# A civilized discussion about e-bikes.



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

I think that both sides of this issue need to take a moment and really understand the realities of the situation. Here are some key points that I think should be focused on and discussed rationally, avoiding the senseless bickering and name-calling that is getting us nowhere.

1. E-bikes aren't going away any time soon, so ignoring them is not going to solve anything. Like it or not, e-bikers have just as much right to trails as any other trail user. The question is obviously which trails should they have access to?

2. Just saying e-bikes are not mountain bikes doesn't solve anything. I personally believe they should be classified differently than both mountain bikes and motorcycles, which is a problem when it comes to trail designations. Should there be universal designations, or should it be a trail-by-trail basis?

3. Should mountain bikers embrace e-bikes or fight them? Yes, e-bikes could theoretically increase trail access in places as the number of trail users increases and start to advocate for access. However, siding with e-bikes could possibly cause super-groups like the Sierra Club to use e-bikes against us. I have my personal thoughts on this, but I realize this is a debatable topic.

4. There are people that will push the boundaries and cause problems for everybody. How do we fairly account for this reality when designating trail access?


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I I personally believe they should be classified differently than both mountain bikes and motorcycles, which is a problem when it comes to trail designations. Should there be universal designations, or should it be a trail-by-trail basis?


This is fine with me, and yes it can be trail by trail, if that would calm people down  It's not really that hard.

The trouble is the NFS is all about "stakeholders", and less about adaptation to new realities. They will act as if adding a type of user is a big deal. Mainly because they think it will be a pain for them, and there is an undercurrent in some factions that any excuse to limit access by humans is worth pointing out. 

My proposal for e-permits
http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/one-solution-e-permits-1015598.html

"You decide you want to take your turbo Levo on a non-motorized mtb trail. You sign in online and print a self-permit to display on the bike (already self permits are in wide use in the wilderness).

Records of use are maintained either by non-profit or local USFS.

That way:
1) we develop a data set of where and how often 250w bikes go. 
2) we can determine if there is an increased impact on trails.
3) other riders who have a problem with the pedelecs can report it and the offenders can be located.
4) the whole process of getting a permit will have most pedelec riders on extra-polite behaviors, and make them aware of concerns by mtb riders.
5) especially "questionable" trails could be excluded from permit access. "

That seems pretty reasonable to me, no?

Last nite:

L1050089 by unoh7, on Flickr


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Bickering? I came here for abuse. Abuse is 3 doors down. This mess will vary state by state, depending on existing laws. E bikes do not have any right to trail use. You come up with a new product, doesn't mean you can just do whatever. Take where I live, MA. No motor vehicles allowed on trails. Black and white. No grey area, no classification issues, designation etc.


----------



## watts888 (Oct 2, 2012)

mountainbiker24 said:


> ... discussed rationally, avoiding the senseless bickering and name-calling that is getting us nowhere.


This is still MTBR, right?


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

leeboh said:


> Bickering? I came here for abuse. Abuse is 3 doors down. This mess will vary state by state, depending on existing laws. E bikes do not have any right to trail use. You come up with a new product, doesn't mean you can just do whatever. Take where I live, MA. No motor vehicles allowed on trails. Black and white. No grey area, no classification issues, designation etc.


If you look close at your state laws, you might discover a 250w is not considered a motor-vehicle. At least that is true in some places.

Nobody expects a new class can do "whatever". Then we would be asking to go places you can't. Wilderness? E-bikes only, please. 


L1050035 by unoh7, me want go there 

Really just to be able to take 250w Pedelecs on *some* MTB trails would be fine, and then let's see how it goes. 

It's worth noting that wider access will actually lessen impact since your chances of running into "the other" are greatly reduced. So if a single MTB trial in 20 system is pedelec legal, then you really will see them there.

Why do we have so many pristine motorized trails in Idaho? Because there are so many, a bunch are seldom ridden, but even the pressure on the popular ones is relieved.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

leeboh said:


> Bickering? I came here for abuse. Abuse is 3 doors down. This mess will vary state by state, depending on existing laws. E bikes do not have any right to trail use. You come up with a new product, doesn't mean you can just do whatever. Take where I live, MA. No motor vehicles allowed on trails. Black and white. No grey area, no classification issues, designation etc.


Ha! Nice reference! So you say all pedal-assist are motorized? Would you be open to the permit idea for handi-capped users on certain trails?


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

It's really only behaviors we are talking about here. The 250w pedelec is not going to impact trails anymore at all.

Even full motorcycles have little impact when there are many riding choices:

L1049926 by unoh7, Very popular all user trail near Stanley

In fact, the worst trail damage I see is when remote trails are closed to motos. They are no longer packed and soon erosion begins to eat them out. I watched this happen on numerous trails temporarily closed in the wake of big fires. The NFS thinks they are "letting it heal", when in truth the closure worsens erosion alot. Riding on a trail through a burn does not increase the "healing time" one iota. Big rainstorms do, though.

That leave two arguments:
250w pedelecs are more dangerous to other users, and allowing there use on any trail will cause that trail to be closed to mtb riders. There is simply no evidence for either.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> If you look close at your state laws, you might discover a 250w is not considered a motor-vehicle. At least that is true in some places.
> 
> Nobody expects a new class can do "whatever". Then we would be asking to go places you can't. Wilderness? E-bikes only, please.
> 
> ...


 I have looked closely at my state laws. Not a motor vehicles as it applies to ROAD laws and regulations. Not trails. Multi use ones in state parks and forests. Idaho? First off, great pics. Really nice. So much space, so little people. Easy solutions. For all users. Not so much in the crowded east where I live in MA. Lots of trail use, limited resources, decreasing $ from the state. The whole point is YOU are asking to go places you can't, aren't allowed and is illegal. Seems CA is on the leading edge for this stuff. Interesting to see how this shakes out in the coming year. Every state has their own maze of regulations. Cows and horses allowed but not bikes? What? Add in town rules, local conservation zealots, watershed issues( don't get me started) and such.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

I would just like to see some rational laws. If the law says a 250w pedelec is the same as a 525cc KTM, it is not rational. 

You better come visit sometime 


L1048969-2 by unoh7, this guys acts like he can go anywhere!


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Ha! Nice reference! So you say all pedal-assist are motorized? Would you be open to the permit idea for handi-capped users on certain trails?


I hoped someone(older) got that. HP? Not an issue. ADA has broad and reaching rules that allow for access for HP on mobility devices. My friend uses a 750 watt electric wheelchair. It rocks. Being wheelchair bound it is great to see him get out and enjoy the trails. The Boma has 20" front, 24" rear tires, and some nice suspension. Great climbing ability, just has a wide stance so tight trails are a no go. He uses a joystick to control it. All good. All one needs is the HP card or sticker.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

uhoh7 said:


> It's really only behaviors we are talking about here. The 250w pedelec is not going to impact trails anymore at all.
> 
> Even full motorcycles have little impact when there are many riding choices... In fact, the worst trail damage I see is when remote trails are closed to motos. They are no longer packed and soon erosion begins to eat them out. I watched this happen on numerous trails temporarily closed in the wake of big fires. The NFS thinks they are "letting it heal", when in truth the closure worsens erosion alot. Riding on a trail through a burn does not increase the "healing time" one iota. Big rainstorms do, though.
> 
> ...


