# MA to Ban Pedal Assist Bicycles from ALL State Park and Forest Trails SOON!



## limbojim (Nov 27, 2015)

For details about MA DCR's proposed ban on pedal assist bicycles from ALL state park and forest trails, see *pages 1 & 30* here:
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/06/03/2019.05.21 302 CMR 12 - DRAFT - redline - public comment 2019.pdf

*To object*, attend one of two final "public hearings" (Holyoke June 25 and Brighton July 2) or submit testimony in writing before July 24:
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/06/03/2019.05.16 - Notice - DRAFT 302 CMR 11, 12.pdf


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Weren't they already banned? My buddies in MA seem to think so.

Then again land ownership/management in the east is complicated/above my pay grade so maybe I'm off base.

-Walt


----------



## limbojim (Nov 27, 2015)

When asked by People for Bikes a few years ago, MA DCR's stated policy was that ebikes are "motorized vehicles," and relegated to motorized "OHV" trails. So yes, technically, you're right, but it was never in writing.

MA's motor vehicle code, however, allowed "motorized bikes" up to 50cc or 1000w to be classified as _bicycles_, as long as they capped at 25 mph. This has been in place for well more than a decade, but apparently it does not apply to "natural surface" trails or paths.

The proposed new DCR code, pushed for by NEMBA, singles out "pedal assist" bicycles and forbids them from _all_ DCR trails/paths, making no exceptions even for OHV-friendly trails, which boggles my mind and tells me that the "author" of the new code doesn't want ebikes in MA parks AT ALL.

I've been eMTBing on DCR trails since 2015 (for thousands of hours), and have never been told to stop - not by Rangers, and definitely not by MTBers. Some have been curious and open-minded enough to hop on, but most say **** like "I don't need it" etc. Many have been supportive, saying that if it keeps me riding, great, but the majority have expressed indifference. They seem to be unaware of NEMBA's hardcore stance against ebikes on trails.

NEMBA will find itself on the wrong side of history sooner or later, as its membership ages but wants to keep riding. FOr now, they're certainly missing out on a growing potential for new members!


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Banning from motorized trails does seem bizarre. 

To be fair, there's a lot of blowback out there based on P4B's legislative strategy. That could be part of it.

-Walt


----------



## shreddr (Oct 10, 2009)

limbojim said:


> NEMBA will find itself on the wrong side of history sooner or later, as its membership ages but wants to keep riding. FOr now, they're certainly missing out on a growing potential for new members!


I have seen the enemy and he is us....


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Massachusetts law does not expressly define "electrically assisted bicycle" separately from a bicycle with a gasoline engine. Mass. Gen. Law Ch. 90 Section 1 does define "motorized bicycle" as a pedal bicycle with a helper motor OR a non-pedal bicycle with a motor and a cylinder capacity not exceeding 50 cubic centimeters, an automatic transmission and the capability to reach a maximum speed of 30 mph."

https://www.bikeaccidentlawyersblog...s-spark-controversy-massachusetts-bike-paths/

Under Massachusetts state law, an e-bike can be interpreted as being a "motorized bicycle" which would make e-bikes subject to different rules of the road from regular bicycles, such as:

E-bike riders must carry a driver's license and are subject to registration requirements.
No one under 16 years of age can use an e-bike.
E-bikes are prohibited from all bike paths, as well as all sidewalks, regardless of local context.
https://www.massbike.org/ebikes

Sorry for your situation. I will write a letter against the proposed change. The MA senate has a bill https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/S2071 that will fix this situation and that might be NEMBA and DCR's motivation to step in front and solidify MA current approach to eBikes.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Let's go buy some weed, get wasted, then ban ebikes! Wow.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Why anyone would choose to live in the NE, is beyond me. There are some nice areas and great scenery, but the whole area seems to be about saying NO to everything, and everything is about control instead of freedom. "Live Free Or Die"? Looks like the NE has chosen a slow death by a million cuts. 

No surprise that the population of that region as a whole has barely grown in the past ten years. Time to raise taxes again to compensate.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

honkinunit said:


> Why anyone would choose to live in the NE, is beyond me. There are some nice areas and great scenery, but the whole area seems to be about saying NO to everything, and everything is about control instead of freedom. "Live Free Or Die"? Looks like the NE has chosen a slow death by a million cuts.
> 
> No surprise that the population of that region as a whole has barely grown in the past ten years. Time to raise taxes again to compensate.


umm, these towns and counties are interconnected with a zillion trails and paths thru much private land where landowners are cool with it but only human powered or horses. I constantly ride miles of endless trails that are not particularly known as a destination more of part of a huge loop and the landowners are wicked cool with it...but they don't want motorized anything.

stay out if you don't like it. or use a bicycle and not an e-bike and ...experience some of the best riding -anywhere- here in Ma

NEMBA is doing just fine and growing all the time

and no, e-bikes are not globally banned, re-read it please. DCR allows them on some specific paths of which there are many...so find out that part of the docs and check some maps and see where you can ride them

essentially this is the first step: defining e-bike separate from motorized, and laying in the first set of rules. Now if this goes through, then you can work to modify the rules. But the_* re-definition of e-bikes here is the biggest thing and without that in place first, nothing will ever get done.*_ think of the big picture, there has to be a starting point. and redefining them and separating them from motorized (pedal-assist of specific power) *has* to be done. _future work and rules changes cannot proceed without this redefinition. Once in the _DCR _books as pedal-assist a whole barrel of options for new rules and discussion can take place.

_For you e-bikers wanting access, This part has to go through:
*Motorized Conveyance. Any conveyance powered by a motor, other than a "motorvehicle" as defined in M.G.L. c. 90, sec. 1. For purposes of this regulation, a "Pedal- Assist Electric Bicycle," as defined herein, is not a Motorized Conveyance.*


----------



## limbojim (Nov 27, 2015)

127.0.0.1 said:


> stay out if you don't like it. or use a bicycle and not an e-bike and ...experience some of the best riding -anywhere- here in Ma
> 
> and no, e-bikes are not globally banned, re-read it please. DCR allows them on some specific paths of which there are many...[/B][/SIZE]


Not sure what part of the following proposed code change allows for pedal assist bicycles on ANY DCR trails (see page 30 of the first my originally linked PDFs above):
"Pedal-assist electric bicycles are not permitted on improved DCR trails that are less than 8 feet in width, and on dirt roads that are not open to vehicular traffic. *Pedal- assist electric bicycles are not permitted on any natural surface trails, regardless of width or other conditions.*"

I huff pretty damn hard when I ride my eMTBs and don't want to breathe ATV/Moto exhaust. Plus I'd have to drive nearly an hour to get to the nearest DCR OHV trails, whereas I have several singletrack trailheads within a 10 minute bike ride.

I keep trying to get back on my old Stumpy, but my anaerobic threshold has diminished since my third battle with Lyme and turning 50 several years ago. We need to learn to share and be _inclusive_ not exclusionary.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

limbojim said:


> We need to learn to share and be _inclusive_ not exclusionary.


But of course, that all goes out the straight out the window for anyone that wants to use a different motor than YOU deem acceptable.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

craigsj said:


> Is this comment really necessary? What does it have to do with e-bikes?


I think it's because Colorado also would need some sort of a helper motor to try to keep up.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/10-best-states-to-live-in_n_5661eb26e4b072e9d1c60d8c


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> I think it's because Colorado also would need some sort of a helper motor to try to keep up.
> 
> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/10-best-states-to-live-in_n_5661eb26e4b072e9d1c60d8c


"poverty rate, the percentage of adults who have at least a bachelor's degree, and life expectancy at birth."

Yes, those factors alone are going to totally dictate where I choose to live. That ranking has New Jersey as the fourth best state to live in! LMAO. Wonder why people are leaving in droves. We could cherry pick "best gumbo, most people speaking Cajun, and highest hot sauce production" and Louisiana would win hands down. I still wouldn't live there.

Even with the bogus criteria, CO came in 6th. The real story is here: *
MA > 10-yr. population growth:* 9.1% (21st lowest)
*CO> 10-yr. population growth:* 17.4% (8th highest)


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

craigsj said:


> Aren't access issues supposed to be off-limits now?


No, but the mods are waiting for some clarification as to whether the discussions about access should be in the eBike section or the Trail Building and Advocacy Section of the forums.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

oh, ranking states now ?

States ranked by Intelligence, MA #1. 

I would expect it to not have the most population growth, nor the most rapid changes to land use rules governing lands owned by the oldest money in the USA. 


Smarter people make better choices on average.

Let's keep sidetracking yet another thread with irrelevant BS.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

limbojim said:


> NEMBA will find itself on the wrong side of history sooner or later, as its membership ages but wants to keep riding. FOr now, they're certainly missing out on a growing potential for new members!


NEMBA is a mountain bike group. You shouldn't be shocked that they are not advocating for a motorized sporting activity. It's not mountain biking.

If there are enough ebikers in the area to matter they should start and advocacy group and make their case for access, trail maintenance, trail interactions, etc...

It be like saying a sailing group should advocate for power boating because their members might get too old to sail and would want to switch to power boating. That doesn't compute.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

my opinion on this will get ripped again and again
but it is this

don't fight this first step, which is largely definition. instead embrace it and use [whatever the result is] to move forward with, embrace it, and work on the next intelligent steps to get your access sorted and moving in the direction you feel is appropriate. nice friendly teamwork and ideas instead of the screwbag fights and pissin matches.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

Thread closed, to bad anything about ebike access always brings out the worst.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Re-opening for discussion regarding access and advocacy.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

mtbbiker said:


> Thread closed, to bad anything about ebike access always brings out the worst.


What did you see that you deemed lock down worthy?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

127.0.0.1 said:


> my opinion on this will get ripped again and again
> but it is this
> 
> don't fight this first step, which is largely definition. instead embrace it and use [whatever the result is] to move forward with, embrace it, and work on the next intelligent steps to get your access sorted and moving in the direction you feel is appropriate. nice friendly teamwork and ideas instead of the screwbag fights and pissin matches.


I won't rip it.

ebikes are different from bicycles and they're different from motorcycles. A legal definition clarifying this truth is an intelligent step towards an intelligent management policy.

I, for one, do not support the industry's strategy of treating advocacy of e mountain bikes as shoving them down land manager's throats in a not-too-dissimilar manner than the scooter rental companies that just started dumping dockless electric scooter share onto cities before the cities had a chance to consider them intelligently. There's a heavy lack of nuance in their strategy so far.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

mbmb65 said:


> What did you see that you deemed lock down worthy?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because it always comes down to the same arguments on both sides, then repeats, then repeats, and nobody's opinions change.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> Re-opening for discussion regarding access and advocacy.


As long as we stay on track. I see it going off track, it'll be closed again.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

craigsj said:


> Red bikes are different from blue bikes, do we need a "legal definition clarifying this truth" too?
> 
> The purpose of having a new category for e-bikes is so that they can discriminated from other, existing categories of vehicles. Without a clear justification for that it's not an "intelligent step towards an intelligent management policy". We don't, after all, have a legal distinction between downhill and cross country bicycles yet those are sufficiently different as to have an even more profound effect on "intelligent management policy".
> 
> Sorry, but it reeks of prejudice, and keep in mind, it's not just a "first step" in creating a new legal category, but a first step that includes severe limitations on use. The clear purpose of the new category is not simply to define a new legal language but to massively restrict e-bikes. That's hardly intelligent management policy, it's ignorant policy.


They need a category because they aren't bicycles. The motor is and will always be the line of demarcation, whether electric, nuclear or internal combustion it's still motorized.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

craigsj said:


> The motor is not, and never was, the "line of demarcation" except to some highly vocal, bigoted cyclists. For example, the forestry service defines them as "motorized vehicles" not because they have motors but because they are "self-propelled". They are wrong on that, but that's their "line of demarcation".


You mean the Forest Circus considers the motor to be the line of demarcation? So it seems that the motor does matter no matter how much you torture the logic to try and foist off motorized vehicles as bicycles.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

craigsj said:


> Red bikes are different from blue bikes, do we need a "legal definition clarifying this truth" too?
> 
> The purpose of having a new category for e-bikes is so that they can discriminated from other, existing categories of vehicles. Without a clear justification for that it's not an "intelligent step towards an intelligent management policy". We don't, after all, have a legal distinction between downhill and cross country bicycles yet those are sufficiently different as to have an even more profound effect on "intelligent management policy".
> 
> Sorry, but it reeks of prejudice, and keep in mind, it's not just a "first step" in creating a new legal category, but a first step that includes severe limitations on use. The clear purpose of the new category is not simply to define a new legal language but to massively restrict e-bikes. That's hardly intelligent management policy, it's ignorant policy.


So do you think tractor trailers should be under exactly the same legal framework as passenger cars? Do you think motorcycles should fall under the same legal framework as pickup trucks? A combine should fall under the same legal framework as my Honda? By your logic, the law discriminates against all of these vehicles because they all have separate laws that apply only to those specific types of motorized vehicles.

Downhill bikes and xc bikes are very different, true, but the locations where they tend to be ridden most are what differs the most, and determines how they're ridden. And as such, the management framework is specific to the riding location.

The presence of a motor is absolutely critical to the definition of an electric bicycle. You can't avoid it. The lack of a motor is absolutely critical to the definition of a bicycle. No getting around it. Lumping ebikes in with bicycles or with motorcycles is lazy and ignores the additional capabilities (and limitations) the motor brings to a bicycle.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

craigsj said:


> I don't know who the "Forest Circus" is, but no, I don't mean that, you do.
> 
> If you want to talk about tortured logic, perhaps you should demonstrate literacy first. What was just a moment ago a "line a demarcation" now merely means "does matter". What a tiny intellect you are.


