# USFS e-bike Lawsuit



## mvray (Jul 26, 2007)

The e-bike issue ramps up. It's now an ADA issue.

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


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

I predicted this a couple years ago. 

The fact of the matter is there's a lot of people out there with legitimate disabilities that could access the trail systems on bikes if they had some help with the wattage. The real impact difference between an e bike and a regular bike is so slight that I can't imagine a court ruling against the disabled.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

The real problem is not people with legit disabilities using e-bikes. It's that anyone with a hangnail and a friendly doctor can get them to sign off on an ADA certification (or service/"emotional support" animals) and then you're just going to have normal people who want to go faster with more power out there too. And basically nobody wants that. 

-Walt


----------



## rcnute (Jul 31, 2006)

Count me in as erring on the side of allowing the lady who mountain biked for 30 years to have some extra get up and go now.

Ryan


----------



## TFitz (Jun 21, 2008)

What if this lady were a mountain climber? Should ADA be interpreted to mean National Park Service must provide an escalator to the top of Mt. Rainier?


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

TFitz said:


> What if this lady were a mountain climber? Should ADA be interpreted to mean National Park Service must provide an escalator to the top of Mt. Rainier?


More like can she wear her powered robo walker aparatus.

What I'm not understanding... what constitutes unreasonable underperformance? My poor body probably cant do tbe cascade triple crown in daylight, definitely can't do the barkely marathons...

I'm guessing this isn't covered by Ada. Hope the judge laughs her out of court.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

eri said:


> More like can she wear her powered robo walker aparatus.
> 
> What I'm not understanding... what constitutes unreasonable underperformance? My poor body probably cant do tbe cascade triple crown in daylight, definitely can't do the barkely marathons...
> 
> I'm guessing this isn't covered by Ada. Hope the judge laughs her out of court.


Exactly. Not everyone can go everywhere, and that's ok. Nonmotorized should be exactly that. ebikes will cost trail access. It is embarrassing and disappointing to see major brands pushing them so hard, and also to not see definitive statements on this from Evergreen.


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

Looking at the ADA guidance it says that public accommodations must... "Make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures that deny equal access to individuals with disabilities, unless a fundamental alteration would result in the nature of the goods and services provided. "

Modifying a policy to allow an output limited rider to access some additional wattage would not seem to represent a "fundamental alteration.... in the nature of the goods and services provided." If anything, changing the policy would promote a leveling of ability amongst riders which would be lower impact.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

https://www.ada.gov/t3hilght.htm


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Metamorphic said:


> Looking at the ADA guidance it says that public accommodations must... "Make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures that deny equal access to individuals with disabilities, unless a fundamental alteration would result in the nature of the goods and services provided. "
> 
> Modifying a policy to allow an output limited rider to access some additional wattage would not seem to represent a "fundamental alteration.... in the nature of the goods and services provided." If anything, changing the policy would promote a leveling of ability amongst riders which would be lower impact.
> 
> ...


So if I go get my ADA placard tomorrow, I'm good to go in your eyes, despite holding a Pro license?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

Its unfortunate, but between ADA and HIPPA, if you can get a doctor to write a note you can nearly get away with murder these days and not face any serious questioning. 

But you seem to be asking if its "right" in the cosmic sense. No, obviously its not. But we have a family in our area; very outdoorsy and athletic. They have a son who was born with a badly formed heart. He'll never be able to safely ride more than a short distance from the trail head. But with his ebike he can go out and live life with his family. I can't imagine a court not supporting that, just because there's some degenerates that will abuse the situation. And really...what's the abuse...they get up the climbs with the benefit of an extra 50 watts? Hardly a capital crime.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Metamorphic said:


> Looking at the ADA guidance it says that public accommodations must... "Make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures that deny equal access to individuals with disabilities, unless a fundamental alteration would result in the nature of the goods and services provided. "
> 
> Modifying a policy to allow an output limited rider to access some additional wattage would not seem to represent a "fundamental alteration.... in the nature of the goods and services provided." If anything, changing the policy would promote a leveling of ability amongst riders which would be lower impact.
> 
> ...


That is interesting. I personally read it as 'motors on trails' is a fundamental alteration.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

It is very important to understand that ADA access for hiking trails doesn't just allow use of motorized equipment. It also require the trail to meet very strict requirements that ensure all handicap users have access.

Min width 36"
Running slope 5% or less (may be steeper for short segments but lots of restrictions)
Tread obstacles can not exceed 1"

There is no middle ground for those who have the ability to navigate tech trails, but lack the horse power. 

If e-bikers take mountain biking down the ADA rabbit hole, it is going to become more difficult to build technical trails.

For example, on RTP grant projects. Any hiking trails built with RTP funding must be ADA compliant. This means the are not the type of hiking trail most hikers are looking for. If ADA guidelines are updated to allow for e-bikes on mtb trails, we will likely lose the ability to get rtp funds to build anything other than wide boring trails.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Metamorphic said:


> Its unfortunate, but between ADA and HIPPA, if you can get a doctor to write a note you can nearly get away with murder these days and not face any serious questioning.
> 
> But you seem to be asking if its "right" in the cosmic sense. No, obviously its not. But we have a family in our area; very outdoorsy and athletic. They have a son who was born with a badly formed heart. He'll never be able to safely ride more than a short distance from the trail head. But with his ebike he can go out and live life with his family. I can't imagine a court not supporting that, just because there's some degenerates that will abuse the situation. And really...what's the abuse...they get up the climbs with the benefit of an extra 50 watts? Hardly a capital crime.


The specialized ads are touting 500+ watts of climbing power. That is far beyond an extra 50 watts. An average rider is probably 200 or less, even racers can only put out 500 watts for about a minute. LeDuke will surely chime in with more accurate wattage estimates.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

ACree said:


> The specialized ads are touting 500+ watts of climbing power. That is far beyond an extra 50 watts. An average rider is probably 200 or less, even racers can only put out 500 watts for about a minute. LeDuke will surely chime in with more accurate wattage estimates.


I'm a super shi77y pro and do 320 for an hour.

Adding 500w would result in 2.5x the total power I naturally produce.

With some rudimentary math, that would still have me going 2x as fast up any climb where wind resistance played a minimal factor.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

Metamorphic said:


> Its unfortunate, but between ADA and HIPPA, if you can get a doctor to write a note you can nearly get away with murder these days and not face any serious questioning.
> 
> But you seem to be asking if its "right" in the cosmic sense. No, obviously its not. But we have a family in our area; very outdoorsy and athletic. They have a son who was born with a badly formed heart. He'll never be able to safely ride more than a short distance from the trail head. But with his ebike he can go out and live life with his family. I can't imagine a court not supporting that, just because there's some degenerates that will abuse the situation. And really...what's the abuse...they get up the climbs with the benefit of an extra 50 watts? Hardly a capital crime.


And what's to prevent them from switching to dirt bikes and riding those trails so the family can live their life and still be outdoorsy and athletic? Who's to say that's not a better solution; a more reasonable accommodation? Must the larger society always accommodate the disabled, or should they accommodate society, too?


----------



## FM (Apr 30, 2003)

skiahh said:


> And what's to prevent them from switching to dirt bikes and riding those trails so the family can live their life and still be outdoorsy and athletic?


That's it right there.

The lawsuit is bunk because the Forest Service already has plenty of ORV trails which allow motorized use. Bella Berlly can go ride her e-bike there.

I agree e-bikes have no place on mountain-bike specific trails... there is no use fighting their future on ORV trails though.


----------



## InertiaMan (Apr 16, 2004)

If one looks at comparable access in other domains (ski trails, hiking trails) it implies to me that any ADA-driven access to MTB trails will be accommodated on an exception basis, not a global basis. In other words, if there are no e-bike accessible trails in an entire region, then I could imagine courts deciding that some subset of those trails need to be accessible. But I find it highly unlikely that handicapped ebikers will be given global access to any MTB trail.

Look at hiking trails: the vast majority of all hiking trails in the US are inaccessible to handicapped folks. But ADA rules did not force all those trails to be re-built to 36" wide /etc so that all were accessible to motorized wheelchairs.

Or look at ski trails . . . are XC skate trails open to snowmobiles if the snowmobiler is handicapped? Not as far as I know. 

So if the Forest Service has 100's of miles of trails in a region open to MTBs, and absolutely none open to ebikes, then I could imagine a successful suit to force *some* access for ebikes, handicapped or not. But a successful suit to force handicapped on ebikes equal access to all MTB trails? No way.


----------



## InertiaMan (Apr 16, 2004)

The glaring thing to me in the OP's referenced article was this:

_The International Mountain Bike Alliance claims more than 40,000 individuals and 400 clubs among its membership. Aaron Clark, who handles government relations for the group, guessed that under half of its members support e-bikes on trails."The rest either don't care or are adamantly opposed," he said._

I find it disappointing that an IMBA rep with responsibility in this specific area is "guessing" at the ebike support of its 40k members, but I'm even more shocked at the implied numbers from his quote. Admittedly "under half" is ambiguous and could mean 5% or 49% but to me it implies 40%-ish. I would have expected <<25% of IMBA members support ebikes on trails.

Am I naive about how many of "us" want full access for ebikes??


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

skiahh said:


> And what's to prevent them from switching to dirt bikes and riding those trails so the family can live their life and still be outdoorsy and athletic? Who's to say that's not a better solution; a more reasonable accommodation? Must the larger society always accommodate the disabled, or should they accommodate society, too?


Ebikes are somewhat unique in that they don't require any alteration of the trail system for accommodation, they are not significantly higher impact than a regular bike (less than horses for sure), and their use does not negatively impact the experience of other user groups (unless you consider the KOM hound to be a user group).

Which is a long way of saying "who's corn flakes are getting whizzed in if a judge decides to allow this?" Show me the negative impact. Show me the "fundamental alteration in the nature of the goods or services provided".


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

When did Moderator come to mean ebike troll?

Personally I consider riders with twice the horsepower (530 watts, what spec advertises now, and what will surely only go up with increased tech and hacking) of a human powered bike to not belong on nonmotorized trails. I could ride my gas powered trials bike and have minimal impact too, would you also advocate for that?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

ACree said:


> Personally I consider riders with twice the horsepower (530 watts, what spec advertises now, and what will surely only go up with increased tech and hacking) of a human powered bike to not belong on nonmotorized trails./QUOTE]
> 
> 750w is legal now and that's nominal wattage, with a peak @1500w. I'm pretty sure I've never been able to hit 1500w let alone sustain it. Like you, I have no doubt tech will improve with lighter ebikes with longer range, but I'm not too worried about an ADA exemption. If we get to the point when able bodied radbros are getting fake ADA exemptions to be able to ride ebikes on non motorized trails, we have bigger societal issues to worry about.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

There are no humans that can produce 530w for much more than 10min, even those that are heavily doped. 



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

5 minutes on YouTube is all it takes to see that there are heavily modified ebikes out there that are very capable of destroying trails and causing negative interactions between user groups. I've said it before and I'll say it now, what wattage is going to be ok in your mind? Who will regulate that and who will pay to enforce it?


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

Not trolling...just saying what my experience has been and what I can forsee happening based on the law as I read it. 

I've watched a few of the prairie city races where they have occasionally done ebike class experiments. Basically those bikes suck at the DH because they're so heavy, and the less that super fit riders go up the hills at about the same pace as the pro/expert class guys. At the end of the day they finish with times similar to slow pro-expert. If you stretched out the race for another 30 minutes the ebikes will have to be more conservative and their times will drop fast. For all the anxiety, it was really a non event. 

Similarly, I have occasionally seen a ebike out on the trail and again, its a non-event. They mostly pass me up on the uphills and I mostly pass them on the DH. They're doing their thing. I'm doing mine. Neither of us are ruining the other guy's day. If ebikes ever get to the power level where they're rolling knobbies with 3/4 inch deep tread and roosting on the uphills we'll have real issues. Until then...to each his own.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

They're already there.


----------



## Thustlewhumber (Nov 25, 2011)

I say all of this as a trail builder, a bike racer, and a non-electric mountain biker. I have ridden my bicycle on trails with motorcycles, and I have ridden my bicycles on trails with ebikes. No matter how much demonizing there is from the community, ebikes are NOT motorcycles. They are electric assist vehicles, which are assisting the primary motor - you!

Motorcycle riders only ride with wide open throttles, which means they are destroying the trails by kicking up rooster tails. They dig massive ruts, blow out corners, and even more destructive to the flat trail than horses. They do not hear bicycles approaching which means risk of injury or worse, and they do not care about yielding to right of way or even slowing down for cyclists. 

Ebike riders, on the other hand, ARE mountain bikers. What sane person is going to go buy a $9500 electric mountain bike unless they love mountain biking and just can't do it by themselves anymore? They know that losing traction means they cant climb, corner, or descend without a possible wreck. They are aware of other riders, they know how to yield, or at the very worst- they know how to say "on your left" while they pass you. They are not kicking out rooster tails while they are going up a hill, and they damn sure aren't going downhill anywhere near as fast as a normal bike does. 

Where do I think this ebike hate is really coming from? Imho, Strava users. People who get upset that their KOM might be threatened by someone who isn't working as hard for it as they are. This isn't the Tour De France - no one gives a **** about your strava time. If it was an actual race, they wouldn't be racing in your class anyway.

We need to stop demonizing ebikes and the people who either choose to ride them or have to ride them, and separate fact from fiction. This is turning into the wilderness act 2.0 all over again. Let's try to work towards something reasonable and beneficial for all mountain bikers in the mean time.


----------



## jminus (Sep 4, 2008)

Thustlewhumber said:


> Where do I think this ebike hate is really coming from? Imho, Strava users. People who get upset that their KOM might be threatened by someone who isn't working as hard for it as they are. This isn't the Tour De France - no one gives a **** about your strava time. If it was an actual race, they wouldn't be racing in your class anyway.


This is a straw man. I don't give a rip about my strava times and I am very much against ebike access on non-orv trails. This is about protecting access and limiting intra-user group conflict. Making it easier for able bodied people to go faster on bikes is going cause more conflict and lead to an increase in anti mountain bike sentiment. There is enough conflict as it is. I'm not the fastest rider around and and even so, giving someone like me the ability to 2x my climbing speed is going to mean that people are seriously hauling ass up the hill.

I would be very happy to see strava leaderboards removed as they incentivize high speeds which is also contributing heavily to trail conflict.

Let disabled people be granted exceptions. I'm fine with that. But keep it limited to that. And ban strava too please while your at it.


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

Metamorphic said:


> Ebikes are somewhat unique in that they don't require any alteration of the trail system for accommodation, they are not significantly higher impact than a regular bike (less than horses for sure), and their use does not negatively impact the experience of other user groups (unless you consider the KOM hound to be a user group).
> 
> Which is a long way of saying "who's corn flakes are getting whizzed in if a judge decides to allow this?" Show me the negative impact. Show me the "fundamental alteration in the nature of the goods or services provided".


Watch some YouTube vids of the new crop of e-bikes. These are not "assist" implements - they're motorcycles. Sure, they're nothing like a two-stroke terror but they're getting into the range of a small four-stroke trail bike.

The problem is speed differential. Riders are easily hitting 20-25 mph on rolling single track. That is a disaster waiting to happen on two-way trail, which most are, at least around here. Hit a hiker at that speed and that is serious injury or death.

Of course then comes the issue of enforcement. I think it will be primarily self-limiting - I mean, what avid, experienced mountain biker would buy and ride one of these things? They weigh some 50 lbs so they must be absolutely awful on any sort of technical terrain. I think they will be extremely few and far between on typical single track trail systems.

That all said, they most definitely should be banned on trails that also ban ORVs.


----------



## WestwardHo (Apr 26, 2011)

Thustlewhumber said:


> Motorcycle riders only ride with wide open throttles...


Dang, I've been doing it wrong this whole time.


----------



## carbonguy (Dec 12, 2012)

ACree said:


> Exactly. Not everyone can go everywhere, and that's ok. Nonmotorized should be exactly that. ebikes will cost trail access. It is embarrassing and disappointing to see major brands pushing them so hard, and also to not see definitive statements on this from Evergreen.


+1. And from my reading of the article, Evergreen's Yvonne does as well.


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

WestwardHo said:


> Dang, I've been doing it wrong this whole time.


Makes you wonder why even put brakes on motorcycles at all.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

bhsavery said:


> Makes you wonder why even put brakes on motorcycles at all.


Duh. For the skids.


----------



## portnoy (Jan 19, 2004)

A motor is a motor is a motor. I sell cars for a living and I sell electric cars, hybrid cars, gas cars and trucks, and diesel trucks. 

Which of these is not a car or truck? If we limit the electric car to 25mph or less is it then not a car? 

This whole conversation is not valid-- if it has a motor it is motorized. End of discussion.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Which logically is true, but it places land managers who want to promote ebikes for transportation in an awkward spot. If you want to allow them on paved bike paths for example, which generally has widespread support, you can't because bike paths are universally designated as non motorized. You can't change that designation, because it opens them up to anything with a motor and in almost all cases, they are also constrained by the funding/easements/etc against changing it. So what options are left? Creating a new classification for ebikes stating that they are not motorized and therefore legal on motorized trails. Which has been done by the industry on the state level with the stated intention that it's only for paved and natural surface bike paths, not hiking/biking trails. They of course, left that murky in the legislation allowing everyone to claim they can go anywhere bikes can go. 

From the forest services perspective, they aren't interesting in promoting ebike use on bike paths, and they're not under state law jurisdiction, so ebikes are still motorized in their eyes.


----------



## sotak (May 20, 2009)

Seems it'd be pretty easy to make exceptions to specific paths on a case by case basis. Something along the lines of: Line 1: "No Motorized Vehicles" Line 2: "Exception: Class 1 Electric Bicycles"

No change in classifying ebikes the same as bikes needed, just have to give land managers authority.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

And who verifies it's a class 1 ebike? Ebikers already poach trails, what's to stop them feom poaching a path if they have the wrong class of ebike?


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> And who verifies it's a class 1 ebike? Ebikers already poach trails, what's to stop them feom poaching a path if they have the wrong class of ebike?


Why are you under the impression that policy makers and judges consider enforceability? You're also not supposed to litter, but people drop garbage all the time.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

sotak said:


> Seems it'd be pretty easy to make exceptions to specific paths on a case by case basis. Something along the lines of: Line 1: "No Motorized Vehicles" Line 2: "Exception: Class 1 Electric Bicycles"
> 
> No change in classifying ebikes the same as bikes needed, just have to give land managers authority.


A summation of the ebike regs in WA:
http://www.wsp.wa.gov/traveler/docs/equipmt/elect_bicycle.pdf

Actual regs:
"RCW 46.04.169
Electric-assisted bicycle.
"Electric-assisted bicycle" means a bicycle with two or three wheels, a saddle, fully operative pedals for human propulsion, and an electric motor. The electric-assisted bicycle's electric motor must have a power output of no more than one thousand watts, be incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than twenty miles per hour on level ground, and be incapable of further increasing the speed of the device when human power alone is used to propel the device beyond twenty miles per hour."

"RCW 46.61.710
Mopeds, EPAMDs, electric-assisted bicycles, motorized foot scooters-General requirements and operation.

(5) Subsections (1), (2), and (4) of this section do not apply to electric-assisted bicycles. Electric-assisted bicycles and motorized foot scooters may have access to highways, other than limited access highways, of the state to the same extent as bicycles. Subject to subsection (6) of this section, electric-assisted bicycles and motorized foot scooters may be operated on a multipurpose trail or bicycle lane, but local jurisdictions may restrict or otherwise limit the access of electric-assisted bicycles and motorized foot scooters, and state agencies may regulate the use of motorized foot scooters on facilities and properties under their jurisdiction and control."

As I read it, they are still considered motorized since they are lumped in with other motorized vehicles and not specifically excluded. Could you allow them on a MUT? Seems like it if you don't run into the same legal roadblocks I stated earlier. Which, at least here, would keep them off of everything. The solution they're looking into here is to define them as not motorized to allow them on bike paths and then specifically exclude them from non motorized singletrack.


----------



## sotak (May 20, 2009)

I guess nothing would stop someone from poaching paths, which could be a reason for an outright ban. I'm thinking more specifically for where exceptions could be made, case by case in places where enforcement is more practical and their use would clearly not have a negative impact. 

The utility of ebikes can't be denied, and I see them as a part of a larger 'solution' to car-based lifestyle. In places like Seattle, where a major bike thoroughfare is at least partly in the jurisdiction of the parks department (i.e. the Burke), a total ban on access would have a large negative impact on using ebikes for transportation. 

I do think a very clear distinction between electrified bikes and totally human powered bikes needs to be made, and ebikes should never be allowed on non-motorized mountain bike/hiking/equestrian trails.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Hey, I'm all about ebikes for urban travel. I have one. I think they are an excellent option to get people out of cars. I also think that we need to tread lightly on what we decide to regulate as it's easily misinterpreted and taken advantage of.


----------



## sotak (May 20, 2009)

Harryman said:


> "RCW 46.61.710
> Mopeds, EPAMDs, electric-assisted bicycles, motorized foot scooters-General requirements and operation.
> 
> (5) Subsections (1), (2), and (4) of this section do not apply to electric-assisted bicycles. Electric-assisted bicycles and motorized foot scooters may have access to highways, other than limited access highways, of the state to the same extent as bicycles. Subject to subsection (6) of this section, *electric-assisted bicycles and motorized foot scooters may be operated on a multipurpose trail or bicycle lane, but local jurisdictions may restrict or otherwise limit the access of electric-assisted bicycles and motorized foot scooters*, and state agencies may regulate the use of motorized foot scooters on facilities and properties under their jurisdiction and control."


