# Poaching Penalties



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Wife and I were on our MTB's at a park near the beach since it was cooler there than other places. Encountered two policemen on e-MTB's patrolling and asked them what they do if they encounter scofflaws riding e-bikes. They just ask the offenders to leave the park which surprised me since there are stings at various times to catch individuals poaching trails or speeding and (I THINK) the fines are up to $1000 (this is ritzy Newport Beach, OC, CA). What I'm wondering is the penalties for riding e-bikes in other areas where they're prohibited. Anyone have information for them? BTW, if your answer is that you'll reproach, eviscerate, murder or apprehend the individuals, save your braggadocio for your parole officer, jailer or asylum therapist.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Bike forfeiture is not unheard of in some really egregious cases. Fines up to $1,000.00. Like everything else, expect penalties to be more aggressively levied as occurrences become more common and the constituency becomes more vocal about it.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I posted this in another thread a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Sharp things (Jun 8, 2017)

Nice to see that they do allow for wheelchairs.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Good question, I'm assuming here it would fall under the motorized on non motorized ordinance, but I couldn't find anything, I"ll have to ask. Based on other park related fines, I'd guess $50, maybe $100 tops.

They hurt you badly in Australia though.

'Our trails aren't built for that': eBike riders risk fines in Canberra nature parks


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Harry, thanks. I was surprised there wasn't a more definitive penalty structure in CA (don't know how that is established). The only individual I've met who was accosted by a Ranger on an e-MTB where prohibited was asked politely not to return with it, but allowed to complete his ride. Just wondering what other rules are in place, not some inane guess.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

What I know about OC Parks....OC Parks generally prohibit what they refer to as "motorized vehicles" in many areas. Not sure if pedal-assist bikes are "motorized vehicles" as defined by OC Parks (haven't done the research). But as far as I can tell, e-bikes like Levos haven't raised concerns in OC Parks. I see a few at Santiago Oaks, Whiting Ranch and Laguna Coast just about each time I've been out riding at these parks in the past year or so. 

Nonetheless, if the OC Parks definition of "motorized vehicle" validly includes pedal assist bikes, then a violation of the "motorized vehicle" prohibition would a misdemeanor. Violations of misdemeanors in OC Parks can, in many instances, result in a fine of up to a $1000 fine and/or up to 6 months in jail.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

fos'l said:


> Encountered two policemen on e-MTB's patrolling and asked them what they do if they encounter scofflaws riding e-bikes.


Interesting... Did you mean "scofflaws" in the sense that you were trying to understand what police would do to persons undertaking criminal acts while riding e-bikes?


----------



## EABiker (Jun 24, 2004)

We just brand them with a big "E" on their forehead.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

AGarcia said:


> What I know about OC Parks....OC Parks generally prohibit what they refer to as "motorized vehicles" in many areas. Not sure if pedal-assist bikes are "motorized vehicles" as defined by OC Parks (haven't done the research). But as far as I can tell, e-bikes like Levos haven't raised concerns in OC Parks. I see a few at Santiago Oaks, Whiting Ranch and Laguna Coast just about each time I've been out riding at these parks in the past year or so.
> 
> Nonetheless, if the OC Parks definition of "motorized vehicle" validly includes pedal assist bikes, then a violation of the "motorized vehicle" prohibition would a misdemeanor. Violations of misdemeanors in OC Parks can, in many instances, result in a fine of up to a $1000 fine and/or up to 6 months in jail.


Yup....we have requested several times that the signers be changed to specifically state E-bikes Prohibited....the response is that they are motorized vehicles, thus the signs will not change.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mtnbikej said:


> the response is that they are king yorizrd vehicles, thus the signs will not change.


what on earth does that mean?


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

AG, sorry, should have just said "poachers". Your comment about the OC laws is interesting since AFAIK the superintendent of parks has stated no e-MTB's allowed, so the penalty could be pretty harsh. I know a couple of people with the wherewithal who are waiting to challenge the situation in court if they are fined or their vehicle confiscated. FYI there are a couple of bike paths in Irvine, where Class 1 & 2 bikes would be legal, with "no e-bikes" signs.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Klurejr said:


> what on earth does that mean?


Damn auto fill. Fixed.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mtnbikej said:


> Damn auto fill. Fixed.


oh... gotcha... So the OC Parks are claiming even a class 1 is motorized... this is going to lead to a ton of confusion as more people purchase e-bikes that are designated by the state as Class 1 to not be classified as motorized when it comes to vehicle code, but ARE considered motorized when it comes to trails....


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Klurejr said:


> oh... gotcha... So the OC Parks are claiming even a class 1 is motorized... this is going to lead to a ton of confusion as more people purchase e-bikes that are designated by the state as Class 1 to not be classified as motorized when it comes to vehicle code, but ARE considered motorized when it comes to trails....


Each jurisdiction can set their own rules. OCParks is their own jurisdiction. Irregardless of what the vehicle code says, OCParks has decided that all bikes with motors are a no-go.

I go back to the LBS's not warning buyers that they are not legal to ride in the parks.

Hell, one I the LBS managers is regularly seen riding one in the county parks.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

mtnbikej said:


> Each jurisdiction can set their own rules. OCParks is their own jurisdiction. Irregardless of what the vehicle code says, OCParks has decided that all bikes with motors are a no-go.


What I've seen in the County regulations is "no motorized vehicles." I have not seen the County regulations define that term. Nor have I seen County regulations or OC Parks documentation declare that "all bikes with motors are a no-go."


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

fos'l said:


> AG, sorry, should have just said "poachers". Your comment about the OC laws is interesting since AFAIK the superintendent of parks has stated no e-MTB's allowed, so the penalty could be pretty harsh.


In writing? I'd like to see that! Honestly.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

AG, heresay, although I've asked Rangers at a couple of local parks (Aliso & Irvine) and they say no e-MTB's on the trails except physically challenged. Maybe MTBJ can elucidate further. I don't think the Rangers redefined "motorized", but just decided to prohibit e-MTB's.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

fos'l said:


> AG, heresay, although I've asked Rangers at a couple of local parks (Aliso & Irvine) and they say no e-MTB's on the trails except physically challenged.


That that I presume. Folks who "think" they know the rules...and enforce accordingly.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

LFB, that looks like a nebulous BS guess you reported. I requested actual rules and regulations.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

AFAIK, each park has the authority to make and enforce their own rules. Accordingly, those two parks agree with what (I THINK) is the general rule. Also, an acquaintance was stopped at Aliso and asked not to return on an e-MTB. What is your basis for what you think the rules are?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Here are the Aliso and Woods Canyon Park Rules, as posted on their website:

Consumption of intoxicants prohibited. 
Park only in designated areas. 
All fires are prohibited. Fire prevention must be the first concern of every visitor. 
No pets. (horses exempt) 
Park Subject to closure during rainy weather. 
A speed limit of 10 MPH enforced at all times. 
No Hunting allowed. 
No feeding the animals 
This wilderness area is characterized by certain inherent dangers. These dangers include mountain lions, rattlesnakes, poison oak, and rugged terrain. 
No fishing allowed. 
Minors (under 18 years) should be accompanied by an adult at all times. 
No smoking. 
Use of motorized vehicles and equipment is prohibited
The park depends on visitors to protect all wildlife, vegetation, features, and improvements. 
MINORS SHOULD BE UNDER DIRECT ADULT SUPERVISION AT ALL TIMES. 
Possession or use of firearms or weapons is prohibited. 
Swimming or wading in creek or lake is prohibited. 

I don't know what a "motorized vehicle" is. Can't find a definition in the County regulations or the park regulations. But I certainly see nothing in the rules here that says "no emtbs" or "no pedal assist bikes."


----------



## av8or (Jun 9, 2013)

Problem is, most park rangers don't know the changing rules, at least here in los penasquitos. I called to verify if e-bikes are allowed on this trial and the PR i spoke with doesn't know. He had to call his senior PR. And yes e-bikes class 1 are allowed on los penasquitos. ( this after i told a rider he can't ride his e-bike on LP the day before)


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

AGarcia said:


> Here are the Aliso and Woods Canyon Park Rules, as posted on their website:
> 
> Consumption of intoxicants prohibited.
> Park only in designated areas.
> ...


Random thoughts:
It would seem you can bring your horse, but you can't feed it.
10mph seems really low for a speed limit for cycling.
I would err on the side of caution riding an e-bike where it specifies no motor vehicles unless a specific exception is made.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Actually... I did some additional research turned up language in the Orange County codes relating to Parks and Recreational Areas:

Sec. 2-5-29 (g) Unauthorized Motor Vehicles. No person shall operate an unauthorized motor vehicle: Four-wheel drive vehicle, motorcycle, motor bike, motor dirt bike, all-terrain vehicle, off highway vehicle or any other motorized vehicle within any County owned, managed, or controlled reserve area, habitat sensitive area, wilderness area, natural area, open space area, undeveloped area, beach front area, turf area, or within river beds, stream beds, creek beds, wash areas, wetland areas, or recreational area trails. 

Sec. 2-5-29  Motorized Wheeled Conveyance Prohibited. No person shall operate or drive any electric or combustible motorized skateboard, scooter, dirt bike, mini bike, mini motor bike, mini motorcycle, go-kart, go-ped, mo-ped, all-terrain-vehicle, quad runner, dune buggy or any similar electric or combustible motorized wheeled conveyance in any park, beach or recreational area. 

So, I guess if one views a Levo or similar e-mtb as "mini-motorbike" or "mini-motorcycle" then one could argue they should be prohibited from park areas. I'd think not, however.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> motorcycle, motor bike, motor dirt bike, all-terrain vehicle, off highway vehicle or any other motorized vehicle


Depends on how they are defining the items listed there.... The terms "Motor Bike" and "any other motorized vehicle" could be applied to a Class 1 or Class 2 Electric Bicycle.... Did you find any verbiage about those terms being defined... they are sorta vague.... And they could be vague on purpose to give the Rangers the ability to use their own judgement and discernment on the matter.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

fos'l said:


> AG, heresay, although I've asked Rangers at a couple of local parks (Aliso & Irvine) and they say no e-MTB's on the trails except physically challenged. Maybe MTBJ can elucidate further. I don't think the Rangers redefined "motorized", but just decided to prohibit e-MTB's.


Exactly....this is the information I was given from the Rangers. We did not go into detail. I was not looking for a small loophole to slip in through. We had the whole Class 1/2/3 discussion. At the end of the day, they are not allowing motorized bikes.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> And they could be vague on purpose to give the Rangers the ability to use their own judgement and discernment on the matter.


While I get that is how it works in practice, according the County ordinances, the OC Parks Director is given discretion to interpret, not the individual rangers.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Klurejr said:


> Depends on how they are defining the items listed there.... The terms "Motor Bike" and "any other motorized vehicle" could be applied to a Class 1 or Class 2 Electric Bicycle.... Did you find any verbiage about those terms being defined... they are sorta vague.... And they could be vague on purpose to give the Rangers the ability to use their own judgement and discernment on the matter.


OR......

The Rangers/OC Parks view E-bikes as motor vehicles....regardless of what the vehicle code says....because, it is not a vehicle code issue. It is an access/rule issue. If the parks say say you dog has to be on a leash, arguing that a shock collar is a leash will end the same way, in a ticket if your dog isn't on leash.