Logic is lost on you, are you leading the charge for access? If you are this one is a slam dunk for denial.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

craigsj said:


> Yours certainly is. Maybe one day when you grow up you'll learn some.
> 
> Access where I live, as in most places, is not different from other bicycles. It's people like you leading the charge of denying access that are the problem. Sadly, people in charge of making decisions have neither the time nor the patience to realize how ignorant and bigoted your opinions are. By all means, though, celebrate while you can.


No celebration here, I simply abhor the mental gymnastics utilized by e advocates and the less than honest discussion from them.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2019)

mtbbiker said:


> Thread closed, to bad anything about ebike access always brings out the worst.


Maybe e-bikes should be banned???


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

This thread will not make it thru the day. Ebikes are banned in certain areas, BFD. If they’re not legal, they’re not. Move on. The riders that buy them and ride them legally are no different than the majority of mtbrs, the only difference is they may be more open minded. If y’all feel that bad about ebikes, I strongly suggest banning all brands of manufacturers of ebikes and components. Good luck.


----------



## Schulze (Feb 21, 2007)

craigsj said:


> The motor is not, and never was, the "line of demarcation" except to some highly vocal, bigoted cyclists. .


bigoted....haha, oh man. And you're the one calling for an honest discussion? Looney tunes.

This is a good ban. There is human power, and there is non human power. Its an excellent demarcation and I'll advocate for it, bombastic insults and all.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2019)

craigsj said:


> The motor is not, and never was, the "line of demarcation" except to some highly vocal, *big-toed* cyclists.


fify


----------



## shreddr (Oct 10, 2009)

craigsj said:


> Red bikes are different from blue bikes, do we need a "legal definition clarifying this truth" too?
> 
> The purpose of having a new category for e-bikes is so that they can discriminated from other, existing categories of vehicles. Without a clear justification for that it's not an "intelligent step towards an intelligent management policy". We don't, after all, have a legal distinction between downhill and cross country bicycles yet those are sufficiently different as to have an even more profound effect on "intelligent management policy".
> 
> Sorry, but it reeks of prejudice, and keep in mind, it's not just a "first step" in creating a new legal category, but a first step that includes severe limitations on use. The clear purpose of the new category is not simply to define a new legal language but to massively restrict e-bikes. That's hardly intelligent management policy, it's ignorant policy.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shreddr (Oct 10, 2009)

Harold said:


> So do you think tractor trailers should be under exactly the same legal framework as passenger cars? Do you think motorcycles should fall under the same legal framework as pickup trucks? A combine should fall under the same legal framework as my Honda? By your logic, the law discriminates against all of these vehicles because they all have separate laws that apply only to those specific types of motorized vehicles.
> 
> Downhill bikes and xc bikes are very different, true, but the locations where they tend to be ridden most are what differs the most, and determines how they're ridden. And as such, the management framework is specific to the riding location.
> 
> The presence of a motor is absolutely critical to the definition of an electric bicycle. You can't avoid it. The lack of a motor is absolutely critical to the definition of a bicycle. No getting around it. Lumping ebikes in with bicycles or with motorcycles is lazy and ignores the additional capabilities (and limitations) the motor brings to a bicycle.


Were mountain bikes legally defined back in the 80s when they emerged? No, just rules and guidelines regarding using "bicycles" off road. Ebikes should be the same, human power is primary, and non assist is a motorcycle. Define what what applies to both, no skidding, respect other trail users, wear a helmet, etc. E-Bikes are here to stay let's help them evolve, not try to drive them to extinction.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

[email protected].

Email sent!


----------



## scottxpc (Jan 24, 2013)

shreddr said:


> Were mountain bikes legally defined back in the 80s when they emerged? No, just rules and guidelines regarding using "bicycles" off road. Ebikes should be the same, human power is primary, and non assist is a motorcycle. Define what what applies to both, no skidding, respect other trail users, wear a helmet, etc. E-Bikes are here to stay let's help them evolve, not try to drive them to extinction.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well said !

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Gutch said:


> This thread will not make it thru the day. Ebikes are banned in certain areas, BFD. If they're not legal, they're not. Move on. The riders that buy them and ride them legally are no different than the majority of mtbrs, the only difference is they may be more open minded. If y'all feel that bad about ebikes, I strongly suggest banning all brands of manufacturers of ebikes and components. Good luck.


About four out of five eBikes that I see here in Arizona are older folks like me; I think that the riders may not be different but we have different demographics.

I do find it pretty appalling that NEMBA advocates against usage of trails by a similar user group to the extent of trying to dissuade the sales of trail-oriented eBikes in their turf. I was born in Massachusetts but haven't been there for more than fifty years; I remember that my dad would let anyone hunt on our land because of the German tradition of "every man's right" but the NEMBA's seem to believe in "no man's right" where eBikes are concerned and the land is owned by the state.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Anyone involved in MTB advocacy in New England knows the statements below to hold true. Anyone who hasn't, well, sorry, but your uninformed opinion isn't worth a damn.

"Advocacy groups like NEMBA have worked hard to develop good relationships with other organized recreational-trail user groups, such as the Appalachian Mountain Club. However, if eMTBs become common on our shared-use trails, there would likely be a backlash from a wide range of users and recreation stakeholders.

NEMBA works constantly to open up new trails and new areas to ride. Many of these are managed by town conservation commissions, land trusts, or private individuals where even the idea of allowing motorized bicycles would make it nearly impossible to gain permission. If our mountain bike advocacy efforts need to include eMTBs, our successes will be few and far between. Right now, there isn’t much of a population of eMTB riders but if a user base does develop, this new community of eMTB riders will need to set up their own advocacy organization and make their own case for access."

NEMBA knows that e-bikes will cause issues in trying to gain and keep access. I myself know through first hand experience that this is absolutely true. That's how things are around here, like it or not. I don't see why e-bikers think mountain bikers should be forced to do their advocacy work for them by default. NEMBA doesn't make policy though, so instead of whining about their opinion, I would suggest e-bikers take the advice given and start up your own advocacy efforts. And, as someone who has been involved in this sort of thing, I would strongly advice against moronic comparisons to 'red vs blue' bikes and a motor not being a motor. That kind of idiocy doesn't fly in the real world. 

As far as the OP, I agree that there is a problem with the proposed policy changes in that they don't specifically allow e-bikes on trails that allow motorized use. Makes no sense, and I can't think of anyone who would oppose that. I would assume it wouldn't take much to rectify; seems more of a screw-up than an intentional thing to me.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

I was going to post 2 hours ago and decided better, hoping slapheadmofo or others with local knowledge to chime in. I was going to agree with hikerdave and voice my disappointment with NEMBA for actively supporting a position to deny another trail user group trail access. Here in San Diego we have trails that may cross local, State and federal property, subjected to local, State and federal regulations. So I can understand the issue that slapheadmofo brings up. 

If there was an active electric motorized bike riders advocacy group in NEMBA territory there would have been an opportunity to work on solutions that would not place NEMBA in the position it finds itself. Had a real solution be brought in front of land managers and a workable compromise agreed upon and NEMBA chose to oppose for just about any reason, I would not be in support of NEMBA. That is not the case here.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Mountain bikers have faced an uphill battle as far as access goes because the demographic is typically limited to those who are in good shape, and younger. EBikes expand the demographic to more people. EBikes have benefitted from numerous advocacy groups in changing laws and attitudes here in the US. If NAMBLA wants to sit on the sidelines while all these other advocacy groups are engaging and relating with land managers in getting eBikes accepted, then that is their loss. Their approach is out of touch and of sync with the vast majority of other bike advocacy groups, and eBike access will succeed and prosper in MA with or without them.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

figofspee said:


> Mountain bikers have faced an uphill battle as far as access goes because the demographic is typically limited to those who are in good shape, and younger. EBikes expand the demographic to more people. EBikes have benefitted from numerous advocacy groups in changing laws and attitudes here in the US. If NAMBLA wants to sit on the sidelines while all these other advocacy groups are engaging and relating with land managers in getting eBikes accepted, then that is their loss. Their approach is out of touch and of sync with the vast majority of other bike advocacy groups, and eBike access will succeed and prosper in MA with or without them.


I usually would not waste my fking time responding to someone like you but you spout off so much ignorance in one post I have to sit my Tequila down.

You are not a mountain biker so why are you here? Name one fking place where a trail access issue against mountain bikers revolved around the core issue of fitness level or age. One example.

You may think it is funny substituting the group you belong to for the New England Mountain Biking Association but us mountain bikers do not appreciate it.

Where is the electric motorized bike advocacy groups fighting to oppose this ban? You want to blame NEMBA for taking a position when your kind doesn't even bother to show up. How about creating an opportunity for NEMBA and other mountain biking advocacy groups to support proposals that include electric motorized bike access instead of just riding your fking electric motorized bikes and telling us it is our responsibility to secure your access.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

A small list of the electric-motorized-bicycle-eBike-pedal-assisted-pedelec etc. groups that support eBike access off the top of my head are People For Bikes, IMBA, BPSA, and NSAA. There are other groups influencing land managers on a national level, and dozens (hundreds?) of groups advocating in the US for eBikes on a local and state level.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Most of the people who oppose mountain bikers are older, it is so prevalent that a parody group called hateful old hikers association was created. Getting older people and their buddies out riding is going to help get their money, time, and influence on our side. If the puritanical advocacy groups do not want money, time, and influence, well that explains their impotence up until this point.

You would have a hard time convincing me to give NAMBLA any of my time, money, or influence, and I spend 90 percent of my summer on my non-motorized non-electric bicycle.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> NEMBA knows that e-bikes will cause issues in trying to gain and keep access. I myself know through first hand experience that this is absolutely true. That's how things are around here, like it or not. I don't see why e-bikers think mountain bikers should be forced to do their advocacy work for them by default. NEMBA doesn't make policy though, so instead of whining about their opinion, I would suggest e-bikers take the advice given and start up your own advocacy efforts. And, as someone who has been involved in this sort of thing, I would strongly advice against moronic comparisons to 'red vs blue' bikes and a motor not being a motor. That kind of idiocy doesn't fly in the real world.


Quoted because it's worth reading a second time.

Advocacy takes a lot of time and effort. It's hard enough doing the work for activities you support. It's not something you are going to do for other user group. That's something they need to do for themselves.

I may not support motorsport activities happening on human powered hiking/biking trails, but I 100% support ebikers, dirt bikers, ATVers, etc....right to advocate for use of public lands for their chosen activities.

If you are not happy with your current trail access get to work. Mountain bike advocacy groups don't want to do the heavy lifting for you, but you can pretty much copy the organizational process and tactics to jump start the process.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

*Why here?*



slapheadmofo said:


> Anyone involved in MTB advocacy in New England knows the statements below to hold true. Anyone who hasn't, well, sorry, but your uninformed opinion isn't worth a damn.
> 
> "Advocacy groups like NEMBA have worked hard to develop good relationships with other organized recreational-trail user groups, such as the Appalachian Mountain Club. However, if eMTBs become common on our shared-use trails, there would likely be a backlash from a wide range of users and recreation stakeholders.
> 
> ...


This is a very reasonable response.

It highlights a point that those who have worked for access for mountain bikes, at this time, may not want to also advocate for motorized bikes.

While arguments may be made as to where to "draw the line" as to what does and does not make something a bicycle, those doing the work of fighting for access have likely chosen that having a motor is where they'd draw the line. Its where I'd draw the line when giving others access to ride my land. Again while some may argue that is not a good place to draw the line, it is within reason to draw the line at the point of the motor. And if those chose it to be there, so be it. It is within reason.

Personally, it is ridiculously "self evident" to me that a motorized assist device is so clearly outside the entire ethos of mountain biking that I was disappointed to even see e-bikes becoming part of this forum. I'm not against e-bikes necessarily, but just as I'd not want to see motorcycles or horses on this forum I don't want to see e-bikes.

Motorcycle groups and equestrian groups are not joining our forums and complaining that we do not advocate access for them.

Recall the whole concept of why in many mountain bike races the rider/racer is not (or at least was not) allowed to borrow tools from other riders? There are those of us who still feel that the true sport of mountain biking captures nature of the "rugged, self-supported, adventurous, individual". That _is_ mountain biking to many. The move to make every thing easier, more accessible, nicer, more inclusive, more friendly... well you can argue that is good, but to many of us it sure ain't mountain biking. So don't expect us to support your electric motorcycles.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

----


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

I'm just picturing the e-hikers show up at the hiking/backpacking advocacy group meeting and saying...."We are the same as you!" "It's only a hiking assist suit. We still have to move our arms and legs like you do. It won't hike itself." "So please fight for our access to the trails." "Your hiking boots are blue. My exo suit is red. Same thing really!"


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

figofspee said:


> A small list of the electric-motorized-bicycle-eBike-pedal-assisted-pedelec etc. groups that support eBike access off the top of my head are People For Bikes, IMBA, BPSA, and NSAA. There are other groups influencing land managers on a national level, and dozens (hundreds?) of groups advocating in the US for eBikes on a local and state level.


Hundreds? I'd like to see that list.

P4B & BPSA are the same organization, they've officially merged. They make money from selling ebikes, hardly a surprise they support them.

NSAA (I'm assuming Nat'l Ski Area Assn?) They make money selling access to their ski areas. I'm sure they're happy to sell tickets and hamburgers to ebike riders too.

