# US forest service official stance on e-bikes on trails



## rev106 (Jul 9, 2009)

See the attached files. E-bikes not allowed on any trails where motorized vehicles are excluded. E-bikes are considered motorized vehicles.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Was this ever in question? Both the USFS and BLM have had that stance for a few years now.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Just common sense.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Thankfully we still have these places.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter. Under the letter, e-bikes that are throttle operated or can otherwise be operated without pedal assist, fall within the definition. Pedal-assist bikes, which are not self-propelled, are not "ebikes" under the definition set forth in the statute.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

AGarcia said:


> Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter. Under the letter, e-bikes that are throttle operated or can otherwise be operated without pedal assist, fall within the definition. Pedal-assist bikes, which are not self-propelled, are not "ebikes" under the definition set forth in the statute.


Good luck with that in Federal Court, I'm sure the Judge will be thoroughly impressed with your knowledge of federal law.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter. Under the letter, e-bikes that are throttle operated or can otherwise be operated without pedal assist, fall within the definition. Pedal-assist bikes, which are not self-propelled, are not "ebikes" under the definition set forth in the statute.


Read it again. Actually, I don't think you've read it yet.


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter. Under the letter, e-bikes that are throttle operated or can otherwise be operated without pedal assist, fall within the definition. Pedal-assist bikes, which are not self-propelled, are not "ebikes" under the definition set forth in the statute.


That's not how the statement reads. According to the USFS, if it has a battery, it's motorized (assuming the document is authentic).


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> Good luck with that in Federal Court, I'm sure the Judge will be thoroughly impressed with your knowledge of federal law.


I'm sure a judge would, given that I am a lawyer...


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> Good luck with that in Federal Court, I'm sure the Judge will be thoroughly impressed with your knowledge of federal law.





Pisgah said:


> That's not how the statement reads. According to the USFS, if it has a battery, it's motorized (assuming the document is authentic).


Read the definition...no mention of battery in the definition of "motorized vehicle."


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

AGarcia said:


> Read the definition...no mention of battery in the definition of "motorized vehicle."


Well, you can be the test monkey then since you're so sure.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> I'm sure a judge would, given that I am a lawyer...


Well, you are certainly acting like one. There is a reason lawyers are some of the most disliked people, I believe even more than used car salesmen from what I've read. Don't you have an ambulance to chase?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> Well, you can be the test monkey then since you're so sure.


I'd have no problem with that....


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

AGarcia said:


> I'd have no problem with that.... I am that sure.


When can we expect to see you in the news?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

chazpat said:


> Well, you are certainly acting like one. There is a reason lawyers are some of the most disliked people, I believe even more than used car salesmen from what I've read. Don't you have an ambulance to chase?


You mean "acting like one" because of my reading comprehension? Or by understanding what laws and regulations actually say? If that's what you mean by "acting like one", I'll take it.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> When can we expect to see you in the news?


Well, heck... I was gonna take out my standard mtb for tonight's ride...But all this talk is making me want to take out the Levo instead! I'll think of ya'll while I'm riding!


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

And by the way.... to anyone reading this string... I'm not YOUR lawyer, and the aforementioned statements are not meant as legal advice.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

AGarcia said:


> Well, heck... I was gonna take out my standard mtb for tonight's ride...But all this talk is making me want to take out the Levo instead! I'll think of ya'll while I'm riding!


Wouldn't want to strain yourself. When are you going to be in the news in your civil disobedience experiment?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Common man, commit.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Fixing to set back emotorbikes 20 years.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> Wouldn't want to strain yourself. When are you going to be in the news in your civil disobedience experiment?


Hahaha! Honestly, I don't get all the hate for the pedal-assist bikes. But hey, I don't get a lot of things.. so it's all good.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> You mean "acting like one" because of my reading comprehension? Or by understanding what laws and regulations actually say? If that's what you mean by "acting like one", I'll take it.


By your way of ignoring what something says and trying to twist it to say what you want it to say and thinking you have some brilliant argument to prove your "case".


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

chazpat said:


> By your way of ignoring what something says and trying to twist it to say what you want it to say and thinking you have some brilliant argument to prove your "case".


I'm certainly not ignoring what the regulations say. I'm disregarding a particular interpretation. It's not brilliant argument, and it's not my case. I'm simply reading the regulations, is all. But as I said, I'm not your lawyer, or anyone's lawyer here. I'm just "a lawyer." You can choose to read it and have it mean whatever you would like.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> Hahaha! Honestly, I don't get all the hate for the pedal-assist bikes. But hey, I don't get a lot of things.. so it's all good.


The shame is, guys like you are what generates the hate for pedal-assist bikes with your "it's not really a motor so I can ride wherever I want" attitude. I feel sorry for legitimate eBikers who just want to ride their bikes where motorized vehicles are allowed.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

The Mall in D.C. would be a great venue for you to put this to a test.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> I'm certainly not ignoring what the regulations say. I'm disregarding a particular interpretation. It's not brilliant argument, and it's not my case. I'm simply reading the regulations, is all. But as I said, I'm not your lawyer, or anyone's lawyer here. I'm just "a lawyer." You can choose to read it and have it mean whatever you would like.


So yes or no, does a pedal assist eBike have a motor?

I'll be in my local NFS headquarters next week and I'll ask for clarification for you.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

chazpat said:


> The shame is, guys like you are what generates the hate for pedal-assist bikes with your "it's not really a motor so I can ride wherever I want" attitude. I feel sorry for legitimate eBikers who just want to ride their bikes where motorized vehicles are allowed.


I never said "it's not really a motor." And I didn't say I can ride it wherever I want. I reiterated the definition...of a "motor vehicle" as per the definition, is literally a "self-propelled" vehicle. Pedal assist bikes are not "self-propelled."


----------



## Willy Fister (Nov 7, 2016)

AGarcia said:


> Well, heck... I was gonna take out my standard mtb for tonight's ride...But all this talk is making me want to take out the Levo instead! I'll think of ya'll while I'm riding!


You are a great example of why lawyers are perfect for ebikes.

poster child for how ebikes should be treated!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

oops, double post


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> I never said "it's not really a motor." And I didn't say I can ride it wherever I want. I reiterated the definition...of a "motor vehicle" as per the definition, is literally a "self-propelled" vehicle. Pedal assist bikes are not "self-propelled."


"Ebikes have a motor, thereby are self propelled"


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Maybe he's a mediocre lawyer?


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

The FS memo is clearly using the term ebike in the spirit of what most people think of when referring to an ebike, i.e. a pedal assist bike with a motor. The authors are also mistakenly using the term self propelled to describe the pedal assist aspect of ebikes. The FS will have to rework this to avoid any confusion going forward.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

AGarcia said:


> Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter. Under the letter, e-bikes that are throttle operated or can otherwise be operated without pedal assist, fall within the definition. Pedal-assist bikes, which are not self-propelled, are not "ebikes" under the definition set forth in the statute.


Good argument. By that logic, motos aren't self-propelled either, since you need to use your wrist to turn the throttle. And jeeps - you must press the gas pedal. So I guess they should all be allowed too.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

chazpat said:


> "Ebikes have a motor, thereby are self propelled"


The regulations generally prohibit "motor vehicles" from using the trails. The regulations then define "motor vehicles" to mean vehicles that are "self propelled."

The letter author asserts that having a motor makes a vehicle "self-propelled" But the letter author makes that assertion without citing to a definition of "self-propelled." The CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) cited by the letter author do not contain the definition of "self-propelled" as far as I am aware.

In the absence of a regulatory definition, one can appropriately look to common usage of the term "self-propelled." For example, Miriam Webster (an often used dictionary) contains an applicable definition: self-propelled = "containing within itself the means for its own propulsion." Pedal-assited bikes do not "contain within itself the means for its own propulsion" = Not "self-propelled."

Now, maybe other sections of the CFRs (Code of Federal Regulations) have a definition for "self-propelled" that I am not aware of. It's certainly possible. But the letter author doesn't cite to the definition. Absent a citation to the contrary, the author's definition of "self-propelled" is, in my estimation, inconsistent with its common usage and inconsistent with trusted literary sources.

Also, I'm not suggesting that the regs couldn't be changed to make clear that pedal-assisted bikes are prohibited, if that is what the USFS wanted. I'm only asserting that the rationale set forth in the letter doesn't hold water in my estimation. Further, I'm very certain that regardless of my view, the USFS can always enforce laws as they interpret them. And regular citizens like you and I can challenge those determinations if so desired (provided one has legal standing to do so).

But,as with anything on the internet, ymmv.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

AGarcia said:


> In the absence of a regulatory definition, it is considered appropriate to look to common usage of the term. Miriam Webster (an often used dictionary) contains an applicable definition: self-propelled = "containing within itself the means for its own propulsion." Pedal-assited bikes do not "contain within itself the means for its own propulsion" = Not "self-propelled."


And if we go with your interpretation, motos aren't self-propelled either, they are 'wrist assisted'. Jeeps are 'calf/foot assisted'.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> Maybe he's a mediocre lawyer?


I might be.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Procter said:


> And if we go with your interpretation, motos aren't self-propelled either, they are 'wrist assisted'. Jeeps are 'calf/foot assisted'.


Ahh... the slippery slope argument. Yes. You might be right.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Mookie said:


> The FS memo is clearly using the term ebike in the spirit of what most people think of when referring to an ebike, i.e. a pedal assist bike with a motor. The authors are also mistakenly using the term self propelled to describe the pedal assist aspect of ebikes. The FS will have to rework this to avoid any confusion going forward.


From my perspective, I disagree the author is "clearly" using the term e-bike to mean a pedal assist bike in the spirit those of us on this board perceive it. But I agree it's certainly possible and maybe even probable that the author meant e-bikes in the form of pedal assist bikes. And I also agree that if that's what they meant, the author would have to rework their guidance.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

AGarcia said:


> Ahh... the slippery slope argument. Yes. You might be right.


I'm not sure if you're really agreeing with me or being sarcastic.

If you think I'm making a spurious argument, draw the line then - what objective, quantifiable, legally unambiguous criteria differentiates between a motor which actuates when you pedal, vs. a motor which actuates when you twist a throttle with your wrist?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Procter said:


> Draw the line then - what objective, quantifiable, legally unambiguous criteria differentiates between a motor which actuates when you pedal, vs. a motor which actuates when you twist a throttle with your wrist?


No, I wasn't being sarcastic at all (indeed, I'm hoping to have meaningful conversation, and you seemed willing to particiate). I don't think it's spurious at all.

I don't think it would be too hard do in the regs. Indeed, you and I could certainly put our heads together do it ourselves.

But focusing on that may obfuscate the real issue, in my estimation...

Now, humor me here, please.... and give this some thought: The letter author basically says e-bikes have a motor, and because they have a motor, they are by definition "self-propelled." and because they are self-proplled, they are motor vehicles. Essentially, what the letter author's logic leads one to conclude is anything with a motor must be a motor vehicle. That we can agree on, correct?

But..... if the regulation author really meant what the letter author asserts, then why didn't the regulation author simply define a "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle with a motor, period"? That would have been so easy, direct and clearly support the letter author's point. Why did the regulation author go and use the term "self-propelled"?

Standard legal interpretation requires that the words be given meaning: We can't ignore the use of the term "self-propelled" as the letter author, effectively, does. And one has to assume (legally, in the absence of contrary evidence) that the regulation author wouldn't include words within the regulation that are essentially meaningless. So, "self-propelled" has to mean something beyond "a motor" in this context. Indeed, the structural definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth the regulations precludes such an interpretation. One can't simply conlcude, as the letter author does, "if it has a motor, it's a motor vehicle." The regulation author could have done that, but, for whatever reason, chose not to.

Look, I understand folks don't like e-bikes. And folks here are certainly entitled to call me a d-bag or whatever. I'm probably all of that, to be honest. It's all good. But I'm always up for discussion!


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Procter said:


> If you think I'm making a spurious argument, draw the line then - what objective, quantifiable, legally unambiguous criteria differentiates between a motor which actuates when you pedal, vs. a motor which actuates when you twist a throttle with your wrist?


And to follow up here's an example of a more objective, quantifiable and (relatively) unambiguous definition for "pedal assist" bikes found in the federal Consumer Protection Safety Act:'' For the purpose of this section, the term 'low-speed electric bicycle' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph."


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

And that is the problem with lawyers in the US. You have to hire a lawyer to try to plug every single possible way another vulture, I mean lawyer, could possibly find to claim a loophole in what you are trying to do. They just create more work for themselves without adding any benefit to the general population. Just like all the class action lawsuits where in the end, the corporation pays a huge fine, which is then almost all taken by the lawyers, and then the corporation raises their prices to cover the cost and the consumers who were supposedly being harmed end up paying more.

Yes, I do realize that there are good lawyers, some are friends of mine.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> And to follow up here's an example of a more objective, quantifiable and (relatively) unambiguous * definition for "pedal assist" bikes * found in the federal Consumer Protection Safety Act:'' For the purpose of this section, the term 'low-speed electric bicycle' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), * whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor * while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph."


Sure sounds like self-propelled to me.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Well, what else can I say? Maybe I'm truly mediocore, as stated above. And maybe I am wrong. Carry on.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

AGarcia said:


> Well, what else can I say? Maybe I'm truly mediocore, as stated above. And maybe I am wrong. Carry on.


You did insinuate that you were going to be the test case, when may we expect to see this in the news?


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

Somebody better call Saul and get this sorted out.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

You could get some sympathy from me (and even support) by saying something like "well, hey, trail X is wide open, has no hikers, and is directional. It's crazy that I can't ride an e-bike on it, it wouldn't hurt anything. Let's let the local land managers/local riders make the calls!" 

There is the concern that full on moto riders will use the same argument in places, of course (and in fact they have, unsuccessfully, many times). But that's another issue. 

The "it's really a bike so I'll do whatever I want" thing is going to just get bans expanded, however. It turns people off who would otherwise be neutral or even friendly to e-bikes and makes you seem like a jerk. Nobody likes loophole-jumpers (assuming there is actually some kind of loophole here, I'm not very interested in the semantics of the letter). 

Advocate for common sense trail access (where it makes sense) and drop the lawyer schtick. You're doing your future self no access favors. 

-Walt


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Why is this so hard to understand eBikes have motors that generate forward motion. They are motorized. Those motors maybe measured in the hundreds of Watts vs tens of HP and they may only work when you move your feet, but they still have motors. 

Until such time as the government choose to create a special class of vehicle definition for this they are motorized just the same as motorbikes. Now we can argue about "what a low powered e-bike is" and how it may impact trails and user conflicts, but what is not arguable is they have motors and therefore are motorized, and not allowed on "non-motorized" trails. 

Pretty simple and despite the fact that some can "slide by" and not get caught does not change things one bit.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> No, I wasn't being sarcastic at all (indeed, I'm hoping to have meaningful conversation, and you seemed willing to particiate). I don't think it's spurious at all.
> 
> I don't think it would be too hard do in the regs. Indeed, you and I could certainly put our heads together do it ourselves.
> 
> ...


You missed the second highlighted sentence in that section.

Read it again:










> New technologies that merge bicycles and motors, such as e-bikes, are considered motor vehicles under 2122.1 of the TMR.


That is very clear to me. Why are you having trouble with this? The law applies to self propelled vehicles and vehicles that merge bicycle and motor technology such as pedal assist. It does not matter what someone wants to call it, the law is clear that if there is a motor of any sort in play, then it is a motorized vehicle and thus not allowed.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

All the semantic gymnastics make it easy to want to dislike emotorbikes.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

AGarcia said:


> No, I wasn't being sarcastic at all (indeed, I'm hoping to have meaningful conversation, and you seemed willing to particiate). I don't think it's spurious at all.
> 
> I don't think it would be too hard do in the regs. Indeed, you and I could certainly put our heads together do it ourselves.
> 
> ...


And this is why everyone hates lawyers. Maybe you should file a class action. It has a motor and is a vehicle


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

It funny how self-defeating you all can be: a guy who might very well be an attorney and seems to be a MTBer, comes on here and points out a possible loophole in what appears to be a poorly written official document that would allow the worst of all possible outcomes that you all could imagine, and what happens? Instead of thanking him for his diligence, you jump all over him. Instead of possibly seriously debating him as adults and clarifying the issue he raised, you pile on with insults. (Replace the word "lawyers" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" in a previous post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017.) The guy even bent over backwards to be polite and mature about the whole thing, reaching out to anyone who might respond with actual debate to very little response. 

And to think the mods jumped on me for being provocative and impolite, but let this treatment of someone pass as if it never happened....... Is it the guys choice of career that makes it all OK? If so, what other jobs is it open season on these days........


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> It funny how self-defeating you all can be: a guy who might very well be an attorney and seems to be a MTBer, comes on here and points out a possible loophole in what appears to be a poorly written official document that would allow the worst of all possible outcomes that you all could imagine, and what happens? Instead of thanking him for his diligence, you jump all over him. Instead of possibly seriously debating him as adults and clarifying the issue he raised, you pile on with insults. (Replace the word "lawyers" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" in a previous post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017.) The guy even bent over backwards to be polite and mature about the whole thing, reaching out to anyone who might respond with actual debate to very little response.
> 
> And to think the mods jumped on me for being provocative and impolite, but let this treatment of someone pass as if it never happened....... Is it the guys choice of career that makes it all OK? If so, what other jobs is it open season on these days........


Perhaps you can point out specific posts where anyone posts any hate speech against homosexuals or those of Jewish heritage.... I did not see it.

I just went back and re-read all the replies to AGarcia, and the worst comments made were that lawyers are some of the most disliked professionals and one person compared a lawyer to a vulture. Not exactly hate speech. No one was using personal insults(something that is moderated here).

I would like to point out that your comment is off-topic and contributed nothing to this discussion.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> Hahaha! Honestly, I don't get all the hate for the pedal-assist bikes. But hey, I don't get a lot of things.. so it's all good.


 Bikes don't have motors. Motorized bikes have motors and ( wait for it) are considered a motorized vehicle. Hmmm, just like the wording in the document.


----------



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

Klurejr said:


> I would like to point out that your comment is off-topic and contributed nothing to this discussion.


Gotta disagree, I think his post was completely relevant and I happen to agree with him. Weird but true.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> Well, heck... I was gonna take out my standard mtb for tonight's ride...But all this talk is making me want to take out the Levo instead! I'll think of ya'll while I'm riding!


 Telling. " going to take out my standard mt bike tonight" The one without the motor? 
The other side with their lawyer has already taken note of this. I'm sure.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> It funny how self-defeating you all can be: a guy who might very well be an attorney and seems to be a MTBer, comes on here and points out a possible loophole in what appears to be a poorly written official document that would allow the worst of all possible outcomes that you all could imagine, and what happens? Instead of thanking him for his diligence, you jump all over him. Instead of possibly seriously debating him as adults and clarifying the issue he raised, you pile on with insults. (Replace the word "lawyers" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" in a previous post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017.) The guy even bent over backwards to be polite and mature about the whole thing, reaching out to anyone who might respond with actual debate to very little response.
> 
> And to think the mods jumped on me for being provocative and impolite, but let this treatment of someone pass as if it never happened....... Is it the guys choice of career that makes it all OK? If so, what other jobs is it open season on these days........


There is no loop hole , which was pointed out. But that little bit of trivia doesn't fit your agenda of being the disruptive token motorbiker does it?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> You missed the second highlighted sentence in that section.
> 
> Read it again:
> View attachment 1138827


No, I didn't miss it. I read it. Carefully. I also read Section 212.1 of the TMR. Carefully.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> It funny how self-defeating you all can be: a guy who might very well be an attorney and seems to be a MTBer, comes on here and points out a possible loophole in what appears to be a poorly written official document that would allow the worst of all possible outcomes that you all could imagine, and what happens? Instead of thanking him for his diligence, you jump all over him. Instead of possibly seriously debating him as adults and clarifying the issue he raised, you pile on with insults. (Replace the word "lawyers" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" in a previous post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017.) The guy even bent over backwards to be polite and mature about the whole thing, reaching out to anyone who might respond with actual debate to very little response.
> 
> And to think the mods jumped on me for being provocative and impolite, but let this treatment of someone pass as if it never happened....... Is it the guys choice of career that makes it all OK? If so, what other jobs is it open season on these days........


Someone chooses to be an attorney, they do not choose to be Jewish or gay (though some will argue otherwise) so that is not a valid comparison. And I was the one that referred to lawyers as "vultures", I tried to temper that by explaining that I was referring to lawyers who look for loopholes rather than following intent and those that file class action lawsuits for their own profit rather than the good of the damaged (and you can add patent trolls as well); I may have not done a good job in that. I did feel that AGarcia was arguing a loophole and yes, I did poke him.

AGarcia actually PMed me and he and I had a polite exchange.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

And, yeah. It does feel like personal attacks. And it's sad to me that the moderators here add to it (or at least fail to curb it). But I've seen happen so many times on this section of the forum to anyone that appears to support e-mtbs. So it's expected, really.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

chazpat said:


> AGarcia actually PMed me and he and I had a polite exchange.


Very true.


----------



## krel (May 9, 2017)

I am a newcomer to this particular forum, but I have spent lots of time on many others, and one thing that seems to be consistent across every forum is that some people are incapable of remembering that there are actual human beings on the other end of every discussion. You can disagree vehemently with someone else's opinion without treating them like **** – and I suspect in most cases if it was an in person discussion the tone would be somewhat different.

Not always, though. Some people are assholes in real life, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> And, yeah. It does feel like personal attacks. And it's sad to me that the moderators here add to it (or at least fail to curb it). But I've seen happen so many times on this section of the forum to anyone that appears to support e-mtbs. So it's expected, really.


 This is the e bike forum. Not the pro e bike forum. Positive, differences of opinion can be voiced for meaningful conversation. Sometimes, sometimes not. Come with thick skin and facts, not agenda and attitude. That usually works better. That said, AGarcia, you plan to ride the Levo, get a ticket and then contest it? Best of luck and keep us posted. Or maybe not until it is settled. Lots of other eyes watch here I would guess.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

Has this document been challenge in court recently? 

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

HTF can you read the highlighted area and not understand that according to the rules, e-bikes are motor vehicles? ut: You must be friends with the orange faced orangutan and believe in fake news 


AGarcia said:


> I'm certainly not ignoring what the regulations say. I'm disregarding a particular interpretation. It's not brilliant argument, and it's not my case. I'm simply reading the regulations, is all. But as I said, I'm not your lawyer, or anyone's lawyer here. I'm just "a lawyer." You can choose to read it and have it mean whatever you would like.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> Gotta disagree, I think his post was completely relevant and I happen to agree with him. Weird but true.


Even a broken clock is correct twice a day........


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Klurejr said:


> Perhaps you can point out specific posts where anyone posts any hate speech against homosexuals or those of Jewish heritage.... I did not see it.
> 
> I just went back and re-read all the replies to AGarcia, and the worst comments made were that lawyers are some of the most disliked professionals and one person compared a lawyer to a vulture. Not exactly hate speech. No one was using personal insults(something that is moderated here).
> 
> I would like to point out that your comment is off-topic and contributed nothing to this discussion.


 If you actually read my post, in parentheses I suggest that readers go back to a previous post and REPLACE the word "lawyer" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" and then scan the post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017. I never suggested the words you tried to put into my mouth as is clear to anyone who read my full post.

Kudos on trying the Kill the Messenger Response, though, it's usually successful here.

In the end though, isn't irrational hate speech, still hate speech, no matter why one feels that way and to whom directs it? i.e. If a person hates someone else for how they make a legal living without knowing anything else about them and freely expresses that hate, what does that say about that person? And why isn't it discouraged when it occurs......?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

LyNx said:


> HTF can you read the highlighted area and not understand that according to the rules, e


Because what you are highlighting and are focusing is not actually "the rules." What you are highlighting focusing are an individual's interpretation of the rules, not the rules themselves. And I'm asserting that the interpretation is unsupported.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

leeboh said:


> This is the e bike forum. Not the pro e bike forum. Positive, differences of opinion can be voiced for meaningful conversation. Sometimes, sometimes not. Come with thick skin and facts, not agenda and attitude. That usually works better. That said, AGarcia, you plan to ride the Levo, get a ticket and then contest it? Best of luck and keep us posted. Or maybe not until it is settled. Lots of other eyes watch here I would guess.


Ok. Thick skin and facts. No agenda or attitude. Got it!


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

WoodlandHills said:


> Even a broken clock is correct twice a day........


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Picard said:


> Has this document been challenge in court recently?
> 
> Sent from my SM


I'm not aware of any legal challenges.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

krel said:


> Not always, though. Some people are assholes in real life, too.


Ha! True!


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> If you actually read my post, in parentheses I suggest that readers go back to a previous post and REPLACE the word "lawyer" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" and then scan the post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017. I never suggested the words you tried to put into my mouth as is clear to anyone who read my full post.
> 
> Kudos on trying the Kill the Messenger Response, though, it's usually successful here.
> 
> In the end though, isn't irrational hate speech, still hate speech, no matter why one feels that way and to whom directs it? i.e. If a person hates someone else for how they make a legal living without knowing anything else about them and freely expresses that hate, what does that say about that person? And why isn't it discouraged when it occurs......?


I read your post and you are trying to insinuate that the 2 posts that mention lawyers in a slightly negative light are similar to hate speech, and that is just not the case.

There is a re-occurring theme in the eBike forum on this site;

User A is Pro-Ebike and makes some claims that are quickly disputed by users b-f.

User A gets butt hurt because no one is buying the snake oil they are trying to sell and claims they are being attacked maliciously.

User G is also Pro-Ebike and backs up A on their claims..... which are not claims of anything other than some valid discussion.

I have seen this over and over again and many of the "user A" types argue with no facts to back up their claims. Eventually they stop posting here.

From what I have Seen so far, AGarcia is trying to present an argument, is also not convincing anyone to see it his way, however he is not claiming that anyone is attacking him personally and hopefully as a lawyer understands that he is simply arguing against opposing counsel in a way.

Why you decided you needed to come to his protection is beyond me, if you have a point to discuss regarding the wording of the Law that was posted in the very first post on this topic, please do so, if you just want to come in and try and claim that a few negative comments about a profession are similar in any way to racist or homophobic comments, please leave.

I am sorry I have to be so harsh, but this particular forum seems to generate the most conflicts of any on this site.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> Because what you are highlighting and are focusing is not actually "the rules." What you are highlighting focusing are an individual's interpretation of the rules, not the rules themselves. And I'm asserting that the interpretation is unsupported.


How is that statement _not actually the rules_? It is pretty clear in that document that it is part of the rules.

Here is the quoted section, BOLD is mine:


> Direction on eBikes was included in a response in the Federal Register notice for the final over-snow *vehicle rule*. The response states: "New technologies that merge bicycles and motors, such as e-bikes, are considered motor vehicles under 212.1 of the TMR."


What I see here is a Rule is being discussed and the specifics for how it applies to e-bikes are being explained here.

I honestly do not see how you are interpreting this to mean that it is not a rule, nor does it apply to e-Bikes on NFS land.

It's very verbiage states it is a rule and that bikes of any sort with a motor on them are considered motor vehicles when on NFS land.

FYI, you seem to be deleting the "end Quote" code when you are responding to users. I will go back and fix em for you.


----------



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

Klurejr said:


> From what I have Seen so far, AGarcia is trying to present an argument, is also not convincing anyone to see it his way, however he is not claiming that anyone is attacking him personally and hopefully as a lawyer understands that he is simply arguing against opposing counsel in a way.


The way I see it AGarcia was only pointing out that the text might be interpreted differently in a legal sense than the way it appears to read. He didn't come across as either pro or anti-ebike to me but did seem to get attacked in several posts as if he were arguing for them.

AGarcia may be wrong or he may be right but I don't understand why people are offended by his post, and even though many consider being an attorney a deplorable occupation they are necessary for lots of reasons, one of them being interpreting legal speak like the document in the OP.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> How is that statement _not actually the rules_? It is pretty clear in that document that it is part of the rules.
> 
> Here is the quoted section, BOLD is mine:
> 
> ...


Thanks for fixing the "end quote" my computer wasn't letting me do full quotes for some reason.