I'm going to disagree on this. I imagine a lot has to do with the climate and soil, but motos do a lot of damage around here. The erosion occurs because users have destroyed and cleared vegetation, leading to ruts and runoff. True, most of that has to do with the rider, just like mountain bikes can cause damage if the rider skids the tires. Still, motorcycles do not belong on many trails, just like mountain bikes and e-bikes do not belong on all trails. Unfortunately, one irresponsible user is all it takes to destroy a trail or injure another user.

I agree about low-powered pedal-assist e-bikes causing minimal conflicts and damage compared to mountain bikers, and I would favor a permit system on most mountain bike trails. However, my main concern is that land managers and the general public will not be able to differentiate between the low-powered pedal-assist and electric motorcycle. I can see that permits would alleviate most of that issue, but it still opens the door for those types of problems. That's why I side with a separate designation for any type of e-bike.


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I think that both sides of this issue need to take a moment and really understand the realities of the situation. Here are some key points that I think should be focused on and discussed rationally, avoiding the senseless bickering and name-calling that is getting us nowhere.
> 
> 1. E-bikes aren't going away any time soon, so ignoring them is not going to solve anything. Like it or not, e-bikers have just as much right to trails as any other trail user. The question is obviously which trails should they have access to?
> 
> ...


1. We don't really know if they will take off or not, but that's sort of moot. No group has a right to trail access. Access is a privilege that is granted and sometimes taken away. I can't bike on hiking only trails even though I also hike. Currently they should have access to trails that allow motorized use, more on this in the next section.

2. I think as far as trail usage is concerned they are already considered a different user group (motorized). They can certainly petition land owners for access to trails just like any other group, it would likely be handled on a case by case basis. I'm not aware of any governing body that could give e-bikes access to all trails even if that's what everyone wanted.

3. Mountain bikers are individuals, I don't think we have a governing body that gives us one voice. Everyone can make up their own minds. Show up to meetings, speak your mind, that's basically the system we have around here anyway.

4. You can't really account for small minorities aside from setting rules and trying to enforce them, just like every other group. Nothing really special about e-bikes as a user group.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I'm going to disagree on this. I imagine a lot has to do with the climate and soil, but motos do a lot of damage around here. The erosion occurs because users have destroyed and cleared vegetation, leading to ruts and runoff. True, most of that has to do with the rider, just like mountain bikes can cause damage if the rider skids the tires. Still, motorcycles do not belong on many trails, just like mountain bikes and e-bikes do not belong on all trails. Unfortunately, one irresponsible user is all it takes to destroy a trail or injure another user.
> 
> I agree about low-powered pedal-assist e-bikes causing minimal conflicts and damage compared to mountain bikers, and I would favor a permit system on most mountain bike trails. However, my main concern is that land managers and the general public will not be able to differentiate between the low-powered pedal-assist and electric motorcycle. I can see that permits would alleviate most of that issue, but it still opens the door for those types of problems. That's why I side with a separate designation for any type of e-bike.


The door is really already open because poaching is always an option, like it or not. Certain mtb factions are famous poachers, and brag about it openly.

The permit is so easy and would answer so many fears and fill in so many unknowns. It would also make it much easier to complain. That "E27" is a real jerk!

Permits would also put legal users on the same side. Pedelec riders and mtbs could both ask other 250w users to be sure they get one. Just the idea you should have one will have people behaving better. And in this day of apps, it would be easy to make a system of self-permitting, that documents use for future decisions.

Logically, you would have two additional designations: 1)Class one pedelecs. 2)Low impact powered backcountry bikes. Getting some extra access for the latter would encourage some to move from motos to something nicer, including a lightweight trials bike. Also with self permitting.

Right now there is no incentive to stop using the big motorcycles at all. Good policy would encourage better design. In the real world there is hiker, horse, mtb, 250w pedelec, light motos (trials and more powerful e-bikes) and motorcycles, and then ATV narrow and wider. These all have different impacts and are fairly large classes.

"Oh that's way too hard" No, it's actually simple and accurate and fair.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

formula4speed said:


> 1. We don't really know if they will take off or not, but that's sort of moot. No group has a right to trail access. Access is a privilege that is granted and sometimes taken away. I can't bike on hiking only trails even though I also hike. Currently they should have access to trails that allow motorized use, more on this in the next section.
> 
> I know what you're saying, and I agree to an extent. However, as tax payers and humans, we do have a basic right to enjoy public land. How we use the land is often a priviledge, like mountain biking.
> 
> ...


True, but we should be aware that things do happen and we should be prepared to deal with the consequences when they do.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Yes, let's have a civilized discussion about how e-bikes are being forced down our throats. They aren't listening to anyone, if you haven't noticed. Just a bunch of arbitrary justifications, regurgitated over and over again, for why/how their motor should be allowed. If not, then mtb poaching history is all the justification they need.

Make sure to put 250w-750w, class 1, pedal assist, before each civilized statement in an attempt to draw some laughable distinct between the 3000w, class 3, throttle driven e-mtbs.

NO MOTOR means NO MOTOR.... can't get much simpler than that - and no permits needed, at no extra cost to land managers, or taxpayers.


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> My proposal for e-permits
> http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/one-solution-e-permits-1015598.html
> 
> "You decide you want to take your turbo Levo on a non-motorized mtb trail. You sign in online and print a self-permit to display on the bike (already self permits are in wide use in the wilderness).
> ...


Nope. Trails should be designated for electric bikes or not, just the same as hikers, horses, atv's, motorcycles, cars, etc. I think they could be classified separately from petrol atv's but not the same as bicycles.

Sound reasonable?


----------



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

d365 said:


> Yes, let's have a civilized discussion about how e-bikes are being forced down our throats. They aren't listening to anyone, if you haven't noticed. Just a bunch of arbitrary justifications, regurgitated over and over again, for why/how their motor should be allowed. If not, then mtb poaching history is all the justification they need.
> 
> Make sure to put 250w-750w, class 1, pedal assist, before each civilized statement in an attempt to draw some laughable distinct between the 3000w, class 3, throttle driven e-mtbs.
> 
> NO MOTOR means NO MOTOR.... can't get much simpler than that - and no permits needed, at no extra cost to land managers, or taxpayers.


Yep^ pretty much.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Well, I tried.


----------



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

mountainbiker24 said:


> Well, I tried.


Judging on the timing of your post I'm guessing it was directed at me?

Weird because I thought my post was completely civil. Suggesting that electric bikes acquire their own designation as a user group seems the simplest, most obvious, and most fair solution for every user group involved. I honestly would like to hear what the electric bikers have to say about that idea but so far it's only been crickets.

I agreed with d365 because in my opinion he's absolutely right, by insisting on legally designating themselves the same as a bicycle electric bike advocates _are_ forcing themselves down mountain bikers throats, so to speak. Also hikers and equestrians. It's an aggressive stance.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

The fact is that under Federal guidelines the current (sic) crop of e bikes being pimped here in the US and abroad by the manufacturers labeled as e mtb's are _not_ legally categorized as "motor vehicles". As stated the rules can be also regulated state by state, with California the first to actually change what they had on the books. This is not new legislation but has been in force for at least the last 15 years. However there are e bikes and kits available that exceed the regs that also have been available for years and plenty of folks have gone that route without going to MoPed (DOT/NHTSA) status. But that day may yet come.

