said:


> Another place I did some riding. This trail is just outside Iwakuni, Japan. It sees MTB and ebikes both. You can buy a battery for your bike when you land. Just ship it home at the end of your trip. They are a lot cheaper over there...insidious how much cheaper.
> 
> Great food and lots to do in Japan. American Civilians can stay on base at the hotel. I did a 120 mile ride on a cross country bike while there....from Iwakuni to Hiroshima and back. So much fun. The real treat is the Cherry Blossom Festival...and the bike trail rides to see ancient Samurai Homes and Dojo's. Those are tourist sites now. This is a country that LOVES bikes. No egos found there....you just ride and leave all goofy stuff people say about a bicycle behind....enjoying the scenery. It's awesome! Lol.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Definitely. From my experience, this problem is much more heated in the states.


----------



## michaeldorian (Nov 17, 2006)

Walt said:


> Yeah, the 250w bikes are IMO not going to appeal to the shredder/shuttler/fullface crowd much. A little bit much to handle on the DH, not shredding berms uphill - so they'll mostly just help people who don't want to (or can't) work super hard to do big climbs/rides.
> 
> I don't think they'll stay there, though. There's too much incentive to add power and speed for both consumers and manufacturers, and as of now, there's what amounts to a legal loophole allowing 750w. That's setting aside the problem of modifying/reprogramming/DIY stuff, of course.
> 
> -Walt


Thank you for the civilized discussion Walt. Finally the discussion gets to a better interesting and productive state. I agree 250w pedalacs are where they should stay. The focus is what does it take to get it to stay there. Like it or not, they are here to stay. They are every where internationally and generally accepted and will eventually make there way over here at scale. Maybe a new "treaty" amoung manufacturers and national advocacy groups restricting max output like SMOG or CARB in the states?

The "crazy" 750w riff raff has always been around even before this whole pedalacs. They will always be around causing trouble with or without us.

I was a skeptic before, but the LEVO is so much fun and really does feel just like a bike. Rode one of those early Frankenstein megawatts and hated it. It would be ashame if the advancement in technology is lost due to misunderstanding across the various levels involved. In a way, these pedalacs at 250w shouldn't even be categorized the same as those heavy mega watters with a throttle.

I'm game for 250w no throttle. Now onwards towards a workable solution.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Walt said:


> Yeah, the 250w bikes are IMO not going to appeal to the shredder/shuttler/fullface crowd much. A little bit much to handle on the DH, not shredding berms uphill - so they'll mostly just help people who don't want to (or can't) work super hard to do big climbs/rides.
> 
> I don't think they'll stay there, though. There's too much incentive to add power and speed for both consumers and manufacturers, and as of now, there's what amounts to a legal loophole allowing 750w. That's setting aside the problem of modifying/reprogramming/DIY stuff, of course.
> 
> -Walt


I agree, that was a bonehead move. Everyone, please don't jump on my a**, why didn't we follow Europe with 750 / 250? Works there, maybe here? As far as the Levo goes, if you live in an mountainous area that is either up or down and you gotta drive an hour to get to your ride, when you arrive the climbing at 5mph tends to get old with ride time. Hell, I love to climb but would rather ride and see more track. Back in my 30's wouldn't care, but at 45, I'll do what needs to be done and grind them out but don't want to spend all day climbing for 10 min of down. All depends on your trail network. I'm inviting ya'll to call me lazy?


----------



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

michaeldorian said:


> Definitely. From my experience, this problem is much more heated in the states.


I doubt anyone cares who rides what in a bike park, my issue is with backcountry wilderness trails. This isn't a problem in countries that have no wilderness to lose.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Of course when I have on my MTB googles even only 250w is riff-raff. From a broader perspective that should be harmless enough but that isn't a very fair metric; maximum wattage should be based on the rider's weight IMHO.

A 5'-10" 160# rider might be doing fine with "only" 250w but a fella 6'-6" and 320# won't be as satisfied. Maybe use the "standard man" weight of 170# and adjust accordingly. And should women be allowed as much power as men? Heaven forbid.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> I agree, that was a bonehead move. Everyone, please don't jump on my a**, why didn't we follow Europe with 750 / 250? Works there, maybe here? As far as the Levo goes, if you live in an mountainous area that is either up or down and you gotta drive an hour to get to your ride, when you arrive the climbing at 5mph tends to get old with ride time. Hell, I love to climb but would rather ride and see more track. Back in my 30's wouldn't care, but at 45, I'll do what needs to be done and grind them out but don't want to spend all day climbing for 10 min of down. All depends on your trail network. I'm inviting ya'll to call me lazy?


Aging out of a sport is inevitable, emotorbikes aren't.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Gutch said:


> I agree, that was a bonehead move. Everyone, please don't jump on my a**, why didn't we follow Europe with 750 / 250? Works there, maybe here? As far as the Levo goes, if you live in an mountainous area that is either up or down and you gotta drive an hour to get to your ride, when you arrive the climbing at 5mph tends to get old with ride time. Hell, I love to climb but would rather ride and see more track. Back in my 30's wouldn't care, but at 45, I'll do what needs to be done and grind them out but don't want to spend all day climbing for 10 min of down. All depends on your trail network. I'm inviting ya'll to call me lazy?


I've been getting slower for at least 15 years too, and that's ok with me, but I guess everyone is different. If you find the right trails (at least around here) and are willing to suffer a little bit, you can get the climb/descend ratio to about 2:1. Beyond that, might as well just start shuttling or buy a lift ticket, IMO. But I actually like exercise, so I'd probably still ride even if I could only do hillclimbs and had to take the chairlift back down or something.

Agreed that the EU system would be better. The 750w on dirt loophole was very shortsighted on the part of the e-bike lobby and IMO it will come back to bite them in the butt. I could easily compete with motos on singletrack with 750w of extra power, including going uphill.

-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Gutch said:


> I agree, that was a bonehead move. Everyone, please don't jump on my a**, why didn't we follow Europe with 750 / 250? Works there, maybe here?


Here's my theories since the industry people behind it aren't talking.

A - Since 750w was already on the books, they weren't going to paint themselves into a corner with 250w.

B - And I've seen this suggested in an industry publication, because Americans tend to be "larger". 

C - In Europe, theres been pressure from the riding community to open up access in the S-Pedelec class 250w/28mph. Initially from commuters who were complaining that long commutes took too long to be viable on a Pedelec at 25kmh/15.5mph. S-Pedelec mtb sales are booming even though they are hardly legal anywhere on singletrack. Since oem motors are limited to 250w, a main selling point now is who can squeeze the most torque out of them. Seeing the increasing interest in higher speeds and power as well, those who make ebikes can see how 750w will expand the market past the assist crowd into those riders who want more of a moto light experience. Bigger markets = more sales.

D - They never engaged the existing and experienced ebike communities to gain input. There were threads on the ebike forums where riders were genuinely concerned how 750w was going to affect their access in the future.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Walt said:


> I could easily compete with motos on singletrack with 750w of extra power, including going uphill.


Especially if you're on a bike with a "750w" BBSHD.

Why does my BBSHD have 750w Stamped on bottom ? - Electricbike.com Ebike Forum






Check out a couple of this guys vids if you want to see where modding will get you, he claims hes getting 3000w out of it. Which is another one of the reasons 250w is preferrable to 750w. Modding a 250w motor will only get you so far, less power for the idiots out there.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

holy cow that thing was moving fast... that was easily 40mph.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

It'll do 50 on pavement.


----------



## DudeDowne (Jun 18, 2012)

Voaraghamanthar said:


> Another place I did some riding. This trail is just outside Iwakuni, Japan. It sees MTB and ebikes both. You can buy a battery for your bike when you land. Just ship it home at the end of your trip. They are a lot cheaper over there...insidious how much cheaper.
> 
> Great food and lots to do in Japan. American Civilians can stay on base at the hotel. I did a 120 mile ride on a cross country bike while there....from Iwakuni to Hiroshima and back. So much fun. The real treat is the Cherry Blossom Festival...and the bike trail rides to see ancient Samurai Homes and Dojo's. Those are tourist sites now. This is a country that LOVES bikes. No egos found there....you just ride and leave all goofy stuff people say about a bicycle behind....enjoying the scenery. It's awesome! Lol.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


This picture is the entrance/exit to Magic Island at Alafia State Park in Lithia,FL. Check your geo tag.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Harryman said:


> It'll do 50 on pavement.


Those guys are idiots... riding in the left lane at those speeds with no turn signals, brake lights or safety gear????? holy crap.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Time to shut it down with a ridiculous example. This is an e-bike you'll never see on a trail just like many of the attitudes here that you'll never meet on a trail. Appreciate the fact that some have different challenges than others, agree that e-MTB is a separate class that stands on its own merits, and am an MTB advocate first. Also, thank SHM for his reasoned & interesting approach to subjects.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

DudeDowne said:


> This picture is the entrance/exit to Magic Island at Alafia State Park in Lithia,FL. Check your geo tag.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


Ouch.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Scary clowns are coming to trails?


 Last year I came across 12 zombies in the woods good thing I was on my e bike !!!


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Ouch.


 I have ridden this its a blast!! there is a 6ft gator that hangs close to here on the trail ! and yes its Magic island and there is twisted sister?? all great riding in Alafia state park


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

fos'l said:


> Time to shut it down with a ridiculous example. This is an e-bike you'll never see on a trail just like many of the attitudes here that you'll never meet on a trail. Appreciate the fact that some have different challenges than others, agree that e-MTB is a separate class that stands on its own merits, and am an MTB advocate first. Also, thank SHM for his reasoned & interesting approach to subjects.


I've seen 3 ebikes locally, two were going less than 10mph and the other was 35+. That's 33% high speed ebikes!!! :eekster: :eekster: :eekster: <jk>

I posted it as an example of the giant sized legislative loophole available to those who like to exploit it. Unless someone saw him ripping along, he could easily prove that his bike CA Class 2 legal, maybe Class 1 too. Guys like that will always be in the minority since most people aren't tinkerers, they still need to be adressed though.


----------



## Voaraghamanthar (Sep 3, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Ouch.


Lol.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

tiretracks said:


> Aging out of a sport is inevitable, emotorbikes aren't.


Dude, I so want to drop you. I'll ride my kids green machine. That would be fair.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Why would you post Japan riding, if indeed that's fla.?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

We have 3 washed up ex-pros (supposedly) here already (though we lost supposed euro-ex-pro Mojoronnie), Gutch are you aiming to join that elite crew?

It requires drinking a lot of wine and/or high end whiskey, complaining about sanitization of racecourses, and namedropping pros from the 90s. Send me a PM if you think you can hang!

Wait, crap, I outed myself as old and washed up.

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Walt said:


> We have 3 washed up ex-pros (supposedly) here already (though we lost supposed euro-ex-pro Mojoronnie), Gutch are you aiming to join that elite crew?
> 
> It requires drinking a lot of wine and/or high end whiskey, complaining about sanitization of racecourses, and namedropping pros from the 90s. Send me a PM if you think you can hang!
> 
> ...


Yeah madman, I'm in! I got my teva hikers on...


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Tomac is my man, maybe tinker?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Tinker and I DNF'd the Alpine Valley National together in like 2001 or something. We had a moment while washing our bikes. I thought about having him autograph my cleavage.

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I always wanted to bone Missy Giove, is that strange? I'll take another bottle of the red ****.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Walt said:


> Tinker and I DNF'd the Alpine Valley National together in like 2001 or something. We had a moment while washing our bikes. I thought about having him autograph my cleavage.
> 
> -Walt


Nice!...


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

rockcrusher said:


> This has gotten really weird
> 
> sent


Umhm, conspiracy theories, govmint class action suits, trying to convert lesbians, it's getting interesting. I'm waiting for someone to demand tax returns and declare that FC is Kenyan.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Congo.

Let's at least get this thread back to bikes, electric or not.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Yeah madman, I'm in! I got my teva hikers on...


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gutch again."

I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Moe Ped said:


> Congo.
> 
> Let's at least get this thread back to bikes, electric or not.


You better make darn sure no trees were hurt in that video...


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Gutch said:


> I always wanted to bone Missy Giove, is that strange? I'll take another bottle of the red ****.


Yeah me too dead fish and all I thinks shes out of jail now


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Okay, i cleaned up a bunch of off topic posts and this thread is still off topic. Lets bring it back around please....


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Does anyone know if the Levo is legal in Lake Tahoe?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Gutch said:


> Does anyone know if the Levo is legal in Lake Tahoe?


A lot of those trails are USFS MUTs. Not approved for motorized use.

Some are on state land, some ARE approved for motorized use.

Any area in particular?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

None imparticular as of now. Just getting info, maybe plan a mtb vacation. I'll bring the 6fattie.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Where Can Electric Mountain Bikes Be Ridden in New England | NEMBA


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Nice post^^^


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

More Colorado info:

E-bike trend hits roadblock on local trails | GJSentinel.com


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Peopleforbikes's compilation of where you can legally ride emtbs in the US, since they are the ones pushing the legislation state by state, they should be fairly up on it.

http://b.3cdn.net/bikes/b3917d951d9f51fb8b_23m6bn4dx.pdf

Can this thread get stickied? It was waaaay down the list


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Harryman said:


> Can this thread get stickied? It was waaaay down the list


sure, seems like this should be a regular resource for those looking to legally ride an e-bike.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Very Good info , And worth printing out


----------



## motocatfish (Mar 12, 2016)

Harryman said:


> Peopleforbikes's compilation of where you can legally ride emtbs in the US, since they are the ones pushing the legislation state by state, they should be fairly up on it.
> http://b.3cdn.net/bikes/b3917d951d9f51fb8b_23m6bn4dx.pdf
> Can this thread get stickied? It was waaaay down the list





Klurejr said:


> sure, seems like this should be a regular resource for those looking to legally ride an e-bike.


Yes, thanks. I hadn't found this thread until now. Here's the "Where are eMTB's legal in NorCal?" thread I started over there.

Catfish ...


----------



## jupiter58 (Jan 13, 2016)

Not permitted on Boise developed trails.


----------



## av8or (Jun 9, 2013)

called the ranger station.. for socal san diego, los penasquitos, black mountain and lake poway are good for class 1 and 2.. this after i told an ebike rider last week on pq that he can't ride his bike there.. my apologies dude if you are here...


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Tnf*

This just in:
https://www.facebook.com/TahoeNF/photos/a.1466211886973741.1073741829.1463705733891023/1881377815457144/?type=3&theater


----------



## BeeZee1 (Jul 24, 2017)

*E bikes in Topanga State Park*

With the popularity of MTB'ing in Southern California, I noticed there was no clear answer as to whether E mountain bikes are allowed in one of our great State Parks, Topanga. This park includes part of the Backbone Trail, and is very convenient to riders living in L.A. Some online resources claim that you could be issued a 1000$ fine if caught riding your e bike in the park. Since I was very interested in E Mtb's I called the rangers at Trippet Ranch and here is the very clear answer....

E bikes are permitted in Topanga State Rark. You have to remain on trails where bikes are permitted (some are hiker only). You have to adhere to the 15 mph speed limit and be cautious of hikers. This is straight out of the ranger's mouth, so we are free to go ahead and try out E MTB's in Topanga Park, no question about it.















(PS, the ride from Trippet Ranch to Will Rogers was very fun on the E MTB)

BZ, West Los Angeles


----------



## michaeldorian (Nov 17, 2006)

BeeZee1 said:


> With the popularity of MTB'ing in Southern California, I noticed there was no clear answer as to whether E mountain bikes are allowed in one of our great State Parks, Topanga. This park includes part of the Backbone Trail, and is very convenient to riders living in L.A. Some online resources claim that you could be issued a 1000$ fine if caught riding your e bike in the park. Since I was very interested in E Mtb's I called the rangers at Trippet Ranch and here is the very clear answer....
> 
> E bikes are permitted in Topanga State Rark. You have to remain on trails where bikes are permitted (some are hiker only). You have to adhere to the 15 mph speed limit and be cautious of hikers. This is straight out of the ranger's mouth, so we are free to go ahead and try out E MTB's in Topanga Park, no question about it.
> 
> ...


This is awesome. Thanks for clarifying!


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Seems like the LA area and the Santa Monica mountains are the best places for e-MTB's.


----------



## BeeZee1 (Jul 24, 2017)

Sure, thing. I felt compelled to research this because there seemed to be much possibly false information out there.


----------



## BeeZee1 (Jul 24, 2017)

I would be very interested to know if any other LA riders have the official word on other cool trails such as Chesebro, Agoura Hills, and Tapia Park, Malibu ????

BZ


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

I've only been to Pt Magu in the LA area (on an MTB those times), but one respondent said the Rangers there allow CA Class 1 e-MTB's. Hopefullt, he'll respond since he knows the area well.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

There isn't a cohesive policy for the entire CA state park system? That seems an odd way to run things.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

fos'l said:


> Seems like the LA area and the Santa Monica mountains are the best places for e-MTB's.


Agree 100%.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> Agree 100%.


Was in the LBS yesterday in Fort Collins, CO. A younger person (30 or younger, fit looking) came in and asked them if they stocked e-bikes.

Mechanic told him that, while he's seen them, no, they don't carry them. The potential customer seemed surprised by this. He asked, "Why not?".

The mechanic explained to him that all of the trails in the area did not permit e-bikes, and as such, they didn't feel there was a market for them.

Apparently the customer either didn't know this about Fort Collins, or simply didn't care.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> Was in the LBS yesterday in Fort Collins, CO. A younger person (30 or younger, fit looking) came in and asked them if they stocked e-bikes.
> 
> Mechanic told him that, while he's seen them, no, they don't carry them. The potential customer seemed surprised by this. He asked, "Why not?".
> 
> ...


My local LBS had a Levo on the shelf for the past year or so, at least. 
Went in last week and it was finally gone.
Asked if they were going to get any more and owner said no, asked why not, said they're very hard to move and that many customers weren't shy about sharing their unfavorable views of them in general. Thought it was interesting.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

How about Orange county/Riverside CA?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Who said e bikes are illegal on FT Collins trails??? the bike shop?? other MT bikers?? The forest service puts up no e bike signs right? is there a no e bike sign? . If there is a no e bike sign posted then don't ride a e bike on it go ride a trail that's not posted out west you guys have so many places to ride . What happens to a MT biker that rides a Hiker only trail??


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

j, AFAIK from speaking to Rangers at a couple of local parks, two different groups of police officers patrolling the area, and what someone who spoke to the superintendent of parks said, they're are prohibited in Orange County. Have encountered several individuals riding them though although, as I stated somewhere else, sales seem to be moving at glacial speeds.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

rider95 said:


> Who said e bikes are illegal on FT Collins trails??? the bike shop?? other MT bikers?? The forest service puts up no e bike signs right? is there a no e bike sign? . If there is a no e bike sign posted then don't ride a e bike on it go ride a trail that's not posted out west you guys have so many places to ride . What happens to a MT biker that rides a Hiker only trail??


Seriously?

It's illegal to ride e-bikes on multi-use, non-motorized trails on City of Fort Collins and Larimer County trails.

That includes Coyote Ridge, Blue Sky, Devils Backbone, Horsetooth Mountain Park, Lory State Park, Reservoir Ridge, Maxwell Natural Area, and Pineridge Natural Area. No motorized vehicles. To include e-bikes.

There are no USFS trails in Fort Collins. You'd have to drive up to Bobcat Ridge to find the nearest MTB trail on USFS land.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Harryman said:


> There isn't a cohesive policy for the entire CA state park system? That seems an odd way to run things.


Our local rangers not having a firm policy I checked with Sacramento directly last year; was told that it will take a couple of years for a state-wide policy to be formulated. Most likely it will be up to the district superintendents to make the call. (As is currently the case for all kinds of trail access; bikes, horses, whatever)

The rangers I know are lobbying for yes on Class 1; no on everything else.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

I have a question that may seem obtuse, but it's a real question.

Background: In some states it's illegal to use "text based electronic communications" while driving. In other words, its illegal to text and drive. But the corollary to that is that it is legal to use your smart phone for navigation, listen to music, or even play Angry Birds. So, when a cop attempts to ticket a person for texting while driving, there is practically no way he can PROVE that the driver was in fact texting and not doing some other legal activity (unless the driver is dumb enough to confess on the side of the road).