In response to your question:

Here is a link to the Rule 212. Within the rule, you will find the definition of the term "motor vehicle." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/212.1

Here is 80 Fed. Reg 4503, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-01-28/pdf/2015-01573.pdf You will note that in this document (on page 4503), the author in the Federal Register is responding to questions by offering his/her perspcecitve on the meaning of the rule. But statements by an author indicating their understanding of the rule is not the same as "the rule." And my contention is that the author in the federal register got it wrong, because there is no evidence in "the rule" to support the assertion/perspective offered by the author in the Federal Register comments.

Now, the comments may offer very persuasive evidence of the mindset of the USFS' intentions when drafting the rules. And it certainly can evidence their intention on enforcement of the rules. I've acknowledged that already in previous posts.

And I'm not necessarily advocating for or against e-bikes here. I'm just demonstrating how a lawyer trained and practiced in the art of reading federal statutes and regulations interprets the rules. One can choose to consider that perspective, or not.

And of course, as with anything on the internet, YMMV with regards to my statements. And I'm not anyone's lawyer on this forum or the lawyer of anyone reading this post.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> The way I see it AGarcia was only pointing out that the text might be interpreted differently in a legal sense than the way it appears to read. He didn't come across as either pro or anti-ebike to me but did seem to get attacked in several posts as if he were arguing for them.
> 
> AGarcia may be wrong or he may be right but I don't understand why people are offended by his post, and even though many consider being an attorney a deplorable occupation they are necessary for lots of reasons, one of them being interpreting legal speak like the document in the OP.


Thanks, Yes. I'm not advocating one way or the other. I hope that is somewhat evident. I'm trying to focus on the rules and the evidence supporting the rules. Not whether the intent of the rules are good or bad.

My wife owns an e-bike, and I do have access to it should I decide I want to ride it (I have about 5 times in the past year). But frankly, I'm not bent out of shape by the rules one way or another. I'm just to trying offer the perspective that the evidence people are relying on may be faulty. And because of my experience and training, I figured I could offer perspective. I understand most folks on this forum may not care for the perspective, but there might be some that do. So I share.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

It's an interesting discussion, I think the statement was written by someone who knows nothing about ebikes which led to the slightly confusing language. I just got back from Moab where I saw joint USFS/BLM no ebike stickers on sign posts, so on the ground anyway, if your bike has an electric motor supplying power regardless of how you turn it on, it's a no go on non motorized.


----------



## jvbutter (Aug 3, 2015)

can we get past all the tech-no discussion... Here is my take... I don't like E-bikes. However, I don't see they would cause the damage of a motorized bike aka Motor cycle. If you need to pedal them to get started, and is only an assist, whats the big deal with them on bike paths and the such. Are people worried about the speed they would have over standard chain driven gears?


----------



## krel (May 9, 2017)

jvbutter said:


> Are people worried about the speed they would have over standard chain driven gears?


I think this is a valid concern. Aside from that, I don't really see why they'd be a problem. If they go the same speed and have the same footprint as other bikes why would anyone care?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

krel said:


> I think this is a valid concern. Aside from that, I don't really see why they'd be a problem. If they go the same speed and have the same footprint as other bikes why would anyone care?


But they don't go the same speed. A quote right from TREK, "ride farther, faster, and with less effort". See the problem? Overtaking speeds, uphill speed, closing speeds. Great for commuting, motorized trails etc. Not so great on non-motorized trails.


----------



## krel (May 9, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> But they don't go the same speed. A quote right from TREK, "ride farther, faster, and with less effort". See the problem? Overtaking speeds, uphill speed, closing speeds. Great for commuting, motorized trails etc. Not so great on non-motorized trails.


Yup. The farther and less effort parts don't bother me, but the faster does. I suppose you could require tech that cuts the motor out above a certain speed, but you know for sure people would figure ways around that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jvbutter (Aug 3, 2015)

life behind bars said:


> But they don't go the same speed. A quote right from TREK, "ride farther, faster, and with less effort". See the problem? Overtaking speeds, uphill speed, closing speeds. Great for commuting, motorized trails etc. Not so great on non-motorized trails.


yea, ive been on the trails with the e-bikes... nobody went whizzing past me.... How is there overtaking any different than the buff guy / gal, that goes whizzing past me due to them being in more physical shape then me????


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

jvbutter said:


> yea, ive been on the trails with the e-bikes... nobody went whizzing past me.... How is there overtaking any different than the buff guy / gal, that goes whizzing past me due to them being in more physical shape then me????


There are pages and pages of arguments on this. The opposition argument is:

1) Higher speeds, especially on flat and uphill. This not a about 'waaaa he went faster than me'. It drives more conflicts with other user groups and makes MTBs a big, easy target in city council/county parks meetings.
2) Technology improving quickly, very easy to modify bikes and add throttles, remove speed limits, increase power above legal limits
3) Will become increasingly difficult or impossible for rangers to differentiate between 'legal' e-bikes and 'illegal/modified' ebikes, and furthermore, between bikes and e-bikes
4) Because of all the above, strong fear that hikers will use e-bikes to rally support and get all bikes banned. Motors allow anti-bike groups to appeal to emotions of both local authorities and other non-cyclists, and all reasoned arguments are ignored.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Semantics aside, the Forest service has given guidance and direction on e-bikes which they and BLM currently use to enforce existing regulations for the use of e-bikes in areas under their purview. To wit:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://bendtrails.org/wp-content/uploads/e-bikes-reminder.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjE7a-U3IrUAhVE5IMKHdpoC0AQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNGjbc1fDN9FIvnQOK8td3EvJqHnfA&sig2=0VAiRIP4emZXysP5tQz42A

Which is not to say that the potential "loophole" AGarcia calls out does not exist, simply without standing and cause the FS's "interpretation" is the current stance of the Federal Gov.

Good Luck challenging it in court as the FS seems very clear in their understanding, optics be damned.
Advocates fight for electric bike trail use | The Columbian
Unfortunately for her the regulations on OPMD are specific to designed for mobility and intended for indoor use. E-bikes meet neither qualification and therefore do not warrant ADA exemption to the TMR.

Hiking is hard on my knees, my mtb helps me get around, those hiker only trails are discriminatory to my chosen mode of conveyance.

And that is the overall gist in my opinion, other user trail conflict exacerbated by e-bikes potential covert nature leaves the land manager attempting visual discernment of class 1∼3. Due to the high speeds capable of class 3 in order to maintain safe use for all trail users it seems the FS made the sensible and rational choice to place all e-bikes firmly in the motor vehicle category.

E-bikes challenge regulators and traditional trail users - News Columns | WyoFile

Our common lands are just that, and none of us has a right to dictate to the managing entity how we access those lands, open to all. Accommodations for the disabled to prevent discrimination is appropriate, but that may take the form of a graded paved alternative trail that still provides equal access to all.

The land is open to all, unfortunately we cannot reasonably expect access via *our prefered* mode simply because we wish it so.


----------



## portnuefpeddler (Jun 14, 2016)

All this aside, there remains thousands of miles of great BLM and Forest Service trails perfectly legal to ride ebikes on. 

Once again the greater speed thing comes up. The greater speed, if it exists, (depending on the ebike) is fully controllable by the rider, and if he is going too fast for the conditions it is reckless riding, no different then a downhill speeder endangering other trail users. You guys realize these ebikes just don't have an ON/OFF button, right??


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

portnuefpeddler said:


> All this aside, there remains thousands of miles of great BLM and Forest Service trails perfectly legal to ride ebikes on.
> 
> Once again the greater speed thing comes up. The greater speed, if it exists, (depending on the ebike) is fully controllable by the rider, and if he is going too fast for the conditions it is reckless riding, no different then a downhill speeder endangering other trail users. You guys realize these ebikes just don't have an ON/OFF button, right??


Yep. Enjoy those Moto trails.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## brent701 (Sep 17, 2012)

Actually they are not self-propelled. 
You have to pedal them 

They are popping up more and more. 
Hell my step father could really use in with having open heart surgery. It's hard for him to pedal up hills. 

Sounds like the US forest service should actually go ride on. 

I don't own one nor will I. I love the leg pain from pedaling. It the info posted is not correct. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

I said this elsewhere on the site and I don't think this perspective has been covered anywhere (yet) in this thread:

"I like the “motorized / non-motorized “ distinction as a limiter on public lands. I also like the “non-mechanized travel in wilderness” rule. From a land and wildlife management perspective it’s about controlling the amount of human activity in fragile or rare ecosystems. Motors make it easier to encroach into remote areas. Mountain bikes make it easier to encroach into wilderness areas. If you make it harder or more time consuming for joe-public to get into the backcountry, the more effectively it can be managed. A current issue facing our local National Forest is the effort to close some roads and long-used but illegal routes for resource management reasons. Numerous comments have been made at the open meetings with the USFS and in local papers about the publics right of access, but what they're really arguing for is their right to drive anywhere. I see a similar theme here with motor-assisted bicycles, the "I'm no longer able to do it without a motor but I deserve the right to still be there so let me use my motor-assist bike to get there" argument. I don't think it's an inherent right to be able to get where you once did just because you age out of it. I realize I've aged out of some of my favorite backcountry epics, but I've made it a priority to find value in what I can still do (smaller incursions into the wilds). I encourage all to think about the bigger picture and not make it just about "you" -- it should be about the forests, wild life, and conservation. Okay, maybe I'm the one being selfish now, because I'm pretty sure that allowing motor-assists on bikes to access all that you can on a regular bike will just degrade our precious resources faster and I want my son, and then his son or daughter, to have the same opportunity to experience quality backcountry."


----------



## #1ORBUST (Sep 13, 2005)

brent701 said:


> Actually they are not self-propelled.
> You have to pedal them
> 
> They are popping up more and more.
> ...


Road one for the first time last week. A rad bike rover or some bs.

Friends dads bike.

So much fun! I can't really see someone who likes bikes hating on them.

Funny thread


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

#1ORBUST said:


> Road one for the first time last week. A rad bike rover or some bs.
> 
> Friends dads bike.
> 
> ...


Lots of stuff that I like to do (motos, shooting guns, building big bonfires) isn't appropriate on a multi-use trail. I agree they're great fun, for what it's worth.

-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

I have yet to see any rational behind the USFS/BLM stance on ebikes except that since it has a motor, it's motorized. We don't know if they've looked into them, haven't, are worried about impact or not. 

At a minimum, I would expect that like any other trail manager, they can't legally allow a motorized vehicle on non motorized trails, some lands when aquired come with deed restrictions that further tie their hands. They can't make exemptions, otherwise everyone who has a motor driven toy would argue that they should be allowed as well. Like other state and local municipalities, they could get around it, by writing legislation that says an ebike is no longer a motorized vehicle, but if you've ever dealt with the USFS, getting anything done can take ages and require significant political capital. 

It seems like the most obvious and possibly achievable outcome for ebikers to lobby for would be to have them reclassified and give the district rangers the ability to pick and choose where to allow them. You'd have to prove they should though, which is different than just claiming they should.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Harryman said:


> but if you've ever dealt with the USFS, getting anything done can take ages and require significant legal capital.


Up to 20 years and 250 g's.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

brent701 said:


> Actually they are not self-propelled.
> You have to pedal them
> 
> They are popping up more and more.
> ...


IIRC Protor already covered this. But I'll try as well. My car has a pedal, yet I would consider it self-propelled. Regarding non-throttled e-bikes, the motors on some e-bikes are activated by cadence sensors. In that case you just need forward motion on the pedals to activate the motor. So in that case the e-bike can be ridden up to 100% self-propelled. Some have torque sensors, so the rider is always required to put in some % of the total energy used to propel the bike. That % is determined by the software the activates the motor. I'm willing to bet that you can set it to provide well over 50% of the power right out of the factory.

So I guess we are getting into semantics here about what is considered self-propelled. 100%? More than 1/2? Any at all?

Thankfully it appears the USFS is taking a reasonable stance here and we shouldn't have to worry about that. Also note that they are not doing a blanket ban on e-bikes and will consider expanding trail access for them. But they are making a distinction between them and pedal-powered bikes, which makes sense IMHO.


----------



## brent701 (Sep 17, 2012)

JACKL said:


> IIRC Protor already covered this. But I'll try as well. My car has a pedal, yet I would consider it self-propelled. Regarding non-throttled e-bikes, the motors on some e-bikes are activated by cadence sensors. In that case you just need forward motion on the pedals to activate the motor. So in that case the e-bike can be ridden up to 100% self-propelled. Some have torque sensors, so the rider is always required to put in some % of the total energy used to propel the bike. That % is determined by the software the activates the motor. I'm willing to bet that you can set it to provide well over 50% of the power right out of the factory.
> 
> So I guess we are getting into semantics here about what is considered self-propelled. 100%? More than 1/2? Any at all?
> 
> Thankfully it appears the USFS is taking a reasonable stance here and we shouldn't have to worry about that. Also note that they are not doing a blanket ban on e-bikes and will consider expanding trail access for them. But they are making a distinction between them and pedal-powered bikes, which makes sense IMHO.


Yeah.

The one I rode you 100% had to pedal. The motor was just a assist. It's still technically human powered with electric assist.

I saw one on a local trail moving at a good pace. To me kind of took the whole point of riding a bicycle on the mountain away. Lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HIFat (Apr 5, 2013)

AGarcia said:


> Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter. Under the letter, e-bikes that are throttle operated or can otherwise be operated without pedal assist, fall within the definition. Pedal-assist bikes, which are not self-propelled, are not "ebikes" under the definition set forth in the statute.


If it's got a motor, it's a MOTOR cycle. Doesn't matter if the motor is gas or electric. Doesn't matter whether it engages with a throttle or a peddle stroke. Simple as that.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Lets get one thing out of the way. Electric bikes have a motor on them. How you operate that motor doesn't matter. You can use your wrist, foot or legs. Because they have a motor on them they are banded from non-motorized trails and areas. They are not mountain bikes and we do not want ebikers jumping in with us on the fight for trail access. It is a completely separate issue that doesn't involve human powered recreation.

That being said, I own an ebike and use it daily for all kinds of things that people usually use a car for. Ebikers need to form their own lobby group and fight for whatever access there heart desires. I won't oppose it in any way. Everyone deserves access to their recreational pursuits in a reasonable manner. Same goes for 4x4 or dirt bike riding.
https://www.electricbike.com/10-fastest-ebikes/
My wifes ebike. Yes it has throttle and pedal assist with brake regen.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

alexbn921 said:


> Lets get one thing out of the way. Electric bikes have a motor on them. How you operate that motor doesn't matter. You can use your wrist, foot or legs. Because they have a motor on them they are banded from non-motorized trails and areas. They are not mountain bikes and we do not want ebikers jumping in with us on the fight for trail access. It is a completely separate issue that doesn't involve human powered recreation.
> 
> That being said, I own an ebike and use it daily for all kinds of things that people usually use a car for.


A great and proper way to use an ebike!


----------



## #1ORBUST (Sep 13, 2005)

Walt said:


> Lots of stuff that I like to do (motos, shooting guns, building big bonfires) isn't appropriate on a multi-use trail. I agree they're great fun, for what it's worth.
> 
> -Walt


I can't really see what the problem would be.

Is faster on the up hill is the worry? I'd slaughter an ebike on the downhill. Would way rather run into me on an ebike then on my downhill rig.

Just set up a mph speed limit and be done with it.

They only go like 20 I double that on my regular bike


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

HIFat said:


> If it's got a motor, it's a MOTOR cycle. Doesn't matter if the motor is gas or electric. Doesn't matter whether it engages with a throttle or a peddle stroke. Simple as that.


Thanks for educating me.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

krel said:


> Yup. The farther and less effort parts don't bother me, but the faster does. I suppose you could require tech that cuts the motor out above a certain speed, but you know for sure people would figure ways around that.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed. And everyone is going to push their speed wherever they can. Speed doesn't cause accidents, riders cause accidents.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

#1ORBUST said:


> I can't really see what the problem would be.
> 
> Is faster on the up hill is the worry? I'd slaughter an ebike on the downhill. Would way rather run into me on an ebike then on my downhill rig.
> 
> ...


You go 40mph on your bike? On a trail?

FWIW, since you apparently haven't read the 10,000 times this has been covered, yes, on 2-way MUTs, closing speeds are a big problem. If DH riders are going 15-20 and uphill riders are going 5-8, great. If you increase the speed of the uphill riders to 15-20, on many trails you'll have problems.

On one-way trails/flow trails/bike parks, I don't see any issues. No horses to scare, no hikers to get huffy, no 2-way traffic or closing speed problems.

-Walt


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed. And everyone is going to push their speed wherever they can. Speed doesn't cause accidents, riders cause accidents.


It's too simple to blame riders in all collisions, every situation is different and most of the time the circumstances are very dynamic. Sometimes trail designs are at fault. And the trail only dictates the speed of individual riders, some will be multiple times faster than others. Again, another oversimplification of a complex issue.


----------



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

Gutch said:


> I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed.


Strava results contradict that claim.

I agree with the second part though, people do tend to push their speed when then can. Lots of times I can't though and usually it's due to oxygen depravation.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Erm, the grade of the trail dictates my speed on the climbs, not (except in really rare cases) cornering traction or courage or "skill" writ large. 

So, it's a lack of power that means I can't go 20mph up a 10% singletrack climb. If you add more power...

-Walt


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Gutch said:


> I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed. And everyone is going to push their speed wherever they can. Speed doesn't cause accidents, riders cause accidents.


An XC bike on Racing Ralphs isn't going to go down a DH track like a DH bike on Minions.

Cornering traction is a thing. So is suspension.

You can ride with more of each with more available power.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> Just common sense.











+1 - motor + cycle = motorcycle :thumbsup:

So simple. So obvious.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/bid/6147999998.html
found my new bike. ready to responsable ride my local trails.:thumbsup:


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

JACKL said:


> IIRC I'm willing to bet that you can set it to provide well over 50% of the power right out of the factory.


Most oem pedelecs add @300% of your input in max assist up to what the motor is capable of, which is a little over 500w on a class 1.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Gutch said:


> I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed. And everyone is going to push their speed wherever they can. Speed doesn't cause accidents, riders cause accidents.


I don't know where you ride, but it's not often that the trail limits how fast I can ride on the uphill or flats, it's almost always my fitness or lack thereof.

Yeah, I'll agree people like to ride fast, sometimes too fast for the situation, at least with bikes they're usually only doing that on the downhills.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

A few weeks ago, I tried out my wife's Levo on a route I do quite often with my Stumpjumper FSR Evo 29 (Santiago Truck Trail to the Luge). On the flatter parts the ride, I could keep the Levo rolling pretty comfortably at the same pace I would be rolling with the Stumpy (usually around 15 mph), but working less hard to do it. 

On the toughest part of SST (Little Mustard section for those that are familiar), I normally pedal up with my Stumpjumper Evo 29 at about 4.4 mph (with significant effort...I'm fat). With the Levo, putting out about same amount of signficant effort, I pedaled up at about 10-11 mph. That's a LOT faster in relative terms; but not really what one would think is "dangerous closing speed" in my opinion. It was more like turning my 235lbs fat ass into a 150lbs whippet XC racer pace. Maybe a guy who's already an XC whippet can make a Levo go faster still... I imagine so. But I can't. 

On the downhill, I was significantly slower on the Levo than I am the Stumpjumper (about 20 seconds slower than the Evo 29 on an average 4 1/2 minute run). I was pretty surprised. I thought the low center of gravity and wider tires (27.5+) might make the Levo faster than the Stumpy... But it wasn't. 

All in all, it was an interesting experiment, and it's a cool bike. But I don't really feel the need to take it up to the Luge again. But I'll probably pull out the wife's Levo every once in a while this summer...maybe for a Sunday morning ride if I'm feeling crappy after too much drinking the night before, but still want to join friends for a ride (done that before.. and it worked out well).


----------



## portnuefpeddler (Jun 14, 2016)

brent701 said:


> Yeah.
> 
> The one I rode you 100% had to pedal. The motor was just a assist. It's still technically human powered with electric assist.
> 
> ...


 I thought the "point" was to have fun, get outside, see some scenery, get some exercise, and develop handling and balance skills. I do that every time I ride my ebike. You saying I have it wrong? Maybe I should just stay on the couch.


----------



## portnuefpeddler (Jun 14, 2016)

It's all about impulse control, something lacking in some people. The oft expressed assumption here that a bike that is assisted and CAN go faster in some conditions, WILL go faster, in spite of line of sight restrictions, common sense, and safety concerns, is indicative of the nature of the people who constantly harp on this. Maybe THEY would, so they fear OTHERS will, it's an offensive line of reasoning for those of us who have the judgement and maturity to back the f*ck off a bit and not hit it full blast just because we can. Like yesterday, driving into town on the interstate, as I was passing what looked like a brand new Corvette, in my Prius........ I slowed a bit as I pulled along side him, paced him, and then punched it, leaving him behind (but never going over the 80 mph speed limit). That man would make a good ebike rider, he has impulse control, he refrained from smoking my ass, and that's part of why he has the dough to buy the thing in the first place.

The one good thing is, that expensive as they are, the dumb sh*ts with poor impulse control will generally have screwed their lives up enough (credit card debt, DUI's, etc.) to not be able to afford a high powered capable ebike, much less get it together enough to take it on a technical single track. It's the Darwin principle in action!


----------



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

portnuefpeddler said:


> It's all about impulse control, something lacking in some people. The oft expressed assumption here that a bike that is assisted and CAN go faster in some conditions, WILL go faster


There are numerous threads here written by happy e-bikers who report being able to cover twice the ground in the same time as compared to a bicycle. I doubt all these posters are deadbeat thugs with maxxed out credit cards and a DUI.

It's a tired argument, depending on your perspective they may only be a _little_ faster but still, faster.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Walt said:


> Erm, the grade of the trail dictates my speed on the climbs, not (except in really rare cases) cornering traction or courage or "skill" writ large.
> 
> So, it's a lack of power that means I can't go 20mph up a 10% singletrack climb. If you add more power...
> 
> -Walt


Walt, I'm sure you are fast, but nobody going 20mph on a 10% grade climb, singletrack to boot with ruts, rocks, winding etc. As stated the trail dictates the speed traveled. I never said everyone was going to be the same speed. You can only ride a trail so fast, regardless what you are pedaling.


----------



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

Gutch said:


> You can only ride a trail so fast, regardless what you are pedaling.


Sometimes true but many times not, power is often the limiter and anyone who rides bikes is well aware of that. I guarantee I could score a KOM on nearly every segment on my local trails if I could produce a few hundred extra watts.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

AGarcia said:


> A few weeks ago, I tried out my wife's Levo on a route I do quite often with my Stumpjumper FSR Evo 29 (Santiago Truck Trail to the Luge). On the flatter parts the ride, I could keep the Levo rolling pretty comfortably at the same pace I would be rolling with the Stumpy (usually around 15 mph), but working less hard to do it.
> 
> On the toughest part of SST (Little Mustard section for those that are familiar), I normally pedal up with my Stumpjumper Evo 29 at about 4.4 mph (with significant effort...I'm fat). With the Levo, putting out about same amount of signficant effort, I pedaled up at about 10-11 mph. That's a LOT faster in relative terms; but not really what one would think is "dangerous closing speed" in my opinion. It was more like turning my 235lbs fat ass into a 150lbs whippet XC racer pace. Maybe a guy who's already an XC whippet can make a Levo go faster still... I imagine so. But I can't.
> 
> ...


You were on a trail l that see very little foot/equestrian traffic. Do the same thing at Whiting on Saturday morning....and that 15 mph closing speed with lol get us kicked out. Santiago Oaks already has a problem with cyclists rolling up on equestrians too fast without acknowledging them..:.now you wanna increase the speed. It is a recipe for disaster. Most likely another reason OC Parks doesn't allow them.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I'm sure you could. I'm not debating faster in certain areas. Go ride a Hyabusa through my downtown Main Street, now do the same on a moped. Same times, no? Ok, go ride a technical downhill or uphill on an ebike or mtb. Close speeds - yes. I know, I ride both regularly. Now, go ride some fire roads up and down. Faster on ebike? Hell yes. As stated, the trail dictates the speed traveled, along with other users on the trail. It's not like the pedal assist ebike is going to be mowing over everybody!


----------



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

Gutch said:


> As stated, the trail dictates the speed traveled, along with other users on the trail.


OK, e-bikes are much faster on fire roads yet the trail dictates the speed. If the trail dictated the speed wouldn't you be able to pedal up and down those roads just as fast? Honestly I don't care where you ride, maybe a tricycle would be the fastest on your trails but it's irrelevant to me. This thread is about policy that involves diverse areas.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Gutch, with an extra 500W, I can just ride a full on 9" travel DH sled on the climbs, though, right? Even if the trail is kinda techy, all of a sudden I'm going to be able to HAUL up it.

Additionally, we have lots of trails around here (aspen grove loamy singletrack) where you can easily hit 20 on the descent, and the only thing limiting your speed on the climb is power. This is actually pretty ordinary on a lot of trails in the western US. Powered climbing would be very, very fast. 

I don't have a problem with e-bikes climbing doubletrack either. As long as the ST is one-way DH, as I've stated before, I think they should be allowed. 2-way ST, no way. 

-Walt


----------



## krel (May 9, 2017)

If people can go faster, some of them will, even if it's unsafe for themselves (ok with that) or unsafe for others (not ok with that.) it's consistent across every human activity I've ever seen - some people are going to push the limits at the expense of others' safety. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yes, if we just purely rely on everyone acting like an angel, well, we all know how that ends. There's a reason that motos aren't allowed on a lot of trails. 

Let me say it one more time: mountain bikes are unbelievably slow going uphill (on many moderately steep climbs I'm faster running), and that's a GOOD thing for trail access. 

-Walt


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

mtnbikej said:


> You were on a trail l that see very little foot/equestrian traffic. Do the same thing at Whiting on Saturday morning....and that 15 mph closing speed with lol get us kicked out. Santiago Oaks already has a problem with cyclists rolling up on equestrians too fast without acknowledging them..:.now you wanna increase the speed. It is a recipe for disaster. Most likely another reason OC Parks doesn't allow them.


Honestly, I think holding 14-15mph up Borrego would be tough, but local fast guys can do it. I see several on Strava that can. So maybe it's possible if someone strong (not me) was riding the Levo. But then you assume that a person on a Levo is automatically not going to see an equestrian up ahead? What do you base that on?

Since you seem to live/ride the same trails I do, how about we meet up sometime? I'll let you try the Levo. Maybe then you can form opinions based on fact, rather than assumptions.

I'm serious. Actually, that goes for anyone in the area.

I'd love to see if the Levo turns riders into raging and blind lunatic MTBers who can no longer see what's coming up the trail, have absolutely no self-control, and go about leaving death and destruction in their wake.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Great Ebike discussion.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

alexbn921 said:


> Great Ebike discussion.


Save yourself a click, they are regurgitating the very same things that are said here.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> OK, e-bikes are much faster on fire roads yet the trail dictates the speed. If the trail dictated the speed wouldn't you be able to pedal up and down those roads just as fast? Honestly I don't care where you ride, maybe a tricycle would be the fastest on your trails but it's irrelevant to me. This thread is about policy that involves diverse areas.


Yes, I ride an E-trike!, bought at Walmart for $200. Don't get butt hurt when I drop you!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Yes, I ride an E-trike!, bought at Walmart for $200. Don't get butt hurt when I drop you!


Why troll?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

life behind bars said:


> Why troll?


How many E-bikes do you own? Thought so.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> How many E-bikes do you own? Thought so.


Not that it has anything to do with the question of why you appear to be trolling the thread, right?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> How many E-bikes do you own? Thought so.


What does that matter? I don't own any. I'm sure ebikes are a lot of fun, I have no doubt of that. I also understand that low powered ebikes do not tear up trails. I also understand all of the issues of treating ebikes as if they had no motor.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Ahhh, the old, "Don't knock it til you try it" argument. Doesn't apply, but what the hell.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I've ridden a LEVO. I can go crazy fast on it. It's very fun.

I have no interest in allowing anything like it on 2-way MUTs, and since they're already banned in the 2 places I spend most of my time riding (Park City and Moab), that's pretty much that. At this point I can't imagine those bans being overturned, the e-bike industry blew their chance already by not *starting* with advocacy and funds for trail building/improvements before selling any bikes. 