From that it sounds like they're already allowed on the type of facility I'm talking about, unless specifically banned (non-motorized use only) by the local jurisdiction. Is it easier to make exceptions in specific cases, or change their classification as non-motorized and then ban them in specific places? Would there be more negative consequences in changing ebikes to being classified as non-motorized? I would tend to think so.


----------



## sotak (May 20, 2009)

Silentfoe said:


> Hey, I'm all about ebikes for urban travel. I have one. I think they are an excellent option to get people out of cars. I also think that we need to tread lightly on what we decide to regulate as it's easily misinterpreted and taken advantage of.


I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Silentfoe said:


> Hey, I'm all about ebikes for urban travel. I have one. I think they are an excellent option to get people out of cars. I also think that we need to tread lightly on what we decide to regulate as it's easily misinterpreted and taken advantage of.


I'm generally as against regulation as one can be. I don't see this as being at all about deciding what to regulate as simply following the guidelines that are already in place. I would argue we should tread lightly with redefining to nonmotorized from 'not having a motor' to 'well, it's only a small motor'.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

ACree said:


> I'm generally as against regulation as one can be. I don't see this as being at all about deciding what to regulate as simply following the guidelines that are already in place. I would argue we should tread lightly with redefining to nonmotorized from 'not having a motor' to 'well, it's only a small motor'.


Right. Mainly because the whole "small motor" or 250-watt motor distinction will be impossible to enforce. Just checking for the presence of an electric motor will be challenging enough.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

JACKL said:


> Right. Mainly because the whole "small motor" or 250-watt motor distinction will be impossible to enforce. Just checking for the presence of an electric motor will be challenging enough.


Enforcement is really the key thing. The way I see this going is similar to cell phones and drivers. There will be so many people riding the e-bikes (once prices come down) on trails and breaking the regulations that enforcement will be nearly impossible.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Only way to truly enforce it is for everyone to stop looking the other way. If you see someone poaching a trail, stop them. If they're a dick about it, report them to the local sheriff.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Curveball said:


> Enforcement is really the key thing. The way I see this going is similar to cell phones and drivers. There will be so many people riding the e-bikes (once prices come down) on trails and breaking the regulations that enforcement will be nearly impossible.


Yes, which goes to show that the brands selling these things care far more about selling something to someone, than the sport itself or ensuring we have places to actually ride our (non e powered) mountain bikes. The spec ad I keep seeing is particularly disturbing.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

sotak said:


> From that it sounds like they're already allowed on the type of facility I'm talking about, unless specifically banned (non-motorized use only) by the local jurisdiction. Is it easier to make exceptions in specific cases, or change their classification as non-motorized and then ban them in specific places? Would there be more negative consequences in changing ebikes to being classified as non-motorized? I would tend to think so.


The negative consequences are that they are assumed to be allowed everywhere unless banned by specific ordinance. I guess my point is that being involved with the ebike discussion with my local parks dept, I found out the option of creating an ordinance to exempt them on bike paths was impossible due legal restrictions from funding sources and easements. As long as they are considered motorized, they aren't allowed, no how, no way. Which, I assume isn't an unusual situation based on how the regulations in other states have been written specifically to get around this issue.

The biggest problem I have with the "legal everywhere except where prohibited" is that we are very early in the development cycle with ebikes, I don't have a problem with 250w/16 mph bikes like are common in Europe, but basing future projections of impact on them is a mistake with our much higher allowable limits and lax rules on the sale of anything as an ebike. I'd rather see them specifically allowed instead of a blanket allowance. Once the market settles down, if land managers want to allow them on their trails, fine.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

ACree said:


> Yes, which goes to show that the brands selling these things care far more about selling something to someone, than the sport itself or ensuring we have places to actually ride our (non e powered) mountain bikes. The spec ad I keep seeing is particularly disturbing.


Oh, absolutely! I couldn't agree more.

The next bike that I buy will exclude any brand that offers e-bikes.


----------



## TFitz (Jun 21, 2008)

I'm seeing a banner ad on my Facebook feed for what looks like a pedal-assist model with "750 watts of raw power". I work at a bike store that sells 10 brands; about half of them are in the ebike market, but not all of them (so far) offer off-road models. The problem will get worse before it gets better.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

TFitz said:


> I'm seeing a banner ad on my Facebook feed for what looks like a pedal-assist model with "750 watts of raw power". I work at a bike store that sells 10 brands; about half of them are in the ebike market, but not all of them (so far) offer off-road models. The problem will get worse before it gets better.


As a long time mountain bike advocate, are you explaining to the store owners and brand reps that these things will have a detrimental effect on trail access, and thus future sales?

I intend to focus my dollars on shops that don't push these things.


----------



## TFitz (Jun 21, 2008)

ACree, so far the only ebikes they've brought in are Felt hybrid/commuters. They know my feelings about ebikes on dirt trails--same as yours. The ebike industry may push their "model" law in the upcoming session of the Legislature, so we should get ready to tell our reps how we feel. Evergreen's position, as I understand it so far, is what I would recommend. Don't have any idea where Cascade is on this (re the more powerful "classes" of commuter ebikes and where they should be allowed).


----------



## FM (Apr 30, 2003)

regardless of how we "feel"...

eBikes are already legal on USFS ORV trails. We already share the same trails with motos. I don't see many people deciding not to buy Maxxis tires or Fox shocks just because they make moto (and likely ebike) components. People want eBikes and will buy them for legal ORV use. So, shops and manufacturers are either going to make & sell them, or take a stand and get left behind. That's just not realistic or economically viable. I'd think you're wasting energy fighting it.

Maybe it's more realistic to focus on what isn't certain: How will the DNR and Evergreen deal with eBikes on MTB-specific or non-ORV trails? Tiger for instance, I've seen eBikes there already (and told the riders they were not allowed or welcome).


----------



## n8_ (May 20, 2013)

If I was in charge (things really would be better this way) I would try to get out in front of the e-Bike revolution by developing a spec for a non-ORV friendly e-Bike.

Manufacturers and user groups develop a defined spec for an e-Bike that is compatible with muscle powered bikes. Maybe some sort of a tilt sensor that can detect when you are climbing - and limit speeds based on grade? Set a limit for motor power output. Basically do your damn best to create an e-Bike that isn't just a battery powered dirt bike.

These bikes are the 'IMBA/Forest Service Approved/Etc' spec bike. The major manufacturers all play by the rules, and everyone is still pissed, but it's better than the alternative. If the spec is designed early on, manufacturers will compete to create bikes that have the best range or the lightest weight assist system. 

If no spec is defined, manufacturers will compete to design bikes that have as much power as they can get away with along with range and weight considerations. Compatibility with pedal powered riders will be lip service at best. You will end up with a horsepower war.

I am sure that in the next 10 years, eBike tech is going to improve massively. The moto trail system around Wenatchee is amazing and the potential for big battery assisted rides is something that I could see myself doing when the tech is mature. In this theoretical future, it would be nice to own one bike to ride on both orv and non-orv trails.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

The problem is, whatever the spec, a bike with epower is simply not nonmotorized. Further, no matter what spec or certification, it will be hacked or otherwise modified. Just like iphones get jailbroken, CPUs get overclocked, ignitions get remapped, etc., so the certification will ultimately not have any meaningful value.

Yes, the technology will improve rapidly. That's the problem, it will turn the relatively mild 3x human powered equipment available now into motorcycle equivalents. Watch this 



 to see where the technology is headed.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

ACree said:


> The problem is, whatever the spec, a bike with epower is simply not nonmotorized. Further, no matter what spec or certification, it will be hacked or otherwise modified. Just like iphones get jailbroken, CPUs get overclocked, ignitions get remapped, etc., so the certification will ultimately not have any meaningful value.
> 
> Yes, the technology will improve rapidly. That's the problem, it will turn the relatively mild 3x human powered equipment available now into motorcycle equivalents. Watch this
> 
> ...


Go to the 3 minute mark and listen. Infuriating.


----------



## n8_ (May 20, 2013)

Full on electric dirtbikes will be great for that industry. For years the noise issues surrounding them has pushed tracks and riding areas further and further into the country. Many of the problems have been self made because the market is very bro-brah and demands super loud bikes. 

I am not arguing that e-Bikes are non-motorized. The mtb industry & riders have the opportunity now to get out in front of the issue and guide the technology toward something that is most compatible with regular bikes. 

In exchange for complying with some sort of an industry spec with regard to motor power and features, it might be best to say OK these bikes are ok in some non ORV areas. Is there a chance that the bikes could get hacked - yeah I guess so, but I doubt the vast majority of riders would bother. How many people do you know that use jailbroken phones? I'm sure it's a very very small % of the total cell phone users. Plus it'd be funny if someone bricked their bike.

The way I see it is you have two choices:
1. Keep the e-Bikes banned everywhere except ORV trails. The bikes are turned into a motorcycle with pedals. In some places this isn't a big deal, in Wenatchee there is tons of ORV legal stuff. In other places you have more conflicts because ORV trails are a long ways away, and people want to ride stuff close to home.

2. Create an e-Bike industry spec and designate some non-ORV trails as e-Bike legal. The tech progresses within the confines of total motor output / climbing speeds / etc. You end up with some haters on both sides, some people abusing the system and riding non compliant bikes, but most people just ride what they want to ride and people get along just fine. Additionally, you could end up with some pedal assisted tech that could be really cool.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

I agree that electric dirt bikes will be great. I look forward to that.

You're missing the point on ebikes though. The mtb industry isn't who makes trail use rules. Land managers do. And nearly all of them designate via motorized vs nonmotorized, with a few areas that do wheeled vs feet (which is stupid...but that's another thread). Changing that is unlikely, even if it were desirable. So coming up with standards or whatever doesn't make much sense since one still has to get a land manager to pretend that nonmotorized really means except for small electric motors.

Bottom line, they are motorized, and are fine on motorized legal trails, and IMO should remain illegal on nonmotorized trails. I'll be lining up to buy an electric motorcycle, but not an ebicycle and likely not another purchase from a brand that pushes this stuff. I still feel a little dirty for having bought a specialized last year.


----------



## n8_ (May 20, 2013)

I should have read your signature earlier .

MTB industry and riders are not the land managers in most places - but they are a large, and in some places a well funded and well organized user group. Maybe I am totally off base with this, but I can see a future where the e-Bike people are able to convince some land managers to allow them to ride *some* non-ORV trail systems. Whether it's lawsuits or just advocacy, I think that is a pretty plausible situation. 

Do you think it would be better to trade influence on the e-Bike industry in exchange for sharing some trail systems? Or would you prefer to risk, 10 years down the road, pedal powered dirtbikes on some trail systems?


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

MTB is a relatively young and in some places is well organized. As a sport, influence and funding pales in comparison to the hiker lobby. For instance, IMBA had 500K in cash and $1.2 million in total assets at the end of 2014. The Sierra Club had $36 million in cash out of $85 million in total assets at the same time, while the Sierra Club foundation had another $17 million of cash on hand out of its $109 million in assets. And then there's the Audubon Society, Wilderness Society, etc. MTB has come a long way from having nothing but is no where near these groups. These groups fight MTB trail access. The only way they would stand by and allow nonmotorized trails to have ebike use is if they thought it would hurt bike access in the long run.

I see the choice as solve the problem ourselves, or land managers will say they can't tell the difference between ebikes and pedal bikes, so its easier to just close trails to both.


----------



## mwestra2 (Jan 29, 2005)

ACree said:


> ...The Sierra Club had $36 million in cash out of $85 million in total assets at the same time, while the Sierra Club foundation had another $17 million of cash on hand out of its $109 million in assets. And then there's the Audubon Society, Wilderness Society, etc...


Yep. Trail access (keeping existing trails, building new trails and gaining new access to existing trails) is hugely dependent on partnerships and support from public agencies, environmental groups, tribal organizations and other user groups. Same goes for grant funding. Bear this in mind as you develop your opinions on e-bikes.

Great thread. ADA, seniors, trail impact... lots to consider.

I've got 2 questions. I really only care about the 2nd, but the 2nd is meaningless without knowing the answer to the first .


What are your thoughts on lift-serve bike parks (Whistler, Stevens, etc)? Love em, hate em, fine, whatever.
What are you thoughts on a new class of trail designed and built specifically for e-bikes and shuttle riding? Choices: shuttle to the top and ride down, pedal to the top and ride down or e-bike/pedal-assist to the top and ride down.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

mwestra2 said:


> Yep. Trail access (keeping existing trails, building new trails and gaining new access to existing trails) is hugely dependent on partnerships and support from public agencies, environmental groups, tribal organizations and other user groups. Same goes for grant funding. Bear this in mind as you develop your opinions on e-bikes.
> 
> Great thread. ADA, seniors, trail impact... lots to consider.
> 
> ...





Not my thing, so I'm indifferent. If they concentrate DH/Shuttle bros to one location, that's great. If they cause that part of the sport to grow, and increase shuttle traffic at 410, for example, I am opposed. Also note that as a 501(c)(3), the assets of a 501(c)(3) are supposed to only benefit the public, not private interests. Given lift served parks are privately run, Evergreen should not be involved in them (with the possible exception of contract trail building)



mwestra2 said:


> [*]What are you thoughts on a new class of trail designed and built specifically for e-bikes and shuttle riding? Choices: shuttle to the top and ride down, pedal to the top and ride down or e-bike/pedal-assist to the top and ride down.


First, my understanding is that ebikes actually suck at DH, because the power isn't very helpful and they weigh 50 lbs (see the Angry SSer review). So I think there would be little appeal to this vs. vehicle shuttling. Being opposed to hiker only trails, I'm generally opposed to biker only as well. It just leads to fewer trails for all of us. Sharing should be the rule. Now if ebike legal non moto trails are really desired, like N8 seems to be after, I am all for truth in advertising. So absolutely no to allowing e-power on a nonmotorized trail (I suspect the hiker lobby will be on this side as well - and the moto crowd will also say its not fair to them). But if you want to call it ORV lite, with a strict, and low, limit on decibels, have at it. I don't think limiting power levels or types of assist will ever be feasible. But noise is much more feasible. And really, once power that is not your own is allowed, what difference does it make if it's available via pedal assist vs. a throttle?


----------



## n8_ (May 20, 2013)

I am not after anything, saying that I want e-Bikes on non-ORV is a total strawman. I am totally fine with the status quo of e-Bike stuff being limited to ORV. I am concerned that unregulated, we could end up with silent e-assist bikes that can climb at 15mph+. At least with the motos I can hear them coming - a silent electric bike is much more dangerous on the trails. 

Really, my only position is that MTBers could have a significant influence on what e-Bikes become. The best way to have influence is to play nice, and take them into consideration, just like we do with motos, hikers, and horses. 

With regard to regulation, I think it is possible to implement standards and rules that most e-Bikers would follow.

If Giant/Spesh/Etc all decide that they are going to design bikes around a 250 Watt max assist along with maybe some tilt sensors to limit uphill climbing speeds - I think that would be the most compatible with other riders/hikers/etc that are on non-ORV trail systems. If all of the quality brands are making bikes that conform to this spec - most of the buyers will choose these bikes. Will there be crappy knockoff bikes with huge motors? Of course. Will a small number of riders modify their bikes? Yup. 

I think it is much more likely that we will end up with the MTB community taking a position that is in line with your views. That's fine, I just think that there is another way to approach the situation.


----------



## mwestra2 (Jan 29, 2005)

Just to clarify, my response wasn't directed only at ACree. I'd like to hear what everybody thinks about the 2 questions. We are getting asked this right now from multiple land managers.


----------



## mwestra2 (Jan 29, 2005)

Thanks. I didn't know e-bikes sucked at DH. Never been on one, but I guess I should try one out some day.



ACree said:


> Also note that as a 501(c)(3), the assets of a 501(c)(3) are supposed to only benefit the public, not private interests. Given lift served parks are privately run, Evergreen should not be involved in them (with the possible exception of contract trail building)


Evergreen does work with private companies when it's in the best interest of the greater mt biking community. And that has meant some kind of trail design, building or stewardship on trails that are open to the public. Examples are Seabrook, Snoqualmie Summit, Crystal (currently funded to design trails that will initially not be lift-served and we hope that will lead to contract trail building), Hancock/Campbell Global and others.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

mwestra2 said:


> Great thread. ADA, seniors, trail impact... lots to consider.
> 
> I've got 2 questions. I really only care about the 2nd, but the 2nd is meaningless without knowing the answer to the first .
> 
> ...


I really like ACREE's answer so count his answer as 2 votes.


----------



## TFitz (Jun 21, 2008)

Lift-served bike parks are not my thing either, but I'm fine with ski area operators having revenue year round, and I know a lot of people who enjoy them. Allowing ebikes there would be possibly enforceable, which is one of the concerns I have about allowing ebikes (esp some classes or wattages but not others, etc) on non-ORV trails. I would think a DH bike that weighs 50 lbs would be a lesser difference than an XC bike that weighs 40 lbs, so it's not obvious to me that there would be a resource damage issue at a lift-served facility. Design the park so there's no easy access to nearby non-ORV trails open to mountain bikes and maybe it could work. If it's true that "racing improves the breed" then it might spur development of better commuter ebikes as well.


----------



## n8_ (May 20, 2013)

Stevens is privately run, but it's on public land - so it's not like they get to do whatever they want.

With regard to the lift served stuff, I think it's great. I've only ridden Stevens a couple of times, and I think the singletrack stuff they have built is really fun. It's definitely a great way to pack a lot of descending into a single day. I wonder if Stevens has run into issues with people trying to ride up their trails - or use the service roads to get to the top of the trails. Uphill traffic during the winter has been a huge issue in the last few years at Mission Ridge.

With regard to trails that are designed to allow e-Bikes or shuttling, hey if those groups can pull it off, more power to 'em. Assuming we're talking public land, you would essentially have to get new ORV trails built. I have no idea if new ORV trails have been built anywhere in WA in years. I think most of the ORV groups are just trying to hang on to what they have...

There are some places that are already shuttle friendly + ORV legal. One of the most well known rides would be Devil's Gulch / Mission Ridge trail. Despite 7100 being washed out for cars, it's fine on any sort of a bike. There are also options in the Entiat / Lake Wenatchee trail system for this as well (pot peak & lake creek come to mind). The new trails that will be built in the #2 Canyon / Twin Peaks area will also have some shuttle potential - but they are not ORV legal, so that would eliminate e-Bikes from that area.

I am not a big fan of riding roads with lots of vehicle traffic, so if I had to pick my poison, I would much rather encounter e-Bikes over cars/trucks shuttling. I'm a big believer in multi use trails and giving everyone places to enjoy whatever mode of recreational transportation they want. From what I have observed, conflicts arise when groups don't have places they can use legally. 

If e-Bikes start to really become a problem on non-ORV trail systems, it will be time to think about the best way to solve that issue. I have maybe encountered an e-Bike once, at Tiger Mountain. Is it a problem yet? Not in Wenatchee from what I can tell. Will it become one? I wouldn't bet against it.


----------



## nickn (Dec 10, 2012)

mwestra2 said:


> Just to clarify, my response wasn't directed only at ACree. I'd like to hear what everybody thinks about the 2 questions. We are getting asked this right now from multiple land managers.


Regarding new class of trail type. How is that determined and does that open up the potential for a lottery system on some trails similar to how some western rivers are managed for recreation? Places like 410, Kachess and many others have preexisting roads to the top of the network. I'd argue that shuttling isn't the issue, but rather self-policing by the trail user community: staying on the trail, staying off when overly wet, etc. This is a big issue for some local areas by all the user communities. As a trail builder I have some very strong opinions on what we should likely be doing holistically but that's beyond the question posed.

As for the e-bike question. As long as it has a no-slip transmission that constantly adjusts and corrects based on sensing wheel slip, go for it. I'm not a fan of e-bike, but until we have empirical data on their effects on trail we really are unable to answer your question. Are they faster than me? Yes. Does that make me upset? No, lots of people are faster.

As for lift served and shuttling, I think they're great as an option. I see more families, including my own, that utilize these options and plan vacations around these accommodations. Why? Because it allow my young boys to partake where they likely wouldn't and that in turn keeps them excited about the sport.

There are examples of how to successfully manage trail access. I have seen some good examples, as well as horrible, in Montana but the one key thing I see where they have success is that the user groups are effectively self-policing and communicate those policies to others. did you know you can ride up Whitefish mountain's bike park without buying a ticket? No joke. However, you also observe the posted restrictions to do so. I don't see that in Washington so much. Part of it is likely due to population differences, education, and self control. I'd really like to see the education piece get driven home as the other aspects are not in anyone's control.


----------



## ebxtreme (Jan 6, 2004)

Aaaaaand.....here we go.

The Coastal Crew: Skeptical - Video - Pinkbike

FYI, anyone that's ridden the Coast knows that A. There is zero riding pressure - which I would assume very little conflicts on the trails. B. Many of the trails also are maintained by guys who go out on their trials motorcycles (not all, but many). and C. many of them are shuttle accessible (especially the B&K zone).

We are currently in the planning phase with DNR up here, so it'll be interesting how we address this use in the future.

EB


----------



## sotak (May 20, 2009)

mwestra2 said:


> I've got 2 questions. I really only care about the 2nd, but the 2nd is meaningless without knowing the answer to the first .
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts on lift-serve bike parks (Whistler, Stevens, etc)? Love em, hate em, fine, whatever.
> What are you thoughts on a new class of trail designed and built specifically for e-bikes and shuttle riding? Choices: shuttle to the top and ride down, pedal to the top and ride down or e-bike/pedal-assist to the top and ride down.


Lift served parks are great, especially if it means pedal only trails see less use. Bike parks can be regulated, offer more support in emergencies, and have a stake in safety and trail quality - and potential revenue stream to handle both. With that in mind, building ebike specific networks would be a great idea in these areas. Further, converting ORV trails slated for "decommissioning" to allow ebikes could also be interesting.