IMBA "First and foremost, we advocate for access for traditional, non-motorized mountain bikes. IMBA does not advocate for access for eMTBs."

https://www.imba.com/blog/imba-updates-emtb-position-statement

None of them are going to show up when you have a sit down with a land manager, or stand in front of a parks board and try to convince them that letting you build a new trail, or get access to an old one is such a good idea. Local access is decided on the local level, and it's more convoluted than most people realize. At least in this forum there are people who have experience and know what it takes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2019)

craigsj said:


> e-bikes are not motorcycles, they are bicycles. The only reason access is an issue is this false premise being forced by people like you.


The real issue is: e-bikes have motors...motor+cycle=motorcycle.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

griz said:


> The real issue is: e-bikes have motors...motor+cycle=motorcycle.


There is no denying this simple fact. This is how motorcycles originated.

Sent from my SM-G935S using Tapatalk


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

figofspee said:


> A small list of the electric-motorized-bicycle-eBike-pedal-assisted-pedelec etc. groups that support eBike access off the top of my head are People For Bikes, IMBA, BPSA, and NSAA. There are other groups influencing land managers on a national level, and dozens (hundreds?) of groups advocating in the US for eBikes on a local and state level.


I did not ask for a list of electric motorized advocacy groups. On behalf of all the electric motorized bike riders in the North East I'm asking "where the hell are the 
electric motorized advocacy groups?" And just to be clear, I'm not requesting addresses. I'm wondering why they are not at the decision making table and influencing policy.

Again, I cannot speak for NEMBA, but if you (electric motorized advocacy groups) cannot present to NEMBA any sort of policy that NEMBA could get behind and support, don't blame NEMBA for not supporting a group that does not bother to show up.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

limbojim said:


> When asked by People for Bikes a few years ago, MA DCR's stated policy was that ebikes are "motorized vehicles," and relegated to motorized "OHV" trails. So yes, technically, you're right, but it was never in writing.
> 
> MA's motor vehicle code, however, allowed "motorized bikes" up to 50cc or 1000w to be classified as _bicycles_, as long as they capped at 25 mph. This has been in place for well more than a decade, but apparently it does not apply to "natural surface" trails or paths.
> 
> ...


 Nemba does not make the rules, we just advocated for human powered use, as is the way we were granted access. E bikers need to do their own advocating.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

craigsj said:


> Red bikes are different from blue bikes, do we need a "legal definition clarifying this truth" too?
> 
> The purpose of having a new category for e-bikes is so that they can discriminated from other, existing categories of vehicles. Without a clear justification for that it's not an "intelligent step towards an intelligent management policy". We don't, after all, have a legal distinction between downhill and cross country bicycles yet those are sufficiently different as to have an even more profound effect on "intelligent management policy".
> 
> Sorry, but it reeks of prejudice, and keep in mind, it's not just a "first step" in creating a new legal category, but a first step that includes severe limitations on use. The clear purpose of the new category is not simply to define a new legal language but to massively restrict e-bikes. That's hardly intelligent management policy, it's ignorant policy.


 The non motorized policy has been in place for decades. just a newer clarification the now includes e bikes. Try " It's the motor"


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

figofspee said:


> Mountain bikers have faced an uphill battle as far as access goes because the demographic is typically limited to those who are in good shape, and younger. EBikes expand the demographic to more people. EBikes have benefitted from numerous advocacy groups in changing laws and attitudes here in the US. If NAMBLA wants to sit on the sidelines while all these other advocacy groups are engaging and relating with land managers in getting eBikes accepted, then that is their loss. Their approach is out of touch and of sync with the vast majority of other bike advocacy groups, and eBike access will succeed and prosper in MA with or without them.


 Wow, so out of touch. 20 yr MA mt biker and life long resident. We are a mt bike advocacy group. Don't expect US to do your work for you. Which e bike advocacy group do you participate in? Meetings? Trail work? Fundraising? Do tell, please. Nemba guy here, 4 trail days so far this spring. 3 scheduled for the fall, cheers.


----------



## shreddr (Oct 10, 2009)

leeboh said:


> Nemba does not make the rules, we just advocated for human powered use, as is the way we were granted access. E bikers need to do their own advocating.


Such a lame position, if the high and mighty "human powered only" advocates extended their influence to help ebikers it could only be beneficial, but you are obviously better than us and would have to bend down to lift up another which doesn't seem to be in your dna 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

figofspee said:


> A small list of the electric-motorized-bicycle-eBike-pedal-assisted-pedelec etc. groups that support eBike access off the top of my head are People For Bikes, IMBA, BPSA, and NSAA. There are other groups influencing land managers on a national level, and dozens (hundreds?) of groups advocating in the US for eBikes on a local and state level.


 OK, great for some parts of the US. Nemba includes all of New England, minus VT. VT is their own thing. VMBA, good stuff there too. Ask yourself how many IMBA chapters there are in New England?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

shreddr said:


> Such a lame position, if the high and mighty "human powered only" advocates extended their influence to help ebikers it could only be beneficial


To who?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

griz said:


> The real issue is: e-bikes have motors...motor+cycle=motorcycle.


 This is the crux of the mater here in New England. It is like no other area. Crowded, older states, a real mix of property kinds and types. Lots joined together. Trail building and advocacy thread here. Nemba has something like 5,000 member and 30? or so chapters. We do not make the rules, State DCR for the forests and parks here for the most part. We also work with land trusts, private land owners, conservation lands , town lands, state lands as well as several other kinds of lands. All have their own rules, some absolutely very strict in regards to the non use of motorized vehicles. Today I did a 26 mile mixed use ride. Lets see, 2 town conservation areas, 1 open space, 3 watershed areas in 3 different towns, 2 bike paths and one DCR park. Great pedaling. None allows motorized vehicles on the properties. All those e bikers have some advocating to do get some access. Good luck with that, really. One more thing to think about. Many places the bikers are a small user group. Dog walkers, horses, joggers, kids and families everywhere on the nice day. What is their take on this issue?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

...


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

shreddr said:


> Such a lame position, if the high and mighty "human powered only" advocates extended their influence to help ebikers it could only be beneficial, but you are obviously better than us and would have to bend down to lift up another which doesn't seem to be in your dna
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If motorized riders did their own advocacy this would be a non-issue. It's been said time after time, "get to work" on your own access issues.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

limbojim said:


> When asked by People for Bikes a few years ago, MA DCR's stated policy was that ebikes are "motorized vehicles," and relegated to motorized "OHV" trails. So yes, technically, you're right, but it was never in writing.
> 
> MA's motor vehicle code, however, allowed "motorized bikes" up to 50cc or 1000w to be classified as _bicycles_, as long as they capped at 25 mph. This has been in place for well more than a decade, but apparently it does not apply to "natural surface" trails or paths.
> 
> ...


 I read the whole draft. Where does it say that e bikes are not allowed on the few orv areas? Some areas, Gilbert? I think allow dirt bikes but not ohv there.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Y’all have fun at NEMBA fest!


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Gutch said:


> Y'all have fun at NEMBA fest!


 Cheers.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

craigsj said:


> Opinion, not knowledge.


LOL!

How much involvement have you personally had in creating trails in New England?

I could care less how e-bikers do their advocacy. None of my business if you want to ignore advice from those who know how things actually work. Not my business to go try to convince land managers to allow e-bikes. Not my business to try to come up with answers to issues raise, such as how to regulate power levels, possible user group conflicts, the FACT that simply the mention of a motor will get a lot of other groups and managers panties bunched, etc.

Get your ducks in a row, have answers to all those questions (and plenty more) that make land managers happy, and go convince them to let you ride. What's so hard about that? Gotta be almost as easy as shooting your mouth of on the internet about something you obviously have no understanding of.

I'm a big fan of motorized fun of all kinds and have no problem with sharing trails with class 1 e-bikes, but as far as mountain bike access does, I'm also not stupid enough to want to **** where I eat. That's exactly what a MTB organization pushing e-bike access in N.E. boils down to.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Hell yeah, a few of my best buds are going there (every year) if I lived closer, I’d partake. I’m a mtbr first, before the whole e thing came, and I enjoy them, but if their not cool in your neck of the woods, so be it. Rip hard bro-


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

craigsj said:


> Is it within reason? Why?
> 
> 10 years ago the line may have been drawn at wheels no larger than 26". That would be equally within reason, and there is no difference between that and "motors". After all, in neither case is the function of the bike considered.
> 
> ...


Starting where I said "personally", that was to denote those are only my opinions on the issue and not really meant to come off as any more than that. But there are certain underlying principles and philosophies to things, that while not necessarily a scientific fact (for lack of a better way to put it) they carry weight with many people within the activity. Like hunting. Most, but not all, adhere strongly to you do not kill what you don't eat. I don't follow how you tie ego issues into all that.

If you can't see it reasonable that a mtb group fighting for access feels that a motor is where to draw the line, well then, you must have some rather unshakable beliefs about this whole affair.

An eBike group fighting for access to bike trails, I get that, even if the eBike thing is not for me. I respect they'd fight for access.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

leeboh said:


> Nemba does not make the rules, we just advocated for human powered use, as is the way we were granted access. E bikers need to do their own advocating.


NEMBA advocates for mountain bike access which is admirable; however NEMBA's advocacy against eBike access in their / your advice to land managers is documented. You may not make the rules but you influence the rule making process to the detriment of people who choose to ride eBikes. That's your right, but I think that your position is prejudice based on the fear of what -might- happen; here in the Phoenix area the eBike apocalypse hasn't happened. Watch what happens here for a few years and I think that you'll be surprised. Or make a trip to McDowell Mountain park in winter and see for yourselves.

https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance-land-managers-regarding-electric-power-assist-bikes-trails


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> Anyone involved in MTB advocacy in New England knows the statements below to hold true. Anyone who hasn't, well, sorry, but your uninformed opinion isn't worth a damn.





craigsj said:


> And yours is? No reason to take anything you say seriously when you start with "if you don't agree with me your opinion isn't worth a damn".


&#8230;



slapheadmofo said:


> And, as someone who has been involved in this sort of thing, I would strongly advice against moronic comparisons to 'red vs blue' bikes and a motor not being a motor. That kind of idiocy doesn't fly in the real world.





craigsj said:


> Nor does moronic misrepresentation of what other people say.


Ironic.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

hikerdave said:


> NEMBA advocates for mountain bike access which is admirable; however NEMBA's advocacy against eBike access in their / your advice to land managers is documented. You may not make the rules but you influence the rule making process to the detriment of people who choose to ride eBikes. That's your right, but I think that your position is prejudice based on the fear of what -might- happen; here in the Phoenix area the eBike apocalypse hasn't happened. Watch what happens here for a few years and I think that you'll be surprised. Or make a trip to McDowell Mountain park in winter and see for yourselves.
> 
> https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance-land-managers-regarding-electric-power-assist-bikes-trails


I believe, based upon my understanding of the land ownership and management of trails in the areas covered by NEMBA, there is a similarity with my neck of the woods. Where NEMBA has private land owners with trails crossing their property, we have property purchased for conservation, with funding that may have specific stipulations.

If private property owners in NEMBA's case or property to be conserved in my case both include stipulations that under no circumstances are motorized vehicles to be allowed or the access privileges will be revoked, then electric motorized bike riders need to approach these land owners and/or grantors and present a proposal and amendment to allow electric motorized bike use. Some trails will never allow legal electric motorized bike access because they were built, managed, designed or the land they are on paid for with a grant and/or funding that with very specific language that only allows specific usage.

I have not seen, read or heard any statement from NEMBA implying that the organization vows to thwart any attempt by the electric motorized bike riders advocacy groups to present their case and proposal why they should have the opportunity to earn the privilege to gain trail access. I would be very disappointed to hear anything like that.

I would find it very hard to believe that anyone should expect the NEMBA Board of Directors to approach any land manager and/or private property owner, while holding an electric motorized bike, and state "this is an electric motorized bike, but please disregard the motor because it is really just a bike, used like a bike, the exact same as a bike, and one has to pedal exactly like a bike in order to receive the benefits of the electric motor. This is a class 1 type electric motorized bike, which has a maximum speed of 20mph. NEMBA does not propose to allow class 2 electric motorized bikes, which may look like class 1 electric motorized bikes but have a throttle, nor does NEMBA propose to include class 3 electric motorized bikes, which may look like class 1 electric motorized bikes but have a maximum speed of 28mph."


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

hikerdave said:


> NEMBA advocates for mountain bike access which is admirable; however NEMBA's advocacy against eBike access in their / your advice to land managers is documented. You may not make the rules but you influence the rule making process to the detriment of people who choose to ride eBikes. That's your right, but I think that your position is prejudice based on the fear of what -might- happen; here in the Phoenix area the eBike apocalypse hasn't happened. Watch what happens here for a few years and I think that you'll be surprised. Or make a trip to McDowell Mountain park in winter and see for yourselves.
> 
> https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance-land-managers-regarding-electric-power-assist-bikes-trails


 Detriment? Hmmm. There are a few place to ride motorized vehicles in the state where they are welcome . AZ? That's funny. For those who do not live or ride in MA, ya'll have no clue on what it is like. We had a land manager approved trail, flagged, with cons/com signed off, date picked and volunteers lined up. The day before we were to start, a " friends" group got a court order to stop the build. On a multi use trail for all to enjoy. Stuff like that. As said before, Nemba just advocates for mt bikes. E bikers need to do their own work. Prejudice? Motos have had a bad rap here. They had access, abused the rules and the trails, and got thrown off. Trail access, gone. Once that door is opened, where do the ebikes stop with power? 500 watts, 2500 watts, 5,000? All look the same right? Full on electric motorcycles with tiny pedals? The point is access. Mt bikers have fought hard here, with mixed results, sometimes loosing trails too. Adding a motor is going to help our cause? Not. How is your mud season in AZ? Guessing none. Not going to ride in some desert, thanks for the invite. All the trails you ride are new built by e bikers or trails already in existence? Don't like the rules? Change them. Just don't expect another user group to do it for you. All politics is local( Tip O'Neil) Show up and vote. Boots on the ground get to decide. Not that hard of a concept when it come to both trail building and access. This same area where the court order was issued had a long history of trail conflicts, hikers/bikers/dog walkers. To their credit, the land manager held some meetings, sought input and consensus, made some changes. Turns out dog walkers were the biggest user group. They advocated and got one giant open meadow to be an off leash park. Much better for all. Enjoy your ride, cheers.