The parks are also tiptoeing on this because they are afraid of someone suing them for ADA Compliance.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

mtnbikej said:


> The Rangers/OC Parks view E-bikes as motor vehicles....regardless of what the vehicle code says....because, it is not a vehicle code issue. It is an access/rule issue.


I wasn't looking at the State Vehicle Code. I was quoting from the County Ordinances that govern OC Parks.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> Depends on how they are defining the items listed there.... The terms "Motor Bike" and "any other motorized vehicle" could be applied to a Class 1 or Class 2 Electric Bicycle.... Did you find any verbiage about those terms being defined... they are sorta vague.... And they could be vague on purpose to give the Rangers the ability to use their own judgement and discernment on the matter.


No, I didn't find anything beyond what I quoted. You're right in that it "could be" applied to a class 1 or class 2 bike. But generally, when a list of examples is given within the ordinance, it serves indicates what the ordinance drafter was thinking about regulating. In this case, the examples are --what I would think -- are a different class of vehicle than an e-mtb. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

It's hard to say if it applies, but with my experience dealing with various city, county, state parks depts and USFS, the time lag between policy changes to seeing changes in signage and updated websites can be very great. You'd think some of it would be updated in CA by now, since it's been @ 18 months since it passed, but I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't. I'd expect there'd be a cohesive policy on the ground with the rangers, but it's probably not at the top of their list.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

AGarcia said:


> Sec. 2-5-29  Motorized Wheeled Conveyance Prohibited. No person shall operate or drive any electric or combustible motorized skateboard, scooter, dirt bike, mini bike, mini motor bike, mini motorcycle, go-kart, go-ped, mo-ped, all-terrain-vehicle, quad runner, dune buggy or any similar electric or combustible motorized wheeled conveyance in any park, beach or recreational area.


Ok so someone please explain to me why this isnt completely clear that e-bikes are allowed??? No disrespect but but this is very clear cut.

"Electric or combustible motorized wheeled conveyance"

Sorry but the fact that anyone thinks this doesn't include e-bikes obviously slept through grade school.

A bicycle is a wheeled conveyance.

An e-mtb has an electric motor which provides power to the rear wheels

So if the regulations don't change to allow pedal assist electric motors, not even those are allowed by legal definition. Not something that can even be debated, get the same response from a judge.

Is it really worth getting smacked with a fine because the sign doesnt say "you cannot ride turbo levos here"????

I think pedal assist should be shown leniency but unless the park rangers tell you flat out (and talking about the supervisors, not the day to day grunts) then need to stay off. Otherwise its just making it harder to get access.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

RAKC Ind said:


> Ok so someone please explain to me why this isnt completely clear that e-bikes are allowed??? No disrespect but but this is very clear cut.
> 
> "Electric or combustible motorized wheeled conveyance"


No disrespect at all. That portion of the clause reads "_or any similar _electric or combustible motorized wheeled conveyance." Standard legal interpretation would require that you look to the types of examples they've referenced. In this case, I'm not sure an e-mtb (at least in Levo or similar form) would be considered similar to a an electric or gas powered skateboard, scooter, dirt bike, mini-bike, go-kart, mo-ped, all-terrain vehicle, quad runner, dune buggy....so on and so on.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Well going the "similar" many of the examples are on 2 wheels with handlebars.

One thing ive learned over my many years, "broad coverage" is done for a reason. Because of how quickly things change. So if it has an electric or combustion motor providing power to 1 or more wheels, its illegal unless specific section covering exceptions shows e-bikes (and what type) is specifically allowed.

Even a Levo. Motor is directly attached to the chain that drives the wheel. But instead of handlebar control its pedal controlled. So its literally the exact same thing by any legal or dictionary definition. Until they post the except to pedal assist e-bikes.

Im just looking at it from the legal side. Basically unless the Ranger is feeling generous, anyone caught doing it is going to risk a hefty ticket because their is no way around it. Trying to fight it just means more expenses since its a lost cause.

I know from experience that trying to skate "broad coverage" wording gets a "are you really that dumb" look from a judge lol. Just a traffic ticket, well a couple of them. Ill leave it at that, but i was young and dumb then.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Nevermind.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Ya i agree depending. In this case its not lacking any info. Its specific but broad.

Motorized wheeled conveyance

Thats why you see signs that specify motorized wheel chairs being allowed. Because a specific exception was made. Why? Because its technically a "motorized wheeled conveyance" Without the exception specifically posted, users could be subject to all penalties just as a motorcycle would be if on the trail.

Trying to skirt the system because its not specific enough hurts everyone. Its why blanket bans are starting to be seen. People trying to use that exact point that has you thinking. Though most have no issues with a Levo, in stock form its not going to cause any issuse, it opens the door for other types that cause huge problems.

Call a lawyer if your really curious and read that section to them word for word. Pedal assist bikes have a motor, wheels and are a conveyance.

Headache I get that. But like our discussion here, theyll be a handful of people that read this thread and see the "oh because it doesnt say ebikes specifically then they are ok" when its the opposite right now because e-bikes have an electric motor. That in turn screws up the efforts of those trying to get pedal assist bikes as an exception to the rules.

Another example here is its very basically covered "No motorized vehicles allowed". I am yet to see a levo on the trail personally. The only demo including e-anything was a fat bike gathering that the park ok'd electric assist bikes. And everyone knows they have a motor so as of right now, not allowed. Not to say it hasnt happened just i havent seen it. Not even really a topic here as as long as rangers are ok with pedal assist, hell ya come ride (as long as its not some rich kid being ignorant about it). If its not pedal assist look out. They slap max fines for violators of the "no motorized" violations. Heard of one guy getting his gas conversion confiscated, judge refused to let him have it back, on top of the fines.

Hopefully its not truly that harsh, but i wouldnt debate it myself, Id contact someone that has the answer or can give the OK (and get their name etc just in case). My favorite saying "Assumption is the mother of all f-ups". Remind myself of it daily too hehe.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

RAKC Ind said:


> Call a lawyer if your really curious and read that section to them word for word. Pedal assist bikes have a motor, wheels and are a conveyance.


I'm fortunate to know a lawyer.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

AGarcia said:


> I'm fortunate to know a lawyer.


z

Not a good one.

"Use of motorized vehicles and equipment is prohibited"

Twist it however you want but your moped has a motor


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Not a good one.


Hmmm..I think I've heard that one before. I'm starting to think you might be right. Yes. You might be.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

RAKC Ind said:


> Ya i agree depending. In this case its not lacking any info. Its specific but broad.
> 
> Motorized wheeled conveyance
> 
> ...


While I disagree with your assessment generally, I agree with you that practically, it makes no sense to try to skirt the system. And I totally agree that it wouldn't be wise for most people on e-bikes to thinking everything is "ok" just because of what they read on a forum. And I think you're point on reaching out to someone who can answer or give the ok is right on.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I think this shows exactly why it makes more sense to draw the line between 

motor propelled | not motor propelled

instead of:

motor greater than 250W propelled | motor less than 250W propelled or not motor propelled 

Having said that, I'm still on the fence in regards to these on paved paths, like the photo I published above. I'm all for people using ebikes for basic transportation, I think we could really use that in the US. But on paths like I showed for recreation, if the price comes down on these and every kid gets one for Christmas, it's going to be a mess. So how would that be handled? "Must be 16 or older to ride ebike"? "No recreational ebike riding"? Or will this not be an issue?

btw, AGarcia is a lawyer. (And I've already hammered him for that, no need to do so).


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

chazpat said:


> I think this shows exactly why it makes more sense to draw the line between
> 
> motor propelled | not motor propelled
> 
> ...


And many would choose the second one as practically the things are much more close if you look at the overall performances and impacts.



> "Must be 16 or older to ride ebike"?


In Switzerland it's 14 and from 14 to 16 years old a moped driver license for 250 W, 25 kph bikes is requirred.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

As usual, this turned into an access issue when Information about penalties for poaching in specific areas was requested. Relative to bike paths in OC, Class 1 & 2 are permitted except where specifically prohibited. I've seen at least two places with signs depicting that. Poaching penalties is only theoretical at this point since there's no policing except in a few congested areas. One would need to try and get caught here. I can ride at least five places within a few miles of my house where the average number of bikes that I encounter ranges from 0 to 1 per ride.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

fos'l said:


> As usual, this turned into an access issue when Information about penalties for poaching in specific areas was requested. Relative to bike paths in OC, Class 1 & 2 are permitted except where specifically prohibited. I've seen at least two places with signs depicting that. Poaching penalties is only theoretical at this point since there's no policing except in a few congested areas. One would need to try and get caught here. I can ride at least five places within a few miles of my house where the average number of bikes that I encounter ranges from 0 to 1 per ride.


Poaching is about access. Being obtuse about it doesn't help your agenda.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

As I stated, I was interested in the penalties for e-bikes where they were prohibited not about poaching. Perhaps you should learn to read or maybe you just like to troll every thread with your garbage. Guess that's what the ignore function is for.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

fos'l said:


> As I stated, I was interested in the penalties for e-bikes where they were prohibited not about poaching. Perhaps you should learn to read or maybe you just like to troll every thread with your garbage. Guess that's what the ignore function is for.


 Hmmm, unless I'm missing something, if I were to ride my mtb where it is not allowed I would call that poaching. Maybe you CA guys have a different meaning for the same word?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

fos'l said:


> As I stated, I was interested in the penalties for e-bikes where they were prohibited not about poaching. Perhaps you should learn to read or maybe you just like to troll every thread with your garbage. Guess that's what the ignore function is for.


With the title of this thread, I would posit that you are responsible for the trolling. Irony defined.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

leeboh said:


> Hmmm, unless I'm missing something, if I were to ride my mtb where it is not allowed I would call that poaching. Maybe you CA guys have a different meaning for the same word?


My initial comment stated that the interest wasn't poaching in general, but riding an e-bike where it's not allowed. Do you understand or should I be even more explicit? You're one who has stated many, many times, over and over that e-MTB's are prohibited in MA (AIR). Do you know what the penalty is if one is caught riding there, or is it like most areas seem to be - there's no policing so it's a moot point? (If there's anything else you don't understand, I'll try to break it down for you).


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

I'm at least partially at fault for derailing the thread. Sorry.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

fos'l said:


> My initial comment stated that the interest wasn't poaching in general, but riding an e-bike where it's not allowed. Do you understand or should I be even more explicit? You're one who has stated many, many times, over and over that e-MTB's are prohibited in MA (AIR). Do you know what the penalty is if one is caught riding there, or is it like most areas seem to be - there's no policing so it's a moot point? (If there's anything else you don't understand, I'll try to break it down for you).


Problem here is that what your asking and what your arguing against is the same thing:

What are the penalties for trail poaching with e-bikes?

If caught, possibility of same penalty as that of riding a dirt bike on said trail. Breaking the same law. Would it actually be that harsh, depends on if the bike is a stock form, low power, pedal assist or basically a battery powered dirt bike. The former I would gather simply a warning the first time. The latter, kiss your e-dirtbike and the next couple paychecks at the least, goodbye.

AG being a lawyer makes much more sense now. Trying to play the grey areas. Sadly this is one case that unless exceptions are made (which someone already posted that pedal assist is legal in their area, exceptions specifically made) the wording is too clear cut. Prosecution would simply have to pull out a dictionary to win that. Well normally. California's Judicial system is rather screwed up lol.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

fos'l said:


> My initial comment stated that the interest wasn't poaching in general, but riding an e-bike where it's not allowed. Do you understand or should I be even more explicit? You're one who has stated many, many times, over and over that e-MTB's are prohibited in MA (AIR). Do you know what the penalty is if one is caught riding there, or is it like most areas seem to be - there's no policing so it's a moot point? (If there's anything else you don't understand, I'll try to break it down for you).