That being said, I think Evergreeen needs to be clear in making a distinction between motorized and nonmotorized bikes, and should only be working to promote the use and build infrastructure for nonmotorized bikes. People ask where the line should be drawn, and I believe it's quite clear. ebikes of all varieties are motorized vehicles and should not Ben tolerated on any trail designated for nonmotorized use.

Contract building in appropriate places (not using Evergreen's name) could be a smart way of getting money, but should be structured in a way to not compromise the organization's stance.


----------



## n8_ (May 20, 2013)

Here in Wenatchee - the darkside ride occurs on Devil's Gulch which benefits the local evergreen chapter. They do work on Devil's which is a motorized trail system. I can't imagine this is the only place that this occurs. 

Saying that Evergreen should only build/maintain/promote only non-motorized turns their back on a massive % of the singletrack trails in the state, and some of the best MTBing anywhere! Many of the best 'epic/backcountry' trails in the state are cleared because both FS moto crews and private riders carrying saws clear these trails every spring. 

Does anyone know Evergreen's role in the support of the ORV trail systems? I am under the impression that the ORV riders are still having to fight pretty hard from time to time to keep the trails they have. I am not sure if these trails could be kept clear without them. 

I have said it in previous posts, but again I think it totally makes sense to designate e-Bikes as ORV. Additionally, even if the MTB community wanted them designated as legal in non-ORV trails, they aren't the ones making the final decisions.


----------



## scotteric (Aug 22, 2005)

The Coastal Crew: Skeptical - Video - Pinkbike

these guys don't seem to be hindered by their e-bikes. I've ridden a levo and it was fun. I've been mt biking for 25+ years and this is (at least part of) my future. bring the hate.


----------



## FM (Apr 30, 2003)

scotteric said:


> these guys don't seem to be hindered by their e-bikes. I've ridden a levo and it was fun. I've been mt biking for 25+ years and this is (at least part of) my future. bring the hate.


I'm with you man, no surprise. It will never replace my mountain bike, for mountain bike trails, but there are just way too many existing EWa ORV trails going unused & getting overgrown that are perfect for something like this. Horses for courses!


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

FM said:


> I'm with you man, no surprise. It will never replace my mountain bike, for mountain bike trails, but there are just way too many existing EWa ORV trails going unused & getting overgrown that are perfect for something like this. Horses for courses!


Sure. Just recognize that it's motorized and keep it on trails designated for motorized use.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

FM said:


> I'm with you man, no surprise. It will never replace my mountain bike, for mountain bike trails, but there are just way too many existing EWa ORV trails going unused & getting overgrown that are perfect for something like this. Horses for courses!


The moto legal trails around here are already mostly ridden by mtbs, why are yours going unused?


----------



## FM (Apr 30, 2003)

Harryman said:


> The moto legal trails around here are already mostly ridden by mtbs, why are yours going unused?


Uno Peak/safety harbor, devils backbone, many of the roslyn/salmon lesac/cle elum trails are examples. Potentially great trails, but they are seeing very little use or maintenance either by the FS or volunteers.

I think most mountain bikers would prefer to ride purpose-built mountain bike trails that have more flow and are maintained, require less physical effort, better payback for the climbing. That's true for me too. I ride the trails mentioned above, but every year it's harder to justify the effort involved when the trails are so raw. I couldn't tell you why moto use & maintenance has declined.

Having to bushwhack an overgrown backcountry Moto trail descent sounds a lot more appealing when you've got motor to get there and back!


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

FM said:


> I think most mountain bikers would prefer...less physical effort,


Absolutely not.


----------



## OldHouseMan (Dec 7, 2006)

I don't want to ride moto trails on every ride, but I do enjoy riding maintained moto trails.


----------



## n8_ (May 20, 2013)

A pretty decent portion of the trails on this map are not being regularly maintained:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5313093.pdf

I don't know if these trails are maintained more now than they are in the past, but unless you've got good beta there is a decent chance the trail can be a real mess. The Entiat is a place close to my heart - a true gem of a valley. It's just very far from any large population.

Lake creek - 1443 is one of the best descents I've ever done. 1266 could also be right up there if the buckbrush wasn't so bad. I don't know the history of this trail system, many of the trails are really technical. I'm only riding my MTB on most of the stuff, but riding a moto on them requires a pretty skilled rider.

Not really sure how eMTB stuff applies to this. Maybe there would be more traffic out there?


----------



## K.C. (Oct 13, 2005)

Banner Forest in Kitsap County has a huge mountain bike presence, with about 24 miles of single track. No motorized vehicles are allowed in Kitsap County Parks. I have been an active stewardship member at Banner for many years, and recently came across a couple of E-Bike riders on the trails. I brought up the issue of E-Bikes in county parks, and Kitsap Parks advised they are considered motorized vehicles, and not allowed on county property. In addition to Banner Forest, Kitsap County also has large mountain bike presence in Newberry Hill Park near Silverdale, and the recently acquired Port Gamble property.


----------



## FM (Apr 30, 2003)

Silentfoe said:


> Absolutely not.


Silentfoe, Have you ridden any of the trails I mentioned?



n8_ said:


> A pretty decent portion of the trails on this map are not being regularly maintained:
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5313093.pdf
> 
> I don't know if these trails are maintained more now than they are in the past, but unless you've got good beta there is a decent chance the trail can be a real mess. I don't know the history of this trail system, many of the trails are really technical. I'm only riding my MTB on most of the stuff, but riding a moto on them requires a pretty skilled rider.
> ...


You got it n8_. 
How may people are riding these trails? I would guess Uno Peak sees less than 3 mountain bikers and 10 motos every season these days. These trails just need more traffic or their going to disappear. In the meantime, riding them means you're going to be doing some trailwork as part of your ride.

Tommy Peak/ Lake Creek / Devils Backbone in one day on an eBike would be rad, legal and doable. Maybe camp at Silver falls. Sign me up!


----------



## mwestra2 (Jan 29, 2005)

Rode Jolly Mt and several trails in the Manastash Lake area and there aren't many riders who can climb those (or would ever want to) . Whenever the trails I rode traversed, they were awesome for biking. Whenever they went fall-line, they were trenches full of bowling balls. That means less moto/mtb-ers can (or want to) climb them, and then they get over-grown. 2 years ago I couldn't have fallen over on Jolly Mt if I wanted to. I could barely squeeze through the thick brush on both sides of the trail.

Enter E-bikes... more users, easier access, more maintenance and some strategic re-routes and we could have a whole new world of awesome multi-use motorized trails in the OWNF and GPNF.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

mwestra2 said:


> Rode Jolly Mt and several trails in the Manastash Lake area and there aren't many riders who can climb those (or would ever want to) . Whenever the trails I rode traversed, they were awesome for biking. Whenever they went fall-line, they were trenches full of bowling balls. That means less moto/mtb-ers can (or want to) climb them, and then they get over-grown. 2 years ago I couldn't have fallen over on Jolly Mt if I wanted to. I could barely squeeze through the thick brush on both sides of the trail.
> 
> Enter E-bikes... more users, easier access, more maintenance and some strategic re-routes and we could have a whole new world of awesome multi-use motorized trails in the OWNF and GPNF.


I agree some strategic reroutes and maintenance would be nice on those trails. But, I don't see ebikes being some panacea that changes this. What groups are these additional riders going to come from? Current mtbers that don't want to work as hard? Moto guys that suddenly decide they'd like to spend just as much on a far inferior machine? Or new to backcountry mtbers that can suddenly access it now that they don't have to put out the same power (at least until the battery dies...)? And who is going to do this trail work, the ebike alliance? I'm all for it if Evergreen wants to do this as part of the backcountry program Graham was on, but really don't how ebikes are relevant to it, other than that as motorized vehicles, they can ride these trails.


----------



## bighitboy (May 16, 2004)

The Foggy Dew/Merchants Basin is pretty rough for a mountain bike. 70 miles on a moto out there would take 2 days on a mountain bike. The views are just amazing though.


----------



## sotak (May 20, 2009)

Has anyone heard an update on the lawsuit? I tried finding something new, but didn't have much luck. Maybe it hasn't gone to court yet?


Nick


----------



## TFitz (Jun 21, 2008)

Reading the link in the OP, it's somebody whining to their Congresscritter, not a lawsuit. So far the industry seems to think buying favors in state legislatures will be a faster, easier way to get what they want, I guess.


----------



## sotak (May 20, 2009)

Ah, yeah, missed that. I must have just assumed there was litigation. Thanks.

With any luck the rep spoke with the forest service and got educated.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

You really owe it to yourself to demo an ebike, your statements are very uninformed, it's the epitome of the armchair critic.

Ebikes and noise? You have no idea what you speak...they are nearly silent.

I'm also a Wenatchee resident, my wife rides an ebike, it is a wonderful tool that allows her to enjoy trails that are far too difficult for anyone without serious biker legs/lungs. I still out climb her, but now she rides with me vs staying at home.

Most of the worries are not realistic, ebikers will not take over the trails, destroy the trails, or alienate other trail users. You need only look at more mature ebike cultures to see where we're going.

Chill out, don't make it more than it is.



ACree said:


> Not my thing, so I'm indifferent. If they concentrate DH/Shuttle bros to one location, that's great. If they cause that part of the sport to grow, and increase shuttle traffic at 410, for example, I am opposed. Also note that as a 501(c)(3), the assets of a 501(c)(3) are supposed to only benefit the public, not private interests. Given lift served parks are privately run, Evergreen should not be involved in them (with the possible exception of contract trail building)
> 
> First, my understanding is that ebikes actually suck at DH, because the power isn't very helpful and they weigh 50 lbs (see the Angry SSer review). So I think there would be little appeal to this vs. vehicle shuttling. Being opposed to hiker only trails, I'm generally opposed to biker only as well. It just leads to fewer trails for all of us. Sharing should be the rule. Now if ebike legal non moto trails are really desired, like N8 seems to be after, I am all for truth in advertising. So absolutely no to allowing e-power on a nonmotorized trail (I suspect the hiker lobby will be on this side as well - and the moto crowd will also say its not fair to them). But if you want to call it ORV lite, with a strict, and low, limit on decibels, have at it. I don't think limiting power levels or types of assist will ever be feasible. But noise is much more feasible. And really, once power that is not your own is allowed, what difference does it make if it's available via pedal assist vs. a throttle?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

scotteric said:


> The Coastal Crew: Skeptical - Video - Pinkbike
> 
> these guys don't seem to be hindered by their e-bikes. I've ridden a levo and it was fun. I've been mt biking for 25+ years and this is (at least part of) my future. bring the hate.


That video has over fifty thousand views.

No power used on the down because they're going too fast and not pedaling.

Power on the up so the climbing sucks less and doesn't take as long.

That's the same bike my wife rides


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Nurse Ben said:


> You really owe it to yourself to demo an ebike, your statements are very uninformed, it's the epitome of the armchair critic.
> 
> Ebikes and noise? You have no idea what you speak...they are nearly silent.
> 
> ...


You are uninformed on trail access. It's not too surprising if you're in Wenatchee, as you don't see the user numbers that bring conflict. Ebikes will only hurt traditional bicycle trail access. The paths ebikes have taken in other countries mean nothing in the US. Mention of noise wasn't related to ebikes, but traditional motos, as my opinion is that distinguishing between throttle vs pedal assist or the power levels will be impossible, but a "quiet ORV" could fit both e bicycles and the also rapidly approaching e motorcycles, and is more easily enforceable.

Glad your wife's willing to ride ORV trails with you.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

ACree said:


> You are uninformed on trail access. It's not too surprising if you're in Wenatchee, as you don't see the user nip Uber's that bring conflict. Ebikes will only hurt traditional bicycle trail access. The paths ebikes have taken in other countries mean nothing in the US. Mention of noise wasn't related to ebikes, but traditional motos, as my opinion is that distinguishing between throttle vs pedal assist or the power levels will be impossible, but a "quiet ORV" could fit both e bicycles and the also rapidly approaching e motorcycles, and is more easily enforceable.
> 
> Glad your wife's willing to ride ORV trails with you.


I'm informed, I just don't agree with you.

Unlike 99% of the people who armchair post to this type of discussion, I actually know first hand how these bikes work and their limitations.

For a moment I encourage readers to set aside their biases and snap judgements to THINK about the type of person who rides an ebike...elderly, out shape, physically limited, yes, that's right, they are not mountain bikers in the traditional sense. Many ebikers ride paved roads, they lean toward trail riding that is easy on the up and down because they don't have the stamina or skills; hence the ebike.

If everyone posting to this thread got out of their armchair, cubicle, or off the pot, took a free demo on an ebike at your local bike store, THAT would be far more informative than the endless discussions on what makes a REAL mountain bike/biker.

Don't be the guy that says " I'd never ride one of those".

We all get old, we will all need assistance at some point. If you're a real mountain biker, you will not want to give up riding just because you got old.

Don't make this issue into more than it needs to be.


----------



## woodway (Dec 27, 2005)

Nurse Ben said:


> For a moment I encourage readers to set aside their biases and snap judgements to THINK about the type of person who rides an ebike...elderly, out shape, physically limited, yes, that's right, they are not mountain bikers in the traditional sense. Many ebikers ride paved roads, they lean toward trail riding that is easy on the up and down because they don't have the stamina or skills; hence the ebike.


I don't agree with this. The last three e-bikers I have run into at Tiger Mountain and Paradise Valley have been young, physically fit males.



Nurse Ben said:


> Don't be the guy that says " I'd never ride one of those".
> 
> We all get old, we will all need assistance at some point. If you're a real mountain biker, you will not want to give up riding just because you got old.
> 
> Don't make this issue into more than it needs to be.


I think you are missing the point. It's not about hating ebikes, it's about not giving the user groups that hate anything mechanized (especially things with motors but yes mountain bikes too) ammunition to get mountain bikes kicked off trails.

I've done my share of advocacy work and I can tell you that there are many users groups who absolutely don't like mountain bikes and who advocate forcefully to have mountain bike access restricted. To have ebikes classified as "bikes" is not helpful. Let's call them electric motorcycles and let them fight the ORV battle without us.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

woodway said:


> I don't agree with this. The last three e-bikers I have run into at Tiger Mountain and Paradise Valley have been young, physically fit males.
> 
> I think you are missing the point. It's not about hating ebikes, it's about not giving the user groups that hate anything mechanized (especially things with motors but yes mountain bikes too) ammunition to get mountain bikes kicked off trails.
> 
> I've done my share of advocacy work and I can tell you that there are many users groups who absolutely don't like mountain bikes and who advocate forcefully to have mountain bike access restricted. To have ebikes classified as "bikes" is not helpful. Let's call them electric motorcycles and let them fight the ORV battle without us.


And yet, ebikes may allow these non bikers to ride these trails, so perhaps there is a middle ground.

For sure, ebikes shouldn't be ridden at Tiger, said the same to my wife last weekend when she suggested a warm weather ride.

I get the potential controversies, I just don't plan to get worked up in advance... it's a mental health thing


----------



## n8_ (May 20, 2013)

If you restricted eBikes to climbing only on the doubletrack, Tiger would be a great place for eBikes. Areas that have doubletrack ups and one direction descending trails would be a good fit. I know that Tiger's trails aren't strictly one direction, but the new ones seem to be virtually one direction. I wouldn't try to climb any of the new Tiger trails, I'd be afraid of getting run over.

Does anyone know how some of the European countries have dealt with the eBikes thing? Are the trails in Europe generally open to more open to these things? Or is it that the trail systems are more often private.

Want a glimpse to see how Bosch is going to market eBikes?
http://tinyurl.com/hjvj7py

Here is what the IMBA has published on the matter:
https://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/motorized position-IMBA 2010.pdf


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

n8_ said:


> Here is what the IMBA has published on the matter:
> https://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/motorized position-IMBA 2010.pdf


Love the pic of the pissed off Bavarian hikers.

24 hour ebike race? What is the point of that? I think we'll look back at that in 30 years as a temporary dysfunction. Like spandex rockers.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

n8_ said:


> If you restricted eBikes to climbing only on the doubletrack, Tiger would be a great place for eBikes. Areas that have doubletrack ups and one direction descending trails would be a good fit. I know that Tiger's trails aren't strictly one direction, but the new ones seem to be virtually one direction. I wouldn't try to climb any of the new Tiger trails, I'd be afraid of getting run over.
> 
> Does anyone know how some of the European countries have dealt with the eBikes thing? Are the trails in Europe generally open to more open to these things? Or is it that the trail systems are more often private.
> 
> ...


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> For a moment I encourage readers to set aside their biases and snap judgements to THINK about the type of person who rides an ebike...elderly, out shape, physically limited, yes, that's right, they are not mountain bikers in the traditional sense. Many ebikers ride paved roads, they lean toward trail riding that is easy on the up and down because they don't have the stamina or skills; hence the ebike.


There are fit people who like e-bikes. They are not just for the Rosco scooter crowd.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

woodway said:


> think you are missing the point. It's not about hating ebikes, it's about not giving the user groups that hate anything mechanized (especially things with motors but yes mountain bikes too) ammunition to get mountain bikes kicked off trails.
> 
> I've done my share of advocacy work and I can tell you that there are many users groups who absolutely don't like mountain bikes and who advocate forcefully to have mountain bike access restricted. To have ebikes classified as "bikes" is not helpful. Let's call them electric motorcycles and let them fight the ORV battle without us.


While this is factually correct in that anti-bike groups will try to use it against us, I find it just as annoying as gun owners who want to ban semi-automatic rifles because they don't like them and also note it gives anti-gunners ammunition to ban all guns. It is just not right to think that way.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

n8_ said:


> If I was in charge (things really would be better this way) I would try to get out in front of the e-Bike revolution by developing a spec for a non-ORV friendly e-Bike.
> 
> Manufacturers and user groups develop a defined spec for an e-Bike that is compatible with muscle powered bikes. Maybe some sort of a tilt sensor that can detect when you are climbing - and limit speeds based on grade? Set a limit for motor power output. Basically do your damn best to create an e-Bike that isn't just a battery powered dirt bike.


This has been done. There are class 1, 2, 3 e-bikes. CA took the lead and says that certain ones are just bikes, and CA being so big, manufactures are selling most of those models.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

SAL9000 said:


> Watch some YouTube vids of the new crop of e-bikes. These are not "assist" implements - they're motorcycles. Sure, they're nothing like a two-stroke terror but they're getting into the range of a small four-stroke trail bike.


Yes, there are electric motorcycles, but that is not what we are talking about. I don't see anyone lobbying for those to be allowed on MTB trails.



SAL9000 said:


> The problem is speed differential. Riders are easily hitting 20-25 mph on rolling single track. That is a disaster waiting to happen on two-way trail, which most are, at least around here. Hit a hiker at that speed and that is serious injury or death.


Strava is what is making people go fast, not 250 watts of extra power that fit humans can do anyway.



SAL9000 said:


> Of course then comes the issue of enforcement. I think it will be primarily self-limiting - I mean, what avid, experienced mountain biker would buy and ride one of these things?


I may, but I am not sure I will like them due to the weight, but I know that you still can get the same workout riding them - you just go a little faster on climbs.



SAL9000 said:


> They weigh some 50 lbs so they must be absolutely awful on any sort of technical terrain. I think they will be extremely few and far between on typical single track trail systems.
> 
> That all said, they most definitely should be banned on trails that also ban ORVs.


I feel like you are mixing 250 watt pedal-assist bikes in with electric motorcycles. I bet if you were given a Turbo Levo to ride for a week you would be less opposed to them because you would see that you would put just as must effort into riding it as a normal bike but would cover more ground and maybe ride to the trails instead of driving there.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Silentfoe said:


> 5 minutes on YouTube is all it takes to see that there are heavily modified ebikes out there that are very capable of destroying trails and causing negative interactions between user groups. I've said it before and I'll say it now, what wattage is going to be ok in your mind? Who will regulate that and who will pay to enforce it?


I could live with 250 I think as I am 145 lbs, but if I were dictator, I would pick 750. It is just 1 hp. Not sure why people think that is a lot of power. It is not, especially if the rider is 250 lbs and the bike is 50. It would not be spinning the tire or anything.


----------



## NWS (Jun 30, 2010)

I wonder if "e-bikes are only allowed on ADA-accessible trails" would be an acceptable compromise for all involved.

The lawsuit basically says "I need accommodation for my disability" so it seem reasonable for the USFS to say "we have trails that were designed to accommodate people with disabilities, you are welcome to use your e-bike on them." I mean, isn't that exactly what those trails are for?

E-bikes would remain prohibited for non-ADA trails, which would mitigate the risk of high-power e-bikes tearing up trails and/or becoming a high-speed nuisance.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

rsilvers said:


> Yes, there are electric motorcycles, but that is not what we are talking about. I don't see anyone lobbying for those to be allowed on MTB trails.


https://electricbikereview.com/forum/threads/would-like-to-go-faster.2929/


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

rsilvers said:


> I could live with 250 I think as I am 145 lbs, but if I were dictator, I would pick 750. It is just 1 hp. Not sure why people think that is a lot of power. It is not, especially if the rider is 250 lbs and the bike is 50. It would not be spinning the tire or anything.


I'm not sure where you live, but it's already 750w in the US. Even in the EU, where there are strict controls on what you can sell, I'm already starting to see power creep from 250w emtbs to what looks identical, but has much more torque and power. Like this:

https://www.exess-bikes.de/

With a little modding, you can run that Bafang motor at 3000w. People like to go fast, I know I do, it's a given they'll push the limits as to what is allowed.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

rsilvers said:


> I could live with 250 I think as I am 145 lbs, but if I were dictator, I would pick 750. It is just 1 hp. Not sure why people think that is a lot of power. It is not, especially if the rider is 250 lbs and the bike is 50. It would not be spinning the tire or anything.