-Walt


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

AGarcia said:


> Honestly, I think holding 14-15mph up Borrego would be tough, but local fast guys can do it. I see several on Strava that can. So maybe it's possible if someone strong (not me) was riding the Levo. But then you assume that a person on a Levo is automatically not going to see an equestrian up ahead? What do you base that on?
> 
> Since you seem to live/ride the same trails I do, how about we meet up sometime? I'll let you try the Levo. Maybe then you can form opinions based on fact, rather than assumptions.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'm local.

I know how fast they can go. My wife demo'd a Levo. I saw how quickly she climbed up hill with little to no effort. I also know how fast she is on her own bike....and it was no comparison.

I have also spoken with a few of the local riders I rode with that have demo'd them. All have commented on how fast you can go uphill on them. Have also spoken with the ranger at Oaks who demo'd one for a few days before they decided to not allow them.

I'll continue to ride my non motorized bike.

Also like Walt says above....they are not good on Multi User Trails.....since we have no bike specific trails here in Orange County, it means that all the trails are Multi User.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Walt said:


> Yes, if we just purely rely on everyone acting like an angel, well, we all know how that ends. There's a reason that motos aren't allowed on a lot of trails.
> 
> Let me say it one more time: mountain bikes are unbelievably slow going uphill (on many moderately steep climbs I'm faster running), and that's a GOOD thing for trail access.
> 
> -Walt


 What makes slow climbing so good? And why doesn't the ability of regular MTBs to descend faster than eMTBs count as a negative in the overall comparison? If it's just that people have become accustomed to bikes being slow up and fast down, why can't they become accustomed something different? None of us were born able to judge closing speed when descending at 25mph while meeting a climber at 5mph, we Had to learn this skill. So, why can we learn to apply the same technique when meeting someone climbing at 15 instead of at 5?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> why can't they become accustomed something different?


Why can't emotorbikers become accustomed to motorized trails?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

life behind bars said:


> Why can't emotorbikers become accustomed to motorized trails?


 Why should I? My state and my local park district permit Class 1 eMTBs on MUTs, what's wrong with enjoying the freedoms my taxes pay for?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> Why should I? My state and my local park district permit Class 1 eMTBs on MUTs, what's wrong with enjoying the freedoms my taxes pay for?


The predominant conversation here is not MUT's, why can't you figure that out?


----------



## portnuefpeddler (Jun 14, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> There are numerous threads here written by happy e-bikers who report being able to cover twice the ground in the same time as compared to a bicycle. I doubt all these posters are deadbeat thugs with maxxed out credit cards and a DUI.
> 
> It's a tired argument, depending on your perspective they may only be a _little_ faster but still, faster.


 I didn't say they were not faster, you illustrate my point! I said that the speed is dependent on the operator. Using your logic, my Prius did indeed blow off the Corvette, as he MUST have been going as fast as he could, just like all ebikers, right? To this day, the faster bikes I've seen on the trails have been just that, not ebikes, mtbr's hauling ass downhill. I think I get it....you guys are just used to going as fast as possible all the time, and auto assume all other's must ride their ebike's that way.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

life behind bars said:


> The predominant conversation here is not MUT's, why can't you figure that out?


 So why did you ask me about becoming accustomed to motorized trails? And why can't you figure that the predominate conversation here is not motorized trails before asking me questions about them?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> So why did you ask me about becoming accustomed to motorized trails? And why can't you figure that the predominate conversation here is not motorized trails before asking me questions about them?


Okay, I'll bite at the obvious troll. You initiated the exchange. More trolling from WoodlandMalls.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

mtnbikej said:


> Yeah, I'm local.
> 
> I know how fast they can go. My wife demo'd a Levo. I saw how quickly she climbed up hill with little to no effort. I also know how fast she is on her own bike....and it was no comparison.
> 
> ...


Anyway. I'll you out there sometime.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

WoodlandHills said:


> What makes slow climbing so good? And why doesn't the ability of regular MTBs to descend faster than eMTBs count as a negative in the overall comparison? If it's just that people have become accustomed to bikes being slow up and fast down, why can't they become accustomed something different? None of us were born able to judge closing speed when descending at 25mph while meeting a climber at 5mph, we Had to learn this skill. So, why can we learn to apply the same technique when meeting someone climbing at 15 instead of at 5?


Have you ever been a moto rider? I have. Closing speeds get crazy scary pretty quickly.

If you want to imagine it, imagine a blind corner in a drainage where both directions are coming downhill. Many trail systems have a spot like that, and inevitably you have to go in and put in chicanes/chokes/speed control measures, because people head on into each other with a 30 mph closing speed and get hurt (or at least scare the living daylights out of each other).

I have a lot of trail building and design experience. 30mph closing will not work on most existing trails. Full stop. You can design a trail where it's doable, but it won't resemble what we mostly consider "mountain bike" trails because it requires a lot of sight line stuff (taking out trees/parts of hills/etc) that most people would find unacceptable/unnatural.

-Walt


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

imagine if we ride like the trail is not a race track imagine if we have respect for other trail user imagine if we are not a strav rider imagine if we just want to ride n enjoy the trail imagine if we just want to enjoy the view imagine if we just want to ride .


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

WoodlandHills said:


> Why should I? My state and my local park district permit Class 1 eMTBs on MUTs, what's wrong with enjoying the freedoms my taxes pay for?


"Y'all who have not poached can cast the first stone."






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> imagine if we ride like the trail is not a race track imagine if we have respect for other trail user imagine if we are not a strav rider imagine if we just want to ride n enjoy the trail imagine if we just want to enjoy the view imagine if we just want to ride .


Imagine National Forest single track devoid of motorbikes.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

I am a open class state champion mx there is a time n place for every thing I am also a Hang 4 hangglider pilot I have done loops in my ww hp AT if you want to race sigh up pay your money and give it your best shot . Just not on a public trail don't care what you ride just ride the trail with respect for others .


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> I am a open class state champion mx there is a time n place for every thing I am also a Hang 4 hangglider pilot I have done loops in my ww hp AT if you want to race sigh up pay your money and give it your best shot . Just not on a public trail don't care what you ride just ride the trail with respect for others .


That's what we've been saying since the beginning of this nonsense, respect others. In this case by staying off of non- motorized trails. You know, the topic of this thread.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Thats my point there is no need for a ebike ban


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

rider95 said:


> imagine if we ride like the trail is not a race track imagine if we have respect for other trail user imagine if we are not a strav rider imagine if we just want to ride n enjoy the trail imagine if we just want to enjoy the view imagine if we just want to ride .


Sure, apply this same statement to motos. What happened? Human nature.

More power, more speed, eventually there will be a problem. There's a reason motos (and mountain bikes) aren't allowed on some trails.

Look, if we were all perfect, it would be fine. That's not the case, though, so we have limits on all kinds of technology.

-Walt


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> Thats my point there is no need for a ebike ban


But there is in fact a ban in place and that's what we deal with in the here and now. If you feel that strongly about it you could form an advocacy group to represent your community as a has been suggested multiple times, just don't expect Mountain Bikers to do the heavy lifting for you.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Walt said:


> Sure, apply this same statement to motos. What happened? Human nature.
> 
> More power, more speed, eventually there will be a problem. There's a reason motos (and mountain bikes) aren't allowed on some trails.
> 
> ...


I would be happy to come out to your trail n show how we all can use the same trail with respect to all trail users


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

I've had many close calls with head on collisions between my regular mountain bike and other regular mountain bikers.

I've never had any head on collisions while riding motos on moto single track trails with other moto trails. Why is that?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Giant Warp said:


> I've had many close calls with head on collisions between my regular mountain bike and other regular mountain bikers.
> 
> I've never had any head on collisions while riding motos on moto single track trails with other moto trails. Why is that?


Very different trail layouts, in general, and much wider trails that are considered "singletrack". In the west generally, moto trails also tend to be on wide open desert rather than in treed terrain, so sight lines are better.

I'm a moto guy too and I think it would be fascinating to try to design a shared-use multidirectional trail for ~30-40mph closing speeds. I think you'd basically end up with something that looked a lot like a moto trail but with quite a bit more in terms of chokes/chicanes/deliberately tight radius turns to control speeds where needed.

-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Giant Warp said:


> I've had many close calls with head on collisions between my regular mountain bike and other regular mountain bikers.
> 
> I've never had any head on collisions while riding motos on moto single track trails with other moto trails. Why is that?


My experience is completely the opposite, all my close calls on motorized, shared use trails have been with motos. And by close calls, I mean both of us brushing past each other scared to death with me descending and them climbing on twisty tech trails. I've never had problems with other cyclists, runners or hikers on the same trails over 25 years. What's the difference? The motos are climbing at @ 10-15 mph instead of @ 3-6 and since everyone's on 4 strokes these days, you can't hear them anymore over the sounds you're making. The difference in closing speed is enough that when you slam on your brakes, you both skid past each other before stopping. Who's at fault in that situation? Both of us? Neither? We're both in control and not riding excessively fast or like idiots.

I'd expect more situations like that with ebikes, partially because you can climb faster on one, partially because you can now climb trails that are nominally one way because they just suck to climb on a bike, or are near impossible. Neither issue is world ending, it's not like I think motos should be banned for the same reason, but I certainly think that like motos, the differences should be acknowledged and managed suitably.

The argument that "they're just bikes" is what I find unreasonable, not ebikes themselves.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Harry is probably talking about Jack's/Rampart Range stuff. I grew up riding on that when motos were still allowed on all of it, and I can attest that uphill (moto) vs downhill (mountain bike) collisions and close calls were constantly a problem. The motos actually preferred to climb a favorite mountain bike DH trail that is pretty much all in the trees, has a lot of blind corners, and is generally not fantastic in terms of sight lines. It sucked.

I believe the motos since were kicked off most of those trails but I don't live there anymore (Harry?) Regardless, if you lived in Colorado Springs in the 1990s, you know what I'm talking about - and that was in days with much lower user density in the entire front range.

There are a ton of (of course horrible shaky GoPro) videos of the trail on Youtube if you want to get a sense of it:





-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Walt said:


> Harry is probably talking about Jack's/Rampart Range stuff. I grew up riding on that when motos were still allowed on all of it, and I can attest that uphill (moto) vs downhill (mountain bike) collisions and close calls were constantly a problem. The motos actually preferred to climb a favorite mountain bike DH trail that is pretty much all in the trees, has a lot of blind corners, and is generally not fantastic in terms of sight lines. It sucked.
> 
> I believe the motos since were kicked off most of those trails but I don't live there anymore (Harry?) Regardless, if you lived in Colorado Springs in the 1990s, you know what I'm talking about - and that was in days with much lower user density in the entire front range.
> 
> ...


Jack's is currently closed to motos, due to an issue with fish, not behavior, they will regain access on 7/20 when another trail opens up. It's a problem there and also up in Jones Park. In the old days, I'd just stop here and there and listen since you could hear 2 strokes coming from a long way off.

Since motos have been off of Jacks for @ 7 years, it's become heavily hiked, often by entire families, with little kids, dogs, the whole bit, which is somewhat terrifying considering the unrelenting downhill traffic. It'll be interesting once motos start riding it again since there's an entire segment of the mtb riding population who have never experienced two way traffic there. And, of course, it's busier than it was in the 90s, as well as smoother and faster.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Question for you on moto legal trails. Zero has a full electric dirt bike. Just as fast and completely silent. I know they are trying to put noise generators on electric cars so people don't walk out in front of them. Do you think that they need some sort of bell or horn to warn other users. Maybe not a big deal now, but in 10 years you will see a lot of electric motors on the road and dirt. I wonder how they will be received by the moto crowd on 2 way trails.

It would scare the **** out of me to come around a corner with a 40 mph moto in my face.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

^Good point. I think they are crazy for letting motos back after 7 years. That makes Ebikes look very friendly especially after hearing how families and everyone is enjoying them. I've personally never been to Colorado riding, but have always wanted to.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> ^Good point. I think they are crazy for letting motos back after 7 years. That makes Ebikes look very friendly especially after hearing how families and everyone is enjoying them. I've personally never been to Colorado riding, but have always wanted to.


Considering the motorized nature of the trails, yeah emotorbikes are probably considered fairly benign.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Gutch said:


> ^Good point. I think they are crazy for letting motos back after 7 years. That makes Ebikes look very friendly especially after hearing how families and everyone is enjoying them. I've personally never been to Colorado riding, but have always wanted to.


It's a long story, but they never should have been banned in the first place. It's the only singletrack link from town into USFS that's motorized, and the moto guys are a good user group, I don't think it's appropriate to take it away. It's literally surrounded by other trails that are far better suited and enjoyable for hiking, it's mostly people that don't know any better that end up on it. Unless a steep, scrambling hike while dodging bikes every minute or two is your idea of a good time.

I have a bell on every bike I own, bells make for good user interactions. If I had an emoto, I'd sure have a bell like this that I could turn on when needed.

About TIMBER Mountain Bike Bells - Mountain Bike Bells | TIMBER


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> I have a bell on every bike I own, bells make for good user interactions. If I had an emoto, I'd sure have a bell like this that I could turn on when needed.
> 
> About TIMBER Mountain Bike Bells - Mountain Bike Bells | TIMBER


I have one of those. They work well. And I bought a couple of these as christmas gifts a few of my mtb riding buddies. They're also really nice: https://www.spurcycle.com/collections/all/products/better-bicycle-bell?variant=4768636037


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

rider95 said:


> I would be happy to come out to your trail n show how we all can use the same trail with respect to all trail users


Yes Sir, easily done, do it all the time...no issues...no problems...no worries...the sky is not falling...


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

LTZ470 said:


> Yes Sir, easily done, do it all the time...no issues...no problems...no worries...the sky is not falling...


LTZ, I pass by dog walkers with their dogs off leash in the National Forest near my home on a regular basis. I am polite and do not say anything about dogs are required to be leashed. It doesn't mean it is ok. So just because no one is calling you out does not mean they think it is acceptable.

There are three things that steer people to do the right thing:

1) their own conscience and what they think is right, this would include having consideration for others
2) peer pressure
3) fear of punishment

Religion probably falls into all three of these.

It is obvious you have no problem with #1. I think you originally came on this site thinking you could get support for #2; failing that you have fallen back on "no one I see on the trails says it is wrong so it is therefore ok". Hopefully #3 will catch up to you at some point.

The thing is, just as you have justified your illegally riding on non-motorized trails, you can just as easily justify riding on trails like the below; you'll be careful, your bike won't cause damage, etc. Hopefully peer pressure will prevent you from doing so. I'm sure your inconsideration for others is quite apparent to the people who interact with you.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

chazpat said:


> LTZ, I pass by dog walkers with their dogs off leash in the National Forest near my home on a regular basis. I am polite and do not say anything about dogs are required to be leashed. It doesn't mean it is ok. So just because no one is calling you out does not mean they think it is acceptable.
> 
> There are three things that steer people to do the right thing:
> 
> ...


Hope you are looking in mirror while you were writing this, one thing is garaunteed for sure, all you "purists" break laws everyday, of course those are "your" chosen laws to break and while shaking your finger elsewhere at someone else = self righteous hippocrits...so I would suggest: "Sweeping you own back porch"...I am going to ride and have a great time where ever I am at, not going to let you "purist" folks pi$$ on my leg and tell me it's rain...like I stated before not ONE issue no where with anyone this year at all...emtb's are coming and there is little you are any of these other purist clowns can do about it....put that in your pipe and smoke it...or choke on it...either or emtb's are happening...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> chazpat said:
> 
> 
> > ..
> ...


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> LTZ470 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you ride on trails that prohibit emotorbikes? A yes or no would suffice. TIA.
> ...


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

I speed. but I don't roll stops. My speeding doesn't effect your ability to drive in any way. How about you? Are you threatening our access to mountain bike trails? That's where the anger is coming from. You are destroying our hard fought access and you don't even care. So what if mountain bikers loose something because your being an ass hat.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

> Do you roll through 4-way stops and drive over the speed limit ever?...just a yes or no would suffice....


Actually, I obey the laws of the land. You haven't answered the question. Waiting.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

LTZ470 said:


> life behind bars said:
> 
> 
> > Do you roll through 4-way stops and drive over the speed limit ever?...just a yes or no would suffice....
> ...


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> Actually, I obey the laws of the land. You haven't answered the question. Waiting.


Actually, I obey the laws of the land. You haven't answered the question. Waiting.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

Walt said:


> LTZ470 said:
> 
> 
> > That's not very comparable, as it's an example of a law that is universally bent. The comparable question would be if you were, say, Bobby Unser, and you're a really good driver and less likely to crash - so you should be allowed to drive any speed you want.
> ...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> Ahhh...so a law thats broke universally is accepted by all making it alright...like the guy said above, their trails have 15 mph signs and they are surpassed easily...so we can now pic and choose which laws we want to abide by...great, I think I will...


Yeah, if you ever actually leave Resume Speed Texas. Troll on Opie.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

LTZ470 said:


> Hope you are looking in mirror while you were writing this, one thing is garaunteed for sure, all you "purists" break laws everyday, of course those are "your" chosen laws to break and while shaking your finger elsewhere at someone else = self righteous hippocrits...so I would suggest: "Sweeping you own back porch"...I am going to ride and have a great time where ever I am at, not going to let you "purist" folks pi$$ on my leg and tell me it's rain...like I stated before not ONE issue no where with anyone this year at all...emtb's are coming and there is little you are any of these other purist clowns can do about it....put that in your pipe and smoke it...or choke on it...either or emtb's are happening...


Is this a "hippocrit" that you keep taking about:



























You really might want to start consulting a dictionary.

I do come to a complete stop at stop signs. I was speeding a little bit going to the trails this morning, I was ok with it, the other drivers were doing the same and the cop with the radar gun didn't seem to mind, either. Go ride your ebike past the land manager and see if she/he is ok with it.

One thing LTZ has shown us, we need to speak up that we mountain bikers do not consider a bike with a motor to be a bicycle and we do not want them to be lumped in with us when making any consideration for trails, they need to stand on their own as a low powered motorized vehicle. I'll be in my local NPS office next week and I'll be sure to share this with them.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

Gutch said:


> I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed. And everyone is going to push their speed wherever they can. Speed doesn't cause accidents, riders cause accidents.


Gutch, this makes way too much sense for this thread, you are over their comprehension level....but how very true it actually is in REALITY out on the trails....

...as we have witnessed over and over and over and over and over and time and time and time again....and disregarded again and again and again....


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

AGarcia said:


> Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter.


They know exactly what they are talking about. The term ebikes is used throughout and everyone knows that most ebikes are pedal assist, I'm pretty sure they do. The type or percentage of power delivery is not defined, only that a vehicle with a motor has the capacity to propel itself to some degree and therefore qualifies as self-propelled.

No exceptions what-so-ever are suggested for pedal-assist eBikes and I'm sure none are intended. You are making up things which are not there and trying to bamboozle everyone by twisting words. Which is pretty much all lawyers do I suppose?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

LTZ470 said:


> Gutch, this makes way too much sense for this thread, you are over their comprehension level....but how very true it actually is in REALITY out on the trails....
> 
> ...as we have witnessed over and over and over and over and over and time and time and time again....and disregarded again and again and again....


Because I'm sure Gutch and LTZ have ridden all the trails (they have the map of the forest) and therefore, can make this observation. They've witnessed it over and over apparently.

And I'm sure speed is never a cause of accidents with automobiles, the road will always dictate your speed.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

LTZ470 said:


> emtb's are coming and there is little you are any of these other purist clowns can do about it...


If you mean that people will disregard trails closed to ebikes and ride them anyway, I agree, some people will, just like people break other park regs all day long. If you mean that land managers will roll over and allow them simply because they exist, or the bike industry wants to sell them, and we can't influence that, you're very wrong there. It's not difficult to get the ear of the people who make the decisions if you've already got a relationship with them, like many of the people in this forum, or many of the people who read these threads. On the local level, it's not hard to sway policy, especially if you have numbers on your side.

There's few places where I live where it's legal to ride emtbs on non motorized singletrack, with no changes coming in the foreseeable future, there's a reason for that, no one who has a voice wants that to happen. Forums like this and posts like yours are generally detrimental to advocating for increased emtb access, good job, keep it up.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

chazpat said:


> Because I'm sure Gutch and LTZ have ridden all the trails (they have the map of the forest) and therefore, can make this observation. They've witnessed it over and over apparently.
> 
> And I'm sure speed is never a cause of accidents with automobiles, the road will always dictate your speed.
> 
> View attachment 1139539





Gutch said:


> Speed doesn't cause accidents, riders cause accidents.


I think you didn't read what Gutch actually wrote...


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

Harryman said:


> If you mean that people will disregard trails closed to ebikes and ride them anyway, I agree, some people will, just like people break other park regs all day long. If you mean that land managers will roll over and allow them simply because they exist, or the bike industry wants to sell them, and we can't influence that, you're very wrong there. It's not difficult to get the ear of the people who make the decisions if you've already got a relationship with them, like many of the people in this forum, or many of the people who read these threads. On the local level, it's not hard to sway policy, especially if you have numbers on your side.
> 
> There's few places where I live where it's legal to ride emtbs on non motorized singletrack, with no changes coming in the foreseeable future, there's a reason for that, no one who has a voice wants that to happen. Forums like this and posts like yours are generally detrimental to advocating for increased emtb access, good job, keep it up.


emtbs are coming Harry...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> I think you didn't read what Gutch actually wrote...


As usual you only post part of the story, the part you missed



Gutch said:


> I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed. And everyone is going to push their speed wherever they can. .


and was refuted, thoroughly I would add in short order. Stop being a Tool, you make all emotorbike riders look bad. Or, is that your intention? Because you sure are not doing them any favors.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

BS. They're not coming anywhere except the rail trails and bike lanes unless the manufacturers and users make a more compelling case for them and explain how they're going to fit in. 

I mean, they're banned from both Moab and Park City (and effectively from St. George since it's mostly BLM/FS) here in UT. That eliminates all of the major riding destinations, unless you want to poach. There is considerable inertia to overcome if you want to overturn those bans, and posting/arguing here isn't going to help your cause much.

-Walt


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> As usual you only post part of the story, the part you missed
> 
> and was refuted, thoroughly I would add in short order. Stop being a Tool, you make all emotorbike riders look bad. Or, is that your intention? Because you sure are not doing them any favors.


I'm sure they are all big boys and can handle all this whining and crying and sniveling accordingly...lol..."Him rode an emtb on my trail"...sniff-sniff....you guys are pathetic...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> I'm sure they are all big boys and can handle all this whining and crying and sniveling accordingly...lol..."Him rode an emtb on my trail"...sniff-sniff....you guys are pathetic...


All of assertions refuted time and time again. Your rants aren't even plausible anymore, you do more damage with each and every post. YOu make this far too easy.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

How long before this thread gets deleted? No useful information and it's devolved into petty name calling.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Honestly I think Francis made a mistake in creating this forum. It might make more sense to just have a dedicated e-bike site under the consumerreview umbrella. I feel sort of bad for the folks who just want to figure out how to get their cargo bike to go to the store more easily, or want to start bike commuting now that they won't have to kill themselves to get to work, or whatever. Then again, this is mostly a mountain bike site, and the mountain bike side of e-bikes is obviously more controversial.

But hey, at least it's not the trail building and advocacy forum. Those folks *really* hate e-bikes. It's tame here!

-Walt


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

Walt said:


> BS. They're not coming anywhere except the rail trails and bike lanes unless the manufacturers and users make a more compelling case for them and explain how they're going to fit in.
> 
> I mean, they're banned from both Moab and Park City (and effectively from St. George since it's mostly BLM/FS) here in UT. That eliminates all of the major riding destinations, unless you want to poach. There is considerable inertia to overcome if you want to overturn those bans, and posting/arguing here isn't going to help your cause much.
> 
> -Walt


Agreed Walt only been to Utah a hand full of times, not somewhere I would take up a fight to ride...loved riding Coral Pink Sand Dunes and Sand Mountain...really enjoyed several trips to those to places and they had some great craft beer over Moab way...if I get back out there I might ride but would probably end up shooting more photos than riding to be honest...


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> All of assertions refuted time and time again. Your rants aren't even plausible anymore, you do more damage with each and every post. YOu make this far too easy.


I love easy peasy...my favorite...my life behind ebars....


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

LTZ470 said:


> Agreed Walt only been to Utah a hand full of times, not somewhere I would take up a fight to ride...loved riding Coral Pink Sand Dunes and Sand Mountain...really enjoyed several trips to those to places and they had some great craft beer over Moab way...if I get back out there I might ride but would probably end up shooting more photos than riding to be honest...


You are perhaps the only person who has ever complimented UT craft beer. Good lord, the beer here is almost universally awful, and it's actually *illegal* to have anything over 3.2 on draft! You can instantly make friends by having *Colorado* beer in your fridge...

I've never heard of the rides you're talking about (unless you're talking about Little Sahara, which is maybe the worst place to ride a mountain bike/best place for an ATV I've ever heard of), but if you haven't been to Moab in the last decade or so it's well worth a visit. More new trails (good ones) than you can shake a stick at. The St. George area has gone sort of bananas too, it's a legit competitor with Moab for cold-season mountain bikers these days. And of course if you want to get your XC mileage on, we have 500+ miles of nice singletrack here in PC for the summer/fall. Check in at the UT forum if you're interested in more info, there are lots of great threads on where to ride (normal bikes, that is).

-Walt


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

Walt said:


> You are perhaps the only person who has ever complimented UT craft beer. Good lord, the beer here is almost universally awful, and it's actually *illegal* to have anything over 3.2 on draft! You can instantly make friends by having *Colorado* beer in your fridge...
> 
> I've never heard of the rides you're talking about (unless you're talking about Little Sahara, which is maybe the worst place to ride a mountain bike/best place for an ATV I've ever heard of), but if you haven't been to Moab in the last decade or so it's well worth a visit. More new trails (good ones) than you can shake a stick at. The St. George area has gone sort of bananas too, it's a legit competitor with Moab for cold-season mountain bikers these days. And of course if you want to get your XC mileage on, we have 500+ miles of nice singletrack here in PC for the summer/fall. Check in at the UT forum if you're interested in more info, there are lots of great threads on where to ride (normal bikes, that is).
> 
> -Walt


Yes Sir kept one of the beers in my fridge for 7 yrs just drank it last month...8% ABV...it was great...was riding ATV's and RZR when there last...yes sir Little Sahara contains Sand Mountain...Coral Pink Sand Dunes one of the most beautiful places you can ride ATV's...been there several trips...


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

chazpat said:


> Because I'm sure Gutch and LTZ have ridden all the trails (they have the map of the forest) and therefore, can make this observation. They've witnessed it over and over apparently.
> 
> And I'm sure speed is never a cause of accidents with automobiles, the road will always dictate your speed.
> 
> View attachment 1139539


I respect your knowledge of riding Ebikes. Did that corvette drive itself into a tree? Look, I ride legal, own many bicycles and have been riding well before the trek Y bike, so if you are seriously against Ebikes, I'd suggest spending your time protesting the manufactures. You may have more success than hammering on the .002% of the ebike crowd here. BTW, I've owned 4 vettes and never a scratch.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

LTZ470 said:


> Hope you are looking in mirror while you were writing this, one thing is garaunteed for sure, all you "purists" break laws everyday, of course those are "your" chosen laws to break and while shaking your finger elsewhere at someone else = self righteous hippocrits...so I would suggest: "Sweeping you own back porch"...I am going to ride and have a great time where ever I am at, not going to let you "purist" folks pi$$ on my leg and tell me it's rain...like I stated before not ONE issue no where with anyone this year at all...emtb's are coming and there is little you are any of these other purist clowns can do about it....put that in your pipe and smoke it...or choke on it...either or emtb's are happening...


