# To the Haters.



## Ricisan (Aug 30, 2006)

I see that there are some purists/haters that feel cycling should be pedal power only. If you can't do that, tough luck. Does that apply to all forms of assistance? 

Is using Oxygen on Everest cheating? How about the stimulants they take to make it to the summit? Perhaps all suspension should be banned? 

Is all this hate bc someone is worried an E bike mite be faster on the trails than they are? Get real will you.

My old MX racer could tear up some dirt. Not sure how much damage a 750w e bike could do?

I don't have an e bike for now, but in the future it might be a good idea.
I thought the idea was to get people out of cars and onto bikes? Or do we all have to live up to the hater standard?

Some of us are getting older and do not want to quit riding!
Lighten up and let others enjoy.


R


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Ricisan said:


> I see that there are some purists/haters that feel cycling should be pedal power only. If you can't do that, tough luck. Does that apply to all forms of assistance?
> 
> Is using Oxygen on Everest cheating? How about the stimulants they take to make it to the summit? Perhaps all suspension should be banned?
> 
> ...


When is the last time (or even the first) that someone rode a mountain bike to the summit of Everest?


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

E-bike away buddy! 

I will say I'd strongly prefer not to see such a machine on my local trails. Not for fear they'd be faster. Likely they wouldn't be faster since experienced riders tend to use pedal bikes. Pretty sure I could smoke a newbie on an E-bike any day. Just seems easier, safer, etc..to keep it pedal only. 

As for getting older, I hear you loud and clear, it sucks. Although I did ride several long sections of the Colorado Trail with a 73 year old last summer. That feller didn't have an E-bike and he did great. There are others doing the same I'm sure. 

I'm all for getting people out of cars and onto E-bikes. Just keep those E-bikes on the roads, dirt or otherwise. E-bikes are fantastic in the right application, think cargo bikes, commuters, etc..

I've also personally banned suspension from my garage and if I ever wanted to climb Everest I'd try without supplemental oxygen. Not saying others are wrong but its just my preference. 

Am I a hater? Maybe so but I'm okay with it.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I'm not a hater. Please feel free to ride your motorcycle wherever they allow motorcycles. I think it's great if people get out and ride ebikes where motorized vehicles are allowed. Just don't try to claim that a cycle with a motor is a bicycle; it isn't. So please don't be a hater of bicycles and mountain bikers.


----------



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

Yeah, I've noticed that there are some purists/haters that feel hiking should be foot powered only. Extremists.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

Your Everest analogy is flawed. The vast majority of people who try would die without oxygen. Mountain biking is nowhere near that heroic a feat. 
That said, when I lived in CO and fancied myself a climber, I did feel like those few that did summit the 'big peaks' without o2 were better, and every one else took the easy way.

I believe that vehicles that assist the rider with artificial power are no longer bicycles and shouldn't enjoy the same rights as human-only powered bikes.
Lastly, my *MAIN* problems are with responsibility-it's a two facet problem and that's where the fight is: 
1) a 750W assist allows for much faster travel in flats and uphill and endangers all trail users, including the ebike rider, because of reaction times.
2) 750W ebikes don't always stay 750W. There's a landslide of YouTube and internet tutorials on how to squeeze every last watt out of the system. Some of those bikes are capping 3kw now and battery tech is only getting better. Meaning more watts, or longer run times. It's an arms race to outsmart the law enforcement and ride an electric motorcycle that looks like a bicycle.

I think ebikes for commuting is brilliant. I'm even fine with forest roads. They don't belong on single track.


----------



## JRT_in_WMass (Jul 22, 2013)

Ricisan said:


> I see that there are some purists/haters that feel cycling should be pedal power only.


Luddites ride penny farthings and want to ban "safety bicycles" that have modern contraptions such as brakes, sprockets and chains.

The fellow on the penny farthing below is probably not a Luddite, as Luddites usually ride naked, true minimalists.


----------



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

Ricisan said:


> To the Haters.............


Whatchu got for everyone who doesn't hate them at all but just think they're no longer officially bicycles? That seems to be the vast majority of the "anti's" you're targeting, and I think most of us understand that they're not exactly motorcycles but also believe they're not really bicycles either.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I don't hate e-bikes. I just want to make sure they don't harm access to trails for regular bikes. Pretty simple. If I had some moto-legal singletrack around here I'd build myself a 3kW monster e-bike in a hot second!