"The federal Consumer Product Safety Act defines a "low speed electric bicycle" as a two or three wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals, a top speed when powered solely by the motor under 20 mph (32 km/h) and an electric motor that produces less than 750 W (1.01 hp). The Act authorizes the Consumer Product Safety Commission to protect people who ride low-speed electric vehicles by issuing necessary safety regulations.[53] *The rules for e-bikes on public roads, sidewalks, and pathways are under state jurisdiction, and vary.*

*In conformance with legislation adopted by the U.S. Congress defining this category of electric-power bicycle (15 U.S.C. 2085(b)), CPSC rules stipulate that low speed electric bicycles[54] (to include two- and three-wheel vehicles) are exempt from classification as motor vehicles providing they have fully operable pedals, an electric motor of less than 750W (1 hp), and a top motor-powered speed of less than 20 miles per hour (32 km/h) when operated by a rider weighing 170 pounds.*[55] An electric bike remaining within these specifications is subject to the CPSC consumer product regulations for a bicycle. Commercially manufactured e-bikes exceeding these power and speed limits are regulated by the federal DOT and NHTSA as motor vehicles, and must meet additional safety requirements. The legislation enacting this amendment to the CPSC is also known as HR 727.[56] The text of HR 727 includes the statement: "This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements." (Note that this refers to consumer product regulations enacted under the Consumer Product Safety Act. Preemption of more stringent state consumer product regulations does not limit State authority to regulate the use of electric bicycles, or bicycles in general, under state vehicle codes.)"

I am not personally enamored with the idea of e bike use on trails but am realistic enough to know that it will probably get bigger as times goes on. In the meantime it would benefit the manufacturers to promote e bikes as a solution instead of a problem. They do have value as alternative transportation within the road system in place and would not raise as much of a stink as trying to get them recognized as a MTB.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

At one time it seemed like there was no possible agreement in the e/anti-e "community". This is what may be apparent (how's that for an unqualified statement):
1) The MTB riding opportunities vary so markedly in different regions that it's difficult to expect total agreement. Some areas have rampant open space while some are very constricted and probably more at risk of loss of riding acreage.
2) Thought that individuals needed to ride an eMTB to be cognizant of their utility; probably not true.
What I thought and haven't changed my opinion:
1) CA may set the tone for the country in eMTB laws. They're legal to ride in some MTB areas, but not in socal. If they become legal, fine; if not, fine. I MTB 250 or so times each year and have ridden an eMTB off road fewer than 10 times, so it won't affect me or my friends. I don't expect any special riding privileges beyond what the governing body offers. However, I will advocate for eMTB acceptance and continue to use my eMTB's for errands.
2) It is very easy to make a 40-45 mph eMTB (Luna Cycle Cyclone motor and 72V battery --- about $1000 plus the cost of the bike) although it would consume battery power voraciously. Since we don't see these on the trails (of the 10 or so eMTB's I've seen, all were Class 1), I don't think that individuals will dongle, dingle or whatever their expensive new eMTB's.
3) Some of the extreme, unverified speculation on what would happen if eMTB's are accepted have given anti-MTB groups lots of ammunition.
As usual fire away and say that facts are ridiculous, remind me that eMTB's have motors or call me a name.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Kinda seems like the e bikers have given up on the disabled argument?


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

E bikes are here to stay no doubt about that the big bike manufactures are all coming out with these low power middrives not the Hi power hub motors , this new middrive is the driving force that brought the e bike to the main stream . These low power middrives will fit in perfectly on existing Mt bike trails with other mt bikes I know this from my experience this is not a causal statement . I ride in the Midwest were all mt bike trails are multi use on city ,county, or state land no BLM and from my experience from riding my e bike all over the Midwest (I will be in Mich 4 of july ) has been very positive from other riders and forest rangers nothing like the riders on here .


----------



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

mountainbiker24 said:


> 2. Just saying e-bikes are not mountain bikes doesn't solve anything.


Actually it does, calling an electric bike is a bicycle is the entire crux of the problem.


----------



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

mountainbiker24 said:


> I personally believe they should be classified differently than both mountain bikes and motorcycles, which is a problem when it comes to trail designations.


Why is that? It's not currently a problem with other user groups and trail designations.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

bdundee said:


> Kinda of seems like the e bikers have given up on the disabled argument?


I am handicap and built my e bike so I could MT bike again I got out of the hosp for heart failure Dr told me to go to his gym I went Mt biking instead and I ride with my Handicap displayed on my bike


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

At first, I had a hard time with the distinction between a "motor" vehicle and a "motorized" vehicle. I agree that an ebike is NOT a motor vehicle. It is however a motorized vehicle and therefore creates a classification somewhere in between a motorcycle and a bicycle. Just calling it a bicycle doesn't make it so. Let's see where legislation places it and how they get regulated. 

I agree they're not going away anytime soon. The big players in the industry are behind them and there is big money involved.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Does anybody know what the so called big players think about trail access for there e bikes ??? have they put forth any?? how do they see there e bikes being used?? sure does look like there bikes are for trail use .


----------



## coalt45 (Mar 12, 2016)

rider95 said:


> I am handicap and built my e bike so I could MT bike again I got out of the hosp for heart failure Dr told me to go to his gym I went Mt biking instead and I ride with my Handicap displayed on my bike


Glad you were able to get back out on the trails. I think these bikes have a place. For examples like this, or maybe for those that just are not strong enough to make it on longer/steeper rides.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Ha! Nice reference! So you say all pedal-assist are motorized? Would you be open to the permit idea for handi-capped users on certain trails?


No. Sure, it probably sucks to be handicapped and not be able to do a lot of things, but one of the facts of life is that it that sh!t happens and you might not be able to do what you want to do.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

coalt45 said:


> maybe for those that just are not strong enough to make it on longer/steeper rides.


So instead of pushing themselves and making the commitment to getting fitter/faster/etc they should just cheat?

Instant gratification generation in full effect


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

I would not agree that a legitimate use is for people not strong enough to ride up a hill on a non-assisted bike. If you want to ride a hill, then get in shape for it by pushing yourself.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

rider95 said:


> Does anybody know what the so called big players think about trail access for there e bikes ??? have they put forth any?? how do they see there e bikes being used?? sure does look like there bikes are for trail use .


The players that really matter, NFS and BLM, cannot tell the difference between a full sized motorcycle, and a 50LB 250w pedelec, and so restrict the latter as the former.

This of course delights those who don't like "e-bikes", and they say: if the law says it's the same, it's the same. This sets everyone up for battles to come, where mtb riders start to yell at 250w pedelecs just as hikers have been yelling at them. And a big faction of the pedelec riders are going to react exactly how the some in the mtb community react in other areas: they will poach.

Conflicts coming. But not that soon. Still not many e-mtbs. Would be much nicer to create a new NFS and BLM class for 250w pedelecs and give them some increased access over motorcycles (the old kind).


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

When I mentioned players, I was thinking specifically of Specialized and motor suppliers such as Bosch. They, of course will be looking to sell product and apply whatever influence they can assert upon regulatory agencies to get their product approved.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

bdundee said:


> Kinda of seems like the e bikers have given up on the disabled argument?