 Motorized vehicles for off road infractions in MA are subject to MA environmental police action. $500 fine as well as impounding of said vehicle. Some policing, usually reports/complaints are made first to alert them. For me poaching = riding where not allowed. Same thing, yes?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

fos'l said:


> As usual, this turned into an access issue when Information about penalties for poaching in specific areas was requested. Relative to bike paths in OC, Class 1 & 2 are permitted except where specifically prohibited. I've seen at least two places with signs depicting that. Poaching penalties is only theoretical at this point since there's no policing except in a few congested areas. One would need to try and get caught here. I can ride at least five places within a few miles of my house where the average number of bikes that I encounter ranges from 0 to 1 per ride.


So the conversation evolved slightly and you're upset? This was staying pretty civil and not far from the original topic, you seem to be the one who really derailed it.



fos'l said:


> What I'm wondering is the penalties for riding e-bikes in other areas where they're prohibited.


That's a request for "Information about penalties for poaching in specific areas"?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chazpat said:


> So the conversation evolved slightly and you're upset? This was staying pretty civil and not far from the original topic, you seem to be the one who really derailed it.
> That's a request for "Information about penalties for poaching in specific areas"?


Agreed, this thread was not derailed, poaching is an access issue, so discussing access laws for different riding area's would define when a rider is "poaching" or not and since each area has different ways to managing the lands....

I am glad to see it staying civil.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Seems to me confiscation would be the logical first order.

NYPD cracks down on illegal e-bikes in 24-hour blitz | am New York


----------



## Sharp things (Jun 8, 2017)

Lemonaid said:


> Seems to me confiscation would be the logical first order.
> 
> NYPD cracks down on illegal e-bikes in 24-hour blitz | am New York


That is a good use of resources, especially when they could have gone after some murderers, rapists or bank robbers. I'm being sarcastic BTW.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

RAKC Ind said:


> AG being a lawyer makes much more sense now. Trying to play the grey areas. Sadly this is one case that unless exceptions are made (which someone already posted that pedal assist is legal in their area, exceptions specifically made) the wording is too clear cut. Prosecution would simply have to pull out a dictionary to win that. Well normally. California's Judicial system is rather screwed up lol.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Certainly not trying to "play grey areas." I'm just trying to get an understanding of what is fact and what is opinion, rumor or hearsay. I find the forum helpful and valuable for this endevour.

I'm also providing evidence and information, in the form of rules, regulations and ordinances. And I post the regulations and ordinances here for others to see as factual evidence and for them to draw their own conclusions on the evidence. You draw your own conclusions, based on your education and experiences. I also draw my own, based on my education and experience.

And if someone asks for my thoughts on the topic, I'm happy to provide it, as long as we're not straying into me providing legal advice. I'm not here to be anyone's lawyer or provide legal advice.

It's certainly good dialog to have, I think.

[/QUOTE]


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

AGarcia said:


> What I know about OC Parks....OC Parks generally prohibit what they refer to as "motorized vehicles" in many areas. Not sure if pedal-assist bikes are "motorized vehicles" as defined by OC Parks (haven't done the research). But as far as I can tell, e-bikes like Levos haven't raised concerns in OC Parks. I see a few at Santiago Oaks, Whiting Ranch and Laguna Coast just about each time I've been out riding at these parks in the past year or so.
> 
> Nonetheless, if the OC Parks definition of "motorized vehicle" validly includes pedal assist bikes, then a violation of the "motorized vehicle" prohibition would a misdemeanor. Violations of misdemeanors in OC Parks can, in many instances, result in a fine of up to a $1000 fine and/or up to 6 months in jail.


I can't speak for OC but in San Diego fines "up to" means pretty much nothing. If the defendant shows up in court, the city attorney will always try to strike a deal and if that's refused and the defendant is found guilty, the judge makes up whatever fine he wants...and generally does. I've had judges change the violation altogether to make the offense less serious. It's a rare, rare, rare case when the just give step maximum penalty allowed on a citation such as this.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Poaching, as it refers to breaking the law, means that you killed an animal illegally. It is less commonly used when referring to collecting non-animal items from a forest for personal possession. When a cyclist uses their bike or ebike illegally on a trail, they are not poaching. Trespassing could be used in this instance, but since we are discussing public land even that does not apply well. The problem with using a word like 'poaching' is that it can be used by those who hate bikes or ebike to misrepresent the seriousness of the situation.


----------



## jabpn (Jun 21, 2004)

I'm definitely in the camp that this is a classic case of overthinking. Right now, eBikes are a very niche product and most people (including said Park rangers) wouldn't recognize one unless you actually point out, "Hey, look, there's an eBike." In other words, just ride them on bicycle trails and treat them as such. For all intensive purposes, that's all they are. Since most people ride them "like bicycles" anyway, it's never going to be a problem that riding a bicycle doesn't also have.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Surely, if you are not riding on trails that you are banned from there won't be any problems and you have nothing to worry about?


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

chazpat, five days late; interesting, thanks
av8tor --- interesting; that's down in KJ's vicinity AFAIK


----------



## wileycoyote (Mar 5, 2008)

Only in America, and perhaps, particularly in California, could there be a an extended argument about a. Whether a bicycle with an electric motor is motorized, and b. What the penalties might be for ignoring such a simple prohibition.
Freedom of thought and speech are fine things. Pursuit of nonsense might not be so useful.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

wileycoyote said:


> Only in America, and perhaps, particularly in California, could there be a an extended argument about a. Whether a bicycle with an electric motor is motorized, and b. What the penalties might be for ignoring such a simple prohibition.
> Freedom of thought and speech are fine things. Pursuit of nonsense might not be so useful.


That's what I thought when reading your comment.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Poaching.....hmm when did that term become famous for bikes?

I can only speak about NFS. The warnings are very dire, the truth is something else. You see "up to 10K fine, etc" on the maps etc. 

In actual fact, riding a full on motorcycle on a non-motorized trail is an infraction, like a speeding ticket. After you pay the fine, there is no record at all. 

About 10 years ago I did get a ticket riding on a new trail not open yet. (we had been waiting three years after a big fire--and the trail was way overdue to open--it did two days later LOL). The fine was $200 bucks. I think it's up to 300 now. 

It's too bad people don't concentrate more on behavior than tech. MTB riders don't have a good rep with other users just because of their downhill behavior---the fast ones. They will not see wilderness areas again for this reason. 

I think that's unreasonable, but no less so than the ranting against emtbs. The anti-mtb attitude actually has real encounters behind it. So far I have not come across actual "dangerous encounters" with e-mtbs. 

I'm sure it's happened someplace.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Around here the local riders will turn you in in a heartbeat. You'll be given a trespassing charge, a vandalism charge and your ebike will be confiscated and impounded. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

wileycoyote said:


> Only in America, and perhaps, particularly in California, could there be a an extended argument about a. Whether a bicycle with an electric motor is motorized, and b. What the penalties might be for ignoring such a simple prohibition.
> Freedom of thought and speech are fine things. Pursuit of nonsense might not be so useful.


Neither is regurgitating rhetoric.


----------



## AndyC (May 13, 2004)

Not particularly useful to you guys in the USA but it's really easy here in the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules

If you can't be bothered to read it: as long as you need to pedal the bike to help it move, you can ride it anywhere you can ride a normal bike.

BTW - looking at the list of the rules for those parks I'm surprised you're even allowed to breathe - I thought America was supposed to be a land of freedom?

Oh yeah - what's a 'combustible vehicle' - one that burns? If a rule maker can't even get their rules right (it's 'internal combustion') how can they expect anyone to obey them?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Silentfoe said:


> Around here the local riders will turn you in in a heartbeat. You'll be given a trespassing charge, a vandalism charge and your ebike will be confiscated and impounded.


Fantastic :0)


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> Fantastic :0)


I know! Right?!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

AndyC said:


> Not particularly useful to you guys in the USA but it's really easy here in the UK:
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules
> 
> ...


 Land of the free, not a free for all. Interesting perspective. Worked better once we threw those red coats out  And yes, plenty of rules and regulations for those without common sense and need guidelines to play nice.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

AndyC said:


> Not particularly useful to you guys in the USA but it's really easy here in the UK:
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules
> 
> ...


Most jurisdictions here in the U.S. allow e-bikes on bike paths. (ie. paved roads) There's no confusion there. I didn't see anything in the literature provided above that says anything about ebike or EAPC's being allowed on managed trails (ie offroad where hikers and equestrians frequent) and where most motorized vehicles are prohibited. So your point is mute.


----------



## AndyC (May 13, 2004)

dupe


----------



## AndyC (May 13, 2004)

Lemonaid said:


> Most jurisdictions here in the U.S. allow e-bikes on bike paths. (ie. paved roads) There's no confusion there. I didn't see anything in the literature provided above that says anything about ebike or EAPC's being allowed on managed trails (ie offroad where hikers and equestrians frequent) and where most motorized vehicles are prohibited. So your point is mute.


Not really - we only have three classes of right of way in the England/Wales (Scotland's different and more open) - footpath, bridleway and byway. Footpath is walkers only, bridleway is walkers, bikes and horses & a byway is walkers, bikes, horses and engines. Doesn't matter if it's off-road or on-road, it'll be one of the three and so long as it's a bridleway or a byway you can ride a bike on it, electric or not.


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

Silentfoe said:


> Around here the local riders will turn you in in a heartbeat. You'll be given a trespassing charge, a vandalism charge and your ebike will be confiscated and impounded.


How the heck do you guys ride while carrying the pitchforks and torches


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

BootneyLee said:


> How the heck do you guys ride while carrying the pitchforks and torches


It's easy, we pedal.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

Silentfoe said:


> It's easy, we pedal.


:thumbsup:


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

BootneyLee said:


> How the heck do you guys ride while carrying the pitchforks and torches


Strapped to those WIDE handlebars with an Awesome strap.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> Poaching.....hmm when did that term become famous for bikes?


Been being used for as long as I've been riding MTBs anyway, which is creeping up on thirty years. Also commonly used to describe 'ducking the ropes'' at ski areas since forever.


----------



## av8or (Jun 9, 2013)

BootneyLee said:


> How the heck do you guys ride while carrying the pitchforks and torches


lol.. i reckon haters stick them in between their butt cracks..


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Don't forget, you can also poach eggs


----------



## ghoti (Mar 23, 2011)

Weird that OP says OC PD would tell e-mtbers to leave. I've never seen actual PD patrolling trails. Perhaps the beach but there's plenty of people riding e-bike cruisers and the police do nothing. 

A lot of the trails in SoCal explicitly state no motorized vehicles are permitted. But e-bikes seem to be the exception. From just about every agency I've contacted they are permitted wherever bikes are.


----------



## Bjorn2Ride (Apr 4, 2017)

Rational people don't consider a Levo, for example, a "motorized vehicle" the way this anti-forum does. Post a link to someone getting punished for riding a Class 1 pedelec bike on a California trail while simply riding along like another MTB. Otherwise it's all nonsensical speculation. In the real world, they cause no problems and are treated as such.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

Klurejr said:


> what on earth does that mean?