So 750 watts would be acceptable, but only if the rider is a certain weight? This is getting complicated.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

rsilvers said:


> There are fit people who like e-bikes. They are not just for the Rosco scooter crowd.


No there aren't and yes they are.


----------



## Yerts (Aug 18, 2014)

Nurse Ben said:


> We all get old, we will all need assistance at some point. If you're a real mountain biker, you will not want to give up riding just because you got old..


I've raced 5 seasons of XC and have been mountain biking since `91. I've biked in multiple states and countries. I'm _quite sure_ I'm a real mountain biker. I will *absolutely *give up riding instead of switching to an e-bike.


----------



## FM (Apr 30, 2003)

Yerts said:


> I will *absolutely *give up riding instead of switching to an e-bike.


What if you were covered in BBQ sauce and being chased by a hungry dinosaur, your only option for survival was riding an ebike downhill on masterlink?


----------



## spunkmtb (Jun 22, 2009)

Disclaimer: I haven't read the whole post and only glanced over the article. But i am in almost the same position. I have been mountain biking since 1988. I have a nerve injury that basically causes all other pain in my body to magnified about x 100. I have been biking with this injury for almost 10 years. But the last year the pain has been getting so bad that I am no longer enjoying cycling. At all. Considering I have to spend almost 4 days taking it easy after an easy 8 mile mtb ride. 

I am really starting to think about getting an e-mtb. But yet am terrified of the social stigma associated with it as well as just being truly embarrassed and not wanting to be viewed as a douche bag out on the trail. 

But due to this injury I have had to give up running, hiking, river kayaking, rock climbing, back packing. Mountain biking was my last bastion of sanity. There was a time when it truly helped manage my pain. But that boat has long sailed now. I have 3 beautiful bikes which I love but I do not love the after affects of riding them.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I'm thinking about picking up this bad boy so that I can get to the top of Tiger fast!

https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/bik/d/bafang-ultra-mid-drive-1000w/6416350974.html

What do you guys think?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

spunkmtb said:


> Disclaimer: I haven't read the whole post and only glanced over the article. But i am in almost the same position. I have been mountain biking since 1988. I have a nerve injury that basically causes all other pain in my body to magnified about x 100. I have been biking with this injury for almost 10 years. But the last year the pain has been getting so bad that I am no longer enjoying cycling. At all. Considering I have to spend almost 4 days taking it easy after an easy 8 mile mtb ride.
> 
> I am really starting to think about getting an e-mtb. But yet am terrified of the social stigma associated with it as well as just being truly embarrassed and not wanting to be viewed as a douche bag out on the trail.
> 
> But due to this injury I have had to give up running, hiking, river kayaking, rock climbing, back packing. Mountain biking was my last bastion of sanity. There was a time when it truly helped manage my pain. But that boat has long sailed now. I have 3 beautiful bikes which I love but I do not love the after affects of riding them.


If you have the nerve damage and pain while riding a bike, riding an ebike won't make it hurt less.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## spunkmtb (Jun 22, 2009)

Silentfoe said:


> If you have the nerve damage and pain while riding a bike, riding an ebike won't make it hurt less.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Yes it will. It is the exertion in all my muscles that causes pain. Even if I strictly ride fire roads with zero singletrack the pain is still horrible after the ride. It is from muscle exertion that I feel the pain from.

But yet getting out into nature and escaping there on my bike is still my only solace.

On a side note it's the above ignorant statement you just said that makes me hesitate. Because the world is filled with ignorant monday morning QB's such as yourself. Just like the 13 doctors that said there was no nerve damage. Than they located the actual nerve damage and all they could say was "I guess I was wrong, sorry"

One thing that becoming disabled has taught me is not to be so judgemental about other people's pain or what they due to survive it.

But I do not want to derail this thread. I feel for the woman and congratulate her on her courage and hope that she finds what she needs. For me my ego will in the end probably prevent me from buying an e-bike for MTB'ing which really means that I probably won't be MTB'ing for much longer.

I thought I was sad when I had to give up rock climbing because it hurt to much. But I still had the mountain bike.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

spunkmtb said:


> Yes it will. It is the exertion in all my muscles that causes pain. Even if I strictly ride fire roads with zero singletrack the pain is still horrible after the ride. It is from muscle exertion that I feel the pain from.
> 
> But yet getting out into nature and escaping there on my bike is still my only solace.
> 
> ...


Well, you've got the butthurt thing down already. You should be good to go.

My statement above is accurate.

If you experience pain while seated on a saddle, bent over, holding on to grips, while pedaling and standing on pedals...you will experience that same pain regardless of whether or not you're on an emtb or a regular mtb. The each have those sane exact parts and idiosyncrasies in common.

Now, if by ebike you mean one with a throttle, where you won't have to pedal and thereby cause less pain, then yes, that'd be true. But now you're riding a class 2 ebike that isn't legal at all except in OHV areas only.

See how we can have a conversation without the butthurt? I'd recommend practicing that bu t it does seem you want to be a true ebiker.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Silentfoe said:


> Well, you've got the butthurt thing down already. You should be good to go.
> 
> My statement above is accurate.
> 
> ...


Your above statement is far from accurate. I have lingering nerve damage that has a similar trigger. Any activity below the exertion threshold and there is no issue. Once I pass that it really kicks in. Fortunately mine is nowhere as debilitating and just becomes an uncomfortable nuisance for a day or two.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

spunkmtb said:


> Yes it will. It is the exertion in all my muscles that causes pain. Even if I strictly ride fire roads with zero singletrack the pain is still horrible after the ride. It is from muscle exertion that I feel the pain from.
> 
> But yet getting out into nature and escaping there on my bike is still my only solace.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't a quad be a better solution? Less effort and smoother ride.


----------



## Tarekith (Mar 9, 2005)

Tuckerjt - You should definitely get the ebike and not worry what other people think about it. It's better to keep riding than let supposed perceptions by a... misguided few ruin what you enjoy. The whole ebike thing is coming whether people like it or not, and I have a feeling it will be tiny blip on most people's radar in the long run once more people actually try one.

I just spent the last couple years living and riding in central Europe, where ebikes are everywhere and completely accepted. They think we're crazy for even having this discussion in fact.  The bike industry in the rest of the world has already embraced it, so there's likely no stopping it anyway. 

Especially since you don't see any of the issues people here like to use as a reason to ban them. People aren't running out of power in the middle of nowhere, or hot-rodding them to go faster than they are supposed to. By and large it's older or injured people wanting to get out in the woods on their bikes still, or people more concerned about touring and just looking to increase their distance per effort. They don't tear up the trails more than a regular bike (I've seen XC racers training that did vastly more damage to a trail) and they don't ruin the experience for other trail users and riders.

The ebike makes it a bit easier to climb, but otherwise it just feels like an old school downhill bike. Slow and a bit heavy to ride otherwise.

I will acknowledge that here in the US versus Europe there are definitely more trail access issues to worry about. But I think once people actually see that these really are 90-95% of what a normal mtn bike is, a lot of that will disappear.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Tarekith said:


> Tuckerjt - You should definitely get the ebike and not worry what other people think about it. It's better to keep riding than let supposed perceptions by a... misguided few ruin what you enjoy. The whole ebike thing is coming whether people like it or not, and I have a feeling it will be tiny blip on most people's radar in the long run once more people actually try one.
> 
> I just spent the last couple years living and riding in central Europe, where ebikes are everywhere and completely accepted. They think we're crazy for even having this discussion in fact.  The bike industry in the rest of the world has already embraced it, so there's likely no stopping it anyway.
> 
> ...


This was hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## NWS (Jun 30, 2010)

Silentfoe said:


> If you have the nerve damage and pain while riding a bike, riding an ebike won't make it hurt less.


There must be a lot of people on this thread with injuries and disabilities that you've never heard of who greatly appreciate your valuable insights into their lives.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Tarekith said:


> Tuckerjt - You should definitely get the ebike and not worry what other people think about it. It's better to keep riding than let supposed perceptions by a... misguided few ruin what you enjoy. The whole ebike thing is coming whether people like it or not, and I have a feeling it will be tiny blip on most people's radar in the long run once more people actually try one.
> 
> I just spent the last couple years living and riding in central Europe, where ebikes are everywhere and completely accepted. They think we're crazy for even having this discussion in fact.  The bike industry in the rest of the world has already embraced it, so there's likely no stopping it anyway.
> 
> ...


I'm not at a point where I need one or even want one.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Tarekith said:


> I will acknowledge that here in the US versus Europe there are definitely more trail access issues to worry about. But I think once people actually see that these really are 90-95% of what a normal mtn bike is, a lot of that will disappear.


Nope. I am pro-e-bike person here. I have a demo Turbo Levo today.

You are assuming logic. The bike trail issue thing stems from Sierra Club people trying, often successfully, from banning ALL bikes from trails. Did you know it is illegal in the US to ride *any* bike in Wilderness?

So MTB riders are legitimately concerned that these people will use e-bikes as another reason to close off more trails, or to not open more trails.

That all being said, this argument reminds me of groups of gun owners. There are the wooden-stocked hunters and the black rifle AR people. The wooden-guys want the black rifles banned because they think that anti-gunners will use them as a reason to ban all guns, and can't see why anyone would want to own one as they should not "need" them. They want to throw the newer guns to the wolves to save themselves. It is very lame behavior. So, I am not in support of this tactic for MTB people to put down e-bike people as ruining trail access, even though it will make things a little tougher.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Tarekith said:


> But I think once people actually see that these really are 90-95% of what a normal mtn bike is, a lot of that will disappear.


So, this gem emtb is 95% of a normal mountain bike?

https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/bik/d/bafang-ultra-mid-drive-1000w/6416350974.html


----------



## juice (Feb 8, 2004)

Man, there's a new level of mean going on here.


----------



## TFitz (Jun 21, 2008)

I've not ridden an e-mtb, but I have ridden a Bosch-powered hybrid on the street, incl. a steep hill. If your exertion threshold only applies to leg muscles I can see an e-mtb as at least a possible solution to your problems. But if it's more whole-body, then I don't see how riding an e-mtb on even mildly technical trails (Tiger, PVCA, etc) will help. I spent a lot of time as a young man riding Yamaha and Bultaco motorcycles off-road, and I must say, plenty of exertion was involved. I never cared about fitness until I tried dirt biking, and then I had to take up running (OK, jogging) just to be able to enjoy dirt biking.

I would just add that when you coast an electric-assist e-bike it becomes DEAD in terms of forward motion (even on pavement) and the handling changes immediately from mostly bicycle-like to something else altogether, and not in a good way.


----------



## Tarekith (Mar 9, 2005)

I think that goes towards my point about most people not really hot-rodding these in use, even though I'm sure there's a couple out there doing it just for the hell of it (as with anything). More power output doesn't make it easier on the trails, past certain point it's more work keeping it pointed where you want. Plus the added weight of the larger batteries means it's even more to manage when you're not pedaling above that set cadence. Other than for sustained climbs, it's more of a hindrence having pedal assist than not I find. It's impressive how the bike makers have managed to minimize this with placement and mounting, but you can always tell you're pedaling a noticeably heavier bike than you'd normally ride.

It's one reason why I wish more people had a chance to try one before they jumped in this debate. It's not the successor to the mountain bike, nor is it an unfair improvement compared to those of us who prefer to pedal it as intended (your's truly included). It's very much a compromise, letting those less skilled or less able enjoy the feeling the of riding a bike through the woods. It's either an entry into something greater in their lives, or an extension of something they already really love to do 99% of the time but can't at the same level as before.

I'll bow out of the discussion now. I know this is a polarizing issue, and I'm pretty sure my little opinion is probably NOT going to change anyone's mind anyway. Keep fighting the good fight, regardless of which side you come down on, just try and keep an open mind.


----------



## sotak (May 20, 2009)

I own an e-bike, and I think they have great potential to augment our transportation infrastructure and improve urban mobility. If you want to ride a bike with a motor, stick to the street, or go where IC bikes are allowed. It's pretty simple.


----------



## Dave_schuldt (May 10, 2004)

Keep it simple, no motors of any kind. The more complicated a law is the more it can be abused, just look at taxes.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

I don't own an e-bike, never have, and have no plans (yet) to get one. They've been legal on our pretty extensive singletrack trail system, and ALL state trail in this state since 2012. No problems. I'm in favor of establishing the class I, II, III system for e-bikes that is used in Europe and then allowing all class 1 e-bikes on any trail where conventional mountain bikes are allowed. I applaud IMBA's stance on the issue and I hope it will help alleviate any access issues surrounding e-bikes that might come up in other trail systems.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Cuyuna said:


> I don't own an e-bike, never have, and have no plans (yet) to get one. They've been legal on our pretty extensive singletrack trail system, and ALL state trail in this state since 2012. No problems. I'm in favor of establishing the class I, II, III system for e-bikes that is used in Europe and then allowing all class 1 e-bikes on any trail where conventional mountain bikes are allowed. I applaud IMBA's stance on the issue and I hope it will help alleviate any access issues surrounding e-bikes that might come up in other trail systems.


I have a couple of questions here based upon the assumption that Class I bikes are made legal on singletrack:

Who would enforce the power classification system on the trails?

How would it be enforced?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Curveball said:


> I have a couple of questions here based upon the assumption that Class I bikes are made legal on singletrack:
> 
> Who would enforce the power classification system on the trails?
> 
> How would it be enforced?


It could work like many other things. Get caught acting like a moron throw the bike on a machine and test.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## ironbrewer (Oct 17, 2012)

Silentfoe said:


> Well, you've got the butthurt thing down already. You should be good to go.
> 
> My statement above is accurate.
> 
> ...


Wow are you a world renowned doctor?? You must be super smart. How can you possibly know what triggers his pain??


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Curveball said:


> I have a couple of questions here based upon the assumption that Class I bikes are made legal on singletrack:
> 
> Who would enforce the power classification system on the trails?
> 
> How would it be enforced?


No one enforces the dogs being walked unleashed, until one bites someone. Likewise, there would be no enforcement, unless you crash into a kid or something.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> I don't own an e-bike, never have, and have no plans (yet) to get one. They've been legal on our pretty extensive singletrack trail system, and ALL state trail in this state since 2012. No problems. I'm in favor of establishing the class I, II, III system for e-bikes that is used in Europe and then allowing all class 1 e-bikes on any trail where conventional mountain bikes are allowed. I applaud IMBA's stance on the issue and I hope it will help alleviate any access issues surrounding e-bikes that might come up in other trail systems.


Great idea, except that the Pedelec and S Pedelec classes in Europe are not the same as Class 1-3, they are much more restrictive. It'd be better in the long run though.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Curveball said:


> I have a couple of questions here based upon the assumption that Class I bikes are made legal on singletrack:
> 
> Who would enforce the power classification system on the trails?
> 
> How would it be enforced?


Who knows? I'm sure it will vary from state to state, region to region, trail system to trail system. I don't think it makes any difference. Riding a class II or III e-bike on natural surface trails should be illegal IMHO. Passing laws or writing regulations doesn't have to come with an enforcement plan. It's illegal...that's enough. Laws and regulations are passed with the assumption of compliance. Like most other laws, enhanced enforcement will come with broad-based demonstration of non-compliance.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Cuyuna said:


> Who knows? I'm sure it will vary from state to state, region to region, trail system to trail system. I don't think it makes any difference. Riding a class II or III e-bike on natural surface trails should be illegal IMHO. Passing laws or writing regulations doesn't have to come with an enforcement plan. It's illegal...that's enough. Laws and regulations are passed with the assumption of compliance. Like most other laws, enhanced enforcement will come with broad-based demonstration of non-compliance.


So, you're saying that by simply passing laws and/or regulations that enforcement won't be necessary because, gee, people will just follow those laws?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It could work like many other things. Get caught acting like a moron throw the bike on a machine and test.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Could you provide specific details on how enforcement would work?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Curveball said:


> Could you provide specific details on how enforcement would work?


Could you not use logical fallacies?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Curveball said:


> So, you're saying that by simply passing laws and/or regulations that enforcement won't be necessary because, gee, people will just follow those laws?


No, I think that ordinary enforcement is necessary. You pass a law/enact a regulation that says "class II/III e-bikes are illegal on natural surface trails" and you inform your DNR/Forest Rangers/Park Rangers/whatever Rangers of that new law. Then, when they find a class II/III e-bike on the natural surface trails that they patrol, they issue a citation/impound the bike/shoot the rider...whatever...according to however the law is written. Pretty simple process. Just like it works for any other new laws enacted by your local/regional/state/Federal legislative body.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Curveball said:


> So, you're saying that by simply passing laws and/or regulations that enforcement won't be necessary because, gee, people will just follow those laws?


Not sure why you're having trouble with this very ordinary concept. Are you saying that somehow, mountain biking regulations are outside of the usual regulation legislation/enforcement concepts that are part of the fabric of the US Judicial System?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Could you not use logical fallacies?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


How do you see a simple question as a logical fallacy?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Curveball said:


> How do you see a simple question as a logical fallacy?


Enough details were provided to answer the question you asked. Either you truly do not know what a watt is or you are employing an argumentum ad ignorantium.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sotak (May 20, 2009)

Cuyuna said:


> Not sure why you're having trouble with this very ordinary concept. Are you saying that somehow, *e*biking regulations are outside of the usual regulation legislation/enforcement concepts that are part of the fabric of the US Judicial System?


Fixed.

I don't want to answer for someone else, but I think the point is: enforcement would be challenging. Especially as technology advances and the visual differences between Class I, II, and III ebikes is less obvious. How do you test a bike to make sure it's the appropriate class? Do we expect whoever is enforcing these rules to have the technical know-how and whatever equipment is necessary with them? Who's going to pay for all this?

Motor vs. no motor. Easy.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Once again, ebikes will not be allowed almost solely because land managers have no desire to regulate and then enforce regulations on ebikes.

It's honestly that easy.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

So the theory is that one should not allow anything unless there is a way to stop crossing some arbitrary line?

Wouldn't that be like not allowing any tinted glass on a car because it is hard to tell the difference between 20 and 30% tint?


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

This can be solved with an executive order from Trump saying that mechanized transport shall not apply to bicycles, and that class-1 e-bikes are bicycles.


----------



## woodway (Dec 27, 2005)

This thread is no longer useful.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

woodway said:


> This thread is no longer useful.


E-bike threads in general on this site aren't useful. They generate hundreds, _thousands_ of posts, nothing gets solved, no minds are changed, people keep saying the same things over and over and over.

What I do, when I find a thread to be no longer useful to me...I remove it from my "subscribed threads" list and I stop clicking on it.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

sotak said:


> Fixed.
> 
> I don't want to answer for someone else, but I think the point is: enforcement would be challenging. Especially as technology advances and the visual differences between Class I, II, and III ebikes is less obvious. How do you test a bike to make sure it's the appropriate class? Do we expect whoever is enforcing these rules to have the technical know-how and whatever equipment is necessary with them? Who's going to pay for all this?
> 
> Motor vs. no motor. Easy.


Relative to the effects on trail surfaces, I see no difference between conventional mountain bike and pedal-assisted (class 1) electric mountain bikes. Worry about extraordinary enforcement concepts if violations prove to be a problem. Just like every other law or regulation on the books.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sotak said:


> Fixed.
> 
> I don't want to answer for someone else, but I think the point is: enforcement would be challenging. Especially as technology advances and the visual differences between Class I, II, and III ebikes is less obvious. How do you test a bike to make sure it's the appropriate class? Do we expect whoever is enforcing these rules to have the technical know-how and whatever equipment is necessary with them? Who's going to pay for all this?
> 
> Motor vs. no motor. Easy.


If they are in an enforcement position carrying an extra five pounds of equipment and running a middle school physics experiment should be well within their capabilities.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

tuckerjt07 said:


> If they are in an enforcement position carrying an extra five pounds of equipment and running a middle school physics experiment should be well within their capabilities.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Are you going to pay for the "exta five pounds of equipment"?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Silentfoe said:


> Are you going to pay for the "exta five pounds of equipment"?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Not my place to shell out $30, what's your argument against e-bikes again?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Not my place to shell out $30, what's your argument against e-bikes again?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


If no one is paying for the enforcement, or supplying the people to do it, or the extra time it would require, then no land manager is going to start drawing arbitrary lines concerning which emtb's are allowed and which aren't.

My position on emtb's has been outlined here several times.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Silentfoe said:


> If no one is paying for the enforcement, or supplying the people to do it, or the extra time it would require, then no land manager is going to start drawing arbitrary lines concerning which emtb's are allowed and which aren't.
> 
> My position on emtb's has been outlined here several times.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


You just described a single scenario and are ignoring the others where there is already a well funded and active enforcement body.

There is so much noise on this topic please humor my request.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You just described a single scenario and are ignoring the others where there is already a well funded and active enforcement body.
> 
> There is so much noise on this topic please humor my request.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Actually, their isn't. I work closely with the BLM enforcement guys. There are two of them for our entire area. The BLM says no emtb's in non motorized areas. They have zero resources they are willing to dedicate to identifying class 1 vs 2&3 emtb's. They will never lift their ban.

The USFS is the same way.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Silentfoe said:


> Actually, their isn't. I work closely with the BLM enforcement guys. There are two of them for our entire area. The BLM says no emtb's in non motorized areas. They have zero resources they are willing to dedicate to identifying class 1 vs 2&3 emtb's. They will never lift their ban.
> 
> The USFS is the same way.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Again, a single scenario, not the case across the nation.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Silentfoe said:


> Actually, their isn't. I work closely with the BLM enforcement guys. There are two of them for our entire area. The BLM says no emtb's in non motorized areas. They have zero resources they are willing to dedicate to identifying class 1 vs 2&3 emtb's. They will never lift their ban.
> 
> The USFS is the same way.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


This is what I was trying to get at. The emtb proponents should be able to answer how their bikes will be regulated before they are granted access.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Again, a single scenario, not the case across the nation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Also true for the USFS and WADNR in Washington. So, not a single scenario.