In CA, it's not an argument; physically challenged individuals can ride the Irvine Wildlands (60,000 acres --- their charter has a statement that allows this) in many different e-configured vehicles, including bikes trikes and four wheeled models;also, all the parks that I surveyed allow them.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

It's going to be interesting in socal; there are five Trek Concept stores, five Specialized Concept stores, at least five e-MTB stores and several other MTB shops selling eMTB's within a 15 mile radius of my house. Should be some pressure to modify the laws, but we'll see. In a way it's a moot point since there are so few Rangers policing the trails, one can ride with impunity. Also know of individuals with the legal help and resources to contest the law in court that are just waiting to get ticketed or have their bike confiscated.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

coalt45 said:


> Glad you were able to get back out on the trails. I think these bikes have a place. For examples like this, or maybe for those that just are not strong enough to make it on longer/steeper rides.


 No issues with someone with an ADA/HP card. However, last time I looked, old. fat and lazy was not a handicap. Some sports are tough and not for everyone. Last Saturday at Kingdom trails I did 22 miles and 2,800 ft of vert. I was not in the fast group either. And I pushed up a few steep pitches as well.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

leeboh said:


> No issues with someone with an ADA/HP card.


Exactly - This is the application where pedal assist eMTB's should actually receive treatment with parity to non-motorized transport, because it's providing equivalent accessibility for individuals that lack it otherwise. In every other instance, the fact that a motor is providing motive force is what prevails.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

leeboh said:


> last time I looked, old. fat and lazy was not a handicap. Some sports are tough and not for everyone.


This sort of attitude...maybe we should just euthanize the unfit? Fat-bashing is a nasty pastime.

It's a question of access to public lands, which fat and thin have equal right to access, last I looked. If the 'fat' guy gets a way to ride a trail without hurting anybody else, where is the harm?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

uhoh7 said:


> This sort of attitude...maybe we should just euthinise the unfit? Fat-bashing is a nasty pastime.
> 
> It's a question of access to public lands, which fat and thin have equal right to access, last I looked. If the 'fat' guy gets a way to ride a trail without hurting anybody else, where is the harm?


Inability to play is not a passport to entry into a sport or activity.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

tiretracks said:


> Inability to play is not a passport to entry into a sport or activity.


But that means no "participation" trophy. What the...?


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

uhoh7 said:


> This sort of attitude...maybe we should just euthanize the unfit? Fat-bashing is a nasty pastime.
> 
> It's a question of access to public lands, which fat and thin have equal right to access, last I looked. If the 'fat' guy gets a way to ride a trail without hurting anybody else, where is the harm?


Of course the unfit have access to public lands, the same access everyone else has. It doesn't give them special access to public lands though, which using a motorized vehicle would be in some cases. The unfit are being treated exactly the same as the super fit endurance athletes who are treated the same as weekend warriors, the same rules apply to all.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

uhoh7 said:


> This sort of attitude...maybe we should just euthanize the unfit? Fat-bashing is a nasty pastime.
> 
> It's a question of access to public lands, which fat and thin have equal right to access, last I looked. If the 'fat' guy gets a way to ride a trail without hurting anybody else, where is the harm?


Why can't the unfit pedal a bike, albeit slower than some, get fit, and access that public land? Should they have an elevator to the top of every 14er for the out-of-shape as well? An escalator to get down into the Grand Canyon, or out of The Maze in Canyonlands?

We need to "euthanize" the idea that there is a simple, easy fix for everything.

Want to not be fat? Don't be lazy. Do the work to solve the problem.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

tiretracks said:


> Inability to play is not a passport to entry into a sport or activity.


Don't confuse your idea of what is a sport with the right to access public land. Horsemen don't have any interest in your "sport", nor are they required to be fit and thin. Many can barely walk. They can go nearly anywhere.

Since the 250w pedelec has no more impact than your thingy, that leaves you with the sole crutch: a pedelec is just like a KTM cause it has a MOTOR....rolls eyes.

@leduke
so we should ban horses and mules from all those places? They drag the "unfit" all over the place. You don't believe in that?


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> Why can't the unfit pedal a bike, albeit slower than some, get fit, and access that public land? Should they have an elevator to the top of every 14er for the out-of-shape as well? An escalator to get down into the Grand Canyon, or out of The Maze in Canyonlands?
> 
> We need to "euthanize" the idea that there is a simple, easy fix for everything.
> 
> ...


Its impossible to give you enough positive rep.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

uhoh7 said:


> Don't confuse your idea of what is a sport with the right to access public land.


Fat folk have the same right to access as anyone else. Being out of shape is not an infringement of rights. Don't equate ability with access.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

uhoh7 said:


> Don't confuse your idea of what is a sport with the right to access public land. Horsemen don't have any interest in your "sport", nor are they required to be fit and thin. Many can barely walk. They can go nearly anywhere.
> 
> Since the 250w pedelec has no more impact than your thingy, that leaves you with the sole crutch: a pedelec is just like a KTM cause it has a MOTOR....rolls eyes.
> 
> ...


So, Two Ton Sally can ride a horse.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

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


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

ryguy79 said:


> Its impossible to give you enough positive rep.


x2!!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

X's 3


----------



## Johnny_T (May 29, 2004)

formula4speed said:


> Of course the unfit have access to public lands, the same access everyone else has. It doesn't give them special access to public lands though, which using a motorized vehicle would be in some cases. The unfit are being treated exactly the same as the super fit endurance athletes who are treated the same as weekend warriors, the same rules apply to all.


Well stated and absolute truth.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> This sort of attitude...maybe we should just euthanize the unfit? Fat-bashing is a nasty pastime.
> 
> It's a question of access to public lands, which fat and thin have equal right to access, last I looked. If the 'fat' guy gets a way to ride a trail without hurting anybody else, where is the harm?


 In the US, obesity is at an all time epidemic. Anyone can pedal a bike, they just have to WANT to. I wasn't always a " skinny" 235 lbs. People still can't believe I pedal 18 miles to work, somedays. Not fat bashing, it's just not a HP. Sometimes sports take effort. Like hiking, and mt biking, and skiing. Etc. HTFU.


----------



## coalt45 (Mar 12, 2016)

leeboh said:


> No issues with someone with an ADA/HP card. However, last time I looked, old. fat and lazy was not a handicap. Some sports are tough and not for everyone. Last Saturday at Kingdom trails I did 22 miles and 2,800 ft of vert. I was not in the fast group either. And I pushed up a few steep pitches as well.


Agreed but some people have a legit handicap causing them to not be able. So maybe weak was not the correct word choice.



tiretracks said:


> So, Two Ton Sally can ride a horse.


Another horse on our trails or more trails we can no longer ride because of the equestrian crowd



Le Duke said:


> An escalator to get down into the Grand Canyon,


They have mules that take you down the Grand Canyon, no need for an escalator.



coalt45 said:


> Glad you were able to get back out on the trails. I think these bikes have a place. For examples like this, or maybe for those that just are not strong enough to make it on longer/steeper rides.


I did not word this well. But I do believe there are times that these bikes have a place.



ryguy79 said:


> but one of the facts of life is that it that sh!t happens and you might not be able to do what you want to do.


Sorry but I have to disagree with you. **** happens yes! Not being able to do what you want, no way. I've been skiing and saw a blind man on the slopes with the use of a spotter. He was actually really good. I've seen people ride motorcycles/dirtbikes that had 1 leg/1 arm, paralyzed or 1 guy on youtube no legs. If there's a way to give them back the ability to do what they loved then that's great.