 Lets see ya moderate that one! WTF? LOL


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> Rational people don't consider a Levo, for example, a "motorized vehicle" the way this anti-forum does.


I have no idea what it will take for you people to admit the simple fact that eBikes are motorised. Of course a 'rational' person would consider a Levo motorized. You could fill a room with people who know zero about bikes, show them a Levo and explain how it works and every single one of them will agree that it has a motor. Because it has a motor!

Two-year-olds are more rational than you people! Or should I say more honest. You know fine well what the truth is but it doesn't suit your agenda so you'll do anything you possibly can to alter the truth and get what you want. I don't know about others but if I were in a position of authority it would make me want to give it to you even less. How can you trust people who can't even talk straight? You can't deal with people like that. Until you start admitting the truth and working from there I can't see how you're going to get anywhere.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> Rational people don't consider a Levo, for example, a "motorized vehicle" the way this anti-forum does. Post a link to someone getting punished for riding a Class 1 pedelec bike on a California trail while simply riding along like another MTB. Otherwise it's all nonsensical speculation. In the real world, they cause no problems and are treated as such.


Weren't you the guy who claimed that he put on training camps for WorldTour road teams?


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Mr Pig said:


> ...Because it has a motor!


Nobody denies that.

You are the only ones obnubilate with this and fail completely to look further.

That in the end it's just a bike and it works exactly the same. You are lying to yourself if you think you can differentiate a 250W ebike to a "normal" one with rational facts in the real world.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> Rational people don't consider a Levo, for example, a "motorized vehicle" the way this anti-forum does. Post a link to someone getting punished for riding a Class 1 pedelec bike on a California trail while simply riding along like another MTB. Otherwise it's all nonsensical speculation. In the real world, they cause no problems and are treated as such.


 Well, here in MA, if it has a motor, it is ( duh) considered motorized. CA seems to be the test case for the class 1 pedalecs, although not allowed everywhere.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

eFat said:


> Nobody denies that.
> 
> You are the only ones obnubilate with this and fail completely to look further.
> 
> That in the end it's just a bike and it works exactly the same. You are lying to yourself if you think you can differentiate a 250W ebike to a "normal" one with rational facts in the real world.


Twist the throttle and go? That isn't exactly the same AFAIK


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Harryman said:


> Twist the throttle and go? That isn't exactly the same AFAIK


I don't have a throttle on my ebikes...


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

eFat said:


> I don't have a throttle on my ebikes...


Your ebike is not the only ebike.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Harryman said:


> Your ebike is not the only ebike.


Sure. But the way it works, 250 W speed limited pedal-assist, represents most of the market.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

eFat said:


> Sure. But the way it works


Til it doesn't. Then what?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

eFat said:


> You are the only ones obnubilate with this and fail completely to look further.


Going by the number of trails you muppets are banned from, apparently not.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

eFat said:


> Sure. But the way it works, 250 W speed limited pedal-assist, represents most of the market.


In the US? Proof?

There's like 10,000 sondors fat bikes out there and they all have throttles and over 250w motors. Emtbs are a minor part of the ebike market. Even within class 1, you can have a legal ebike that you simply ghost pedal to engage the motor. I've ridden ebikes like that, they're cool, but not bikes. And really, pretending that adding a motor doesn't change the nature of a bicycle only weakens your position.


----------



## Bjorn2Ride (Apr 4, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> Weren't you the guy who claimed that he put on training camps for WorldTour road teams?


WorldTour road teams? No. Individual athletes.

eBikes are used an increasing amount. One of the advantages of the "bike as software" work that is being done is the ability of individual athletes to stay off stationary bikes. The posers here will likely deny the fact that training on stationary bikes is very common. eBikes with very specialized software and hardware allow. Training profile to be loaded and then ridden outside. We have combined MTB race course maps with varying levels of "assist" over a ride. (By the way, "assist" is measured from -10 to +10. That's because drag can be programmed in.

Anyway...the point is that normal people seeing an average mountain biker on a Levo riding along at average speeds, don't care that secreted in the frame is a silent system adding torque to each pedal stroke. Some people lack the ability to form rational analogies. That's OK. Nobody cares. LEOs don't care. Other riders don't care.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> Nobody cares. LEOs don't care. Other riders don't care.


Just curious how much time you've spent advocating for MTB trails with regional and local land managers, then seeing them through the permitting and construction process.

Anyone who has been involved in the process of getting/maintaining/creating MTB access is well aware that your point of view that 'nobody cares' is simply ignorant.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> LEOs don't care. Other riders don't care.


Don't bet on it.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Anyone who has been involved in the process of getting/maintaining/creating MTB access is well aware that your point of view that 'nobody cares' is simply ignorant.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Finally, I agree with those who say that some e-bikers are our own worst enemies. Anyone who advocates that e-MTB's aren't different than MTB's or should have equal access might as well write their message, put it into a bottle and throw it in the ocean. Who the hell are you trying to convince? Might as well grab some cats and try to sell them as guard dogs.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> WorldTour road teams? No. Individual athletes.
> 
> eBikes are used an increasing amount. One of the advantages of the "bike as software" work that is being done is the ability of individual athletes to stay off stationary bikes. The posers here will likely deny the fact that training on stationary bikes is very common. eBikes with very specialized software and hardware allow. Training profile to be loaded and then ridden outside. We have combined MTB race course maps with varying levels of "assist" over a ride. (By the way, "assist" is measured from -10 to +10. That's because drag can be programmed in.
> 
> Anyway...the point is that normal people seeing an average mountain biker on a Levo riding along at average speeds, don't care that secreted in the frame is a silent system adding torque to each pedal stroke. Some people lack the ability to form rational analogies. That's OK. Nobody cares. LEOs don't care. Other riders don't care.


 Stationary bikes? Hmmm. Heard of those. But I don't train so there's that. And bikes don't have motors. At least in the US. All riders care about our access not getting thrown out with the e bikes. Dude. 6 posts, nice. Where do you pedal? State and/ or country?


----------



## Bjorn2Ride (Apr 4, 2017)

leeboh said:


> Stationary bikes? Hmmm. Heard of those. But I don't train so there's that. And bikes don't have motors. At least in the US. All riders care about our access not getting thrown out with the e bikes. Dude. 6 posts, nice. Where do you pedal? State and/ or country?


California, UK, and Italy. Two weeks ago in France. No. Nothing to do with the race.

Post links to people being penalized for riding a Class One Pedelec Bicycle as defined in the U.K. And CA.

Otherwise it's all nonsense. Trail access? MTB poachers and hooligan riders are your biggest enemy.

As long as you fail to differentiate between responsible technological advancements and "electric motorcycles" you will continue to sound silly and irrelevant.

It really is a bizarre and uniquely American attitude. There is no practical, reasonable basis to be so obstinate. Personally I think it's hysterical that I work with 20 year-old, sponsored riders who LOVE eBike tech as a training tool and that this is completely lost on this anti-forum. I came here after buying a personal Levo and was stunned to see the whacky nature of the place. Thankfully there are rational forums where adult conversations take place.

I'll check back now and then to see if anyone has evidence of middle aged, tax paying professionals being hunted by law enforcement for violating the sanctity of the arbitrary technological line in the sand.

So yeah, I'll never reach 1000 posts here. Too busy riding.


----------



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

Bjorn2Ride said:


> I'll check back now and then to see if anyone has evidence of middle aged, tax paying professionals being hunted by law enforcement for violating the sanctity of the arbitrary technological line in the sand.


Speaking of arbitrary lines in the sand, why 250 watts? Why not 500? 1,500? Why pedal assist? Motor vs non seems pretty straightforward in comparison.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Speaking of arbitrary lines in the sand, why 250 watts? Why not 500? 1,500? Why pedal assist?


Maybe because 250 W is a reasonable value relative to the output power of a cyclist? Maybe pedal assist because it's the whole idea behind this, to pedal and to be assisted.



Bjorn2Ride said:


> Trail access? MTB poachers and hooligan riders are your biggest enemy.
> 
> As long as you fail to differentiate between responsible technological advancements and "electric motorcycles" you will continue to sound silly and irrelevant.


Exactly!

e-bikers, the kind we are trying to discuss here are your peer, not your enemy.


----------



## Bjorn2Ride (Apr 4, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Speaking of arbitrary lines in the sand, why 250 watts? Why not 500? 1,500? Why pedal assist? Motor vs non seems pretty straightforward in comparison.


Human beings are capable of a relatively narrow range of power outputs, both sustained and bursting. 250 fits in that range. 500 and 1500 do not when you are talking about sustained output. 250 allows for a reasonable "enhancement".

We have metrics for turning power into forward motion. Would you care to guess what the efficiency difference is between a beach cruiser and a professional grade mountain bike? Are you unaware of the "arms race" that has been going on for 40 years? The bike industry understands what rationally makes sense. So do lawmakers. A small handful of people here do not.

That's OK. Those folks have zero influence. Sony couldn't stop the iPod. The music industry couldn't stop iTunes.


----------



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

eFat said:


> Maybe because 250 W is a reasonable value relative to the output power of a cyclist? Maybe pedal assist because it's the whole idea behind this, to pedal and to be assisted.


Which cyclist? 250 watts is more than average riders can sustain but less than some. And why discriminate against someone who would rather twist a throttle than turn a pedal?



Bjorn2Ride said:


> 250 allows for a reasonable "enhancement".


Reasonable according to who? Can you turn 250 watts (sans motor) for an hour? Most people can't. Marcel Kittel can produce over 1,800 watts, maybe e-bikes should have a turbo burst that matches that.

The efficiency differences between the heaviest single speed beach cruiser and a carbon road racer aren't nearly as much as the difference between an electric bike and a bicycle. The industry understands profit, period.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I saw Marcell blow by me on my Levo going uphill! His 1800 watts against my 250 didn't stand a chance. Should he be banned? I'm just kidding of course..


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> The efficiency differences between the heaviest single speed beach cruiser and a carbon road racer aren't nearly as much as the difference between an electric bike and a bicycle.


Maybe you should try one once...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

eFat said:


> Maybe you should try one once...


Most of us have ridden some kind of motor assisted cycle and know what it's like, I don't know why you guys keep throwing out this straw man.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> California, UK, and Italy. Two weeks ago in France. No. Nothing to do with the race.
> 
> Post links to people being penalized for riding a Class One Pedelec Bicycle as defined in the U.K. And CA.
> 
> ...


 Don't like the American attitude? You could always leave. Funny, different countries have different laws, norms and rules. Go figure. Bought a levo and just assumed you could ride it everywhere? Now that's funny. And it really all about trail access, you could just do a little history search to catch up.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> As long as you fail to differentiate between responsible technological advancements and "electric motorcycles" you will continue to sound silly and irrelevant.
> 
> It really is a bizarre and uniquely American attitude. There is no practical, reasonable basis to be so obstinate.
> .


You seem confused as to who makes the rules.
HINT: it's NOT the people here his forum.

I guess the question about your familiarity with the processes of creating and managing trails has been answered.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

eFat said:


> Maybe you should try one once...


People used to say that to me about drugs. My answer was 'No, I might like it'.

Not everything you like is good for you.


----------



## Bjorn2Ride (Apr 4, 2017)

So much ignorance on display. Here's a homework assignment. Tell us the difference in power output required to sustain 18 mph on flat ground (assuming no other variables) for a 180 pound rider on a MTB versus a road bike. 

Now do the math for a MTB from 1980 and a MTB with $20k in lightness added. 

