# Concepts Where Pro & O (ponents) Are in Concert



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Could be a horrendous idea, but since I've been a good part of the divisiveness, thought it might be good to delineate where we agree. Probable value would be we wouldn't have to keep repeating certain ideas. There's a bunch, but not to be a hog, I'll just put the first five. If everyone hates the thread let it die a lonely death.

1) E-bikes are approved for roads or moto trails where they're not prohibited specifically.
2) Individuals will modify motor systems. (duh!, already been done)
3) Peer pressure is the best and in some cases may be the only method to keep e-bikes off trails where they're not allowed.
4) Manufacturers should make motor systems tamper-proof.
5) Physically challenged individuals (with placard or other ID as such) deserve special consideration as it relates to use of e-bikes.
6) E-bikes represent a potential problem for MTB access.
7) EMTB manufacturers will fund any signage changes necessary to delineate where ebikes are permitted and prohibited.
8) eMTB's are different than MTB's.
9) Individual state's laws define where it is legal to ride eMTB's (State and local laws define where it is legal to ride emtbs.)
10) Some states place MTB's and certain class(es) of eMTB's in the same category as relates to access.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

fos'l said:


> Could be a horrendous idea, but since I've been a good part of the divisiveness, thought it might be good to delineate where we agree. Probable value would be we wouldn't have to keep repeating certain ideas. There's a bunch, but not to be a hog, I'll just put the first five. If everyone hates the thread let it die a lonely death.
> 
> 1) E-bikes are approved for roads or moto trails where they're not prohibited specifically.
> 2) Individuals will modify motor systems. (duh!, already been done)
> ...


"Challenged" is too broad and open to interpretation imho. An ADA placard or similar helps to keep it honest.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I'd add: none of us want to lose access to what we have now because of e-bikes. I think we'd all agree that a random family hiking shouldn't be impacted negatively by e-bikes any more than a normal mountain bike, nor should descending mountain bikers have to worry about climbing riders going 20mph the other direction.

Preserving the existing user experience for everyone is paramount.

-Walt


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Agreed; placard or equivalent necessary.

To add as Walt said --- none of us wants to see MTB access lost.

6) E-bikes represent a potential problem for MTB access.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Guess I'll add some from time to time:

7) EMTB manufacturers will fund any signage changes necessary to delineate where ebikes are permitted and prohibited.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

fos'l said:


> Guess I'll add some from time to time:
> 
> EMTB manufacturers will fund any signage changes necessary to delineate where ebikes are permitted and prohibited.


As good idea's are brought to the discussion copy them and edit your Original Post and keep the list going so new users do not need to read everything to comment or share an idea that might have already been shared.

That is What I do with this SoCal Riding Guide I maintain in the SoCal Section:
http://forums.mtbr.com/california-s...riding-guide-where-ride-rent-shop-938703.html

If this thread gets enough interest we can consider making it a sticky.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

That's a great idea, but I'm not good at it. Could someone please take over? Otherwise I'll add them in the same sloppy manner that I'm accustomed to doing.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

fos'l said:


> That's a great idea, but I'm not good at it. Could someone please take over? Otherwise I'll add them in the same sloppy manner that I'm accustomed to doing.


All you need to do is highlight the point brought up, right click and copy it. Go to your first post and press the edit button and then past it in where you want it in the list. It might be a pain of you are on a tablet or a phone, but it should be pretty easy if you are on a PC.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

8) Forget about it; too controversial.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

I can't actually see specific justification for banning eBikes from roads or from trails that are accessible to other motor vehicles.

In areas where trail access is currently vague or unclear, I still feel that specific permission to be open to motorized bicycles (with the exception of placard/equivalent physically challenged) has to be approved case by case, instead of presumed open.


----------



## hummer boy (Aug 23, 2004)

Can we dispense with the "going up 20mph". 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## DannyvG (Apr 21, 2014)

fos'l said:


> 2) Individuals will modify motor systems. (duh!, already been done)
> 
> 4) Manufacturers should make motor systems tamper-proof.