Some places claim that it is "illegal" to operate motorized vehicles on some trails, where riding a conventional mountain bike would be ok. But for an e-assist bike, the motor does not have to be operated to use the bike. Some people say that the rules prohibit "motorized vehicles", but that would be defined as a vehicle propelled by a motor. Just having the motor on the bike is insufficient to constitute a violation. The vehicle must be propelled by a motor. Having a disabled motor in the frame no more makes a bike a "motorized vehicle" than having a motor in your backpack. So, if I had the motor disabled (i.e. battery removed), I am not riding a motor vehicle. So, if a LEO sees someone riding an e-assist bike (i.e. a Levo), is it reasonable to think that there is no way that a cop can PROVE you were riding a "motorized vehicle"?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> I have a question that may seem obtuse, but it's a real question.
> 
> Background: In some states it's illegal to use "text based electronic communications" while driving. In other words, its illegal to text and drive. But the corollary to that is that it is legal to use your smart phone for navigation, listen to music, or even play Angry Birds. So, when a cop attempts to ticket a person for texting while driving, there is practically no way he can PROVE that the driver was in fact texting and not doing some other legal activity (unless the driver is dumb enough to confess on the side of the road).
> 
> Some places claim that it is "illegal" to operate motorized vehicles on some trails, where riding a conventional mountain bike would be ok. But for an e-assist bike, the motor does not have to be operated to use the bike. Some people say that the rules prohibit "motorized vehicles", but that would be defined as a vehicle propelled by a motor. Just having the motor on the bike is insufficient to constitute a violation. The vehicle must be propelled by a motor. Having a disabled motor in the frame no more makes a bike a "motorized vehicle" than having a motor in your backpack. So, if I had the motor disabled (i.e. battery removed), I am not riding a motor vehicle. So, if a LEO sees someone riding an e-assist bike (i.e. a Levo), is it reasonable to think that there is no way that a cop can PROVE you were riding a "motorized vehicle"?


He doesn't have to.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> Some people say that the rules prohibit "motorized vehicles", but that would be defined as a vehicle propelled by a motor. Just having the motor on the bike is insufficient to constitute a violation. The vehicle must be propelled by a motor. Having a disabled motor in the frame no more makes a bike a "motorized vehicle" than having a motor in your backpack.


Nope. Just having a motor is sufficient. It has a motor, ergo, it's motorized. It cannot be used on non motortized trails, even if you claim you're not using it. You're playing pretty fast and loose with your own definitions here. I know for a fact that any law enforcement entity who happens to be policing a non motorized trail would ticket you regardless of whether or not your motor is in use.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Just because you're ticketed, didn't mean you're guilty. I'm not playing fast and loose with my definitions, I'm holding government accountable. And I don't think you're definition of "motorized" is based on anything other than your opinion. 

So, with that, does anyone gave a link to an actual law that prohibits eassist bikes?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> does anyone gave a link to an actual law that prohibits eassist bikes?


http://flagstaffbiking.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/20150929EBikesBriefingPaper.pdf

http://flagstaffbiking.org/wp-conte...nds-BLM-Field-Going-Notification-July2015.pdf

Anything else?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> Just because you're ticketed, didn't mean you're guilty. I'm not playing fast and loose with my definitions, I'm holding government accountable. And I don't think you're definition of "motorized" is based on anything other than your opinion.
> 
> So, with that, does anyone gave a link to an actual law that prohibits eassist bikes?


You are really grasping at straws. These aren't my opinions. I work with the BLM as a trail ranger. I also work with other land owners. I know exactly what they consider a motorized vehicle. It's not my opinion. You seem like a pretty strong anarchist who believes no one can tell him what to do. Someday you'll get a pretty strong smackdown of reality.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> I have a question that may seem obtuse, but it's a real question.
> 
> Background: In some states it's illegal to use "text based electronic communications" while driving. In other words, its illegal to text and drive. But the corollary to that is that it is legal to use your smart phone for navigation, listen to music, or even play Angry Birds. So, when a cop attempts to ticket a person for texting while driving, there is practically no way he can PROVE that the driver was in fact texting and not doing some other legal activity (unless the driver is dumb enough to confess on the side of the road).


Are you suggesting that it's ok to text and drive?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Jim_bo said:


> Some places claim that it is "illegal" to operate motorized vehicles on some trails, where riding a conventional mountain bike would be ok. But for an e-assist bike, the motor does not have to be operated to use the bike. Some people say that the rules prohibit "motorized vehicles", but that would be defined as a vehicle propelled by a motor. Just having the motor on the bike is insufficient to constitute a violation. The vehicle must be propelled by a motor. Having a disabled motor in the frame no more makes a bike a "motorized vehicle" than having a motor in your backpack. So, if I had the motor disabled (i.e. battery removed), I am not riding a motor vehicle. So, if a LEO sees someone riding an e-assist bike (i.e. a Levo), is it reasonable to think that there is no way that a cop can PROVE you were riding a "motorized vehicle"?


Nice try.

At least as far as California e-bike legislation goes once it's established that a vehicle is an electric bicycle it doesn't matter how it's being propelled at any given moment; 100% electric or 100% human---the rules apply.

An analogy might be like trying to argue a gun without a round in the chamber is not a firearm.

Try that with your local police department.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> Are you suggesting that it's ok to text and drive?


Of course I'm not saying it's ok to text and drive. That's a ridiculous and needlessly confrontational conclusion. What I'm saying is that it's not ok to not hold government accountable.

Government has the burden of prosecution. And they can only prosecute based on actual law... not what some LEO thinks the law should have been. So, if government wants to be absurd and pretend that a banning a 250w e-assist bike based on a technicality of a law clearly intended for dirt bikes, then that technicality coin has two sides. And I say we ought not let government slide while they hold us to strict accountability.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> Of course I'm not saying it's ok to text and drive. That's a ridiculous and needlessly confrontational conclusion. What I'm saying is that it's not ok to not hold government accountable.
> 
> Government has the burden of prosecution. And they can only prosecute based on actual law... not what some LEO thinks the law should have been. So, if government wants to be absurd and pretend that a banning a 250w e-assist bike based on a technicality of a law clearly intended for dirt bikes, then that technicality coin has two sides. And I say we ought not let government slide while they hold us to strict accountability.


Let them slide for enforcing the law? Gimmee a break will ya? Do you realize just how ridiculous this comes across?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Moe Ped said:


> Nice try.
> 
> At least as far as California e-bike legislation goes once it's established that a vehicle is an electric bicycle it doesn't matter how it's being propelled at any given moment; 100% electric or 100% human---the rules apply.
> 
> ...


Which specific California law are you referring to?

Your firearm analogy would depend solely on the wording of the statute. If the statute defined a firearm as a gun with bullets in the chamber, then it would be just like what I'm suggesting. Otherwise, I could be arrested for illegal firearm possession for having a piece of pipe with a handle.

And by the way, I have tried this with California police dependents... several times... and won!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> .
> 
> And by the way, I have tried this with California police dependents... several times... and won!


Proof?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Holy hell.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> Of course I'm not saying it's ok to text and drive. That's a ridiculous and needlessly confrontational conclusion. What I'm saying is that it's not ok to not hold government accountable.
> 
> Government has the burden of prosecution. And they can only prosecute based on actual law... not what some LEO thinks the law should have been. So, if government wants to be absurd and pretend that a banning a 250w e-assist bike based on a technicality of a law clearly intended for dirt bikes, then that technicality coin has two sides. And I say we ought not let government slide while they hold us to strict accountability.


wut?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> http://flagstaffbiking.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/20150929EBikesBriefingPaper.pdf
> 
> http://flagstaffbiking.org/wp-conte...nds-BLM-Field-Going-Notification-July2015.pdf
> 
> Anything else?


This is interesting.

First of all, this is not law. These are USFS and BLM memos and briefing papers concerning their interpretation of law. But they are poorly done. For example, USFS cites the travel management rules and states: "The TMR defines "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle which is self-propelled"". But clearly, eAssist bikes are not self propelled. They can only assist in propulsion. By this absurd interpretation of law, a bike with no chain going down hill is a motor vehicle because it is "self propelled". The USFS goes on to discuss how technically an eAssist bike, which can allow trail access to disabled people, is NOT considered a mobility device because it doesn't meet the technical, legal definition of a mobility device. And this is my point. Government splits a hair and relies on very technical, legal definitions when it benefits them. But it interprets law very broadly and generously when the specific language of law is not beneficial. And this is the accountability we should demand from government.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> Let them slide for enforcing the law? Gimmee a break will ya? Do you realize just how ridiculous this comes across?


I didn't say we should not let them slide for enforcing the law. I said we should not let them slide for enforcing what the think the law should have been. Law enforcement can only enforce actual law... not their idea of law. That is, unless the public lets them get away with it. And when we let government get away with following their whims rather than the law, that's when we become a nation of men rather than a nation of laws.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

The cop could look at the phone and see if text were sent within the time period, not difficult to do. And you could make similar arguments for just about any law breaking, not going to work. For that matter, if it says "no motorized vehicles" the cop could say "it doesn't say the motor has to be running". And "illegal to operate motorized vehicles", well, steering is operating.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> This is interesting.
> 
> First of all, this is not law. These are USFS and BLM memos and briefing papers concerning their interpretation of law. But they are poorly done. For example, USFS cites the travel management rules and states: "The TMR defines "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle which is self-propelled"". But clearly, eAssist bikes are not self propelled. They can only assist in propulsion. By this absurd interpretation of law, a bike with no chain going down hill is a motor vehicle because it is "self propelled". The USFS goes on to discuss how technically an eAssist bike, which can allow trail access to disabled people, is NOT considered a mobility device because it doesn't meet the technical, legal definition of a mobility device. And this is my point. Government splits a hair and relies on very technical, legal definitions when it benefits them. But it interprets law very broadly and generously when the specific language of law is not beneficial. And this is the accountability we should demand from government.


Meh, as long as they are tasked to make these decisions and can level the law against those that wish not to comply it's as good as law. Have fun contesting it, you're not the first person to appear here and proclaim the unjustness of the management policy yet here we are, emotorbikes banned from huge swaths of single track. Continue with your baseless rant's though, it's entertainment on a slow afternoon.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Lawyers suck


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Jim_bo said:


> Which specific California law are you referring to?


Google "AB-1096 electric bicycles" (There's a more recent AB-1096 dealing with something else, I think "our" AB-1096 was from the 2015 session)


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> The cop could look at the phone and see if text were sent within the time period, not difficult to do. And you could make similar arguments for just about any law breaking, not going to work. For that matter, if it says "no motorized vehicles" the cop could say "it doesn't say the motor has to be running". And "illegal to operate motorized vehicles", well, steering is operating.


Sir, please read the fourth amendment of the Constitution.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> Meh, as long as they are tasked to make these decisions and can level the law against those that wish not to comply it's as good as law. Have fun contesting it, you're not the first person to appear here and proclaim the unjustness of the management policy yet here we are, emotorbikes banned from huge swaths of single track. Continue with your baseless rant's though, it's entertainment on a slow afternoon.


Here's an entertaining rant... your "you can't fight city hall" attitude is exactly why our liberties are being swallowed up by government at an exponential rate. As long as the public doesn't cry foul, government will continue to expand its control and the people will continue to watch their liberties dwindle.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Moe Ped said:


> Google "AB-1096 electric bicycles" (There's a more recent AB-1096 dealing with something else, I think "our" AB-1096 was from the 2015 session)


This is interesting. But it actually has to be read and digested before it has any meaning.

1. This is not law. It is an assembly bill.
2. It is a California assembly bill and does not apply to most of the land we ride on (USFS and BLM).
3. It does not prohibit ebikes. It defines 3 categories of eBikes, with category 1 being a 250W eAssist bike. 
4. It states that local authorities can pass ordinances that govern use of category 1 and 2 bikes. But again, this does not ban or prohibit any bike. It only defines them.


----------



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

AGarcia?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Jim_bo said:


> This is interesting. But it actually has to be read and digested before it has any meaning.
> 
> 1. This is not law. It is an assembly bill.
> 2. It is a California assembly bill and does not apply to most of the land we ride on (USFS and BLM).
> ...


Seems like you should be able to read. Too self-important with your opinions to be bothered?

AB-1096 was signed into law in 2015. Read the "history" tab. Duh!

Governs the use of Classes 1, 2 and 3. Don't forget #3

Please read AB-1096 and get back to us in a week or so. Most real lawyers I know needed a day or 3 with it before formulating an opinion. As a lay person I don't think it's very well written.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Moe Ped said:


> Seems like you should be able to read. Too self-important with your opinions to be bothered?
> 
> AB-1096 was signed into law in 2015. Read the "history" tab. Duh!
> 
> ...


First, you don't have to be a dick.

Second, it is reasonably well written for its purpose. And it's purpose is solely to define cat 1, 2 and 3 bikes. It's purpose is NOT to restrict any bike from any trail. So, the law is irrelevant for this conversation.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Jim_bo said:


> First, you don't have to be a dick.
> 
> Second, it is reasonably well written for its purpose. And it's purpose is solely to define cat 1, 2 and 3 bikes. It's purpose is NOT to restrict any bike from any trail. So, the law is irrelevant for this conversation.


Somebody needs to be a dick. You are so deserving. BTW the week's not up.

If AB-1096 is irrelevant; which conversation are you speaking about?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Sir, please read the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment


lol, good luck with that! If you haven't heard, a police officer's word is considered proof. If he tells the judge he observed you texting while driving, then you were texting while driving. If he asked to examine your phone and you refused, well, what do you think the judge is going to think of that? "I wasn't texting, I was play angry birds!" "Oh. well ok then, charges dropped good citizen".


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> Here's an entertaining rant... your "you can't fight city hall" attitude is exactly why our liberties are being swallowed up by government at an exponential rate. As long as the public doesn't cry foul, government will continue to expand its control and the people will continue to watch their liberties dwindle.


Our liberties are usually limited to protect minorities and stupid people, which are you?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> lol, good luck with that! If you haven't heard, a police officer's word is considered proof. If he tells the judge he observed you texting while driving, then you were texting while driving. If he asked to examine your phone and you refused, well, what do you think the judge is going to think of that? "I wasn't texting, I was play angry birds!" "Oh. well ok then, charges dropped good citizen".


I can see you have no idea how the law works. Cops appear in court as witnesses... not as kings. It's not your job to prove you are innocent. It is the government's job to prove you are guilty.

It ain't about what's right, reasonable, or wrong. It's about the law, what it says, and what it doesn't say. Period.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> Our liberties are usually limited to protect minorities and stupid people, which are you?


Ad hominems are the first cry of defeat in a debate of ideas.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I can see you have no idea how the law works. Cops appear in court as witnesses... not as kings. It's not your job to prove you are innocent. It is the government's job to prove you are guilty.
> 
> It ain't about what's right, reasonable, or wrong. It's about the law, what it says, and what it doesn't say. Period.


Oh, and it's me that has no idea how the law works? Yes, cops are witnesses and what they say is considered proof. If you do not want to be found guilty, you then have to provide evidence in some way that the proof the officer provided is not valid, so yes, basically prove you are innocent.

I was just telling a coworker earlier this week that when I lived in Philly, if you got a ticket, you had to pay the fine by a certain date. If you wanted to plead innocent, you had to pay the fine and an additional fee. Yep, cost you more to plead innocent. I did this and went to court. Walked into the court room and found the cop was sitting on my side of the courtroom. I pointed out to the judge that the place on the ticket where the cop was supposed to sign that the statement he had written was truthful was blank. Judge asked him about it and he said it was a technicality and didn't matter and the judge agreed. Cop testified that I ran a red light. I agreed but pointed out that the law says you must stop IF it is safe to do so. There was ice on the road, a very short yellow light (I timed it) and no other cars around (not sure where the cop was hiding). I think I amused the judge. She changed the charge to driving too fast for conditions. Didn't get one penny back.

Your idea of how the law works and the reality of how it works are not the same. Now if you really want to fight the law and spend big bucks and a lot of time, you may be able to do so. Or, the justice system may decide your fight isn't worth the time and kick it out.


----------



## gumba (Dec 18, 2016)

Here's the New Mexico law: 
Definition of Electric Bike:

The state of New Mexico (NM) Motor Vehicle Division defines electric bikes as regular bicycles and they are subject to the same laws as traditional bicycles.
Licensing and Registration:

The state of New Mexico does not require license or registration of electric bicycles.
Helmet Law:

Helmets are required for all riders under 14 years of age when riding on roadways.
Where to Ride:

Electric bicycles may be ridden on roadways, in bike lanes and on bike paths.
Disclaimer:

Laws and policies can change at any time rendering the above information outdated and non-applicable. EVELO strongly encourages checking with City, County, State and other local agencies for the most recent laws governing the proper, legal use of electric bicycles in your area.

Source
New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

gumba said:


> Here's the New Mexico law:
> Definition of Electric Bike:
> 
> The state of New Mexico (NM) Motor Vehicle Division defines electric bikes as regular bicycles and they are subject to the same laws as traditional bicycles.
> ...


That does not supercede federal rules, regulations and laws pertaining to motorized vehicle use on federal lands.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> Oh, and it's me that has no idea how the law works? Yes, cops are witnesses and what they say is considered proof. If you do not want to be found guilty, you then have to provide evidence in some way that the proof the officer provided is not valid, so yes, basically prove you are innocent.
> 
> I was just telling a coworker earlier this week that when I lived in Philly, if you got a ticket, you had to pay the fine by a certain date. If you wanted to plead innocent, you had to pay the fine and an additional fee. Yep, cost you more to plead innocent. I did this and went to court. Walked into the court room and found the cop was sitting on my side of the courtroom. I pointed out to the judge that the place on the ticket where the cop was supposed to sign that the statement he had written was truthful was blank. Judge asked him about it and he said it was a technicality and didn't matter and the judge agreed. Cop testified that I ran a red light. I agreed but pointed out that the law says you must stop IF it is safe to do so. There was ice on the road, a very short yellow light (I timed it) and no other cars around (not sure where the cop was hiding). I think I amused the judge. She changed the charge to driving too fast for conditions. Didn't get one penny back.
> 
> Your idea of how the law works and the reality of how it works are not the same. Now if you really want to fight the law and spend big bucks and a lot of time, you may be able to do so. Or, the justice system may decide your fight isn't worth the time and kick it out.


If your story is true, then you got screwed. You appeared in court to respond to a charge of failure to stop at a stop sign. You were not arraigned for a charge of driving too fast for conditions, yet you were convicted of that. There is an appellate process to address such ******** from cops and judges. But you have to file an appeal.

So, your little story confirms my point. You really don't understand how the law works, because if you did you would have raised objections to the new charge in court. Had your objection been overrulled, you would have filed a timely appeal. The fact that you just walked away pissed off does not mean you do understand how the law works, it means you don't.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

gumba said:


> Here's the New Mexico law:
> Definition of Electric Bike:
> 
> The state of New Mexico (NM) Motor Vehicle Division defines electric bikes as regular bicycles and they are subject to the same laws as traditional bicycles.
> ...


While it is true that this would only apply to state owned parks and property and not apply on federal land, it does continue to show the inconsistency in ebike regulation. To this point, I have not seen anyone provide any actual law or regulation that bans eAssist bikes. The only thing I have seen are flyers and stories about what people heard a BLM guy say. No actual law or regulation.

Now, with that said, does anyone actually know of anyone being convicted for riding an eBike on a non-motorized vehicle trail??


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chazpat said:


> lol, good luck with that! If you haven't heard, a police officer's word is considered proof. If he tells the judge he observed you texting while driving, then you were texting while driving. If he asked to examine your phone and you refused, well, what do you think the judge is going to think of that? "I wasn't texting, I was play angry birds!" "Oh. well ok then, charges dropped good citizen".


Most states have laws against Distracted driving, any reasonable person, law enforcement or not would agree that interacting with a phone in any way will distract a driver from the road.

Jim_Bo enough with the hypotheticals and theoreticals.... In some places there are laws against eBikes and in others they are allowed. Link to said specifically or leave it alone. You are not going to change legislature here on a forum.