Can I sustain 250 watts for an hour? Not at my age. In my 20s, yes. Not that impressive since the record is around 400.

Can a Class One eBike sustain 250? Not without a lot of human power added to it. 

Trail access? Save your outrage for poachers, hikers, horses, hooligans, and environmentalists who want no humans allowed. Know your enemy. Know your friends. Class One eBikers are your friends, but you treat them like crap. That is the height of arrogance and stupidity. Especially when you consider the demographics.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> Trail access? Save your outrage for poachers, hikers, horses, hooligans, and environmentalists who want no humans allowed. Know your enemy.


Once again, you seem to think the internet makes trail policy.
And on the majority of legal MTB trails, anyone using a motor is considered to be a 'poacher' by those that manage those trails. And those that want e-bikes to be considered as 'just another mountain bike' are handing all sorts of ammunition to those enemies of MTB that now have the motor to point to when trying to shut out ALL bikes. Then mountain bikers are forced to become e-bike apologists just to keep their own access, even if they have no use or want for a motor at all.

Is this really too complicated for some people? 
Man oh man...


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> So much ignorance on display.


Hello Pot!
Let me introduce you to Kettle:


> Trail access? Save your outrage for poachers, hikers, horses, hooligans, and environmentalists who want no humans allowed. Know your enemy. Know your friends. Class One eBikers are your friends, but you treat them like crap. That is the height of arrogance and stupidity. Especially when you consider the demographics.


The MTB community would love it if the eBike crowd were our friends, but time and time again the users of eBikes who come to post on MTBR act like a bike with a motor is not different than one without a motor and cry out that anyone who disagrees is a hate monger....

Stop calling other users here at MTBR Ignorant, Arrogant and Stupid just because you disagree with them.

When someone comes on this site and says how awesome it was to ride their brand new eBike on a trail that expressly forbids them and other users get upset about how this could lead to trail access issues... how can anyone really disagree with that? Trails are already being closed because some riders chose to strava all their times and were caught riding downhill above the posted 20mph speed limit of a specific park in Northern California, *that lead to ALL bike access being removed from said park*. To think that bikes with motors will not eventually lead to more of that is foolish. eBikes are here and the technology will get better, the bikes will get more powerful and the laws will eventually catch up. All that most users here want is for those who own the eBikes to step up and start representing their bikes for what they are, a bicycle with power assist that makes them faster than a pedal bike in most case and to stop making outlandish claims that they are no different at all from a pedal only bike and to stop pretending that by just riding them everything will be okay and no trails will be closed because of the motors.....


----------



## BootneyLee (Apr 25, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> Stop calling other users here at MTBR Ignorant, Arrogant and Stupid just because you disagree with them.


I couldn't agree with you more, but shouldn't this request apply to everyone posting here?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> Can a Class One eBike sustain 250? Not without a lot of human power added to it.


Why not? Common 250w emtb motors can put out 520-530w at max assist, it's claimed anyway, I have no way to know if it's true. With typical systems, the motor will add back based on your cadence and torque input and whatever assist setting you've chosen like:

"Trail Control

The typical Bosch dynamic power control always gives the rider the right degree of support (50-300% when traveling over steep terrain."

https://www.bosch-ebike.com/en/ebike-systems/performance-line-cx/

So, as I read it, if you can sustain 150w at max assist, the motor will add on up to 450w on top of that. I'm sure it will vary some based on the combination of cadence/torque and however the software has been programmed, but I would imagine it would comfortably be over 250w.

I'm curious if you have numbers on that?


----------



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

Bjorn2Ride said:


> So much ignorance on display. Here's a homework assignment. Tell us the difference in power output required to sustain 18 mph on flat ground (assuming no other variables) for a 180 pound rider on a MTB versus a road bike.
> 
> Now do the math for a MTB from 1980 and a MTB with $20k in lightness added.


This calculator Bike Calculator says a 180# rider on a 15# road bike would be producing about 130 watts to maintain 18mph. The same rider on a 30# mtb would have to make about 240 watts to maintain the same speed. Most of the difference in power required between the 2 is due to tires/wheels and aerodynamics.

Because of that the difference between mountain bike from the 80's vs. the one with "20k in lightness" wouldn't be so dramatic, all else equal and on level terrain it would only take 10 more watts to propel a 40 pound mountain bike @ 18mph than it would on a 15 pound carbon wonder machine.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> Once again, you seem to think the internet makes trail policy.
> And on the majority of legal MTB trails, anyone using a motor is considered to be a 'poacher' by those that manage those trails. .


Proof?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

AGarcia said:


> Proof?


A nation wide ban in national forests and blm land on non-motorized trails. Considered poaching. Think they don't consider offenders poachers?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> A nation wide ban in national forests and blm land on non-motorized trails. Considered poaching. Think they don't consider offenders poachers?


"By those that manage those trails?" You know each of them?

Only a matter of time before someone mounts a legal challenge the BLM/USFS position.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> So what? Just because you challenge it doesn't mean that you change anything. If anything, emotorbikes could very well wind up in an even less tenable position. We can hope so anyway.


You can hope all you want...


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

BootneyLee said:


> I couldn't agree with you more, but shouldn't this request apply to everyone posting here?


But what if someone _is_ Ignorant, Arrogant and Stupid?



Harryman said:


> So, as I read it, if you can sustain 150w at max assist, the motor will add on up to 450w on top of that...


None if this matters at all, as eBike power is not going to stay the same.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> Proof?


Ummm...the rules and regs say so on the vast majority of public lands.

Are you saying you believe the opposite, that most MTB trails are legally open to e-bikes and other motorized use? Or more likely a lame attempt at obfuscating?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> "By those that manage those trails?" You know each of them?
> 
> Only a matter of time before someone mounts a legal challenge the BLM/USFS position.


Establishing an adversarial relationship right out of the gate with as many of the people involved in access as possible should work out very well for you. Good luck with that.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> "By those that manage those trails?" You know each of them?
> 
> Only a matter of time before someone mounts a legal challenge the BLM/USFS position.


 Legal challenge? Hmmm, lawyer talk( no offense). An entrenched US government agency who makes their own rules and listens to nobody( well almost) Or a bureaucracy that moves very slowly with many regulations, meetings and findings first. Seems like easy pickins.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> Establishing an adversarial relationship right out of the gate with as many of the people involved in access as possible should work out very well for you. Good luck with that.


Luck has nothing to do with what I do.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

leeboh said:


> Legal challenge? Hmmm, lawyer talk( no offense). An entrenched US government agency who makes their own rules and listens to nobody( well almost) Or a bureaucracy that moves very slowly with many regulations, meetings and findings first. Seems like easy pickins.


None taken!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> Luck has nothing to do with what I do.


Then you obviously don't create trails.


----------



## jabpn (Jun 21, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> When someone comes on this site and says how awesome it was to ride their brand new eBike on a trail that expressly forbids them and other users get upset about how this could lead to trail access issues... how can anyone really disagree with that?


I guess it's because, for the most part, most riders don't care, myself included.
Honestly, I don't care who it peeves off, I'm riding my bike where I wish regardless of "rules".



Klurejr said:


> Trails are already being closed because some riders chose to strava all their times and were caught riding downhill above the posted 20mph speed limit of a specific park in Northern California, *that lead to ALL bike access being removed from said park*.


Case in point. I bet there are riders there anyway all the time. "Obey" laws or go have fun. I choose fun.



Klurejr said:


> and to stop making outlandish claims that they are no different at all from a pedal only bike and to stop pretending that by just riding them everything will be okay and no trails will be closed because of the motors.....


None will be unless people foolishly point it out. They are bikes that are just easier to ride. They should be treated as such. If they get to fast or whatever, guess what, there's a word for what they're called, "motorcycle". Everyone knows the difference between a motorcycle and a bicycle. eBikes are bicycles. They are not motorcycles. "But it has a motor on it..." I don't care. It's a bicycle. I'm going to treat it as one. I'm going to view it as one. I'm going to call it one. Don't like it? Again, I don't care. While people are spending years trying to get laws passed for access, I and so, so, so, so, so, so, so, sooooo many riders are having fun, riding trails, in the meantime. The only difference is that maybe the trails aren't groomed. So. I'm still having fun.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Promoting poaching should help even more than threatening to sue.

Good thinking.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

jabpn said:


> I guess it's because, for the most part, most riders don't care, myself included.
> Honestly, I don't care who it peeves off, I'm riding my bike where I wish regardless of "rules".
> 
> Case in point. I bet there are riders there anyway all the time. "Obey" laws or go have fun. I choose fun.


You are your own worst enemy.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

I think the rule about expunging posts that promote, glorify or exhibit poaching is underutilized.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Please don't link this dude as the typical ebiker and bulk us all together. You have to respect land owners and rules otherwise mtbrs could lose access. I for one love my mtb way more than my ebike.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Leave the posts there so that there is complete transparency. My two cents.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

AndyC said:


> Not particularly useful to you guys in the USA but it's really easy here in the UK:
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules
> 
> ...


The USA *used* to be the land of freedom, now it is populated by douchebag control freaks.

I'll let them self-identify with their responses.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Individuals who desire to ignore the laws might keep it to themselves in order to stop providing ammunition for the real enemies of MTB. Apparently, some ignoramuses who post don't realize this.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

fos'l said:


> Individuals who desire to ignore the laws might keep it to themselves in order to stop providing ammunition for the real enemies of MTB. Apparently, some ignoramuses who post don't realize this.


Gonna resort to name calling because one of your brethren is posting info that runs contrary to your agenda? Can't have it both ways, better get used to this stuff being used against you because it's a fact of life in access battles. The "real enemies" are emotors by the way.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

I've said many times that I'm an MTB advocate first, but won't coddle to the "individuals" (don't like to use the term that is appropriate) who are trolling just looking for an argument because they have nothing else to do on their sofa. You've never backed up your statement about trails being closed with any concrete examples.
Don't let it bother you though, none of the others have either, but at least they didn't mouth off about it, then not deliver anything but more BS.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

fos'l said:


> I've said many times that I'm an MTB advocate first, but won't coddle to the "individuals" (don't like to use the term that is appropriate) who are trolling just looking for an argument because they have nothing else to do on their sofa. I ride my MTB almost every day and occasionally an e-MTB. You belong on everyone's ignore list whether they like e-bikes or not as well as anyone who extols poaching.


Why? Because I can use a well reasoned response that runs counter to your very forced narrative? Or is it that you aren't getting your way so you're going to pout some more. Your efforts to attach emotors to mtb's isn't going to work, you're going to have to get your own access. Go advocate, go raise funding, go dig. Just quit trying to coat tail on mtb access.


----------



## jabpn (Jun 21, 2004)

Ammunition? Ammunition for what? To post "signs" on trails that have a hundred different access points, underfunded "enforcement", and other advocacy groups who want to control things for themselves? And? Riding a bicycle in places that they are not allowed is hardly a serious crime or punishable by any serious, well, punishment. Mind your p's and q's on trails in general and most people won't care that you're there. Most people are the vast majority of users who don't even know there are advocacy goings ons in the first place and are simply out enjoying the outdoors.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

life behind bars said:


> Your efforts to attach emotors to mtb's isn't going to work, you're going to have to get your own access.


And yet, folks are riding e-mtbs.....