----------



## squeakymcgillicuddy (Jan 28, 2016)

craigsj said:


> the derogatory term "motorized bicycles"


So, is it not a bicycle? Or is it not motorized? What kind of self-loathing does it take to find an accurate mechanical description derogatory?


----------



## shreddr (Oct 10, 2009)

life behind bars said:


> If motorized riders did their own advocacy this would be a non-issue. It's been said time after time, "get to work" on your own access issues.


You see ebikes as different while I see them as the same, class 1 bikes are like having a stoker on a tandem, twice the power for a little more weight.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

leeboh said:


> Detriment? Hmmm. There are a few place to ride motorized vehicles in the state where they are welcome . AZ? That's funny. For those who do not live or ride in MA, ya'll have no clue on what it is like. We had a land manager approved trail, flagged, with cons/com signed off, date picked and volunteers lined up. The day before we were to start, a " friends" group got a court order to stop the build. On a multi use trail for all to enjoy. Stuff like that. As said before, Nemba just advocates for mt bikes. E bikers need to do their own work. Prejudice? Motos have had a bad rap here. They had access, abused the rules and the trails, and got thrown off. Trail access, gone. Once that door is opened, where do the ebikes stop with power? 500 watts, 2500 watts, 5,000? All look the same right? Full on electric motorcycles with tiny pedals? The point is access. Mt bikers have fought hard here, with mixed results, sometimes loosing trails too. Adding a motor is going to help our cause? Not. How is your mud season in AZ? Guessing none. Not going to ride in some desert, thanks for the invite. All the trails you ride are new built by e bikers or trails already in existence? Don't like the rules? Change them. Just don't expect another user group to do it for you. All politics is local( Tip O'Neil) Show up and vote. Boots on the ground get to decide. Not that hard of a concept when it come to both trail building and access. This same area where the court order was issued had a long history of trail conflicts, hikers/bikers/dog walkers. To their credit, the land manager held some meetings, sought input and consensus, made some changes. Turns out dog walkers were the biggest user group. They advocated and got one giant open meadow to be an off leash park. Much better for all. Enjoy your ride, cheers.


I hosted a mountain guide from the Bavarian resort town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen who had a great time riding here in "some desert". The longer I live here the less I miss the color green and I was a kid who spent a lot of time wandering around in the woods in the Berkshires.

Trails I helped build in Boise are no longer open to me; I could ride them but at the cost of months more physical therapy.

The GPX file format that is used by many mountain bikers was developed and promoted with my help and assistance.

Your own members may find themselves in the same position; locked out of trails that they helped to build and unable to benefit from their past efforts. There's always walking, but you know that's not the same or you wouldn't be such an ardent supporter of trail access for mountainbikes.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

shreddr said:


> You see ebikes as different while I see them as the same, class 1 bikes are like having a stoker on a tandem, twice the power for a little more weight.


The only opinion that matters, though, is that of land managers, and around here, when they see the motor on an e-bike, they see the motor.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

e-bikers need their own association to get their own access, don't expect to piggyback on Nemba or others and complain about it not happening. sheesh


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

shreddr said:


> You see ebikes as different while I see them as the same, class 1 bikes are like having a stoker on a tandem, twice the power for a little more weight.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It doesn't matter how I or you "see them". What matters is how decision makers "see them". If electric motorized bike riders want to address the decision makers and/or possibly have a say on how electric motorized bikes "are seen" then electric motorized bike riders need to show up and advocate.

It seems like other long time mountain biking advocates like myself are parrots repeating over and over that we want you at the table. If you don't show up and start to earn some respect to have a say in policy making, decision makers will continue to make policy without your input. I do not believe I can make it any more clearer than this.

There can be a multi-prong approach: one attempting at the federal level; one attempting at the State level; most important, attempts at the local level. Consider this: Let us look at a situation where a State regulation mandates that State Parks have the authority to make electric motorized bike access on a trail-by-trail basis, final decision made by the individual park manager. This would be a positive step for electric motorized bike access on trails, I hope we all can agree with this.

If there is not an established LOCAL electric motorized mountain biking advocacy group, organized and already building working relationships with other trail user groups as well as the land managers, when the State park manager is sitting at the table with all the existing trail user advocacy representatives, as well as the formidable and influential environmental group representatives, many of which want ALL human access banned from many areas, you will most likely throw that State "win" down the shitter.

In my opinion, in order to effectively advocate, one MUST have passion for what they are advocating for. For all of you that want others to advocate for you, how effective will someone that does not own or has experience with the joys that electric motorized bikes on trails, how successful do you think we will be. I'm not against electric motorized bike access on trails. But I do not have the passion that you that do own and have enjoyed trail use have within you. It is for this very reason why YOU need to be at the advocacy table.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I’m seeing and hearing more younger riders purchasing ebikes over traditional mtbs. This next generation could change things. If NEMBA doesn’t support emtbs, that’s their stance. But I promise you “ebike riders” share all the endorphins that mtbrs do.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

hikerdave said:


> I hosted a mountain guide from the Bavarian resort town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen who had a great time riding here in "some desert". The longer I live here the less I miss the color green and I was a kid who spent a lot of time wandering around in the woods in the Berkshires.
> 
> Trails I helped build in Boise are no longer open to me; I could ride them but at the cost of months more physical therapy.
> 
> ...


 Why would be locked out of our own trails? Not quite following. Because you can't ride? Hmmm. Just don't get old. Got a HP? Get a card for an OPMD. Cheers.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Craigsj, Try this. It's the motor. Bikes don't have motors. E bikes do. Our opinions matter not here. The land mangers and policy makers decide what goes. Be heard, be vocal, show up to meetings and do your own advocating. Not that hard. Trail access in MA has a long history regarding motors. Familiar with that? Decades ago states changed laws in anticipation of e bikes? Hmmm. Before they were invented? Double Hmmm. And it's the motor, really. All the decision makers realize that , yes in fact, it's the motor. Start there.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

craigsj said:


> No one wants you to advocate FOR "us", "we" want you to stop advocating against "us". The fact that you insist that eMTBs are not bicycles and must be considered separately is the problem and it's a manufactured problem by people like you. Stop pretending "we" are to blame.
> 
> It's a joke to suggest that a community in its infancy is going to get just treatment by showing up "at the table" across from opponents like you. Doing so would be allowing you to define the rules in your favor, rules that are unjust and entirely against earlier efforts to address e-bikes fairly.


Join your local mtb advocacy org, and help with the drive for increased mtb/emtb access then. Seems like a logical step if mtbs and emtbs are considered the same thing where you are.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

craigsj said:


> Gosh, leeboh, I never thought of that! You're obviously an avid reader of these kinds of threads! My Di2 bike has a motor, does that make it an e-bike? Also, so what? Having a particular part, or kind of part, doesn't make a bike not a bike nor does it justify regulating it differently.
> 
> Then why post? Why do certain moderators support and encourage these kinds of anti-ebike threads?
> 
> Those Hmmm's sound like hmmms of a willfully ignorant person who is afraid of what he might learn if he looks into it further. The e-bike issue was addressed, or attempted to be addressed, long before anyone here even became members. Look it up, I did. In my state, these laws were enacted in 2001.


 You seem to be the only one here who has a hard time with the motor/no motor thing. MA thread, you ride here? Been doing trail work here for 20 years. Fully aware of the issues. Rode one, demoed one, talked to several land managers about the whole e bike thing. I have friend who uses an electric off road wheel chair out on the trails. Which state do you live in?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

craigsj said:


> There are a lot of wrong people here, that is true.
> 
> Not an MA thread, it was an e-bike thread that got closed, then reopened in another (non-MA) subforum by an anti-ebike moderator. Does riding MA change the facts about eMTBs?
> 
> Are you trying to suggest that you are entitled to post here and I am not? Is this thread reserved for ebike haters?


 Title of thread," MA to ban e bikes." Not a hater, just not legal where I ride. I live and ride here. Do you? Familiar with all the local, legal and historical issues here? Not likely. What state do you live in?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

hikerdave said:


> About four out of five eBikes that I see here in Arizona are older folks like me; I think that the riders may not be different but we have different demographics.
> 
> I do find it pretty appalling that NEMBA advocates against usage of trails by a similar user group to the extent of trying to dissuade the sales of trail-oriented eBikes in their turf. I was born in Massachusetts but haven't been there for more than fifty years; I remember that my dad would let anyone hunt on our land because of the German tradition of "every man's right" but the NEMBA's seem to believe in "no man's right" where eBikes are concerned and the land is owned by the state.


You're witnessing the death throes of what once was an influential organization. NEMBA has banked its credibility on the fact that e-bikes would never be a popular form of recreation. They've deliberately and repeatedly poisoned the well with land managers, owners and even businesses decrying the evils of e-bikes and working to have them banned. Now they are faced with a major problem. Once e-bikes are accepted their credibility, and therefore influence, goes out the window since they have worked so long and hard to cast them in an evil light. Frankly it's a position I do not envy.



slapheadmofo said:


> Anyone involved in MTB advocacy in New England knows the statements below to hold true. Anyone who hasn't, well, sorry, but your uninformed opinion isn't worth a damn.
> 
> "Advocacy groups like NEMBA have worked hard to develop good relationships with other organized recreational-trail user groups, such as the Appalachian Mountain Club. However, if eMTBs become common on our shared-use trails, there would likely be a backlash from a wide range of users and recreation stakeholders.
> 
> ...


Again, for the hundredth time. When the problem is one of your own making you do not get to use it as a credible justification. Enjoy what little power NEMBA has left. It's credibility and influence due to its militant and misguided stance will have dwindled to near zero within a decade.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

shreddr said:


> You see ebikes as different while I see them as the same, class 1 bikes are like having a stoker on a tandem, twice the power for a little more weight.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It doesn't matter how you or I see them, rather it's how they are viewed by the ones that make decisions and they view them as motorized and it's the single thing that matters.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You're witnessing the death throes of what once was an influential organization. NEMBA has banked its credibility on the fact that e-bikes would never be a popular form of recreation. They've deliberately and repeatedly poisoned the well with land managers, owners and even businesses decrying the evils of e-bikes and working to have them banned. Now they are faced with a major problem. Once e-bikes are accepted their credibility, and therefore influence, goes out the window since they have worked so long and hard to cast them in an evil light. Frankly it's a position I do not envy.
> 
> Again, for the hundredth time. When the problem is one of your own making you do not get to use it as a credible justification. Enjoy what little power NEMBA has left. It's credibility and influence due to its militant and misguided stance will have dwindled to near zero within a decade.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 I guess your crystal ball is clear? Nemba has 5,000 plus members and something like 30 chapters. The largest trail advocacy group in new England. 1,000s of hours of trail work every year. And have become the go to resource for land mangers and land owners for trail solutions. You do realize there are only like 6 or so public places to ride motos in all of MA? Only one within the 495 belt. Once e bikes are accepted? Doesn't look likely in MA. CT and RI ? Doubtful. VT is its own thing. I'm sure there is some space far up north in NH and ME. Good luck with that, plenty of ATV's and motos up there already. Problem? Not from my seat. The position, if you read our stance, is that e bikes are different and need to be treated as such. IMBA is doing well with their pro e bike stance? Not from what I see.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> I guess your crystal ball is clear? Nemba has 5,000 plus members and something like 30 chapters. The largest trail advocacy group in new England. 1,000s of hours of trail work every year. And have become the go to resource for land mangers and land owners for trail solutions. You do realize there are only like 6 or so public places to ride motos in all of MA? Only one within the 495 belt. Once e bikes are accepted? Doesn't look likely in MA. CT and RI ? Doubtful. VT is its own thing. I'm sure there is some space far up north in NH and ME. Good luck with that, plenty of ATV's and motos up there already. Problem? Not from my seat. The position, if you read our stance, is that e bikes are different and need to be treated as such. IMBA is doing well with their pro e bike stance? Not from what I see.


And as e-bikes become increasingly accepted across the US your organization will have to answer some tough questions vis a vis their hard-line stance. Land managers will get curious, especially when unrealized opportunities become evident. With the stance NEMBA has taken, telling anyone that will listen that e-bikes are, in the words of the watery boy's momma, the devil, the linguistic and mental gymnastics that will have to be employed to maintain objective credibility will be gold medal worthy. Once objective credibility is lost none of the statistics you quoted will amount to a hill of beans.