 Interesting perspective. Good luck with that. Lots of areas of the US have trail access issues near large population centers. Like the East coast for one. And laws that prevent motorized vehicles on multi use trails for one. Many other places like ME, out west say ID and such, wide open places with less people and more riding areas available. The laws will be enforced, a little peer pressure goes a long way. It's not about being a purist, it's about keeping the trails open for mt biking. Not likely to see the motorized ban lifted here in MA. Motos for the most part had access, abused the trails /trust and then got booted out. So no, not happening. At all. Bring your TX attitude up here in MA? Got a MA salute for ya and stick for your front wheel spokes, cheers.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

LTZ470 said:


> Yes Sir kept one of the beers in my fridge for 7 yrs just drank it last month...8% ABV...it was great...was riding ATV's and RZR when there last...yes sir Little Sahara contains Sand Mountain...Coral Pink Sand Dunes one of the most beautiful places you can ride ATV's...been there several trips...


That explains your perspective, I think. Come ride mountain bike trails sometime, you'll see it quite a bit differently. Wide open sand dunes on an ATV is not at all similar.

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

My trails are tight, rutty, rocky tech stuff. I'll say it again, the trail will always dictate the speed in which you can ride it. Will some guys ride it faster? Yes. Will some sections be faster? Yes. The speed difference between an ebike and mtb on these trails are negligible. My Levo cuts out at 17mph. If you can pedal it into the 20-30 mph range, UP or DOWN you are a stud and guarantee you ride your mtb as fast as you can.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> My trails are tight, rutty, rocky tech stuff. I'll say it again, the trail will always dictate the speed in which you can ride it. Will some guys ride it faster? Yes. Will some sections be faster? Yes. The speed difference between an ebike and mtb on these trails are negligible. My Levo cuts out at 17mph. If you can pedal it into the 20-30 mph range, UP or DOWN you are a stud and guarantee you ride your mtb as fast as you can.


So effin what. You continue to set fire to a Straw Man, they are banned on non motorized trails in the N.F. and BLM lands, if you don't like it then go advocate for some access. In the mean time stay off trails that are closed to you.


----------



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

Gutch said:


> My trails are tight, rutty, rocky tech stuff. I'll say it again, the trails I ride will always dictate the speed in which I can ride them.


^fify


----------



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

Gutch said:


> My Levo cuts out at 17mph.


A cheap and easy upgrade will fix that problem- https://www.ebiketuning.com/sx2-dongle-for-brose-specialized-turbo-levo.html


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Well, I've ridden all over the place. An e-bike (or a full moto) wouldn't make me much faster many places in New England. It would make me at least twice as fast (uphill) all over the west. Then there are some places in between, of course. 

The broad perspective is: e-bikes (as currently configured) will work ok on some trails and not on others. Your local trails may or may not be among the places they will work, and there's more than just trail design (there's user density, there's fire risk, there's access threats, etc) at play. The best way to advocate for e-bikes is probably to identify the traits that make a trail a good one for e-bikes, and then go advocate for access to those specific trails (ie, the Moab/Ahab thread). 

That will involve going to a bunch of public meetings and giving input to the BLM, USFS, local land managers, etc, though. Posting here is mostly (thus far) giving e-bikes a black eye as we repeatedly see people talking about poaching, modifying bikes, etc. 

-Walt


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

It seems to me that the whole E-Bike thing is sort of emblematic of our culture. Why does everything have to be easier? Some things are better because they are hard. The rewards seem sweeter when you have to put out more effort, don't they? I intentionally make my rides harder, not easier. Does that make me a "purist"? I don't know but I savor the rewards of the effort.

Again, I think there is a place for E-bikes, but it's not every place a human powered bike can be.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> A cheap and easy upgrade will fix that problem- https://www.ebiketuning.com/sx2-dongle-for-brose-specialized-turbo-levo.html


 30 mph, for the Levo. Never saw that coming. And the cats out of the bag now. Yikes. Or getting run over? Save the cats!


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

leeboh said:


> 30 mph, for the Levo. Never saw that coming. And the cats out of the bag now. Yikes. Or getting run over? Save the cats!





J.B. Weld said:


> A cheap and easy upgrade will fix that problem- https://www.ebiketuning.com/sx2-dongle-for-brose-specialized-turbo-levo.html


"We ship to all countries in the world except to the USA and Canada."


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> A cheap and easy upgrade will fix that problem- https://www.ebiketuning.com/sx2-dongle-for-brose-specialized-turbo-levo.html


Thanks for the link. I love to haul ass.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> "We ship to all countries in the world except to the USA and Canada."


That's not going to stop many people once they hit evilbay.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

LTZ470 said:


> "We ship to all countries in the world except to the USA and Canada."


Do I need to repost links to your posts on endless sphere? Don't pretend US ebikers don't have a way and interest in boosting their speed.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

I just joined here and am kind of marveling at the bitter discussion. Sheesh, does everyone on here act the same way in real life toward other people as they do online? Honest question.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

BootneyLee said:


> I just joined here and am kind of marveling at the bitter discussion. Sheesh, does everyone on here act the same way in real life toward other people as they do online? Honest question.


Would depend on the topic, I suppose. Politics, religion and E-bikes should never be discussed at parties.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

chuckha62 said:


> motorbikes should never be discussed on a mountain bike forum


Fixed it


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Wow LTZ, you're still going at it I see. Posting the same things over and over again and expecting different results?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> A cheap and easy upgrade will fix that problem- https://www.ebiketuning.com/sx2-dongle-for-brose-specialized-turbo-levo.html


You can just do it for free with an app, it's the cheapest emtb to derestrict available.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

BootneyLee said:


> Sheesh, does everyone on here act the same way in real life toward other people as they do on line?


The short answer is no. Internet forums bring out the worst in people but this is still the best forum I've ever been on. Most discussion on here is very civilised. Few subjects get people riled up, if fact eBikes is the most contentious subject there is.

The problem is that a lot of mountain bikers, possibly most of them, hate eBikes, because of the potential they have for spoiling our fun. That disdain alone is not enough to cause a rumpus but eBike users push everyone to thirty-thousand feet by flat out refusing to acknowledge the problems. Which is very frustrating and makes you want to murder them! ;0)

So things get heated, the mods quite rightly bin the thread, which just makes the eBike haters even more aggrieved, so next eBike thread that opens up the guns are loaded with extra amo ready to go.

What can you do? eBike riders like eBikes, manufacturers like eBikes because they're making big money on them and the forum needs the manufactures on side to stay solvent. Try the rest of the forum, it's fine :0)


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> go build us some ebike singletrack instead of wasting your time here.


That sums up the entitlement of the "average?" emotorbiker.

Go build it yourself, then you'll have some skin in the game. Go to the Forest Service and get permission to build and then follow through on it. Come back when your done.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

If I may interject, I don't think most of us hate ebikes, we think they are great for riding where motorized vehicles are allowed. 

"eBike users push everyone to thirty-thousand feet by flat out refusing to acknowledge the problems. Which is very frustrating and makes you want to murder them! ;0)"

Now that point is true.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

chazpat said:


> If I may interject, I don't think most of us hate ebikes, we think they are great for riding where motorized vehicles are allowed.


Yeah, but you know what I meant. I don't hate bulldozers but I do if they are driving on my trails!


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Maybe you should post my whole statement. 

Maybe because there should be a few actual ebike owners in the "ebike forum!" I'm glad you build, go build us some ebike singletrack instead of wasting your time here.

I'm fine riding my Levo where I ride. It's not my everyday bike anyways. Yeah, I'm average ebiker. Don't lump us all together like I would you and the rest of your tribe of keyboard cowboys! Have a great ride, if of course you do ride?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> I'm glad you build, go build us some ebike singletrack instead of wasting your time here.


There you have it.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

chazpat said:


> If I may interject, I don't think most of us hate ebikes, we think they are great for riding where motorized vehicles are allowed.
> 
> "eBike users push everyone to thirty-thousand feet by flat out refusing to acknowledge the problems. Which is very frustrating and makes you want to murder them! ;0)"
> 
> Now that point is true.


I love how you perceive all ebikers the same. Most ebikers also own, wait for it.. mtbs! Holy ****, imagine that. We might actually be very well respected citizens! Does the average Joe wake up and go buy a Levo and has never ridden a mtb and has no credentials? If so, that is a huge rarity. 
Anyrate, please slow down on the next downhill so you can actually represent what you preach.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I remember bitching a bunch when I did a national trails day project as part of the college mountain bike club on a nature trail that wasn't open to bikes. I am old, this was the 90s.

It was cheerfully/forcefully explained to me that putting in that sort of good-citizen effort (the bike club had provided ~90% of the volunteers for the project, as well as planning/tools) was the key to getting new bike trails/access to happen in the future. I shut my trap and started digging.

You can make of that what you will, of course.

-Walt


----------



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

Maybe there's a lawyer around here (AGarcia?) that can help alter the definition of a bicycle to say that it has "legs" and the tires are it's "feet" and that it's not a mechanized vehicle because it's "feet" only move when a human cranks it's "legs". I'm really getting tired of those wildernuts telling me I can't ride on hiking only trails.


----------



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

Harryman said:


> You can just do it for free with an app, it's the cheapest emtb to derestrict available.


There you go LTZ, you want me to hunt that link down so you can get it downloaded or can you handle that on your own? Happy motoring!


----------



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

Gutch said:


> We might actually be very well respected citizens! Does the average Joe wake up and go buy a Levo and has never ridden a mtb and has no credentials? If so, that is a huge rarity.


What sort of credentials are required? Is there a secret handshake? I thought cash was OK.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I'm not arguing bike access Walt. If I insinuated you were a poacher, would this not bother you? Everybody needs to stay on legal trails and there really is no issue. Some won't, but that doesn't mean that it's gotta be all the ebikers that are poaching. Everybody on here acts like they have single handily created all singletrack and are complete angels. I bet half haven't even donated trail funds.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> I love how you perceive all ebikers the same. Most ebikers also own, wait for it.. mtbs! Holy ****, imagine that. We might actually be very well respected citizens! Does the average Joe wake up and go buy a Levo and has never ridden a mtb and has no credentials? If so, that is a huge rarity.
> Anyrate, please slow down on the next downhill so you can actually represent what you preach.


You do realize I was quoting someone else, right? I was actually interjecting that most of us don't hate ebikes, though I don't think Mr Pig really meant that. I just looked above and see that he already clarified that. The point you and LTS keep avoiding is what Mr Pig stated, ebikers "refusing to acknowledge the problems". None of us have any problem with you riding your ebike on your land, or allowing ebikes to use your land. And you shouldn't have a problem with landowners and mountain bikers who have advocated and built trails not allowing motorized vehicles. As has been stated over and over, ebikers need to stand on their own and not try to slide in by claiming they are bicycles.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

This thread still open?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> I bet half haven't even donated trail funds.


And I'll bet that most if not all have and they also dig. Most of these folks have not just years but decades advocating and putting in the physical labor to make these trails appear. Then someone comes along with an entitled attitude and makes demands. Well bully for you, hows that going to work out for the rest of the emotorbikers? Trail builders and advocacy is long ball not third and goal, a point which I'm sure is lost to most people that have not one clue to the decades of effort that have gone into securing our tentative grasp on our trails. You need to step off and consider the bigger picture, emotorbikes and their associated issues are not about you, rather they are about us.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

chazpat said:


> As has been stated over and over, ebikers need to stand on their own and not try to slide in by claiming they are bicycles.


Anyone would think this was complicated.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

mr pig said:


> this thread still open?


unfortunately


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

leeboh said:


> 30 mph, for the Levo. Never saw that coming. And the cats out of the bag now. Yikes. Or getting run over? Save the cats!





chazpat said:


> Do I need to repost links to your posts on endless sphere? Don't pretend US ebikers don't have a way and interest in boosting their speed.


Please do...mine is not chipped and never will be...lol...you can blow all the smoke up folks ar$e you want...at the end of the day you are a liar to say that my bike is chipped and FOS as well...I told the truth, never did any of those things, didn't know better then...so yes go ahead and keep posting lies...it's on your head not mine dude...lol...pathetic, you purists are pathetic...


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Gutch said:


> I'm not arguing bike access Walt. If I insinuated you were a poacher, would this not bother you? Everybody needs to stay on legal trails and there really is no issue. Some won't, but that doesn't mean that it's gotta be all the ebikers that are poaching. Everybody on here acts like they have single handily created all singletrack and are complete angels. I bet half haven't even donated trail funds.


I work on my local trails. I've also donated to both IMBA and STC. Despite having small problems with both of those organizations.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

LTZ470 said:


> Please do...mine is not chipped and never will be...lol...you can blow all the smoke up folks ar$e you want...at the end of the day you are a liar to say that my bike is chipped and FOS as well...I told the truth, never did any of those things, didn't know better then...so yes go ahead and keep posting lies...it's on your head not mine dude...lol...pathetic, you purists are pathetic...


"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."


----------



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

LTZ470 said:


> ...I told the truth, never did any of those things,


No one has said otherwise Mr. LTZ420. What happened? You used to be more fun, maybe some healthy exercise would be beneficial.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

LTZ470 said:


> Please do...mine is not chipped and never will be...lol...you can blow all the smoke up folks ar$e you want...at the end of the day you are a liar to say that my bike is chipped and FOS as well...I told the truth, never did any of those things, didn't know better then...so yes go ahead and keep posting lies...it's on your head not mine dude...lol...pathetic, you purists are pathetic...


Show me where I have said your bike is chipped. Show me anywhere I have lied about you. You said earlier that I called you a lier, show me anywhere I have called you a lier. Go ahead, read everything I have posted and you will not find any of this. I really don't know what to say to you other than you amaze me, and not in a good way.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I'm a member of a local IMBA chapter, usually put money in the donation box of the trails I ride and I have worked on my local trails. I also report any trail issues, both bicycle trails and non-bicycle trails, to the NPS ranger in charge of my local trails, did so this morning in fact.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

chazpat said:


> Show me where I have said your bike is chipped. Show me anywhere I have lied about you. You said earlier that I called you a lier, show me anywhere I have called you a lier. Go ahead, read everything I have posted and you will not find any of this. I really don't know what to say to you other than you amaze me, and not in a good way.


You are basically attempting to say that I have modified my bike...that's exactly what you are trying to say...but it is a lie, period...I never modified it except to buy a larger amp battery for more miles on the trails, thats the ONLY change I have made to my BH Emotion Neo Jumper...

You keep repeating the same thing expecting a different result....


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

alexbn921 said:


> "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."


Never fear emtb's are here to stay...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> Never fear emtb's are here to stay...


Yep, on the bike paths and dirt roads. Enjoy.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

chazpat said:


> You do realize I was quoting someone else, right? I was actually interjecting that most of us don't hate ebikes, though I don't think Mr Pig really meant that. I just looked above and see that he already clarified that. The point you and LTS keep avoiding is what Mr Pig stated, ebikers "refusing to acknowledge the problems". None of us have any problem with you riding your ebike on your land, or allowing ebikes to use your land. And you shouldn't have a problem with landowners and mountain bikers who have advocated and built trails not allowing motorized vehicles. As has been stated over and over, ebikers need to stand on their own and not try to slide in by claiming they are bicycles.


I agree with you! I've always stated they are different and need to be on their own merit.
I also believe that they can mix on singletrack with mtbs if it is legal. I've always been a mtbr 1st. and bought a Levo to mix it up. Respect to all who have dug, donated or permitted land access. Not ALL ebikers are jackasses, same can be said for hikers etc.. I've also stated that they are fun, you will get a workout, there fast, and require a little bit different riding technique. Hell, I have more invested in my Niner than my Levo.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

LTZ470 said:


> You are basically attempting to say that I have modified my bike...that's exactly what you are trying to say...but it is a lie, period...I never modified it except to buy a larger amp battery for more miles on the trails, thats the ONLY change I have made to my BH Emotion Neo Jumper...
> 
> You keep repeating the same thing expecting a different result....


I am not attempting that, you are quite a piece of work for jumping to that conclusion and accusing me of that. I pointed out that earlier you had an interest in modifying your bike and above I was simply pointing out that US and Canadian eBikers can easily modify their eBikes despite that one product not shipping to the US/Canada (which is what you pointed out) and that you were well aware of this.

Love how you echo Corn, you do realize everyone here read that, don't you? You are truly amazing. Do you know football? Learn when to punt.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> I agree with you! I've always stated they are different and need to be on their own merit.
> I also believe that they can mix on singletrack with mtbs if it is legal. I've always been a mtbr 1st. and bought a Levo to mix it up. Respect to all who have dug, donated or permitted land access. Not ALL ebikers are jackasses, same can be said for hikers etc.. I've also stated that they are fun, you will get a workout, there fast, and require a little bit different riding technique. Hell, I have more invested in my Niner than my Levo.


Ok, cool, thank you for clarifying your viewpoint.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

chazpat said:


> I am not attempting that, you are quite a piece of work for jumping to that conclusion and accusing me of that. I pointed out that earlier you had an interest in modifying your bike and above I was simply pointing out that US and Canadian eBikers can easily modify their eBikes despite that one product not shipping to the US/Canada (which is what you pointed out) and that you were well aware of this.
> 
> Love how you echo Corn, you do realize everyone here read that, don't you? You are truly amazing. Do you know football? Learn when to punt.


An anyone that rides Levo's knows you don't require a chip either...who cares? Folks are going to chip their bikes, cars, ATVs, UTVs, Trucks etc...and I have as well, but not my ebike...no need for it unless I was going to ride only roads, Class 1 emtb's are fast enough as is...


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

LTZ470 said:


> An anyone that rides Levo's knows you don't require a chip either...who cares? Folks are going to chip their bikes, cars, ATVs, UTVs, Trucks etc...and I have as well, but not my ebike...no need for it unless I was going to ride only roads, Class 1 emtb's are fast enough as is...


Totally agree. I'm almost always in eco mode, except for on the beach! Full on Turbo at 7 am. Hard sand, quiet, and no one out. Very cool.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Sorry for of topic, but forgot how to send rep?


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

I see there is confusion when ebikers report they are doing twice the distance. Their position is being misrepresented and it is assumed they are riding out of control. Let's say a "very fit" mtn bkr knocks out a 20 mile ride in the mountains. A regular mountain biker would be able to knock out 10-12 miles of that same ride that the very fit rider did. The ebike allows me to "double" my ride and knock out that same 20 mile ride. It does not allow me to double the 20 miles and make it 40 miles. It also allows me to "double" my speed from say 4 mph to 8 mph on a climb in the dirt. I've done plenty of long rides on the Levo. The dirt rides average around 10 mph according to my Strava data. All my rides include downhills so the average speed is much lower on the climbs. So much for this terrifying uphill speed we keep hearing about. After a recent crash going uphill on a corner I am playing with a theory of mine that maybe bikes like the Levo can't corner very fast while climbing. I was putting down full torque on the pedals while using full torque on the motor and there just wasn't enough weight on the front end to hold traction on the front wheel. Anyway it was just a theory and I am sure someone on the forum will have a huge problem with it.

I call BS on the 30 mph Levo. The Levo is gear bound to around 25 mph or less. The motor can not deliver torque unless it senses torque from the pedals. To get a higher motor powered speed the rider would have to have a cadence of a hamster on one of those little wheels they run in. Even if someone could maintain that they couldn't do it for very long. Buyer beware on the dongle.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

A bigger chainring will drop your cadence nicely...

-W


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Giant Warp said:


> I see there is confusion when ebikers report they are doing twice the distance. Their position is being misrepresented and it is assumed they are riding out of control. Let's say a "very fit" mtn bkr knocks out a 20 mile ride in the mountains. A regular mountain biker would be able to knock out 10-12 miles of that same ride that the very fit rider did. The ebike allows me to "double" my ride and knock out that same 20 mile ride. It does not allow me to double the 20 miles and make it 40 miles. It also allows me to "double" my speed from say 4 mph to 8 mph on a climb in the dirt. I've done plenty of long rides on the Levo. The dirt rides average around 10 mph according to my Strava data. All my rides include downhills so the average speed is much lower on the climbs. So much for this terrifying uphill speed we keep hearing about. After a recent crash going uphill on a corner I am playing with a theory of mine that maybe bikes like the Levo can't corner very fast while climbing. I was putting down full torque on the pedals while using full torque on the motor and there just wasn't enough weight on the front end to hold traction on the front wheel. Anyway it was just a theory and I am sure someone on the forum will have a huge problem with it.
> 
> I call BS on the 30 mph Levo. The Levo is gear bound to around 25 mph or less. The motor can not deliver torque unless it senses torque from the pedals. To get a higher motor powered speed the rider would have to have a cadence of a hamster on one of those little wheels they run in. Even if someone could maintain that they couldn't do it for very long. Buyer beware on the dongle.


So, if you double the distance you would normally ride, I'm not sure why that is confusing? That's what is commonly claimed, that they allow you to ride twice as far in the same amount of time as you would on a bike.

You are correct, with the stock 24t front chainring, even derestricted, you can only get it up to @25. It's one thing people complain about with the levo, that the biggest you can fit is a 30 since that little chainring wears out quickly and eats chains. Other motors use more like a 38


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

With no easy discernablility between class 1-3 lies the managing entities dilemma. I comepletely agree class 1s are not in and of themselves detrimental to non-motorized trails and trail users being at best the equivalent of a binging meth and crushing your local xc hurtfests on a demo 8 steez galore.

The problem lies in class 2-3 easily looking like a benign class one. The Forest Service and many similar land managers have spontaneous concensus in a sense: classes 1-3 low powered to high have a variety of acceleration initiation methods (assist to throttle) and all have a motor and a battery, thus they are motorized and as such can be managed under existing regulations. 

Probably wouldn't seem reasonable to me either had I already dropped coin on a emtb and in reality have a neutered emoto that legally cannot ride the majority of trails it is marketed towards.

Kettle thy name is black! I can ride my emtb anywhere I want, you mtbers ride pirate trail!

Indeed, there is a case of interesting relatavism afoot, alas my bad behavior does not condone your bad behavior. 

And karmically there is a balance between advocacy and behavior. Unlikely to be the same person as facetiously presented here, the fact remains advocacy for class 1 ebikes as mtb equivalent is lacking to the point of nonexistence, more likely to hear of entitlement and anger at the mere suggestion one should not ride their bemoanto™ on nonmotorized MUTs on federal lands. 

Emtbs=motorized for all classes vis a vis the FS BLM and others that follow their lead, to argue on the internet ,while extremely entertaining as well as utterly pointless, that mtbers are advocating a ban on emtbs is pure gold given they are already banned and allowed explicitly in certain states in state managed areas.

Please join WoodlandHills in the promise land of eMecca and perhaps then the group think will move towards a more proactive engaging stance to at some future allow legal use of class 1 ebikes in a more broad manner. 
But don't condescending claim access and poach righteously without doing some due dilligence advocacy simultaneously/concurrently/preceedingly as your ethics guide you. 

Good luck.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

LTZ470 said:


> You are basically attempting to say that I have modified my bike...that's exactly what you are trying to say...but it is a lie, period...I never modified it except to buy a larger amp battery for more miles on the trails, thats the ONLY change I have made to my BH Emotion Neo Jumper...


So you modified the battery, and then claim that you have never modified your e-bike... In fact, you said it was "a lie, period" that you modified your bike just before saying you modified your bike. Good job.



LTZ470 said:


> An anyone that rides Levo's knows you don't require a chip either...who cares? Folks are going to chip their bikes, cars, ATVs, UTVs, Trucks etc...and I have as well, but not my ebike...no need for it unless I was going to ride only roads, Class 1 emtb's are fast enough as is...


I thought Class 1 e-bikes were no faster than a regular mountain bike. At least, that's what some of these e-bangers have been shoving down our throats... Now they are so fast that there is no desire to go faster? Something doesn't add up here.


----------



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

Giant Warp said:


> I see there is confusion when ebikers report they are doing twice the distance. Their position is being misrepresented and it is assumed they are riding out of control. Let's say a "very fit" mtn bkr knocks out a 20 mile ride in the mountains. A regular mountain biker would be able to knock out 10-12 miles of that same ride that the very fit rider did.


Now I'm confused, didn't you just say that you can knock out a 20 mile ride instead of your usual 10-12? A fit rider who usually goes for 20 miles can now easily do 30-40 with assist. More miles and higher speeds = more trail impact.

No one is assuming they are out of control and there's nothing wrong with electric bikes per se, they're just different that's all.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

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


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Velocipedist said:


> With no easy discernablility between class 1-3 lies the managing entities dilemma. I comepletely agree class 1s are not in and of themselves detrimental to non-motorized trails and trail users being at best the equivalent of a binging meth and crushing your local xc hurtfests on a demo 8 steez galore.
> 
> The problem lies in class 2-3 easily looking like a benign class one. The Forest Service and many similar land managers have spontaneous concensus in a sense: classes 1-3 low powered to high have a variety of acceleration initiation methods (assist to throttle) and all have a motor and a battery, thus they are motorized and as such can be managed under existing regulations.
> 
> ...


Well said! We are not the enemy. I even have an ebike that I use on the roads. I wish you luck on your endeavors good sir.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

chuckha62 said:


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Velocipedist again.


I got him.


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

Harryman said:


> So, if you double the distance you would normally ride, I'm not sure why that is confusing? That's what is commonly claimed, that they allow you to ride twice as far in the same amount of time as you would on a bike.


Yes, the ebike would bump you from 4mph to 8mph. So when I say double the distance, it brings the ebiker to the same distance as the fit rider. It does not double the distance of the fit rider. On a flat trail you hit the governor and it gets boring real fast. Also, at max speed the battery drains fast and then you can't ride as far.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Giant Warp said:


> Yes, the ebike would bump you from 4mph to 8mph. So when I say double the distance, it brings the ebiker to the same distance as the fit rider. It does not double the distance of the fit rider. On a flat trail you hit the governor and it gets boring real fast. Also, at max speed the battery drains fast and then you can't ride as far.


Semantics. The motorbike rider is still riding twice as far as he/she normally would. That still means twice as far, even in the e-universe.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> Thanks for fixing the "end quote" my computer wasn't letting me do full quotes for some reason.
> 
> In response to your question:
> 
> Here is a link to the Rule 212. Within the rule, you will find the definition of the term "motor vehicle." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/212.1


According to that definition, both Pedal Assist and Throttle Controlled fit the definition of a motor vehicle.

The definition is this for those who do not want to look it up:


> Motor vehicle. Any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than:
> 
> (1) A vehicle operated on rails; and
> (2) Any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, that is designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area.


1 - eBikes are not operated on rails.
2 - eBikes are not wheelchairs or mobility devices(however some mobility-impaired people do use them specifically for that, but that is not what this over arching discussion is about, no one is arguing against handicapped people from having a loophole on this subject)

I am not sure how a lawyer could use this definition to argue that eBikes ARE allowed on NFS land..... Maybe I am still totally missing your point.

Sorry for the late reply, was not around over the weekend, now I have to go back and read 4 pages of this thread.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Walt said:


> You could get some sympathy from me (and even support) by saying something like "well, hey, trail X is wide open, has no hikers, and is directional. It's crazy that I can't ride an e-bike on it, it wouldn't hurt anything. Let's let the local land managers/local riders make the calls!"
> 
> There is the concern that full on moto riders will use the same argument in places, of course (and in fact they have, unsuccessfully, many times). But that's another issue.
> 
> ...


So much common sense and wisdom here it's causing my brain to ooze with knowledge.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> Sorry for the late reply, was not around over the weekend, now I have to go back and read 4 pages of this thread.


Uh oh.

Poor Klurejr, how'd you get assigned this forum?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Gutch said:


> I respect your knowledge of riding Ebikes. Did that corvette drive itself into a tree? Look, I ride legal, own many bicycles and have been riding well before the trek Y bike, so if you are seriously against Ebikes, I'd suggest spending your time protesting the manufactures. You may have more success than hammering on the .002% of the ebike crowd here. BTW, I've owned 4 vettes and never a scratch.


Gonna go a bit off topic here, not that this thread has not already fully derailed by this point in the discussion, but that is a fairlady Z, not a Corvette in that picture. Considering you are claiming to have owned 4 of them I would expect you to be able to identify one...... oops. haha.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chazpat said:


> Uh oh.
> 
> Poor Klurejr, how'd you get assigned this forum?


I didn't, I just happen to have powers here because of supermod. There is only one moderator assigned and it is not Walt, Walt has zero moderation privileges here.