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

AG, occasionally I encounter riders on e-MTB's and nobody cares; probably very few individuals even know the bikes have motors. The only people who cry are on this forum, and will have no influence on the situation. The answer is to let them whine while the rest of us ride.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

The more I listen to eBikers the more I think that they deserve all of the animosity they attract.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AndyC said:


> BTW - looking at the list of the rules for those parks I'm surprised you're even allowed to breathe - I thought America was supposed to be a land of freedom?


Keep in mind that in the US, there are almost 1,000,000 square miles of national public lands. That's 10 times the are of the entire UK, and doesn't even consider countless state and local public lands. There are tons and tons of opportunities to ride almost anything you want on endless terrain. The problem comes when people start thinking every single corner of land needs to be open for every imaginable use. Doesn't work that way.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

fos'l said:


> AG, occasionally I encounter riders on e-MTB's and nobody cares; probably very few individuals even know the bikes have motors. The only people who cry are on this forum, and will have no influence on the situation. The answer is to let them whine while the rest of us ride.


Agreed.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

A friend sent me a link to this story from Ireland: LINK

So, if we put knobbly tyres on it, should this bike be allowed on non-motorised trails?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Mr Pig said:


> A friend sent me a link to this story from Ireland: LINK
> 
> So, if we put knobbly tyres on it, should this bike be allowed on non-motorised trails?


Do you mean this thing:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887207464172744705
Considering it has a gas motor and an exhaust pipe.... that is nothing like a pedelec.

I hate those 2-cycle ad-on kits, moron runs up and down my street on one, so loud... so annoying.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Mr Pig said:


> A friend sent me a link to this story from Ireland: LINK
> 
> So, if we put knobbly tyres on it, should this bike be allowed on non-motorised trails?


I see hobos on those fairly often in a big cloud of blue smoke, more often than I see ebikes.

Speaking of Ireland and ebikes, this is pretty amusing:

Singletrack Magazine | Northern Ireland Assembly Promotes Illegal E-bikes

Oopsie


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Klurejr said:


> Considering it has a gas motor and an exhaust pipe.... that is nothing like a pedelec.


I wouldn't say that. Does a similar speed, pedal-assist, apart from the power source it's in the ball park.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Mr Pig said:


> I wouldn't say that. Does a similar speed, pedal-assist, apart from the power source it's in the ball park.


not really pedal assist in the same fashion, more like pedal to start, then throttle to go. That is how all the ones I see in my area work. I never see anyone pedaling them to actual move them along.


----------



## KiwiPhil (Jun 2, 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I wouldn't say that. Does a similar speed, pedal-assist, apart from the power source it's in the ball park.


How you could ever liken that thing to a modern E-MTB Ill never know!!!!!
You've got to be clutching at straws with that one MR Pig.

I don't think that the type of EBike riders that frequent MTB forums such as this would ride those sort of contraptions.

Its like me suggesting YOU are riding the bike below on the trails !!!!!


----------



## Bmiller71 (Oct 29, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> I wouldn't say that. Does a similar speed, pedal-assist, apart from the power source it's in the ball park.


In CA I can't even ride my dirt bike in a state park during the summer due to air regulations. So for those that try to use the gas motor vs ebike give it up, it's not even close.


----------



## Bjorn2Ride (Apr 4, 2017)

Any place that isn't suitable for riding a Class 1 pedelec MTB should be completely off limits to mechanized travel since there is no way to differentiate between the impact of a 25 year old on a MTB and a 50 year old on an eMTB. If I was hell bent on banning mountain bikes and represented the "hikers and horses" crowd, I would troll eBike forums with divisive nonsense. Looks like they are winning.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

KiwiPhil said:


> How you could ever liken that thing to a modern E-MTB Ill never know!


Simple. It's a bicycle with a motor on it.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

KP, you can see the insanity we're encountering. Probably one person in a million can't see the difference between the two bikes in question. Might as well try something easier like peace in the middle east.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

fos'l said:


> KP, you can see the insanity we're encountering. Probably one person in a million can't see the difference between the two bikes in question.


Who said there isn't a difference? My point is that a bike with a motor is a bike with a motor. If you allow bikes with electric motors why not bikes with petrol motors?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Mr Pig said:


> Who said there isn't a difference? My point is that a bike with a motor is a bike with a motor. If you allow bikes with electric motors why not bikes with petrol motors?


They'll get there, their first step is to get low powered electric bikes okayed to ride on the trails. Then they move to the argument of a little more power. Finally, why discriminate against petrol, it's about the rider not what's powering the motor.

But I know you already know this, Mr. Pig.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

chazpat said:


> They'll get there, their first step is to get low powered electric bikes okayed to ride on the trails. Then they move to the argument of a little more power. Finally, why discriminate against petrol, it's about the rider not what's powering the motor.
> 
> But I know you already know this, Mr. Pig.


You're right, all their arguments could just be used by more out of shape and lazy riders than they are. 
"My neighbor is only 20lbs overweight and he gets to use his 250w bike, I am 80lbs overweight, why can't' I use my 1000w bike?"


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Y'all are pretty judgmental. You guys must be in perfect bike form. There are legal places to ride Ebikes. Who cares what people ride, how much they weigh etc..


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Y'all are pretty judgmental. You guys must be in perfect bike form. There are legal places to ride Ebikes. Who cares what people ride, how much they weigh etc..


No problem with you riding them where they are currently legal.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

No worries, I currently don't own an emtb. Just sold my Levo. Fun as crap on the beach.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Who cares what people ride,


The N.F.S., the B.L.M. More and more cities are taking an interest in them. I'd say the care level is getting pretty high.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I could care less what you ride. Anything with 2 wheels is cool with me.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Gutch said:


> I could care less what you ride. Anything with 2 wheels is cool with me.


*could NOT care less. You're welcome.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gutch said:


> I could care less what you ride. Anything with 2 wheels is cool with me.


1, 3, 4 or 6 can all be fun too.

BRRAAAPPPPP!!!!


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Absolutely, never rode a uni-cycle but owned a 3 wheeler, 4 wheeler and a max 6 wheeler!. Ktms electric adventure bikes and super moto look fun. No noise or emissions I like.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Except for the smell of VP and the noise of a 250 2 smoke!


----------



## fixwdgear (Feb 1, 2019)

I thought governor Brown passed a law that class 1 ebikes are considered as a bicycle. The signs that are posted no motorized vehicle are more than 20 years old. Older than ebike have been around in socal. I talked to someone that had ebike at Aliso and when he was coming out of Aliso the ranger open the truck door on him and got many bruises on his face. The ranger said we cant fine you , because we dont have proper signage, but we are going to give you a written warning. If you got a ticket you can win in court for riding a e bike in the parks, because they do not have proper signage like they have in nor cal. I ride my ebike not in the regional parks and I average less than 9 miles an hour on a 2.5 hour ride on a 20 mile ride. This is slower than a fast rider on a regular bike. I use the assist to get me up the climbs, since i am 55 years old and 260 lbs. I wouldnt be doing these trails that are over 20 % grade on my normal mountain bike. There are people riding in the Regional parks on regular bikes that are going to fast around other riders on regular bikes. Isn't their a speed limit in the parks at 10 miles an hour?


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

fixwdgear said:


> I thought governor Brown passed a law that class 1 ebikes are considered as a bicycle.


You "thought" wrong.

The latest legislation allows local authorities to ban ebikes from trails.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

fixwdgear said:


> I thought governor Brown passed a law that class 1 ebikes are considered as a bicycle. The signs that are posted no motorized vehicle are more than 20 years old. Older than ebike have been around in socal. I talked to someone that had ebike at Aliso and when he was coming out of Aliso the ranger open the truck door on him and got many bruises on his face. The ranger said we cant fine you , because we dont have proper signage, but we are going to give you a written warning. If you got a ticket you can win in court for riding a e bike in the parks, because they do not have proper signage like they have in nor cal. I ride my ebike not in the regional parks and I average less than 9 miles an hour on a 2.5 hour ride on a 20 mile ride. This is slower than a fast rider on a regular bike. I use the assist to get me up the climbs, since i am 55 years old and 260 lbs. I wouldnt be doing these trails that are over 20 % grade on my normal mountain bike. There are people riding in the Regional parks on regular bikes that are going to fast around other riders on regular bikes. Isn't their a speed limit in the parks at 10 miles an hour?


Orange County, California - News Details

Electric Bicycles Now Permitted on Regional Bikeways

For the past 20 years, Orange County Codified Ordinance OCCO 2-5-29 prohibited the use of all motorized conveyances, including electric bicycles (eBikes) on all County bikeways and trails.

On July 17, 2018, the Board of Supervisors passed a revision to the ordinance, making the following exception: "Class 1 and Class 2 electric bicycles, as defined by the California Vehicle Code, on those regional paved, off-road bikeways designated for such use by the Director of OC Parks."

Currently, this means that Class 1 and 2 eBikes are now permitted on more than 75 miles of Orange County bikeways including:
Coyote Creek Bikeway in Buena Park, La Mirada, La Habra, and Los Alamitos.
Santa Ana River Bikeway.
Bay View Bikeway at Upper Newport Bay in Newport Beach.
San Diego Creek Bikeway in Irvine and Newport Beach.
Peters Canyon Bikeway in Orange and Irvine.
Hicks Canyon Bikeway in Irvine.
Aliso Creek Bikeway in Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, and Aliso Viejo.
Salt Creek Bikeway in Dana Point.
San Juan Creek Bikeway in Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano.

Due to safety concerns, all classes of eBikes continue to be prohibited on unpaved trails within regional and wilderness parks where there is reduced long-distance visibility and/or width to accommodate trail users who need to veer out of the path of another user traveling at a high rate of speed.


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

Speed limits on MTB trails? Police patrolling MTB trails? Californians really are HIGH! You guys need to sober up!!!


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

The regulation makes no sense as the speed is the same going downhill, just check the youtube videos of folks bombing the trails in reg bikes in OC, and the difference of speed in other places presents no measurable difference in 'safety'. It is all based on huge assumptions. Though perhaps the only way those baseless assumptions get eliminated is through more research to eliminate the perceptions and replace them with valid outcome measures, ie facts.

of course on the scale of things, 'poaching' as in riding any MTB on an illegal trail or making a new trail illegally is orders of magnitude more impactful than riding an eMTB on a reg MTB trail where eMTB are banned. 

But many laws are as%ses and cannot break them all just because they are nonsensical. We live in a world where the only thing keeping humans from destroying each other is the laws we have that are obeyed.


----------



## howardv (Nov 11, 2016)

og-mtb said:


> You "thought" wrong.
> 
> The latest legislation allows local authorities to ban ebikes from trails.


Actually, the original law from governor Brown allows local authorities to ban ebikes. But they have to make their intentions known by putting up signs. The old "no motorized vehicles" sign doesn't apply. They have to be specific and ban ebikes specifically. Generally speaking, local land managers put up "no e-bike" signs. Then the rangers patrol and issue warnings for a month or more. After that, they start issuing citations.

And I understand Federal land under USFS may have different laws. Problem is that most recreational users have no idea if the park is state or federal land. I'm still confused as to the status of Santa Monica Mountains. A one mile section may belong to three different land managers. Really difficult to have consistent rules under these circumstances.

In my area, they passed a code specifically banning e-bikes. However, it's not advertised anywhere. No signs on the trails. No mention on their website. You need the specific private link to the pdf file which shows this new ordinance. According to the rangers, they are not enforcing this new law. They are examining the effects of e-bikes. The laws was passed so they will be ready if they see the need to ban e-bikes.