More importantly, all of you have fully derailed this thread. It is stickied for the sole purpose of being a list of laws about specific riding area's and exactly what class of eBikes are or are not allowed. There are other threads for arguing some of this more obtuse stuff. move the conversation there please.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> If your story is true, then you got screwed. You appeared in court to respond to a charge of failure to stop at a stop sign. You were not arraigned for a charge of driving too fast for conditions, yet you were convicted of that. There is an appellate process to address such ******** from cops and judges. But you have to file an appeal.
> 
> I started to reply to this but in respect for Klurerjr, I'll let it go with the hope this thread goes back on topic.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> Most states have laws against Distracted driving, any reasonable person, law enforcement or not would agree that interacting with a phone in any way will distract a driver from the road.
> 
> Jim_Bo enough with the hypotheticals and theoreticals.... In some places there are laws against eBikes and in others they are allowed. Link to said specifically or leave it alone. You are not going to change legislature here on a forum.
> 
> More importantly, all of you have fully derailed this thread. It is stickied for the sole purpose of being a list of laws about specific riding area's and exactly what class of eBikes are or are not allowed. There are other threads for arguing some of this more obtuse stuff. move the conversation there please.


That's just the point, no one has been able to provide evidence that there is any actual law banning eBikes... in particular, eAssist bikes. But we just believe when we see a flyer printed up by some local field office, despite the fact that there is no actual law or regulation supporting it.

You say "enough with the hypotheticals and theoreticals. I agree. That's why I am asking anyone to show evidence that there is an actual ban on eAssist bikes on any federal land where mountain bikes would be allowed. So far, I have gotten several responses of laws that are not applicable, memos that more support my point, and flyers that have no weight of law. I am looking for concrete evidence that eAssist bikes are banned from any mountain bike trail and I have not seen any yet. So, you are the one who is operating on hypotheticals and theoreticals... not me.

I guess I just don't understand people. I am posting on a forum that is populated by eBike riders. I am making a sound argument that there is currently no actual authority to ban eAssist bikes. But instead of rallying to support their interests, most people have chosen to blindly support government agencies that restrict trail access without proper authority.

A similar incident happened in my hometown. The local city government got in trouble with the state for not having a recycle program. So, the city government worked a deal with the local trash hauler and all of a sudden, recycle trash cans started showing up on people's doorsteps. Everyone was told that they had to pay for this new service as per a city ordinance. But I read the ordinance, and no where in it did it mandate recycle collection services. So, I never used it, never paid for it and I repeatedly showed up to city council meetings to express my outrage that the city government was acting outside of their authority based on the ordinance. When they disputed, I challenged them (several times) to cite me for failure to comply with the ordinance. Long story short... I never got cited and recycle services are no longer mandatory today. But the curious thing is, when this was going on, people would harshly criticize me. They would tell me that I should just bend to whatever government officials say regardless of the actual law. I disagreed then, and I disagree now.

It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.
-Voltaire


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> That's just the point, no one has been able to provide evidence that there is any actual law banning eBikes... in particular, eAssist bikes. But we just believe when we see a flyer printed up by some local field office, despite the fact that there is no actual law or regulation supporting it.


Maybe you can start by providing definitive proof that eBikes ARE allowed on the lands you want to ride them on. That is the entire point of this stickied thread. Please link directly to websites run by land managers that back up your claims, anything else is just words on a page written by an anonymous person who registered recently on a Mountain Biking Site.

Just for the record I am not against Class 1 and Class 2 Pedal assist eBikes being allowed on Multi Use Trail systems. I have ridden with people who have Pedal Assist bikes and can see that they really are not a huge danger to the world the way some people think they are. This is something you might have recognized about me if you had taken the time to review the 407 previous threads in this section.

I AM against the constant bickering on this sub-forum and the regular cases of new users joining MTBR, coming into the eBike section (just one of hundreds of sections on a forum primarily dedicated to pedal bikes) and thinking they are the first person ever to challenge the establishment and post that eBikes are the same as bicycles and should be treated as such everywhere no matter what some posted laws state.

This scenario has been played out dozens of times over the past few years in this section of MTBR.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Trione-Annadel State Park*

From Park Information:

_"Electric-Assist or "E-bikes" are considered motorized vehicles and are not allowed in the park."_

First State Park in NorCal that I've heard of banning e-bikes. (Dogs are banned almost everywhere and I have heard of other State Parks already banning drones)

So much gobbledyguck on here this may have been posted before.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Thanks for the info. Will be really interesting to see what happens at Coe, which is near the Speshy headquarters, since AFAIK that's where they test their Levos.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Jim_bo said:


> That's just the point, no one has been able to provide evidence that there is any actual law banning eBikes... in particular, eAssist bikes. But we just believe when we see a flyer printed up by some local field office, despite the fact that there is no actual law or regulation supporting it.
> 
> You say "enough with the hypotheticals and theoreticals. I agree. That's why I am asking anyone to show evidence that there is an actual ban on eAssist bikes on any federal land where mountain bikes would be allowed. So far, I have gotten several responses of laws that are not applicable, memos that more support my point, and flyers that have no weight of law. I am looking for concrete evidence that eAssist bikes are banned from any mountain bike trail and I have not seen any yet. So, you are the one who is operating on hypotheticals and theoreticals... not me.
> 
> ...


Sure can...here is your proof...just got this from OC Parks:

Thank you for contacting OC Parks regarding class 1 electric bicycles (e-bikes). Assisted class 1 e-bikes with an electric motor are considered a motor bike in accordance with OCCO 2-5-29(g) Unauthorized Motor Vehicles. Therefore, they are not allowed on OC Parks trails and OC Parks rangers are able to enforce OCCO 2-5-29(g).

_Orange County Codified Ordinance 2-5-29(g) Unauthorized Motor Vehicles. No person shall operate an unauthorized motor vehicle: Four-wheel drive vehicle, motorcycle, motor bike, motor dirt bike, all-terrain vehicle, off highway vehicle or any other motorized vehicle within any County owned, managed, or controlled reserve area, habitat sensitive area, wilderness area, natural area, open space area, undeveloped area, beach front area, turf area, or within river beds, stream beds, creek beds, wash areas, wetland areas, or recreational area trails. For the purpose of subsection (g), "unauthorized motor vehicle" means any motorized vehicle that is driven upon said areas without written permission of the Director or his/her agents. This subsection does not apply to the operation of any publicly owned vehicle operated by a local, state or federal government agency, or by an authorized vehicle._

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you,


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

mtnbikej said:


> Sure can...here is your proof...just got this from OC Parks:
> 
> Thank you for contacting OC Parks regarding class 1 electric bicycles (e-bikes). Assisted class 1 e-bikes with an electric motor are considered a motor bike in accordance with OCCO 2-5-29(g) Unauthorized Motor Vehicles. Therefore, they are not allowed on OC Parks trails and OC Parks rangers are able to enforce OCCO 2-5-29(g).
> 
> ...


That's an "interesting" interpretation. I'd be happy to reach out to this person at OC Parks, or their lawyer to discuss. Feel free to PM me their info.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

You Cali dorks are real pieces of work.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

AGarcia said:


> That's an "interesting" interpretation. I'd be happy to reach out to this person at OC Parks, or their lawyer to discuss. Feel free to PM me their info.


It's not a matter of "interpretation"; per California's AB-1096 if the local agency wants to ban a certain Class of e-bikes the may do so:

_"21207.5.
(b) The local authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over a bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, may prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle on that path or trail."_

It may be worthwhile to reflect on the differences between "statute" and "ordinance"; they are both laws to be obeyed if one is in to that kind of thing.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Moe Ped said:


> It's not a matter of "interpretation"; per California's AB-1096 if the local agency wants to ban a certain Class of e-bikes the may do so:
> 
> _"21207.5.
> (b) The local authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over a bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, may prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle on that path or trail."_
> ...


Exactly....OC Parks are their own Jurisdiction. This, they have the final say on what is and what isn't allowed on their watch.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Since some E bikes became legal on my local trails thanks to working with my local Mt bike club and the parks dept we have not had one negative impact to our trails nor to any other trail user group from E bike usage , in fact I have hrs of video to show how e bikes fit in nicely . The one thing I promised the local club was my e bike would be a positive for the club and trail I prove this every time I ride what ever trail were ever the trail is .


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Moe Ped said:


> From Park Information:
> 
> _"Electric-Assist or "E-bikes" are considered motorized vehicles and are not allowed in the park."_
> 
> ...


I think that's a fairly recent declaration. I checked some time ago and I don't recall seeing that statement.

I suspected this was coming after a conversation I had with the Ranger awhile back. They gave serious consideration to allowing access for E-bikes, I know that. I wonder what finally pushed them to declare them illegal.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

AGarcia said:


> That's an "interesting" interpretation. I'd be happy to reach out to this person at OC Parks, or their lawyer to discuss. Feel free to PM me their info.


What is a Unauthorized Motor Vehicle? I built my e bike 5yrs ago to help me get around I cannot stand or walk very far at a time and am disable I have a handicap placard displayed on my e bike it works perfectly for my use. So if I went to OC parks what would happen if I used my e bike to enjoy the trails like others ? I got a call from my attorney last month asking me if I would take $90,000 from the city to settle my lawsuit we filed for my last Unauthorized Motor Vehicle use . So were is this park?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

rider95 said:


> What is a Unauthorized Motor Vehicle? I built my e bike 5yrs ago to help me get around I cannot stand or walk very far at a time and am disable I have a handicap placard displayed on my e bike it works perfectly for my use. So if I went to OC parks what would happen if I used my e bike to enjoy the trails like others ? I got a call from my attorney last month asking me if I would take $90,000 from the city to settle my lawsuit we filed for my last Unauthorized Motor Vehicle use . So were is this park?


rider95 - Because you are disabled most of these laws have no bearing on you, nor does anyone here think they should. If you have physical ailments that prevent you from getting around and qualify for a Placard, then you deserve some special exemptions from the laws that healthy people need to abide by.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

rider95 said:


> What is a Unauthorized Motor Vehicle? I built my e bike 5yrs ago to help me get around I cannot stand or walk very far at a time and am disable I have a handicap placard displayed on my e bike it works perfectly for my use. So if I went to OC parks what would happen if I used my e bike to enjoy the trails like others ? I got a call from my attorney last month asking me if I would take $90,000 from the city to settle my lawsuit we filed for my last Unauthorized Motor Vehicle use . So were is this park?


I don't understand why so many here are so dense....how many times has ADA Compliance been brought up this this forum. ADA Laws outrule all local laws. But, yeah....you should be able to prove you have a disability. And no....not every single ebike rider is disabled.....even though that's what they all claim. "I have a heart condition when I ride sonI need it". It's called exercise....we all have a hear condition when we push ourselves. Before you start to argue with me, I'm on Blood Pressure meds...yet I ride my SS everywhere.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mtnbikej said:


> I don't understand why so many here are so dense. ADA Laws outrule all local laws. But, yeah....you should be able to prove you have a disability. And no....not every single ebike rider is disabled.....even though that's what they all claim. "I have a heart condition when I ride sonI need it". It's called exercise....we all have a hear condition when we push ourselves. Before you start to argue with me, I'm on Blood Pressure meds...yet I ride my SS everywhere.


I can probably convince my Doctor or Surgeon to give me a placard for my condition, but instead I ride.

http://forums.mtbr.com/california-socal/aortic-disection-805994.html

Thankfully I was able to recover my strength and ride better now than I ever did in the past.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Klurejr said:


> I can probably convince my Doctor or Surgeon to give me a placard for my condition, but instead I ride.
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/california-socal/aortic-disection-805994.html
> 
> Thankfully I was able to recover my strength and ride better now than I ever did in the past.


I agree....too many people are just using BS excuses to be lazy or skirt the laws/rules. Makes me feel sorry for those that truly do have a physical condition.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

rider95 said:


> What is a Unauthorized Motor Vehicle? I built my e bike 5yrs ago to help me get around I cannot stand or walk very far at a time and am disable I have a handicap placard displayed on my e bike it works perfectly for my use. So if I went to OC parks what would happen if I used my e bike to enjoy the trails like others ? I got a call from my attorney last month asking me if I would take $90,000 from the city to settle my lawsuit we filed for my last Unauthorized Motor Vehicle use . So were is this park?


You've been ticketed for riding your ebike in your parks? Most places won't even consider confronting anyone who simply claims to have an ADA exemption due to the risk of a lawsuit even if they don't consider the vehicle an OPMD. The USFS is the only one I've seen that has. Which I found surprising tbh.

Disabled woman says Forest Service discriminates by barring e-bikes on trails | The Seattle Times

AFAIK an ADA placard is a free pass for ebikes pretty much everywhere else.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> What is a Unauthorized Motor Vehicle? I built my e bike 5yrs ago to help me get around I cannot stand or walk very far at a time and am disable I have a handicap placard displayed on my e bike it works perfectly for my use. So if I went to OC parks what would happen if I used my e bike to enjoy the trails like others ? I got a call from my attorney last month asking me if I would take $90,000 from the city to settle my lawsuit we filed for my last Unauthorized Motor Vehicle use . So were is this park?


Proof? If no proof then this is just a fairy tale.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Harryman said:


> You've been ticketed for riding your ebike in your parks? Most places won't even consider confronting anyone who simply claims to have an ADA exemption due to the risk of a lawsuit even if they don't consider the vehicle an OPMD. The USFS is the only one I've seen that has. Which I found surprising tbh.
> 
> Disabled woman says Forest Service discriminates by barring e-bikes on trails | The Seattle Times
> 
> AFAIK an ADA placard is a free pass for ebikes pretty much everywhere else.


I would think that the Seattle lady would prevail in her quest to use an e-bike on FS bike trails as an OPDMD is she had a good enough lawyer. It sounds like the FS is counting on the matter that electric bicycles are not specifically mentioned in the ADA laws as a basis for their position. (Electric scooters are mentioned as possibly being OK)

Pretty easy to see why e-bikes wouldn't be allowed on pedestrian-only paths; handicap or no.

Full text of U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section ADA requirements.

Notice the part where LEO's can ask for "credible assurance" (like a parking placard); just not ask the nature of the person's disability.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Moe Ped said:


> It's not a matter of "interpretation"; per California's AB per California's AB-1096 if the local agency wants to ban a certain Class of e-bikes the may do so:
> 
> "21207.5.
> (b) The local authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over a bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, may prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle on that path or trail."
> ...




It certainly is a matter of interpretation. A staffer is interpreting the County ordinance. I'm not suggesting that the County Board of Supervisors cannot direct OC Parks to ban e-bikes. Indeed, the OC Board of Supervisors can do that. That's clear. I'm only suggesting that the staffer may be reading into the ordinance that which is not there.

Then again, what do I know?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

mtnbikej said:


> Exactly....OC Parks are their own Jurisdiction. This, they have the final say on what is and what isn't allowed on their watch.


OC Parks are not "their own jurisdiction." They are an arm of the County and have to follow the ordinances that are enacted by the Board of Supervisors.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

AGarcia said:


> It certainly is a matter of interpretation. A staffer is interpreting the County ordinance. I'm not suggesting that the County Board of Supervisors cannot direct OC Parks to ban e-bikes. Indeed, the OC Board of Supervisors can do that. That's clear. I'm only suggesting that the staffer may be reading into the ordinance that which is not there.
> 
> Then again, what do I know?


Well since it came from the Operations Managment at OC Parks....it's good enough for me. This was passed on to me after a sit down meeting with some of the rangers at one of the parks. You talk to the rangers, they don't want them in the parks either.

Everyone here keeps saying that you gotta post up proof to your claims. As it went up the food chain, the answers/proof stayed the same. It's clear that the OCparks consider them motorized vehicles, thus have banned them in the parks.

I understand "interpretation of the code"....I do code enforcement for a living.

Then again....I'm not looking for a grey area to weasel my way into something.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> Maybe you can start by providing definitive proof that eBikes ARE allowed on the lands you want to ride them on. That is the entire point of this stickied thread. Please link directly to websites run by land managers that back up your claims, anything else is just words on a page written by an anonymous person who registered recently on a Mountain Biking Site.
> 
> Just for the record I am not against Class 1 and Class 2 Pedal assist eBikes being allowed on Multi Use Trail systems. I have ridden with people who have Pedal Assist bikes and can see that they really are not a huge danger to the world the way some people think they are. This is something you might have recognized about me if you had taken the time to review the 407 previous threads in this section.
> 
> ...


Your frustration is apparent in your poor moderating.

In this country, you don't have to prove something is legal. Everything is legal unless it's specifically illegal. I don't think you could provide me with a document that said it is legal for me to wear my shirt backwards. But then, I imagine that you would not argue that it is illegal for exactly the reason I cite.

If you're bitterness has made you so jaded that you can no longer be objective (as it obviously has), then maybe you should resign your position as moderator.

In my case, I started a thread to specifically address the legal sufficiency of any document that banned class 1 eBikes. I wasn't focused on whether eBikes were good enough, or whether their riders were worthy to share the same trails as conventional MTBers. Just legal sufficiency. I have not seen any thread in this forum that takes a detailed look at that particular issue. But since it looked similar to that which you are frustrated with, you closed the thread. I explained that my topic was unique and asked you to reopen the thread, but you refused. In short, you failed in your responsibilities as a moderator and you seem to be too prideful to admit it.

But, I may be wrong. So please provide me with a link to any thread that specifically discusses the issue I was addressing. In fact show me three links. Since you claim the issue has been beat to death, the threads should be easy to find.

So this makes one question, what is the role of a moderator? Is it to decide which topics people are allowed to talk about? No, that's the role of the censor. The moderator's role is to ensure that people obey the rules of polite society. And this is something I clearly was doing. Therefore, clearly, you overstepped your role as a moderator and stepped into the role as censor.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Just to clear up, being disabled and being able to fall under any ADA protection does not allow you to use an ebike anywhere. As long as there are similar access and recreation areas open in a nearby area, trails do not have to allow motorized or ebike access in order to be ADA compliant. An ebike is also not a recognized mode of transportation for disabled persons. If ebikes are banned from a trail system, you still cannot ride there if you are handicapped.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

mtnbikej said:


> Well since it came from the Operations Managment at OC Parks....it's good enough for me. This was passed on to me after a sit down meeting with some of the rangers at one of the parks. You talk to the rangers, they don't want them in the parks either.
> 
> Everyone here keeps saying that you gotta post up proof to your claims. As it went up the food chain, the answers/proof stayed the same. It's clear that the OCparks consider them motorized vehicles, thus have banned them in the parks.
> 
> ...


I can appreciate how things may be "good enough" for you.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

mtnbikej said:


> Sure can...here is your proof...just got this from OC Parks:
> 
> Thank you for contacting OC Parks regarding class 1 electric bicycles (e-bikes). Assisted class 1 e-bikes with an electric motor are considered a motor bike in accordance with OCCO 2-5-29(g) Unauthorized Motor Vehicles. Therefore, they are not allowed on OC Parks trails and OC Parks rangers are able to enforce OCCO 2-5-29(g).
> 
> ...


I think you are getting closer than anyone I've seen so far, but I'll point out a few issues:

1. This is an Orange county ordinance and therefore applies only to OC.

2. It may conflict with state law:

"21207.5.
(b) The local authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over a bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, may prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle on that path or trail."

Considering that state law only allows local ordinances to prohibit class 1 and 2 electric bicycles, the OC parks dept. wrongly makes the leap that this is the same thing as a "motor bike". In the ca vehicle code, there are definitions for motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, motorized bicycles, mopeds, motorized quadricycles, and motorized scooters. But no definition for motor bikes. So, the OC can't claim authority to regulate class 1 and 2 electric bicycles based on state law and point to an ordinance governing motor bikes. It is simply insufficient.

Now, that said, nothing prevents OC from amending this ordinance to include class 1 and 2 electric bicycles. But until then, I would dispute their authority on this matter.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

What a hoot having these amateur attorneys interpret the laws (BTW, not AG since he's an attorney AFAIK). Next thing we're going to have challenged individuals rejected from parks, then filing lawsuits. Also, legal or not, I think someone posted a CA requirement that an area needs to be posted "no electric bicycles" for it to be off limits, but not sure if that's true. Now some ass is going to say that banks need to post a "no robbing allowed" sign for it to be illegal or there needs to be a "murder prohibited" sign to make it illegal.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> Just to clear up, being disabled and being able to fall under any ADA protection does not allow you to use an ebike anywhere. As long as there are similar access and recreation areas open in a nearby area, trails do not have to allow motorized or ebike access in order to be ADA compliant. An ebike is also not a recognized mode of transportation for disabled persons. If ebikes are banned from a trail system, you still cannot ride there if you are handicapped.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


While you and I disagree on much, on this I agree with you from a standpoint of legal sufficiency. From a practical/human point, I think it is reprehensible to prohibit a person access to the trail system if an eBike is the only way he could legitimately access them.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Your frustration is apparent in your poor moderating.
> 
> In this country, you don't have to prove something is legal. Everything is legal unless it's specifically illegal. I don't think you could provide me with a document that said it is legal for me to wear my shirt backwards. But then, I imagine that you would not argue that it is illegal for exactly the reason I cite.
> 
> ...