I just finished reading all the posts and had to delete a few where users were straight out name calling... well done, very mature..

Guys, no name calling, and please get this thread back on topic, this is not a trail access discussion, this is a discussion about the rules/laws that the Forest Service is enforcing regarding what they consider a motorized vehicle on Forrest Service Managed Trails.

If you are not going to discuss the Forest service trails or the law posted in the first post, then don't discuss it here. There are many other threads in the eBike forum that have covered all the things i have seen discussed here.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> According to that definition, both Pedal Assist and Throttle Controlled fit the definition of a motor vehicle.
> 
> The definition is this for those who do not want to look it up:
> 
> ...


No problem... Again, if you take a careful look at the actual definition, as set forth in the regulations (as apposed to the letter author's interpretation of the regulations), what do you see?

What I see is that a "motor vehicle" is "Any vehicle which is self-propelled..." Now, from the definition, we know that self-propelled vehicles (other than vehicles on rails and motorized wheelchairs) = motor vehicles.

Follow me so far?

Ok. So what is a "self-propelled vehicle?"

The definition is not found in the regulations.

So what does the term mean if it's not defined?

According the letter writer (but not the regulation writer), a "self-propelled vehicle" is "any vehicle with a motor." That is the letter writer's interpretation, as distinguished from what is actually set forth in the regulations....

But as I explained in an earlier post, that doesn't seem right to me, because the author of the regulations could have easily said that "a motorized vehicle" is "any vehicle with a motor" if that is what he/she actually meant. That would have been the end of the story. Easy-peazy.

But regulation author didn't say that.

So what does "self-propelled" mean?

In the absence of the term "self-propelled" being defined in the regulations, I'd suggest that one definition of a "self-propelled" vehicle --in e-bike form-- is a throttle operated electric bike with a motor configured so as to not require the rider to pedal in order for the bike to propel the rider (under California law, we would call that a "Type 2" e-bike).

A "pedal-assist" bike --like a Levo-- cannot propel the rider on it's own ("self-propel"). And as such, I believe it does not seem to fit the definition of "self-propelled" like a throttle assist e-bike would. Under California law, we would call something like a Levo a "Type 1" e-bike.

I understand folks want to see this as an issue of simple "semantics." But it's not, at least not from my perspective.

What you have, as I see it, is a regulation, the meaning of which hinges on an undefined term.

In the absence of the undefined term, a regulator can certainly use their judgment to interpret the regulations as they understand them (that's what you see happening in the letter and elsewhere). They can then use that interpretation to enforce the regulations.

But in the absence of the defined term, a member of the general public can easily contest the interpretation/enforcement (provided the member has the time, legal standing, money and competent legal assistance to do so). That happens all the time in court. And often, as a result, the regulations are modified and clarified in order to prevent a lawsuit or as a result of a lawsuit.

Again, I have no real dog in this fight. And I'm not anyone's lawyer on this forum, and I'm not handing out legal advice to anyone....Just offering up my view as a member of the public.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

This won't end well for motorbikes.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> Gonna go a bit off topic here, not that this thread has not already fully derailed by this point in the discussion, but that is a fairlady Z, not a Corvette in that picture. Considering you are claiming to have owned 4 of them I would expect you to be able to identify one...... oops. haha.


I somehow missed his post, that is odd, I'm not much of a car guy but I recognized it as a Nissan Z. And Klurejr, why are you using the Japanese name (Fairlady) rather than the American (300Z I believe)?


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

I think they should be called "motor-assist" bikes, instead of "pedal-assist."


----------



## krel (May 9, 2017)

Perhaps we should base the definition on the fuel type. Gasoline or electrons vs burritos. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Cornfield said:


> I think they should be called "motor-assist" bikes, instead of "pedal-assist."


You can call hem what you like!


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> This won't end well for motorbikes.


What is a motorbike?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

krel said:


> Perhaps we should base the definition on the fuel type. Gasoline or electrons vs burritos.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Perhaps we should?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

AGarcia said:


> What is a motorbike?


A bike with a motor of course.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> A bike with a motor of course.


Oh, of course.... So much wisdom and insight. Very helpful to the discussion. Carry on!


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> So what does "self-propelled" mean?
> 
> In the absence of the term "self-propelled" being defined in the regulations, I'd suggest that one definition of a "self-propelled" vehicle --in e-bike form-- is a throttle operated electric bike with a motor configured so as to not require the rider to pedal in order for the bike to propel the rider (under California law, we would call that a "Type 2" e-bike).
> 
> ...


Okay, I see where the gray area is for you on this. "self" is the problem, that word could also mean it was propelled without a human on it at all, as in: "it is propelling itself". The intent seems clear to me that the idea is that a pedel-elect eBike is still self propelled, meaning a motor is doing the majority of the propelling, not a human, A throttle controlled eBike still is not true autonomously "self" propelled as it requires human interaction to propel it, without pushing the throttle the motor does not engage, without moving the pedals the motor does not engage. But sure that could be argued in court if someone wanted to try and fight the forest service on it. Maybe it will take a lawsuit to actually clean up that definition.



chazpat said:


> I somehow missed his post, that is odd, I'm not much of a car guy but I recognized it as a Nissan Z. And Klurejr, why are you using the Japanese name (Fairlady) rather than the American (300Z I believe)?


I prefer the term fairlady.

but yes that is a 300ZX and one of the later models I believe just from the looks of those rear quarter panels.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

AGarcia said:


> Oh, of course.... So much wisdom and insight. Very helpful to the discussion. Carry on!


Get used to the term, you're going to see it a lot. Motorbikes won't be hiding in benign nomenclature meant to deceive.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> Okay, I see where the gray area is for you on this. "self" is the problem, that word could also mean it was propelled without a human on it at all, as in: "it is propelling itself". The intent seems clear to me that the idea is that a pedel-elect eBike is still self propelled, meaning a motor is doing the majority of the propelling, not a human, A throttle controlled eBike still is not true autonomously "self" propelled as it requires human interaction to propel it, without pushing the throttle the motor does not engage, without moving the pedals the motor does not engage. But sure that could be argued in court if someone wanted to try and fight the forest service on it. Maybe it will take a lawsuit to actually clean up that definition.


Yes, you get the distinction I am making. You and I have different locations where we would draw the line, but both views can be persuasive, depending upon the audience. We can also parse each side further...on and on. And that's what often happens in the absence of clear regulatory definitions.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> Get used to the term, you're going to see it a lot. Motorbikes won't be hiding in benign nomenclature meant to deceive.


Words are powerful. I'm glad I make a living with them.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> Get used to the term, you're going to see it a lot. Motorbikes won't be hiding in benign nomenclature meant to deceive.


I don't think motorbike is going to cut it either...

SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS.
For purposes of motor vehicle safety standards issued and
enforced pursuant to chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code,

"a low-speed electric bicycle (as defined in section 38(b) of the Consumer
Product Safety Act) shall not be considered a motor vehicle
as defined by section 30102(6) of title 49, United States Code."


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)




----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> I don't think motorbike is going to cut it either...
> 
> SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS.
> For purposes of motor vehicle safety standards issued and
> ...


Meh, the industry can lie and cloak them in cute euphemisms so I don't feel any particular angst over calling them MOTORBIKES. It cuts two ways you know.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

Is that like in "electric fan" or do you call it a "Motor Fan"...or an "electric drill" or do you call it a "Motor Drill"...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> Is that like in "electric fan" or do you call it a "Motor Fan"...or an "electric drill" or do you call it a "Motor Drill"...


Actually it's a drill motor. Hurry, run and google that smart guy.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Did you guys miss the memo on this line of argument being *a bad idea*?!?

I mean, if you do successfully make this argument in court, guess what the next step will be? A reworded statement and even more enemies.

Stop it with the semantics and legal loophole stuff. Start with ideas on how to share trails with higher speed vehicles, money for trail redesign/building, and real on the ground advocacy. Then you might get some actual support. 

-Walt


----------



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

LTZ470 said:


> Is that like in "electric fan" or do you call it a "Motor Fan"...or an "electric drill" or do you call it a "Motor Drill"...


Is there a difference? Motor drill works.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

LTZ470 said:


> I don't think motorbike is going to cut it either...
> 
> SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS.
> For purposes of motor vehicle safety standards issued and
> ...


Its been covered before, but the legislation redefining ebikes as not "motor vehicles" just means they're not within that specific legal definition. Whether they're considered motorized is dependent on your local regs and land managers.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> Actually it's a drill motor. Hurry, run and google that smart guy.


Funny, never heard of a drill motor...electric or cordless drill yes...next time you need an electric drill ask someone to hand you a drill motor and let us know how that works for you Mr Google...


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Walt said:


> Did you guys miss the memo on this line of argument being *a bad idea*?!?
> 
> I mean, if you do successfully make this argument in court, guess what the next step will be? A reworded statement and even more enemies.
> 
> ...


You keep on telling yourself that


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Maybe there's a lawyer around here (AGarcia?) that can help alter the definition of a bicycle to say that it has "legs" and the tires are it's "feet" and that it's not a mechanized vehicle because it's "feet" only move when a human cranks it's "legs". I'm really getting tired of those wildernuts telling me I can't ride on hiking only trails.


Funny.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> Meh, the industry can lie and cloak them in cute euphemisms so I don't feel any particular angst over calling them MOTORBIKES. It cuts two ways you know.


Cool story.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> Whether they're considered motorized is dependent on your local regs and land managers...


Don't stop believing!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

LTZ470 said:


> Is that like in "electric fan" or do you call it a "Motor Fan"...or an "electric drill" or do you call it a "Motor Drill"...


I don't call it a hand assist drill, that's for sure.

I'm sure the SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS definition is to keep them off the highways, as they are normally posted that non-motorized vehicles are not allowed.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Anything with a *Motor *= not self propelled.. I don't need a lawyer to figure that one out.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Klurejr said:


> Gonna go a bit off topic here, not that this thread has not already fully derailed by this point in the discussion, but that is a fairlady Z, not a Corvette in that picture. Considering you are claiming to have owned 4 of them I would expect you to be able to identify one...... oops. haha.


You are correct. Didn't study the photo as the poster claimed vette and it actually looked like my first 88. They don't make good biking vehicles! Sold my 2014 (last one) 2 yrs ago. I now need 4wd to get to my house and the damn bear keep getting into my garbage. No mre vettes here!


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

AGarcia said:


> You keep on telling yourself that


I certainly can, because I actually have some limited ability to decide whether or not e-bikes are allowed on my local (managed by private entities) lands, simply due to my local trail gadfly/know a lot of folks/show up to meetings status.

So actually, yeah, you do need to make arguments that make sense, because people like me (and moreso Harry) are the ones that will be deciding this.

-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> Don't stop believing!


It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of legislation, you're a lwayer, read up on it.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

AGarcia said:


> A "pedal-assist" bike --like a Levo-- cannot propel the rider on it's own ("self-propel"). And as such, I believe it does not seem to fit the definition of "self-propelled" like a throttle assist e-bike would.


I am in awe of your ominous typing skills but I still think you are talking nonsense. The letter is clearly aimed at eBikes, it specifically says so, and almost all eBikes are pedal-assist. Therefore, if your argument was correct, they have taken this action to exclude virtually no one from their trails!


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

any actual discussion of the current reality per federal land management rules and pontificate about potential legal loopholes in those current regulations while ignoring that without a standing based challenge to said regulations your interpretation is wrong vis a vis the Forest Service's interpretation of what constitutes a motorized vehicle.

Argue away councillor! Simply put, class 1 bemoanto™ riders butt hurt and realizing their niche toy is more niche than they thought. 

As WoodlandHills and others will soon remind me, a class 1 is a bicycle according to California et al, but the devil is in the details as those rules only apply to paved paths and at best simply give direction for local state run areas to explicitly allow such vehicles on nonmotorized MUTs. 

So much vitriol for a user group that knows the pitfalls of trail access. Unfortunately for guys like rider95 , courtesy and minding your own business works to a point, a point that seems stressed more and more as many more emtbers seem to loudly trumpet their illicit trail riding and rather than balance it with advocacy for legal access seem downright annoyed at the mere suggestion that their emoto is not a bicycle. Sorry bro that train has already left the station, but by all means attack the messengers to assuage your guilt. I am entertained.

The onus to discern between classes is not on the managing entity but the manufacturers and end users to make a sound and reasonable case for access.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

AGarcia said:


> A "pedal-assist" bike --like a Levo-- cannot propel the rider on it's own ("self-propel"). And as such, I believe it does not seem to fit the definition of "self-propelled" like a throttle assist e-bike would. Under California law, we would call something like a Levo a "Type 1" e-bike.


Man you're a terrible lawyer. So does the same logic apply to cars? Since cars on their own can't move without the accelerator being pressed down by someone, hence by your definition I could describe them as "pedal assisted".

Regardless.. even with your flawed arguments, what Harry and Walt stated numerous time before and what you failed to grasp despite your legal expertise is, regulating anything with motors on MUT is going to be next to impossible. Also the speed factor on is an issue. Just throw your hands up in the air and ride where you're allowed to ride and don't go kicking up anymore dust in the faces of guys that may have been on your side.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> Funny, never heard of a drill motor....


Luckily I was blessed to have worked with knowledgeable professionals over my lifetime, I'm sorry you never had that privilege.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

chazpat said:


> Because I'm sure Gutch and LTZ have ridden all the trails (they have the map of the forest) and therefore, can make this observation. They've witnessed it over and over apparently.
> 
> And I'm sure speed is never a cause of accidents with automobiles, the road will always dictate your speed.
> 
> View attachment 1139539





Gutch said:


> You are correct. Didn't study the photo as the poster claimed vette and it actually looked like my first 88. They don't make good biking vehicles! Sold my 2014 (last one) 2 yrs ago. I now need 4wd to get to my house and the damn bear keep getting into my garbage. No mre vettes here!


Dude, I never said it was a Vette, I'm not really a car guy and at a glance I knew it was a Nissan. Apparently riding an eBike causes some odd brain functions, you and LTZ both have claimed I've said things that I never said.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Velocipedist said:


> any actual discussion of the current reality per federal land management rules and pontificate about potential legal loopholes in those current regulations while ignoring that without a standing based challenge to said regulations your interpretation is wrong vis a vis the Forest Service's interpretation of what constitutes a motorized vehicle.


I don't ignore standing. In fact, I mention it in one of my earlier posts. But you go right on ahead and continue to tell your stories.....


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Lemonaid said:


> Man you're a terrible lawyer.


I may be. Yet somehow, I've made a living at it. I am thankful for that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Walt said:


> I certainly can, because I actually have some limited ability to decide whether or not e-bikes are allowed on my local (managed by private entities) lands,


Yup, me too. 
Not all that limited actually.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chazpat said:


> Dude, I never said it was a Vette, I'm not really a car guy and at a glance I knew it was a Nissan. Apparently riding an eBike causes some odd brain functions, you and LTZ both have claimed I've said things that I never said.


You did not say it was a vette, Gutch did and I pointed that out to him, not to you.

Perhaps it is you with the off brain functions? ;-)


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

View attachment 1139539
[/QUOTE]



Gutch said:


> You are correct. Didn't study the photo as the poster claimed vette and it actually looked like my first 88. They don't make good biking vehicles! Sold my 2014 (last one) 2 yrs ago. I now need 4wd to get to my house and the damn bear keep getting into my garbage. No mre vettes here!





Klurejr said:


> You did not say it was a vette, Gutch did and I pointed that out to him, not to you.
> 
> Perhaps it is you with the off brain functions? ;-)


OK, I'll cut you some slack as I'm sure you have to skim to get thru all these, I was responding to Glutch who said (in response to you pointing out it wasn't a Vette) "Didn't study the photo as the poster claimed vette". I was the poster of the photo and I didn't say Vette. Glutch then responded saying Vette and you then posted pointing out it wasn't a Vette.

Vette.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Walt said:


> I certainly can, because I actually have some limited ability to decide whether or not e
> 
> Having a voice is not the same as being able to decide.
> 
> ...


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of legislation, you're a lwayer, read up on it.


If you can cite to legislation, I'd be happy to read up on it.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Sure, but if you alienate enough people, especially people who care about trail access and show up to meetings/bend the ear of land managers, you can kiss ever getting Moab access (a lot of which I'd support!) goodbye. 

E-bikes don't have a legal problem, not matter how much you seem to think they do. They have a PR problem. Focus on that.

-Walt


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

I focus on the law....And by the way, I agree with you, e-bikes (in the form of pedal-assist bikes) don't have a legal problem.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> If you can cite to legislation, I'd be happy to read up on it.


Here's the Fed Consumer Product Safety Act that defines what you can call and sell as an ebike. They also state it is not a "Motor Vehicle"

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/727/text

Fed Definition of a Motor Vehicle: 49 U.S.C. § 30102 - U.S. Code Title 49. Transportation § 30102 | FindLaw

I'll use Colorado as it is the one I'm most familiar with. It's similar to the CA law, but not exactly, it's from the same lobbyists. It has essentially the same fed definition of a motor vehicle.

http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017A/bills/2017A_1151_signed.pdf

Like most of the other states passing legislation, it is limited in jurisdiction to bike paths, not singletrack.

Colorado passes e-bike bill, becomes fourth state with legislation on the books | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News

While a motor vehicle is always a motorized vehicle, a motorized vehicle might not be a motor vehicle since "motor vehicle" is a specified class. Anything with a motor like a motorized skateboard for example or an ebike. On the local level, some MUT's ban motor veicles by code, some simply motorized vehicles. Some land managers consider ebikes motorized vehicles like the USFS, some don't. Where I live, the MUTs ban motorized vehicles, which is tied to previous funding agreements, so they can't change that to allow ebikes which is what they'd like. They'll instead rewrite their code to define Class 1 ebikes as "non motorized" to allow them on MUTs, and then put up signs banning them from singletrack, which is where they don't want them. Class 2 & 3 are out of luck.

So, ebikes not being "motor vehicles" does not give them a blanket pass on the local level. It can be confusing.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> So, ebikes not being "motor vehicles" does not give them a blanket pass on the local level. It can be confusing.


Thank you for your post. I had previously seen and read each of the federal definitions you cite to, but was not familiar with Colorado's legislation.

And I agree you entirely on your points above!!!

I never once suggested that e-bikes -- even in the form of pedal-assist bikes -- get a blanket pass at the local level. I've also never stated that regulations can't be written at the federal level to restrict pedal-assist e-bikes from certain or all trails. All I've ever been suggesting is that the regulation cited by the letter writer in the OP does not support the letter writer's position (and by association, the position of many of the posters within the forum) (the position being "if it has a motor, it's a motor vehicle....and an e-bike has a motor, so it is a motor vehicle"). It's not that simple.

And note: There is more than one federal definition of "motor vehicle" The definition of motor vehicle used by the forest service is different than the one you cite to. It's found here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/212.1


----------



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

AGarcia said:


> It's not that simple.


Which is sad because it should be that simple.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Which is sad because it should be that simple.


If things were simple, many of us would be unemployed.


----------



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

AGarcia said:


> If things were simple, many of us would be unemployed.


Nope, just different and hopefully more useful, honest work.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Nope, just different and hopefully more useful, honest work.


Touché'!


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

chazpat said:


> Dude, I never said it was a Vette, I'm not really a car guy and at a glance I knew it was a Nissan. Apparently riding an eBike causes some odd brain functions, you and LTZ both have claimed I've said things that I never said.


Easy bro, maybe I had too many beers! It doesn't matter.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> Luckily I was blessed to have worked with knowledgeable professionals over my lifetime, I'm sorry you never had that privilege.


Boy, that ain't no drill motor...this is a drill motor...37 years of drilling from USA to Indonesia to Malaysia to Singapore to Italy to Sicily to England to Ivory Coast to Gabon to Equatorial Guinea to Cameroun to Angola to Nigeria to Saudi Arabia...I was drilling while you were still on your momma's knee pooping yellow...


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> Thank you for your post. I had previously seen and read each of the federal definitions you cite to, but was not familiar with Colorado's legislation.
> 
> And I agree you entirely on your points above!!!
> 
> ...


While I quoted you, I usually write with the entire audience here in mind, so I wasn't inferring you were stating anything about blanket bans. People on both sides of the argument will usually use motor vehicle and motorized vehicle interchangeably, which in normal speak doesn't make much difference, but in these situations, it certainly does. I'd rather not have to keep pointing it out.

I'm not surprised there's another different agency specific definition for motor vehicles, they all seem to operate independently. I think the letter in the OP's post is simply a clumsy interpretation, I suppose it could be challenged at some point.

There are also other statements that predate it if you're interested.

https://www.blm.gov/policy/ib-2015-060

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


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> While I quoted you, I usually write with the entire audience here in mind, so I wasn't inferring you were stating anything about blanket bans. People on both sides of the argument will usually use motor vehicle and motorized vehicle interchangeably, which in normal speak doesn't make much difference, but in these situations, it certainly does. I'd rather not have to keep pointing it out.
> 
> I'm not surprised there's another different agency specific definition for motor vehicles, they all seem to operate independently. I think the letter in the OP's post is simply a clumsy interpretation, I suppose it could be challenged at some point.


I'm in violent agreement with you!


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

I find it interesting that ebike access is up to the local land manager. All you have to do is get an ebike manufacturer to "gift" an ebike to the local land manager. After a couple of rides on a Levo they will open up whatever trail is closest to where they live. LOL. The purists are doomed.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Giant Warp said:


> I find it interesting that ebike access is up to the local land manager. All you have to do is get an ebike manufacturer to "gift" an ebike to the local land manager. After a couple of rides on a Levo they will open up whatever trail is closest to where they live. LOL. The purists are doomed.


They are far more scrupulous than that and I'm sure would find your insinuations offensive. And just so it's clear to you, many, many land managers have ridden them and promptly excluded them.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

They're here to stay and will continue to overtake the nay sayers by sheer volume and sales...in other words like we have realized all along none of the guys on this forum will be able to stop them...any of them thinking so are only blowing smoke up their own ar$e...

In the U.S., e-bikes have seen the largest sales increase of any bike type, growing by more than 100 percent in dollars and more than 70 percent in units since 2014. Most major U.S. bicycle brands sell e-bikes, and bicycle manufacturers have moved or are positioning themselves to move to the U.S. to capitalize on the growing market.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Easy bro, maybe I had too many beers! It doesn't matter.


That Nissan driver may have had too many as well.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> They're here to stay and will continue to overtake the nay sayers by sheer volume and sales...in other words like we have realized all along none of the guys on this forum will be able to stop them...any of them thinking so are only blowing smoke up their own ar$e...
> 
> In the U.S., e-bikes have seen the largest sales increase of any bike type, growing by more than 100 percent in dollars and more than 70 percent in units since 2014. Most major U.S. bicycle brands sell e-bikes, and bicycle manufacturers have moved or are positioning themselves to move to the U.S. to capitalize on the growing market.


Meh, they said the same nonsense about 650b too. Bicycles are a but a minuscule segment of the economy and especially in the U.S. emotorbikes are a niche within a niche. You guys talk like they are a industry disrupter and it just isn't so, especially when people find out just where and more importantly, where they cannot operate them. The bicycle industry is also infamously shortsighted, look at how many have gone by the wayside in just the last ten years. And finally, 70% increase over zero is still zero.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

chazpat said:


> That Nissan driver may have had too many as well.


Damn rookie driver! Just kidding.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Giant Warp said:


> I find it interesting that ebike access is up to the local land manager. All you have to do is get an ebike manufacturer to "gift" an ebike to the local land manager. After a couple of rides on a Levo they will open up whatever trail is closest to where they live. LOL. The purists are doomed.


You really are clueless as to how public land is managed.

Our parks dept has ridden ebikes, they still don't want them on their trails. Imagine that.

Local mtn bike trail orgs have far more influence on their local land managers than a bike manufacturer, I highly recommend that mtb riders get involved with their local trail group. Unlike spouting on the Internet, it really can make a difference.


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

life behind bars said:


> They are far more scrupulous than that and I'm sure would find your insinuations offensive. And just so it's clear to you, many, many land managers have ridden them and promptly excluded them.


Why would it be offensive? Once they ride an ebike they realize the bikes are not a threat. It's really a no brainer. I have already read articles in bike magazines that have said as much. Of course the land managers did not get a free bike but the bike manufacturer supplied the bikes to "borrow".


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Giant Warp said:


> Why would it be offensive? Once they ride an ebike they realize the bikes are not a threat. It's really a no brainer. I have already read articles in bike magazines that have said as much. Of course the land managers did not get a free bike but the bike manufacturer supplied the bikes to "borrow".


They realize that they're not a threat but they ban them anyway. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Are you really this dense? You must be , you keep pushing this alternative reality circular argument. Go sell bat **** crazy somewhere else.


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

LTZ470 said:


> They're here to stay and will continue to overtake the nay sayers by sheer volume and sales...in other words like we have realized all along none of the guys on this forum will be able to stop them...any of them thinking so are only blowing smoke up their own ar$e...
> 
> In the U.S., e-bikes have seen the largest sales increase of any bike type, growing by more than 100 percent in dollars and more than 70 percent in units since 2014. Most major U.S. bicycle brands sell e-bikes, and bicycle manufacturers have moved or are positioning themselves to move to the U.S. to capitalize on the growing market.


I agree. The way I see it these purists are going to reap a whirlwind that "they" created. Just think of all these little kids that have been indoctrinated into saving the planet since kindergarten. They have had it drum beat into their little skulls for years that electric transportation is going to curb the rising sea levels. If they buy an ebike to commute it is only a natural conclusion that they will want to take it off road. The other thing I noticed is that all these major cities are installing ebike racks everywhere. Someone that might not bike much will rent one of those and presto change-o, a new convert. Cities are also installing ebikes for their government employees to use. Entire communities are being designed around the bike. I understand that the purists are mad because they live in a location where the hikers are rabid and anti-bike. It is not like that everywhere and quite frankly if I lived where they did I would move. In other places biking is rapidly becoming the holy grail.


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

life behind bars said:


> They realize that they're not a threat but they ban them anyway. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Are you really this dense? You must be , you keep pushing this alternative reality circular argument. Go sell bat **** crazy somewhere else.


What a sad life you must live. The next thing you are going to tell me is that ebikes are built in Russia. LOL. The Levo has only been out for a year. Every time I stop and talk to a hiker they have never even dreamt of such a thing and are crazy excited. Even though the purists have been unleashed on this forum to make their numbers look good they don't represent the "real" people I run into in the "real" world.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

AGarcia said:


> All I've ever been suggesting is that the *regulation cited by the letter writer in the OP does not support the letter writer's position* (and by association, the position of many of the posters within the forum) (the position being *"if it has a motor, it's a motor vehicle....and an e-bike has a motor, so it is a motor vehicle"*). It's not that simple.


^^^This

The original letter is what AGarcia is arguing here and... he's right. Any reasonable person can poke huge holes in that statement (and I quote):

*"E-bikes have a motor, thereby are self-propelled." *



J.B. Weld said:


> Which is sad because it should be that simple.


Agreed, it should be that simple, but if it were really that simple (anything with a motor is self-propelled) then what about the Pivot Mach 5.5 I just ordered? It has a Shimano Di2 setup, which... wait for it... HAS A MOTOR. And a BATTERY! And it's part of the bike. So, my Mach 5.5 is self-propelled??? Well IT IS, if we take what the Forest Service person says as gospel, and black and white.

One of my other hobbies is flying drones. As an example, you can't fly drones at National Parks. I'm completely on board with that and wouldn't fly my DJI Inspire 2 there. It's too big, too loud (for a peaceful place), and heaven forbid if it crashed on someone, the person it hit (and I) would be in a world of hurt. BTW, the flying weight of that drone is about 9 lbs.

If I got caught flying that Inspire 2 at a NP the fine might be $10K or more.

For argument's sake, let's say my nephew and I were at a National Park. Let's say Yosemite because it's one of my favorites. We're in our cabin and he decides to fly a Blade Vizo FPV Drone (in the cabin). That thing can fit in a palm of a 1st grader. The flying weight of that drone is 1.83 oz, or *53* *grams*. If that drone hit my head I'd think it was a big moth.