I'm also totally ok with folks with ADA recognized disabilities riding e-bikes on trails as long as they follow the usual rules of safety and courtesy. 

-W


----------



## ghoti (Mar 23, 2011)

Some E-bike riders do tend to lack proper trail etiquette and act like d*cks but it's not really the bike's fault. It does enable them to act more rudely but not worth condemning the tech. 

Also some hikers tend to hate mtb riders as our 'tech'/bikes also make us go faster and destroy or wear the trails down. 


I don't care one way or the other about ebikes. It's the operator that determines what impact they have on the trail.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Well, if we're going to use that logic, anyone should be allowed to ride anything anywhere. 

In theory you could have full on motos operating by really nice people on most trails, with no problems. In reality we all know what making an activity faster and easier does for the folk who *aren't* really nice, and that those folks will end up ruining it for everyone, so we ban motos. It's a shame for the really nice folks, but it is what it is. People are not angels. 

Bikes being slow and strenuous to ride uphill is probably the only reason they are still allowed on many trails. Adding ease/speed is the opposite of what I want.

-W


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

I think ebikes are pretty awesome, but I don't think they're bicycles. I find the industry's back door attempt to make them "legal" everywhere you can ride a bicycle an extremely annoying sham. If they, and the people who want to ride them on non motorized trails advocated for their inclusion as a new type of vehicle, I'd support it. Enjoy them anywhere they're legal.


----------



## Whiptastic (Mar 14, 2016)

I got back into biking with an eMTB as my PT program after surgeries, then moved back to human power only. Today's MTB and eMTB are two very different experiences to ride. Light weight geared right MTB's really are a more enjoyable experience in every respect, if you can do the climbs. Climbing is the eMTB's big advantage, at the expense of all other, mainly because of the extra 15-20lbs. of weight. I think a lot of riders buying an eMTB that aren't in shape will "graduate" to human power only the further they get into the sport, based on fitness improvement.

Personally I'm still waiting for the low power 250W assist bike that is the equivalent to my Hightower that weighs in at 30-35lbs. When that bike arrives, I may just buy one and plaster it with handicap stickers. :thumbsup:


----------



## keen (Jan 13, 2004)

In a stressed trail system I think its going to be hard for your average rider to keep off the juice. I ride my non eMTB as fast as I can why would you average ebiker keep a lid on it? I see the appeal for disabilites and age challenged but I also see those that have the need for speed. There is a reason there are posted speed limits and enforcement for motorized vehicles - we can't control ourselves w/o consequence. Whats the consequence for riding an ebike too fast other than trail closure.


----------



## DethWshBkr (Nov 25, 2010)

Ricisan said:


> I see that there are some purists/haters that feel cycling should be pedal power only. If you can't do that, tough luck. Does that apply to all forms of assistance?


It's a shame people with no arms can't get into dart throwing competitions, or that people who are paralyzed from the waist down can't enter the Boston Marathon. 
I think it's time we petition the US Marine Corps to start allowing blind people to train as a SEAL.

Why do we tolerate such hate?


----------



## paleh0rse (Jun 20, 2011)

If you're not legally handicapped, elderly, or commuting on roads, I'll continue to shame you if/when I see you ride a motorbike on our non-motorized cycling trails.

Is it possible to be angry without hatred? If not, then I guess I'll proudly own the hatred. So be it.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

No hate here. Currently not legal for the most part here in MA on most multi use trails. And bikes don't have motors. So there's that. So once I get old I can't ride? Yikes. No one told me. So sad.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

> age challenged


lol!


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Obvious troll post. Dunno what the point is. Enjoy your mtb shaped moped.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Definition of bicycle
: a vehicle with two wheels tandem, handlebars for steering, a saddle seat, and pedals by which it is propelled; also : a stationary exercise machine that resembles such a vehicle

bi·cy·cle (bī′sĭk′əl, -sĭ-kəl, -sī′kəl)
n.
1. A vehicle consisting of a light frame mounted on two typically wire-spoked wheels one behind the other and usually having a seat, handlebars for steering, brakes, and two pedals by which it is driven.

bicycle
noun [ C ] UK /ˈbaɪ.sɪ.kəl/ US /ˈbaɪ.sə.kəl/

A2 a two-wheeled vehicle that you sit on and move by turning the two pedals (= flat parts you press with your feet):

2 minutes of searching dictionaries shows no mention of a motor. Not a bicycle. You can call a pig a cow, but it's still a pig.