Should these bikes be allowed everywhere, maybe not. There'd be other factors to look at but I do think they have a place.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

Does your E-bike have a motor? If yes then it does not belong on non-motorized trails. End of story. E-bike proponents have the right to lobby for special access to non-motorized trails, but don't expect me to support this. I don't see any way this can be good for the MTB community.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Skooks said:


> Does your E-bike have a motor? If yes then it does not belong on non-motorized trails. End of story. E-bike proponents have the right to lobby for special access to non-motorized trails, but don't expect me to support this. I don't see any way this can be good for the MTB community.


Just like the hikers don't see how any good can come from allowing you on their trails. The difference is they actually have a point, while when it comes 250w pedelec, you have none. Impact is identical.

So you guys are really much worse than the hikers and equestrians who have shunned you. They HAVE a reason. You just have your "it's a motor" mantra. No bad experiences, no torn up trails. You don't like the tool, so ban em.

No reason involved. Nice.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

My pet peave is laziness, we get kids electric scooters, hover thingies so they don't need to walk, video games, and participation awards, no wonder they end up living at their parents home into their 30's. Now let's show them we are so lazy we can't even pedal a bike, what kind of example is that? I was in a wheelchair for most of 2013 and what kept me going was the drive to get back to riding. I still have my limitations but riding a motor bike was and is not an option. Maybe I should've just givin up and just got an ebike. I can see just where I would end up in 10 years, divorced because i got to fat, drunk watching porn in my underwear eating cheetos with an orange d*ck and a house full of 30 year old kids that won't get jobs. Don't be that guy, pedal your darn bike


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

Some of the trails here are designated for hiking only and most MTB'ers stay off of them. The majority of trails I ride were built by mountain bikers, but we are happy to share when with other non-motorized users. Other trails were built by motorized trials riders and they would be perfect for e-bikes. If your bike has a motor please respect these designations and ride on motorized trails only.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

> =uhoh7;12700654
> 
> They HAVE a reason. You just have your "it's a motor" mantra. No bad experiences, no torn up trails. You don't like the tool, so ban em.
> 
> No reason involved. Nice.


Actually, we have existing laws. Maybe no reason to you but to others.............


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

bdundee said:


> My pet peave is laziness, we get kids electric scooters, hover thingies so they don't need to walk, video games, and participation awards, no wonder they end up living at their parents home into their 30's. Now let's show them we are so lazy we can't even pedal a bike, what kind of example is that? I was in a wheelchair for most of 2013 and what kept me going was the drive to get back to riding. I still have my limitations but riding a motor bike was and is not an option. Maybe I should've just givin up and just got an ebike. I can see just where I would end up in 10 years, divorced because i got to fat, drunk watching porn in my underwear eating cheetos with an orange d*ck and a house full of 30 year old kids that won't get jobs. Don't be that guy, pedal your darn bike


My pet peeve is people who demand everyone be like them, and who think they have a clue what is good for others based on some myopic worldview. Don't be that guy. Look after yourself and let others judge how they wish to enjoy the outdoors.

I tell you, all these "fat sally" comments are not far off racism. Really disgusting. I'm not very overweight myself, and few of my close circle are: it's a mountain town. But I know better than to use that kind of derisive language, against color, sexual orientation, or body form. So low class. 

And so much for a civilized conversation, with some responders here. That appears to be a hill you can't climb with all your lungs and muscles.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

uhoh7 said:


> My pet peeve is people who demand everyone be like them, and who think they have a clue what is good for others based on some myopic worldview. Don't be that guy. Look after yourself and let others judge how they wish to enjoy the outdoors.
> 
> I tell you, all these "fat sally" comments are not far off racism. Really disgusting. I'm not very overweight myself, and few of my close circle are: it's a mountain town. But I know better than to use that kind of derisive language, against color, sexual orientation, or body form. So low class.
> 
> And so much for a civilized conversation, with some responders here. That appears to be a hill you can't climb with all your lungs and muscles.


Yes let's show the next generation it's OK to be lazy, that's awesome.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

Nothing in this thread has lead me to believe that allowing motorized bikes on MTB trails would benefit the MTB community in any way. In fact quite the opposite. I am quite happy to have them banned from non-motorized trails.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Skooks said:


> Nothing in this thread has lead me to believe that allowing motorized bikes on MTB trails would benefit the MTB community in any way. In fact quite the opposite. I am quite happy to have them banned from non-motorized trails.


Pet peaves aside ^^^^this^^^^


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

uhoh7 said:


> My pet peeve is people who demand everyone be like them, and who think they have a clue what is good for others based on some myopic worldview. Don't be that guy. Look after yourself and let others judge how they wish to enjoy the outdoors.
> 
> I tell you, all these "fat sally" comments are not far off racism. Really disgusting. I'm not very overweight myself, and few of my close circle are: it's a mountain town. But I know better than to use that kind of derisive language, against color, sexual orientation, or body form. So low class.
> 
> And so much for a civilized conversation, with some responders here. That appears to be a hill you can't climb with all your lungs and muscles.


"Fat" is descriptive. Don't like it, don't stay "fat". Hell, I'm fat. I know it, I don't take offense to being called "fat", it is an accurate description. Thing is, I got off of my fat ass and did something about it without using as an excuse to take the easy way out. In other words, I PEDALED it off. Now I'm no longer 100 lbs overweight. So get off you podium and get over your bad self and enjoy you MOTOR bike.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

tiretracks said:


> "Fat" is descriptive. Don't like it, don't stay "fat". Hell, I'm fat. I know it, I don't take offense to being called "fat", it is an accurate description. Think is, I got off of my fat ass and did something about it without using as an excuse to take the easy way out. In other words, I PEDALED it off. Now I'm no longer 100 lbs overweight. So get off you podium and get over your bad self and enjoy you MOTOR bike.


Oh yeah, I'm the only preacher here. And "FAT" is just a word like any other.

DSC09276 by unoh7, Respect gets respect.

Disrespect and bashing others gets the opposite.


----------



## Neldar (Sep 15, 2009)

bdundee said:


> My pet peave is laziness, we get kids electric scooters, hover thingies so they don't need to walk, video games, and participation awards, no wonder they end up living at their parents home into their 30's. Now let's show them we are so lazy we can't even pedal a bike, what kind of example is that? I was in a wheelchair for most of 2013 and what kept me going was the drive to get back to riding. I still have my limitations but riding a motor bike was and is not an option. Maybe I should've just givin up and just got an ebike. I can see just where I would end up in 10 years, divorced because i got to fat, drunk watching porn in my underwear eating cheetos with an orange d*ck and a house full of 30 year old kids that won't get jobs. Don't be that guy, pedal your darn bike


I actually appreciate this honest response. I think a lot of people use the trail impact argument or reducing access FUD as their reasoning for not liking or accepting ebikes, when in reality it's just that they don't want to be passed by someone who isn't as fit. For example, for the people who are against, if it was guaranteed that trail access would not be affected would you then be accepting of ebikes? My guess is no.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

uhoh7 said:


> Respect gets respect.