1 - I do not answer to you, nor do I have to explain myself. Continue to call me out on my moderating and you will get a 7 day time out.

2 - The thread you are posting in is clearly about legal and illegal access and if you read up a few posts you will find Rules and Regulations posted for some areas that specifically allow pedal assist eBike and others that do not. Here is the link to the parks website in case you missed it up top: (https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=480)

3 - Familiarize yourself with the trends of the access threads here:

http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/e-bikes-banned-colorado-trails-1052616.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/gotta-love-lake-tahoe-e-bikes-mtb-trails-1009011.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/trai...clause-e-bike-threat-loss-trails-1051857.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/why-ebikes-banned-moab-mountain-bike-trails-1045882.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/where-have-we-lost-access-1050325.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/us-forest-service-official-stance-e-bikes-trails-1045612.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/%5Bcalifornia%5D-cvc-%A7406-b-vs-ab-1096-a-1046610.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/pedal-assisted-bikes-allowed-santos-ocala-trails-florida-1043821.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/vehicle-code-trail-access-1042637.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/electric-mountain-bikes-come-bay-area-but-face-bans-1024929.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/eastern-sierra-ebike-friendly-trails-1022629.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/whats-your-opinion-power-speed-limits-access-1019574.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/meet-your-moderator-1012130.html

Once you have finished reading every single post in all of those threads I linked, get back to us on how you honestly feel your topic is so much different and that it will not turn into the mud slinging contest that those threads ended up becoming.

You will see some of those threads had to be shut down due to the anger being presented on both sides of the argument.

4 - I am going to state this one last time for you. I am not against pedal assist Class 1 and Class 2 eBikes riding my local trails, BLM trails or NFS trails.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> In this country, you don't have to prove something is legal. Everything is legal unless it's specifically illegal.





Jim_bo said:


> That's exactly why I say that we should ALWAYS create maximum resistance for any potential restrictions of our access to public land. We need to make it clear that the path of least resistance is not by plowing through our rights to use public land.


Hmm, so you don't want to be restricted by the government yet you have to be told specifically what you can't do, otherwise you think you have the right to do it. I think you're the type that is the cause for all the warning labels on everything, it was probably you that used your curling iron in the shower then went to court and sued because "it didn't say I couldn't".


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

chazpat said:


> Hmm, so you don't want to be restricted by the government yet you have to be told specifically what you can't do, otherwise you think you have the right to do it. I think you're the type that is the cause for all the warning labels on everything, it was probably you that used your *nose hair trimmer* in the shower then went to court and sued because "it didn't say I couldn't".


Fixed it for ya.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> 1 - I do not answer to you, nor do I have to explain myself. Continue to call me out on my moderating and you will get a 7 day time out.
> 
> 2 - The thread you are posting in is clearly about legal and illegal access and if you read up a few posts you will find Rules and Regulations posted for some areas that specifically allow pedal assist eBike and others that do not. Here is the link to the parks website in case you missed it up top: (https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=480)
> 
> ...


None of the threads you cite discuss the legal sufficiency of claims of banning class 1 and 2 eBikes. But they talk about banning in general, do you conflate one with the other. This is the same way you conflated a briefing paper with actual law or regulation.

You are wrong and refuse to admit it. Ego and the micro authority you have as a moderator doesn't make you right.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Jim_bo is getting an unfair heavy sack beating on this, IMO. I think a lot of people piling on are used to the "I don't care and I'll do what I want" attitudes that are common here are missing the legitimate question he's raising.

I see everyday that most people don't understand the difference between laws, rules, orders, and policies, or even know there are differences. I don't doubt that the USFS and BLM have the authority to restrict ebikes on the basis of their motorized nature, but it's not unreasonable to ask for confirmation. That often comes down to the definitions as established in code or rule. That's what Jim_bo is asking about, and I haven't seen any reply directly to that question. It's ironic that people who can insist the USFS acted illegally when banning bikes from Wilderness won't at least confirm that the federal agencies do have the authority to support their ebike restrictions.

FWIW, I'm neutral to negative. I probably agree most with slapheadmofo: they're a new modality and deserve to sink or swim on their own merits. They probably won't cause an issue on most remote multi-use trails, but I have major concerns about them on the dense multi-use trail system surrounding my town. That said, my nonprofit will probably buy one or two for race support in places we can use them, and will inquire as to a variance for trailwork use on nonmotorized trails.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> You are wrong and refuse to admit it. Ego and the micro authority you have as a moderator doesn't make you right.


Holy **** you whine a lot.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Jim_bo has special filters on his glasses that only lets him see what backs up his position; that there are no valid laws banning e-bikes.

And he likes to read what he writes. Too busy doing that to actually research what others may have posted.

I will say he is very good at deflecting; in real life he may well be a politician.

IMHO a 7 day banishment won't be enough.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

evasive said:


> Jim_bo is getting an unfair heavy sack beating on this, IMO. I think a lot of people piling on are used to the "I don't care and I'll do what I want" attitudes that are common here are missing the legitimate question he's raising.
> 
> I see everyday that most people don't understand the difference between laws, rules, orders, and policies, or even know there are differences. I don't doubt that the USFS and BLM have the authority to restrict ebikes on the basis of their motorized nature, but it's not unreasonable to ask for confirmation. That often comes down to the definitions as established in code or rule. That's what Jim_bo is asking about, and I haven't seen any reply directly to that question. It's ironic that people who can insist the USFS acted illegally when banning bikes from Wilderness won't at least confirm that the federal agencies do have the authority to support their ebike restrictions.
> 
> FWIW, I'm neutral to negative. I probably agree most with slapheadmofo: they're a new modality and deserve to sink or swim on their own merits. They probably won't cause an issue on most remote multi-use trails, but I have major concerns about them on the dense multi-use trail system surrounding my town. That said, my nonprofit will probably buy one or two for race support in places we can use them, and will inquire as to a variance for trailwork use on nonmotorized trails.


 Sort of get what you are saying. Legal proof I guess? MA rider here. For the most part( except 6 or so properties), no motorized vehicles allowed on state parks ( DCR properties) on multi use off road trails. There are some snowmobile areas too I think. No clue on how to quote a reference though( help). Motorized vehicles is pretty clear, does it have a motor? Yes or no? The state has the authority to make the rules and regs like no paintball, cutting of trees, public drinking etc. Other areas in MA to mt bike are conservation areas, town properties and private reservations. All do not allow motor vehicles. Black and white. Crystal clear, not subject to interpretation, innuendo or such. Wether you call it a rule, law or town ordinance doesn't matter. And Jim bo says he has no e bike? Interesting.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Trying to force your way in through loopholes, or else! and cultivating an acrimonious relationship with the user group that you're hoping to coattail your way in behind is definitely not the way I would approach expanding access. What do I know though?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

leeboh said:


> Sort of get what you are saying. Legal proof I guess? MA rider here. For the most part( except 6 or so properties), no motorized vehicles allowed on state parks ( DCR properties) on multi use off road trails. There are some snowmobile areas too I think. *No clue on how to quote a reference though( help)*. Motorized vehicles is pretty clear, does it have a motor? Yes or no? The state has the authority to make the rules and regs like no paintball, cutting of trees, public drinking etc. Other areas in MA to mt bike are conservation areas, town properties and private reservations. All do not allow motor vehicles. Black and white. Crystal clear, not subject to interpretation, innuendo or such. Wether you call it a rule, law or town ordinance doesn't matter. And Jim bo says he has no e bike? Interesting.


Pretty easy ("Go Advanced"); copy and paste the text you wish to quote:

_"Motorized bicycle'', a pedal bicycle which has a helper motor,..."_

(I like to italicize for clarity)

And then copy the URL from which it was copied and then open the "link" window via the button (Earth with a chain link) in the text editor.

Where that link is pasted you'll get https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section1


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

fos'l said:


> What a hoot having these amateur attorneys interpret the laws (BTW, not AG since he's an attorney AFAIK).


Guilty.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> You Cali dorks are real pieces of work.


Thank you.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

To give some background, the below is from a Jim_bo post in another thread, just to show he will argue against "Motorized vehicles is pretty clear, does it have a motor" and that he has no desire to "cultivating an acrimonious relationship with the user group that you're hoping to coattail your way in behind"; he just wants to argue:

_&#8230;if I taped a 5V computer cooling fan to my bike, it would then have an electric motor. As such, it would then be a motorized vehicle and subject to the same regulations as a Honda CRF450R dirtbike. This insults the intelligence of even the dimmest observer. But there are those who believe.

Full disclaimer: I do not own an eBike of any sort. However, I firmly believe that public land belongs to the people... not the government. And if the government wants to restrict access for ANY members of the public, there must be compelling reasons for them to do so. And the overly-simplified argument of "if it has a motor, it is a motorized vehicle" just doesn't amount to a compelling reason._


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> To give some background, the below is from a Jim_bo post in another thread, just to show he will argue against "Motorized vehicles is pretty clear, does it have a motor" and that he has no desire to "cultivating an acrimonious relationship with the user group that you're hoping to coattail your way in behind"; he just wants to argue:
> 
> _&#8230;if I taped a 5V computer cooling fan to my bike, it would then have an electric motor. As such, it would then be a motorized vehicle and subject to the same regulations as a Honda CRF450R dirtbike. This insults the intelligence of even the dimmest observer. But there are those who believe.
> 
> Full disclaimer: I do not own an eBike of any sort. However, I firmly believe that public land belongs to the people... not the government. And if the government wants to restrict access for ANY members of the public, there must be compelling reasons for them to do so. And the overly-simplified argument of "if it has a motor, it is a motorized vehicle" just doesn't amount to a compelling reason._


I normally just ignore the ad hominems because when someone is attacking me personally, it means two things: 1) they have no rational argument and 2) it doesn't lend itself to a productive discussion.

But this one is different. This ad hominem actually is a very good point that I made. I use reductio ad absurdum to show the ridiculous conclusion that is inevitable in the argument made by many "if it has a motor, it is a motor vehicle".

This is important in pointing out that we ought not accept absurd conclusions made by law enforcement or other officials. There is a process that gets a lot of scrutiny when an agency wants to legitimately enact rules that restrict access. If they want to hold us accountable for the rules, we should hold them accountable to the rules also. And we should push back if trail access restrictions are based on anything less than legitimate, rational reasoning.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Yawn


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I normally just ignore the ad hominems because when someone is attacking me personally, it means two things: 1) they have no rational argument and 2) it doesn't lend itself to a productive discussion.
> 
> But this one is different. This ad hominem actually is a very good point that I made. I use reductio ad absurdum to show the ridiculous conclusion that is inevitable in the argument made by many "if it has a motor, it is a motor vehicle".
> 
> This is important in pointing out that we ought not accept absurd conclusions made by law enforcement or other officials. There is a process that gets a lot of scrutiny when an agency wants to legitimately enact rules that restrict access. If they want to hold us accountable for the rules, we should hold them accountable to the rules also. And we should push back if trail access restrictions are based on anything less than legitimate, rational reasoning.


I didn't mean it as a personal attack, I was simply showing that leeboh's statement about motorized vehicles being pretty clear (in your way of thinking) and shm's assumption that you are an ebiker were incorrect. I did come to the conclusion that you just want to argue, if that's where your accusation lies. Otherwise, I just presented arguments you have made.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I would say I can't believe this devolved into equating an electric fan strapped to a bike, to a motor intended to drive an ebike but...this has become the most ridiculous thread and anything goes apparently.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> This is important in pointing out that we ought not accept absurd conclusions made by law enforcement or other officials. There is a process that gets a lot of scrutiny when an agency wants to legitimately enact rules that restrict access. If they want to hold us accountable for the rules, we should hold them accountable to the rules also. And we should push back if trail access restrictions are based on anything less than legitimate, rational reasoning.


And this is why you are having difficulties with the mod. You are here to argue/debate/discuss, whatever you want to call it, government restrictions and how we should not accept them. And that is off topic. Yes, you are trying to use ebikes for your examples but that is not what you are actually interested in discussing. This forum is for ebike discussion.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

From the top of the page there's maybe 4 posts pertinent to the topic of where e-bikes can/cannot be ridden; the other 40 (including this one) are irrelevant.

All the usual suspects are to blame and banishment needs to happen.

See if you can pick out Jim_bo in this skit:


----------



## sunderland56 (Aug 27, 2009)

evasive said:


> I don't doubt that the USFS and BLM have the authority to restrict ebikes on the basis of their motorized nature, but it's not unreasonable to ask for confirmation. That often comes down to the definitions as established in code or rule. That's what Jim_bo is asking about, and I haven't seen any reply directly to that question.


BLM Information Bulletin 2015-060 says:

*An electronic bicycle, also known as an e-bike, is a bicycle with an integrated electric motor. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) classifies e-bikes as motorized vehicles*

In short: ebikes were never, ever legal on non-motorized trails, since they have a motor. The IB just clarifies that fact.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

sunderland56 said:


> BLM Information Bulletin 2015-060 says:
> 
> *An electronic bicycle, also known as an e-bike, is a bicycle with an integrated electric motor. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) classifies e-bikes as motorized vehicles*
> 
> In short: ebikes were never, ever legal on non-motorized trails, since they have a motor. The IB just clarifies that fact.


Actually, while Information Bulletins can give you an idea of an agency's viewpoint or position (or to express even more accurately, the viewpoint, position or idea of the person within the agency writing the Information Bulletin) the Information Bulletin itself does not have the force of law.

Try again.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> Thank you.


 Welcome.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> the ridiculous conclusion that is inevitable in the argument made by many "if it has a motor, it is a motor vehicle".


How about 'if there's a motor involved in propelling it"? Seems sensible to me.
Not to say that e-bikes should be classified the same as real motos by any means, just that you need to accept that a motor changes things intrinsically when it comes to access. Just the way it is.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

sunderland56 said:


> BLM Information Bulletin 2015-060 says:
> 
> *An electronic bicycle, also known as an e-bike, is a bicycle with an integrated electric motor. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) classifies e-bikes as motorized vehicles*
> 
> In short: ebikes were never, ever legal on non-motorized trails, since they have a motor. The IB just clarifies that fact.


I get that, and have no personal issue with the policy. But an information bulletin isn't law or rule. It provides information regarding how BLM interprets and implements law, rule, and policy.

I'm not arguing in favor of ebike access or supporting Jim_bo's approach to the question. But as I posted earlier, what he's asking about is getting lost in the cross-talk. Government agencies have to implement laws or work within the space provided by them. Policies, orders, white papers are just the mechanisms agencies use to do that, but are not the underlying authority. Obviously BLM (and USFS) have statutory authority to implement travel planning and regulate appropriate uses. Maybe the statutory definition of motorized use or authority to define it is very cut-and-dried, maybe it isn't. It probably wouldn't be too hard to find and read myself if I really cared to. I don't; my point is just that a district order has to be based on a clear authority. Even if Jim_bo is the one asking about it here, it seems like an understanding of it would provide a more authoritative reference to show that there is a legitimate authority for excluding ebikes, more than "because the ranger said so."


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> How about 'if there's a motor involved in propelling it"? Seems sensible to me.
> Not to say that e-bikes should be classified the same as real motos by any means, just that you need to accept that a motor changes things intrinsically when it comes to access. Just the way it is.


I certainly believe that adding a motor to an e-bike makes the machine different than a mountain bike. Mountain bikes and e-bikes are not the same, in my view.

BUT... Adding a motor to a bicycle it does not automatically make that [now] e-bike a "motor vehicle" as that term is defined in the statutes and codes I've seen. Nor does adding a motor to a bicycle intrinsically or automatically change or restrict trail access rights for such machines.

That happens when laws, statues, codes or regulations: (i) expressly state so, or (ii) when not expressly stated, statutory interpetation requires it. I learned this all too well my first week of my first year of law school, when I got "called on" (if you went to law school, you never forget the first time you got "called on" and the issue you had to address) in my Legal Methods class to explain the holding of a case that exemplified the concept of "ejusdem generis." Coincidentally enough, the case involved the issue of whether a stolen airplane being transported across state lines was considered a "motor vehicle" under a particular statute that made transporting stolen motor vehicles a crime.....


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

evasive said:


> I get that, and have no personal issue with the policy. But an information bulletin isn't law or rule. It provides information regarding how BLM interprets and implements law, rule, and policy.
> 
> I'm not arguing in favor of ebike access or supporting Jim_bo's approach to the question. But as I posted earlier, what he's asking about is getting lost in the cross-talk. Government agencies have to implement laws or work within the space provided by them. Policies, orders, white papers are just the mechanisms agencies use to do that, but are not the underlying authority. Obviously BLM (and USFS) have statutory authority to implement travel planning and regulate appropriate uses. Maybe the statutory definition of motorized use or authority to define it is very cut-and-dried, maybe it isn't. It probably wouldn't be too hard to find and read myself if I really cared to. I don't; my point is just that a district order has to be based on a clear authority. Even if Jim_bo is the one asking about it here, it seems like an understanding of it would provide a more authoritative reference to show that there is a legitimate authority for excluding ebikes, more than "because the ranger said so."


I can help you. You may want to browse a few pages worth of this thread: http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/us-forest-service-official-stance-e-bikes-trails-1045612.html


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> Nor does adding a motor to a bicycle intrinsically or automatically change .... trail access rights for such machines.


It would appear that it does.


----------



## Mojave G (Jan 30, 2015)

chazpat said:


> he just wants to argue:


Exactly, see the latter two thirds of this thread here http://forums.mtbr.com/nevada/e-bikes-allowed-cottonwood-1041785.html


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> From a practical/human point, I think it is reprehensible to prohibit a person access to the trail system if an eBike is the only way he could legitimately access them.


I find it impossible to imagine a scenario where an e-bike would be the only legitimate access to a trail system for someone. An e-bike might be the only way a person could go further into the backcountry than they could otherwise but if you support that argument then it shouldn't end with electric bikes.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

I really hate to see all this discourse taking place amongst this community. The irony here is that AGarcia and I are making the point that the statutes and regulations that are being cited by the regulatory agencies are not legally sufficient to ban class 1 eBikes. This is squarely in favor of the community that would subscribe and post on an eBikes forum. Yet we are both routinely attacked, ridiculed and berated. It is as if the eBike community is hell-bent on more restrictions for eBikes. It just doesn't make sense.

The real shame of it is that the lion's share of the discussion seems to surround itself around the issue "is Jim_bo an asshole or not?" But a determination of whether or not I am an asshole does absolutely nothing to further the discussion or resolve the issue. If it will help in the discussion, I'll stipulate to being an asshole. Happy?

IMHO, there are only two issues that are valid and worthy of discussion with respect to federal land:

1) Is there currently legal sufficiency for banning class 1 eBikes from MTB trails. To date, I have seen no law or regulation that clearly bans class 1 eBikes from any MTB trail. There are old statutes that have been cited as justification by federal employees, but these interpretations are questionable at best and rely on leaps of logic. Additionally, as AGarcia and I have said several times, an information bulletin or a briefing paper do not have the weight of law. At a bare minimum, this should have the eBike community scratching its head and challenging their local field offices with some tough questions.

2) Is there any practical reason for banning class 1 eBikes from any MTB trail? I can't think of one. The combined weight of me on my conventional MTB likely exceeds many eBikers on their ride. So it doesn't make sense based on weight. There is a huge disparity in speeds of riders on conventional MTBs. So, unless we are going to post speed limit signs on trails, speed is not justification. Other than weight, a class 1 eBike is largely the same thing as a conventional MTB. Same suspension, same tires, same dimensions, etc. 