However, enforcement resources and e-bike bans are likely a moot point anyway because those with e-bikes will ride them on those trails regardless of signs prohibiting that.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Curveball said:


> Also true for the USFS and WADNR in Washington. So, not a single scenario.
> 
> However, enforcement resources and e-bike bans are likely a moot point anyway because those with e-bikes will ride them on those trails regardless of signs prohibiting that.


No, still a single scenario. Your experience, and his when in applied to you, is anecdotal.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, still a single scenario. Your experience, and his when in applied to you, is anecdotal.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


It's actually not.

Its a federal policy.

Because I'm telling it to you, does not make it anecdotal. I have information you don't have and I'm sharing it. This is what infuriates people against ebikers. You are told the rules, you are told the reasons why, and you remain obtuse and try to tell us why we're wrong.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Silentfoe said:


> It's actually not.
> 
> Its a federal policy.
> 
> ...


Sorry but you're wrong on both accounts. The two enforcement officers per unit is not a policy. Second, as it is not a policy and you are going off the words of others, yes it is by definition anecdotal.

That would be a great assumption provided, I have, desire to own, or have even ever used an e-bike. Nice try though.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Curveball said:


> This is what I was trying to get at. The emtb proponents should be able to answer how their bikes will be regulated before they are granted access.


Do you or do you not know what a watt is?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Sorry but you're wrong on both accounts. The two enforcement officers per unit is not a policy. Second, as it is not a policy and you are going off the words of others, yes it is by definition anecdotal.
> 
> That would be a great assumption provided, I have, desire to own, or have even ever used an e-bike. Nice try though.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Ah, we're talking about different points.

I'm not worried about the 2 officers. No BLM office has enough officers to enforce watt limits. 2 is arbitrary.

My point is the policy of no ebikes on non motorized trails. That's the point of this entire post. That's not changing, nor is it an anecdote.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Silentfoe said:


> Ah, we're talking about different points.
> 
> I'm not worried about the 2 officers. No BLM office has enough officers to enforce watt limits. 2 is arbitrary.
> 
> ...


Michael Phelps retirement has left a hole in the Medley Relay. You should try out.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

True probably not changing. These kinds of changes take 30-40 years when they involve the government. Look how long it is taking to get conceal-carry of firearms. Started happening in areas about 30 years ago, and is taking a long time to reach almost everywhere. Hopefully, freedom will always win.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You just described a single scenario and are ignoring the others where there is already a well funded and active enforcement body.
> 
> There is so much noise on this topic please humor my request.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


If you know of a USFS district that has a well funded and active enforcement body that can incorporate checking ebike stickers and/or dynometers, I'd be interested in hearing of it. I work with my local district and they've been chronically underfunded for the past 20+ years, there is no active enforcement, only passive. You'd have to break a regulation in front of a ranger to get a verbal warning and do it several times in a row to get a citation. Considering that I've never seen a USFS ranger out in the wild in the past 30 years, except in those instances where I've arranged to meet them, there will never be any enforcement of any kind where I live.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> If you know of a USFS district that has a well funded and active enforcement body that can incorporate checking ebike stickers and/or dynometers, I'd be interested in hearing of it. I work with my local district and they've been chronically underfunded for the past 20+ years, there is no active enforcement, only passive. You'd have to break a regulation in front of a ranger to get a verbal warning and do it several times in a row to get a citation. Considering that I've never seen a USFS ranger out in the wild in the past 30 years, except in those instances where I've arranged to meet them, there will never be any enforcement of any kind where I live.


That drives a single question. Do you currently have an active problem with rogue e-bikers where you live?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

I see the enforcement as MTBer who is anti-e-bike reporting e-MTBer.

And I see the hate that some MTBer have for e-bikes as identical to the hate that many hunters have for AR-15 rifles. They don't like em, want nothing to do with them, and don't want others to have them either. They claim they will give the true anti-gunners ammunition to ban all guns, so they want to stop their use in an attempt to save their brown wooden rifles.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> That drives a single question. Do you currently have an active problem with rogue e-bikers where you live?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I'll take it then that you don't.

We have all sorts of problems in the forest and surrounding parklands that the various agencies can't keep up with, enforcement included. Not too many rogue ebikes since they're not legal on almost all of the non motorized trails within the state, so there is limited demand and sales of emtbs. The local land managers chose not to allow emtbs because they don't have the resources to manage them.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> I'll take it then that you don't.
> 
> We have all sorts of problems in the forest and surrounding parklands that the various agencies can't keep up with, enforcement included. Not too many rogue ebikes since they're not legal on almost all of the non motorized trails within the state, so there is limited demand and sales of emtbs. The local land managers chose not to allow emtbs because they don't have the resources to manage them.


You could take it that way. It's not accurate. As a result, I don't really care to be honest.

So if, by your own admission, there is currently not a problem with them with no enforcement how do you so a problem in the future.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Do you or do you not know what a watt is?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Stop being obtuse.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Curveball said:


> Stop being obtuse.


I think you're looking in the mirror. You're the one who seems dumbfounded by a sixth grade physics lab.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You could take it that way. It's not accurate. As a result, I don't really care to be honest.
> 
> So if, by your own admission, there is currently not a problem with them with no enforcement how do you so a problem in the future.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


What do you mean by "how do you so a problem"? That doesn't make any sense.

And do you understand the purpose of question marks?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Curveball said:


> What do you mean by "how do you so a problem"? That doesn't make any sense.
> 
> And do you understand the purpose of question marks?


Ah, now, stymied by a sixth grade physics problem, we are going to pick apart grammar on a post marked as coming from a phone.

In this case so == solve, thanks autocorrect.

You've still yet to answer if you know what a watt is.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

rsilvers said:


> I see the enforcement as MTBer who is anti-e-bike reporting e-MTBer.
> 
> And I see the hate that some MTBer have for e-bikes as identical to the hate that many hunters have for AR-15 rifles. They don't like em, want nothing to do with them, and don't want others to have them either. They claim they will give the true anti-gunners ammunition to ban all guns, so they want to stop their use in an attempt to save their brown wooden rifles.


That is perhaps the dumbest analogy I've read.

Try this one. An area is open to bow hunting. A bow brand starts making rifles, and says they're more or less the same thing, since they both fire a projectile. Except one uses a form of propulsion that is not generated by the user. They claim the gunpowder is merely an assist, and it should totally be considered a bow.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

ACree said:


> That is perhaps the dumbest analogy I've read.
> 
> Try this one. An area is open to bow hunting. A bow brand starts making rifles, and says they're more or less the same thing, since they both fire a projectile. Except one uses a form of propulsion that is not generated by the user. They claim the gunpowder is merely an assist, and it should totally be considered a bow.


Guns make a massive bang sound, so not a good analogy. The correct analogy to bows would be the crossbow, which are allowed for handicapped people during bow season.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

Noise is not the critical difference. The power source for propulsion is. The crossbow also doesn't have an external power source. This is really not a difficult concept. An ebike is motorized. Even IMBA understands that.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

ACree said:


> Noise is not the critical difference. The power source for propulsion is. The crossbow also doesn't have an external power source. This is really not a difficult concept. An ebike is motorized. Even IMBA understands that.


In your example the power source for propulsion isn't the defining difference either. It is ancillary.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You could take it that way. It's not accurate. As a result, I don't really care to be honest.
> 
> So if, by your own admission, there is currently not a problem with them with no enforcement how do you so a problem in the future.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I never said we'd have a problem with them where I live in the future, they're not allowed now, they'll not be allowed in the future, I don't expect to see many.

All I wanted to know was where you've seen this in the USFS "where there is already a well funded and active enforcement body." If you want to play games, carry on without me.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> I never said we'd have a problem with them where I live in the future, they're not allowed now, they'll not be allowed in the future, I don't expect to see many.
> 
> All I wanted to know was where you've seen this in the USFS "where there is already a well funded and active enforcement body." If you want to play games, carry on without me.


You replied to a post concerning the enforcement of the rules. I didn't realize you had switched context. Your experience does however poke a hole in the unenforceable doomsday theories though.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## motoadve (Nov 14, 2004)

I rode an E bike and liked it a lot, it was not in Washington and on super steep techy climbs, didnt like it too much for the descends though.

I see a big trend in riders now , lots of them hate the climbs, some rather climb on roads than single track just to get it over with.
Lots of those guys are writing that they hate E bikes , most have never ridden one.

Once E bikes become legal , trails will be flooded with them.

Me , I am one of those now strange riders who likes to climb as much as descend, will I get an E bike?
Not for riding the trails in Washington, they are to well made to climb and too much fun for descends, E bikes have a place but I dont think here in Washington, but riders who hate to climb even easy trails are going to love them (they dont deserve them though).

Hope they dont get legalized in Washington state.


----------



## GeePhroh (Jan 13, 2004)

motoadve said:


> Hope they dont get legalized in Washington state.


Don't worry -- the vast majority of active trolls...ahem, I mean *posters* on this thread seem to be from Massachusetts or Wisconsin or Colorado or somewhere else far, far from here. Let's hope they keep it that way.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

GeePhroh said:


> Don't worry -- the vast majority of active trolls...ahem, I mean *posters* on this thread seem to be from Massachusetts or Wisconsin or Colorado or somewhere else far, far from here. Let's hope they keep it that way.


Good point. Most of us couldn't possibly care less about what happens to mountain bike riding in Washington state. Our interest is what happens in our own riding areas. Around here, class 1 e-bikes are legal on all the state natural-surface trails....we just hope to keep it that way. Looking good so far. Good luck with your state.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

So when I saw your post, I was wondering how it could be considered trolling to be advocating for e-bike use in an e-bike sub-forum. I found this thread by searching for e-bikes, and was not aware it was in a local Washington thread. I am not trying to change Washington state laws.


----------



## juice (Feb 8, 2004)

It would be helpful if everyone TYPE IN ALL CAPS GOING FORWARD ON THIS THREAD. K'THANKS!


----------



## Preston67 (Mar 20, 2008)

I KNOW THIS IS AWESOME OLD SCHOOL 
HEY THE EARLY 21ST CENTURY CALLED THEY WANT THEIR INTERNET FORUM DEBATE BACK YOU NAZI MORONS

actually its not a bad discussion lots of points being brought up but its like the one guy above says "no minds will be changed". 

Just for the record I hate ebikes and the way they dilute our beautiful human powered sport on road and trail.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Preston67 said:


> Just for the record I hate ebikes and the way they dilute our beautiful human powered sport on road and trail.


Preston, I hate to tell you this, but I had Brian install a Bosch motor on your Tantrum.


----------



## Preston67 (Mar 20, 2008)

That will only bother me once I actually receive my Tantrum.


----------



## fitek (Nov 25, 2014)

Metamorphic said:


> Its unfortunate, but between ADA and HIPPA, if you can get a doctor to write a note you can nearly get away with murder these days and not face any serious questioning.
> 
> But you seem to be asking if its "right" in the cosmic sense. No, obviously its not. But we have a family in our area; very outdoorsy and athletic. They have a son who was born with a badly formed heart. He'll never be able to safely ride more than a short distance from the trail head. But with his ebike he can go out and live life with his family. I can't imagine a court not supporting that, just because there's some degenerates that will abuse the situation. And really...what's the abuse...they get up the climbs with the benefit of an extra 50 watts? Hardly a capital crime.


You misspelled HIPAA and HIPAA is about the ensuring the privacy of your personal information during healthcare related interactions. What's that got to do with e-bikes?


----------



## kraisydave (Mar 12, 2017)

Nevermind


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

fitek said:


> You misspelled HIPAA and HIPAA is about the ensuring the privacy of your personal information during healthcare related interactions. What's that got to do with e-bikes?


HIPAA is ripe for abuse is what he is getting at I think. It leaves no way to 100% verify the legitimacy of a letter unless the subject of the letter is willing to sign a waiver.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

motoadve said:


> Hope they dont get legalized in Washington state.


You got your wish. Recent legislation bans them from natural surface trails unless otherwise approved by the land manager.

For all you out-of-state e-bikers trying to tell us our business, now you can stick it. Your e-bikes are not allowed here unless you can convince the land manager otherwise.


----------



## Tahoerog (Jun 21, 2018)

Hi, I am new to this blog. 
I ride all the single tracks in the Tahoe basin where I live and the Carson Valley Pinenuts.
I ride snowmobiles in the Winter and dirt bikes & mountain bikes in the Summer. 
Being a "local" I have learned to deal with other locals and tourists on the trails as a hiker, mountain biker and motocross dirt biker.
In dealing with the Forest Service as a community trail organizer, I believe that there are environmental groups that look at bicycles to 4wds as destructive and erosive to the land especially in the Tahoe basin (TRPA).

My point is this:
Trail access will always be under attack from environmental concerns.
It's a divide and conquer approach- allow hikers but not bikers or allow bikers not dirt bikers etc.
I really don't care if I am on a trail with a Ebiker, hiker, horse rider ,dirt biker or 4wd as long as every one is considerate and the trail is big enough.
I found the more people using a trail the easier it is to keep open when others try to close it.
The latest issue is that USFS trails can be physically demanding and can only be accessed by younger people with the cardiovascular system to match their age.
This ruling to limit Ebikes comes solely from the USFS and discriminates and limits the trail accessibly to seniors because USFS places Ebikes in same category as motorcycles, ATVs, 4WDs and other gas powered vehicles.
I really don't have a strong opinion on this other than it would be nice to see people in their 60s enjoy and supporting keeping the trails open. Where I live there is room for everyone.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Tahoerog said:


> Hi, I am new to this blog.
> I ride all the single tracks in the Tahoe basin where I live and the Carson Valley Pinenuts.
> I ride snowmobiles in the Winter and dirt bikes & mountain bikes in the Summer.
> Being a "local" I have learned to deal with other locals and tourists on the trails as a hiker, mountain biker and motocross dirt biker.
> ...


Spend some time looking around this site and you'll find plenty of folks in their 60s and 70s who enjoy the trails without adding a motor. I'm 54 and I can access USFS trails with my matching cardio system. The laws do not discriminate, everyone is welcome to access the trails as long as they don't use a motor to do so.


----------



## jmeb (Jun 4, 2014)

I regularly get my ass whipped by 60-plus folks while riding above 8,000'. 

I've ski toured with a 70+ year old that put me to shame. 

Two weeks ago I ran into a dude celebrating his yearly 14er on his 80th birthday.


----------



## coke (Jun 7, 2008)

jmeb said:


> I regularly get my ass whipped by 60-plus folks while riding above 8,000'.
> 
> I've ski toured with a 70+ year old that put me to shame.
> 
> Two weeks ago I ran into a dude celebrating his yearly 14er on his 80th birthday.


I was really surprised at the turnout of people over 70 at the marathon mountain bike nationals. This is a 50 mile singletrack race, and there were 6 people over 70, and 1 over 80. Even completing a ride that long is more than what most mountain bikers are capable of. Lots of respect for those guys.

https://legacy.usacycling.org/results/index.php?year=2018&id=5

By the way, I'm a proponent of ebikes and bought one for my wife. It's opened up a lot more possibilities for us to ride together.


----------



## Tahoerog (Jun 21, 2018)

Thanks for the replies. 
I will concede that there are a lot of active seniors and that you will see the most fit ones on mountain bikes, it was not my intention imply otherwise. 

My wife bought an Emtb to help her up the trails in the Tahoe basin, it really opened up the steep trails she could ride with me, in fact she kicks my butt on hills now.
After initially riding her bike, it convinced me that Emtbs are going to be a bicycle juggernaut not to be stopped. Even AARP is promoting them to their members.

My experience is that we are all in the same boat. Those of you that get to Tahoe might remember that we lost some mountain bike downhill trails “Jackie Chan” to name one when the USFS redrew the maps some years back.
The USFS didn’t care if the trail was for mountain bikes or dirt bikes. The trails were in an environmental “sensitive” area. 
Downhill trails gone after being used for decades by mountain bikers. 

As you might have figured out by now I am not a mountain bike purist, what I really care about is fighting people who believe a little tire dirt erosion on a 4ft wide trail is a good reason to close it. 
The more inclusive any resource is the less likely it will be taken away.


----------



## tom tom (Mar 3, 2007)

In recent years, some people with mobility disabilities have begun using less traditional mobility devices such as golf cars or Segways®. These devices are called "other power-driven mobility device" (OPDMD) in the rule. OPDMD is defined in the new rules as "any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines… that is used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf cars, electronic personal assistance mobility devices… such as the Segway® PT, or any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair". When an OPDMD is being used by a person with a mobility disability, different rules apply under the ADA than when it is being used by a person without a disability


----------



## tom tom (Mar 3, 2007)

People with disabilities have the right to choose whatever mobility device best suits their needs. For example, someone may choose to use a manual wheelchair rather than a power wheelchair because it enables her to maintain her upper body strength. Similarly, someone who is able to stand may choose to use a Segway® rather than a manual wheelchair because of the health benefits gained by standing. A facility may be required to allow a type of device that is generally prohibited when being used by someone without a disability when it is being used by a person who needs it because of a mobility disability. For example, if golf cars are generally prohibited in a park, the park may be required to allow a golf car when it is being used because of a person's mobility disability, unless there is a legitimate safety reason that it cannot be accommodated


----------



## tom tom (Mar 3, 2007)

An entity that determines it can accommodate one or more types of OPDMDs in its facility is allowed to ask the person using the device to provide credible assurance that the device is used because of a disability. If the person presents a valid, State-issued disability parking placard or card or a State-issued proof of disability, that must be accepted as credible assurance on its face. If the person does not have this documentation, but states verbally that the OPDMD is being used because of a mobility disability, that also must be accepted as credible assurance, unless the person is observed doing something that contradicts the assurance. For example, if a person is observed running and jumping, that may be evidence that contradicts the person's assertion of a mobility disability. However, it is very important for covered entities and their staff to understand that the fact that a person with a disability is able to walk for a short distance does not necessarily contradict a verbal assurance -- many people with mobility disabilities can walk, but need their mobility device for longer distances or uneven terrain. This is particularly true for people who lack stamina, have poor balance, or use mobility devices because of respiratory, cardiac, or neurological disabilities. A covered entity cannot ask people about their disabilities.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

This whole thread belongs in the e-bike forum since it has practically nothing to do with Washington.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tom erb said:


> An entity that determines it can accommodate one or more types of OPDMDs in its facility is allowed to ask the person using the device to provide credible assurance that the device is used because of a disability. If the person presents a valid, State-issued disability parking placard or card or a State-issued proof of disability, that must be accepted as credible assurance on its face. If the person does not have this documentation, but states verbally that the OPDMD is being used because of a mobility disability, that also must be accepted as credible assurance, unless the person is observed doing something that contradicts the assurance. For example, if a person is observed running and jumping, that may be evidence that contradicts the person's assertion of a mobility disability. However, it is very important for covered entities and their staff to understand that the fact that a person with a disability is able to walk for a short distance does not necessarily contradict a verbal assurance -- many people with mobility disabilities can walk, but need their mobility device for longer distances or uneven terrain. This is particularly true for people who lack stamina, have poor balance, or use mobility devices because of respiratory, cardiac, or neurological disabilities. A covered entity cannot ask people about their disabilities.


Or in other words, if they are allowed for the disabled, anyone can claim to be disabled and get away with riding an ebike. Ask them to show that they are actually disabled and you may face a lawsuit. Why do they require disabled tags for parking in handicap parking places, why don't we just trust everyone's word? Why does my mom have to show a card for the metal in her hip when she passes through airport security?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Tahoerog said:


> Hi, I am new to this blog.
> I ride all the single tracks in the Tahoe basin where I live and the Carson Valley Pinenuts.
> I ride snowmobiles in the Winter and dirt bikes & mountain bikes in the Summer.
> Being a "local" I have learned to deal with other locals and tourists on the trails as a hiker, mountain biker and motocross dirt biker.
> ...


 Wait, what? Trails can be physically demanding? Who knew. That goes for any hiking trail, xc ski trail, mountaineering route, rope, climbing etc. Almost 56 here. At 60 we just become couch potatoes? Yikes. Did 44 Miles over 3 days at Nembafest and around 3K of vert, not huge numbers, but good for me. Kingdom Trails VT. No motorized vehicles allowed. One could always shuttle or take a lift for some sections though. It's a sport, just like any other. Conditioning, training, practice. I feel sorry for the younger generations, should be really cool in VR getting some KOM's with strava. What ev. Commuted by bike around 2K miles last year. Did 153 days of on bike rides of at least 1 hr. That's commuting, mt biking and bikepacking combined. Ever hear of a masters sports division in ANYTHING?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Tahoerog said:


> Hi, I am new to this blog.
> I ride all the single tracks in the Tahoe basin where I live and the Carson Valley Pinenuts.
> I ride snowmobiles in the Winter and dirt bikes & mountain bikes in the Summer.
> Being a "local" I have learned to deal with other locals and tourists on the trails as a hiker, mountain biker and motocross dirt biker.
> ...


This is the smartest post I have seen in quite some time on this topic.

Trail access doesn't get taken away because USFS or BLM get a wild hair in their butt. It gets taken because they are pressured by crazy environmental groups. And the best tactic they have is divide and conquer. Get the eBikers arguing with the MTBers and get the hikers to be pissed at all of them! That's a perfect formula for making an argument to close trails down for all vehicles.

The rampant speculation is that eBikes will cause trails to be closed. But that is little more than just speculation. But I believe the truth is, not standing in solidarity with eBikers (i.e. allow your house to be divided) is far more detrimental to future trail access than eBikes are. Also, people are missing the most obvious point. With eBikes, there comes more people to the trails. Increased demand could actually result in MORE trail access.