Demonstrate some respect for the differing opinions and you may get some in return. Know this though, most Mountain Bikers don't and probably will never respect your desire to gain access to Non-Motorized trails. Sorry to quash your crusade but that's the breaks. It has been very thoroughly explained and yet you still wish to present increasingly feeble arguments. No one cares about your Motorbike, the only concern we have is preserving our access to Non-Motorized trails. Pretty simple concept isn't it?


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

I might be ok with eMoto access if they did trail work.

...


...



... sound of chirping crickets...


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> And so much for a civilized conversation, with some responders here. That appears to be a hill you can't climb with all your lungs and muscles.


I'm still in, you still haven't answered my question though.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm still in, you still haven't answered my question though.


Haha, you remind me most MTB riders are nice 

I forget your question, sry, what is it?


Smoky Knoll by unoh7, on Flickr

PS some want to pigeonhole me as a "moto guy". I grew up endurance riding horses. I starting riding motorbikes in the 70s, I bought my first mtb in the early 80s. I've hiked throughout. Today I ride my mtb every week on ST, I hike, I ride my GG trials bike, and I ride a KTM 250. I'm too poor for horses 

I've spent hundreds of hours on mountain single track on my various mtbs. I can't claim to be very good, but I have ridden many many trails on them. Some of my friends have been/are pros.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Your words really speak for your character Flucod. No need for me to comment on them. 

Have fun with your pitchfork 

PS, but seriously, I have to ask, how many e-bikes of any description have you seen on a backcountry singletrack?

One has to wonder what is the real driver behind such intense hostility to something with which you have absolutely no experience?

But maybe I'm wrong and you have been pummeled by some e-bike bullies?


Morning Stretch by unoh7, on Flickr


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

coalt45 said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree with you. **** happens yes! Not being able to do what you want, no way. I've been skiing and saw a blind man on the slopes with the use of a spotter. He was actually really good. I've seen people ride motorcycles/dirtbikes that had 1 leg/1 arm, paralyzed or 1 guy on youtube no legs. If there's a way to give them back the ability to do what they loved then that's great.


You went skiing once, good for you. I skied enough, and hard enough, for 25 years that both of my knees are so shot that skiing is just pain. So sh!t happens and I know I'll never ski the way I could when I was younger. And if I can't ski that way, to me I can't ski.

I'll take my own personal experience over your anecdotal evidence.


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> I forget your question, sry, what is it?


Why not their own user group designation? They are not bicycles.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why not their own user group designation? They are not bicycles.


I think this is a great question that really gets to the heart of the issue. A big issue for mountain bikers is that an e-bike has a motor and should not be classified as a mountain bike, and I completely agree. I also believe that they are not motorcycles and deserve a separate designation.

My question is if they do receive a separate designation, should they not have access to certain mountain bike trails that ban motors? Not all trails, such as heavily populated trails or maybe sensitive trails, but other trails? Should they absolutely be limited to motorized trails? I still like the permit idea for handicapped riders on certain trails.


----------



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

mountainbiker24 said:


> My question is if they do receive a separate designation, should they not have access to certain mountain bike trails that ban motors?


Absolutely, if that's what the land managers and users agree on.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I have no problem with handling e-bike access on a case by case basis/local consensus. 

My problem is that the pro-e-bike folks seem to want to simply wave a magic wand and say that they're the same thing as a mountain bike and anyone that says otherwise is just a hater. That's ridiculous. They're a new thing that straddles the line between motos (pretty much universally banned from multiuse trails outside of Idaho, and deservedly so) and bikes. 

In my own area, I'd say e-bikes would pose no problem at all on about 20-25% of the existing trails. The rest, they'd potentially be a problem. But who's going to take charge of evaluating/signing trails, tracking conflicts/problems, and enforcing rules about power/speed limits? Realistically, it should be Specialized/Haibike/whoever stepping up to offer manpower and money to solve that problem, but since nobody has done so thus far, it's easier for me to just support a blanket ban on e-bikes.

-Walt


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> My problem is that the pro-e-bike folks seem to want to simply wave a magic wand and say that they're the same thing as a mountain bike and anyone that says otherwise is just a hater. That's ridiculous.
> -Walt


Wow, I am not seeing that. I see a bunch of different viewpoints, from both camps.

It's so easy to paint "the other" with a single color. "The ebikers want such and such", the mtb 'community' believes this and that.

I'm sad to hear you so negative about multiple use, which can and does work really well here. The fewer trails motorcycles use, the worse is the impact, that much I do know. Light use by motorcycles actually holds the integrity of low use trails better than anything, in my experience.

But you live in a huge metropolitan area, so I know your world and concerns are very different than mine. I can't pretend to know what will work best around Park City. However the huge motorcycle restrictions seem to unfairly restrict 250w (or 750w) pedelecs. Don't you think they should be able to go more places than normal motorcycles?


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

uhoh7 said:


> . Don't you think they should be able to go more places than normal motorcycles?


Absolutely not. That is the slippery slope that will cause land mangers to restrict access to mountain bikes. Keep mountain bikes in one category and work on access for them, and keep anything with a motor in another, and they can also work for their access. If the latter starts to bleed into the former...we will lose access quickly.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

Motorized is motorized. /thread.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why not their own user group designation? They are not bicycles.


They are bicycles and use bicycles everything with the added e power and battery to a wait for it!! bicycle that is a undeniable fact !, I use a intense tracer for my bike and the new e bikes are built and sold by Bicycle manufactures !. For Bicycle riders to use as a bicycle just because it uses e power its still a bicycle by LAW in my state that's the law folks just because you don't think so doesn't make it so my lawyer even told me this . That doesn't mean its the same were you are but the truth is in a lot if not most states that is the law .


----------



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

rider95 said:


> They are bicycles and use bicycles everything with the added e power and battery to a wait for it!! bicycle that is a undeniable fact !, I use a intense tracer for my bike and the new e bikes are built and sold by Bicycle manufactures !. For Bicycle riders to use as a bicycle just because it uses e power its still a bicycle by LAW in my state that's the law folks just because you don't think so doesn't make it so my lawyer even told me this . That doesn't mean its the same were you are but the truth is in a lot if not most states that is the law .


Could you repeat that^ in english?


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

You guys like to answer rudely with your head stuck in the sand its understandable when you consider who is saying it, doesn't mean a thing to me just correcting a false statement that you refuse to see . Its not important that you agree but as you like to point out its the law! you can p*ss and B*tch and moan or in you case lay on the floor and throw a baby fit it doesn't change the law .


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> You guys like to answer rudely with your head stuck in the sand its understandable when you consider who is saying it, doesn't mean a thing to me just correcting a false statement that you refuse to see . Its not important that you agree but as you like to point out its the law! you can p*ss and B*tch and moan or in you case lay on the floor and throw a baby fit it doesn't change the law .


Please cite the "law" that allows motor bikes on non-motorized mountain bike trails. TIA


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

tiretracks said:


> Please cite the "law" that allows motor bikes on non-motorized mountain bike trails. TIA


Please have some comprehension skills and reread my post


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> Please have some comprehension skills and reread my post


I believe you are the one having comprehension problems. So, can you please cite the "law" that allows your motor bike on non-motorized trails? It's a simple request.


----------



## Ghost_HTX (Sep 19, 2014)

rider95 said:


> They are bicycles and use bicycles everything with the added e power and battery to a wait for it!! bicycle that is a undeniable fact !, I use a intense tracer for my bike and the new e bikes are built and sold by Bicycle manufactures !. For Bicycle riders to use as a bicycle just because it uses e power its still a bicycle by LAW in my state that's the law folks just because you don't think so doesn't make it so my lawyer even told me this . That doesn't mean its the same were you are but the truth is in a lot if not most states that is the law .