It is sad that there is not more discussion concerning this latter point. Instead, people seem to be wrapped around the axle of "if it has a motor, it is a motor vehicle and subject to the same restrictions as a Honda CRF450R". I am shocked that so many people simply accept this ridiculous notion. When I posted about putting a 5V computer fan on the handlebars of my bike, no one argued that it would then be a motor vehicle. But as absurd as it would be to call that a motor vehicle, I think it is only slightly less absurd to call a class 1 eBike a motor vehicle. It doesn't pass the stink test and it clearly doesn't pass the legal definition test.




So, why are we so bent on attacking people personally? Why are we so eager to give away trail access? Why are we so willing to let government agencies draw absurd legal conclusions and so opposed to anyone who would question those absurdities?

I am really saddened by this because in the end, class 1 eBikes are going to lose a ton of legal trail access. Regulatory agencies will see that the community will not resist the taking of trail access. To the contrary, agencies will see that the community will actually argue in favor of trail restrictions. But it is a very small leap from restricting class 1 eBikes under dubious circumstances and restricting fat bikes, or mid-fat bikes, or bikes with 150mm+ of suspension travel, or bikes that have a 500% or greater gear range, or the use of Strava while riding. Government never takes all of your liberties at once. They nibble. They take away a small thing. Once you accept it, they take away another small thing. And the nibbling goes on. And here we are, feeding that which takes from us and being the champions of our own demise.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> I find it impossible to imagine a scenario where an e-bike would be the only legitimate access to a trail system for someone. An e-bike might be the only way a person could go further into the backcountry than they could otherwise but if you support that argument then it shouldn't end with electric bikes.


I really don't want to get pulled into this argument as it is not as clear as the ones cited above. But I will point out that I have two friends who are avid MTBers of many, many years. One is approaching 70 years old and simply cannot ride with all of his younger friends on a conventional MTB. The other has had physical injuries and is in the same situation. A class 1 eBike allows them to continue riding with their friends and enjoying all the trails that they would not otherwise be able to ride.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Quote from the referenced Federal Register Final Over Snow vehicle rule, which specifically designates the difference between e-bikes, bikes, and why e-bikes are classified as motorized vehicles.

Comment: Some respondents stated
that fat tire bicycles should be regulated
under the proposed rule. Some
respondents stated that the Forest
Service should explicitly incorporate a
definition of bicycles that
unambiguously distinguishes them from
motor vehicles, including OSVs, and
should provide guidance to ensure that
bicycles are managed as a nonmotorized
use. Some respondents
commented that bicycles should be
managed on their own merits and not as
an afterthought to motorized travel
management.
Response: Regulation of nonmotorized
use, including bicycles
without motors, is beyond the scope of
this final rule, which addresses
motorized use, specifically, OSV use.
The Forest Service has clearly defined
the term ‘‘bicycle’’, which includes new
fat tire bicycles, in Forest Service
Handbook 2309.18 as ‘‘a pedal-driven,
human-powered device with two
wheels attached to a frame, one behind
the other.’’ Management of bicycles,
including fat tire bicycles in winter,
would be addressed as part of trail
management planning for nonmotorized
uses. New technologies that
merge bicycles and motors, such as ebikes,
are considered motor vehicles
under § 212.1 of the TMR.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

Jim_bo

you are all sorts of wrong. just stop. or entertain us some more, your choice.

The LAWS (federal and state) avoids ambiguity by putting them all in motorized category. 

No need to determine class of e-bike, or haggle over watts and usage. Dead stop: has an electric motor, no matter the amount of assist, it is motorized. period. end of discussion.

throttle or pedal assist, doesn't matter

MOTORIZED. and where motorized is banned, so shall be all e-bikes. except where specifically posted otherwise, or medical placard, or local allowance.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> IMHO...........


I think if you and everyone else took that to heart these discussions could actually be civil. Your opinion does not mean others are wrong and vice versa.



Jim_bo said:


> I really don't want to get pulled into this argument as it is not as clear as the ones cited above. But I will point out that I have two friends who are avid MTBers of many, many years. One is approaching 70 years old and simply cannot ride with all of his younger friends on a conventional MTB. The other has had physical injuries and is in the same situation. A class 1 eBike allows them to continue riding with their friends and enjoying all the trails that they would not otherwise be able to ride.


I'm not trying to start an argument but just want to point out that there are riders who I can't keep up with on my mountain bike but it doesn't prevent me from enjoying any trails. I can cover 20+ miles now no problem but am resolved to the fact that 20 years down the line I may only be able to make 5 miles on the same trail, if I'm fortunate. One mile might be my limit. My range will shrink but hopefully my enthusiasm won't.

I'm not really against electric bikes and may even own one some day. If they're legal to ride on hiking and mountain bike trails then so be it but if they're restricted to orv trails I'd be more than happy with that. Personally I hope they remain a separate class from bicycles with separate considerations but that's JMHO.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> I'll stipulate to being an asshole.


Agreed.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

127.0.0.1 said:


> Jim_bo
> 
> you are all sorts of wrong. just stop. or entertain us some more, your choice.
> 
> ...


And from there, e-bikeproponenets should work on distinguishing themselves from higher powered motor vehicles, which totally makes sense. But you instead seem to insist on holding to the inane stance of 'I have a motor on my vehicle that helps propel it which I demand everyone ignore, therefore bicycle".

It's not a 'motor vehicle' as the law typically defines them.
It's not a bicycle, because it has a motor that propels it.

Just as e-bikers rightfully don't want to be lumped in with higher powered vehicles, nor do mountain bikers want to be lumped in with conveyances with motors. How the hell is this complicated for some people?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Calling Mr Klurejr! Is Klurejr in the house?

There's about 50 posts on this page(so far) that need to be deleted. And a couple of posters that need to be banished.

Hurry up.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> And from there, e-bikeproponenets should work on distinguishing themselves from higher powered motor vehicles, which totally makes sense. But you instead seem to insist on holding to the inane stance of 'I have a motor on my vehicle that helps propel it which I demand everyone ignore, therefore bicycle".
> 
> It's not a 'motor vehicle' as the law typically defines them.
> It's not a bicycle, because it has a motor that propels it.
> ...


This is the best post I've seen in a while, with the exception of the assumption that my opinion is: 'I have a motor on my vehicle that helps propel it which I demand everyone ignore, therefore bicycle". It's actually the corollary to that point. I don't argue the point you made, Iinstead, I argue against the point of "it has a motor, so it's a motorized vehicle just like a Honda CRF 450 or a Jeep." This latter argument uses very inappropriate existing legislation to regulate new technology. The truth is, we should reject the "it has a motor" argument and lobby to work with the agencies to create separate legislation/regulation that is specific and applicable.

That's the whole point.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> I find it impossible to imagine a scenario where an e-bike would be the only legitimate access to a trail system for someone. An e-bike might be the only way a person could go further into the backcountry than they could otherwise but if you support that argument then it shouldn't end with electric bikes.[/QUOT
> I find it impossible to imagine a scenario were I would call you a fellow MT biker too but as I know most of my fellow Mt bikers are quite supportive of my e bike use , just look at the positive replys above . Just because you have an opinion on something doesn't make it law even if your a cop .


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Jim_bo said:


> This is the best post I've seen in a while, with the exception of the assumption that my opinion is: 'I have a motor on my vehicle that helps propel it which I demand everyone ignore, therefore bicycle". It's actually the corollary to that point. I don't argue the point you made, Iinstead, I argue against the point of "it has a motor, so it's a motorized vehicle just like a Honda CRF 450 or a Jeep." This latter argument uses very inappropriate existing legislation to regulate new technology. The truth is, we should reject the "it has a motor" argument and lobby to work with the agencies to create separate legislation/regulation that is specific and applicable.
> 
> That's the whole point.


Jim Bo is right Walt said the same its e bikes are new like Drones as Walt implied it will take some time in learning how in were to manage just like any new tec , what we need is more e bike friendly festivals or jamborees . were we can bring e bikes and reg mt bikes to ride together this senseless hate on e bikes from this forum is giving all Mt bikers a black eye lets try n move in a positive way get out n ride with a e bike if you can find one .


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> .......I argue against the point of "it has a motor, so it's a motorized vehicle just like a Honda CRF 450 or a Jeep."


For the most part no one is saying that so if you want to argue that point I think you're mostly arguing with yourself. My opinion is that ebikes *are* a motorized vehicle but nothing at all like a Honda CRF or a jeep, just like a Honda CRF isn't much like a Cadillac.

Aside from a bunch of fine print specialists in California your assertion that ebikes aren't motorized is just a matter of opinion. I respect that but wholeheartedly disagree.


----------



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

rider95 said:


> Just because you have an opinion on something doesn't make it law even if your a cop .


I agree 100%.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> I really don't want to get pulled into this argument as it is not as clear as the ones cited above. But I will point out that I have two friends who are avid MTBers of many, many years. One is approaching 70 years old and simply cannot ride with all of his younger friends on a conventional MTB. The other has had physical injuries and is in the same situation. A class 1 eBike allows them to continue riding with their friends and enjoying all the trails that they would not otherwise be able to ride.


Aging out is inevitable, e-bikes aren't.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Aside from a bunch of fine print specialists in California your assertion that ebikes aren't motorized is just a matter of opinion. I respect that but wholeheartedly disagree.


What I think is amusing about this whole thread is that it's entitled: "Where you can & cannot legally ride E-mtbs." So you have a person from this forum (who may know a little something about land use law and administrative law) that elaborates on, among other things, how statutes are legally interpreted and the difference between regulations and information bulletins. Then, when it's pointed out that the assumptions people have about e-bikes being motorized vehicles as defined under may not be "legally" supported, all hell breaks loose, and people proceed to throw stones at the messenger.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> I really hate to see all this discourse taking place amongst this community. The irony here is that AGarcia and I are making the point that the statutes and regulations that are being cited by the regulatory agencies are not legally sufficient to ban class 1 eBikes. This is squarely in favor of the community that would subscribe and post on an eBikes forum. Yet we are both routinely attacked, ridiculed and berated. It is as if the eBike community is hell-bent on more restrictions for eBikes. It just doesn't make sense.
> 
> The real shame of it is that the lion's share of the discussion seems to surround itself around the issue "is Jim_bo an asshole or not?" But a determination of whether or not I am an asshole does absolutely nothing to further the discussion or resolve the issue. If it will help in the discussion, I'll stipulate to being an asshole. Happy?
> 
> ...


A very good post and I agree 100%.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> For the most part no one is saying that so if you want to argue that point I think you're mostly arguing with yourself. My opinion is that ebikes *are* a motorized vehicle but nothing at all like a Honda CRF or a jeep, just like a Honda CRF isn't much like a Cadillac.
> 
> Aside from a bunch of fine print specialists in California your assertion that ebikes aren't motorized is just a matter of opinion. I respect that but wholeheartedly disagree.


The difference is, you are applying a common use standard when saying that a class 1 eBike is a motorized vehicle. I am applying a legal definition standard. There is a difference. But when talking about the legal operation of an eBike on a trail, the legal definition standard is what governs.

This is not a California thing. It's a federal government thing.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> The difference is, you are applying a common use standard when saying that a class 1 eBike is a motorized vehicle. I am applying a legal definition standard. There is a difference. But when talking about the legal operation of an eBike on a trail, the legal definition standard is what governs.
> 
> This is not a California thing. It's a federal government thing.


 It has a motor, motorized vehicle. Definition? Only matters by the powers in charge. Usually the state, local, park, etc. land managers. Our opinions matter not. Federal Gov for federal lands. Not much of that in MA. Look at it this way. Most state DOT depts have rules for electric bikes, usages and definitions. Same with motorcycles, where bikes can go( not on some hiways) and such. Local and state agencies do the same for off road usage, multi use trails, ORV and such. I do get what you are trying to say, but you seem to be grasping at straws. Without much in the way of facts.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> This is not a California thing. It's a federal government thing.


Time will tell how it all sorts out, as usual California seems to be the juggernaut. I wouldn't begin to debate with an attorney but my earlier post was more related to common sense, sorry for the thread drift. The federal government also declares that corporations are people but ask a 10 year old to make sense of that.

Anyway, legalities aside I was mostly pointing out that contrary to your claim (virtually) no one is saying that an ebike is the same as a jeep or should adhere to their same requirements and restrictions.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> What I think is amusing about this whole thread is that it's entitled: "Where you can & cannot legally ride E-mtbs." So you have a person from this forum (who may know a little something about land use law and administrative law) that elaborates on, among other things, how statutes are legally interpreted and the difference between regulations and information bulletins. Then, when it's pointed out that the assumptions people have about e-bikes being motorized vehicles as defined under may not be "legally" supported, all hell breaks loose, and people proceed to throw stones at the messenger.


Yet you continually refuse to address that the supposedly irrelevant "informational bulletin" actually references the FINAL over snow vehicle management RULE, that explicitly defines what a bike is, and that the technologies that merge bikes and motors are actually, specifically NOT bikes, and specifically ARE motorized vehicles. They also reference the forest service's definition of a bike in the forest service handbook as HUMAN powered.

What more do you need? How much more concisely does it need to be published by them, where they deliberately identify the merging of a bike w/a motor as a motorized vehicle? Where they deliberately identify that an e-bike doesn't meet the definition of a bike, where it is further clarified that bikes are deliberately and specifically managed as a different vehicle, specifically, a non-motorized vehicle, and that they specifically and deliberately manage e-bikes as a motorized vehicle?

They even give an example, in such that they even go so far as to identify that a fatbike meets the definition of a bike, is non-motorized, and is not subject to the rules within the FINAL over snow vehicle management plan, but e-bikes, being motorized, ARE regulated by this plan.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

watermonkey said:


> Yet you continually refuse to address that the supposedly irrelevant "informational bulletin" actually references the FINAL over snow vehicle management RULE, that explicitly defines what a bike is, and that the technologies that merge bikes and motors are actually, specifically NOT bikes, and specifically ARE motorized vehicles. They also reference the forest service's definition of a bike in the forest service handbook as HUMAN powered.
> 
> What more do you need? How much more concisely does it need to be published by them, where they deliberately identify the merging of a bike w/a motor as a motorized vehicle? Where they deliberately identify that an e-bike doesn't meet the definition of a bike, where it is further clarified that bikes are deliberately and specifically managed as a different vehicle, specifically, a non-motorized vehicle, and that they specifically and deliberately manage e-bikes as a motorized vehicle?
> 
> They even give an example, in such that they even go so far as to identify that a fatbike meets the definition of a bike, is non-motorized, and is not subject to the rules within the FINAL over snow vehicle management plan, but e-bikes, being motorized, ARE regulated by this plan.


Sorry, Not ignoring you. I addressed this point back in May. See this thread: http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/us-forest-service-official-stance-e-bikes-trails-1045612.html Starting with post#s in the 70's range. Essentially, what is offered in the rule re: e-mtbs is _"dictum."_ Legally persuasive, but not legally binding.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

If ebikes are bicycles then this is hiking:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155678733141670&id=24470421669

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Silentfoe said:


> If ebikes are bicycles then this is hiking:
> https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155678733141670&id=24470421669
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Or this...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

N.m


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> Sorry, Not ignoring you. I addressed this point back in May. See this thread: http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/us-forest-service-official-stance-e-bikes-trails-1045612.html Starting with post#s in the 70's range. Essentially, what is offered in the rule re: e-mtbs is _"dictum."_ Legally persuasive, but not legally binding.


 the court held that the
Forest Service has the discretion to
determine where and when OSV use
can occur on NFS lands. The ruling
requires the Agency to designate routes
and areas where OSV use is permitted
and routes and areas where OSV use is
not permitted on NFS lands, consistent
with E.O. 11644, as amended by E.O.
11989, sec. 3(a),

From the same rule, a requirement of the NFS to determine access and use. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the comments and respondents statements, they were included in the final rule as context for the final...RULE. To determine OSV permitted use, OSV's needed to be defined, and the rule, respondents comments intentionally included for context, define e-bikes as motorized vehicles, and bicycles as non-motorized human powered vehicles.

There's no grey area, you're intentionally stirring the $hit.

The bottom line is:

E-bikes cannot legally be ridden on NFS and BLM non-motorized trails......period.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

watermonkey said:


> the court held that the
> Forest Service has the discretion to
> determine where and when OSV use
> can occur on NFS lands. The ruling
> ...


Remember, to an attorney, "Legal" is fluid.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> The difference is, you are applying a common use standard when saying that a class 1 eBike is a motorized vehicle. I am applying a legal definition standard. There is a difference. But when talking about the legal operation of an eBike on a trail, the legal definition standard is what governs.


This same distinction applies when folks confuse 'bike path/trail' as used in state vehicle codes with what we as mountain bikers would typically consider a bike path or trail. Two vwey different things, yet many misread the part of the vehicle code allowing e-bikes on 'bike paths' as meaning they are allowed anywhere a bicycle is allowed, as they don't realize that the vehicle code only applies to certain types of 'bike paths/trails' as defined in the code itself, and which doesn't extend to singletrack/off-road trails in the vast majority of cases.

Same goes for the CPSA (Consumer Product Safety Act) definition of e-bikes and their equivocation of them with bicycles (at least the low power ones). Some posters here used to take that and think that it meant they had immediate carte blanche to go anywhere they wanted with e-bikes, and that they were going to carry around the page so they could pull it out and argue with anyone that tried to tell them different.

Lot of people out there that are easily confused.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

watermonkey said:


> There's no grey area, you're intentionally stirring the $hit.


You can chose to believe that if you like.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

watermonkey said:


> The bottom line is:
> 
> E-bikes cannot legally be ridden on NFS and BLM non-motorized trails......period.


Keep telling yourself that. It's all good.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> Keep telling yourself that. It's all good.


https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ochoco/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD518315

Then you might want to call these guys up and let them know they're wrong.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

watermonkey said:


> https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ochoco/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD518315
> 
> Then you might want to call these guys up and let them know they're wrong.


Thanks! Will do!


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> Keep telling yourself that. It's all good.


https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/btnf/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD507239

And these guys too. They appear to be delusional. Maybe Jim_bo can borrow your wife's Levo and go for a spin up in the Bridger-Teton's. Get back to us on how that goes.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

watermonkey said:


> https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/btnf/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD507239
> 
> And these guys too. They appear to be delusional. Maybe Jim_bo can borrow your wife's Levo and go for a spin up in the Bridger-Teton's. Get back to us on how that goes.


Sounds good! As soon as they can show some valid regulatory authority to back up the statements, I'll start believing. But in the meantime, don't stop believing on your end!


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

So of course your argument with them would break down into two points. First, whether or not an ebike is in fact a motorized vehicle. Unfortunately for you, they won't play your semantics games. They'll look at the ebike, see a motor, see that it can propel the ebike and then they'll once again declare it a motorized vehicle.

Now that you'd be back in the motorized vehicle camp, you'll be joining motorcycles, atvs, ohvs, and jeeps for recreational access. They've been fighting for a long time and while I'm sure they'd appreciate a few more voices added to the cause, they won't particularly care about your access woes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> Sounds good! As soon as they can show some valid regulatory authority to back up the statements, I'll start believing. But in the meantime, don't stop believing on your end!


 You should take this one step further. You going to be the first one to get a fine and challenge it? Best of luck with your fine and vehicle impoundment.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> You should take this one step further. You going to be the first one to get a fine and challenge it? Best of luck with your fine and vehicle impoundment.


I already volunteered to do that. I said if anyone wants to get a BLM LEO to meet me at Late Night trailhead in Las Vegas, I'll go ride a circle on the trail and allow him to write me a citation. Then, we could talk about this in court.

So, are you going to take it one step further and coordinate with the BLM to send an LEO out at a predetermined time?


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

AGarcia said:


> Sounds good! As soon as they can show some valid regulatory authority to back up the statements, I'll start believing. But in the meantime, don't stop believing on your end!


"Valid regulatory authority?"

You're really questioning whether the FS has regulatory authority over Forest Service land? If they don't, then who do you think does?


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> I already volunteered to do that. I said if anyone wants to get a BLM LEO to meet me at Late Night trailhead in Las Vegas, I'll go ride a circle on the trail and allow him to write me a citation. Then, we could talk about this in court.
> 
> So, are you going to take it one step further and coordinate with the BLM to send an LEO out at a predetermined time?


Why don't you just step up and do it yourself? How the hell am I supposed to get a BLM LEO officer to meet you at a given point in time? Go to their office, tell them what you're going to go, and see what they say. Don't put this on us...man up and go prove your point. Please, please, please, record this interaction for our viewing pleasure.

Here's their contact info and address. Have at it.