On a side note it is highly humorous or telling, can't decide which, that you quote the size and scope of one organization as to why it will continue doing well despite policies and allude to the struggles of an even larger organization due to policies in the same post. Newsflash, no advocacy organization is everlasting, especially if it gives people a reason to question it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> And as e-bikes become increasingly accepted across the US your organization will have to answer some tough questions vis a vis their hard-line stance. Land managers will get curious, especially when unrealized opportunities become evident. With the stance NEMBA has taken, telling anyone that will listen that e-bikes are, in the words of the watery boy's momma, the devil, the linguistic and mental gymnastics that will have to be employed to maintain objective credibility will be gold medal worthy. Once objective credibility is lost none of the statistics you quoted will amount to a hill of beans.
> 
> On a side note it is highly humorous or telling, can't decide which, that you quote the size and scope of one organization as to why it will continue doing well despite policies and allude to the struggles of an even larger organization due to policies in the same post. Newsflash, no advocacy organization is everlasting, especially if it gives people a reason to question it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 As goes in CA does not also fly so well in the rest of the US. The reason that IMBA is struggling is that they as a mt bike org decided to side with the bike makers and their money. And not support the STC. What is this unrealized opportunities? You seem to have such a clear, long term view of how it will be. I'm guessing your are not familiar with NE, the trails here, how the land managers and politics work here? Good luck with your e bike advocacy, really.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> As goes in CA does not also fly so well in the rest of the US. The reason that IMBA is struggling is that they as a mt bike org decided to side with the bike makers and their money. And not support the STC. What is this unrealized opportunities? You seem to have such a clear, long term view of how it will be. I'm guessing your are not familiar with NE, the trails here, how the land managers and politics work here? Good luck with your e bike advocacy, really.


Who said anything about CA? The why IMBA is struggling part is irrelevant. The fact that they are struggling is a strong counterpoint to your statement around NEMBA's scope protecting it. As to missed opportunities there are too many to name, grant monies, tourism dollars, increased volunteerism, the list goes on.

This statement shows you aren't grasping the gist of my point: "I'm guessing your are not familiar with NE, the trails here, how the land managers and politics work here?". With NEMBA being the main motivator in e-bike exclusion from the region by telling anyone that will listen e-bikes are horrible they have placed themselves in a precarious position.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Who said anything about CA? The why IMBA is struggling part is irrelevant. The fact that they are struggling is a strong counterpoint to your statement around NEMBA's scope protecting it. As to missed opportunities there are too many to name, grant monies, tourism dollars, increased volunteerism, the list goes on.
> 
> This statement shows you aren't grasping the gist of my point: "I'm guessing your are not familiar with NE, the trails here, how the land managers and politics work here?". With NEMBA being the main motivator in e-bike exclusion from the region by telling anyone that will listen e-bikes are horrible they have placed themselves in a precarious position.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


The private land that many trails use as well as deed restrictions are really what impedes the use of motorized conveyances, you really should bow out of this one because you're wrong on almost every count.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> The private land that many trails use as well as deed restrictions are really what impedes the use of motorized conveyances, you really should bow out of this one because you're wrong on almost every count.


And on the private land without deed restrictions, there's also the as yet unanswered legal questions around what those actually mean but that's out of scope, the impetus for the policies is the "education" that was provided to the land owner by NEMBA, the crux of the issue I'm discussing.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## shreddr (Oct 10, 2009)

Boulder Pilot said:


> It doesn't matter how I or you "see them". What matters is how decision makers "see them". If electric motorized bike riders want to address the decision makers and/or possibly have a say on how electric motorized bikes "are seen" then electric motorized bike riders need to show up and advocate.
> 
> It seems like other long time mountain biking advocates like myself are parrots repeating over and over that we want you at the table. If you don't show up and start to earn some respect to have a say in policy making, decision makers will continue to make policy without your input. I do not believe I can make it any more clearer than this.
> 
> ...


Divisionist thinking is not the solution it's the problem.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

This thread was meant to bring attention to the fact that legislation is being voted on that will not favor trail access for the electric motorized bike riders in the State of Massachusetts.

What is being done to counteract this legislation? Are there people on the ground in MA that are coming forth with a coalition and a proposal to fight this ban?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> And on the private land without deed restrictions, there's also the as yet unanswered legal questions around what those actually mean but that's out of scope, the impetus for the policies is the "education" that was provided to the land owner by NEMBA, the crux of the issue I'm discussing.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Again, no clue as to how stuff works on the local scene here. Conservation land, open space, town land(s) watershed, private land trusts, greenbelts and so on have very specific wording on permitted uses. In their deeds, long before Nemba was around. TToR are a great organization, something like 150 properties in MA. Maybe 1/4 allow mt biking. Pleas list all the e bike grant monies and volunteers lined up, really.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boulder Pilot said:


> This thread was meant to bring attention to the fact that legislation is being voted on that will not favor trail access for the electric motorized bike riders in the State of Massachusetts.
> 
> What is being done to counteract this legislation? Are there people on the ground in MA that are coming forth with a coalition and a proposal to fight this ban?


It will actually be detrimental to all access in the long run since so much is tied to NEMBA, apparently, and if NEMBA fails what happens then?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

shreddr said:


> Divisionist thinking is not the solution it's the problem.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 There is no we. Problem for you? Start your own e bike advocacy group. Report back here on your progress, thanks.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Again, no clue as to how stuff works on the local scene here. Conservation land, open space, town land(s) watershed, private land trusts, greenbelts and so on have very specific wording on permitted uses. In their deeds, long before Nemba was around. TToR are a great organization, something like 150 properties in MA. Maybe 1/4 allow mt biking. Pleas list all the e bike grant monies and volunteers lined up, really.


Due they though? They have words on a piece of paper, true. How those words are legally interpreted against a legal definition set in place by a legislative authority has yet to my knowledge to be tested. We all know how NEMBA has told the landowners they should be interpreted which brings us back again to the potential for loss of credibility.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

shreddr said:


> Divisionist thinking is not the solution it's the problem.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The "problem?" WTF problem are you talking about.

Let's play a game since there is no one on the ground in Massachusetts that gives half a fk enough to advocate for electric motorized bike access on natural surface trails and this was supposed to be the purpose for this thread.

The game: List contributors to this thread under the following categories: 1). Mountain biking advocates; 2). Electric motorized bike riders offering solutions for the topic of this thread.

Since there is no meaningful conversation taking place which will result in the possibility of favorable solution I'm hijacking this thread and firing the engine up until it jumps the track and plunges off the cliff.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

you e-bikers are

never


ever

going to win this e-bike argument in MA if these posts is how you behave and think about the process required

and again, no, NEMBA is in zero danger no matter your mistaken beliefs about how they operate and lobby for trail access for bikes. non motorized bikes. they are growing especially in Maine lately.

discussing e-bike access with e-bike proponents ...it's like trying to talk to flat earthers. get off your couch and show up to the town meetings ....NEMBA is busy opening up new trails and access all the time and succeeding...for bikes

if you want to lay your e-bikes on those paths then start your own group and start arranging meetings and lobbying for yourselves. that's how it works.

e-bikers gish gallop and 'firehose of falsehood' isn't going to work on MA issues


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

127.0.0.1 said:


> you e-bikers are
> 
> never
> 
> ...


Seriously. What is it with e-bike threads here that bring the whack-jobs out of the woodwork?

Mountain bikers don't need e-bikers for anything. I used to hear the same spiel fro ATV/moto guys all the time about 'if we don't team up, you guys are going to lose out". Nope, not even remotely true; we were just smart enough not to sling the motor albatross around our necks, and have benefited greatly from drawing a very clear line in the sand between mountain bikes and motors of any kind. Bunch of dumb hypothetical chicken-little crap posted on the internet by wanna-be lawyers from half a country away is highly unlikely to convince anyone that facts aren't facts.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It will actually be detrimental to all access in the long run since so much is tied to NEMBA, apparently, and if NEMBA fails what happens then?


Uhhh...we keep right on building trails, but have to pay for our own pizza and lose a 10% shop discount?

No one will stop doing anything if NEMBA 'fails'. I don't even understand what in the world that means. Some of you people obviously have no clue as to what NEMBA does and doesn't do. Seriously, if you're not from here and don't have even the slightest idea of how things work and who does what, you have no idea how ridiculous and off-base the nonsense you're throwing around is.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Uhhh...we keep right on building trails, but have to pay for our own pizza and lose a 10% shop discount?
> 
> No one will stop doing anything if NEMBA 'fails'. I don't even understand what in the world that means. Some of you people obviously have no clue as to what NEMBA does and doesn't do. Seriously, if you're not from here and don't have even the slightest idea of how things work and who does what, you have no idea how ridiculous and off-base the nonsense you're throwing around is.


So what happens to all the agreements NEMBA has in place? What entity becomes the touch point for advocacy? What happens when historically accomadating land owners/managers suddenly become hostile because they feel they were guided in a certain direction due to bias and not hard facts? When an organization that size loses credibility, it will happen, just a matter of when, there is always fall out.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

127.0.0.1 said:


> and again, no, NEMBA is in zero danger no matter your mistaken beliefs about how they operate and lobby for trail access for bikes. non motorized bikes. they are growing especially in Maine lately.
> 
> discussing NEMBA with NEMBA acolytes ...it's like trying to talk to flat earthers.


Your problem is you seem incapable of both forward and critical thinking. What state the organization is currently in has zero bearing on where it will find itself in the future. The militant stance will be its downfall and at this point there is really no way for it to prevent it. It has had too harsh a stance for too long to maintain credibility if it changes and at some point there will be questions asked about the rest of the world that sensible answers will not be able to be provided for thus losing credibility.

FIFY

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Your problem is you seem incapable of both forward and critical thinking. What state the organization is currently in has zero bearing on where it will find itself in the future. The militant stance will be its downfall and at this point there is really no way for it to prevent it. It has had too harsh a stance for too long to maintain credibility if it changes and at some point there will be questions asked about the rest of the world that sensible answers will not be able to be provided for thus losing credibility.
> 
> FIFY
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


get a load of this guy...downfall of NEMBA... LOL


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

127.0.0.1 said:


> get a load of this guy...downfall of NEMBA... LOL


Username certainly computes...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Your problem is you seem incapable of both forward and critical thinking. What state the organization is currently in has zero bearing on where it will find itself in the future. The militant stance will be its downfall and at this point there is really no way for it to prevent it. It has had too harsh a stance for too long to maintain credibility if it changes and at some point there will be questions asked about the rest of the world that sensible answers will not be able to be provided for thus losing credibility.
> 
> FIFY
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


The problem is that you're in Arkansas arguing with a bunch of guys in New England about their own association and trails.

Stop.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

tfinator said:


> The problem is that you're in Arkansas arguing with a bunch of guys in New England about their own association and trails.
> 
> Stop.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


I'm not "arguing" with them "about" their organization. I'm telling them where I see their organization is headed due to a hardline stance it took and refused to back off of for too long. Personally I always value the outside perspective. There is a reason that whenever an organization folds its most ardent and passionate supporters are always the most shocked.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I'm not "arguing" with them "about" their organization. I'm telling them where I see their organization is headed due to a hardline stance it took and refused to back off of for too long. Personally I always value the outside perspective. There is a reason that whenever an organization folds its most ardent and passionate supporters are always the most shocked.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Well thankfully what you "think" matters not outside of Arkansas and may not even there.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Well thankfully what you "think" matters not outside of Arkansas and may not even there.


You're correct, what I "think" has no bearing on the fact that the organization pigeonholed itself into a bad position. Frankly, I hate to see it happening. It's like watching a slow motion train wreck.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

take your argument to MassBike and leave NEMBA out of it for e-bikes

really, MASSBIKE are the ones who are advocating for e-bikes

NEMBA is out building trails, shaking hands, and doing the dirtwork

https://www.massbike.org/

christ on a cracker

it is MassBike who pushed so hard to differentiate e-bikes from motorized vehicles which, as I have been saying, is the first step needed to make progress for you slackers

Representative Jonathan Hecht, Representative Dylan Fernandes, and Senator Sal DiDomenico have sponsored An Act relative to electric bicycles (S.2071/H.3014) to differentiate e-bikes and motorized bicycles.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

127.0.0.1 said:


> get a load of this guy...downfall of NEMBA... LOL


I can't even figure out what that means.

It's even funnier that some of these guys think NEMBA is driving policy when in fact, it's precisely BECAUSE LMs and other user groups here are, and have been, very anti-motor that NEMBA has adopted the stance that they don't want mountain bikes to be associated with motorized use.

So much cluelessness, so much bloviating.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I'm not "arguing" with them "about" their organization. I'm telling them where I see their organization is headed due to a hardline stance it took and refused to back off of for too long. Personally I always value the outside perspective. There is a reason that whenever an organization folds its most ardent and passionate supporters are always the most shocked.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Good point, arguing would imply you listen to anyone else. You're just soap boxing.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

tfinator said:


> Good point, arguing would imply you listen to anyone else. You're just soap boxing.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


Not soap boxing either. I have no issue with NEMBA not advocating for e-bikes, I do think they are missing opportunities by neglecting to do so but that's a seperate discussion. I have issue with NEMBA intenionally poisoning the well and then using that as a reason why they can't drink, ie allow e-bikes. That has repercussions that reach outside the local level. Much like if NEMBA loses credibility that ripples outside NE as well.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Not soap boxing either. I have no issue with NEMBA not advocating for e-bikes. I have issue with NEMBA intenionally poisoning the well and then using that as a reason why they can't drink, ie allow e-bikes. That has repercussions that reach outside the local level. Much like if NEMBA loses credibility that ripples outside NE as well.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Well, until you look at exactly who they're 'losing credibility' with, which seems to be a handful of wanna-be internet know-it-alls and e-bike conspiracy theorists from thousands of miles away.

Not too worried about it.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Well, until you look at exactly who they're 'losing credibility' with, which seems to be a handful of wanna-be internet know-it-alls and e-bike conspiracy theorists from thousands of miles away.
> 
> Not too worried about it.


 As usual lots of ad hominems no substance.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> As usual lots of ad hominems no substance.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Right. Many years of actual first hand experience is nothing compared to clueless rambling from a different world. Good point as usual.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Right. Many years of actual first hand experience is nothing compared to clueless rambling from a different world. Good point as usual.


What organizations do you have many years of experience watching fail due to outdated, erroneous, militant thinking from afar?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> What organizations do you have many years of experience watching fail due to outdated, erroneous, militant thinking from afar?