You have a lawyer? On retainer? Really? I ask because you come across as an entitled 12 year old.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tiretracks said:


> I believe you are the one having comprehension problems. So, can you please cite the "law" that allows your motor bike on non-motorized trails? It's a simple request.


(Crickets) Not only is this getting tedious, it's downright moronic. Kinda like arguing with your sisters toddlers.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

fos'l said:


> In CA, it's not an argument; physically challenged individuals can ride the Irvine Wildlands (60,000 acres --- their charter has a statement that allows this) in many different e-configured vehicles, including bikes trikes and four wheeled models;also, all the parks that I surveyed allow them.


The ADA covers this sort of access for the entire country actually.

Use by legitimately disabled people is a non-issue. Opinions of anyone here as to what they would like to see in regards to this are a waste of words as this has long been sorted out.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Absolutely, if that's what the land managers and users agree on.


Agree. If they are allowed on their own merits as a separate and distinct user group from real bikes, have at it! Just lets please stop pretending they don't have motors, or that they're the same as real bikes. Ridiculous train of thought.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

The childish name calling doesn't change the law and you all can pretend that your smart and witty in the mean time the law in most states have changed, To classified low power e bikes as bicycles . What does this mean and who and why did this happen?? example FL e bikes are now allowed on the hundreds of miles of bike paths, why? because companies like Pedco who make n sell low cost low power e bikes guess who they sell them too? Older retired people to enjoy riding them to the store or ice cream stand and they have money and vote . The big bike companies saw this and the potential to sell a lot more bikes to a new user group the e bike is the new growth area with lots exciting things to come . But does that make them trail legal? now that's the question ! there bike path legal for sure ! but trail? the short user is yes and yes its a gray area mostly on the trail it self , here's a shocker for you in the Midwest nobody cares and in fact fail to see or care that I am on a e bike . I rode last weekend @ mountwood wv its rated #1 trail in wv some locals showed me some trails after riding I saw the park ranger in the parking lot I rode over and talked to him did I ask him if my e bike was allowed ? nope !! was their signs ? yep said no ATVs would that include motorcycles ? yep what did the park ranger say? I showed him my mangled front fender and my speed controller just hanging on he laughed . Sorry for the long winded reply point is it seems you guys are way overly worked up about the whole e bike thing .


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Wouldn't it just be easier and more fulfilling just to pedal a bike?


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

bdundee said:


> Wouldn't it just be easier and more fulfilling just to pedal a bike?


Easier no e bikes are really fun more fulfilling? absolutely you bet if I could do that like the old days I still remember those trips to Moab , I am now handicap and ride with my handicap placard on my e bike which I get some funny looks form other riders .


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

rider95 said:


> Easier no e bikes are really fun more fulfilling? absolutely you bet if I could do that like the old days I still remember those trips to Moab , I am now handicap and ride with my handicap placard on my e bike which I get some funny looks form other riders .


I'm disabled as well.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

If you have a *legit* handicap that means you can get a placard for your car, go for it. 

If you just get tired easily or you're lazy or you don't like effort, or you just think extra power is awesome, not so much. 

-Walt


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I have a placard for my car, I get pretty sore on a mtb bike so I spend more time on the gravel bike now days. I'm sure some are more severe than my issues so I won't judge but personally I won't use an ebike or my parking permit.


----------



## bplaizier (Feb 1, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> Agree. If they are allowed on their own merits as a separate and distinct user group from  real bikes, have at it! Just lets please stop pretending they don't have motors, or that they're the same as real bikes. Ridiculous train of thought.


for some reason i don't really understand, the ebike discussion really gets people going, the thing that gets me is when we can't have civil discussions based on fact. I have heard more times than I can count that e-bikes have motors there for they are motorcycles or a motorized vehicle. Some maybe, but most pedal assit bikes are legally non-motorized vehicles buy definition of the law. The law states that if a vehicle doesn't exceed 25mph then it is concidered a non-motorized vehicle and is in the same category as non pedal assit bikes. Below is what the law states. I'm not for our against e-bikes, but please stop saying that all ebikes after motorized vehicles, because they are not. If there are other reasons you don't like them on "your" trail, great but as of the current law this just isn't correct.









Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Walt said:


> If you have a *legit* handicap that means you can get a placard for your car, go for it.
> 
> If you just get tired easily or you're lazy or you don't like effort, or you just think extra power is awesome, not so much.
> 
> -Walt


I have nerloplity lol I cant even get close to spelling it its a form of never damage in my feet I cant feel them but at the same time they are hyper sensitive, I have too look at my feet to see if there on the peddles . also have a disc problem in my back the Drs want to fuse my back Fu*k them I can still ride and intend to keep riding the heart failure thing has me a little worried so I cant stand or walk very far.


----------



## JVG1967 (Feb 22, 2014)

bplaizier said:


> for some reason i don't really understand, the ebike discussion really gets people going, the thing that gets me is when we can't have civil discussions based on fact. I have heard more times than I can count that e-bikes have motors there for they are motorcycles or a motorized vehicle. Some maybe, but most pedal assit bikes are legally non-motorized vehicles buy definition of the law. The law states that if a vehicle doesn't exceed 25mph then it is concidered a non-motorized vehicle and is in the same category as non pedal assit bikes. Below is what the law states. I'm not for our against e-bikes, but please stop saying that all ebikes after motorized vehicles, because they are not. If there are other reasons you don't like them on "your" trail, great but as of the current law this just isn't correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Some people don't see it that way. It's a bike plus a motor therefore it's a motorcycle. Reality is there are three classes of ebikes, class 1, class 2 and class 3. Class 1 bikes are pedelecs and should be allowed on MOST trails but not all. Class 2 and 3 are leaning more towards a type of motorcycle. These should be restricted to motorized trails only.

In national parks I can see ebikes being restricted. In state and local parks it's usually up to the land owner . That's my 2 cents and yes I own a ebike.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

JVG1967 said:


> Some people don't see it that way. It's a bike plus a motor therefore it's a motorcycle. Reality is there are three classes of ebikes, class 1, class 2 and class 3. Class 1 bikes are pedelecs and should be allowed on MOST trails but not all. Class 2 and 3 are leaning more towards a type of motorcycle. These should be restricted to motorized trails only.
> 
> In national parks I can see ebikes being restricted. In state and local parks it's usually up to the land owner . That's my 2 cents and yes I own a ebike.


If I see one more person refer to a public mv roadways statute to justify ebiking on human/horse power trails, I'm going to scream.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

tiretracks said:


> Please cite the "law" that allows motor bikes on non-motorized mountain bike trails. TIA


FWIW in California it's AB-1096. A couple of other states have similar. Not sure what state rider95 resides in. YMMV

(I don't agree with the new law but in Calif trails are open to Class 1 & 2 e-bikes unless closed)


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Distinctions between and across different user groups are simply part of the deal as far as trail access goes. Anyone that's been involved in advocacy at any level is aware of this. I don't see how suggesting that e-bikes are treated the same as every other user group is 'uncivil' at all. And no matter what sort of legaleze mumbo-jumbo some lawyer slaps together, there is a motor on an e-bike. That's the whole purpose of the frigging thing in the first place. "Official" definitions aside, I simply can't bring myself to pretend it's not wildly obvious as it's sitting there in plain sight. Words on paper don't make it magically disappear right? I mean, you can't even begin to have a conversation without at least agreeing on that basic fact, right? 