Modify in what way? Overruling the built in speed limit is imho no problem since you can also go to fast without assist. The power output is and should be limited and that limitation is afaik not adjustable on the big brand ebikes (Bosch and such). They are already pretty tamper proof (except for the speed limit)
Having a sensible power limit also limits the top speed and climbing with 20mph won't be possible. But I do think the 750W limit in the US is to high. The 250w of the EU is more then enough for a descent assist level.


----------



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

fos'l said:


> 8) EMTB's are different than MTB's even though they might be considered in the same category as it pertains to trail access in some areas.


Agree with the first half but the second part bothers me because the wording contributes to muddying the waters. Although many mtb trails could support electric bikes without issue the two should never be considered in the same category. In other words a "bikes allowed" sign should never denote e-bike use.

IMHO.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

JB, fixed it; nobody can argue now. If we can't agree on something that is the law in three states (at least), might as well stop trying.


----------



## DannyvG (Apr 21, 2014)

Why shouldn't ebikes(class1) be in the same category as bikes? Both require pedalling, are not noisy or emit polluting exhaust gasses and they are in the same order of magnitude for speed.

This looks more like an ebike opponent thread/list


Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

DannyvG said:


> Why shouldn't ebikes(class1) be in the same category as bikes?


Seriously?

Uh....because they have a motor?

R


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

DannyvG said:


> Modify in what way? Overruling the built in speed limit is imho no problem since you can also go to fast without assist. The power output is and should be limited and that limitation is afaik not adjustable on the big brand ebikes (Bosch and such). They are already pretty tamper proof (except for the speed limit)
> Having a sensible power limit also limits the top speed and climbing with 20mph won't be possible. But I do think the 750W limit in the US is to high. The 250w of the EU is more then enough for a descent assist level.


One individual who posts here already modified his Yamaha-equipped Haibike and an acquaintance modified his Bosch-equipped Felt. He owns a bike shop and might have informed others on which u-tube video to access. BTW, he claims the Haibike will attain 35 mph with the mod.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

DannyvG said:


> Having a sensible power limit also limits the top speed and climbing with 20mph won't be possible.


No? Woodland almost hit that last week on a climb and (no offence woodland), he's an old slow guy.



WoodlandHills said:


> I am 63 and get my cardio from my daily 2+ mi hikes in the mountain trails with my dog, the eMTB is just to enable deeper access to the backcountry and for the sheer pleasure of being on two wheels.





WoodlandHills said:


> He waved and tried to block me on the following ascent, but I swerved by him without responding to his calls and shouts and left him behind at 18mph.


If he can almost do it, I think a young fit rider could hit 20 without a problem.


----------



## DannyvG (Apr 21, 2014)

fos'l said:


> One individual who posts here already modified his Yamaha-equipped Haibike and an acquaintance modified his Bosch-equipped Felt. He owns a bike shop and might have informed others on which u-tube video to access. BTW, he claims the Haibike will attain 35 mph with the mod.


I know how it works, I also overruled the speed limit on my Bosch motor. But like I said a power limit is far more important than a speed limit imho. My top speed on the trails with the ebike isn't any higher than on my regular bike.



Harryman said:


> No? Woodland almost hit that last week on a climb and (no offence woodland), he's an old slow guy.
> 
> If he can almost do it, I think a young fit rider could hit 20 without a problem.


That's why I said "having a sensible power limit". It shouldn't be possible to go 20mph where a normal average is 5mph. But going 20mph where 18 is normal, no big deal.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

DVG, I was responding to your comment that the bikes are "pretty tamper proof" which you already disproved.


----------



## DannyvG (Apr 21, 2014)

I already said the speed limit is easy to overrule, the power level is tamper proof on a Bosch and Yamaha motor afaik.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

fos'l said:


> JB, fixed it; nobody can argue now. If we can't agree on something that is the law in three states (at least), might as well stop trying.