BLM Las Vegas Field Office
Address: 4701 N Torrey Pines Dr, Las Vegas, NV 89130
Phone: (702) 515-5000
Hours: Open today · 8AM-4:30PM


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

watermonkey said:


> Why don't you just step up and do it yourself? How the hell am I supposed to get a BLM LEO officer to meet you at a given point in time? Go to their office, tell them what you're going to go, and see what they say. Don't put this on us...man up and go prove your point. Please, please, please, record this interaction for our viewing pleasure.
> 
> Here's their contact info and address. Have at it.
> 
> ...


Sorry... if you ain't gonna put any skin in the game, I'm not going to. It's absurd for you to say I should have to go through all of the effort, put myself at risk, just to satisfy your morbid curiosity.

Take a look at your signature line. I think I'll follow that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Sorry... if you ain't gonna put any skin in the game, I'm not going to. It's absurd for you to say I should have to go through all of the effort, put myself at risk, just to satisfy your morbid curiosity.


This ridiculous plan is quite possibly the stupidest sidebar to a conversation I've ever seen on MTBR. And that's saying something.

ut:


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Smithhammer said:


> "Valid regulatory authority?"
> 
> You're really questioning whether the FS has regulatory authority over Forest Service land? If they don't, then who do you think does?


Nope. Not questioning the Forest Service's responsibility to manage lands under their jurisdiction.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

leeboh said:


> You should take this one step further. You going to be the first one to get a fine and challenge it? Best of luck with your fine and vehicle impoundment.


I'm going to continue to what pleases me and my family and is otherwise in conformity with the laws of this land of ours.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Silentfoe said:


> So of course your argument with them would break down into two points. First, whether or not an ebike is in fact a motorized vehicle. Unfortunately for you, they won't play your semantics games. They'll look at the ebike, see a motor, see that it can propel the ebike and then they'll once again declare it a motorized vehicle.
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


You may be right....


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> I'm going to continue to what pleases me and my family and is otherwise in conformity with the laws of this land of ours.


 I'm going to appeal to your lawyer side. Case law. Precedent. Garcia vs NFS? So on the legal side( which I know very little) rules, laws, guidelines really get interpreted and ruled upon during trials and in court? This judge ( panel, jury etc) ruled upon this action with this outcome? Correct? Been following your line of reasoning here, seem to be on thin ice? ( although not totally without merit) CA has been the leader in the e bike thing, most likely a court case will come up there first.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

AGarcia said:


> Nope. Not questioning the Forest Service's responsibility to manage lands under their jurisdiction.


But...your previous comment questioning their "valid regulatory authority" was in direct reference to a link provided about the Bridger-Teton NF e-bike restrictions, which is most definitely under their jurisdiction.

So then what "valid regulatory authority" are you questioning, exactly? Are you saying that the FS doesn't have the authority to restrict motorized use?


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> This ridiculous plan is quite possibly the stupidest sidebar to a conversation I've ever seen on MTBR. And that's saying something.
> 
> ut:


Indeed.

And supports a number of my theories on the topic...


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

leeboh said:


> I'm going to appeal to your lawyer side. Case law. Precedent. Garcia vs NFS? So on the legal side( which I know very little) rules, laws, guidelines really get interpreted and ruled upon during trials and in court? This judge ( panel, jury etc) ruled upon this action with this outcome? Correct? Been following your line of reasoning here, seem to be on thin ice? ( although not totally without merit) CA has been the leader in the e bike thing, most likely a court case will come up there first.


Regarding use on BLM or USFS land, the question of whether the USFS or BLM position on e-mtbs is valid would likely end up in federal court. But before a question can get to federal court, one has to have attempted to exhaust one's "administrative remedies" (i.e., tried to work it out with the BLM or the Service, respectively), and one has to have legal standing (basically, one has to be aggrieved at some level... have skin in the game).

Believe it or not, the issue as to whether something is a "motor vehicle' or not has come has been a litigated issue in the past. Most prominently, the issue of whether something was a motor vehicle or not came up in a 1930's U.S. Supreme Court case.

At issue as a law that made it a federal crime to steal "motor vehicles" and take them across state lines. A pilot was knowingly transporting a stolen plan across state lines. That pilot was convicted under that law of transporting a motor vehicle. The pilot's attorney appealed the conviction and lost in the 10th circuit court of appeals. Here's a link to the Court of Appeals case (it's actually a short and interesting reading if you have the time):

http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Interpretation/McBoyle10thCir.pdf

The pilot's attorney then appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the case. Essentially, there was not question that the pilot had stolen the plane. There was also no question that a plane had a motor, and was "motorized" in the common sense of the word. But the court dug into whether the statute that made stealing motor vehicles a crime was actually written with intent to cover "airplanes." They found that it did not. The pilot's conviction was overturned. Here's the link (it's literally only a couple of pages and can give you some insight to how a lawyer or judge approaches statutory interpretation) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/25/case.html

Coincidentally, this case just happens to be the first case I was ever cold called on to brief in front of my whole class in law school..... And, having only a week of law school under my belt, I argued vociferously against the case, stating that the plane should be considered a motor vehicle (it has a motor, dammit!!), and I argued "what if it had been taxiing on the ground versus flying" and all that, and that "the pilot was guilty of stealing the plane anyway".... So I totally get why people without the legal background get violently offended by what I express. But I was wrong, legally.

The simple point I try to make, is just because it e-bike has a motor and just because it's a motorized vehicle in the common sense of the word, that doesn't make it a "motorized vehicle" as defined by federal statutes and other state statutes.

And when I see people point out the official letters, bulletins and statements on official websites, I know that those statements: (i) do not carry the same weight or force of law as the statutes, and (i) are not often scrubbed by their lawyers before they go out or go up. And I know, from my background and training, that the arguments being put forth may not be on a proper legal foundation, however reasonable they may seem to someone who is not an experienced lawyer.

Will I be the guy to challenge them? Not likely.

I have no skin in the game, really. I'm not revving to go out into remote single track with my wife's e-bike. And my wife stays on fire roads. But someone else might have skin in the game, and someone else may have the time and inclination and the money to do something about it (think bike manufacturers). They could hire someone with similar background and experience as myself (really there are few as good as me, but I'm an in-house lawyer, so they can't hire me  ) to start drilling down on the regulations. But I'm guessing they're not quite there yet. My guess is they'll wait till there's a little bit more ground swell of support from regular joe e-bike purchasers that don't come on forums like this one. At the same time, my guess is that they will use their marketing associations to lobby those who are responsible for enacting statues....

And if I was an e-bike hater, I guess I wouldn't just sit there and rely on the statements being made in agency letters or on websites.... I'd want to take a careful look at the underlying foundations of the statements being made by the agencies and not take them for face value.... I would urge them to close up loopholes and keep the trails motor free.

But again, I'm not anyone's lawyer on this forum, this is not legal advice for anyone and YMMV.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Smithhammer said:


> But...your previous comment questioning their "valid regulatory authority" was in direct reference to a link provided about the Bridger-Teton NF e-bike restrictions, which is most definitely under their jurisdiction.
> 
> So then what "valid regulatory authority" are you questioning, exactly? Are you saying that the FS doesn't have the authority to restrict motorized use?


No, I firmly believe Congress has vested in the forest service the right to regulate motorized vehicle use on forest lands. The "validity" in my mind is determined whether an e-bike is a "motorized vehicle" as defined by federal law. My contention is that the Forest Service goofed up when they said, generally, that "e-bikes have motors, therefore they are motorized vehicles under the law." That is inconsistent with federal statutes, which define motor vehicles.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> No, I firmly believe Congress has vested in the forest service the right to regulate motorized vehicle use on forest lands.


Why is it that you think they only have a right to regulate motorized vehicle use?
What leads you to believe that they do not have a right to regulate non-motorized uses as well?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> Why is it that you think they only have a right to regulate motorized vehicle use?
> What leads you to believe that they do not have a right to regulate non-motorized uses as well?


I never said or suggested I believe that?!


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

AGarcia,

Excellent points. You are recognizing the fatal flaw with this whole argument. A minority of people (i.e. you and me) are arguing the legal sufficiency of calling an eBike a "motorized vehicle". While most people are arguing the common sense definition of "motorized vehicle". Your case concerning the stolen airplane which was ruled not to be a "motor vehicle" is right on point.

I have another story that is close to being right on point. My wife got a speeding ticket on the main highway of our hometown. She was driving 42 in posted 35 zone. After only a minimal amount of research, I found that the speed limit was an illegal speed limit and that enforcement of that speed limit was actually a violation of the vehicle code.

I brought this issue and the irrefutable evidence to the Chief of Police who told me that if my wife was exceeding that which was posted, she deserved the ticket. I took the issue to our Mayor and city council who told me basically the same thing despite the undeniable evidence. They were all doing the same thing that has been done here. They were looking at the common sense application of speed limits rather than the legal application. I wrote letters to the editors of our newspaper pointing out that the evidence is plain and that our local police had been writing illegal speeding tickets for a decade. Hundreds of people were inappropriately convicted of this infraction. But I got no praise for bringing this injustice to the people. Instead, I was largely chastised despite the fact that the police were the ones actually violating the law.

Finally, I figured we would resolve the issue in court. I served the Chief of Police, the Public Works Director and the CALTRANS engineer with a subpoena to appear at my wife's traffic trial. I was scoffed at. However, two days before my wife's trial, the chief of police called her and conceded that the speed limit was in fact not legal. He wrote a letter to the court asking that my wife's case be dismissed and that everyone who had an outstanding speeding ticket have their cases dismissed also. CALTRANS came and followed the correct procedures and ended up raising the speed limit to a legal level.


The point of it is... what may appear obvious from a common sense perspective, does not meet the test of legal sufficiency. This is vitally important in our legal system because if I can look at something that is kinda close to what a law says and I can rationalize it from a common sense perspective, then the law becomes subjective rather than objective. In other words, something becomes a violation of law is a person in authority thinks it ought to be against the law. And at that point, we are no longer a nation of laws, rather we are a nation of men. 

This may seem like a "loophole" to some. It is not. It is the law. And I'm sure that everyone on here would agree with me if they were charged with violating a law but they knew what they had done was not within the scope of that law. Their attitudes would be different if they thought they were being prosecuted for what some LEO thought the law "should be" rather than what it is.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> The simple point I try to make, is just because it e-bike has a motor and just because it's a motorized vehicle in the common sense of the word, that doesn't make it a "motorized vehicle" as defined by federal statutes and other state statutes.


But then isn't it just a matter of the powers-that-be defining ebikes to be motorized vehicles within the statute? So they are technically "legal" once a judge has ruled that they are not defined until the law is tightened up and more specific? As opposed to the law saying that ebikes must be allowed due to discrimination or something.

And are airplanes covered under "stealing motor vehicles are a crime" now?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

There is no doubt that BLM and USFS could create new regulations tomorrow for eBikes. But they haven't done that yet. Instead, they have tried to glom onto existing statutes that are not appropriate or applicable. This was an error.

The right then for them to do is to create new, specific regulations concerning eBikes that is appropriate and reasonable. It is wrong to simply lump them in with dirt bikes, quads and Jeeps.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Jim_bo said:


> There is no doubt that BLM and USFS could create new regulations tomorrow for eBikes. But they haven't done that yet. Instead, they have tried to glom onto existing statutes that are not appropriate or applicable. This was an error.
> 
> The right then for them to do is to create new, specific regulations concerning eBikes that is appropriate and reasonable. It is wrong to simply lump them in with dirt bikes, quads and Jeeps.


It's wrong to you, because you don't want them to be banned.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

Jim_bo said:


> There is no doubt that BLM and USFS could create new regulations tomorrow for eBikes. But they haven't done that yet. Instead, they have tried to glom onto existing statutes that are not appropriate or applicable. This was an error.
> 
> The right then for them to do is to create new, specific regulations concerning eBikes that is appropriate and reasonable. It is wrong to simply lump them in with dirt bikes, quads and Jeeps.


If you actually read the language as it is stated in the FS's Travel Management Rule, they aren't simply "lumping them in with dirt bikes, quads and Jeeps." The TMR defines "motor vehicle", for the purposes of National Forest management, "any vehicle which is self-propelled" (with exceptions for motorized wheelchairs suitable for indoor pedestrian areas). This definition would include many means of transportation which, lo and behold, _have motors_. It could also include motorized off-road skateboards or Seqways, for example. I don't really see why this is such a huge mental leap for people.

Unless you plan to hire an army of lawyers to challenge the FS's TMR, then why don't you quit the belly-aching and contorted legal gymnastics and simply enjoy riding your e-bike in any one of the many, many places where they are actually allowed?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Jim_bo said:


> There is no doubt that BLM and USFS could create new regulations tomorrow for eBikes. But they haven't done that yet. Instead, they have tried to glom onto existing statutes that are not appropriate or applicable. This was an error.
> 
> The right then for them to do is to create new, specific regulations concerning eBikes that is appropriate and reasonable. It is wrong to simply lump them in with dirt bikes, quads and Jeeps.


Agreed. While keeping in mind that those regulations have to be consistent with statutes (which are enacted by Congress).


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Smithhammer said:


> If you actually read the language as it is stated in the FS's Travel Management Rule, they aren't simply "lumping them in with dirt bikes, quads and Jeeps." The TMR defines "motor vehicle", for the purposes of National Forest management, "any vehicle which is self-propelled (with exceptions for motorized wheelchairs suitable for indoor pedestrian areas). This definition would include many means of transportation which, lo and behold, have motors.....
> 
> I don't really see why this is such a huge mental leap for people.


Define: "self-propelled." Then, please explain how an e-mtb, such as the new Pivot Shuttle is "self-propelled."


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Maybe it's semantics, but I believe there is an intended difference between a "motor vehicle" and a "motorized vehicle". It seems that resolving this is what needs to occur in order to implement parameters around where they may be used. 

Probably stating the obvious to most of you, but ya never know.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> AGarcia,
> 
> A minority of people (i.e. you and me) are arguing the legal sufficiency of calling an eBike a "motorized vehicle". While most people are arguing the common sense definition of "motorized vehicle".


You're assuming that the forest service's definitions have to match some universal, over arching unified definition of what a bike, or motorized vehicle is. They don't. They get to make up their own definitions, and their own categories, much as they had to do with over snow vehicles, of which there is not an absolute, overarching, decreed from the heaven's, absolute definition. Their definition is deliberately left vague due to the highly varied nature of types and classes of over snow vehicles, yet their policy still determines where they can and cannot go. They don't have to define every single iteration of an OSV in order to regulate. Whether Iowa defines an OSV vehicle the same as the NFS is irrelevant. NFS defines the definitions as they pertain to NFS lands, and applies those definitions in their regulatory role.

NFS has a definition for a bike. E-bikes do not meet their criteria, thus are not bikes.
NFS has a definition of a motorized vehicle. E-bikes do meet their criteria for a motorized vehicle.
Therefore, e-bikes, at least on NFS (and BLM) lands, are simultaneously not bikes and are motorized vehicles. You can ride your motorized vehicle Turbo Levo (per NFS definitions) over a jurisdictional line dividing a national forest and a Colorado State Park, and your Levo goes from motorized on the NFS side to Class 1 e-bike classification on the Colo. parks side instantly.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> I never said or suggested I believe that?!


So you agree they can regulate e-bike use correct?

So in that case, WTF are you guys rambling on about? If they chose to say 'e-bikes will be treated the same as bicycles' all your points about them having no legal footing to make that determination would still apply, right? So they can't allow them as bicycles nor can they allow them as motor vehicles. So...what? I'm looking for shreds of common sense and pragmatism in your arguments and finding very little. Mainly just semantics and bloviating for their own sakes.

I've also always agreed with the opinion that e-bikes need to be treated as a distinct user group. My main issue with them is when people want to insist that they are lumped in with bicycles. This is no more fair or accurate than lumping them in with 'real' motorized vehicles. So I would suggest shoving all the lawsuit BS where it belongs and getting some advocacy groups organized. You've obviously got plenty of time to waste throwing words into the MTBR trashcan. Maybe try throwing them in a direction that might actually yield results.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

AGarcia said:


> Define: "self-propelled." Then, please explain how an e-mtb, such as the new Pivot Shuttle is "self-propelled."


"Containing within itself the means for its own propulsion." Just as a moped is classified as such. This definition is not contingent upon the means of self-propulsion being required for operation at all times - even if it is only used part of the time, it still is a vehicle which contains the "means for its own propulsion."


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

chuckha62 said:


> Maybe it's semantics, but I believe there is an intended difference between a "motor vehicle" and a "motorized vehicle". It seems that resolving this is what needs to be occur in order to implement parameters around where they may be used.
> 
> Probably stating the obvious to most of you, but ya never know.


For purposes of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule, it's not semantics, because they define what a "motor vehicle" is. Other statutes, however, may rely on the term motorized vehicles, and may have separate definitions to address the vehicles under their statutes.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Smithhammer said:


> Containing within itself the means for its own propulsion. Just as a moped is classified as such. It does not require that the means of self It does not require that the means of self-propulsion is required at all times - even if it is only used part of the time, it still is a vehicle which contains the "means for its own propulsion."


Containing the means for its own propulsion. Ok. Let's start with that. I see how that works in a moped. But tell me how the Pivot Shuttle has the means for its own propulsion? Does it have a throttle? How does it "propel itself and the rider forward?" Can the bike "self-propel" without the rider pedaling?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

sfgiantsfan said:


> It's wrong to you, because you don't want them to be banned.


I don't even own an eBike. So you are wrong.

I don't want ANYTHING to be banned for arbitrary and capricious reasons. I think that even the most ardent opponent of my opinion would agree that there's not much difference as far as safety or impact to the environment between a conventional MTB and a class 1 eBike, so simply lumping them in with all other "motorized vehicles" was clearly done as an act of convenience rather than an attempt to create rational and reasonable regulation.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

AGarcia said:


> Containing the means for its own propulsion. Ok. Let's start with that. I see how that works in a moped. But tell me how the Pivot Shuttle has the means for its own propulsion? Does it have a throttle? How does it "propel itself and the rider forward?" Can the bike "self-propel" without the rider pedaling?


This is the semantics bullshit that pisses everyone off. Would you consider a car self propelled? Would it move if no human ever had interaction with It? Of course a car is self propelled, even though you must apply pressure to the gas pedal. An ebike adds pedal assistance to pressure on the pedals. It will move both farther and faster using its own power. It IS self propelled.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> So you agree they can regulate e-bike use correct?
> 
> So in that case, WTF are you guys rambling on about? If they chose to say 'e-bikes will be treated the same as bicycles' all your points about them having no legal footing to make that determination would still apply, right? So they can't allow them as bicycles nor can they allow them as motor vehicles. So...what? I'm looking for shreds of common sense and pragmatism in your arguments and finding very little. Mainly just semantics and bloviating for their own sakes.
> 
> I've also always agreed with the opinion that e-bikes need to be treated as a distinct user group. My main issue with them is when people want to insist that they are lumped in with bicycles. This is no more fair or accurate than lumping them in with 'real' motorized vehicles. So I would suggest shoving all the lawsuit BS where it belongs and getting some advocacy groups organized. You've obviously got plenty of time to waste throwing words into the MTBR trashcan. Maybe try throwing them in a direction that might actually yield results.


I agree that that they can regulate bikers, hikers and bikers and horses. I agree that they can regulate e-mtb use in the same manner.

And I get that you, and many others may not necessarily follow the points I make. I'm ok with that. And I'm trying to be respectful, as any other thoughtful human would, in responding to your query, but I don't expect you to agree with me.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Silentfoe said:


> This is the semantics bullshit that pisses everyone off. Would you consider a car self propelled? Would it move if no human ever had interaction with It? Of course a car is self propelled, even though you must apply pressure to the gas pedal. An ebike adds pedal assistance to pressure on the pedals. It will move both farther and faster using its own power. It IS self propelled.


Are you pissed you off because you can't explain how a Pivot Shuttle is self-propelled under the definition, or because answering the question correctly leads you to a conclusion that doesn't meet your world view?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

What? Are you seriously trying to be obtuse? Does the bike have a motor? Yes. Does the motor make the bike go farther and faster than human power alone? Yes. Bingo. Self propelled.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

Silentfoe said:


> What? Are you seriously trying to be obtuse? Does the bike have a motor? Yes. Does the motor make the bike go farther and faster than human power alone? Yes. Bingo. Self propelled.