Again, WTF is it about e-bikes that brings out so many whack-jobs?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Again, WTF is it about NEMBA that brings out so many whack-jobs who can't formulate intelligent arguments so resort to ad hominems?


.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> .
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Your speculation and wild assed guesses do not make an intelligent argument.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Can any of you moderators make any sense of whatever the hell this guy is rambling about? I sure can't.

If not, can we clean this thread up? The random BS level is off the charts.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Your speculation and wild assed guesses do not make an intelligent argument.


As I said, what is it with you guys and ad hominems?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

figofspee said:


> Most of the people who oppose mountain bikers are older, it is so prevalent that a parody group called hateful old hikers association was created. Getting older people and their buddies out riding is going to help get their money, time, and influence on our side. If the puritanical advocacy groups do not want money, time, and influence, well that explains their impotence up until this point.
> 
> You would have a hard time convincing me to give NAMBLA any of my time, money, or influence, and I spend 90 percent of my summer on my non-motorized non-electric bicycle.


figofspee - if you want other users to begin to take any of your arguments seriously please stop making petty insults against the NEMBA by calling them by the acronym for a disgusting organization that promotes the abuse of children.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> As I said, what is it with you guys and ad hominems?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Truth hurts doesn't it? You bring nothing to this conversation except wild claims of impending failure of an organization that you have zero actual knowledge of. You're not even a good provocateur, you're just showing your ass, again. So, unless you have something concrete that substantiates your wild ass claims of impending doom, stow it. Not interested in your "opinion" of an organization you have no knowledge of. Got it?


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

In the not-so-long-ago past, whenever some legislation or regulation change was being proposed that would threaten mountain biking access, IMBA or the local mountain biking advocacy group would implement an informational campaign to rally support. In the old days, this campaign was via snail mail. Now it is instantaneous using social media and forums such as this.

Mountain biking advocates in this thread have been repeating over and over that electric motorized bike riders need to address this policy or the State will rule against you. And the majority of this thread is devoted to NOT addressing the issue in Massachusetts.

NEMBA nor SDMBA nor any other advocacy group that may be represented in this thread are NOT fighting against "you." 

The issue is "YOU" are not representing "YOU." "YOU" keep spouting off that "YOU" are me and I am "YOU" but you also say "YOU" do not want me to represent "YOU" and you do not want me to fight against "YOU". 

I state on numerous occasions that I have no problem supporting "YOU" but "YOU" need to bring something to the "table" to support. This is the message the Land Managers are stating, I'm just passing it on. "YOU" keep saying that we are one and since I am already at the table I should support "YOU" but how can I support "YOU" if "YOU" do not show up.

I took the liberty to forward this thread to a very dear friend that is an employee with the US Department of the Interior. My friend quoted a line from a song by one of the best rock bands of all time (in my opinion), giving credit to Roger Daltrey:
"Who the **** are YOU?"

My threshold for tolerance of ignorance is being breached by threads like this. It is painfully evident that electric motorized bike riders have no respect for mountain biking advocates, the proof is evident in the numerous ignorant posts in numerous threads. Furthermore, while it is acceptable to have debate, even encouraged to discuss numerous POV's, I see very little if any meaningful solutions to any issues. If discussion of issues does not result in possible solutions, then these discussions are of what value? 

I am speaking for myself here, but I believe electric motorized bike access issues should be discussed in the ebike forum. I will ban myself from participating in any thread remotely involved with electric motorized bike access discussion. I will suggest my brothers and sisters involved with mountain biking advocacy also consider restraining themself from participating. The reason I suggest this is to observe whether this trail user group is worthy of our support. My equestrian advocate amigos and amigas voice concerns about electric motorized bike riders and these equestrians have earned my respect, have had my back when **** hit the fan and I cannot say the same for electric motorized bike riders.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Truth hurts doesn't it? You bring nothing to this conversation except wild claims of impending failure of an organization that you have zero actual knowledge of. You're not even a good provocateur, you're just showing your ass, again. So, unless you have something concrete that substantiates your wild ass claims of impending doom, stow it. Not interested in your "opinion" of an organization you have no knowledge of. Got it?


I don't know? When you come up with something truthful I'll let you know.

Let's start here and break this down to a level of basic that should not be necessary one question at a time.

True or false NEMBA's stance is one that calls for exclusion of e-bikes?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> figofspee - if you want other users to begin to take any of your arguments seriously please stop making petty insults against the NEMBA by calling them by the acronym for a disgusting organization that promotes the abuse of children.


I called him out on this in post #50. It's **** like this that begs the question if I'm wasting my time trying to help them get to the table. I mean really, I don't want a POS like him at the table.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I don't know? When you come up with something truthful I'll let you know.
> 
> Let's start here and break this down to a level of basic that should not be necessary one question at a time.
> 
> ...


What part of stow it do you not understand?


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

craigsj does not bring anything worth discussing to this thread.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> What part of stow it do you not understand?


What makes you think you're in any sort of position to give me an imperative?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I don't know? When you come up with something truthful I'll let you know.
> 
> Let's start here and break this down to a level of basic that should not be necessary one question at a time.
> 
> ...


NEMBA's Position on eMTBs

NEMBA's position is as follows: "The recreational use of electric and power-assisted bicycles, ORVs or ATVs on natural-surface trails should be managed using the same guidelines and policies as other motorized vehicles."

We are aware that people with physical challenges may wish to use these vehicles on natural-surface trails. NEMBA would support this under the guidelines that state and federal agencies have already adopted for these special cases.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boulder Pilot said:


> NEMBA's Position on eMTBs
> 
> NEMBA's position is as follows: "The recreational use of electric and power-assisted bicycles, ORVs or ATVs on natural-surface trails should be managed using the same guidelines and policies as other motorized vehicles."
> 
> We are aware that people with physical challenges may wish to use these vehicles on natural-surface trails. NEMBA would support this under the guidelines that state and federal agencies have already adopted for these special cases.


True or false, NEMBA uses claims that are dubious in nature and inflammatory language to convince managers to accept their position?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

craigsj said:


> Not an MA thread, it was an e-bike thread that got closed, then reopened in another (non-MA) subforum by an anti-ebike moderator. Does riding MA change the facts about eMTBs?
> 
> Are you trying to suggest that you are entitled to post here and I am not? Is this thread reserved for ebike haters?


It was an access thread posted in the eBike section. I moved it to the section titled "Trail Building and *ADVOCACY*". This thread is about advocacy and belongs here and not in the eBike section.

Also I am most definitely NOT anti-eBike, please stop with the lies. It is not helping anyone listen to your arguments.

Calling anyone who has a different view that you a "hater" is poor form. You were given a time-out in the past specifically for that sort of personal attack on other users. People like Boulder Pilot are not "haters" and have done more for MTB access here in SoCal that most people do in a lifetime.

Please make rational arguments without resorting to personal attacks.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> It was an access thread posted in the eBike section. I moved it to the section titled "Trail Building and *ADVOCACY*". This thread is about advocacy and belongs here and not in the eBike section.
> 
> Also I am most definitely NOT anti-eBike, please stop with the lies. It is not helping anyone listen to your arguments.
> 
> ...


What about the three other users on the opposite side of the argument. Will you be giving them the same warnings about personal attacks?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

craigsj said:


> LOL turnabout is fair play. It's not as though there isn't a constant barrage of "motorcycle", "motorized vehicle" and other assorted intentional misrepresentations occurring on the other side, /QUOTE]
> 
> Well the manufacturers say it has a motor...


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> What about the three other users on the opposite side of the argument. Will you be giving them the same warnings about personal attacks?


If you see someone posting a personal attack please use the report function to get a moderators eyes on the issue. It is also very helpful to post in your report why it is a personal attack.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> True or false, NEMBA uses claims that are dubious in nature and inflammatory language to convince managers to accept their position?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


"Let's start here and break this down to a level of basic that should not be necessary one question at a time."

What, this doesn't apply to you? If you want to play this game, are we going to keep score about meaningless points or do you want to discuss real solutions.

tuckerjt07, based upon your posts you strike me as a person with the mental ability to help identify possible solutions to this real threat of trail access in the State of Mass. I'd rather work towards a meaning solution while this thread is in this forum.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

I would like everyone to please stop using the term "motorcycle" when describing a Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 eBike.

Pedelec eBikes are not motorcycles.

They ARE motorized Bicycles and those who are pro-eBike might want to consider not being offended by that term.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boulder Pilot said:


> "Let's start here and break this down to a level of basic that should not be necessary one question at a time."
> 
> What, this doesn't apply to you? If you want to play this game, are we going to keep score about meaningless points or do you want to discuss real solutions.
> 
> tuckerjt07, based upon your posts you strike me as a person with the mental ability to help identify possible solutions to this real threat of trail access in the State of Mass. I'd rather work towards a meaning solution while this thread is in this forum.


My entire point is that NEMBA taking the stance the way it has taken it on e-bikes presents a future access challenge for any type of biker. Is it immediately pending, no. Is it something that is likely to happen in the future due to an erosion of trust, yes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

craigsj said:


> eMTB riders ARE mountain biking advocates, What's going on here is an effort to define them as something else that that you can advocate against them and them blame them for the result.
> 
> This thread exists because, a certain moderator, undoubtedly a NEMBLA member / sympathizer, wants to see e-bike bashing. You're contributing because that's what you want to see too. You aren't looking for discussion and you aren't looking for solutions, you're looking for demonizing, you're looking for your "side" to win.
> 
> ...


I have the tolerance of a Buddhist monk. You win the prize of the mtbr. member I so most want to meet in person.

To all you electric motorized bike riders, is this the guy you want representing you?


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> My entire point is that NEMBA taking the stance the way it has taken it on e-bikes presents a future access challenge for any type of biker. Is it immediately pending, no. Is it something that is likely to happen in the future due to an erosion of trust, yes.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I read the entire statement and I agree with you that there is verbiage throughout that is not embracing of electric motorized bike access on trails but nowhere is there language supporting a ban on electric motorized bikes on trails. Can you and I agree on this?


----------



## Visicypher (Aug 5, 2004)

Klure is spot on with this


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boulder Pilot said:


> I read the entire statement and I agree with you that there is verbiage throughout that is not embracing of electric motorized bike access on trails but nowhere is there language supporting a ban on electric motorized bikes on trails. Can you and I agree on this?


 Directly, yes I agree wholeheartedly. However, by attempting to indirectly get dealers to not not carry them would that not accomplish the same thing?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> are we going to keep score about meaningless points or do you want to discuss real solutions.


You obviously haven't had any past dealings with him if you're asking that question.

Pro tip: you're wasting your time.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

craigsj said:


> current efforts to ban e-bikes from trails that bicycles have access to,


The confusion and level of ignorance here is amazing.

How can there be an effort to ban something that has never been allowed in the first place?


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

craigsj said:


> Second time in recent memory that you've blamed others for offenses they feel. I have as much respect for it this time as I did last time and even less respect for the arrogance behind it.
> 
> There is no purpose served by the term "motorized bicycle" over established "e-bike" or "electric bicycle" other than to associate the "motorized" term with e-bikes so that people will identify them with motorized vehicles. This is plainly obvious and your support for it shows what side you are one. Perhaps you should consider not using intentionally disparaging terms.
> 
> I will look forward to your moderation actions of vikb next time he calls e-bikes motorcycles. LOL


The manufacturers literally point a listing for motor in the spec sheet.

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/...erfly-lt-9-7/p/24819/?colorCode=black_reddark 
https://intensecycles.com/collections/ebikes/products/tazer-pro-build
https://www.specialized.com/us/en/mens-s-works-turbo-levo/p/154393?color=239489-154393


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> True or false, NEMBA uses claims that are dubious in nature and inflammatory language to convince managers to accept their position?


I don't believe that's true but even if it was, so what?

Present your case those who make actually make the decisions and if your case is solid, then they won't care what NEMBA thinks.

This is precisely what mountain biker advocates the world over have been doing successfully for decades. I don't waste time arguing with EarthFirst nutjobs about bikes destroying all of nature, I just present a far, far better argument than they do to the people that count.

Who gives a damn what NEMBA thinks about e-bikes? They don't make policy. 
It's like you guys think that you can win game just by trash-talking the other team and never getting on the field. Doesn't work in the real world, sorry.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> I don't believe that's true but even if it was, so what?


It impacts NEMBA's long term credibility as e-bikes become more and more accepted, which is currently happening. This in turn effects other organizations across the country by association. Much like the antics of some in Sedona have been brought up as reasons against increased access in locations thousands of miles away.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

craigsj said:


> Duh, my electric shaver has a motor but it isn't a motorized vehicle and no one calls it a "motorized shaver" either. No has an agenda that would justify something so stupid. e-bikes, on the other hand...


Uhhhhhhh...

Webster's definition of a bike " vehicle with two wheels tandem, handlebars for steering, a saddle seat, and pedals by which it is propelled". The manufacturers put in the specs a section listed as motor. How is that not a motorized vehicle?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

craigsj said:


> Second time in recent memory that you've blamed others for offenses they feel. I have as much respect for it this time as I did last time and even less respect for the arrogance behind it.
> 
> There is no purpose served by the term "motorized bicycle" over established "e-bike" or "electric bicycle" other than to associate the "motorized" term with e-bikes so that people will identify them with motorized vehicles. This is plainly obvious and your support for it shows what side you are one. Perhaps you should consider not using intentionally disparaging terms.
> 
> I will look forward to your moderation actions of vikb next time he calls e-bikes motorcycles. LOL


The USFS specifically uses the term motorized when discussing the legalities of access. I am not certain how that can be offensive, it is simply a statement of fact. eBikes have electric motors, they are "motorized". If you think it is offensive to call something with a motor "motorized" it is equally offensive to call something with a Motor by a term that indicates it does not have a motor.