But grouchy people are just gonna be grouchy.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

I find it ironic that my post about grouchy people being grouchy was responded to by grouchy people with negative reputation comments.

What a joke.

Change is coming. It's gonna happen whether grouchy people get grouchy about it or not. The only question the MTB community has is, will we allow change to divide us, or will we embrace change and use it to our advantage?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Increased demand results in more trail access how? More trail work? By who? More conflicts, more trail wear. This is a good thing? The 'WE" hmmm. You are assuming the mt bike community is now the pro motorized e bike community? Best of luck with your e bike advocacy. Really.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> I find it ironic that my post about grouchy people being grouchy was responded to by grouchy people with negative reputation comments.
> 
> What a joke.
> 
> Change is coming. It's gonna happen whether grouchy people get grouchy about it or not. The only question the MTB community has is, will we allow change to divide us, or will we embrace change and use it to our advantage?


There is no advantage for MTBers to align themselves with e-bikes. We don't have time to do the work (again) for access for e-bikes. If you want access go do the work yourselves, don't count on MTBers to do it for you. And yes, I negged you for being a whining twit that's butt hurt because you aren't getting your way.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> There is no advantage for MTBers to align themselves with e-bikes. We don't have time to do the work (again) for access for e-bikes. If you want access go do the work yourselves, don't count on MTBers to do it for you. And yes, I negged you for being a whining twit that's butt hurt because you aren't getting your way.


You negged me because you can't find a rational argument to support your emotional bias. Keep making yourself feel good. Apparently my skin is much thicker than yours.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> You negged me because you can't find a rational argument to support your emotional bias. Keep making yourself feel good. Apparently my skin is much thicker than yours.


Atypical response when you get a reply you don't like. I negged you because you whine like a schoolgirl. My bias is anything but emotional. Enjoy riding your e-bike. Somewhere. Where I don't know but enjoy it none the less.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> There is no advantage for MTBers to align themselves with e-bikes. We don't have time to do the work (again) for access for e-bikes. If you want access go do the work yourselves, don't count on MTBers to do it for you. And yes, I negged you for being a whining twit that's butt hurt because you aren't getting your way.


Yet MTB groups will align themselves with hiker groups that will throw mountain bikers under the bus when they are through with you.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

FLYINW said:


> Yet MTB groups will align themselves with hiker groups that will throw mountain bikers under the bus when they are through with you.


I'll see if I can find it, but there are several non-MTB organizations that are using e-bikes against wheeled access as a whole.

Sorry, but you're on your own. I'm not going to hitch my wagon to yours.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

On most of the trails I ride, the hikers are fine with the mountain bikers as the trails were built and maintained by the mountain bikers. At my nearby NPS park, hikers and bikers work together to maintain the trails, lead by the park service and mountain bikers. 

The only complaint I've personally heard from a hiker was a guy who told me the parking lot was never full until they allowed mountain bikes. I pointed out that all the nearby parks that are hike only had had to expand their parking lots greatly over the years. And oddly enough, when I trail run there, I have a car parked in the lot. When I mountain bike, I often ride from home.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> There is no advantage for MTBers to align themselves with e-bikes. We don't have time to do the work (again) for access for e-bikes. If you want access go do the work yourselves, don't count on MTBers to do it for you. And yes, I negged you for being a whining twit that's butt hurt because you aren't getting your way.


There is no advantage in fanning the flames of discontent for ebikes. They are coming. And they look, and ride very much like an mtb when viewed by a hiker or other non mtber. So participating in developing inertia of vitriol towards them won't stop at them. Once you tell a non mtber they can discriminate based on some minor issue that has nothing to do with safety or environmental impact, then it will be hard to stop that momentum.

My opinion is admittedly speculation. But so is the opinion "they are going to cause trail closures! " but the difference is that my opinion recognizes the inevitability of ebikes. Where the anti eBiker thinks that he can simply hate them away.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> There is no advantage in fanning the flames of discontent for ebikes. They are coming. And they look, and ride very much like an mtb when viewed by a hiker or other non mtber. So participating in developing inertia of vitriol towards them won't stop at them. Once you tell a non mtber they can discriminate based on some minor issue that has nothing to do with safety or environmental impact, then it will be hard to stop that momentum.
> 
> My opinion is admittedly speculation. But so is the opinion "they are going to cause trail closures! " but the difference is that my opinion recognizes the inevitability of ebikes. Where the anti eBiker thinks that he can simply hate them away.


Well, the "we're going to make them stealth so people can't tell them from real bicycles" attitude of the industry and a lot of the ebikers and "we're coming and you can't stop us" attitude and "bicycles now have motors but they aren't really motors because you still have to pedal" attitude isn't going to win over the mountain bikers. Maybe you need to consider a different approach.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> but the difference is that my opinion recognizes the inevitability of ebikes.


This. Is where you lose the audience. They are not inevitable, I hear it once a week or more frequently. Land Managers don't like being force fed anything and e-bikers have attempted to do just that. You all have made enemies when you should have been making alliances. Good luck EVER getting access.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

chazpat said:


> On most of the trails I ride, the hikers are fine with the mountain bikers as the trails were built and maintained by the mountain bikers. At my nearby NPS park, hikers and bikers work together to maintain the trails, lead by the park service and mountain bikers.
> 
> The only complaint I've personally heard from a hiker was a guy who told me the parking lot was never full until they allowed mountain bikes. I pointed out that all the nearby parks that are hike only had had to expand their parking lots greatly over the years. And oddly enough, when I trail run there, I have a car parked in the lot. When I mountain bike, I often ride from home.


Which National Park allows mountain bikes?

I think I read about one near Cleveland, but are there others?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> I'll see if I can find it, but there are several non-MTB organizations that are using e-bikes against wheeled access as a whole.
> 
> Sorry, but you're on your own. I'm not going to hitch my wagon to yours.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Please let me know what you find. I'd be interested to see what the opposition is up to.

Also, I like your phrasing. It sums up my feelings as well.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Curveball said:


> Which National Park allows mountain bikes?
> 
> I think I read about one near Cleveland, but are there others?


It's what the NPS calls a National Recreation Area; Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area

https://www.nps.gov/chat/index.htm

https://www.nps.gov/chat/planyourvisit/cycling.htm


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> I'll see if I can find it, but there are several non-MTB organizations that are using e-bikes against wheeled access as a whole.
> 
> Sorry, but you're on your own. I'm not going to hitch my wagon to yours.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So you'd rather fight against them and let the hikers get both groups kicked out rather than band together and use the resources of a larger group.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

FLYINW said:


> So you'd rather fight against them and let the hikers get both groups kicked out rather than band together and use the resources of a larger group.


I'd rather the users be judged based on their own merits.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

They are motorized. That's it. The end. Doesn't matter if you pretend to pedal, have a throttle, use electricity from burned coal, or if it burns gas. You have a motor....you are motorized. Stay off trails designated as Non-motorized. Special cases exist and can be dealt with by individual land managers. No one is entitled to any experience in this life. Ride while you can, one day you won't be able to. #ucking MTB industry has jumped the shark on this one. IMBA too. This is a simple issue being clouded by capitalist lust for a higher price point and a larger market. That's it.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> Well, the "we're going to make them stealth so people can't tell them from real bicycles" attitude of the industry and a lot of the ebikers and "we're coming and you can't stop us" attitude and "bicycles now have motors but they aren't really motors because you still have to pedal" attitude isn't going to win over the mountain bikers. Maybe you need to consider a different approach.


Are you really that dim to believe this is my approach? This is simply the evolution of technology. For God's sake, man... Take a look at the world around you!


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> This. Is where you lose the audience. They are not inevitable, I hear it once a week or more frequently. Land Managers don't like being force fed anything and e-bikers have attempted to do just that. You all have made enemies when you should have been making alliances. Good luck EVER getting access.


You too totally miss my point. I an not an eBiker. Nor am I an eBike advocate. I'm an mtber who recognizes that there's a better future for us embracing technology rather than resisting it!


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

FLYINW said:


> So you'd rather fight against them and let the hikers get both groups kicked out rather than band together and use the resources of a larger group.


This guy gets it.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

DaveVt said:


> They are motorized. That's it. The end. Doesn't matter if you pretend to pedal, have a throttle, use electricity from burned coal, or if it burns gas. You have a motor....you are motorized. Stay off trails designated as Non-motorized. Special cases exist and can be dealt with by individual land managers. No one is entitled to any experience in this life. Ride while you can, one day you won't be able to. #ucking MTB industry has jumped the shark on this one. IMBA too. This is a simple issue being clouded by capitalist lust for a higher price point and a larger market. That's it.


You ever hear the term "luddite"?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Jim_bo said:


> This guy gets it.


No, he doesn't. Neither do you.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Are you really that dim to believe this is my approach? This is simply the evolution of technology. For God's sake, man... Take a look at the world around you!


Based on your posts, yes. I haven't seen you post anything that would lead someone to think you're doing anything more, you even demonstrated more of it in this brief post.

Motors were added to bicycles a long, long time ago. Why do people still ride road bikes; a lot of people still choose to ride road without a motor, despite having had that option for a long, long time. Just because the moped has evolved you think cyclist are going to quit riding bicycles? I'm sure you hate ebikes being called mopeds but that's exactly what they are, just an evolution of the moped. They don't run on gas? Neither does a Leaf but yet it's still a car.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

chazpat said:


> Based on your posts, yes. I haven't seen you post anything that would lead someone to think you're doing anything more, you even demonstrated more of it in this brief post.
> 
> Motors were added to bicycles a long, long time ago. Why do people still ride road bikes; a lot of people still choose to ride road without a motor, despite having had that option for a long, long time. Just because the moped has evolved you think cyclist are going to quit riding bicycles? I'm sure you hate ebikes being called mopeds but that's exactly what they are, just an evolution of the moped. They don't run on gas? Neither does a Leaf but yet it's still a car.


Sales of pedelecs has now outpaced the sales of non-pedelecs. While poor people will always gravitate towards the nonelectric there is a good chance almost everyone with disposable income will be on an assisted bike. Personally, I enjoy certain elements of both and will continue use of an unassisted bike if for nothing else, a different workout.

The vast majority of pedelec riders are older, wealthy folks with lots of free time on their hands. If you don't want that group on your side, you don't understand how political influence works. It would not surprise me if in 10 years pedelecs have more trail access then non-pedelecs. The discriminatory posts here on MTBR could be used to justify keeping mtbers off trail for the exclusive use of the more tolerant pedelecs users.

Play your stupid word games all you want, that doesn't bolster your argument, it highlights the fact that you are stuck in your own imagination and not participating in the real world. Seeking attention online is another symptom of an inability to function in the real world. There really isn't any rational reason to be so active in a discussion that has no connection to your personal interests then basic attention whoring.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> You too totally miss my point. I an not an eBiker. Nor am I an eBike advocate. I'm an mtber who recognizes that there's a better future for us embracing technology rather than resisting it!


That's your opinion and opinions are like........


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Linktung said:


> Sales of pedelecs has now outpaced the sales of non-pedelecs.


In the US? Source, I find that doubtful. Yeah, they're great for commuting around town. But subtract out the non-emtbs and look again.



Linktung said:


> While poor people will always gravitate towards the nonelectric there is a good chance almost everyone with disposable income will be on an assisted bike. Personally, I enjoy certain elements of both and will continue use of an unassisted bike if for nothing else, a different workout.


Maybe folks only ride walmart bikes where you ride but around me, people on the trails ride some pretty expensive bicycles, ones too expensive to have been purchased by "poor people". And what does the amount of disposable income have to do with this? You think so many of us ride bicycles because we can't afford motorized bikes?



Linktung said:


> The vast majority of pedelec riders are older, wealthy folks with lots of free time on their hands. If you don't want that group on your side, you don't understand how political influence works.


Ah, here come the threats, just like Jimbo's approach.



Linktung said:


> It would not surprise me if in 10 years pedelecs have more trail access then non-pedelecs.


Be prepared to be surprised.



Linktung said:


> The discriminatory posts here on MTBR could be used to justify keeping mtbers off trail for the exclusive use of the more tolerant pedelecs users.


Go discuss ebikes on a non-bicycle site and maybe you'll get results more to your liking.



Linktung said:


> Play your stupid word games all you want, that doesn't bolster your argument, it highlights the fact that you are stuck in your own imagination and not participating in the real world. Seeking attention online is another symptom of an inability to function in the real world. There really isn't any rational reason to be so active in a discussion that has no connection to your personal interests then basic attention whoring.


Ah, so you're saying that ebiking has no connection to a mountain bikers' personal interests. That's why they shouldn't be on this site whining about how they should be allowed on non-motorized trails. And thinking that "participating in the real world" requires a battery and motor is pretty sad.

Are you an industry shill? What is your connection to the ebike industry?


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

mountainbiker24 said:


> No, he doesn't. Neither do you.


So you'd rather be petty. Well once the hiker groups finally get us all kicked out I can say I told you so.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

FLYINW said:


> So you'd rather be petty. Well once the hiker groups finally get us all kicked out I can say I told you so.


"Us"? Lumping e-motorbikes together with bicycles is part and parcel of the strategy to gain acceptance but I've got news for you, ain't gonna happen. Cyclists are aware of the nefarious tactics being used by the less than honest e-motorbike contingent and will actively counter these attempts to coat tail their way into acceptance. After e-motorbikes fail to gain any meaningful access I can say that "I told you so".


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> "Us"? Lumping e-motorbikes together with bicycles is part and parcel of the strategy to gain acceptance but I've got news for you, ain't gonna happen. Cyclists are aware of the nefarious tactics being used by the less than honest e-motorbike contingent and will actively counter these attempts to coat tail their way into acceptance. After e-motorbikes fail to gain any meaningful access I can say that "I told you so".


Yes "US". Other user groups don't care whether our 2 wheelers have motors or not, they want us all out. Any form of mechanized travel is not acceptable to them.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

FLYINW said:


> Yes "US". Other user groups don't care whether our 2 wheelers have motors or not, they want us all out. Any form of mechanized travel is not acceptable to them.


 The lines are already drawn. Bikes are in at lots of places. Motorized have their place. Rules and regs are already laid down. Got a motor? Not a bike. Good luck with your agenda.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

FLYINW said:


> Yet MTB groups will align themselves with hiker groups that will throw mountain bikers under the bus when they are through with you.


 MA rider here. We do trail work days with lots of hiker groups, friends of the forest and such. No issues. Common goals and such. More and better trails, boardwalks for crossings streams and wetlands.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> Are you really that dim to believe this is my approach? This is simply the evolution of technology. For God's sake, man... Take a look at the world around you!


 Harley and Davidson already went down that road. A different road. Adding a motor is not an evolution, its something different, not better, imho.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> Harley and Davidson already went down that road. A different road. Adding a motor is not an evolution, its something different, not better, imho.


You're right. A 1/3hp battery powered motor is the same thing as a 103 cubic inch V Twin internal combustion engine.

*** Sarcasm, in case you were confused****


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> You're right. A 1/3hp battery powered motor is the same thing as a 103 cubic inch V Twin internal combustion engine.
> 
> *** Sarcasm, in case you were confused****


Model T and a Dodge Demon, different amounts of power, both are still cars.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Linktung said:


> Sales of pedelecs has now outpaced the sales of non-pedelecs.


Sales growth or total numbers? And where? Worldwide? EU? US? And you do realize that Pedelecs are a tiny portion of the worldwide ebike market, that they're just in the EU? Throttle ebikes rule everywhere else.



Linktung said:


> It would not surprise me if in 10 years pedelecs have more trail access then non-pedelecs.


Lol. Maybe it'll be the same, maybe it'll be less ebike access, I wouldn't bet on either. I thought ebikes and bikes were the same in your universe, why wouldn't bikes always be able to ride where ebikes can?

Only a tiny percentage of mtb people get involved with mtb advocacy, I expect that only a tiny percentage of ebike riders to do so as well, even if they're rich and old. Since they are an even smaller population, I don't expect them to hold a huge amount of political sway. I've been to a ton of advocacy meetings, some private, some public, you need numbers to make your wishes known, and past relationships/accomplishments before anyone will listen to you. It doesn't matter if you're advocating for ebikes, frisbee golf courses, or a dog park, an individual is politely ignored.

Get cracking if you want to make a difference.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> Model T and a Dodge Demon, different amounts of power, both are still cars.


Firecracker and atomic bomb. They both explode.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Harryman said:


> Sales growth or total numbers? And where? Worldwide? EU? US? And you do realize that Pedelecs are a tiny portion of the worldwide ebike market, that they're just in the EU? Throttle ebikes rule everywhere else.
> 
> Lol. Maybe it'll be the same, maybe it'll be less ebike access, I wouldn't bet on either. I thought ebikes and bikes were the same in your universe, why wouldn't bikes always be able to ride where ebikes can?
> 
> ...


Exactly the point. If only 1% of riders are involved, 1% of mtbers plus 1% of e bikers is a lot more than just 1% of mtbers.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

FLYINW said:


> Yes "US". Other user groups don't care whether our 2 wheelers have motors or not, they want us all out. Any form of mechanized travel is not acceptable to them.


Actually, it seems that they consider ebikes to be motorized and not bicycles.

https://americanhiking.org/policy-positions/electric-bicycle-position-statement/

https://www.sierraclub.org/policy/road-use-bicycles

I can only speak for my little area, but IME, there is crossover between all user groups. I know people that ride bikes, ebikes, trail run, hike and even ride horses, in all sorts of combos. I know very few that only do one thing.

It's true that a decade ago, there was significant animosity between user groups, but that has vanished since we all make a point to work together to get more trails and maintain the ones we have. We are the leaders in making that happen in the area, and all users appreciate it. For sure here, no one will push to ban bikes if ebikes become a problem, it's clear to all those who would be involved in such a decision that bikes and ebikes are not exactly the same thing.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> Exactly the point. If only 1% of riders are involved, 1% of mtbers plus 1% of e bikers is a lot more than just 1% of mtbers.


Not really, 1% of next to nothing is nothing. When we had public meetings to discuss ebike policy in my city parks, which total 44,000 acres and 250 miles of trail, so a pretty significant trail system, with a hefty amount of users, there were zero advocates for emtbs, and three people who advocated for ebike access on bike paths. Two of them had garage businesses retrofitting kit bikes. Even the LBS's couldn't be bothered.

My expectation is that the majority of emtb riders will be existing mtb riders, and almost all mtb riders don't give a crap about trails or how they get there. It's not like there will be a new group of politically engaged emtb riders entering the scene.

Out of the hundreds of miles of trail available in my region, there's about 30 miles of emtb legal trail, I really don't expect a very big emtb community to grow.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Jim_bo said:


> Firecracker and atomic bomb. They both explode.


Both illegal in most places too.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

FLYINW said:


> So you'd rather be petty. Well once the hiker groups finally get us all kicked out I can say I told you so.


So you're admitting that riding bikes with motors will get all bikes kicked out, but since you don't feel like riding a real bike, you are ok with that. Cool, tell me again why I would advocate for that.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> So you're admitting that riding bikes with motors will get all bikes kicked out, but since you don't feel like riding a real bike, you are ok with that. Cool, tell me again why I would advocate for that.


You ASSume that I ride an ebike. Other user groups have been working to remove mountain bikers from the trails well before ebikes were even a thing. I don't see anything wrong with both groups joining together to fight for more access, but we would rather fight with each other than against a common enemy. I miss the days when mountain bikers were more laid back and not like uptight roadies.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

FLYINW said:


> You ASSume that I ride an ebike. Other user groups have been working to remove mountain bikers from the trails well before ebikes were even a thing. I don't see anything wrong with both groups joining together to fight for more access, but we would rather fight with each other than against a common enemy. I miss the days when mountain bikers were more laid back and not like uptight roadies.


Maybe the fact that you consider other user groups to be an "enemy" causes some of your issues.

It's kind of odd around here when there are so many arguing for ebikes who don't own ebikes while there are others here who own ebikes but realize what they are (not bicycles) and that they should be considered separate from bicycles.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> Maybe the fact that you consider other user groups to be an "enemy" causes some of your issues.
> 
> It's kind of odd around here when there are so many arguing for ebikes who don't own ebikes while there are others here who own ebikes but realize what they are (not bicycles) and that they should be considered separate from bicycles.


It's because some of us have been a part of access fights that have been going longer and are much more complicated financially, legally, legislatively, etc. than the mountain bike access battle. The environmental orgs taking a negative stance on e-bike access is not what it appears. It's a tried and proven tactic to put different groups at odds with each other. Why, because it is easier to fight each group separately, especially if a similar group is helping you fight the battle. Then when they move on to your group do you truly expect the group you were against to assist you?

Not all trails are conducive to e-bikes. Just like not all trails are conducive to bikes. Or are conducive to Jeeps, tube buggies, side by sides, ATVs, dirt bikes, etc. That doesn't mean that all groups should be at odds with each other, that plays into those working against its hands. Instead it should be a case by case approach considering what makes sense where.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Not all trails are conducive to e-bikes. Just like not all trails are conducive to bikes. Or are conducive to Jeeps, tube buggies, side by sides, ATVs, dirt bikes, etc. That doesn't mean that all groups should be at odds with each other, that plays into those working against its hands. Instead it should be a case by case approach considering what makes sense where.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I've said that many times. But I'm not going to tie my wagon to one with a motor and have to deal with their issues.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> I've said that many times. But I'm not going to tie my wagon to one with a motor and have to deal with their issues.


Why? It's what the BRC does. There isn't "their issues" when ran that way.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

E-bikers making demands for mountain bikers to do their advocacy isn't helping their cause one iota, neither are their demands for blanket access. Until things change on the motor side they can expect nothing from mountain bikers. We've already got access battles of our own, don't need to be saddled with the dead albatross of e-motors.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Why? It's what the BRC does. There isn't "their issues" when ran that way.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I have no idea what you are trying to say.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> I have no idea what you are trying to say.