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Silentfoe again._


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Silentfoe said:


> What? Are you seriously trying to be obtuse? Does the bike have a motor? Yes. Does the motor make the bike go farther and faster than human power alone? Yes. Bingo. Self propelled.
> 
> Sent from my SM


I wouldn't consider myself trying to be obtuse.. Here's a simple google definition of the term self propelled: "moving or able to move without external propulsion or agency" Under your view, the bike has a motor, and is using the motor "to go farther and faster than human power alone." Under your view, can the bike with the motor move "without external propulsion or agency?" In particular since you assume human power is involved.

In order to ensure I'm not being obtuse, do you need me to further define the words "external" or "propulsion" or "agency"?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> This is the semantics bullshit that pisses everyone off. Would you consider a car self propelled? Would it move if no human ever had interaction with It? Of course a car is self propelled, even though you must apply pressure to the gas pedal. An ebike adds pedal assistance to pressure on the pedals. It will move both farther and faster using its own power. It IS self propelled.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


I agree, the semantics pisses everyone off. The reason that semantics is important is because you have to clearly distinguish what is legal and what is not. Otherwise, a zealous BLM manager might simply say that YOU are a motor, therefore, your bike is a motorized vehicle. Let's see... you are a self-contained, mechanical device stimulated by electrical charges and you create energy that is used by the bike for propulsion. The dictionary definition of motor is:



> a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for some other device with moving parts.


You could easily be interpreted as a motor. If that happened, I'm sure you'd be arguing about the legal definition of what a motor is.

As much as you may hate the semantics, you would hate the world more if the semantics weren't important.

*** Before any genius chimes in to declare that I have defined a human as a motor, I have not. I have used a broad interpretation of a word to demonstrate a point. (I hate that I even have to make such a disclaimer).


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Ok so what would you define as self propelled then? Everything uses some sort of human input, even if it is just to build it and turn it on. This is a ridiculous rabbit hole you are trying to lead us down. I'll try to break it down even simpler for you. Does the vehicle contain a power source? Does the vehicle use that power source, in conjunction with some sort of transmission to help drive itself forward? Does that power source and transmission result in movement above and beyond human input? It is self propelled.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Jim_bo said:


> I agree, the semantics pisses everyone off. The reason that semantics is important is because you have to clearly distinguish what is legal and what is not. Otherwise, a zealous BLM manager might simply say that YOU are a motor, therefore, your bike is a motorized vehicle.


Well, I disagree in the sense that semantics never piss me off


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Silentfoe said:


> Ok so what would you define as self propelled then? Everything uses some sort of human input, even if it is just to build it and turn it on. This is a ridiculous rabbit hole you are trying to lead us down.


Not sure that we need to address the world of "everything," but focusing on the ebikes or cars, like your example, human "input" is required. We can agree that the input is external. But is "input" the same as "propulsion" or "agency"?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Ok, so let's rein this back in. Would any agency define a car as a motorized vehicle because it is self propelled? Yes. They will, and are, defining an ebike as self propelled for the same reasons. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I don't even own an eBike. So you are wrong.
> 
> I don't want ANYTHING to be banned for arbitrary and capricious reasons. I think that even the most ardent opponent of my opinion would agree that there's not much difference as far as safety or impact to the environment between a conventional MTB and a class 1 eBike, so simply lumping them in with all other "motorized vehicles" was clearly done as an act of convenience rather than an attempt to create rational and reasonable regulation.


But let's look at it from another perspective. Why are we even discussing this? Because of marketing. Ebikes are nothing but battery powered mopeds. So that's not really something new, it's just changed from a gas powered motor to an electric motor with a rechargeable battery.

_So how can we sell a bunch? Marketing. 
_How? 
_Don't call them eMopeds. Mopeds have restrictions. Hey, bicycles aren't so restricted, let's call them bicycles!
_How can we convince anyone they are bicycles?
_Well, what if we remove the throttle and have the motor activated by pedaling?
_Sounds good! What else ya got?
_We'll probably have to restrict the speed to be more inline with bicycles.
_Uh, ok. Is that what people want?
_Not necessarily but it is what we'll need to do to get them regulated as bicycles.
_Oh, ok! Anything else?
_We'll call them "ebikes", just to hammer in the idea they are just bicycles.
_Anything else?
_We'll make them look as much like bicycles as possible, "stealth".
_Awesome! We're done here, wanna grab a beer?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Silentfoe said:


> Ok, so let's rein this back in. Would any agency define a car as a motorized vehicle because it is self propelled? Yes. They will, and are, defining an ebike as self propelled for the same reasons.


Yes, and No. They are defining a car as motor vehicle because it has a motor and it is self propelled. But they (in this case, the Forest Service) are defining the e-bike as a motor vehicle solely because it has a motor. That is expressly stated in their guidance.

Now...If you're really interested in peeling the onion a bit... Consider reading the legal cases I posted earlier. Read the appeals case (the one I posted first) then read the supreme court case (which I posted second). I think you may find the cases amusing and they may give you some insight into how lawyers and judges interpret statutes. If you do, and have any reaction to them, I'd love to hear your thoughts, but you can pm me if any questions you have if you like as well.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Again, I'm watching posters I commonly agree with work themselves into a frenzy over what they perceive to be pointless semantic niceties. They are not. That's the way the law works. IMO, Jim_bo and Agarcia are going out of their way to maintain a measured tone (so far) and the longtime posters who are usually the 'adults in the room' are spinning themselves up.

I work for a natural resource agency with the authority to compel people and entities to spend lots of money. Every determination we make has to be very clearly authorized by statute or rule or it will be challenged in court. I have a lot of experience referring to the actual text of the statute or rule to make sure our actions are legal, so I understand the point they're making. "What does the statute actually say?" The way that things are defined in statute or rule is most definitely significant because it determines applicability. 

I don't want to see Class I ebikes on our dense and busy MUT system. But to be fair, I'd also have a hard time arguing that they're self-propelled. I agree with AGarcia's point that MTB advocates who are concerned about them would be better off by understanding any potential weaknesses in the agency position, and advocating the agencies address them. Frankly, the MTB community needs to develop a better understanding of this across the board, because the wildlife advocates have that and use it. IME, the USFS is a lot more worried about litigation from wildlife groups than what MTB advocates have to say. That's because the former tends to have a lot of agency experience and a deep understanding of statute, rule, and policy. And they sue. Generally we don't, because we're trying to establish ourselves as good partners. But I'm wandering off-topic now.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

evasive said:


> ....I work for a natural resource agency with the authority to compel people and entities to spend lots of money. Every determination we make has to be very clearly authorized by statute or rule or it will be challenged in court.


Which could just as easily be a description of the Forest Service as well, no? I'm not saying they (or any other LMA) get everything right out of the gate, but the notion that they just arbitrarily come up with definitions like this, without a great deal of forethought and vetting in terms of precedent, or challenges and issues it may create down the road, is folly. they operate under the exact same pressures you describe, and for the very same reasons, need to be careful.



> I have a lot of experience referring to the actual text of the statute or rule to make sure our actions are legal, so I understand the point they're making.
> "What does the statute actually say?" The way that things are defined in statute or rule is most definitely significant because it determines applicability.


I don't see people not "getting" the point that Jim Bo/AGarcia are making, they/we are simply not agreeing with it. We believe that the FS has taken the proper interpretation in this case, and they explain their rationale in the Travel Management Rule. What Jim Bo and AGarcia are arguing is that the FS's interpretation "may" not hold up in court. That may or may not be true, but is also largely speculative.

Supporting the FS's current language seems very reasonable to me. Throwing in the simplistic monkeywrench argument of, "well that might not hold up in court if someone decides to challenge it" is something which could be said about many things.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Evasive, I like your points. And I would suggest that arguing over the definition of "self propelled" or what "motor" is has brought the whole discussion to the point of absurdity. We may as well be arguing about the number of angels that can dance of the head of a pin.

The real concern that we should have is that regulatory agencies make reasonable regulations based on tangible, rational data. So, whether the bans on class 1 eBikes is valid or not does nothing to address the big question.

Again, I have yet to see anyone make a rational argument against class 1 eBikes on MTB trails. Clearly the standards of "its got a motor, so its a motorized vehicle" is an argument of semantics used by those who despise semantics. So, what is the point of banning class 1 eBikes? They are typically on the same platform, with the same suspension, same wheels, same tires etc. as a conventional MTB. They just help out the rider. And who is the typical user of a class 1 MTB? I would say it is the wife who wants to ride with her experience husband, the person who has gotten too old to push a conventional bike, the person who has physical limitations, etc. I'm sure there are a couple crazies out there who like to light their hair on fire and ride class 1 eBikes, but I'd argue that they are statistical outliers.

I would so much rather the discussion be about rational reasoning for why class 1 eBikes should or should not be allowed on MTB trails instead of this incessant bickering about irrelevant crap.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> Evasive, I like your points. And I would suggest that arguing over the definition of "self propelled" or what "motor" is has brought the whole discussion to the point of absurdity. We may as well be arguing about the number of angels that can dance of the head of a pin.
> 
> The real concern that we should have is that regulatory agencies make reasonable regulations based on tangible, rational data. So, whether the bans on class 1 eBikes is valid or not does nothing to address the big question.
> 
> ...


The motor is a rational reason to ban them, that's what I suggest to local land managers.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Smithhammer said:


> Which could just as easily be a description of the Forest Service as well, no? I'm not saying they (or any other LMA) get everything right out of the gate, but the notion that they just arbitrarily come up with definitions like this, without a great deal of forethought and vetting in terms of precedent, or challenges and issues it may create down the road, is folly. they operate under the exact same pressures you describe, and for the very same reasons, need to be careful.


Yeah, but for the most part people don't sue over recreation. Most suits come from nonprofits farming the Equal Access to Justice Act or companies with resources and financial gains or losses on the line.

I'll be at Wydaho this weekend if you want to meet up over a beer. Look for the turquoise wheeled 5.5c.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

evasive said:


> I'll be at Wydaho this weekend if you want to meet up over a beer. Look for the turquoise wheeled 5.5c.


Love to. I'll be up there at some point, just not sure when yet. Look for the dork with the black/turquoise 5.5+


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

evasive said:


> I get that, and have no personal issue with the policy. But an information bulletin isn't law or rule. It provides information regarding how BLM interprets and implements law, rule, and policy.


If the bulletins identify anything form of transportation that is assisted with a motor as a "motorized vehicle" and the services use such bulletins to help them Interpret and enforce rules and laws and the law states "no motorized vehicles" no specific trails....

Do you see where I am going with this?

To try and argue that the verbiage in the bulletin is not law is being disingenuous.

Sorry been offline a few days, now I gotta go do some catch up reading.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Good luck

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> To try and argue that the verbiage in the bulletin is not law is being disingenuous.


It's not being disingenuous. It's legally accurate. That being said, I get that being legally accurate doesn't matter to most folks.

But seriously... calling out someone as disingenuous when you really haven't done the work or put in the time to understand the law....Is just not cool.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

well, this thread has gone way off the rails.... but at least everyone is playing nice and there have been no personal attacks.

Unfortunately the original intent of this thread has been killed off. I was thinking about making a new sticky similar to this one:
http://forums.mtbr.com/california-s...riding-guide-where-ride-rent-shop-938703.html

and maintaining a list of trails that officiall allow eBikes and ones that specifically do not.

Jim, Agarcia and Evasive.

Semantics aside, we can see from the repeated posts to links on USFS websites that the Forest Service clearly sees any bike with a motor in it as a motorized vehicle, and thus restrict said eBikes to specific OHV trails and roads. While you might be correct in that the law is not perfect in its definition, the intent from the NFS is very clear. eBikes are not allowed on NFS trails that restrict Motorized Vehicles. Personally I think that is crazy and they should allow Class 1 and Class 2 bikes on said trails, but that is not the case from everything I have read. You cannot honestly read those websites from the USFS and claim a different intent is meant.

I suggest you guys stop with the Hypotheticals and lawyer speak until a case actually is presented. Jim - I would be happy to work with you and the BLM, but I am not willing to make a trip to Las Vegas to do so. Just for pure research since you seem very interested in this, can you send the BLM a letter and get some sort of official response from them? There is no need to actually get a ticket unless you really want to. But maybe you are right, maybe someone does need to get cited and fight the citation and see what the results are, it would be very enlightening to everyone I am sure.

For now I am going to leave this thread up since the discussion has been civil.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> It's legally accurate.


Is it legally accurate to state the Motorized Vehicles are not allowed on specific non-OHV trails in the national forest?

Yes.

Do the USFS websites state clearly that they define any bike with a motor (throttle or pedal assisted) as a Motorized vehicle.

Yes.

Until you, or another attorney actually fight this in a court of law and win, that is the intent of the USFS.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Klurejr said:


> well, this thread has gone way off the rails.... but at least everyone is playing nice and there have been no personal attacks.
> 
> Unfortunately the original intent of this thread has been killed off. I was thinking about making a new sticky similar to this one:
> http://forums.mtbr.com/california-s...riding-guide-where-ride-rent-shop-938703.html
> ...


No, of course you can't, and nobody claims you can. The point of the discussion isn't what the USFS and BLM intend, it's what the wording in the statutes and rules allow.

Is it your intent to apply a similar rule to discussions about whether or not the Wilderness ban on bicycles is an appropriate interpretation of Congress's intent? That's an analogous discussion. I'm no ebike advocate, but I believe strongly in applying the same rules fairly across the board, and if I'm prepared to point out when something applies in my favor, I'm willing to admit when it works against me. Hypocrisy in any form drives me up a wall.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> Is it legally accurate to state the Motorized Vehicles are not allowed on specific non-OHV trails in the national forest?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...


I agree with you regarding USFS's intent. But this thread isn't about what the intentions of the USFS are. This thread is literally, about where it is legal and not legal to ride e-mtbs. Saying that the USFS intends to enforce something in a particular manner does not mean that their intentions are legally enforceable.

To that end, I think this thread hasn't drifted at all, insofar as that we are all still discussing where it is legal and where it is not legal to ride e-mtbs. Indeed isn't that the title of thread? But if you really don't like what I have to say, maybe you can edit the title of the thread to read "Where you can and cannot ride e-mtbs, based on the feelings of forum posters and the intentions of agencies" That might be more accurate and my trying to introduce some legal concepts into it could form a basis to the thread drift?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> well, this thread has gone way off the rails.... but at least everyone is playing nice and there have been no personal attacks.
> 
> Unfortunately the original intent of this thread has been killed off. I was thinking about making a new sticky similar to this one:
> http://forums.mtbr.com/california-s...riding-guide-where-ride-rent-shop-938703.html


It seems that I started a thread where all of this discussion would be right on topic, but you disagreed with the thesis and closed the thread and directed me to existing threads... so here we are.



> Jim, Agarcia and Evasive.
> 
> Semantics aside, we can see from the repeated posts to links on USFS websites that the Forest Service clearly sees any bike with a motor in it as a motorized vehicle, and thus restrict said eBikes to specific OHV trails and roads.


No... that's what you see.



> While you might be correct in that the law is not perfect in its definition, the intent from the NFS is very clear.


If you knew anything about the law, you would know that the intent of a law is only considered if the plain language is unclear. So, if you admit that the definition is not applicable, then you agree with me more than you realize.



> Personally I think that is crazy and they should allow Class 1 and Class 2 bikes on said trails, but that is not the case from everything I have read.


Then if you disagree with banning class 1 eBikes, why wouldn't you advocate that these bikes not be banned whether there is a legitimate current ban or not. You simply don't make any sense to me.



> You cannot honestly read those websites from the USFS and claim a different intent is meant.


You read different things between the lines than I do. You read a clear intent to implement a ban that you disagree with. I read the USFS and BLM don't really understand and haven't taken the time to understand the issue of eBikes. However, they have felt pressure to take a stand one way or the other on the issue, so they simply took the easy way out. They lumped class 1 and 2 eBikes in with dirt bikes and quads. It may be ridiculous, but it was easy for them.



> I suggest you guys stop with the Hypotheticals and lawyer speak until a case actually is presented.


Making a critical reading of the actual statutes is not a hypothetical. It is reading what is actually there. Pretending that a court would rule in favor of what the USFS was thinking rather than what they said is living in the world of hypothetical.



> Jim - I would be happy to work with you and the BLM, but I am not willing to make a trip to Las Vegas to do so. Just for pure research since you seem very interested in this, can you send the BLM a letter and get some sort of official response from them?


I'm not the advocate for eBikes. I'm the advocate for government accountability. I also believe that our community should not accept ANY new restrictions on access without push back. And I think that the push back should come from the community as a whole. I guess I was surprised that the eBike community is showing to be the biggest advocate for trail restrictions.



> There is no need to actually get a ticket unless you really want to. But maybe you are right, maybe someone does need to get cited and fight the citation and see what the results are, it would be very enlightening to everyone I am sure.


In order to challenge the legality of something, you must have standing to do so. I don't know of any other way to gain standing.



> For now I am going to leave this thread up since the discussion has been civil.


Well aren't you just generous?


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

AGarcia said:


> Define: "self-propelled." Then, please explain how an e-mtb, such as the new Pivot Shuttle is "self-propelled."


does it add to, or multiply by some fraction, the power needed to go forward by means
of an electric motor ? then some degree of self propulsion is in use.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Define solely human powered because i believe that's the definition being floated to circumvent all of the legal masturbation.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> No, I firmly believe Congress has vested in the forest service the right to regulate motorized vehicle use on forest lands. The "validity" in my mind is determined whether an e-bike is a "motorized vehicle" as defined by federal law. My contention is that the Forest Service goofed up when they said, generally, that "e-bikes have motors, therefore they are motorized vehicles under the law." That is inconsistent with federal statutes, which define motor vehicles.


It is my understanding, and I have yet to see anything to contradict it, but "motor vehicles" are defined at the federal level and at the state DOT level as a specfic class of vehicle, but it is not treated as interchangeable with "motorized vehicles" which are recognized as simply vehicles with motors. Each are treated differently. So, the USFS can accept the federal definition that ebikes are not "motor vehicles" but still consider them "motorized vehicles". My local Parks dept had the same issue, and it's not uncommon, that there are restrictions on one or the other.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> They are typically on the same platform, with the same suspension, same wheels, same tires etc. as a conventional MTB. They just help out the rider. And who is the typical user of a class 1 MTB? I would say it is the wife who wants to ride with her experience husband, the person who has gotten too old to push a conventional bike, the person who has physical limitations, etc. I'm sure there are a couple crazies out there who like to light their hair on fire and ride class 1 eBikes, but I'd argue that they are statistical outliers.


I'm afraid you misunderstand the market. The first wave are the old, slow and infirm, who just want assist. The second wave are the fit and fast, since ebikes enable you to go faster and farther. That's what has happened in Europe where the bikes are tame compared to what we have here. Since emtbs are brand spanking new here, the first wave are the majority of the current buyers, with the scond wave riders just starting to get interested. So, I think it's a mistake to make projections on the future impact based on a few old guys and their wives putting around 250w bikes, especially since the good stuff is yet to come.

I also speak from experience that even with everything else being equal, simply the fact that ebikes enable riders to travel twice the distance they would on a mtb has given the land managers I work with pause.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> It is my understanding, and I have yet to see anything to contradict it, but "motor vehicles" are defined at the federal level and at the state DOT level as a specfic class of vehicle, but it is not treated as interchangeable with "motorized vehicles" which are recognized as simply vehicles with motors. Each are treated differently. So, the USFS can accept the federal definition that ebikes are not "motor vehicles" but still consider them "motorized vehicles". My local Parks dept had the same issue, and it's not uncommon, that there are restrictions on one or the other.


I think you are correct. The terms are not interchangeable. And indeed, when you look to the USFS Travel Management Rules, they use the term Motor Vehicles as well, and define motor vehicles as "any vehicle which is self propelled...". And then in the 2016 guidance letter go on to say that an e-bike has a "motor" and is therefore "self-propelled."

It is my error in using the term "motorized" vehicles interchangeably.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> I also speak from experience that even with everything else being equal, simply the fact that ebikes enable riders to travel twice the distance they would on a mtb has given the land managers I work with pause.