But... Park rangers bust in, throw my nephew on the ground, confiscate the drone, yell "NO DRONE FLYING AT NATIONAL PARKS!!!" Oh, and then they fine him (or his dad) $10K.

Does that make sense? Of course not. He's not bothering anyone, not hurting anything, not buzzing baby condors, but he's flying a drone. In a National Park. Rules say no drone flying at National Parks. I get it. Can't police everyone. So ban it all. But realistically, some common sense is needed.

Let's parallel the drone example to all eMTBs... if a guy is cruising around in a Giant Full-E or Levo - _as fast/slow as everyone else_ - is that really that bad? (Yes, I get it and agree that the guy with the homebrew 3KW rig, going 40 mph up a hill is not good).

Perhaps we go back to 1ORBUST's post?



#1ORBUST said:


> I can't really see what the problem would be.
> 
> Is faster on the up hill is the worry? I'd slaughter an ebike on the downhill. Would way rather run into me on an ebike then on my downhill rig.
> 
> Just set up a mph speed limit and be done with it...


Maybe a speed limit for going up climbs? Downhill, probably all good MTBers would go faster than the guys/gals on the 50+ lbs ebikes, lol

Side note... I went on a nice 3-4 hour ride last Memorial Day with about 100 other riders. A couple of Levos in the crowd, just climbing and riding as fast/slow as everyone else. No one cared one bit. A couple of "cheater" jokes - followed by requests for a tow rope by the same guys during the worst parts of the climbs. Smiles, beers, and fish tacos were had by all after the ride.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> Meh, they said the same nonsense about 650b too. Bicycles are a but a minuscule segment of the economy and especially in the U.S. emotorbikes are a niche within a niche. You guys talk like they are a industry disrupter and it just isn't so, especially when people find out just where and more importantly, where they cannot operate them. The bicycle industry is also infamously shortsighted, look at how many have gone by the wayside in just the last ten years. And finally, 70% increase over zero is still zero.


Talk about blowing smoke, you got Dr Phil beat...


----------



## hdohse (Jun 2, 2017)

Hi AGarcia - I will take you up on it.  I just moved to Irvine from Boulder CO. I own lots of bikes for pretty much all types of riding (XC, Enduro, Gravel, Snow, Road and KTM 250 Moto). This week I just bought the S-Works Turbo Levo to add to the quiver. Why? Because three days a week I ride with my coach who is a pro / elite rider. When I ride the Levo and he is on his Santa Cruz Hightower we ride about the same pace. This makes it pretty awesome!!! Climbing is slow and hard for me because I have had open heart surgery, lung surgery and am 100% pacemaker dependent. I am a battery powered eRider. ;-) The Levo gives me the opportunity to climb like a normal rider. Other times I ride my Rocky Mountain Thunderbolt. Anyway - it would be great to learn some new trails.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

hdohse said:


> Hi AGarcia - I will take you up on it.  I just moved to Irvine from Boulder CO. I own lots of bikes for pretty much all types of riding (XC, Enduro, Gravel, Snow, Road and KTM 250 Moto). This week I just bought the S-Works Turbo Levo to add to the quiver. Why? Because three days a week I ride with my coach who is a pro / elite rider. When I ride the Levo and he is on his Santa Cruz Hightower we ride about the same pace. This makes it pretty awesome!!! Climbing is slow and hard for me because I have had open heart surgery, lung surgery and am 100% pacemaker dependent. I am a battery powered eRider. ;-) The Levo gives me the opportunity to climb like a normal rider. Other times I ride my Rocky Mountain Thunderbolt. Anyway - it would be great to learn some new trails.


Awesome! I'd be happy to show you around! I'll PM you!


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Pedal assisted?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Giant Warp said:


> I agree. The way I see it these purists are going to reap a whirlwind that "they" created. Just think of all these little kids that have been indoctrinated into saving the planet since kindergarten. They have had it drum beat into their little skulls for years that electric transportation is going to curb the rising sea levels. If they buy an ebike to commute it is only a natural conclusion that they will want to take it off road. The other thing I noticed is that all these major cities are installing ebike racks everywhere. Someone that might not bike much will rent one of those and presto change-o, a new convert. Cities are also installing ebikes for their government employees to use. Entire communities are being designed around the bike. I understand that the purists are mad because they live in a location where the hikers are rabid and anti-bike. It is not like that everywhere and quite frankly if I lived where they did I would move. In other places biking is rapidly becoming the holy grail.


Great that all these major cities are installing bike racks for ebikes.
Great that people are buying ebikes to commute rather than using their car.
Great if cities are installing (?) ebikes for the government employees to use.
Great if entire communities are being assigned around the bike (where is this?!)

This is the city, mountain biking is not in the city. Just because ebikes are great for the city does not mean they should be on the mountain bike trails. Just because people may be tempted to ride their bike on trails, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to. You really need to go back and read through the thread to understand all of the issues, especially posts by Walt and Harryman, these two know ebikes, motorcycles, mountain bikes, trail advocacy, etc.; more than the rest of us combined.



Giant Warp said:


> I understand that the purists are mad because they live in a location where the hikers are rabid and anti-bike.


Where I live the hikers and mountain bikers get along great. It's the mountain bikers who do the trail maintenance. Some of the trail networks were built by mountain bikers and they have the right-of-way, so hikers realize that they have the mountain bikers to thank for the trails being there.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

> chazpat said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 1139539
> ...


oic.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

LTZ470 said:


> They're here to stay and will continue to overtake the nay sayers by sheer volume and sales..


Look I get it, the bicycle industry has figured out how to sell bikes to lazy people and opened up a whole new revenue stream. Epic. But that does not mean they are here to stay in huge numbers or that they will inevitably gain access to all of the places normal bikes can go. Those things don't automatically follow.

Have you ever heard the term 'fad'? If not, google it. A brief look at history shows that lots of things have been fads. In the eighties we had a skateboard fad. Every teenage boy had a skateboard, councils built skate-parks all over the place, only to tear them up again a few years later when the kids got bored of not being able to ride like a pro. Sure, there are still kids who have skateboards but nowhere near as many as in the eighties.

Perhaps more relevant is the monkey-bike fad. Years ago there was a craze here in the UK for tiny petrol motorbikes. It was illegal to ride them virtually everywhere but they still sold in huge numbers. You would see kids zooming around the streets, parks and cycle tracks on them but I can't remember the last time I saw one. Years ago. I assume that most of them will be in landfill or rusting in the back of garages.

The point is that there was a time when these and other devices seemed like a really good idea. And for some people, they were, but for many the reality failed to live up to the hype. Ownership threw up experiences not mentioned in the brochure.

I get that for riders with physical impairments eBikes can be a great blessing but those riders are not driving the sales. Most ebike buyers are old, lazy or inexperienced and looking for a short-cut to mountain biking glory. Many of these people are not going to be jubilant when they realise that they still can't ride worth a stuff, their expensive machine costs a fortune to maintain, there is a limit to the places they can ride it and if it breaks down miles from home they are royally fecked!

And they will break down. Most people don't maintain their bikes as it is and once you've got thousands of five and six-year-old eBikes in circulation it's going to translate into a lot of cussing, pushing and walking.

I'm not saying they will vanish like the Spacehopper but to think their growth will be unstoppable is naive in the extreme. Much of the enduring popularity of the bicycle is down to the fact it is inherently simple and reliable. You shouldn't neglect them but you can, and they will probably still work. eBikes are not going to be like that. They will be like remote-control cars. Fine for the few who are industrious and geeky enough to deal with the hours of maintenance fort the short bursts of performance but sooner or later most of them will be little more than clutter behind the folding patio chairs.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

^^^ Cool story!


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

Mr Pig said:


> Look I get it, the bicycle industry has figured out how to sell bikes to lazy people and opened up a whole new revenue stream. Epic. But that does not mean they are here to stay in huge numbers or that they will inevitably gain access to all of the places normal bikes can go. Those things don't automatically follow.
> 
> Have you ever heard the term 'fad'? If not, google it. A brief look at history shows that lots of things have been fads. In the eighties we had a skateboard fad. Every teenage boy had a skateboard, councils built skate-parks all over the place, only to tear them up again a few years later when the kids got bored of not being able to ride like a pro. Sure, there are still kids who have skateboards but nowhere near as many as in the eighties.
> 
> ...


epic post--right, on!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bmiller71 (Oct 29, 2013)

Giant Warp said:


> ..... Even though the purists have been unleashed on this forum to make their numbers look good they don't represent the "real" people I run into in the "real" world.


This!!! I have yet to run into anyone on the trail that acts like these purist on this forum. Everyone is curious, says I want one, and/or friendly about it.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Mr Pig said:


> Look I get it, the bicycle industry has figured out how to sell bikes to lazy people and opened up a whole new revenue stream. Epic. But that does not mean they are here to stay in huge numbers or that they will inevitably gain access to all of the places normal bikes can go. Those things don't automatically follow.
> 
> Have you ever heard the term 'fad'? If not, google it. A brief look at history shows that lots of things have been fads. In the eighties we had a skateboard fad. Every teenage boy had a skateboard, councils built skate-parks all over the place, only to tear them up again a few years later when the kids got bored of not being able to ride like a pro. Sure, there are still kids who have skateboards but nowhere near as many as in the eighties.
> 
> ...


Yep to all the above; those pocket motorcycles were really big here in the US for awhile, too. What's happened to the hoverboards, they were huge a couple of years ago? As were mopeds back in the '80s.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

LTZ470 said:


> They're here to stay and will continue to overtake the nay sayers by sheer volume and sales...in other words like we have realized all along none of the guys on this forum will be able to stop them...any of them thinking so are only blowing smoke up their own ar$e...
> 
> In the U.S., e-bikes have seen the largest sales increase of any bike type, growing by more than 100 percent in dollars and more than 70 percent in units since 2014. Most major U.S. bicycle brands sell e-bikes, and bicycle manufacturers have moved or are positioning themselves to move to the U.S. to capitalize on the growing market.


Yeah, they're taking over.

Estimated US adult bike sales were @ 12 million in 2016. Ebike sales were @ 200-250k depending who you ask. So, less than 2% of total sales? They declined in 2015 and are back to roughly 2014 numbers.

Industry Overview 2015 - National Bicycle Dealers Association

https://www.statista.com/statistics/326124/us-sales-of-electric-bicycles/

The industry remains hopeful, as they are with every new "best thing ever". It's telling that the largest amounts of unsold inventory are fatbikes and 27.5"

US Market: When Will E-bike Sales Really Start?


----------



## #1ORBUST (Sep 13, 2005)

chazpat said:


> Yep to all the above; those pocket motorcycles were really big here in the US for awhile, too. What's happened to the hoverboards, they were huge a couple of years ago? As were mopeds back in the '80s.


Mini moto is actually pretty big still they have a whole race series.

Rossi won it back in his day.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> Look I get it, the bicycle industry has figured out how to sell bikes to lazy people and opened up a whole new revenue stream. Epic. But that does not mean they are here to stay in huge numbers or that they will inevitably gain access to all of the places normal bikes can go. Those things don't automatically follow.
> 
> Have you ever heard the term 'fad'? If not, google it. A brief look at history shows that lots of things have been fads. In the eighties we had a skateboard fad. Every teenage boy had a skateboard, councils built skate-parks all over the place, only to tear them up again a few years later when the kids got bored of not being able to ride like a pro. Sure, there are still kids who have skateboards but nowhere near as many as in the eighties.
> 
> ...


Couldn't disagree more.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Gutch said:


> Couldn't disagree more.


Well that's just like, uh....your opinion, man.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

Harryman said:


> Yeah, they're taking over.
> 
> Estimated US adult bike sales were @ 12 million in 2016. Ebike sales were @ 200-250k depending who you ask. So, less than 2% of total sales? They declined in 2015 and are back to roughly 2014 numbers.
> 
> ...


They're coming for sure...and emtb growth is imminent....
https://cyclingindustry.news/u-s-el...least-50-says-market-analysts-ecycleelectric/


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

LTZ470 said:


> They're coming for sure...and emtb growth is imminent....
> https://cyclingindustry.news/u-s-el...least-50-says-market-analysts-ecycleelectric/


You may be right, but I think Mr Pig is right as well...

One the niche market is filled I don't see these things gaining in popularity unless they become very affordable. If a person has a hard time with the price of a "real mtb" and ends up with a walmart bike, how are the going to accept paying an even higher price for an ebike? We already know the vast majority of mountain bikers are "purists" and won't touch anything with a motor.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> They're coming for sure...and emtb growth is imminent....
> https://cyclingindustry.news/u-s-el...least-50-says-market-analysts-ecycleelectric/


Wow! Up 50%! What's that get them too now? Less than 3% of total bicycle sales. Congratulations.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Mr Pig said:


> ... there is a limit to the places they can ride it and if it breaks down miles from home they are royally fecked!
> 
> And they will break down.


//c1.staticflickr.com/5/4264/35072934715_8f7e804fe4_b.jpg

DIY Cyclone kit from Luna. Sheared crank freewheel to chainring bolts.

Had less than a mile back to parking; slightly downhill.

Lucky.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> Wow! Up 50%! What's that get them too now? Less than 3% of total bicycle sales. Congratulations.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> View attachment 1140416


Your chart is incorrect, sales fell in '15.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I see a ton of random regular joes and janes and grannies riding electric bikes around town, I believe the sales numbers. There's even an e-bike specific (townies only) shop here in town. 

I doubt there are more than a few thousand e-mountain bikes in the US total, though. Would be interesting to see figures but the numbers are all over the map here so it's hard to know whether any of them are reliable. 

-Walt


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

*Don't mess with Georgia*

Saw a bunch of these signs out riding today with my kids. Note how an exception has been listed. Most of them had the exception printed on the original sign. Now if someone does want to argue that a 250W ebike is not a motorized vehicle in this case, I don't really care, this is a paved path. But I do like to see that they are serious about punishing those who ride illegally.









And just to be clear, this is not a USFS area, some of it is a State Park.


----------



## portnuefpeddler (Jun 14, 2016)

Ha, my e fattie just suffered a break down, but it was totally related to the crashes it has had, nothing to do with the e driveline. Probably stressed it when I tangled with an unseen electric fence wire last fall. Just a snapped off derailleur. I'll be back riding Monday, the LBS had to order one in for me or it would have been quicker.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

portnuefpeddler said:


> Ha, my e fattie just suffered a break down, but it was totally related to the crashes it has had, nothing to do with the e driveline. Probably stressed it when I tangled with an unseen electric fence wire last fall. Just a snapped off derailleur. I'll be back riding Monday, the LBS had to order one in for me or it would have been quicker.


See, even E-fences suck


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

Mr Pig said:


> Well that's just like, uh....your opinion, man.


This aggression will not stand, man

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Saw a bunch of these signs out riding today with my kids. *Note how an exception has been listed.* Most of them had the exception printed on the original sign. Now if someone does want to argue that a 250W ebike is not a motorized vehicle in this case, I don't really care, this is a paved path. But *I do like to see that they are serious about punishing those who ride illegally.*
> 
> View attachment 1140477
> 
> ...


Oh great... I'm getting a $1,000 fine and spending 30 days in jail for riding my Di2-equipped bike in some Georgia parks.

Bike + Motor = Motorized vehicle. Simple, right?

As chazpat pointed out, the only exception listed: motorized wheelchairs.

*No other exceptions listed, period.
*
Sadly, I love Georgia, but I'm not risking my freedom and $1,000 to ride in their state parks, especially if they're serious about punishing those who ride illegally. Bummer.


----------



## Giant Warp (Jun 11, 2009)

So, the purists argue that the ebike is just a fad and there are no sales. If that is true then what are they afraid of?

The info on the skate board is not correct. After liability laws have been changed cities are still putting up skate parks in Utah. 

Also, the reason the pocket bikes took off was because the antiquated city ordinances did not apply to motors under 50cc so they were totally legal for awhile. They were cheap and sold everywhere so people bought them.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Giant Warp said:


> because the antiquated city ordinances did not apply , so they were totally legal for awhile.


Ironic that the same applies to emotorbikes.


----------



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

BootneyLee said:


> Oh great... I'm getting a $1,000 fine and spending 30 days in jail for riding my Di2-equipped bike in some Georgia parks.
> 
> Bike + Motor = Motorized vehicle. Simple, right?
> 
> ...


Do you think D12=motorized vehicle? Or that the law would think so?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Only an idiot thinks that motors (hint, there is one in your cellphone) are banned from that trail. Motors that propel your vehicle are.

-Walt


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

Do I really think that if a bike has a Di2, it's motorized? Of course not. Same as if I believe (as the Forest Service person says) that anything with a motor is self-propelled. He/she makes an absolute statement. Go back and read that statement again. 

For some who didn't get that - Whoosh, Mach 12 over your heads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Look, again, these quibbles about semantics are sinking your case for trail access. If you really feel that you have a legal case, go ride some no-e-bike trail, get yourself arrested, and explain this to a judge. If you really think your argument would fly, more power to you.

-Walt


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

Walt said:


> Look, again, these quibbles about semantics are sinking your case for trail access. If you really feel that you have a legal case, go ride some no-e-bike trail, get yourself arrested, and explain this to a judge. If you really think your argument would fly, more power to you.
> 
> -Walt


Who's talking about semantics? I was pointing out the arguments of some on this thread, who believe everything is an absolute. I don't believe that everything is an absolute.

And I haven't written a thing about trail access.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BootneyLee said:


> Who's talking about semantics? I was pointing out the arguments of some on this thread, who believe everything is an absolute. I don't believe that everything is an absolute.
> 
> And I haven't written a thing about trail access.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The no emotorbikes on BLM land or N.F. non-motorized trails rule is pretty absolute whether you choose to believe in them or not.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> The no emotorbikes on BLM land or N.F. non-motorized trails rule is pretty absolute whether you choose to believe in them or not.


Thanks for that. I'm sure it's good info for whoever is asking. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sriracha (Jun 23, 2004)

So, in summary, the USFS needs to be more specific on their definition of an e-bike, to include throttle operated e-bikes or pedal-assist-operated e-bikes. Realistically, there could be three types, full-on electric motorbikes with no pedaling involved, throttle driven e-bikes with pedaling and pedaling initiated pedal-assist bikes. I certainly wouldn't put them in the same class as a gas-powered motorbike, definitely not a mo-ped. More like a ped-e-mo.

After being more specific, they need to decide to allow e-bikes or not...and more specifically, which type of e-bike.

I feel like once I ride a pedal assist e-bike, I would never want to ride my normal mountain bike again, so I have an emotional tendency to stick with traditional pedal bikes. Maybe that is the emotional argument being expressed here?

However, I think an e-bike would be sweet for commuting long distances or even grocery getting. An e-assist utility bike would be useful and environmentally friendly

I also think an electric assist bike would be awesome for DH shuttle trails...Dare I say that DH shuttling is car-assist biking??? Imagine cruising an e-bike up the shuttle road and then regeneratively riding a downhill trail. I could stop harassing #10orBUST to escape domestic life and just ride by myself.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> The no emotorbikes on BLM land or N.F. non-motorized trails rule is pretty absolute whether you choose to believe in them or not.


You can believe what you want to believe. Carry on!


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

Bmiller71 said:


> This!!! I have yet to run into anyone on the trail that acts like these purist on this forum. Everyone is curious, says I want one, and/or friendly about it.


Yes sir same sentiment here as well...everyone is curious and a few take a trial ride...funny enough, none have ever said anything about them being banned anywhere I have been in the US....except here of course...lol...


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> The no emotorbikes on BLM land or N.F. non-motorized trails rule is pretty absolute whether you choose to believe in them or not.





AGarcia said:


> You can believe what you want to believe. Carry on!


You're the lawyer but I'm pretty sure that argument doesn't hold up too well in court when it comes to following the law. Personally, I would not want to be the one in court telling a judge that a bike with a motor that aids in propulsion should be considered a bicycle and not a motor bike as long as it is under a certain wattage.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

LTZ470 said:


> Yes sir same sentiment here as well...everyone is curious and a few take a trial ride...funny enough, none have ever said anything about them being banned anywhere I have been in the US....except here of course...lol...


Go ride it on the trail with the sign I posted above and see what happens.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Our bike path reads "No motorized Vehicles" yet it is perfectly legal to ride Ebikes on it. Hmmm. All the bike shops rent them for it also. There needs to be Emtb parks, Although in my area trail building runs about $15k a mile.


----------



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

sriracha said:


> So, in summary, the USFS needs to be more specific on their definition of an e-bike, to include throttle operated e-bikes or pedal-assist-operated e-bikes. Realistically, there could be three types, full-on electric motorbikes with no pedaling involved, throttle driven e-bikes with pedaling and pedaling initiated pedal-assist bikes. I certainly wouldn't put them in the same class as a gas-powered motorbike, definitely not a mo-ped. More like a ped-e-mo.
> 
> After being more specific, they need to decide to allow e-bikes or not...and more specifically, which type of e-bike.


Seems to me they need to be more specific about what exactly constitutes a motor vehicle, the way it reads to me they were attempting to make it clear that no type of e-bike is allowed on any trail that prohibits motor vehicles.


----------



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

BootneyLee said:


> For some who didn't get that - Whoosh, Mach 12 over your heads.


There really doesn't seem to be any need for that, your point was by no means crystal clear.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

chazpat said:


> Personally, I would not want to be the one in court telling a judge that a bike with a motor that aids in propulsion should be considered a bicycle and not a motor bike as long as it is under a certain wattage.


I understand and can empathize why you wouldn't want to be the one. Kind of like I wouldn't want to be one designing a structure, directing a movie or programing a computer.

On the other hand, diagnosing and curing illness is easy now because we have webMD.com and other similar sites. We can all be MD's now! Yay internet!


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Their position on ebikes has been consistent over the years, hanging your hat on "self propelled" with this latest statement isn't going to get you anywhere. If their position changes, I would expect it would be clear and significant, like "Class 1 ebikes will be permitted on non motorized trails". And it might, the BLM has been conducting studies in Fruita, so who knows.

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


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Giant Warp said:


> So, the purists argue that the ebike is just a fad and there are no sales. If that is true then what are they afraid of?


Because eBike riders still might manage to muck everything up before they get bored and go back to their Play Stations.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Our bike path reads "No motorized Vehicles" yet it is perfectly legal to ride Ebikes on it. Hmmm. All the bike shops rent them for it also. There needs to be Emtb parks, Although in my area trail building runs about $15k a mile.


It sounds like a lot of us are in agreement, most of us would consider low powered ebikes (which I'm sure is a requirement where you say it is legal) being allowed on bike paths and that Emtbers need to go out and build their own parks. It's the mountain bike trails that we have a difference with some of the posters here.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

sfgiantsfan said:


> See, even E-fences suck


Now that is funny.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

The biggest hurdle to allowing ebikes on multi-use trails is enforcement of the strict limits on power. Are we going to have to start paying for park rangers to stand at the trail head to inspect each and every ebike that enters a park? How do you prevent people from bringing mopeds who claim they're pedal assist? For that reason alone I think keeping all ebikes off of publicly managed multi-use trails is a good policy decision for the benefit of all. That's not to say private land managers shouldn't allow them on their property...

edit: I really think companies like Specialized and Scott should re-think how they are marketing their emountain bikes to consumers. They are really doing a disservice to the industry and bikers on both sides of the aisle by marketing these bikes for trail use with the notion they can ride anywhere regular mountain bikes can go (as this thread is a testament to that thinking). At the very least they should take a deep breath and see what is good for the sport before sponsoring emtb racing at venues such as Sea Otter Classic...


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

chazpat said:


> Go ride it on the trail with the sign I posted above and see what happens.


Why do that when I have plenty to ride where I am at?

That's definitely the type of erroneous thought process coming from folks like you, and really zero's in on your true cause...


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

LTZ470 said:


> Yes sir same sentiment here as well...everyone is curious and a few take a trial ride...funny enough, none have ever said anything about them being banned anywhere I have been in the US....except here of course...lol...





LTZ470 said:


> Why do that when I have plenty to ride where I am at?
> 
> That's definitely the type of erroneous thought process coming from folks like you, and really zero's in on your true cause...


You talk about "everyone" and "anywhere" now you're talking about "where I am at"; make up your mind.

And please do tell me what my true cause is. I've expressed it several times but you sure seem to want me to have some ulterior motive. Ride them where they are legal, don't ride them where they are illegal, don't claim they are bicycles, don't expect them to be allowed on all mountain bike trails. As they do have motors, don't be surprised if they are not allowed everywhere that non-motorized vehicles are allowed. Respect land managers and the MTB advocates who have worked to get permission to build trails and have built them.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> There really doesn't seem to be any need for that, your point was by no means crystal clear.


I guess you really thought that I was worried that I'd be "risking my freedom" (what I wrote) about riding a Di2-equipped bike.

I guess it wasn't clear that I was commenting on the idiocy of the absolute/black & white/binary arguments & logic of many posters on this thread - as well as the current language in the laws. Examples:

Motor + bike = motorbike. 
A motor is a motor.

So let's follow Georgia law, since chazpat uses his Georgia trail in his example. (§ 40-1-1 - Definitions :: 2010 Georgia Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia)

(30) "Motor driven cycle" means every motorcycle, including every motor scooter, with a motor which produces not to exceed five brake horsepower, *every bicycle with a motor attached*, and every moped.

Yes or no to the following questions (these are the only answers possible, since some like to operate in that yes or no fashion): 
Does a Di2 have a motor? Yes or no?
Is it attached to the bicycle? Yes or no?

So we're crystal clear here, the answers are Yes and Yes. (@Walt: semantics have nothing to do with this.)

So then that bike is a motor driven cycle. Do I really believe that's a motorbike? *No. * I'm just pointing out how everything isn't absolute/black & white/binary, and laws need to be updated to reflect reality.

If I believed that everything was absolute, then I'd rant on about all e-bikes suck, and everyone who wants or has one is fat, lazy, and old, and that all "purists" are a bunch of farts that are stuck in the past, are crying because someone passed them on a climb, and are children (who insist on posting "e-bikes suck!") etc. etc.

Again, to be clear... I don't believe there are absolutes for everything and I don't believe the examples I just wrote about e-bikes or "purists."

And BTW, sriracha is spot-on here:



sriracha said:


> So, in summary, the USFS needs to be more specific on their definition of an e-bike, to include throttle operated e-bikes or pedal-assist-operated e-bikes. ...


But I'm sure people would disagree with the above statement too.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

BootneyLee said:


> I'm just pointing out how everything isn't absolute/black & white/binary, and laws need to be updated to reflect reality.


One does get rather fed up saying the same things but the laws have to be simple to be enforceable. Those tasked with enforcing the rules cannot be expected to be able to tell the difference between a low-powered eBike and a high-powered one. The only way to keep powerful machines off the trail is to exclude them all.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

Walt said:


> Look, again, these quibbles about semantics are sinking your case for trail access. If you really feel that you have a legal case, go ride some no-e-bike trail, get yourself arrested, and explain this to a judge. If you really think your argument would fly, more power to you.
> 
> -Walt


Walt, one more thing about what you wrote above. All I'm saying is that laws need to be changed/modified to factor in reasonable use cases and reality. Let's go back to chazpat's "No motorized vehicles" path example. (And "no exceptions, other than motorized wheelchairs" statement.)

Just riding an "e-bike" on that path shouldn't automatically result in a ticket, fine, and arrest. I highly doubt that the Georgia State Police is going do a "calling all units/all points bulletin" to stop and arrest the guy riding a Pedego bike at 3 mph on that trail.

Dialogue, understanding, reasonable thinking is really what's needed going forward. Or am I wrong?


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> One does get rather fed up saying the same things but the laws have to be simple to be enforceable. *Those tasked with enforcing the rules cannot be expected to be able to tell the difference between a low-powered eBike and a high-powered one. The only way to keep powerful machines off the trail is to exclude them all.*


^ it's a wonder why such simple logic escapes some of us.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

Mr Pig said:


> One does get rather fed up saying the same things but the laws have to be simple to be enforceable. Those tasked with enforcing the rules cannot be expected to be able to tell the difference between a low-powered eBike and a high-powered one. *The only way to keep powerful machines off the trail is to exclude them all.*


What keeps you up at night about powerful machines? That they'll go too fast? They'll pass you on climbs? They'll "tear up the trail"? They'll be ridden by irresponsible people?