Honestly, that is part of the problem. No one wants to emulate, or even investigate what has been successful for other groups. The BRC is one of, if not the most, successful off-road lobby groups, they actually advocate for mountain bikes as well, in the country. Part of that is because if they deem something should be dirt bike only due to environmental, user groups, etc. that's how they advocate for it. There is no bleed over, "their problems". It's a case by case basis.

Quite a bit of their mountain bike work is indirect but it is there. Probably the largest thing they do, in my opinion, is they have kept certain organizations so tied up with other access issues they cannot focus on mountain bikes. That's not to say that's the only thing they've done though.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> E-bikers making demands for mountain bikers to do their advocacy isn't helping their cause one iota, neither are their demands for blanket access. Until things change on the motor side they can expect nothing from mountain bikers. We've already got access battles of our own, don't need to be saddled with the dead albatross of e-motors.


Did you read what I posted? That is basically the antithesis of what I said.

Now if you are wanting them to make the first overtures that is understandable. Even if it does seem a bit pig headed in the cut off your nose to spite your face sense.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Did you read what I posted? That is basically the antithesis of what I said.
> 
> Now if you are wanting them to make the first overtures that is understandable. Even if it does seem a bit pig headed in the cut off your nose to spite your face sense.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


It's meant to be contrary to your fairytale. E-bikes are nothing but a liability. Why would any sane person want to commit hari kari going to bat for them is beyond any reasonable thought process. Carry on with your Unicorn hunt.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> It's meant to be contrary to your fairytale. E-bikes are nothing but a liability. Why would any sane person want to commit hari kari going to bat for them is beyond any reasonable thought process. Carry on with your Unicorn hunt.


No, it's you not being able to understand the difference in a where it makes sense partnership verus a "ride or die" (sic) alliance. The former takes some higher level reasoning skills to wrap your head around. I highly recommend some research into the OHV lobby and what made them so successful. While you're doing that you should check out the damage that allowing user group fragmentation caused until people realized what was going on.

If you think that aligning mountain biking from an optic perspective with Rampage or causing two similar, not identical, similar, to in-fight this much amongst themselves is a happy coincidence it is you that is living in fairy-tale land.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Honestly, that is part of the problem. No one wants to emulate, or even investigate what has been successful for other groups. The BRC is one of, if not the most, successful off-road lobby groups, they actually advocate for mountain bikes as well, in the country. Part of that is because if they deem something should be dirt bike only due to environmental, user groups, etc. that's how they advocate for it. There is no bleed over, "their problems". It's a case by case basis.
> 
> Quite a bit of their mountain bike work is indirect but it is there. Probably the largest thing they do, in my opinion, is they have kept certain organizations so tied up with other access issues they cannot focus on mountain bikes. That's not to say that's the only thing they've done though.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Well, if we're picking teams here, then I'd rather align with the non-motorized hikers than the ebikes. There's the BRC's access issue to keep focus off of mountain bikes, keeping motors off of non-motorized trails. And once again, I think ebikes are ok on some trails, just not all trails. I'm surprised you have issues with other trail users based on where you live. Is this coming from a dirt bike background? Just asking.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> Well, if we're picking teams here, then I'd rather align with the non-motorized hikers than the ebikes. There's the BRC's access issue to keep focus off of mountain bikes, keeping motors off of non-motorized trails. And once again, I think ebikes are ok on some trails, just not all trails. I'm surprised you have issues with other trail users based on where you live. Is this coming from a dirt bike background? Just asking.


The problem there is the dissimilarity of the groups. Fragmentation of similar groups is what the larger environmental organizations are after. It makes their end game easier if they can encourage it.

I'm coming from a Jeep/tube buggy background. Places like Moab, Johnson Valley, the Rubicon Trail, Moonrocks, etc. are all bucket list trips. From a mountain bike perspective I will probably never have to worry about access locally but that doesn't mean there are other places I do not want to ride.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

> Posted by Jim_bo
> Firecracker and atomic bomb. They both explode.





sfgiantsfan said:


> Both illegal in most places too.


Exactly what I was going to say.

I'll just throw out that on a power to weight basis today's 750 watt Class 1-2-3 e-bikes are more powerful than the first Harley-Davidson mopeds. Harley and Davidson were thrilled to have their bicycles called motorcycles.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

Why not just have one all em-composing trail advocacy group? hikers, runners, mountain bikers, horse riders, atv, utv, moto, segway, etc.....

The reason is passion. In order to be successful as a trail advocate, you have to be passionate. Trail advocacy is really hard and no one would do it unless they are passionate. While I am supportive of other trail user groups, I am not passionate about hiking, horse riding, trail running, etc... So those groups would be served poorly by counting on me to advocate for them. 

I am not passionate about e-bikes. I have promised land mangers that mountain biking is human powered only. Rolling e-bikes under mountain bikes would require me to go back on my word to land managers, which undermines my creditably. Our DNR has made it clear that they do not allow motorized bikes on mountain bike trails (including e-bikes). Getting e-bike access on Indiana State Park and Forest lands is a huge undertaking. I am trying my best not to burn out on mtb advocacy and in no way what to add more to my plate. 

Many current mountain bike advocates have expressed that they do not want to advocate for e-bikes. And the response typically is to criticize those advocates. 

My question for those who want e-bike access is why would you want those who aren't passionate about e-bikes to advocate for you. You should not want current mtb advocates to work for e-bike access. You should form your own advocacy groups made up of people who are passionate about e-bike access. 

There are many mountain bike advocacy world who would have been at least be helpful to the cause, but the more that e-bike proponents attach us, the less inclined we will be to help.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The problem there is the dissimilarity of the groups. Fragmentation of similar groups is what the larger environmental organizations are after. It makes their end game easier if they can encourage it.
> 
> I'm coming from a Jeep/tube buggy background. Places like Moab, Johnson Valley, the Rubicon Trail, Moonrocks, etc. are all bucket list trips. From a mountain bike perspective I will probably never have to worry about access locally but that doesn't mean there are other places I do not want to ride.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Please see Harryman's post and links #241 above. And indytrekracer's post. For mtb'ers to now say that bicycles now have motors, we will be damaging relationships we've built with existing trail user groups and land managers.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> Please see Harryman's post and links #241 above. And indytrekracer's post. For mtb'ers to now say that bicycles now have motors, we will be damaging relationships we've built with existing trail user groups and land managers.


You're still not getting it and neither are they. High level the expectation is not that you are advocating for them. The passion argument falls flat on its face when viewed through the lens of the OHV lobby.

Nowhere have I suggested you say that bicycles have motors. I've only said align where they make sense. Do you not see the direct and indirect advantages to this? It's not speculation to say that allowing the two groups of similar users, to have a massive wedge between them by groups, the links, that ultimately oppose both is playing right into the opposition's hands. It's a repeat of history using tactics they discovered years ago.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You're still not getting it and neither are they. High level the expectation is not that you are advocating for them. The passion argument falls flat on its face when viewed through the lens of the OHV lobby.
> 
> Nowhere have I suggested you say that bicycles have motors. I've only said align where they make sense. Do you not see the direct and indirect advantages to this? It's not speculation to say that allowing the two groups of similar users, to have a massive wedge between them by groups, the links, that ultimately oppose both is playing right into the opposition's hands. It's a repeat of history using tactics they discovered years ago.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Seems the motorized crowd should stick together? E bikes, dirt bike. orv's etc. The only thing similar between an e bike and a mt bike is the wheels. Ya'll barking up the wrong tree. The 25-30 year mantra of mt bike advocacy ( at least here in New England) is that mt biking is a passive, human powered endeavor, no motors. So many land owners, conservation areas, open space and other stake holders have very specific wording regarding the NO motorized usages for the properties. New England specific, again. For me, in our area, it does not make sense to align with motorized vehicles, at all. Good luck with your advocacy. Seems like a long road ahead.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Seems the motorized crowd should stick together? E bikes, dirt bike. orv's etc. The only thing similar between an e bike and a mt bike is the wheels. Ya'll barking up the wrong tree. The 25-30 year mantra of mt bike advocacy ( at least here in New England) is that mt biking is a passive, human powered endeavor, no motors. So many land owners, conservation areas, open space and other stake holders have very specific wording regarding the NO motorized usages for the properties. New England specific, again. For me, in our area, it does not make sense to align with motorized vehicles, at all. Good luck with your advocacy. Seems like a long road ahead.


Funnily enough I don't own an e-bike and have no interest in e-bikes so my advocacy is "your" advocacy... Your current situation aligns perfectly with everything I've said in this thread so I'm not sure if you are supporting me or against me. Since we are advocating for the same exact user group I'm going with support, so thanks for that.

There are direct and indirect benefits to aligning do you know what they are? Again it's a story that has already played out and on a larger scale.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

You can slice and dice it in various ways, to me it makes much more sense that mountain biking aligns with the hikers and trails runners; all are 100% human powered and do not use motors. I wouldn't expect the hikers to join up with a Segway group to advocate to gain access out of fear that not doing so would lead to other user groups using that division. As you said, "viewed through the lens of the OHV lobby"; that's not my lens. Around me, there is no big conspiracy by the hikers to boot mountain bikes out. If we aligned with the ebikes; that might change.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> You can slice and dice it in various ways, to me it makes much more sense that mountain biking aligns with the hikers and trails runners; all are 100% human powered and do not use motors. I wouldn't expect the hikers to join up with a Segway group to advocate to gain access out of fear that not doing so would lead to other user groups using that division. As you said, "viewed through the lens of the OHV lobby"; that's not my lens. Around me, there is no big conspiracy by the hikers to boot mountain bikes out. If we aligned with the ebikes; that might change.


Your comments about lenses are out of context. Focusing on just your immediate area is also another route that is plagued with problems. Sure there will be areas where access is never threatened in some areas, ie where I live, but I would like to ride areas that are threatned. There may not be a "conspiracy" by hikers local to you but there are national groups working against it.

Also, as evidenced by the fear you are showing, you are not grasping the concept of how this type of partnership works. I'm not sure if it's due to a fear of the unknown or a cut off my nose to spite my face prejudice against e-bikes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

For the most part, all of advocacy is local. It certainly didn't used to be that way, but now, unless you're talking about Wilderness, it is. Which is one of the reasons that IMBA is increasingly irrelevant. Mtb orgs have matured over the last decade or two, they succeed because of the relationships they've built locally, not because of some umbrella organization. 

My local org has good relationships with all of the other user groups, motos and equestrians included, there isn't a whole lot of us vs them. If the Sierra Club tried to rally hikers agains mtbs, they'd get laughed out of town, we're all one and the same. 

Ofc, it can be really ugly in some places, but in many, if not most of the major riding destinations around the country, the situation is more similar to mine.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> For the most part, all of advocacy is local. It certainly didn't used to be that way, but now, unless you're talking about Wilderness, it is. Which is one of the reasons that IMBA is increasingly irrelevant. Mtb orgs have matured over the last decade or two, they succeed because of the relationships they've built locally, not because of some umbrella organization.
> 
> My local org has good relationships with all of the other user groups, motos and equestrians included, there isn't a whole lot of us vs them. If the Sierra Club tried to rally hikers agains mtbs, they'd get laughed out of town, we're all one and the same.
> 
> Ofc, it can be really ugly in some places, but in many, if not most of the major riding destinations around the country, the situation is more similar to mine.


Right now, I agree. However, I don't see it staying that way for the future. Several of the larger antagonists have been paying more and more attention to mountain bikers as a group. They're keying up for something. Also, local relationships will not matter nearly as much when going against the larger parties. They do not fight on an advocacy level. They fight to get things legislated from the bench. That is the reason that a larger, diversified group becomes more important.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Right now, I agree. However, I don't see it staying that way for the future. Several of the larger antagonists have been paying more and more attention to mountain bikers as a group. They're keying up for something. Also, local relationships will not matter nearly as much when going against the larger parties. They do not fight on an advocacy level. They fight to get things legislated from the bench. That is the reason that a larger, diversified group becomes more important.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Possibly? The Center for Biological Diversity, which is an organization that likes to try to create defacto wilderness by suing to close access, threatened the local USFS district with a lawsuit over a particular drainage and the claimed (unproven) damage the trails within were causing to the native fish. The USFS immediately caved and closed those trails for a year or so to everyone. Ultimately, with support from a working group of all the local user groups, they reopened them to non motorized, leaving motos out in the cold, which we objected to. Eventually, new trails (motorized) were constructed and the area reopened to them as well. Seven years of brain damage and almost a million bucks later. My point is, we responded to it as a community and the USFS was forced to deal with it.

It sucked for us that those trails were closed, but in reality it was probably less than 3% of the trails around here open to mtbs. Within a 15 minute drive, I have trails on City Parks of 2 towns, County Park, Utilities land, State Parks and USFS. Roughly 500 miles of trails. Will whatever hiking org be willing to do that everywhere with all of the local land managers? Who already ride and support mtbs? I think it's unlikely.

The demographics of recreation have changed, there are less and less people who anti bike, they are aging out. Most people are multi sport, or have grown up sharing trails with bikes and are happy to coexist. I really don't see the pendulum swinging against mtbs on a system wide level. If you know of something I don't though, I'd like to hear it.

Unless we're talking about Wilderness, in that case I think ebikes have killed any chance of mtb access.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Right now, I agree. However, I don't see it staying that way for the future. Several of the larger antagonists have been paying more and more attention to mountain bikers as a group. They're keying up for something. Also, local relationships will not matter nearly as much when going against the larger parties. They do not fight on an advocacy level. They fight to get things legislated from the bench. That is the reason that a larger, diversified group becomes more important.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Ok, please tell us about these "larger antagonists" that are "keying up for something" so that we can understand the issue and will understand why "The passion argument falls flat on its face when viewed through the lens of the OHV lobby" and why that viewpoint is relevant to the non-motorized lobby. Are we supposed to be joining the OHV lobby so that we can be a bigger group against the hikers?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> Possibly? The Center for Biological Diversity, which is an organization that likes to try to create defacto wilderness by suing to close access, threatened the local USFS district with a lawsuit over a particular drainage and the claimed (unproven) damage the trails within were causing to the native fish. The USFS immediately caved and closed those trails for a year or so to everyone. Ultimately, with support from a working group of all the local user groups, they reopened them to non motorized, leaving motos out in the cold, which we objected to. Eventually, new trails (motorized) were constructed and the area reopened to them as well. Seven years of brain damage and almost a million bucks later. My point is, we responded to it as a community and the USFS was forced to deal with it.
> 
> It sucked for us that those trails were closed, but in reality it was probably less than 3% of the trails around here open to mtbs. Within a 15 minute drive, I have trails on City Parks of 2 towns, County Park, Utilities land, State Parks and USFS. Roughly 500 miles of trails. Will whatever hiking org be willing to do that everywhere with all of the local land managers? Who already ride and support mtbs? I think it's unlikely.
> 
> ...


I see more and more of those suits happening and by more and more groups. Sadly fighting legal battles will be the future of advocacy in the future. That becomes a question of finances more than optics more often than not, especially at the beginning. Even with user crossover there are still organizations that think the Wliderness is too open to the public.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> Ok, please tell us about these "larger antagonists" that are "keying up for something" so that we can understand the issue and will understand why "The passion argument falls flat on its face when viewed through the lens of the OHV lobby" and why that viewpoint is relevant to the non-motorized lobby. Are we supposed to be joining the OHV lobby so that we can be a bigger group against the hikers?


Read Harryman's and my back and forth for your first answer.

The passion argument is easy. You have dirtbikers, ATV riders, tube buggy enthusiasts, etc. that have little to no user cross over all banding together into a single, extremely successful group. There is no "passion burnout" there. It's just a group of people who decided to show strength in numbers and it works. Whether they have motors or not is inconsequential to the fact that disparate users can band together and not burn out, ergo that argument falls flat on its face.

You may think you are different from OHVs and logically it makes sense. However, as these battles grow larger, more complex and move more into the court systems you are going to see more and more parallels to how they have to be fought.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Read Harryman's and my back and forth for your first answer.
> 
> The passion argument is easy. You have dirtbikers, ATV riders, tube buggy enthusiasts, etc. that have little to no user cross over all banding together into a single, extremely successful group. There is no "passion burnout" there. It's just a group of people who decided to show strength in numbers and it works. Whether they have motors or not is inconsequential to the fact that disparate users can band together and not burn out, ergo that argument falls flat on its face.
> 
> ...


As a hiker, camper, kayaker, trail runner and mountain biker, that is who I align with, not dirtbikers, ATV riders, tube buggy enthusiasts, etc. Nothing against those groups within their areas. As Harryman asked, f you know of something, I'd like to hear it. Just a bunch of "they're out there and they're coming for your trails so you should accept motors to be part of a bigger group" type posts isn't convincing me of anything.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> As a hiker, camper, kayaker, trail runner and mountain biker, that is who I align with, not dirtbikers, ATV riders, tube buggy enthusiasts, etc. Nothing against those groups within their areas. As Harryman asked, f you know of something, I'd like to hear it. Just a bunch of "they're out there and they're coming for your trails so you should accept motors to be part of a bigger group" type posts isn't convincing me of anything.


I didn't say you should align with the groups you listed in your not list...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I didn't say you should align with the groups you listed in your not list...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Ok, ebikes belong in that same "not" list as far as I'm concerned, they are not ohv but they are motorized.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> Ok, ebikes belong in that same "not" list as far as I'm concerned, they are not ohv but they are motorized.


I hear what you are saying but my opinion is that intentional opposition/antagonistic behavior towards them will be detrimental in the long term.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I hear what you are saying but my opinion is that intentional opposition/antagonistic behavior towards them will be detrimental in the long term.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I don't really have anything against them, I just don't think they should be considered bicycles and that they should not just blanketly be allowed wherever bicycles are allowed. Situations vary.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> I don't really have anything against them, I just don't think they should be considered bicycles and that they should not just blanketly be allowed wherever bicycles are allowed. Situations vary.


Then why are you so opposed to what I've been saying?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Then why are you so opposed to what I've been saying?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Why are you so adamant that mtbers accept them?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Why are you so adamant that mtbers accept them?


Why can't you read?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Why can't you read?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Why can't you post something more concrete than vague black helicopter theories and your "opinion"?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Why can't you post something more concrete than vague black helicopter theories and your "opinion"?


Considering we are talking about the future, only an utter buffoon or someone who is intentionally ignorant would not consider the future, how exactly do you propose talking about something "concrete". If you want to live in the now, not consider what may happen in the future and ignore things from the past that's on you, but it's an extremely foolish stance to take.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Considering we are talking about the future, only an utter buffoon or someone who is intentionally ignorant would not consider the future, how exactly do you propose talking about something "concrete". If you want to live in the now, not consider what may happen in the future and ignore things from the past that's on you, but it's an extremely foolish stance to take.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


More quaint parables, thanks for playing.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> More quaint parables, thanks for playing.


In other words you are just spouting dismissive, meaningless phrases off without a clue of how they apply and are hoping something sticks. Got it, thanks.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Asks for the future to be concrete, calls caution against ignoring the past, without an actual story, a parable. Pretty obvious this conversation is going a direction someone doesn't like... 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Pretty obvious this conversation is going a direction someone doesn't like...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Yeah, you. Ta ta.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Then why are you so opposed to what I've been saying?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


What, that mountain bikers should align with ebikes because some big group that you won't reveal is coming to take access from us all? I've explained that in posts above.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> I don't really have anything against them, I just don't think they should be considered bicycles and that they should not just blanketly be allowed wherever bicycles are allowed. Situations vary.





chazpat said:


> What, that mountain bikers should align with ebikes because some big group that you won't reveal is coming to take access from us all? I've explained that in posts above.


Considering the first post of your's that I've quoted here is a paraphrase of how I said it needs to work I'm not sure what you have issue with.

Align does not mean capitulate, or even advocate for both in every instance. It's a case base by case as you describe.

As to what entities, the two that have been named here, in addition to the 150 opposing the wilderness ban are good starting points. Sure not all who opposed it are anti-mountain bike as a rule. However, again not all are pro bike either.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Considering the first post of your's that I've quoted here is a paraphrase of how I said it needs to work I'm not sure what you have issue with.
> 
> Align does not mean capitulate, or even advocate for both in every instance. It's a case base by case as you describe.
> 
> ...


I have issues with the ebikers who are pushing for ebikes to be considered bicycles so that they can have access to mtb trails without the land manager having the ability to access their situation and make decisions. What I've said is that they need to advocate as their own user group and not try to latch onto mountain bikers. I'm not going to advocate for them, nor support them.

And btw, "yours"; doesn't need an apostrophe, already possessive. Just saying because I know you like proper grammar and spelling.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> I have issues with the ebikers who are pushing for ebikes to be considered bicycles so that they can have access to mtb trails without the land manager having the ability to access their situation and make decisions. What I've said is that they need to advocate as their own user group and not try to latch onto mountain bikers. I'm not going to advocate for them, nor support them.
> 
> And btw, "yours"; doesn't need an apostrophe, already possessive. Just saying because I know you like proper grammar and spelling.


Thanks  for the grammar lesson, the phone really appreciated it.

You do realize that by giving them a seat at the table with mountain bikes you get quite a bit of leverage to control that narrative yes?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Thanks  for the grammar lesson, the phone really appreciated it.
> 
> You do realize that by giving them a seat at the table with mountain bikes you get quite a bit of leverage to control that narrative yes?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


The cost isn't acceptable for the minimal return on investment. If you are so vested in e-bike advocacy then you carry water for them.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> The cost isn't acceptable for the minimal return on investment. If you are so vested in e-bike advocacy then you carry water for them.


What exactly is the cost I lost in the amount of detail you gave...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> What exactly is the cost I lost in the amount of detail you gave...