The exact same scenario is in effect on the Santa Monica beach bike path. New laws prohibit e-bikes and even regular bicycles that are part of the bike share program on the beach bike path. But none are being advertised nor enforced.

So it all depends on the park. I ride both my regular and e-bike on the trails. When I see signs banning e-bikes, or when a ranger asks me to leave, I won't ride it anymore.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

howardv said:


> Actually, the original law from governor Brown allows local authorities to ban ebikes.


Semantics.

As I noted, AB1096 is the latest State legislation that addresses "ebikes." It's also the original law as you claim.

Your comment is a distinction without a difference.


----------



## UPSed (Dec 26, 2010)

I ride Cheeseboro frequently and apparently there aren't any penalties yet. There are several entrances to the park and every one has a no ebikes sign posted yet more than half the riders there are on ebikes. My guess is because it's so beginner friendly.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

There will never be enough law enforcement or rangers.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Gutch said:


> There will never be enough law enforcement or rangers.


Lets hope so, there are certainly more important things for law enforcement to be doing instead of playing nanny police on the trails.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

^I agree.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

And this is what's wrong with our world.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

Back in '92, there were rangers with radar guns on MT. Tam fire roads popping mountain bikers with $250 tickets. Anything above 15 miles an hour was illegal.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

mlx john said:


> Back in '92, there were rangers with radar guns on MT. Tam fire roads popping mountain bikers with $250 tickets. Anything above 15 miles an hour was illegal.


And back in '16 it started up again:

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/03/31/bicycle-radar-enforcement-marin-county-open-space/

The self-designated spokesman for the mountain bike community said that some mountain bikers might start poaching single track as a result of speed enforcement on fire roads.

Fodder for M. J. who-shall-not-be-named.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

There is a 15mph speed limit on the trails in San Diego. I have never seen that enforced.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Why is it necessary to restart a dead thread from 2017?

This thread is not necessary and only dilutes the forum and alienates posters.

Show some self restraint and stop posting to this thread.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

mlx john said:


> Back in '92, there were rangers with radar guns on MT. Tam fire roads popping mountain bikers with $250 tickets. Anything above 15 miles an hour was illegal.


They actually started before '92. The whoops on Rocky Ridge were an especially popular spot because they were easily accessed by their pickups and you were blind coming into their speed traps.



hikerdave said:


> And back in '16 it started up again


They never stopped.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

Nurse Ben said:


> Why is it necessary to restart a dead thread from 2017?
> 
> This thread is not necessary and only dilutes the forum and alienates posters.
> 
> Show some self restraint and stop posting to this thread.


How is allowing folks to self-incriminate "diluting the forum"?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Nurse Ben said:


> Why is it necessary to restart a dead thread from 2017?
> 
> This thread is not necessary and only dilutes the forum and alienates posters.
> 
> Show some self restraint and stop posting to this thread.


The land managers that read it appreciate the intel though.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

The "hall monitor" is strong in many it seems.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> The "hall monitor" is strong in many it seems.


Says the confused wannabe hall monitor who falsely claims that the USFS and BLM aren't enforcing laws regarding mountain bikes.

That's rich.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

KenPsz said:


> The "hall monitor" is strong in many it seems.


Their "our" trails. Either we police them or they'll be closed to us.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

og-mtb said:


> Says the confused wannabe hall monitor who falsely claims that the USFS and BLM aren't enforcing laws regarding mountain bikes.
> 
> That's rich.


Not to the letter of the law that many here are complaining about.

It's funny to watch, but I guess some people have to have something to complain about to make themselves happy


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

KenPsz said:


> It's funny to watch, but I guess some people have to have something to complain about to make themselves happy


Yeah, we can't stand all the haters with opinions who don't see it our way, right?


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> Not to the letter of the law that many here are complaining about.


How exactly are the USFS and BLM not adhering to the letter of the law regarding mountain bikes?


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

og-mtb said:


> How exactly are the USFS and BLM not adhering to the letter of the law regarding mountain bikes?


The law here is EO 11644 which directed BLM and Forest Service to develop a travel plan to minimize environmental damage and user conflict caused by motorized vehicles, in order to confirm with NEPA. Those agencies have no choice but to ban eBikes where motorcycles unless or until that executive order is amended or rescinded.

It's unlikely that eBikes will be legal on Federal land until some rich political donor buys an eBike and decides that they want to ride on forest trails or some Senator slips a stealth amendment into some other bill.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

og-mtb said:


> How exactly are the USFS and BLM not adhering to the letter of the law regarding mountain bikes?


The wilderness act and the follow up 1984 amendment bans mechanical and mechanized from wilderness lands. Mountain bikes fit both of those.

So if USFS and BLM were following the letter of the law, mountain bikes would be a no no completely. Just like the rangers that just tell people to leave instead of issuing tickets.

So be careful with these calls for letter of the law, unintended consequences can be a *****.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

KenPsz said:


> The wilderness act and the follow up 1984 amendment bans mechanical and mechanized from wilderness lands. Mountain bikes fit both of those.
> 
> So if USFS and BLM were following the letter of the law, mountain bikes would be a no no completely. Just like the rangers that just tell people to leave instead of issuing tickets.
> 
> So be careful with these calls for letter of the law, unintended consequences can be a *****.


Can you explain what the Wilderness Act has to do with e-bikes in non-Wilderness lands administered by the USFS or BLM?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> The wilderness act and the follow up 1984 amendment bans mechanical and mechanized from wilderness lands. Mountain bikes fit both of those.
> 
> So if USFS and BLM were following the letter of the law, mountain bikes would be a no no completely. Just like the rangers that just tell people to leave instead of issuing tickets.


Again, this is absolutely and unequivocally false.

The USFS and the BLM do follow the letter of the law - mountain bikes are banned in Wilderness, per the Wilderness Act.

What you are too slow to understand is that, once again, Wilderness is only a subset of USFS and BLM lands.

This simple fact has been explained to you a number of times and yet you continue to post your falsehood above.

You are either a liar, or just really, really dumb.

Which is it?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> Can you explain what the Wilderness Act has to do with e-bikes in non-Wilderness lands administered by the USFS or BLM?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Didn't somebody already point this out to him a few weeks ago?

You can lead a horse to water, but it still can't read.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Cornfield said:


> Yeah, we can't stand all the haters with opinions who don't see it our way, right?


Seems I hit a nerve that is interesting. Have an opinion all you want just expect people to respond and don't get all bent out of shape over it.

It seems the "haters" do become a touchie bunch.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

hikerdave said:


> The law here is EO 11644 which directed BLM and Forest Service to develop a travel plan to minimize environmental damage and user conflict caused by motorized vehicles, in order to confirm with NEPA. Those agencies have no choice but to ban eBikes where motorcycles unless or until that executive order is amended or rescinded.
> 
> It's unlikely that eBikes will be legal on Federal land until some rich political donor buys an eBike and decides that they want to ride on forest trails or some Senator slips a stealth amendment into some other bill.


I asked about mountain bikes, not electric motor bicycles.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

That is a good point Ken, Mechanized means motorized so the letter of the law should ban regular bikes everywhere eBikes are banned.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> Didn't somebody already point this out to him a few weeks ago?
> 
> You can lead a horse to water, but it still can't read.


Only one week ago:

https://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/if-...n-bike-ever-again-1095619-3.html#post13961603


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

KenPsz said:


> Seems I hit a nerve that is interesting. Have an opinion all you want just expect people to respond and don't get all bent out of shape over it.
> 
> It seems the "haters" do become a touchie bunch.


So this is how you respond to getting called out for your ignorance, by claiming some fictional, superior high road? You're a bizarre dude.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

mbmb65 said:


> So this is how you respond to getting called out for your ignorance, by claiming some fictional, superior high road? You're a bizarre dude.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If the haters were interested in the high road, they would post in a forum of their own positive interest.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

og-mtb said:


> Only one week ago:
> 
> https://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/if-...n-bike-ever-again-1095619-3.html#post13961603


Well, it is a big word. 10 whole letters. Might still be working through it.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> That is a good point Ken, Mechanized means motorized so the letter of the law should ban regular bikes everywhere eBikes are banned.


Holy crap - there's actually more than one of them!

Just wow.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

figofspee said:


> That is a good point Ken, Mechanized means motorized so the letter of the law should ban regular bikes everywhere eBikes are banned.


You are kidding right? Mechanized DOES NOT mean motorized...... not even close.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

figofspee said:


> If the haters were interested in the high road, they would post in a forum of their own positive interest.


Lol. So I'm a hater? So whenever one of you "lovers" gets called out on your ignorance and idiocies, you lash out with craziness? Great plan. Y'all are gonna go far. This issue very much concerns me, so yeah, it's in my best interest to pay attention.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

figofspee said:


> That is a good point Ken, Mechanized means motorized so the letter of the law should ban regular bikes everywhere eBikes are banned.


Wait, what??!! You can't be serious. Can you?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

. After electrification, when most small machinery was no longer hand powered, mechanization was synonymous with motorized machines.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanization

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/mechanized

I guess we should trust you guys over thesaurus.com and wikipedia.com


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

figofspee said:


> . After electrification, when most small machinery was no longer hand powered, mechanization was synonymous with motorized machines.[2]
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanization
> 
> ...


LOL, you just cited Wikipedia as an authoritative source?

For folks that are interested in a deep dive into Congress' use of "mechanized" in the Wilderness Act, here's some light reading (from an anti-bikes in Wilderness perspective):

https://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/tools/Mechanization in Wilderness.pdf


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mechanized


> mechanize[mek-uh-nahyz]
> 
> verb (used with object), mech·a·nized, mech·a·niz·ing.
> to make mechanical.
> to operate or perform by or as if by machinery.


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mechanical


> mechanical[muh-kan-i-kuh l]
> 
> adjective
> having to do with machinery:
> ...


Now compare that to Motorized:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/motorized?s=t


> motorize[moh-tuh-rahyz]
> 
> verb (used with object), mo·tor·ized, mo·tor·iz·ing.
> to furnish with a motor, as a vehicle.
> to supply with motor-driven vehicles, usually in the place of horses and horse-drawn vehicles.


Please stop embarrassing yourself. Mechanized does not mean motorized.

If something has mechanical parts and is driven by human power, it is not motorized, it is mechanized. To be motorized it must be driven by a motor.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

You guys don't trust Wikipedia or thesaurus but Doug Scott is an acceptable resource. You can go on STC`s website too, they have extensive documentation showing mechanize and motorize being used interchangably by members of Congress.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

figofspee said:


> . After electrification, when most small machinery was no longer hand powered, mechanization was synonymous with motorized machines.[2]
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanization
> 
> ...


Dude, are you freaking serious?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> You guys don't trust Wikipedia or thesaurus but Doug Scott is an acceptable resource. You can go on STC`s website too, they have extensive documentation showing mechanize and motorize being used interchangably by members of Congress.


Wiki is a laughable resource to use to try and prop up an already untenable position (users can edit and add to it's content without fact checking). Carry on with the idiocy.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> You guys don't trust Wikipedia or thesaurus but Doug Scott is an acceptable resource. You can go on STC`s website too, they have extensive documentation showing mechanize and motorize being used interchangably by members of Congress.


Doesn't matter one bit.

What does matter is that you appear to have no idea what Wilderness is, and because you don't, the entire equivalency you two are trying to draw makes no sense at all to begin with.