You don't need a motor to do any of that.

If we go by your reasoning then we should keep all powerful cars off the roads. Mustangs, Corvettes, Ferraris, Bugatti Veyrons. Exclude them all.

But... reality and reason prevails and we set speed limits, right?


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

chazpat said:


> You talk about "everyone" and "anywhere" now you're talking about "where I am at"; make up your mind.
> 
> And please do tell me what my true cause is. I've expressed it several times but you sure seem to want me to have some ulterior motive. Ride them where they are legal, don't ride them where they are illegal, don't claim they are bicycles, don't expect them to be allowed on all mountain bike trails. As they do have motors, don't be surprised if they are not allowed everywhere that non-motorized vehicles are allowed. Respect land managers and the MTB advocates who have worked to get permission to build trails and have built them.


IF I am over that way I will ride that trail and take a photo for just you...lol...I respect all folks, may not respect their erroneous beliefs, but I do respect them...even have a little left over for you...you're mission remains the same to keep anything off your trails but you and your cronies...easy enough wasn't it?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

BootneyLee said:


> If we go by your reasoning then we should keep powerful cars off the roads. Mustangs, Corvettes, Ferraris, Bugatti Veyrons.


More powerful cars do crash more, so perhaps not the best comparison for you to choose.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

I think companies like Specialized and Scott (I own a Genius) have set unrealistic expectations on the extent of where their e-mountain bikes can go. They are posting up ads with pictures of these bikes on the trails and even hosting e-mountain bike races in the hopes of drumming up a market without first thinking of the consequences of their actions. This in the end is going to end up biting them in the butt if not from regular riders and MUT user, but from those customers who paid for a bike they thought they could ride anywhere. I think these companies should take a step back and reconsider how they are approaching this market and tread carefully.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

Lemonaid said:


> ^ it's a wonder why such simple logic escapes some of us.


Yeah, thats like finding one driver on the road that is a risk to everyone and then stopping everyone else from driving so the one person doesn't endanger themselves or anyone else...simple logic or simple minded?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BootneyLee said:


> What keeps you up at night about powerful machines? That they'll go too fast? They'll pass you on climbs? They'll "tear up the trail"? They'll be ridden by irresponsible people?
> 
> You don't need a motor to do any of that.
> 
> ...


Wow, no one ever tried this logic before, even as sketchy as it is. Congratulations.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

LTZ470 said:


> Yeah, thats like finding one driver on the road that is a risk to everyone and then stopping everyone else from driving so the one person doesn't endanger themselves or anyone else...simple logic or simple minded?


It happens everywhere. Get used to it. It's why we have speed limits. Sucks there are idiots who ruin it for the rest of us but it's part of life.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Personally I'd be OK if Di2 were banned from trails. And OK if we had to stash our motor-driven-vibrator-equipped smartphones in a trail head locker.

If that mean't the "gender-bending" logic _e-bikes have motors but aren't motor vehicles_ arguments would go away.

Would Jesus ride an e-bike?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

The path in the photo is part of a network of paths in metro Atlanta. Some of these more in the city get a ton of traffic, where is it difficult and even impossible to ride a bicycle. Notice that the fine/jail time is the maximum penalty. 

Sorry, but I think someone riding an e-bike on that path should be given a ticket/fine, unless there is an exception for ebikes in place. Same thing for a Segway, golf cart, etc. No, the police aren't going to do a apb on this but I bet that if you pass a cop on the path, they will give you a ticket. If you are disabled or elderly, maybe they wouldn't.

There is a town south of here that is a "golf cart" community and people get around on golf carts. I would imagine ebikes are fine to ride on those paths as well.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

BootneyLee said:


> What keeps you up at night about powerful machines? That they'll go too fast? They'll pass you on climbs? They'll "tear up the trail"? They'll be ridden by irresponsible people?
> 
> You don't need a motor to do any of that.
> 
> ...


Following this logic, we should just allow all motorcycles on the mountain bike trails, just make it a law not to damage the trail and post a speed limit. Think that will work out well? This is what we are fighting against.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> Wow, no one ever tried this logic before, even as sketchy as it is. Congratulations.


It's not my logic, it's Mr. Pig's.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Moe Ped said:


> Would Jesus ride an e-bike?


No, Jesus earns his turns.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

Lemonaid said:


> It happens everywhere. Get used to it. It's why we have speed limits. Sucks there are idiots who ruin it for the rest of us but it's part of life.


Everyone usually has a positive input at some point in society...makes the this ole world go 'round...


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> Your chart is incorrect, sales fell in '15.


Not if you count the ebike conversion kits sold as well...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LTZ470 said:


> Not if you count the ebike conversion kits sold as well...


And the number of those was?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

LTZ470 said:


> IF I am over that way I will ride that trail and take a photo for just you...lol...I respect all folks, may not respect their erroneous beliefs, but I do respect them...even have a little left over for you...you're mission remains the same to keep anything off your trails but you and your cronies...easy enough wasn't it?


The trails I ride allow hikers and trail runners. One of the trails also allows horses. I'm fine with all of these. I guess they are my "cronies" as well. I sure have a lot of "cronies", most I don't even know.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)




----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

LTZ470 said:


> Not if you count the ebike conversion kits sold as well...


Link?


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Following this logic, we should just allow all motorcycles on the mountain bike trails, just make it a law not to damage the trail and post a speed limit. Think that will work out well? This is what we are fighting against.


No, I'm addressing Mr. Pig's reasoning to ban all "powerful machines".


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

sssssspacer | not an ebike
sssssspacer |
ssss.spacer V



Cornfield said:


>


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

BootneyLee said:


> What keeps you up at night about powerful machines? That they'll go too fast? They'll pass you on climbs? They'll "tear up the trail"? They'll be ridden by irresponsible people?
> 
> You don't need a motor to do any of that.


Mr. Pig, I'm asking an honest question here. I just want to understand your viewpoint.



Mr Pig said:


> More powerful cars do crash more, so perhaps not the best comparison for you to choose.


Are you sure? You believe it's the more powerful cars that crash more. Here's a reliable way to prove your assertion (straight-up NHTSA data):

https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov//QueryTool/QuerySection/SelectYear.aspx

If you need a refresher how to run univariate analyses (you said it was one variable: "more powerful" cars, so let's stick to that one variable. Let's ignore the other variables for crashes, like weather, visibility, rural or urban, time of day, under the influence, texting, etc.) - here's a guide to help you out: 
https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov//QueryTool/documents/univexer.pdf

I'm looking forward to see what data you come up with. Thanks!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BootneyLee said:


> Mr. Pig, I'm asking an honest question here. I just want to understand your viewpoint.
> 
> Are you sure? You believe it's the more powerful cars that crash more. Here's a reliable way to prove your assertion (straight-up NHTSA data):
> 
> ...


What at all does this have with access to the non-motorized trails in the N.F.? Save the graphs and links please.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> What at all does this have with access to the non-motorized trails in the N.F.? Save the graphs and links please.


My question has to do with non-motorized trails... Here ya go:

*What keeps you up at night about powerful machines? * That they'll go too fast? They'll pass you on climbs? They'll "tear up the trail"? They'll be ridden by irresponsible people?

All I want to do is understand his viewpoint.

Is it so horrible to "seek first to understand, then be understood"? Maybe this will help to see why I'm trying to understand first.

Seek First to Understand | HuffPost

Here's an excerpt of the above page, with a quote from a Covey book I read many years ago:

​_"If you're like most people, you probably seek first to be understood; you want to get your point across. And in doing so, you may ignore the other person completely, pretend that you're listening, selectively hear only certain parts of the conversation or attentively focus on only the words being said, but miss the meaning entirely. So why does this happen? Because most people listen with the intent to reply, not to understand. You listen to yourself as you prepare in your mind what you are going to say, the questions you are going to ask, etc. You filter everything you hear through your life experiences, your frame of reference. You check what you hear against your autobiography and see how it measures up. And consequently, you decide prematurely what the other person means before he/she finishes communicating."_


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BootneyLee said:


> blah, blah, blah


No one gives two shits about your copy and paste skills. Go argue with the pig in private messages.


----------



## #1ORBUST (Sep 13, 2005)

sriracha said:


> So, in summary, the USFS needs to be more specific on their definition of an e-bike, to include throttle operated e-bikes or pedal-assist-operated e-bikes. Realistically, there could be three types, full-on electric motorbikes with no pedaling involved, throttle driven e-bikes with pedaling and pedaling initiated pedal-assist bikes. I certainly wouldn't put them in the same class as a gas-powered motorbike, definitely not a mo-ped. More like a ped-e-mo.
> 
> After being more specific, they need to decide to allow e-bikes or not...and more specifically, which type of e-bike.
> 
> ...


Hnnngggg ebike fluffy loops!

But real tea that pedal would still suck. I was doing old sm in like 3mins on my supermoto. According to the crowd here an emotorcycle would keep up lmao


----------



## sriracha (Jun 23, 2004)

#1ORBUST said:


> Hnnngggg ebike fluffy loops!
> 
> But real tea that pedal would still suck. I was doing old sm in like 3mins on my supermoto. According to the crowd here an emotorcycle would keep up lmao


wait! Everyone here says it's a motorcycle!!! It's totally the same thing! I'll race yooz on my ebike and spray e-roost all over yooz on ur stupermoto!!! better keep ur gaz guzzler off my trail or I'll hire a marine to do marine stuff to you!!!


----------



## sriracha (Jun 23, 2004)

BootneyLee said:


> Again, to be clear... I don't believe there are absolutes for everything and I don't believe the examples I just wrote about e-bikes or "purists."
> 
> And BTW, sriracha is spot-on here:
> 
> But I'm sure people would disagree with the above statement too.


Thanks! I agree with you. This is not exactly black and white. The e-bike falls somewhere between a gas-motorcycle and a mountain bike and the USFS has done a poor job at defining them, which seems to be the source of 5-pages of disagreement on this thread.

The USFS needs to be clearer on their definition of an e-bike. It's ridiculous to put an e-bike in the same category as a 4-stroke motorcycle, but at the same time, they're more than just a mountain bike.

I remember back in '95, riding my full-rigid Kona Kilauea on Porcupine Rim, racing friends with this new thing called a Rockshox fork. I remember specifically making the claim that "I would never ride a suspension fork".... I was completely wrong with that statement. lol


----------



## #1ORBUST (Sep 13, 2005)

sriracha said:


> wait! Everyone here says it's a motorcycle!!! It's totally the same thing! I'll race yooz on my ebike and spray e-roost all over yooz on ur stupermoto!!! better keep ur gaz guzzler off my trail or I'll hire a marine to do marine stuff to you!!!


Earn your turns brah

It has a motor!

What would Jesus do.

Swear mtb has some of the cringest crew of people. This thread is no exception.


----------



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

BootneyLee said:


> Just riding an "e-bike" on that path shouldn't automatically result in a ticket, fine, and arrest.


Disagree, if their intent is to exclude all motorized traffic (including e-bikes) then they have every right to do so.

My comment about whether or not D12 is "motorized" was meant to illustrate the point that outside of the technical legal arena everyone knows that motor=drive when referring to a motorized. No reasonable person is confusing D12 or a cell phone with motorized vehicle so as far as I'm concerned "motorized" is more or less an absolute when designating trail use.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Disagree, if their intent is to exclude all motorized traffic (including e-bikes) then they have every right to do so.
> 
> My comment about whether or not D12 is "motorized" was meant to illustrate the point that outside of the technical legal arena everyone knows that motor=drive when referring to a motorized. No reasonable person is confusing D12 or a cell phone with motorized vehicle so *as far as I'm concerned "motorized" is more or less an absolute when designating trail use.*


OK, I respectfully disagree.

I still don't see "motorized as absolutes", but since *you* consider motorized as absolute, then go ahead and call 911 so your local sheriff can ticket, fine and arrest these kids if/when you see them riding their 12-volt car on your local path:









BTW, "more or less absolute" isn't exactly "absolute." That's like saying "more or less pregnant."


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

sriracha said:


> Thanks! I agree with you. This is not exactly black and white. The e-bike falls somewhere between a gas-motorcycle and a mountain bike and the USFS has done a poor job at defining them, which seems to be the source of 5-pages of disagreement on this thread.
> 
> The USFS needs to be clearer on their definition of an e-bike. It's ridiculous to put an e-bike in the same category as a 4-stroke motorcycle, but at the same time, they're more than just a mountain bike.
> 
> I remember back in '95, riding my full-rigid Kona Kilauea on Porcupine Rim, racing friends with this new thing called a Rockshox fork. I remember specifically making the claim that "I would never ride a suspension fork".... I was completely wrong with that statement. lol


It actually is black and white, the USFS & BLM have both stated that they define ebikes as motorized. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, or if I do or not, how anyone else manages their land, or how anyone wants to argue how the language is interpreted. Unless they change their position, that's it currently.

Feel free to keep arguing they're bicycles, motorcycles, magic vehicles, whatever, it's pointless in regards to the USFS, they can do as they'd like.


----------



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

BootneyLee said:


> OK, I respectfully disagree.
> 
> I still don't see "motorized as absolutes", but since *you* consider motorized as absolute, then go ahead and call 911 so your local sheriff can ticket, fine and arrest these kids if/when you see them riding their 12-volt car on your local path:


Are you saying that 12v kids car is not a motorized vehicle?


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

Harryman said:


> It actually is black and white, the USFS & BLM have both stated that they define ebikes as motorized. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, or if I do or not, how anyone else manages their land, or how anyone wants to argue how the language is interpreted. Unless they change their position, that's it currently.


Fair enough. Discuss with local authorities your/our point of view, regardless of what that might be.



Harryman said:


> Feel free to keep arguing they're bicycles, motorcycles, magic vehicles, whatever, it's pointless in regards to the USFS, they can do as they'd like.


Technically, as they're part of the government, they don't get to do as they'd like; they're supposed to serve "the people". So, whether you're for or against the whole e-bike thing, take it up with them.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Are you saying that 12v kids car is not a motorized vehicle?


Does it have a motor? ICYDN, I'm making your "absolute" argument.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BootneyLee said:


> Technically, as they're part of the government, they don't get to do as they'd like; they're supposed to serve "the people". So, whether you're for or against the whole e-bike thing, take it up with them.


Just because they don't do as you would like them to does not mean they are not "serving the people".


----------



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

BootneyLee said:


> Does it have a motor?


Now you're getting the hang of it! Absolutely has a motor that drives the vehicle.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> Just because they don't do as you would like them to does not mean they are not "serving the people".


It might help if you read what I wrote. Note that it has nothing to do what I want or don't want -- our government doesn't get "to do as they'd like." That would be called a dictatorship.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

BTW, @life behind bars - thanks for reading my PM, where I invited you come visit here in So Cal, go for a ride and I'd buy the beers!

Oh, and thanks for the reply below!



life behind bars said:


> No one gives two shits about your copy and paste skills. Go argue with the pig in private messages.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Now you're getting the hang of it! Absolutely has a motor that drives the vehicle.


YES!!! those kids should be ticketed, fined, and arrested!!! Absolutely!!!

Anyway, are we done here now?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BootneyLee said:


> It might help if you read what I wrote. Note that it has nothing to do what I want or don't want -- our government doesn't get "to do as they'd like." That would be called a dictatorship.


They do get to do what they want within the confines of the law though, which is what they are doing. The sticking point seems to be that Emotorbikers don't like the outcome. There are places for emotorbikes to use, just not on non-motorized trails. As I've stated time and time again, if you guys don't like the situation form some kind of advocacy group and go fight for access. But do not expect Mountain Bikers to do your advocacy for you. It really is that simple, everything said beyond that is chaff.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> They do get to do what they want within the confines of the law though, which is what they are doing. The sticking point seems to be that Emotorbikers don't like the outcome. There are places for emotorbikes to use, just not on non-motorized trails. As I've stated time and time again, if you guys don't like the situation form some kind of advocacy group and go fight for access. But do not expect Mountain Bikers to do your advocacy for you. It really is that simple, everything said beyond that is chaff.


Great! Brilliant! Simple! I think we're all done here. Over and out! :thumbsup:


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

The USFS has jurisdiction over the lands they manage for we, the people - because we (via legislation) gave them that power. They can completely bar people from going some places, they can allow bulldozers and logging, etc. We could take all that land away from the USFS if enough people decided they were doing a bad job. 

They can ban e-bikes if they want to, and they have. If you don't like that, you can take it up with the USFS, or probably better, with your congressperson. 

As it stands now, though, as Harry said, regardless of your feelings on the matter, the USFS does not allow e-bikes on nonmotorized trails. Full stop.

-Walt


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> It actually is black and white, the USFS & BLM have both stated that they define ebikes as motorized. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, or if I do or not, how anyone else manages their land, or how anyone wants to argue how the language is interpreted. Unless they change their position, that's it currently.
> 
> Feel free to keep arguing they're bicycles, motorcycles, magic vehicles, whatever, it's pointless in regards to the USFS, they can do as they'd like.


Awesome. Let's give this man a law degree.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

For those who are interested in the origins and purpose of the USFS:

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

In general the BLM is more controversial (ie Bundy standoff, grazing rights/fees, etc) but both are organizations that were set up to preserve/utilize/protect public lands for a variety of purposes, including both motorized and nonmotorized recreation.

-Walt


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

BootneyLee said:


> Do I really think that if a bike has a Di2, it's motorized? Of course not. Same as if I believe (as the Forest Service person says) that anything with a motor is self-propelled. He/she makes an absolute statement. Go back and read that statement again.
> 
> For some who didn't get that - Whoosh, Mach 12 over your heads.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Have you ever seen one of these? It doesn't say 30 what, do you try to argue that maybe it means miles per minute instead of MPH?

When it says motor attached to it, you know what they mean, don't be such a DB. This is why no one wants to listen to your arguments. This is why we just say if it has a motor, it is motorized. Quit with the semantics like Walt says.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Have you ever seen one of these? It doesn't say 30 what, do you try to argue that maybe it means miles per minute instead of MPH?
> 
> When it says motor attached to it, you know what they mean, don't be such a DB. This is why no one wants to listen to your arguments. This is why we just say if it has a motor, it is motorized. Quit with the semantics like Walt says.


Sure! Absolutely! Whoosh!


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Have you ever seen one of these? It doesn't say 30 what, do you try to argue that maybe it means miles per minute instead of MPH?
> 
> When it says motor attached to it, you know what they mean, don't be such a DB. This is why no one wants to listen to your arguments. This is why we just say if it has a motor, it is motorized. Quit with the semantics like Walt says.


PS> You didn't say which country that picture is from, so for all we know it could mean 30 km/h. You know, like in Canada? So just like the Forest Service person, you haven't done a great job of defining here.

And BTW, most of the world drives on the right side of the road so it's not 100% clear that this was taken in the US.

Have a nice day.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

BootneyLee said:


> YES!!! those kids should be ticketed, fined, and arrested!!! Absolutely!!!
> 
> Anyway, are we done here now?


No, but their parents should be told that they shouldn't be on the path. Why teach kids to flaunt the law? And I really hated seeing kids riding around on any type of motorized vehicles in my old neighborhood, the US already has a huge obesity problem. When they get older and want to ride them for recreation or transportation, fine but I hate seeing anything that discourages exercise for kids. My dad built me a downhill coaster when I was a kid for riding in our driveway. He built my kids a pedal car. He's 85 year old and just gave up backpacking last year, still goes fly fishing and hunting.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

BootneyLee said:


> PS> You didn't say which country that picture is from, so for all we know it could mean 30 km/h. You know, like in Canada? So just like the Forest Service person, you haven't done a great job of defining here.
> 
> And BTW, most of the world drives on the right side of the road so it's not 100% clear that this was taken in the US.
> 
> Have a nice day.


Whoosh! That was his point. If you are driving on that road, you know if it is mph or kph. If I'm in the US, I know it is mph, I'm not going to try to argue that it doesn't say "not kph".


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chazpat said:


> And I really hated seeing kids riding around on any type of motorized vehicles in my old neighborhood, the US already has a huge obesity problem. When they get older and want to ride them for recreation or transportation, fine but I hate seeing anything that discourages exercise for kids.


Meh...my kid rides all sorts of motorized toys; has always loved them. He's skinny as a rail, and 100lb kid throwing around a 2-3-400 pound off road machine adds up to plenty of exercise, trust me. I even offered to take him shopping for a Levo to entice him to come trail riding with me and my friends on MTBs (he said no thanks, they're too slow).

We love motors at our house, but we're not so incredibly obtuse that we can't understand there is a difference between human powered and motorized user groups and how they're managed as far as trail access. I'm know that not all pro-e-bike folks here are the special kind of morons that can't grasp this concept either, yet I wonder why many of them insist on going out of their way to present themselves that way. Not doing yourselves any favors as far as access goes, I can guarantee you that.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'm know that not all pro-e-bike folks here are the special kind of morons that can't grasp this concept either, yet I wonder why many of them insist on going out of their way to present themselves that way. Not doing yourselves any favors as far as access goes, I can guarantee you that.


Some of them may be "Trojan Horses", here just to make emotorbikers look bad. If that's true, it's working exceedingly well. Sad state of affairs if it is true.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> Some of them may be "Trojan Horses", here just to make emotorbikers look bad. If that's true, it's working exceedingly well. Sad state of affairs if it is true.


I don't think so. I think in most cases they're actually completely clueless about trail access/advocacy and too cocksure to realize it or take advice from those in the know.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

BootneyLee said:


> I'm looking forward to see what data you come up with.


My reputation data = lotsandlots
Your reputation data = notsomuch.

Perhaps someone could do a graph to illustrate it better?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

So much ridiculousness for such a black and white issue. Does the OP's original posting of Ebikes and trail management by the UDFS ban ebikes? Yes, yes it does. Doesn't matter how you want to twist it or what your justification is. They are banned. There's a few things you can do about it if you don't like it. Bitching about it here isn't one of them. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> I don't think so. I think in most cases they're actually completely clueless about trail access/advocacy and too cocksure to realize it or take advice from those in the know.


That's how we lost dirt bike access basically everywhere in MA. Riding around with our huge care free balls swinging around over out motors, not giving a crap about anything.

Didn't work out too good for anyone.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Mr Pig said:


> My reputation data = lotsandlots
> Your reputation data = notsomuch.
> 
> Perhaps someone could do a graph to illustrate it better?


Oh, so impressive! You're winning the internet!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> Some of them may be "Trojan Horses", here just to make emotorbikers look bad. If that's true, it's working exceedingly well. Sad state of affairs if it is true.





slapheadmofo said:


> I don't think so. I think in most cases they're actually completely clueless about trail access/advocacy and too cocksure to realize it or take advice from those in the know.


Someone proposed that earlier in a similar thread about one particular emotorbiker. I dismissed it but considering he and members of his family are employed by the oil industry, it does make me wonder.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

AGarcia said:


> Oh, so impressive! You're winning the internet!


Is it a competition?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Some posters have pointed out the grayness of ebikes, they aren't bicycles and they aren't really what we traditionally call motorcycles. Then when ebikes get broken down into different classes, you get more shades of gray. Add in do-it-yourself kits and modification kits and more and more shades of grey, plus with changing technology, what was one shade of gray may morph into another shade.

And that is exactly why we need to divide at a black and white point, where there is no doubt. It isn't wattage or capability to damage the trails or not, or top speed. It is: does it have a motor (one that propels the item in question for our picky posters) or not? 

Trying to draw the line within the gray area does not work well. Can you distinguish between 5% black and 10%? How about between black and white; a bit easier? Likewise, to expect someone to easily distinguish between a legal ebike and and an illegal ebike is problematic. Those not familiar with bikes may already have difficulties distinguishing between some ebikes and bicycles, moving the line into the gray just makes that worse. It just opens the door for illegal ebikes to ride through with the riders knowing people can't distinguish between the shades of gray.


----------



## Bmiller71 (Oct 29, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> My reputation data = lotsandlots
> Your reputation data = notsomuch.
> 
> Perhaps someone could do a graph to illustrate it better?


hahaha ohhh I post more on the internet so I have more reputation argument....ohhh snap


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

chazpat said:


> Trying to draw the line within the gray area does not work well.


It's actually not that hard to do and happens all the time when solid legal minds get together with regulatory agencies and interested folks involved on both sides of issues. 
For example, Is the goal to ban all bicycles with motors? If so, then then one can very easily write that regulation.

One would plausibly start with providing written support/justification/studies for that regulation (i.e., damaging to trails, dangerous to other trail users). Next plausible step is to prepare the language. For example: No "motorized bicycles": Definition: "A motorized bicycle is any bicycle that is equipped with and can use a motor or engine to assist in the propulsion or fully propel the rider of the bicycle." Something like would cover pedal assist bikes and cover gas and electric powered bikes, whether pedal assist or not.

Is the goal to allow only some bikes with motors on trail? If so, again, start with justifications for the regulations, then determine objective standards supported by the justifications. Then draft. Preparing a regulation to allow some, but not all bikes with motors would take a bit longer than the 30 seconds it took to whip up a simple "ban", but could be done with some focused time combining forest service personnel, interested advocates and a lawyer taking direction from the advocates and personnel.

In essence, the regulations are not hard to prepare. Grey areas can become black and white fairly easily. The hard part is selling the regulations in a manner that makes a majority of the constituents happy (or at least pacify constituents that would otherwise successfully object to the regulation and get it shot down).


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

So instead of endlessly complaining here, why aren't our resident e-bikers actually following through on doing things such as suggested above? I don't think the majority of mountain bikers would give a damn one way or the other about e-bikes as long as the ridiculous attempt at equivocating them with mountain bikes is dropped and they forge ahead as a separate and distinct user group to stand or fall on their own without dragging mountain bikers into it.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

AGarcia said:


> It's actually not that hard to do and happens all the time when solid legal minds get together...


You know, if you could put as much energy into pedalling as you do pontificating you wouldn't need an eBike.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> It's actually not that hard to do and happens all the time when solid legal minds get together with regulatory agencies and interested folks involved on both sides of issues.
> For example, Is the goal to ban all bicycles with motors? If so, then then one can very easily write that regulation.
> 
> One would plausibly start with providing written support/justification/studies for that regulation (i.e., damaging to trails, dangerous to other trail users). Next plausible step is to prepare the language. For example: No "motorized bicycles": Definition: "A motorized bicycle is any bicycle that is equipped with and can use a motor or engine to assist in the propulsion or fully propel the rider of the bicycle." Something like would cover pedal assist bikes and cover gas and electric powered bikes, whether pedal assist or not.
> ...


Writing regulations isn't hard at all, the hard part is getting access to whomever(s) would have influence on national level policy, selling them on the concept that a clarification of policy is needed, that it would make the rangers lives at the field level easier and accomodate recreation and then overcome the intertia inherent in a gigantic bureaucracy that the safest decisions are the ones you can avoid making.

Considering that without access to the dept of interior land, ebikes will be relegated to isolated state and local parks and cut out of many of the most iconic mtb locales, I have no doubt that the BPSA and P4Bikes havn't already been working on this.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

chazpat said:


> ine within the gray area does not work well. Can you distinguish between 5% black and 10%? How about between black and white; a bit easier? Likewise, to expect someone to easily distinguish between a legal ebike and and an illegal ebike is problematic. Those not familiar with bikes may already have difficulties distinguishing between some ebikes and bicycles, moving the line into the gray just makes that worse. It just opens the door for illegal ebikes to ride through with the riders knowing people can't distinguish between the shades of gray.


Which is one of the reasons the USFS doesn't want them.



> Enforcement of E-Bike Designations under the Travel Management Rule (TMR) The Law Enforcement and Investigations staff (LEI) has expressed concerns regarding enforcement of designations for e-bike use under the TMR with regard to distinguishing e-bikes from non-e-bikes and identifying different types of e-bikes.


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


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

BootneyLee said:


> I guess you really thought that I was worried that I'd be "risking my freedom" (what I wrote) about riding a Di2-equipped bike.
> 
> I guess it wasn't clear that I was commenting on the idiocy of the absolute/black & white/binary arguments & logic of many posters on this thread - as well as the current language in the laws. Examples:
> 
> ...