Curious, do trail runners who can cover significantly more distance on trails than walkers also give them pause? Or is there something more particular about bikes or e-mtbs that gives them pause?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

127.0.0.1 said:


> does it add to, or multiply by some fraction, the power needed to go forward by means
> of an electric motor ? then some degree of self propulsion is in use.


I certainly think there is a form of assisted propulsion. When the human pedaling stops, however, the assisted propulsion also stops. The Pivot can't propel itself on its own or by just hitting a switch. Pedal strokes have to be in the mix for the e-mtb to be propelled.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

AGarcia said:


> Curious, do trail runners who can cover significantly more distance on trails than walkers also give them pause? Or is there something more particular about bikes or e-mtbs that gives them pause?


This needs to be explored. When Judge Molloy ruled on the Gallatin Crest travel issue, he cited opportunities for solitude and travel speeds of bike degrading that. Trail runners didn't come up.

http://dirtragmag.com/mountain-biking-ruins-solitude-for-others/


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

evasive said:


> This needs to be explored. When Judge Molloy ruled on the Gallatin Crest travel issue, he cited opportunities for solitude and travel speeds of bike degrading that. Trail runners didn't come up.
> 
> Mountain Biking Ruins Solitude for Others? - Dirt Rag


Interesting. Thanks I'll take a look!


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> No... that's what you see.


I see that because that is what is posted:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ochoco/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD518315









I think that US Forest Service Page is very clear as to how they define an eBike and very clear that they are not permitted on MUT.

I have to point out at this point that the average person who looks at that website trying to find guidance on what is and is not allowed in the National Forest, in this case Ochoco National Forest, is going to conclude that eBikes of any sort are not allowed on MUT, but they are allowed other places. This webpage is not obtuse or unclear in any way.

Please stop making up hypothetical arguments that what is plainly written in black and white is somehow not written that way. You are starting to look foolish.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> I see that because that is what is posted:
> 
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ochoco/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD518315
> 
> ...


I can see why you think that, because many of us humans are accustomed to believing what we read, in particular if it's on the internet.

Note that it says "Under the Forest Service's national Travel Management Rule, E-bikes are classified as self-propelled vehicles. Read that very clearly, and then I encourage you try to find within the TMRs where e-bikes are properly classified as self-propelled motor vehicles.

Again, asserting "policies" and "intentions" is not the same as asserting legal authority. And this thread is about what is legal. Or at least that what the header of the thread suggests its supposed to be about.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

If this was the approach mountain bikers took bitd, we wouldn't be riding half the places we are now.


----------



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

Good lord, it isn't hard to understand why the legal field is so universally despised. Common sense has no meaning or value in that arena.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> If this was the approach mountain bikers took bitd, we wouldn't be riding half the places we are now.


I'm a mountain biker.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Good lord, it isn't hard to understand why the legal field is so universally despised.


Well, if you needed one, and I was yours, you'ed love me. Your enemies might despise me, but you'ed love me.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

AGarcia said:


> I'm a mountain biker.


That's disputable.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> That's disputable.


Nope. Try again.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> Curious, do trail runners who can cover significantly more distance on trails than walkers also give them pause? Or is there something more particular about bikes or e-mtbs that gives them pause?


If hikers started wearing powered shoes that allowed them to cover twice the distance as they otherwise would, they'd have the same concerns regarding increased trail maintenance. Every user has an impact on the trails, trails start changing the second you let people on them. Their concerns with ebikes are higher speeds and greater impact, both of which exist with current emtbs. Neither one are unmanageable, but there hasn't been any interest in providing solutions, and they don't have the resources themselves, so the easiest route for them is to not allow them.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> Every user has an impact on the trails, trails start changing the second you let people on them. Their concerns with ebikes are higher speeds and greater impact, both of which exist with current emtbs. Neither one are unmanageable, but there hasn't been any interest in providing solutions, and they don't have the resources themselves, so the easiest route for them is to not allow them.


Disregarding the point about the powered shoes, for now. But who ho knows where technology will go next?

As for higher speeds and greater impact, certainly many "fit" folks can-out pedal e-mtbs uphill, given that at least the e-mtbs I've ridden have speed limiters. And speeds are the same downhill, which is what I imagine really matters if you're talking about environmental impacts. But maybe folks have really done conclusive studies to determine all this?

Anyway, in the absence of resources, and at least perceived incremental damage, I can see why they believe the easiest route is not to allow it. It doesn't make it valid, from a legal standpoint. But I understand it.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> I'm a mountain biker.


Then you should appreciate what it took to build the relationships that allow us the wide access we enjoy now. I don't know your familiarity with trail and access advocacy, but barging in with a list of demands typically doesn't fly all that well IME. Not saying you don't have some sort of convoluted lawyer point along with some other solid points, just saying you may be approaching things the wrong way.


----------



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

AGarcia said:


> Well, if you needed one, and I was yours, you'ed love me. Your enemies might despise me, but you'ed love me.


That's possible. People of your profession are sometimes a necessary evil in this litigious society we live in, which is a crying shame IMHO.

I'm not convinced that you're an actual attorney though. Maybe you are.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> Disregarding the point about the powered shoes, for now. But who ho knows where technology will go next?
> 
> As for higher speeds and greater impact, certainly many "fit" folks can-out pedal e-mtbs uphill, given that at least the e-mtbs I've ridden have speed limiters. And speeds are the same downhill, which is what I imagine really matters if you're talking about environmental impacts. But maybe folks have really done conclusive studies to determine all this?
> 
> Anyway, in the absence of resources, and at least perceived incremental damage, I can see why they believe the easiest route is not to allow it. It doesn't make it valid, from a legal standpoint. But I understand it.


Sure, there's the 1% of the riding population that can out climb the average rider on an emtb on a 20 minute climb, but if 25% or as people like to tout that in Europe, 50% of your riders are now climbing that fast and twice as far, it begins to matter. Two laps instead of one? It matters. Unless there's hardly any users at all, then it doesn't.

I'm not sure why you don't think it's valid legally? Land managers can decide any use is appropriate or inappropriate, and get the code written to back it up. It's not like the public has the legal right to pursue any activity they'd like on public land regardless of the regulations.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

AGarcia said:


> Well, if you needed one, and I was yours, you'ed love me. Your enemies might despise me, but you'ed love me.


Doubtful. I've been around your ilk enough to barely manage tolerance, no matter what useful service you may provide.

But it begs the question - who are you working for in this case?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> Then you should appreciate what it took to build the relationships that allow us the wide access we enjoy now. I don't know your familiarity with trail and access advocacy, but barging in with a list of demands typically doesn't fly all that well IME. Not saying you don't have some sort of convoluted lawyer point along with some other solid points, just saying you may be approaching things the wrong way.


Interesting.

Yes, I appreciate what it takes to relationships and the struggle for access. My day job includes being an advocate for my company in the areas of natural resources and land use. So I get the long and arduous efforts it takes to work with agencies and interest groups, in particular when the interests of those groups are not obviously or apparently in line with those of my company (sometimes what I then have to do address how the interests are in fact aligned, or at least could be). I understand trail advocacy. I understand it well.

I personally don't perceive e-mtbs as the threat to access like you or other trail advocates do. But I understand you and other advocates have generally fought hard against the likes of hikers, horse owners and others in battles over trail access. And those folks lump bikes with motorcycles. So an e-mtb starts feeling more like a motorcycle. I get all of that.

But... How am I barging in with a list of demands? All I am doing is pointing out how policy and intention to restrict e-bike access may not be supported by the legal underpinnings. On a internet forum, of all places.

As an advocate yourself, you can use that information if you choose to. If your fear is losing access for yourself and the rest of us mtb'ers, then maybe you can take note of the flaws yourself and advise agencies to consider tightening up the regulations (provided they can do so within their statutory authority). I can pretty much assure you, if no one on your side does anything, the pro e-mtb forces eventually will. You've already seen folks work on legislation here in California and other states on standard e-bikes. They're coming eventually. And trust me, as clever as I am, the flaws in the legal position is something any other good lawyer can figure out by reading the statutes and the TMRs.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Smithhammer said:


> Doubtful. I've been around your ilk enough to barely manage tolerance, no matter what useful service you may provide.
> 
> But it begs the question - who are you working for in this case?


Ouch...

And which case?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> That's possible. People of your profession are sometimes a necessary evil in this litigious society we live in, which is a crying shame IMHO.
> 
> I'm not convinced that you're an actual attorney though. Maybe you are.


Well... If it's any consolation, I'm a lover, not a fighter...Which is to say I'm no litigator. Some attorneys do other things beside litigate. And I may not even be an attorney at all. This is the internet after all.

But as always, I'm not offering legal advice. I'm not your attorney or anyone else's attorney on this form. As always with anything I say, YMMV.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

And to be clear, I am not suggesting or encouraging anyone go out and defy the policies of Forest Service, BLM, the County of Orange or any other agency. Under no circumstances am I suggesting that. Not even jokingly. There can be real consequences to that, regardless of what may be perceived as dubious legal underpinnings.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> I'm not sure why you don't think it's valid legally? Land managers can decide any use is appropriate or inappropriate, and get the code written to back it up. It's not like the public has the legal right to pursue any activity they'd like on public land regardless of the regulations.


I agree that the public does not have the legal right to pursue any activity the like on public land regardless of regulations. I also agree that Land Managers have certain latitude to manage land, all within the boundaries of the rules and statutes. And those Land Managers can write, or have written on their behalf, regulations to match their management goals. But the regulations, as written, have to be consistent with relevant statutes and applicable federal law. My point is that doesn't appear to have happened, in spite of what the letters, what the TMRs say or what their website says. I'm not suggesting it can't happen or that it won't happen. Only that it appears it hasn't happened....yet.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

While I understand the need for properly written laws, there will always be loopholes. And just hiring more and more lawyers to write more and more lawyerspeak to try to plug those holes does not seem like a good use of resources. Look at all the terms of use for software and websites. I'm sure there is needed and worthwhile stuff in there, but who actually reads it before agreeing to it (I probably read a lot more than most)?

I'm just waiting for the lawsuit that says "yes, he signed the terms of use but the evidence shows that no one reads that stuff and even if he had, he would not have understood it; therefore it is invalid".


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> But... How am I barging in with a list of demands? All I am doing is pointing out how policy and intention to restrict e-bike access may not be supported by the legal underpinnings.


More of a collective 'you', as in e-bikers in general. 
There seems to be a lot more cases of e-bikers demanding immediate and unfettered access to trails and trying to nitpick loopholes than any sort of groups appearing along the lines of NEMBA, IMBA, etc who try a more positive and collaborative approach with the 'powers that be'.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> They're coming eventually.


Well, not so much in this corner of the country.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

This thread has really gotten to be monotonous and absurd. Let's take a quick inventory of the events:

1. Jim_bo and AGarcia in two separate threads, independently of each other, read the actual statutes and come to the conclusion that while it may have been the intent of the regulatory agencies to enact a draconian wide sweep banning all eBikes from non-motorized vehicle trails, the statutes simply do not support their intent.

2. Jim_bo and AGarcia point this out in a forum that one would think is a pro-eBike forum and both are ridiculed, berated and chastised by posters and moderators.

3. Focus quickly boils down to the definition of motorized vehicle. The overwhelming majority of the "pro-ban" group seem to chant the mantra, "it has a motor, so it's a motorized vehicle!" This seems to be the sticking point that most people can't see past, or refuse to see past.

4. The ridiculous analogy is made, "what if I tape a 5V computer cooling fan to my handlebars? It is a motor and it would contribute to propulsion. Is this bike now a 'motorized vehicle' as an eBike would be?" While the analogy may seem absurd, it is just as reasonable as saying a class 1 eBike is a motorized vehicle deserving the same regulation as a 450cc dirt bike. But there is little/no discussion on this as it seems to stymie the arguments of the pro-ban group. This argument is inconvenient, so it is ignored.

5. There was the absurd question asked, "how do you argue that YOU are not a motor on your mountain bike making all mountain bikes motorized vehicles?" A human seems to fit the dictionary definition of the word "motor" and I don't know that there is a legal definition. While it is absurd, it should cause one to think. However, again, this argument is inconvenient to the simplistic perspectives of the pro-ban crowd, so it is ignored.

6. Examples are given concerning mandatory recycling services and speeding tickets where government had convinced the majority of the people that the law was something that it was not. Many people were negatively impacted by the government misinterpretations of their own laws until they were challenged. Once challenged, they were forced to comply with the actual law, not the perceived law. As a result, recycling services became optional, all outstanding speeding tickets were dismissed and the speed limit was raised to a legal level. But these examples of how enforcement agencies overstep the bounds laid by legislative bodies don't seem to impress the pro-ban crowd. It is inconvenient for their argument so they simply choose to ignore it.

7. A case that is directly on point was given where it was challenged that an airplane is not a "motor vehicle" (sounds familiar?). Enforcement agencies simply assumed that an airplane was a motor vehicle and they even successfully convinced a court of the same. However, when taken to the highest court, the truth was that an airplane was NOT a motor vehicle as per the legal definition of a motor vehicle. So, there is clear, on point precedence which shows that common usage does not equate to legal sufficiency. But again, this point is inconvenient to the pro-ban crowd, so it too is ignored.

8. The pro-ban crowd seems to focus on the "it has a motor, so it's a motor vehicle" argument. They refuse to accept that a class 1 eBike is NOT self propelled because one must pedal the bike for the motor to assist. They then make the absurd argument, "well then, a car is not self propelled because one must press the gas pedal". But they miss the obvious distinction: on a class 1 eBike, one must provide propulsion through pedaling and the motor simply assists. In a car, the gas pedal is merely a control and provides no propulsion. The motor provides 100% of the propulsion. Therefore, 100% propulsion by the motor equates to "self-propelled". But this is not a convenient point to make, so the pro-ban people simply avoid it.

9. Jim_bo points out how the arguments has become ridiculous and it focuses on the irrelevant. The important issue to be discussed is, "what is the rationale for banning class 1 eBikes from MTB trails and is that rationale reasonable"? Well, there have been many pro-ban people that have openly stated that class 1 eBikes should NOT be allowed on MTB trails, but they completely avoid the question "why not?" Instead, they run back to their favorite argument: "it has a motor! It is a motorized vehicle!" Again, the inconvenient points are ignored and the irrelevant minutia is repeated over and over.

10. In the rare instances where the pro-ban group strays from their home argument, they begin to throw out metrics based arguments like "an eBike can be ridden twice as far as a conventional MTB, so therefore, there is twice the impact to the environment". While I appreciate that is at least an attempt to rationalize why class 1 eBikes should be banned, it simply holds no weight. This argument assumes WAY too many things: amount of miles ridden by ebikes vs MTBs; impact or benefit to the environment from additional miles; does additional range capabilities mean more people will ride further out trails and reduce usage density on the trails close to the trailheads; etc. Again, while it is an overly simplistic attempt, it is at least an attempt. However, as predicted, that line of reasoning does not last long before the conversation steers back to the motorized vehicle argument. 



So we are missing the big picture here. Whether or not current regulations ban class 1 Ebikes is irrelevant. The focus should be on the rationale for any regulation. That is the point we should be debating as a community and our representative groups should be lobbying the regulatory agencies based on these discussions... not based on whether an eBike is a motorized vehicle or not.



So, this is not truly a discussion or debate. This is more akin to an argument with 2nd grader where the best opposing perspective that can be expected is, "nah-uh..." It has no end because one side is blind to everything except that which they want to see. I don't want to speak for AGarcia, but I know for sure that if anyone showed me a legal definition that clearly defined a class 1 eBike as a "motorized vehicle", I would concede readily. If anyone provided evidence of a study where class 1 eBikes created an unacceptable environmental impact or safety hazard, I'd concede readily. But despite the convincing arguments made by Jim_bo and AGarcia, the best we have gotten in return is: "Nah-uh."


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

11. Jim-bo is rambling again.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> ..........This argument is absurd, so it is ignored.


^fify a 5v computer fan would contribute no measurable assistance to propulsion and the fact that it might be technically illegal is irrelevant because it's a non-issue.

I agree that this isn't a civil debate but it's difficult to discuss rationally when the focus seems to be on technicalities, loopholes, semantics and mudslinging instead of common sense or understanding. Invalidating and disregarding the concerns of existing trail users is not a good way to start a meaningful conversation.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> So we are missing the big picture here. Whether or not current regulations ban class 1 Ebikes is irrelevant.


Ummmm...maybe you want to look at the title of this thread.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

# 11, Yikes. E bikes are motorized. It has a motor. Anyone care to argue that go sign up with the earth is flat group. It's not about legal loopholes or wording semantics. What ever agency in charge of the land/trail usage makes the rules. That's it. No ebikes. So clear. Just like where you can hike, ride a motorcycle or a jeep. Going to discuss the legalities of " hiking" ? The argument of why class 1 E bikes should or should not be banned? See also, motorized vehicle. How do you tell a 250, 750, 2,000 watt bike apart? You can't. 4,000, 6,000 watt? Where does it stop? After all the good ole USA has had a 100 + year obsession with the need for speed, bigger, faster, louder and all things motorized. Nascar is THE biggest sport in America. Got a hemi? As for community? Just don't think you will get broad support from the mt bike community. E bikes are not bikes and need to be treated differently. Go advocate, legislate, get involved. That"s what the mt bike community has done, good luck. You have come to an ebike forum on a mt bike site. Not a pro e bike forum. FYI. You all need to stand on your own merit. Or get a ticket and go to court. Tying up money, resources, time, etc with what ever agency you are trying to get access? Hmmm. So lots of places ban motorized vehicles, why is that? Bad manners, excessive speed, noise, trail courtesy etc. It is up to the e bike crowd to prove otherwise. What are you doing to make your case? Building trails? Showing up on trail work days? Being a good steward and responsible trail user? It is never this is how it should be, it's not fair. Start with, these are the current regulations in place here and now. How does one change them? Ask 100 random people if my e bike has a motor, is it a motorized vehicle? Get past the facts here and stop trying to twist semantics. Best of luck, really. Not going to make much headway here in MA anyway. Bike shops and makers aren't doing you any favors.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

leeboh said:


> .....Being a good steward and responsible trail user?.....Bike shops and makers aren't doing you any favors.


It's hard to have empathy when you continuously ride them in places where they are not allowed.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Oh wow Klurejr; could you please ban a couple of these BS artists and get the tread back on track by deleting all that is not physically relevant. (Real park systems with real regulations) This conceptual discourse is already being discussed in many other threads.

PM sent.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

OP Where you can & cannot legally ride E-mtbs This is a very good question I know two places that used to be No e bikes allowed the bike path and our local Mt bike park, but now there is two e bike only shops that rent them ! with the city's blessing . And our Mt bike park I was able to work with both the local Mt bike club and the city's park dept to allow e bikes mainly mine as we have yet to see another e bike using the trails its been a very positive experience for everyone .


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Moe Ped said:


> Oh wow Klurejr; could you please ban a couple of these BS artists and get the tread back on track by deleting all that is not physically relevant. (Real park systems with real regulations) This conceptual discourse is already being discussed in many other threads.
> 
> PM sent.


Golf clap.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Moe Ped said:


> Oh wow Klurejr; could you please ban a couple of these BS artists and get the tread back on track by deleting all that is not physically relevant.


Yes!! Burn the witches!! Burn them all for their heresy!!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

AGarcia said:


> Yes!! Burn the witches!! Burn them all for their heresy!!
> 
> View attachment 1155386


Remember, when you want to play the Martyr that Martyrdom isn't conditional.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> Remember, when you want to play the Martyr that Martyrdom isn't conditional.


I'm no martyr. I'm laughing at you.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

AGarcia said:


> I'm no martyr. I'm laughing at you.


Meh, while you're carping about how you might do something about access I am doing something. Remember that when you're excluded from the prime riding areas of this nation.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

rider95 said:


> OP Where you can & cannot legally ride E-mtbs This is a very good question I know two places that used to be No e bikes allowed the bike path and our local Mt bike park, but now there is two e bike only shops that rent them ! with the city's blessing . And our Mt bike park I was able to work with both the local Mt bike club and the city's park dept to allow e bikes mainly mine as we have yet to see another e bike using the trails its been a very positive experience for everyone .


Mabey you have something witte and smarta## comment about the OP life be hind ??


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> Meh, while you're carping about how you might do something about access I am doing something. Remember that when you're excluded from the prime riding areas of this nation.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

*every thread™*


----------