Maybe try Wikipedia.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Mechanized:








Motorized:


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> Didn't somebody already point this out to him a few weeks ago?
> 
> You can lead a horse to water, but it still can't read.


I guess I didn't hold his hand and explain it to him but I certainly lead him to water. I think he just pissed in it instead of drinking.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Mechanized:








Motorized:


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

figofspee said:


> You guys don't trust Wikipedia or thesaurus but Doug Scott is an acceptable resource. You can go on STC`s website too, they have extensive documentation showing mechanize and motorize being used interchangably by members of Congress.


It takes a special kind of fool to conflate mechanized and motorized in the Winderness act and then suggest that provisions of the Wilderness act should apply everywhere.

"Mechanized means motorized so the letter of the law should ban regular bikes everywhere eBikes are banned."


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Mechanized:








Motorized:


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Mechanized:








Motorized:


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Testimony like this:

Mr. Florance: "Horses and buggies are not prohibited."

Mr. White: "I'm talking about the mechanical contraption with wheels that goes behind the horse. The buggy. Or the spring wagon. This is considered -- and is this not a mechanical device?"

Mr. Florance: "No, it is not a motorized vehicle."

Mr. White: "Well, thank you, Mr. Florance, for your explicit explanation. I have no further questions."

The above is one of DOZENS of excerpts from the congressional hearings that lead up to the passage of the Wilderness Act. Back in that era, "mechanical" and "mechanized" were synonyms for "motorized", especially when used in the context of forest travel and transport.

Sustainable Trails Coalition January 2016


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> Testimony like this:
> 
> Mr. Florance: "Horses and buggies are not prohibited."
> 
> ...


Wilderness areas don't allow bike OR motors. And he whole side topic has nothing at all to do with anything anyone is talking about (stupid off-topic semantic ramblings aside).

What two of you seem uniquely unable to understand is that not all federal land is designated Wilderness. Ignorance of that fact is why you and Ken aren't making any sense at all.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

If all bikes are mechanized as you say, then they should be banned everywhere motorized usages are.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Just ban the troll.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> If all bikes are mechanized as you say, then they should be banned everywhere motorized usages are.


Are you really this stupid?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> Are you really this stupid?


The interpretations of the law are really this stupid.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> Wilderness areas don't allow bike OR motors. And he whole side topic has nothing at all to do with anything anyone is talking about (stupid off-topic semantic ramblings aside).
> 
> What two of you seem uniquely unable to understand is that not all federal land is designated Wilderness. Ignorance of that fact is why you and Ken aren't making any sense at all.


Oh my post made plenty of sense, mechanical and mechanized are super set definitions that are used for restrictions. it is interesting to see folks trying to not have the letter of the law applied (aka kept out of wilderness designated areas) to them but want it applied to others (tickets, fines, bike confiscation).

I did not expect to see this dramatic of a response though, seems a nerve was hit.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> The interpretations of the law are really this stupid.


You still have no idea what a Wilderness area is and what makes it unique, do you?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> You still have no idea what a Wilderness area is and what makes it unique, do you?


Ah yes, the siren song of those who wish to keep bikes out of Wilderness and everywhere else there is dirt. We have to ban bikes to keep it unique!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> Oh my post made plenty of sense, mechanical and mechanized are super set definitions that are used for restrictions. it is interesting to see folks trying to not have the letter of the law applied (aka kept out of wilderness designated areas) to them but want it applied to others (tickets, fines, bike confiscation).


Okay numbnuts, now try to give an example a Wilderness area that allows bicycles.

We'll wait...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> Okay numbnuts, now try to give an example a Wilderness area that allows bicycles.
> 
> We'll wait...


Are you holding your breath?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

I feel dumber for just reading this drivel. Ouch. It's hard when those trying to make an argument can't even get the facts correct.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> Okay numbnuts, now try to give an example a Wilderness area that allows bicycles.
> 
> We'll wait...


Sweet down to name calling! This is awesome and show desperation, but please continue.

I don't have to prove anything other than I seemed of oh hit a nerve with some of you.
Which I have to wonder why are the group of you even in the e-bike forum if you dislike them so much?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> Sweet down to name calling! This is awesome and show desperation, but please continue.
> 
> I don't have to prove anything other than I seemed of oh hit a nerve with some of you.
> Which I have to wonder why are the group of you even in the e-bike forum if you dislike them so much?


No problem with e-bikes, meatheads are another story.

You manage to figure out the distinction between BLM/USFS and Wilderness lands yet?
It really shouldn't be this hard.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> Which I have to wonder why are the group of you even in the e-bike forum if you dislike them so much?


You think it is pointless for long time users of this site to not want false information being posted by others....... This has nothing to do with whether or not someone likes or dislikes eBikes.... this has turned into a conversation about what the actual definitions of Wilderness, Mechanized and Motorized are. Some users like figosphere are flat out wrong in their understanding of those definitions. Correcting false statements has nothing to do with like or dislike of eBikes.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> Oh my post made plenty of sense, mechanical and mechanized are super set definitions that are used for restrictions. it is interesting to see folks trying to not have the letter of the law applied (aka kept out of wilderness designated areas) to them but want it applied to others (tickets, fines, bike confiscation).
> 
> I did not expect to see this dramatic of a response though, seems a nerve was hit.


The only nerve you hit of mine was my ulnar nerve(aka funny bone).

As in, I continue to laugh at your abject ignorance. You obviously have very little riding experience since you can't understand that the "letter of the law" (The Wilderness Act, banning bikes) that you keep going on about only applies to 2% of BLM land and 18% of USFS land.

That's why folks can legally ride places like this, where electric motor bicycles are banned:

USFS:









BLM:


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Not to mention the difference between Wilderness and wilderness......


Research before posting is highly encouraged.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> The wilderness act and the follow up 1984 amendment bans mechanical and mechanized from wilderness lands. Mountain bikes fit both of those.
> 
> So if USFS and BLM were following the letter of the law, mountain bikes would be a no no completely.


Just to remind you of where you went (and keep going) wildly wrong.

You guys really have no clue, which in and of itself is fine; people don't know what they don't know.

But the really weird and annoying thing is that you absolutely refuse to recognize that or make any effort to learn anything, instead, you just keep spouting the same nonsense over and over.

As you've been told at least half a dozen times, you need to learn the difference between Wilderness and wilderness. Until you do, you're doomed to keep making a fool out of yourself.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

KenPsz said:


> The wilderness act and the follow up 1984 amendment bans mechanical and mechanized from wilderness lands. Mountain bikes fit both of those.
> 
> So if USFS and BLM were following the letter of the law, mountain bikes would be a no no completely.


I realize your most likely just spreading around false info in order to get reaction and to do what you can to get this thread shut down, but here is why your're wrong anyway...

They do follow the letter of the law and mountain bikes are prohibited from all Wilderness lands within the BLM or National Forest boundaries. What you can't seem to grasp is that not all land within National Forest or BLM boarders are Wilderness. That is why you can take a Jeep Wrangler Rubicon Edition on the Rubicon trail which is part of Tahoe National Forest.

Another example can be seen here in this map of where I ride. There are parts of the Humbolt-Toiyabe National Forest that I can ride my bike, and parts I cannot. Because USFS is following the Wilderness act, I cannot ride in the Mt Rose Wilderness portion of Humbolt-Toiyabe National Forest as seen below on this map.









View attachment 1236874


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

I thought you guys would like this quote since it sounds a bit like this topic and comments from other threads:

"Solomon also claims that mountain bikers haven't really lost any access to trails due to Wilderness designations, and thus shouldn't be clamoring for more. Mountain bikers, in this world view, are anti-fact, anti-science truth deniers using alt-right techniques to lie their way into Wilderness so they can blow past Sierra Clubbers at soil-their-khakis speeds."

Just change mountain biker to e-biker

https://www.outsideonline.com/2270291/mountain-bikes-wilderness

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Why do these threads always turn into such a shitshow? This thread began about poaching penalties. As soon as it became about how to avoid them, the thread should have been shut down.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

^because it is an Electric Motor Bike forum on a mountain biking web site. This forum has never been productive and never will be. Not sure why that would be, in any way, a surprise to anyone.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> I thought you guys would like this quote since it sounds a bit like this topic and comments from other threads:
> 
> "Solomon also claims that mountain bikers haven't really lost any access to trails due to Wilderness designations, and thus shouldn't be clamoring for more. Mountain bikers, in this world view, are anti-fact, anti-science truth deniers using alt-right techniques to lie their way into Wilderness so they can blow past Sierra Clubbers at soil-their-khakis speeds."
> 
> ...


The author seems all bent out of shape about Castle Divide.

One of my favorite backpacking trips was a group of four in the White Clouds to Chamberlain Lakes, scrambling up Castle Peak, and also circumnavigating Castle peak. Part of this trip was on that Castle Divide trail people are so broken up about losing. Even though two of us were avid mountain bikers, we left the bikes at home and thoroughly enjoyed ourselves (bikes were allowed on Castle Divide back then)

Personally, I won't be poaching any non-wilderness Forest Service trails just as I never poached any wilderness on my mountain bike; I'm happy with my legal access to South Mountain which is unbelievably lucky. Hopefully the local purists aren't successful in their attempts to kick my bike out of there. (I'll still be hiking out there sans bike if that happens and will continue to step off the trail so you can keep your flow going)


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

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


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

I could make it productive...lol


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> Okay numbnuts, now try to give an example a Wilderness area that allows bicycles.
> 
> We'll wait...


If you are a local resident in Alaska and want to go fishing in Wilderness, you can ride a bicycle.

In summary, the ANILCA exceptions include:
· "&#8230;the taking on public lands of fish and wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence uses 
shall be accorded priority over the taking on such lands of fish and wildlife for other
purposes." [ANILCA 804];
· "&#8230;appropriate use for subsistence purposes of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other
means of surface transportation traditionally employed for such purposes by local 
residents, subject to reasonable regulation." [ANILCA 811];


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

figofspee said:


> If you are a local resident in Alaska and want to go fishing in Wilderness, you can ride a bicycle.
> 
> In summary, the ANILCA exceptions include:
> · "&#8230;the taking on public lands of fish and wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence uses
> ...


I don't see anything about Wilderness areas, just conservation areas. Could you please point it out?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/aknatureandscience/anilcawilderness.htm

there are other Wilderness areas that allow the legal use of mechanized boating but Alaska is the only place you can bicycle.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

> In Wilderness outside Alaska, the following are generally prohibited. In Alaska, ANILCA makes the following exceptions:


 so even that website acknowledges it is a special use case and far outside the normal. Considering very few mtbr members live in Alaska, it is sorta a moot point. But it is interesting.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

I have said before, and will again, lots of decisions will be on a case by case basis. Trying to generalize a rules system is impossible considering all the variables. And take into consideration, alot will depend on the manager incharge. A blanket coverage doesn't mean actual inforcement.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> If you are a local resident in Alaska and want to go fishing in Wilderness, you can ride a bicycle.
> 
> In summary, the ANILCA exceptions include:
> · "&#8230;the taking on public lands of fish and wildlife for nonwasteful subsistence uses
> ...


Okay, so if you're living in the Alaskan bush and hunting and fishing for subsistence, you can ride a bike to help you not starve to death. 
Any reasonable person would extrapolate from there and come to the conclusion that e-bikes are allowed everywhere including Wilderness or mountain bikes should be totally banned on all federal land.

Totally sensible.


----------