Just mute the little speaker that beeps when you shift, and you shouldn't run into any trouble. If you are really that worried about it, just put a bit of tape on the display.


----------



## Bmiller71 (Oct 29, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> You know, if you could put as much energy into pedalling as you do pontificating you wouldn't need an eBike.


says the guy with 6,600+ posts


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Mr Pig said:


> You know, if you could put as much energy into pedalling as you do pontificating you wouldn't need an eBike.


Keep it up. You're showing exactly who you are. Congratulations.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

okay guys, the posts are starting to get personal..... don't do that. Stick to the topic, this is not a discussion about who can or cannot pontificate or make comments about ones personality.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> Writing regulations isn't hard at all, the hard part is getting access to whomever(s) would have influence on national level policy, selling them on the concept that a clarification of policy is needed, that it would make the rangers lives at the field level easier and accomodate recreation and then overcome the intertia inherent in a gigantic bureaucracy that the safest decisions are the ones you can avoid making.


I agree with you.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> So instead of endlessly complaining here, why aren't our resident e--bikers actually following through on doing things such as suggested above? I don't think the majority of mountain bikers would give a damn one way or the other about e-bikes as long as the ridiculous attempt at equivocating them with mountain bikes is dropped and they forge ahead as a separate and distinct user group to stand or fall on their own without dragging mountain bikers into it.


Most every Levo rider I've met owns more than one mountain bike. Granted, that's a small sample, maybe a dozen or so folks that I know personally. As far as my stable goes, I have 2 other Mountain bikes beside my wife's Levo (a Pivot Mach 429 SL and a Stumpjumper FSR 29er). And on average, I tend to ride 2-4 times a week. If you're ever in Orange County, I'll be happy to show you around the local trails with any of my bikes.

In essence, my point is that as far as I am aware, the term "mountain biker" is not exclusive to the machine one is riding.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Hey Klurjer, just shut down the thread...and while you're at it, shut down the whole ebike forum on a mountain bike site.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> It's actually not that hard to do and happens all the time when solid legal minds get together with regulatory agencies and interested folks involved on both sides of issues.
> For example, Is the goal to ban all bicycles with motors? If so, then then one can very easily write that regulation.
> 
> One would plausibly start with providing written support/justification/studies for that regulation (i.e., damaging to trails, dangerous to other trail users). Next plausible step is to prepare the language. For example: No "motorized bicycles": Definition: "A motorized bicycle is any bicycle that is equipped with and can use a motor or engine to assist in the propulsion or fully propel the rider of the bicycle." Something like would cover pedal assist bikes and cover gas and electric powered bikes, whether pedal assist or not.
> ...


I didn't mean "writing up the regulations"; I meant dealing with them afterwards. Yep, I'm well aware that if you pay a lawyer, he/she'll be more than happy to write up whatever you need. Maybe instead of saying "draw the line" I should have said "hold the line". The writing part is the easy part (with all due respect).


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

chazpat said:


> I didn't mean "writing up the regulations"; I meant dealing with them afterwards. Yep, I'm well aware that if you pay a lawyer, he/she'll be more than happy to write up whatever you need. Maybe instead of saying "draw the line" I should have said "hold the line". The writing part is the easy part (with all due respect).


I understand your perspective. I have a different viewpoint, but I understand your perspective.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Silentfoe said:


> Hey Klurjer, just shut down the thread...


It does get repetitive. I have yet to see an eBiker accept that ebikes and normal mountain bikes are not equal, despite the fact that just about everyone else does.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

Silentfoe said:


> Hey Klurjer, just shut down the thread...and while you're at it, shut down the whole ebike forum on a mountain bike site.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


This is how to paint a target on your back.

These guys deserve a voice just as much as they deserve a forum.

E-bikes are here wether you like it or not. You might think 'They're not real Mountain Bikers because they can't push 400 watts FTP' just like I could say 'you're not a real mountain biker for not having the balls to hit an 8 foor drop or roast a set of doubles'

we're all mountain bikers

And If you weren't so busy on a set of rollers and actually built a trail or fought for access to trails and land you'd realize that the only thing any real biker is concerned about is;

a) appropriate definition and restriction(sorry but it's the reality of it, there will be wattage restrictions) of e-bikes

b) appropriate use on designated trails

c) independent advocacy and maintenance (sorry but no one wants to loose access because 'you're totally a mountain bike')

and if you're ADA, have at it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mattyice said:


> This is how to paint a target on your back.
> 
> These guys deserve a voice just as much as they deserve a forum.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Whoosh! That was his point. If you are driving on that road, you know if it is mph or kph. If I'm in the US, I know it is mph, I'm not going to try to argue that it doesn't say "not kph".


I don't think you even know what my original argument was. Hint: it was about "absolutes." Actually, I'm absolutely sure you don't know. Thanks though.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

chazpat said:


> No, but their parents should be told that they shouldn't be on the path. Why teach kids to flaunt the law? And I really hated seeing kids riding around on any type of motorized vehicles in my old neighborhood, the US already has a huge obesity problem...


Sure! Lecture strangers -- Great idea!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BootneyLee said:


> Sure! Lecture strangers about how their kids are lazy and fat -- Great idea!


He posted nothing of the sort.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

Silentfoe said:


> Hey Klurjer, just shut down the thread...and while you're at it, shut down the whole ebike forum on a mountain bike site.


I'm saying this with all due respect: if a topic or group of people are so stupid, then is it really that hard to, you know, ignore it? 
:idea:

Here's an example: My mother in-law is into embroidery. She goes to workshops, conferences, and participates in forums about that topic. I don't care at all about embroidery.

You know what? I don't spend a single minute visiting embroidery forums telling them those folks how lame embroidering is.

But, it seems that some don't feel that way. They can't help it. Examples:



life behind bars said:


> No one gives two shits about your copy and paste skills.


Well, life behind bars says no one gives two shits... *Yet here he is*, commenting on what I have to say. Maybe he gives only one ****?

He even has a sig line that says ebikes suck. Well, I think the Kardashians show sucks too but I don't visit the Kardashian fan forums telling them their idols suck. Guess he/she has a lot of time on his/her hands. As bmiller pointed out: 6,600+ posts worth of time. :eekster:



sfgiantsfan said:


> ...This is why no one wants to listen to your arguments.


_No one_ listens (reads) my arguments? Yet here he is. Not only listening/reading, but commenting on them.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BootneyLee said:


> Well, life behind bars says no one gives two shits... *Yet here he is*, commenting on what I have to say. Maybe he gives only one ****?


When you attempt to spread untruths you will be called out on it. chazpat was editorializing and if you're not intelligent enough to sort that out maybe you should leave the adults to this conversation.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

BootneyLee said:


> I'm saying this with all due respect: if a topic or group of people are so stupid, then is it really that hard to, you know, ignore it?
> :idea:


with all due respect, the members of MTBR who are not in favor of eBikes are not registering on eBike only sites and stiring up trouble (as far as I can tell), they are visiting a section of a Mountain Bike Site that has discussion for eBikes and voicing their opinion, some well thought out and some not so well thought out.

There do seem to be a few users on mtbr who registered specifically to come talk about eBikes.

The biggest problem is when these 2 groups cannot have a civil discussion and revert to name calling and direct insults to each others intelligence. Those who have the power to do so have decided mtbr should have a section for eBike discussion, I am not that person, I just volunteer to moderate as I have time. I would rather not have to shut this thread down and for the most part everyone has been civil.

I do not feel there is much more to discuss on the topic of the USFS stance on eBikes, it feel like that subject has been discussed enough.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> He posted nothing of the sort.


OK, I fixed it. Just lecturing strangers, then.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> I do not feel there is much more to discuss on the topic of the USFS stance on eBikes, it feel like that subject has been discussed enough.


Looks like we were typing at the same time.. And I agree.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

BootneyLee said:


> I don't think you even know what my original argument was. Hint: it was about "absolutes." Actually, I'm absolutely sure you don't know. Thanks though.


Ok, this whole thread is sinking rapidly. Yes, I actually did get what your argument was. This thread isn't about "absolutes", it's about USFS official stance on ebikes. SFGiantsFan commented on your ridiculous argument and you replied with the same ridiculous argument. You and I both know society doesn't work with soft and fuzzy laws or by trying to allow for every single possible situation. No, I don't care if your kid flies a small drone inside a cabin in a national park. Yes, I do care if I lose access to mountain bike trails because some ebikers didn't think anyone would mind if they rode on the trails that they weren't allowed on.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> It does get repetitive. I have yet to see an eBiker accept that ebikes and normal mountain bikes are not equal, despite the fact that just about everyone else does.


I'm an emtb rider, road rider , and mtb rider. There are pricks in every segment that we choose to ride. Been that way for years and always will be. Each is DIFFERENT but yet share the bond of two wheels. So let's be cool and ride on, LEGALLY. Ive donated money to P4bikes because I absolutely believe 250w pedal assist should be on SOME uncongested singletrack on Forest Lands. How can you prove your wattage? Who gives a s**t. Ebikes are such a small percentage of sales, as been pointed out that they really are not a big deal. When you ride one you don't change your riding etiquette.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

AGarcia said:


> Most every Levo rider I've met owns more than one mountain bike. Granted, that's a small sample, maybe a dozen or so folks that I know personally. As far as my stable goes, I have 2 other Mountain bikes beside my wife's Levo (a Pivot Mach 429 SL and a Stumpjumper FSR 29er). And on average, I tend to ride 2-4 times a week. If you're ever in Orange County, I'll be happy to show you around the local trails with any of my bikes.
> 
> In essence, my point is that as far as I am aware, the term "mountain biker" is not exclusive to the machine one is riding.


I agree. Pivot 429 is a sweet machine. I ride a new Jet 9 RDO, almost bought the 429 instead, but got a killer Niner deal.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

mattyice said:


> This is how to paint a target on your back.
> 
> These guys deserve a voice just as much as they deserve a forum.
> 
> ...


Great post?


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> When you attempt to spread untruths you will be called out on it. chazpat was editorializing and if you're not intelligent enough to sort that out maybe you should leave the adults to this conversation.


What did I say that wasn't true? PM me so you don't clog this thread further. I'll wait.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

mattyice said:


> This is how to paint a target on your back.
> 
> These guys deserve a voice just as much as they deserve a forum.
> 
> ...


Hmm let's see. No, they don't deserve a voice on a mountain bike site, for the same reason that motorcycles don't. These threads will always become a **** show. Always.

I've never ridden rollers in my life. No idea where or how you got that impression.

I could also go in to my resume on land access or trail management/building but I don't want to embarrass you.

As far as restrictions and definitions, we have them. The line has been drawn. No motor driven bicycles. That won't change. I've outlined why other places. Suffice to say that agencies don't have the money or manpower to enforce levels of allowable ebikes. So zero ebikes it is.

I'm all about appropriate use on designated trails. Ebikers are not, hence these threads.

The ADA is a nonstarter. Not everything has to be accessible for ADA. There are already precedents set that address that issue.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Dude, if they are banned in Utah where you ride than what does it matter to you?


----------



## sriracha (Jun 23, 2004)

So, last evening I took my friend's Rad Power Bikes Radrover out for a zip around the neighborhood. This was my first ebike experience. First reaction was, "WOW! This is a bike with an electric motor!" The thing just took right off and I was cruising around the block at 21mph. It has both a throttle and pedal assist. I then proceeded to hop a curb and book through a no-motor-powered-vehicles trail area, blatantly ignoring the posted trail restrictions sign. I roosted wood chips on an embankment near a playground, cruised around a baseball diamond, romped through iceplant and did some hill climes. Popped off the curb and zipped back through the streets. I definitely got some looks.

My conclusion was this most certainly is no ordinary pedal bike. It's a low powered electric motor bike with the option to pedal. I can now understand people's concerns with taking these things on multi-use-trails. Especially since this is only the beginning. I felt like I got a glimpse of the future. As technology progresses, the ebikes will get faster, have longer battery life and become lighter.

Clear regulations are certainly needed. I'd say that over a certain amount of power, a license plate should be required. I can see allowing low-power-restricted pedal-assist versions on trails where it's deemed appropriate. When technology and power improve, however, I can see the need for restrictions.

I think a utility ebike would be great for around town jobs. Would I want one on the trail? Maybe when I get older and my knees don't hold out anymore.

After the test ride, I hopped on my Santa Cruz Nickel and went for a trail ride. I gotta say, my Nickel felt pretty fast out on the trail and I was not missing the ebike power...However, I couldn't stop thinking about ebikes and their future potential.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Gutch said:


> Dude, if they are banned in Utah where you ride than what does it matter to you?


Yes, but that hasn't stopped your compatriots from poaching our trails. Plus you all get on here and talk about how you're just bicycles anyway and how you're special and can ride any trail you want. The misinformation has to stop. I am extremely involved in trail access, I see this **** everywhere I go.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BootneyLee said:


> What did I say that wasn't true? PM me so you don't clog this thread further. I'll wait.





BootneyLee said:


> Sure! Lecture strangers about how their kids are lazy and fat -- Great idea!


Now either go eat a dik or go troll somewhere else.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

Silentfoe rides with a handgun gun in his swat pocket in case any brownies are out on a hike and they try to trash his Strava time

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

I fixed my post (and said so), but you didn't read that.



chazpat said:


> No, but their parents should be told that they shouldn't be on the path.


I'm sure those parents wouldn't see this as a lecture. Have a nice day.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mattyice said:


> Silentfoe rides with a handgun gun in his swat pocket in case any brownies are out on a hike and they try to trash his Strava time
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


Dude. Really? You don't have to agree with him but to disparage, especially with something so utterly juvenile is despicable.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

life behind bars said:


> Dude. Really? You don't have to agree with him but to disparage, especially with something so utterly juvenile is despicable.


That may have been a little much, but some people take the internet to seriously. In real life no one would behave with such animosity to other trail users. Doesn't happen.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BootneyLee said:


> I fixed my post (and said so), but you didn't read that.
> 
> I'm sure those parents wouldn't see this as a lecture. Have a nice day.


I saw it, chose to leave the original quote intact so everyone knows just how low you will stoop. Full disclosure and all that.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

chazpat said:


> This thread isn't about "absolutes", it's about USFS official stance on ebikes.


Ummm... According to you (not me), it *is* about absolutes. You know: Ban 'em all! A motor is a motor! Kids riding some Walmart toy - fine and arrest! Actually, it was lecture their parents. Sorry.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> I saw it, chose to leave the original quote intact so everyone knows just how low you will stoop. Full disclosure and all that.


Immediately wrote that I fixed it. Full disclosure and all that.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mattyice said:


> That may have been a little much, but some people take the internet to seriously. In real life no one would behave with such animosity to other trail users. Doesn't happen.


I get it but, you guy's don't know who you are sparring with in this thread. There are members actively posting that can and do drive policy in land management issues. The very people that you want on your side are the ones in many cases that you are pissing all over. It's bad enough with all the trolls and the people that can't seem to grasp simple concepts, now we're going to throw temper tantrums? You guys are making it far to easy to not advocate for you. Get it? Give it some thought.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> Dude. Really? You don't have to agree with him but to disparage, especially with something so utterly juvenile is despicable.


Juvenile? Like this?



life behind bars said:


> Now either go eat a dik or go troll somewhere else.


Hello pot, meet kettle


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

mattyice said:


> Silentfoe rides with a handgun gun in his swat pocket in case any brownies are out on a hike and they try to trash his Strava time
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


Personal attacks, based on what? People get banned for that type of crap. As others are pointing out, some of us do have a hand in policy.

I am as straightforward in real life. 21 years in the Army will do that to a person.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

BootneyLee said:


> Hello pot, meet kettle


Your status of Troll warranted it.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Silentfoe said:


> Yes, but that hasn't stopped your compatriots from poaching our trails. Plus you all get on here and talk about how you're just bicycles anyway and how you're special and can ride any trail you want. The misinformation has to stop. I am extremely involved in trail access, I see this **** everywhere I go.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Your too funny "ya'll" blah blah blah. Lump everybody together as one. Hell I know another guy that's a mtb guide and is a complete elite d**k. Maybe all guides are..


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

mattyice said:


> Silentfoe rides with a handgun gun in his swat pocket in case any brownies are out on a hike and they try to trash his Strava time
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


Haha! Yes, he may need to lay off the HEED!


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Gutch said:


> Your too funny "ya'll" blah blah blah. Lump everybody together as one. Hell I know another guy that's a mtb guide and is a complete elite d**k. Maybe all guides are..


Careful quoting people but not actually using a correct quote.

It could be because we spend more time in the trenches and are a little bit more invested in a lifestyle than most. We tend to defend that.

You should see me going after true motorcycles on our trails. Ebikers only get a portion of that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> Your status of Troll warranted it.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

BootneyLee said:


> I fixed my post (and said so), but you didn't read that.
> 
> I'm sure those parents wouldn't see this as a lecture. Have a nice day.


Ok, I thought it was obvious but I guess not. You said sarcastically (right?):



BootneyLee said:


> YES!!! those kids should be ticketed, fined, and arrested!!! Absolutely!!!
> 
> Anyway, are we done here now?


I replied:



chazpat said:


> No, but their parents should be told that they shouldn't be on the path.


Meaning that the cops should not give them a ticket and a fine and arrest the kids but they should tell their parents that they shouldn't be on the path. "They" being the cops, telling the parents (lecturing if that's what you want to call it).

I don't know about you but I would rather receive a "lecture" from a cop rather than a ticket, fine and/or be arrested.

Did I really need to explain this? :skep:


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

Silentfoe said:


> Personal attacks, based on what? People get banned for that type of crap. As others are pointing out, some of us do have a hand in policy.
> 
> I am as straightforward in real life. 21 years in the Army will do that to a person.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Exactly. People get banned from places for petty crap. Imagine if every land user, hiker, equestrian rider, whoever all grouped up and decided Mountain Bikers were a menace. We'd get thrown off all the lands were on in a heart beat.

Doesn't it seem unfair to do this to the next user group coming up.

They way I see it, the more trail users advocating, using and maintaining trails the better it is for all of us.

E-bikers aren't the devil or some evil thing out to destroy all the wilderness, anymore than we are. But it's easy for a hiker to see us as such, just as easy as it is an e-biker.

There is a lot of grey area right now and I think that needs to be put in black and white legal verbiage and it will happen, wether you want it to or not. Just like some equestrian riders would rather not have mountain bikers on 'their' trails.

They just need to understand that an e-bike is something different and they can't hide behind our pedal powered tires.

Bottom line though, the more people fighting for trail access the better and if e bikers do it responsibly we will be all the better for it.

For the record I do not own an e-bike and have no intention of ever riding one if my body can hold out. I have ridden one (illegally) and it was a hoot.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

mattyice said:


> Exactly. People get banned from places for petty crap. Imagine if every land user, hiker, equestrian rider, whoever all grouped up and decided Mountain Bikers were a menace. We'd get thrown off all the lands were on in a heart beat.
> 
> Doesn't it seem unfair to do this to the next user group coming up.
> 
> ...


True, more voices are always needed. In context. All user groups can band together to advocate for and to build trails. However sometimes users still need to be separated. Motorized vehicles are the big one. Because a line cannot be drawn effectively and because of the extremely high probability of over powered ebikes, they will always be banned. I can tell you that with assurity.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

BootneyLee said:


> Ummm... According to you (not me), it *is* about absolutes. You know: Ban 'em all! A motor is a motor! Kids riding some Walmart toy - fine and arrest! Actually, it was lecture their parents. Sorry.


Go read my post above on gray areas vs black and white and why sometimes absolutes are necessary. The subject here isn't about kids on some Walmart toy, it is about ebikes in USFS areas, why can't you stick to the subject? At least argue about low powered ebikes, that would be on the topic of this thread.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

Silentfoe said:


> True, more voices are always needed. In context. All user groups can band together to advocate for and to build trails. However sometimes users still need to be separated. Motorized vehicles are the big one. Because a line cannot be drawn effectively and because of the extremely high probability of over powered ebikes, they will always be banned. I can tell you that with assurity.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


I assure you I helped contribute to basically all motorized off road vehicles being banned in MA. We used to get shot at, wether it be rock salt or real bullets. And we would laugh and laugh. But when people are shooting at you, they are probably pissed off. Dirt bikes and ATVs are annoying, I get it. And even more so when you're poaching private property

An e-bike is not a dirt bike. An e-bike is not a mountain bike.

I think inevetably pedal assist bikes have a place on single-track, multi-use trails. They just need to spear-head their own way in.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

mattyice said:


> I assure you I helped contribute to basically all motorized off road vehicles being banned in MA. We used to get shot at, wether it be rock salt or real bullets. And we would laugh and laugh. But when people are shooting at you, they are probably pissed off. Dirt bikes and ATVs are annoying, I get it. And even more so when you're poaching private property
> 
> An e-bike is not a dirt bike. An e-bike is not a mountain bike.
> 
> I think inevetably pedal assist bikes have a place on single-track, multi-use trails. They just need to spear-head their own way in.


They won't, once again for the reasons I said. You cannot enforce an arbitrary line as far as allowable wattage because there is no one there to enforce it and no money to help do so. It will not happen. It is so much easier for the BLM and USFS to just stick to their guns and say they have a motor, they get to ride motorized areas.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

Silentfoe said:


> They won't, once again for the reasons I said. You cannot enforce an arbitrary line as far as allowable wattage because there is no one there to enforce it and no money to help do so. It will not happen. It is so much easier for the BLM and USFS to just stick to their guns and say they have a motor, they get to ride motorized areas.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Hikers and horse-back riders said the same thing about us, yet here we are.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

mattyice said:


> Hikers and horse-back riders said the same thing about us, yet here we are.


Ok. I have inside info and have been privy to conversations that back up what I'm trying to tell you.

Back then mountain bikes were a whole new thing that nobody knew how to deal with. That is not the case with ebikes. Proponents of ebikes are trying to say it's a new thing and that land managers are going to have to review policies. Land managers don't see it that way. They see a motor and they know exactly where to assign or deny access.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

Silentfoe said:


> Ok. I have inside info and have been privy to conversations that back up what I'm trying to tell you.
> 
> Back then mountain bikes were a whole new thing that nobody knew how to deal with. That is not the case with ebikes. Proponents of ebikes are trying to say it's a new thing and that land managers are going to have to review policies. Land managers don't see it that way. They see a motor and they know exactly where to assign or deny access.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


I'm not saying they're going to have it easy. Mass DCR is going to see it the exact way you're saying its going to happen. Mass DCR rule #1 is NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES.

But it's the same thing if Joe Schmoe all by himself tries to convince an LM to cut a trail. They'd tell him to piss off. It's hard enough for NEMBA to get trails approved in certain areas.

It's the same thing, though. Eventually they will band together and advocate for themselves, they're going to have to.

But again, in Mass if you have an ADA pass, you can basically do whatever you want on DCR lands.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Time will tell where emtbs will be in the future. I've been a logger and a forester in my previous profession and also helped manage 60,000 acres of family owned timberland. The amount of trespassers, snowmobiles, dirt bikes, hunters, atv's, marijuana growers make emtbers look like saints. National Forest land should be shared with ALL bicycle user groups.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Gutch said:


> Time will tell where emtbs will be in the future. I've been a logger and a forester in my previous profession and also helped manage 60,000 acres of family owned timberland. The amount of trespassers, snowmobiles, dirt bikes, hunters, atv's, marijuana growers make emtbers look like saints. National Forest land should be shared with ALL bicycle user groups.


Ebikes are not a bicycle user group however. This is one of the major issues with ebikers, they continually try to blow smoke up our ass claiming a vehicle with a motor is still a bicycle.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

life behind bars said:


> I get it but, you guy's don't know who you are sparring with in this thread. There are members actively posting that can and do drive policy in land management issues. The very people that you want on your side are the ones in many cases that you are pissing all over. It's bad enough with all the trolls and the people that can't seem to grasp simple concepts, now we're going to throw temper tantrums? You guys are making it far to easy to not advocate for you. Get it? Give it some thought.


Not to throw anymore stones, but you did tell someone to eat a dick and imho, a full grown epo and steroid infused man, dressed in spandex threatening a troupe of brownies on a hike with a gun is a way funnier image than a guy eating a cock at a truckstop.

And I will advocate for and build whatever pedal bike trails I see fit, because I can. Just because I'm kind of half sticking up for e-bikers doesn't mean I am one.

I don't mean this post to have any malice, I kind of want to get off topic and talk about spandex men and guns and cocks.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

They are electric bikes or "Ebikes" like the first word in your post. They should stand on their own in their own group. There are going to be a lot of good people that purchase these emtbs.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

n.m.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mattyice said:


> Not to throw anymore stones, but you did tell someone to eat a dick and imho, a full grown epo and steroid infused man, dressed in spandex threatening a troupe of brownies on a hike with a gun is a way funnier image than a guy eating a cock at a truckstop.
> 
> And I will advocate for and build whatever pedal bike trails I see fit, because I can. Just because I'm kind of half sticking up for e-bikers doesn't mean I am one.
> 
> I don't mean this post to have any malice, I kind of want to get off topic and talk about spandex men and guns and cocks.


Trolls get the troll treatment.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> I get it but, you guy's don't know who you are sparring with in this thread.


Yep. That's true. You never know who you are sparring with on this thread....


----------



## av8or (Jun 9, 2013)

i call on the "chewbacca defense" on this thread..


----------



## baddest grandpa (Oct 16, 2016)

AGarcia said:


> Yep. That's true. You never know who you are sparring with on this thread....


You had your chance early in this thread and haven't done anything meaningful except posture.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

baddest grandpa said:


> You had your chance early in this thread and haven't done anything meaningful except posture.


You may be right.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Silentfoe said:


> Ebikes are not a bicycle user group however. This is one of the major issues with ebikers, they continually try to blow smoke up our ass claiming a vehicle with a motor is still a bicycle.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


I'll jump back in here quoting this; e-bikes belong to a separate user group---they're not bicycles but they're not motorcycles either.

If the USFS decides they fall on the motorcycle side of things so be it. I'm all for e-bikers lobbying for more motorized trails.

As a sometimes e-biker I approve this message.


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

Silentfoe said:


> They won't, once again for the reasons I said. You cannot enforce an arbitrary line as far as allowable wattage because there is no one there to enforce it and no money to help do so. It will not happen. It is so much easier for the BLM and USFS to just stick to their guns and say they have a motor, they get to ride motorized areas.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


(b) On and after January 1, 2018, a manufacturer or distributor of electric bicycles shall apply a label in at least nine-point type that is permanently affixed in a prominent location to each electric bicycle identifying the:
(1) Classification number;
(2) Top assisted speed; and
(3) Motor wattage of the electric bicycle.
(c) A person shall not tamper with or modify an electric bicycle so as to change the motor-powered speed capability or engagement of an electric bicycle, unless he or she appropriately replaces the label indicating the classification required in subsection (b) of this section.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

And your point?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

Silentfoe said:


> And your point?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


(3)(A) "Motorized bicycle" means every a bicycle with an automatic transmission and a motor which does not displace in excess of fifty cubic centimeters (50 cc).

(B) "Motorized bicycle" does not include an electric bicycle as defined in § 27-51-1702;

27-51-1702. Definitions.
As used in the subchapter:

(1) "Class 1 electric bicycle" means an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the operator is pedaling and that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches the speed of twenty miles per hour (20 m.p.h.);


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

lol!


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Well, regardless of one's point of view, if anyone here wants to go to go for a ride in Orange County, feel free to hit me up. Cheers!


----------



## LTZ470 (May 5, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> Trolls get the troll treatment.


This coming from Chief Troll Turd #1...lol...now that is funny...best laugh I had today...thanks...


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

LTZ470 said:


> (3)(A) "Motorized bicycle" means every a bicycle with an automatic transmission and a motor which does not displace in excess of fifty cubic centimeters (50 cc).
> 
> (B) "Motorized bicycle" does not include an electric bicycle as defined in § 27-51-1702;
> 
> ...


It's always funny to read excerpts from a state's motor vehicle code when someone is trying to prove they aren't motor vehicles.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

I gave a warning, it was ignored. To be clear I am closing this thread because of personal attacks that went back and forth on the same page I asked for no more personal attacks.

/thread


----------