Depending on what side of the issue you stand on people can find ways to be offended by just about anything. I am just suggesting everyone take a step back and be less touchy.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

craigsj said:


> Duh, my electric shaver has a motor but it isn't a motorized vehicle and no one calls it a "motorized shaver" either.


You should definitely use this angle as your main talking point with land managers in your advocacy efforts, along with the 'red vs blue' bike thing. Should work out really well, I imagine.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

craigsj said:


> Agreed, the confusion and level of ignorance here is amazing.
> 
> A primary school student could answer your question with no knowledge of these issues.


And yet you continue to fail.

There is no 'effort to ban' e-bikes. The ban already exists.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

craigsj said:


> My argument is that you are anti-ebike as evidenced by your past moderation in the e-bike forums. I would say the same to you, please stop with the lies.
> 
> I would be more than happy to post the entirety of our conversation that led to that. It would prove you to be a liar.
> 
> ...


If you want to post our conversation, do it in the site feedback forum, please stop trying to derail this thread about eBike trail access in MA.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

craigsj said:


> Because "motorized vehicle" is a legal category.


Craig is correct on this point. A "motorized vehicle" is a definition used by Federal, State, County and City level governments when describing legalities of on-highway vehicle use. In most cases it does not apply to off-highway use in the context of Natural Surface trails that are shared with pedestrians and bicyclist. That is why it was so important for eBike advocacy groups like People4bike to get some government agencies to classify specific model eBikes to be treated the same as a bicycle is treated when it comes to trail access.

That classification does not change the fact that a pedelec eBike has a motor and it is "motorized". It is not wrong to call a Class 1, 2, or 3 eBike a "motorized bicycle", but applying the term "motorized vehicle" is confusing at best and misleading at worst. Please do not refer to eBikes as Motorized Vehicles.

Access is still very much a regional issue and varies from Region to region. Just because something is one way where you live does not mean it is the same in MA.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Directly, yes I agree wholeheartedly. However, by attempting to indirectly get dealers to not not carry them would that not accomplish the same thing?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


NEMBA uses some language that I would not have used in their statement, I've acknowledged this previously. With all due respect, NEMBA doesn't have the clout to force dealers not to make a profit how they see fit, and I will say I don't think you believe they do, either.

There is a real issue in Mass. I do not see any on the ground representation of the electric motorized bike riders and this thread was posted to bring this to all of our attention. My proposed idea that I believe will HELP gain access and oppose this ban of electric motorized bikes on trail access is to immediate organize, submit a proposal to commence dialog that identifies issues, whether real or perceived, and then work towards solutions. tuckerjt07, if you believe this is not a way to move forward, please share with me another way to move forward. I'm not suggesting I'm right or there's only one way, I'm trying to identify solutions. Thanks.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> NEMBA uses some language that I would not have used in their statement, I've acknowledged this previously. With all due respect, NEMBA doesn't have the clout to force dealers not to make a profit how they see fit, and I will say I don't think you believe they do, either.
> 
> There is a real issue in Mass. I do not see any on the ground representation of the electric motorized bike riders and this thread was posted to bring this to all of our attention. My proposed idea that I believe will HELP gain access and oppose this ban of electric motorized bikes on trail access is to immediate organize, submit a proposal to commence dialog that identifies issues, whether real or perceived, and then work towards solutions. tuckerjt07, if you believe this is not a way to move forward, please share with me another way to move forward. I'm not suggesting I'm right or there's only one way, I'm trying to identify solutions. Thanks.


Excellent post, thank you Boulder.

"you must spread some reputation around before giving it to Boulder Pilot again"


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

craigsj said:


> No, you've argued that the first step needed is to differentiate e-bikes from bikes. Considering the poster, this kind of blatant dishonesty is not surprising.
> 
> "MassBike suggests low-speed electric bicycles be treated like regular bicycles" (from your link). This is diametrically opposed to current efforts to ban e-bikes from trails that bicycles have access to, yet you think this ban is "the first step".
> 
> The way to have "low-speed electric bicycles be treated like regular bicycles" is have that literally committed in the state code, like was done in my state and many other states. MA is behind the times and f*cking it up, because now it has anti-ebike factions trying to prevent reasonable definitions. If the law doesn't say something like "for the purposes of regulation, e-bikes are to be considered bicycles" then the intention is to treat them differently. If, OTOH, an e-bike IS treated as a bicycle, then it is already differentiated from a motorized vehicle and no such "first step" is needed.


wow, you really are incapable of understanding anything.

ebikes are totally banned except where ORV is permitted, right now.

steps are being made to reclassify them so future laws can regulate them separately
and you are all butt hurt about progress in the direction that will eventually gain e-bikes
more access because once reclassified, they will get their own rules and laws separated from 'motorized vehicles' rules and laws

it is 100% impossible to class them as bicycles because they have motors and are not human powered bicycles, they are electric motor assist and need a whole new legal definition. classify e-bikes as bicycles -will not happen in MA- so forget that fantasy...they have motors and LM's know the difference

how do you NOT get this ? don't even try to answer. it'll just be some sideways remark anyway

my head is spinning.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boulder Pilot said:


> NEMBA uses some language that I would not have used in their statement, I've acknowledged this previously. With all due respect, NEMBA doesn't have the clout to force dealers not to make a profit how they see fit, and I will say I don't think you believe they do, either.
> 
> There is a real issue in Mass. I do not see any on the ground representation of the electric motorized bike riders and this thread was posted to bring this to all of our attention. My proposed idea that I believe will HELP gain access and oppose this ban of electric motorized bikes on trail access is to immediate organize, submit a proposal to commence dialog that identifies issues, whether real or perceived, and then work towards solutions. tuckerjt07, if you believe this is not a way to move forward, please share with me another way to move forward. I'm not suggesting I'm right or there's only one way, I'm trying to identify solutions. Thanks.


I'm not saying they have the clout. I'm purely commenting on the optics. With the rhetoric they, NEMBA, have employed and publicized what do you see happening if and when e-bikes are widely accepted, even in New England? Do you see them surviving that without egg on their face?

I agree there is an issue in all of New England. I think with the current state of advocacy there sharing success stories is the best way forward. Whether it's a successful inclusion story like PRKR seems to be, or one of the several communities around the country that will profit heavily, relative I'm aware, due to its inclusive stance on e-bikes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

127.0.0.1 said:


> wow, you really are incapable of understanding anything.
> 
> ebikes are totally banned except where ORV is permitted, right now.
> 
> ...


You're only confused because when you look at a bike with a motor, you see a bike with a motor. Once you work your way past that reality, it all starts falling into place.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

as indicated stop asking NEMBA to do your work, ask MASSBIKE because they are the ones doing work to e-bike advocacy. 

MASSBIKE exists and is lobbying. 

oh and the Nemba / Nambla joke, yeah, big whoop there, what are you 8 years old ? that's joke is so old and often it simply reveals how feeble minded and petty you are for bringing it up, again, for the 4 millionth time. /schoolyard chuckle


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> one of the several communities around the country that will profit heavily, relative I'm aware, due to its inclusive stance on e-bikes.


Where in the world do you come up with this wild notion that the reason NEMBA builds trails is money?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Where in the world do you come up with this wild notion that the reason NEMBA builds trails is money?


Where in the world did you come up with the wild notion that that paragraph even pertained to NEMBA?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Where in the world did you come up with the wild notion that that paragraph even pertained to NEMBA?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


This entire thread has been about NEMBA.

Well, besides a few forays into weird persecution complexes of course.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> This entire thread has been about NEMBA.


You might want to try rereading it a bit more closely this time.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You might want to try rereading it a bit more closely this time.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


You might want to check your PMs for my suggestion to you.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> You might want to check your PMs for my suggestion to you.


First, not a PM so I guess I can see why this thread has been confusing for you. Second, lashing out over your own personal failures is an interesting strategy.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

craigsj said:


> No, you've argued that the first step needed is to differentiate e-bikes from bikes. Considering the poster, this kind of blatant dishonesty is not surprising.
> 
> "MassBike suggests low-speed electric bicycles be treated like regular bicycles" (from your link). This is diametrically opposed to current efforts to ban e-bikes from trails that bicycles have access to, yet you think this ban is "the first step".
> 
> The way to have "low-speed electric bicycles be treated like regular bicycles" is have that literally committed in the state code, like was done in my state and many other states. MA is behind the times and f*cking it up, because now it has anti-ebike factions trying to prevent reasonable definitions. If the law doesn't say something like "for the purposes of regulation, e-bikes are to be considered bicycles" then the intention is to treat them differently. If, OTOH, an e-bike IS treated as a bicycle, then it is already differentiated from a motorized vehicle and no such "first step" is needed.


 You are missing the whole point, again. Mass bike deal with ROAD laws, rules and regs, bike lanes and such. Nembas' whole focus is off road access for mt bikes on natural surface trails. 2 different things.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> I read the entire statement and I agree with you that there is verbiage throughout that is not embracing of electric motorized bike access on trails but nowhere is there language supporting a ban on electric motorized bikes on trails. Can you and I agree on this?


It's pretty clear that NEMBA has no problem with eBikes on motorcycle trails but their quotation of IMBA's abandoned 2010 policy in their advice to land managers advocates a blanket ban on eBikes everywhere else in their 'turf', the entire Northeastern United States.

My comments against their deprecation of another user group have been misinterpreted as asking NEMBA to advocate for eBike access; of course not. Remember that the OP's intent was to ask in the eBike thread that interested eBikers object to the continued blanket ban of eBikes on Massachusetts State Trails.

I have tried to change minds with my personal story of aging / arthritis bringing me down to the point of preferring to eBike and was met with "Don't get old." To a gray-bearded 62-year-old this is one step from "kill yourself" but even I find the pun on NEMBA's name over the top and insulting; I prefer to know them as the No Electric Motorized Bikes Association because of their fear, uncertainty, and doubt techniques and slippery slope arguments, which if extended beyond their turf to the rest of the United Stars would end my ability to mountain bike. How's that for a slippery slope?

So I will be commenting on the proposed regulation as a "friend of the court". Here in the Phoenix area some authorities allow eBikes and some don't but it's different here; 4 million people in 900 square miles but somehow there's room for eBikes.

"NEMBA also agrees with IMBA's public comment that "mountain biking should remain a non-motorized activity. Therefore, we conclude that riding e-bikes on natural-surface trails is not mountain biking. Further, we state that e-bike regulation for off-road travel should fall under motorized land management policies and rules.""


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

hikerdave said:


> It's pretty clear that NEMBA has no problem with eBikes on motorcycle trails but their quotation of IMBA's abandoned 2010 policy in their advice to land managers advocates a blanket ban on eBikes everywhere else in their 'turf', the entire Northeastern United States.
> 
> My comments against their deprecation of another user group have been misinterpreted as asking NEMBA to advocate for eBike advocacy have been misinterpreted here as requesting that they advocate for eBikes; of course not. Remember that the OP's intent was to ask in the eBike thread that interested eBikers object to the continued blanket ban of eBikes on Massachusetts State Trails.
> 
> ...


 Again, someone not familiar with the long history of motos in MA. Banned for the most part in the 70s? There maybe 7 or so places in whole state in which to ride motos and ATV's on public land, most way out west. Nothing has changed, just new kind of motor. MA has so much more crowding, so much less open space and much, much older. Ever hear of the AMC? Not so much in the way of motorcycle trails here. There are one or 2 spots to ride in whole eastern part of the state.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> The USFS specifically uses the term motorized when discussing the legalities of access. I am not certain how that can be offensive, it is simply a statement of fact. eBikes have electric motors, they are "motorized". If you think it is offensive to call something with a motor "motorized" it is equally offensive to call something with a Motor by a term that indicates it does not have a motor.
> 
> Depending on what side of the issue you stand on people can find ways to be offended by just about anything. I am just suggesting everyone take a step back and be less touchy.


 So they are motorized.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> Craig is correct on this point. A "motorized vehicle" is a definition used by Federal, State, County and City level governments when describing legalities of on-highway vehicle use. In most cases it does not apply to off-highway use in the context of Natural Surface trails that are shared with pedestrians and bicyclist. That is why it was so important for eBike advocacy groups like People4bike to get some government agencies to classify specific model eBikes to be treated the same as a bicycle is treated when it comes to trail access.
> 
> That classification does not change the fact that a pedelec eBike has a motor and it is "motorized". It is not wrong to call a Class 1, 2, or 3 eBike a "motorized bicycle", but applying the term "motorized vehicle" is confusing at best and misleading at worst. Please do not refer to eBikes as Motorized Vehicles.
> 
> Access is still very much a regional issue and varies from Region to region. Just because something is one way where you live does not mean it is the same in MA.


 Uhhh, looking for some clarity here on terms. E bikes have a motor, they are motorized. But "we" should not refer to them as motorized vehicles? Call me confused. Really. And strongly disagree. Maybe this needs a new post?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

hikerdave said:


> My comments against their deprecation of another user group have been misinterpreted as asking NEMBA to advocate for eBike advocacy have been misinterpreted here as requesting that they advocate for eBikes; of course not. Remember that the OP's intent was to ask in the eBike thread that interested eBikers object to the continued blanket ban of eBikes on Massachusetts State Trails.