----------



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

Travis Bickle said:


> Definition of bicycle.........


As sound and logical as that seems it's futile, I've mentioned that fact several times but it always falls on deaf ears.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Walt said:


> I don't hate e-bikes. I just want to make sure they don't harm access to trails for regular bikes. Pretty simple. If I had some moto-legal singletrack around here I'd build myself a 3kW monster e-bike in a hot second!
> 
> I'm also totally ok with folks with ADA recognized disabilities riding e-bikes on trails as long as they follow the usual rules of safety and courtesy.
> 
> -W


This is exactly my opinion, as well.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> Definition of bicycle
> : a vehicle with two wheels tandem, handlebars for steering, a saddle seat, and pedals by which it is propelled; also : a stationary exercise machine that resembles such a vehicle
> 
> bi·cy·cle (bī′sĭk′əl, -sĭ-kəl, -sī′kəl)
> ...


 That's fine as far as it goes, it's a dictionary definition, but it is the legal definition that governs trail, path and bike lane access and some states define bicycle differently. As in California to give just one example: Class 1, 2 and 3 ebikes meet the legal definition of "bicycle". So in some states, the authorities have decided to treat some pigs as cows and as far as the state is concerned those pigs ARE cows. Mooooo

The dictionary will tell you what the popular usage of a word is, like "marriage": for years it only meant a union between a man and a woman, but a change in the legal definition has led to a change in the popular meaning of the word to now include same-sex unions. A similar process will take place with Class 1, 2 and 3 bicycles as time passes and more appear on our roads, trails and bike paths and lanes.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

If it has a motor it is not a bicycle. I understand you may be handicapped, out of shape or just lazy, but it still isn't a bicycle.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Travis Bickle said:


> If it has a motor it is not a bicycle. I understand you may be handicapped, out of shape or just lazy, but it still isn't a bicycle.


 People can say that all they want, but it will not change the laws here in CA: if it has a motor it can be a bicycle if it complies with the rest of the rules..... And lots do comply!

Neither handicapped nor out of shape, but proudly lazy! I walk for exercise and ride two wheels for fun......


----------



## TrailGoat (Sep 6, 2016)

if an e-bike is an mtb, is bruce jenner really a woman?

...is my cat a dog?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> That's fine as far as it goes, it's a dictionary definition, but it is the legal definition that governs trail, path and bike lane access and some states define bicycle differently. As in California to give just one example: Class 1, 2 and 3 ebikes meet the legal definition of "bicycle". So in some states, the authorities have decided to treat some pigs as cows and as far as the state is concerned those pigs ARE cows. Mooooo
> 
> The dictionary will tell you what the popular usage of a word is, like "marriage": for years it only meant a union between a man and a woman, but a change in the legal definition has led to a change in the popular meaning of the word to now include same-sex unions. A similar process will take place with Class 1, 2 and 3 bicycles as time passes and more appear on our roads, trails and bike paths and lanes.


That's actually not true, while the law does state that ebikes share many of the same allowances on use, it defines them as electric bicycles. If the goal was to legally classify them as bicycles it would do so. AFAIK, there is no legislation anywhere that legally defines an ebike as a bike. If they did, the legislation would be far simpler, it would just state something like

"Bicycle" means a vehicle propelled by human power applied to pedals or by a motor of less than 750w upon which a person may ride having two tandem wheels or two parallel wheels and one forward wheel, all of which are more than fourteen inches in diameter."

I'm using the CDOT regs from Colorado as the basis, but I'm sure in the CA DOT regs, there is a similar definition of a bicycle. If the intent was to make them bicycles, that's where the amendment would be, not one reclassifying them to not be mopeds any longer.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

As long as they are allowed the same access, I don't care what they are called. And in CA they are....... Apparently the lawmakers have decided that adding the word electric in front of the word bicycle does not change them from bicycles into motorcycles or mopeds. They are bicycles, electric, but bicycles nevertheless.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Alternative facts?


----------



## JRT_in_WMass (Jul 22, 2013)

Add convertible bicycles to the consideration, a convertible being a bicycle that can be converted from MTB to eMTB, and similarly can be converted back again. Constructing such a bicycle is practicable, and when configured as an MTB it could be operated as an MTB on trails restricted for use by MTBs.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

The OP has not been back in 2 days to even attempt to defend his trollish post, and this is beating a long dead horse.

/end thread.


----------