Or maybe don't rely on a system which is ultimately rooted in litigation as the final arbiter of what is and is not appropriate use of multi-user recreational areas? Maybe that would be worth a try?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

fos'l said:


> Agreed; placard or equivalent necessary.
> 
> To add as Walt said --- none of us wants to see MTB access lost.
> 
> 6) E-bikes represent a potential problem for MTB access.





fos'l said:


> Guess I'll add some from time to time:
> 
> 7) EMTB manufacturers will fund any signage changes necessary to delineate where ebikes are permitted and prohibited.


I added these to you first post for you. If you really are having trouble editing your first post just send me a PM when it needs to be updated and I will do it for you. I just don't have the time to fully manage this thread for you.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

8) eMTB's are different than MTB's.

9) Individual state's laws define where it is legal to ride eMTB's

10) Some states place MTB's and certain class(es) of eMTB's in the same category as relates to access.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

fos'l said:


> 8) eMTB's are different than MTB's.
> 
> 9) Individual state's laws define where it is legal to ride eMTB's
> 
> 10) Some states place MTB's and certain class(es) of eMTB's in the same category as relates to access.


I would ammend #9 to: "State and local laws define where it is legal to ride emtbs." I can't speak for everywhere, but AFAIK, local regs trump state law.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Harry, agreed, probably what I was trying to say.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

I'm soon to meet with local state park officials to talk about e-bikes and their uses in our area.

Of course I will include trails uses in this conversation and with the new "lease" laws put in place soon all Pa state parks will be amusement parks as well, so why not have a rent to ride e-bike concession too!


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

This should stir up some comments; hey, how about someone else posting an idea.

11) eMTB and MTB riders should EACH ride their bikes only in areas designated for their respective activity.

12) eMTB and MTB riders should recognize they are representatives who must present a good image of their respective sports to the public and ride accordingly.

13) It may be difficult to separate eMTB's from MTB's; some areas may ban all off road riding in order to eliminate eMTB activity.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

fos'l said:


> This should stir up some comments; hey, how about someone else posting an idea.
> 
> 11) eMTB and MTB riders should EACH ride their bikes only in areas designated for their respective activity.
> 
> ...


Stop. Just stop.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

tehllama said:


> Stop. Just stop.


Be happy to if anybody that I respect makes that request. This was initiated in order to start a dialogue that was less acidic. However, you can shove it.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

It appears that some of the e supporters are operating on an all all or nothing basis. Don't be surprised if you wind up with nothing. You have more than MTBers weighing in on this and the kinds of vitriol and self entitlement I have seen displayed by proponents isn't going to garner much support from any user group. At this juncture it'd be much simpler a process to simply ban them all, you understand this, right?


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

As I've said before, I was MTB for more than 30 years before eMTB and if it came down to one or the other, it's MTB. However, it's been a blast constructing and riding eMTB's, running errands on them and off road riding. It's intuitively evident there are individuals who despise any ebike activity legal or otherwise. Who cares? Some individuals aren't happy if anyone else is, and we've seen a lot of that on these threads which all appear to gravitate to the same banal statements by the same trite individuals.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

fos'l said:


> As I've said before, I was MTB for more than 30 years before eMTB and if it came down to one or the other, it's MTB. However, it's been a blast constructing and riding eMTB's, running errands on them and off road riding. It's intuitively evident there are individuals who despise any ebike activity legal or otherwise. Who cares? Some individuals aren't happy if anyone else is, and we've seen a lot of that on these threads which all appear to gravitate to the same banal statements by the same trite individuals.


And you find it productive to respond in kind? It's going to take a lot thicker skin than that to push this rock forward. I've said it in the past, when push comes to shove administrators will take the path of least resistance. Don't make it so easy for them.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

TT, AIR, the one comment that you initiated, an excellent revision, was incorporated. CA seems to be moving forward with e-acceptance (if that is a fair term; probably someone more erudite has better terminology). Not trying to be someone I'm not, but as long as challenged individuals get to enjoy the "park" (somewhat encompassing term) areas in CA (as well as other states) I'll be happy.

Anyone else want to add, I'm done (think I can hear the cheering already).


----------