The cost is "giving them a seat at the table". I see no need or reason to "give" them anything, including legitimacy.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> The cost is "giving them a seat at the table". I see no need or reason to "give" them anything, including legitimacy.


You still haven't identified the cost by the way.

Even so the reason are the benefits, direct and indirect to such a resolution.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You still haven't identified the cost by the way.
> 
> Even so the reason are the benefits, direct and indirect to such a resolution.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Jesus, for an alleged smart guy you sure are slow on the uptake.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Jesus, for an alleged smart guy you sure are slow on the uptake.


Or you just don't have a single valid point so you're being intentionally vague...

Otherwise you could come up with a cost besides giving them a seat at the table which is actually easily a net profit.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Thanks  for the grammar lesson, the phone really appreciated it.
> 
> You do realize that by giving them a seat at the table with mountain bikes you get quite a bit of leverage to control that narrative yes?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I'm saying I'm not going to take that seat for them or make the arrangement for them to come to the table, they need to do that and not under the pretext that they are mountain bikers. This isn't that difficult to understand.

And you have to spell it wrong for your phone to post it; spell it correctly and it will post that, too. I tried it and it doesn't correct the error. So maybe our phones aren't always so smart after all.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> I'm saying I'm not going to take that seat for them or make the arrangement for them to come to the table, they need to do that and not under the pretext that they are mountain bikers. This isn't that difficult to understand.
> 
> And you have to spell it wrong for your phone to post it; spell it correctly and it will post that, too. I tried it and it doesn't correct the error. So maybe our phones aren't always so smart after all.


It would not be the difficult to understand if it didn't seem as if it were simply a case of a bias clouding your judgement. Which after everything you've said in this thread that's all it boils down to.

Actually no, no I don't have to spell it wrong for my phone to post it. I use a keyboard that works off of a neural network. It learns from not only myself but others that use it on their phones. But thanks for assuming you knew how I have my phone set up.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It would not be the difficult to understand if it didn't seem as if it were simply a case of a bias clouding your judgement. Which after everything you've said in this thread that's all it boils down to.
> 
> Actually no, no I don't have to spell it wrong for my phone to post it. I use a keyboard that works off of a neural network. It learns from not only myself but others that use it on their phones. But thanks for assuming you knew how I have my phone set up.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


LOl, "clouding your judgement". Such drama. Seems pretty obvious you have an agenda you don't want to reveal.

Maybe you need a better neural network that doesn't learn from, and adapt to, human error.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> LOl, "clouding your judgement". Such drama. Seems pretty obvious you have an agenda you don't want to reveal.
> 
> Maybe you need a better neural network that doesn't learn from, and adapt to, human error.


I've already explained my "agenda". Zero interest in e-bikes, high interest in a combined front and the power and benefits that brings. I'm not the one that rephrased how it could work and said I could agree with all these things but yeah, no, rather not...

You do understand how neural networks work yes?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I've already explained my "agenda". Zero interest in e-bikes, high interest in a combined front and the power and benefits that brings. I'm not the one that rephrased how it could work and said I could agree with all these things but yeah, no, rather not...
> 
> You do understand how neural networks work yes?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


A combined front with the motorized crowd damages too many long term relationships that mountain bikers have cultivated and developed over years and in some cases decades. Not worth putting those at risk for the benefit of a increasingly marginalized group.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> A combined front with the motorized crowd damages too many long term relationships that mountain bikers have cultivated and developed over years and in some cases decades. Not worth putting those at risk for the benefit of a increasingly marginalized group.


Can you give some concrete examples of that?

Seriously though, how would it? The purpose of a case by case basis is to avoid situations like you describe. And again, the issue is not the local, personal, relationships that you are describing here.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Can you give some concrete examples of that?
> 
> Seriously though, how would it? The purpose of a case by case basis is to avoid situations like you describe. And again, the issue is not the local, personal, relationships that you are describing here.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


First you call for a combined front and then you want a case by case basis. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Once aligned with motorized groups, always aligned with motorized groups. Advocacy is local and personal, the days of a national group advocating local issues are long gone.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Can you give some concrete examples of that?


Every mountain bike trail built in New England over the past 20 years.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> First you call for a combined front and then you want a case by case basis. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Once aligned with motorized groups, always aligned with motorized groups. Advocacy is local and personal, the days of a national group advocating local issues are long gone.


Yes, it does work that way. Examples have been given. Sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping around the room, repeatedly saying "I can't hear you" does not change that fact.

And thinking advocacy will not change is wishful thinking and willful ignorance. Some of the same groups, and some new ones, are beginning to employ the same tactics that have been used against other groups in the past.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

I am a mountain biker and a hiker. Not a moped rider. That is why I would rather align with hikers in this case. 

I will try the theory next time I am a meeting trying for more single tracks for bikes. I will tell them that they should also allow bikes with motors and that bikes with motors don't actually have motors according to the vehicle code. 

One way, bike only trails, I am for mopeds on those trails. Hiking/biking trails, No.

edited


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> I am a mountain biker and a hiker. Not a moped rider. That is why I would rather align with hikers in this case.
> 
> I will try your theory next time I am a meeting trying for more single tracks for bikes. I will tell them that they should also allow bikes with motors and that bikes with motors don't actually have motors according to the vehicle code.
> 
> One way, bike only trails, I am for mopeds on those trails. Hiking/biking trails, No.


Your last statement is more inline with everything I've said in this thread, but by all means, please, keep miscategorizing "[my] theory" because of a bias.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Every mountain bike trail built in New England over the past 20 years.


New Hampshire not in New England any more?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Yes, it does work that way. Examples have been given. Sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping around the room, repeatedly saying "I can't hear you" does not change that fact.
> 
> And thinking advocacy will not change is wishful thinking and willful ignorance. Some of the same groups, and some new ones, are beginning to employ the same tactics that have been used against other groups in the past.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Ahhhh, the phantom "other groups". Care to cite some verifiable examples of these groups using these nefarious tactics and against whom?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Ahhhh, the phantom "other groups". Care to cite some verifiable examples of these groups using these nefarious tactics and against whom?


I already have, multiple times. 

By the way your quoted "other groups" were groups tactics were being used against. Such high level reading comprehension makes me wonder the effectiveness of listing them again. Since, you know, you missed them the other times I've done it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I already have, multiple times.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


No. You have not.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

How about one, from the last 6 months? Besides the IMBA sticking it in mtbers asses.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> No. You have not.


Yes, I have the other groups are the BRC I've called out explicitly numerous times in this thread, and I have also mentioned the OHV lobby several times.

I don't think those are the groups you wanted me to name but they are the ones you asked for so...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> How about one, from the last 6 months? Besides the IMBA sticking it in mtbers asses.


The BRC supports mountain biking.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> How about one, from the last 6 months? Besides the IMBA sticking it in mtbers asses.


Go back, read what you asked for, ask for what you meant to ask for and I will answer.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

It's great that the BRC "supports" mountain biking. Why wouldn't they? Any trail you could drive a quad on you could ride a mtb on. 

Most of us don't care about those type of trails for our mountain bikes. They don't advocate for mtb only trails do they?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The BRC supports mountain biking.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Along with every other use. They are also I.C.E. centric, the last thing mountain bikers need to align themselves with. You wouldn't happen to sit on the board would you?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> It's great that the BRC "supports" mountain biking. Why wouldn't they? Any trail you could drive a quad on you could ride a mtb on.
> 
> Most of us don't care about those type of trails for our mountain bikes. They don't advocate for mtb only trails do they?


They have in the past, yes. Is it their highest priority, no. However, they do support recreation in all forms, down to hiking and are pro access. They even acknowledge that there are usage restrictions that make sense on trails. That coupled with board members who mountain bike helps.

Probably the biggest thing they do for mountain biking right now is help with the National Forest System Trail Stewardship Grants.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Along with every other use. They are also I.C.E. centric, the last thing mountain bikers need to align themselves with. You wouldn't happen to sit on the board would you?


Where have I suggested that mountain bikers directly align themselves with the BRC in this thread? No, I do not sit on the board.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Ok, I have it figured out, tuckerjt07 is a neural network that just talks in circles without really saying anything. Wow, that is pretty impressive, seemed like a real human for awhile. We all fell for it!

These neural networks are getting where they work pretty well (except for some spelling issues apparently).


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> Ok, I have it figured out, tuckerjt07 is a neural network that just talks in circles without really saying anything. Wow, that is pretty impressive, seemed like a real human for awhile. We all fell for it!
> 
> These neural networks are getting where they work pretty well (except for some spelling issues apparently).


Whatever helps you feel better about yourself man

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> They have in the past, yes. Is it their highest priority, no. However, they do support recreation in all forms, down to hiking and are pro access. They even acknowledge that there are usage restrictions that make sense on trails. That coupled with board members who mountain bike helps.
> 
> Probably the biggest thing they do for mountain biking right now is help with the National Forest System Trail Stewardship Grants.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 It's so awesome to mt bike on ripped up, giant mud wallow " trails" that have been chewed to crap with atv's and jeeps, not. I see very little crossover with motorized vehicles and bikes.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> It's so awesome to mt bike on ripped up, giant mud wallow " trails" that have been chewed to crap with atv's and jeeps, not. I see very little crossover with motorized vehicles and bikes.


Who said anything about joining up or crossing over with the BRC? Well besides yourself...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> New Hampshire not in New England any more?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


What advocacy group are you claiming exists in NH that builds shared MTB/OHV trails?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> What advocacy group are you claiming exists in NH that builds shared MTB/OHV trails?


You didn't mention OHV trails, that's your moving the goal post invention.
You didn't mention an advocacy group, that's your moving the goal post invention.

You said "EVERY" trail constructed in New England in the past 20 years banned e-bikes. Considering that NEMBA lists PRKR as allowing them I'd have to say you were incorrect.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You didn't mention OHV trails, that's your moving the goal post invention.
> You didn't mention an advocacy group, that's your moving the goal post invention.
> 
> You said "EVERY" trail constructed in New England in the past 20 years banned e-bikes. Considering that NEMBA lists PRKR as allowing them I'd have to say you were incorrect.


You are completely lost, in addition to annoying.
Try again without putting any words in my mouth.

Let me help you with your thoughts, but only this once:

Go back and read post 301, to which I was responding. Note that LBH is talking about a united front with the motorized crowd. Now tell me what the majority of motorized trail vehicles are commonly referred to....yup, they're call OHVs! Now that we've made that connection nice and clear, maybe you can go back and do a few more by yourself! Yay for you!!!!


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> You are completely lost, in addition to annoying.
> Try again without putting any words in my mouth.
> 
> Let me help you with your thoughts, but only this once:
> ...


Try again, you quoted my post not post 301...

That's your third attempt at moving the goal posts, three strikes and you're out?

He was referring to e-bikes, per the post he responsed to, not the majority of motorized trail vehicles. So the only connection is the one that exists solely in your head.

Let me try to help you. Despite the obfuscation and attempt to hide it you used "EVERY" trail in a manner that is patently, and easily proven, false. Furthermore, it was an ask for examples of damaged relationships. Obviously every relationship New England has not been damaged. Don't worry though there is always next time. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Try again, you quoted my post not post 301...


301 WAS your post. 
It's sitting right at the top of this page, clear as day.

You gonna get yourself thrown out of the wannabe lawyer club if this keeps up.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> 301 WAS your post.
> It's sitting right at the top of this page, clear as day.
> 
> You gonna get yourself thrown out of the wannabe lawyer club if this keeps up.


You got me there. Now go...

That's your third attempt at moving the goal posts, three strikes and you're out?

He was referring to e-bikes, per the post he responsed to, not the majority of motorized trail vehicles. So the only connection is the one that exists solely in your head.

Let me try to help you. Despite the obfuscation and attempt to hide it you used "EVERY" trail in a manner that is patently, and easily proven, false. Furthermore, it was an ask for examples of damaged relationships. Obviously every relationship New England has not been damaged. Don't worry though there is always next time. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

In New England, e-bikes are considered OHVs by the powers that be. 
Every mountain bike trail built in the past 20 years has been approved based in part on the fact that mountain bikes are strictly human powered and allowing them in no way equals allowing motorized access.

Mountain bikers have zero to gain and lots to lose if they allow that line to be blurred, let alone erased.

How is this even slightly complicated to some people?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Every mountain bike trail built in the past 20 years has been approved based in part on the fact that mountain bikes are strictly human powered and allowing them in no way equals allowing motorized access.


No, every, trail has not.

Perhaps the confusion and subsequent complication is on your end due to you operating off of invalid information.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, every, trail has not.
> 
> Perhaps the confusion and subsequent complication is on your end due to you operating off of invalid information.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Name a couple or move on


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Name a couple or get lost


I already have, read the thread or get lost.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You didn't mention OHV trails, that's your moving the goal post invention.
> You didn't mention an advocacy group, that's your moving the goal post invention.
> 
> You said "EVERY" trail constructed in New England in the past 20 years banned e-bikes. Considering that NEMBA lists PRKR as allowing them I'd have to say you were incorrect.
> ...


Those trails are on private property. 
Kinda like me using my backyard as an example to prove that moto access is doing well in MA.

But just hopefully to shut you up (unlikely as that obviously is), congrats! You found the needle in a haystack.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Those trails are on private property.
> Kinda like me using my backyard as an example to prove that moto access is doing well in MA.


Sure, great example. Can we see the picture of your backyard that can fit 22+ miles of trail? Just make sure you make your backyard open to the public at large 24/7/365 and convince public entities to help you fund it. Oh and you definitely need to get the equivalent organization to NEMBA to promote it for you if you want an apples to apples comparison. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Those trails are on private property.


You didn't provide a qualifier you said "every". How many times are you going to move the goalposts to try to bring your failed arguments back from the grave? Also, how exactly are we differentiating public and private property in this instance, free to use, unrestricted access, public funding, etc.?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You didn't provide a qualifier you said "every". How many times are you going to move the goalposts to try to bring your failed arguments back from the grave? Also, how exactly are we differentiating public and private property in this instance, free to use, unrestricted access, public funding, etc.?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Did you really think we meant trails on private property? We are talking about trails that have a public input for their use. We are talking about multi use, hiker biker equestrian.Do you think that any public entities would have helped fund those trails if they were moto only? Of course you could ride a bike or hike any trail you could fit a quad on.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Did you really think we meant trails on private property? We are talking about trails that have a public input for their use. We are talking about multi use, hiker biker equestrian.Do you think that any public entities would have helped fund those trails if they were moto only? Of course you could ride a bike or hike any trail you could fit a quad on.


What makes you think the trails I'm talking about allow quads? That's quite the red herring. The trails I mentioned are all community-driven, multi-use, completely open to the public and partially public funded in this case by the city. (Anything that's funded by the city technically has public input...) So your moto only question has no bearing on the topic.

To highlight how little of what you've comprehended of what you've read, where have I mentioned advocating for access on public property? You do realize that public trails can and do exist on non-public property yes? No one has been interested in the how. They have been too caught up in slippery slope fallacies and resistance to change.

Just to add, your attempt to pretend the entire conversation has been around public property adds some hilarity to this. Are you, and others, honestly asserting that broaching this topic with a private land owner somehow leads to access loss on public lands? If so, how?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> What makes you think the trails I'm talking about allow quads? That's quite the red herring. The trails I mentioned are all community-driven, multi-use, completely open to the public and partially public funded in this case by the city. (Anything that's funded by the city technically has public input...) So your moto only question has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> To highlight how little of what you've comprehended of what you've read, where have I mentioned advocating for access on public property? You do realize that public trails can and do exist on non-public property yes? No one has been interested in the how. They have been too caught up in slippery slope fallacies and resistance to change.
> 
> ...


And there it is after all of the mental masturbation and contortions, you wish to confine your dubious discussion to private land which 99% of sensible people on this board don't even care about or discuss. Try again when you have points that actually concern themselves with public access, troll.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

slapheadmofo said:


> In New England, e-bikes are considered OHVs by the powers that be.
> Every mountain bike trail built in the past 20 years has been approved based in part on the fact that mountain bikes are strictly human powered and allowing them in no way equals allowing motorized access.
> 
> Mountain bikers have zero to gain and lots to lose if they allow that line to be blurred, let alone erased.
> ...


It's not. The industry and affiliates are only here to cloud the issue. It's really is very simple. Muscles not Motors. The End.

Some guy on FB tried to claim that e bikes have access to ALL state and Federal lands in Vermont based on a statute that gives motor assist bikes all the rights of a bicycle without being officially recognized as a motorized vehicle. Of course the statute is in regards to ROAD access. I explained to him that PEDAL bikes don't even enjoy that level of access. National forest, WMA, and other state land are illegal to MTBs but the douche was completely convinced he was right. Common sense people. EBikes are motorized....the end.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You didn't provide a qualifier you said "every". How many times are you going to move the goalposts to try to bring your failed arguments back from the grave? Also, how exactly are we differentiating public and private property in this instance, free to use, unrestricted access, public funding, etc.?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Like I said, you've found the needle in the haystack.
Feel free to rub your little troll hands together and cackle with glee at will over 20 miles of trail across 5 states. You worked really, really hard for it.

Meanwhile, I still wouldn't care if all the trails were open to ebikes personally. Not at all interested in taking up their fight for them though. I've got actual trail to build and my time is better spent with shovel in hand than talking in circles with wanna be lawyers. Been there, won that already.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> And there it is after all of the mental masturbation and contortions, you wish to confine your dubious discussion to private land which 99% of sensible people on this board don't even care about or discuss. Try again when you have points that actually concern themselves with public access, troll.


You have a serious flaw in your logic. Private land, as shown by the example at hand, does not preclude public access. In fact, any many instances it functions much as public property.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Like I said, you've found the needle in the haystack.
> Feel free to rub your little troll hands together and cackle with glee at will over 20 miles of trail across 5 states. You worked really, really hard for it.
> 
> Meanwhile, I still wouldn't care if all the trails were open to ebikes personally. Not at all interested in taking up their fight for them though. I've got actual trail to build and my time is better spent with shovel in hand than talking in circles with wanna be lawyers. Been there, won that already.


Yep, a single Google search is hard work .

As I've said your bias is clouding your vision when it comes to the benefits of working around with instead of against.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Yep, a single Google search is hard work .
> 
> As I've said your bias is clouding your vision when it comes to the benefits of working around with instead of against.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


What bias? You've obviously got a problem with your comprehension and bunker mentality.

I have little to no problem with sharing trails with e-bikes, as I've said a thousand times. Also have a shed full of motos, ATVs and snowmos, and my 14 year old pretty much lives with a throttle in his hand. Motors do not scare me. But...

I don't feel like taking up the torch for them as far as access fights though; I see zero benefit to MTBers in aligning with any sort of motorized toys and have spent enough time in uncomfortable chairs getting yelled at by old hippies that don't want anyone else in the woods but themselves. E-bikers want to fight for access, I won't be there fighting against them, but I sure as hell am not interested in doing all their heavy lifting for them. I have enough experience to know that they've got a multi-year uphill battle in store, and I'm much more interested in building trails than arguing with assholes.

Speaking of...rain just quit and I had 20 yards of perfect dirt delivered to our town pumptrack project yesterday, so have fun tilting at e-windmills. I'm off to build something really cool in the woods.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> What bias? You've obviously got a problem with your comprehension and bunker mentality.
> 
> I have little to no problem with sharing trails with e-bikes, as I've said a thousand times. Also have a shed full of motos, ATVs and snowmos, and my 14 year old pretty much lives with a throttle in his hand. Motors do not scare me. But...
> 
> I don't feel like taking up the torch for them as far as access fights though; I see zero benefit to MTBers in aligning with any sort of motorized toys and have spent enough time in uncomfortable chairs getting yelled at by old hippies that don't want anyone else in the woods but themselves. E-bikers want to fight for access, I won't be there fighting against them, but I sure as hell am not interested in doing all their heavy lifting for them.


Now we're getting somewhere. You don't need to do their heavy lifting. By partnering with them you can even reduce the number of old hippies yelling at you, which seems to be a driver of the bias.

The first step would be more places like PRKR, something you do not have to personally advocate for but simply not oppose. Places like that there is less bureaucratic red tape to cut through. Opening that up provides two immediate benefits. First, with a legal place to ride rationalizing poaching becomes harder and should happen less putting less access pressure on other trails. Second, their actions can begin to speak for themselves and the argument moves into a practical realm rather than its current theoretical state. There are other less immediate benefits as well.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Now we're getting somewhere. You don't need to do their heavy lifting. By partnering with them you can even reduce the number of old hippies yelling at you, which seems to be a driver of the bias.
> 
> The first step would be more places like PRKR, something you do not have to personally advocate for but simply not oppose. Places like that there is less bureaucratic red tape to cut through. Opening that up provides two immediate benefits. First, with a legal place to ride rationalizing poaching becomes harder and should happen less putting less access pressure on other trails. Second, their actions can begin to speak for themselves and the argument moves into a practical realm rather than its current theoretical state. There are other less immediate benefits as well.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Or, I can go build trails. Which is what I'd much rather do.
You can feel free to go sit through all the interminable meetings and write all the emails you want. I've done enough of that; I'm all set. My time is better spent building; there are a lot more people that can hold down chairs and spend endless hours on the computer than there are who can sculpt dirt into really cool ****. You do what you're good at, and I'll go do what I'm good at.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Or, I can go build trails. Which is what I'd much rather do.
> You can feel free to go sit through all the interminable meetings and write all the emails you want. I've done enough of that; I'm all set. My time is better spent building; there are a lot more people that can hold down chairs and spend endless hours on the computer than there are who can sculpt dirt into really cool ****. You do what you're good at, and I'll go do what I'm good at.


And if that's what you want to do that's great. You've said you do not wish to actively oppose, or even advocate at all any more, so this topic really has no pertinence to you.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------