Also, just to note, I don't have a problem whatsoever with motorized recreation in general. In addition to a bunch of bikes, my shed/yard/garage are loaded with all sorts of electric, gas, and human powered toys that my family like to play in the dirt with. I just know that it's wildy unfair to mtb trail advocates to saddle them with trying to explain to land managers that a motor isn't really a motor. It's tough enough to get permissions for mtb trails without being forced to try to make a silly argument like that while now being forced to advocate for something you don't really care a bit about. I can guarantee that if e-bikes attempt some sort of grandfathering in on the coat-tails of real bikes, real bikers will lose trail opportunities. As long as I don't have to apologize for, advocate for, take the blame for, or clean up messes from some other user groups, I really don't care who does what.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

pliebenberg said:


> FWIW in California it's AB-1096. A couple of other states have similar. Not sure what state rider95 resides in. YMMV
> 
> (I don't agree with the new law but in Calif trails are open to Class 1 & 2 e-bikes unless closed)


That does not grant them access, it just does not prohibit them. A narrow but important distinction I know but you have to suspect that t was done on purpose.


----------



## JVG1967 (Feb 22, 2014)

Carl Mega said:


> If I see one more person refer to a public mv roadways statute to justify ebiking on human/horse power trails, I'm going to scream.


I get it but in my state that's basically what they did. They took the public road statute and modified it slightly to accommodate ebikes. A class 1 ebike is considered a bicycle and not a motorized vehicle and are allowed on most trails.

Each state is different though, there is no one standard for all states so what goes in one state could be illegal in the next.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

If by law in your state a e bike under 500w or what ever is by LAW a bicycle then is it allowed on bicycle only trail?? so if my e bike meets the requirement set forth by law and I am riding a Bicycle only trail am I breaking the law ??


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

JVG1967 said:


> I get it but in my state that's basically what they did. They took the public road statute and modified it slightly to accommodate ebikes. A class 1 ebike is considered a bicycle and not a motorized vehicle and are allowed on most trails.
> 
> Each state is different though, there is no one standard for all states so what goes in one state could be illegal in the next.


The statues define an ebike as not a Motor Vehicle, a "Motor Vehicle" is a legal definition that brings with it the requirements of a license, lights, turn signals, all that stuff.

Motorized vehicles on the other hand are any vehicle with a motor, so ebikes are not Motor Vehicles, yet they are still motorized vehicles. As such, local jurisdictions regarding them vary.

They are not interchangable terms in this context.


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

Harryman said:


> The statues define an ebike as not a Motor Vehicle, a "Motor Vehicle" is a legal definition that brings with it the requirements of a license, lights, turn signals, all that stuff.
> 
> Motorized vehicles on the other hand are any vehicle with a motor, so ebikes are not Motor Vehicles, yet they are still motorized vehicles. As such, local jurisdictions regarding them vary.
> 
> They are not interchangable terms in this context.


In Delaware the park service took their language for bike definitions from the Department of Transportation, I think it was laziness rather than purposefully trying to allow e-bikes. Technically you can ride a gas powered throttle bike here as long as it stays under 20 mph the way they have the rules written.

So in general DOT rules are meaningless for trail use, but for Delaware our park system decided just to use their language. I'll be curious to see if they update them if e-bikes become common.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Carl Mega said:


> If I see one more person refer to a public mv roadways statute to justify ebiking on human/horse power trails, I'm going to scream.


If I hear one more person claim the class 1 pedelec should be treated the same as a noisy powerful gas powered motorcycle which weighs literally 5 times more, and has 50 times the power, I'll scream too. Not that anybody's going to care 

In fact the pedelec is safer and has a far smaller carbon footprint than a horse, and less impact on trails as well.

That's actually how I see them: the "peoples" backcountry horse.

Last nite:

L1050201-2 by unoh7, on Flickr


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

rider95 said:


> If by law in your state a e bike under 500w or what ever is by LAW a bicycle then is it allowed on bicycle only trail?? so if my e bike meets the requirement set forth by law and I am riding a Bicycle only trail am I breaking the law ??


LOL I see no one had a answer the answer is Nope!! Its a Bicycle !! end of story push come to shove this is easily won in court . Even if a no motorized sign is put up doesn't matter what we think its the law !.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> Nope. Trails should be designated for electric bikes or not, just the same as hikers, horses, atv's, motorcycles, cars, etc. I think they could be classified separately from petrol atv's but not the same as bicycles.
> 
> Sound reasonable?


Don't know whether this was answered or not, but:
1) Fair; don't mind ebikes in a separate classification although that might be difficult in CA. Would need to change the state law to reclassify.
2) Am in favor of doing whatever it takes to allow physically challenged individuals trail access. That's already in place in socal.
3) All this verbiage is moot since legislators will decide, and whatever they come up with is acceptable to me. I know of eMTB riders in socal prepared with resources and legal team to go to court if fined or ticketed. Got excoriated for suggesting this before, but that's the way things get decided out here.


----------



## JVG1967 (Feb 22, 2014)

formula4speed said:


> In Delaware the park service took their language for bike definitions from the Department of Transportation, I think it was laziness rather than purposefully trying to allow e-bikes. Technically you can ride a gas powered throttle bike here as long as it stays under 20 mph the way they have the rules written.
> 
> So in general DOT rules are meaningless for trail use, but for Delaware our park system decided just to use their language. I'll be curious to see if they update them if e-bikes become common.


Bingo, thank you sir!!!!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> LOL I see no one had a answer the answer is Nope!! Its a Bicycle !! end of story push come to shove this is easily won in court . Even if a no motorized sign is put up doesn't matter what we think its the law !.


Did you stop to think that most participants are tired of your circular argument and have put you on ignore? Carry on.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

rider95 said:


> If by law in your state a e bike under 500w or what ever is by LAW a bicycle then is it allowed on bicycle only trail?? so if my e bike meets the requirement set forth by law and I am riding a Bicycle only trail am I breaking the law ??


It depends on the law. California's doesn't say an ebike is the same as a bike it just defines the classes of e bikes and says that the default treatment of the first two classes, is the same as for human powered bikes. In other words they can use bike paths and must follow the same rules as bikes. It does not say they are bikes, just that they will be regulated as the same. It also specifically states that local jurisdictions can regulate them as they see fit. So cities can still ban them. Parks can still say no trail access. But they need to explicitly do so. It also doesn't effect federal land.

So if you have a state law that says eBikes are the same as human powered bikes (which I know of no state that has a law like that), then sure, on state land they should be treated the same. But it's not clear that would be true of municipal land and it certainly wouldn't be true on federal land.

I mostly ride on federal land on trails that allow motorcycles, horses, bikers, and hikers. Ebikes would obviously be allowed. Haven't seen any yet.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

rider95 said:


> Please have some comprehension skills and reread my post


 We're trying. Slow down when typing. Full sentences without run on phrases might help, thanks. As well as punctuation, capitalization etc. Proper word use anyone? We all thank you.


----------