I believe that in taking the official stance that they have, what NEMBA is mainly trying to do is make it exceedingly clear that they in no way support allowing motorized access to historically non-motorized trails. Again ( I don't know how many times I've said this already), keeping the distinction between motorized and non-motorized use crystal clear is very much to the benefit of mountain bike access in New England. Opponents of MTB access will have no leg to stand on if they try to conflate NEMBA with e-bikes or any other type of motorized user groups, which is something they always have and will continue to try to do. The worst thing NEMBA could do as far as access for MTBs goes is to even appear to support the ridiculous idea that e-bikes don't have motors, or at least that everyone should pretend they don't.

So, NEMBA made it's statement to protect MTB interests and then moved on. I don't get why e-bikers care about what an MTB organization does. E-biking isn't mountain biking, it's e-biking. In New England, if you can't get your head around that distinction, you aren't getting anywhere. People here can see the motor, sitting right there in the open. If e-bikers can't accept the fact that there are motors on their bikes, then you don't even have a reasonable starting point.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

craigsj said:


> There is no purpose served by the term "motorized bicycle" over established "e-bike" or "electric bicycle" other than to associate the "motorized" term with e-bikes so that people will identify them with motorized vehicles. This is plainly obvious and your support for it shows what side you are one.


There is no purpose served by insisting that a "motorized bicycle" or "e-bike" or "electric bicycle" is a bicycle other than to associate them as bicycles so they will be granted access everywhere that bicycles currently have access without all that difficult work of gaining access. This is plainly obvious and your support for it shows that you're not willing to put in any real effort but hope to skate in on the coattails of another group.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I'm not saying they have the clout. I'm purely commenting on the optics. With the rhetoric they, NEMBA, have employed and publicized what do you see happening if and when e-bikes are widely accepted, even in New England? Do you see them surviving that without egg on their face?
> 
> I agree there is an issue in all of New England. I think with the current state of advocacy there sharing success stories is the best way forward. Whether it's a successful inclusion story like PRKR seems to be, or one of the several communities around the country that will profit heavily, relative I'm aware, due to its inclusive stance on e-bikes.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


The relationships based upon honor, commitment and integrity that NEMBA has established will guarantee they will be an important element in multiuse trail advocacy for as long as they keep earning the respect from the other advocacy groups.

I do not see NEMBA's statement on e-bikes having any positive or negative affect regarding the future existence of the organization. I'm not a member of NEMBA, I've already stated more than once that I might have a different choice of words but I'm not in the trenches of the North East fighting the battles that they are and if slapheadmofo were to tell me he doesn't really GAF about my opinion of choice of words he would have every right to.

tuckerjt07 has provided an opinion that addresses the topic for this thread, to share success stories. Providing information with statistics and supporting facts is the type of dialog that is needed, thank you for this.

It may have taken close to 200 posts but if there are people that want to find common ground and have a civil discussion to a complex issue, there's no limit or reason why we can't resolve any issue.

So, building upon this, how and whom delivers these examples of success? Is there any type of local organization(s)? Can the bike shops that are profiting from sales reach out to owners and start or grow a grassroots coalition? Discuss. Thanks.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> So, building upon this, how and whom delivers these examples of success? Is there any type of local organization(s)? Can the bike shops that are profiting from sales reach out to owners and start or grow a grassroots coalition? Discuss. Thanks.


Based on my experience, the overwhelming majority of shops around here tend to steer clear of doing anything advocacy-related beyond tossing a few bucks at NEMBA here and there. I wouldn't believe you'd ever see them taking the lead on something like this; they're pretty spoiled in having volunteers do all the advocacy as well as trail building. The solution is for dedicated souls to get heavily involved locally; put in the time to build relationships, learn who's who as far as land management, figure out precisely what the issues are that are keeping them from allowing e-bikes, and then come up with and present clear solutions to all those issues.

If that sounds like a shitload of work and time, that's because it is. 
I think one of the main problems here is everyone is just looking for quick and easy shortcut where they don't really have to do anything (beyond complain). It simply doesn't work that way, but that's not what people want to hear. Easier just to do nothing and blame others.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> Based on my experience, the overwhelming majority of shops around here tend to steer clear of doing anything advocacy-related beyond tossing a few bucks at NEMBA here and there. I wouldn't believe you'd ever see them taking the lead on something like this; they're pretty spoiled in having volunteers do all the advocacy as well as trail building. The solution is for dedicated souls to get heavily involved locally; put in the time to build relationships, learn who's who as far as land management, figure out precisely what the issues are that are keeping them from allowing e-bikes, and then come up with and present clear solutions to all those issues.
> 
> If that sounds like a shitload of work and time, that's because it is.
> I think one of the main problems here is everyone is just looking for quick and easy shortcut where they don't really have to do anything (beyond complain). It simply doesn't work that way, but that's not what people want to hear. Easier just to do nothing and blame others.


You can replace "NEMBA" with "SDMBA" and your first paragraph rings true, over 2000 miles away. Our bike shops actually toss quite a few bucks our way, I wish they would be more active and vocal on certain issues.

I remember a thread a couple months ago. Some guy, I think near San Francisco, was questioning about access, signage may have been confusing. Anyways, he attended a meeting, maybe a P&R meeting (hey, I'm old and too lazy to get all the facts). The point being one guy, that cared, took time out of his life, attended a meeting, conducted himself in a mature manner, asked questions, received answers, and at the end of the meeting some staff approached him, gave him contact information, and asked him to contact them for some follow up. Which he did, and attended another meeting. This is an example of advocacy.

I realize your numbers may be relatively small at the moment, but that is no reason to begin introducing yourselves, attending meetings, city, county state, federal meetings, equestrian group, bird watching meetings. When one takes the time to try to understand what other trail user groups concerns are, people appreciate that. The majority of advocates and many others in this thread are asking that you that feel that legislation is treating you unfairly, please, show up. Ignore the posts on here that list excuses or anything other than learning how the system operates so you can become a player in the system.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> You can replace "NEMBA" with "SDMBA" and your first paragraph rings true, over 2000 miles away. Our bike shops actually toss quite a few bucks our way, I wish they would be more active and vocal on certain issues.
> 
> I remember a thread a couple months ago. Some guy, I think near San Francisco, was questioning about access, signage may have been confusing. Anyways, he attended a meeting, maybe a P&R meeting (hey, I'm old and too lazy to get all the facts). The point being one guy, that cared, took time out of his life, attended a meeting, conducted himself in a mature manner, asked questions, received answers, and at the end of the meeting some staff approached him, gave him contact information, and asked him to contact them for some follow up. Which he did, and attended another meeting. This is an example of advocacy.
> 
> I realize your numbers may be relatively small at the moment, but that is no reason to begin introducing yourselves, attending meetings, city, county state, federal meetings, equestrian group, bird watching meetings. When one takes the time to try to understand what other trail user groups concerns are, people appreciate that. The majority of advocates and many others in this thread are asking that you that feel that legislation is treating you unfairly, please, show up. Ignore the posts on here that list excuses or anything other than learning how the system operates so you can become a player in the system.


This sounds very much like how many of us got involved.

I used to just help build and maintain trails. Then I moved to a town with no mtb trails, a lot of open space, and an entrenched and rabidly anti-bike 'environmental watchdog' group who hand their tentacles in everything. Myself and one other guy took them on and after 4 or 5 years of endless meetings, inspections, communications, etc, we gained pretty much carte blanche as far as trail building, the town buys me dirt for a pumptrack I built on recreation land that was previously strictly off limits to bikes, all the various user groups give us thanks, beer and hugs and the "environmental" group disbanded after we exposed them for the clueless hypocrites they actually were. This all required getting to know who ran what, finding out what they needed in order to get behind our ideas, and making sure they had that. If instead we had just jumped on some international website and started having constant stupid arguments about semantics with random people thousands of miles away, I'm going to assume we still wouldn't have any trails. Seem like that strategy is what a lot of e-bikers are banking on; I don't imagine they'll have much luck with it.

I agree that I personally wouldn't have made a statement like what NEMBA put out, even though I do understand the reasoning behind it. I probably would've just stated that NEMBA is a mountain bike organization, and since e-bikes not mountain bikes, whatever gets decided between them and land managers is none of our business.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

leeboh said:


> Uhhh, looking for some clarity here on terms. E bikes have a motor, they are motorized. But "we" should not refer to them as motorized vehicles? Call me confused. Really. And strongly disagree. Maybe this needs a new post?


It all depends on the locality and how the vehicle code is worded. In some places the legal definition for Motor Vehicle and motorized vehicles does not match up with what a pedelec eBike is. That is precisely why we have seen legislation such as what we have in California that defines eBikes as "bicycles" with regard to the Motor Vehicle Code for the state. But that is not an automatic "eBikes get all the same access as pedal bikes in every single place pedal bikes are allowed" blanket rule, the local Land Managers still have final say on what happens on the trails and some allow eBikes and some do not......

You should be confused, it is very confusing.


----------



## limbojim (Nov 27, 2015)

leeboh said:


> This is the crux of the mater here in New England. It is like no other area. Crowded, older states, a real mix of property kinds and types. Lots joined together. Trail building and advocacy thread here. Nemba has something like 5,000 member and 30? or so chapters. We do not make the rules, State DCR for the forests and parks here for the most part. We also work with land trusts, private land owners, conservation lands , town lands, state lands as well as several other kinds of lands. All have their own rules, some absolutely very strict in regards to the non use of motorized vehicles. Today I did a 26 mile mixed use ride. Lets see, 2 town conservation areas, 1 open space, 3 watershed areas in 3 different towns, 2 bike paths and one DCR park. Great pedaling. None allows motorized vehicles on the properties. All those e bikers have some advocating to do get some access. Good luck with that, really. One more thing to think about. Many places the bikers are a small user group. Dog walkers, horses, joggers, kids and families everywhere on the nice day. What is their take on this issue?


At the first DCR hearing in Holyoke last week, all of 10 MA citizens spoke, only half of who were self-proclaimed mountain bikers (or e-mountain bikers). Nine of them spoke 100% in favor of pedal assist ebike access to "nonmotorized" DCR trails, and the one who didn't was a NEMBA member whose position was "neutral." He basically said what I did; that DCR should conduct its own studies and let local Rangers decide whether to allow or disallow eMTBs.

So to answer you question, between the dozens of other trail users I've asked and the handful of non-MTBers that spoke at the hearing, I haven't heard a single objection to allowing pedal assist bicycles on trails. So I'd say their "take" is that it shouldn't be an issue. I also plan to attend tonight's (final) DCR hearing on the matter, and will report back what the sentiment seemed to be there.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

limbojim said:


> DCR should conduct its own studies and let local Rangers decide whether to allow or disallow eMTBs.


Makes sense.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

limbojim said:


> He basically said what I did; that DCR should conduct its own studies and let local Rangers decide whether to allow or disallow eMTBs.


Yep, I favor letting the people who actually do the managing getting to do the deciding.

IME, by the time public hearings and process are being held, most of the decision making is aleady done. It's partly a way to gauge public opinion, and partly a way for them to make the public feel like they have a voice, as well as usually being something legally required. As you've seen, stakeholders like NEMBA are usually given a chance for input earlier in the process, which if you want to have influence beyond a singular voice, is where you need to be.


----------



## grantini (Sep 14, 2014)

Miker J said:


> Recall the whole concept of why in many mountain bike races the rider/racer is not (or at least was not) allowed to borrow tools from other riders? There are those of us who still feel that the true sport of mountain biking captures nature of the "rugged, self-supported, adventurous, individual". That _is_ mountain biking to many. The move to make every thing easier, more accessible, nicer, more inclusive, more friendly... well you can argue that is good, but to many of us it sure ain't mountain biking. So don't expect us to support your electric motorcycles.


Just like we felt in the old days when slackers started showing up with front, and ultimately full, suspension. That wasn't true mountain biking.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

grantini said:


> Just like we felt in the old days when slackers started showing up with front, and ultimately full, suspension. That wasn't true mountain biking.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I don't remember that being the case at all.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

grantini said:


> Just like we felt in the old days when slackers started showing up with front, and ultimately full, suspension. That wasn't true mountain biking.
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk





mbmb65 said:


> I don't remember that being the case at all.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because it was never the case. What grantini is saying he just made up. Never heard of anything like that back in the early 90's when I was riding my '91 rigid. We were all drooling of suspension and saw that as the future of mountain biking.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Section 1B: Motorized bicycles; operation regulations
Section 1B. A motorized bicycle shall not be operated upon any way, as defined in section one within the commonwealth by any person under sixteen years of age, nor at a speed in excess of twenty-five miles per hour. A motorized bicycle shall not be operated on any way by any person not possessing a valid driver's license or learner's permit. Every person operating a motorized bicycle upon a way shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the regulations contained in this section, except that: (1) the motorized bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way, and (2) the motorized bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention to stop or turn. Motorized bicycles may be operated on bicycle lanes adjacent to the various ways, but shall be excluded from off-street recreational bicycle paths.

Every person operating a motorized bicycle or riding as a passenger on a motorized bicycle shall wear protective headgear conforming with such minimum standards of construction and performance as the registrar may prescribe, and no person operating a motorized bicycle shall permit any other person to ride a passenger on such motorized bicycle unless such passenger is wearing such protective headgear.

A person convicted of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five dollars for the first offense, not less than twenty-five nor more than fifty dollars for a second offense, and not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars for subsequent offenses committed.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section1B


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Road rules.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> Road rules.


Don't get caught riding off-road, you will get a maximum 25 dollar ticket!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> Don't get caught riding off-road, you will get a maximum 25 dollar ticket!


Right, cuz road rules apply to trails now. 
So I guess you aren't too happy about this part:

"Motorized bicycles may be operated on bicycle lanes adjacent to the various ways, but shall be excluded from off-street recreational bicycle paths."

Derrrrr.....:crazy:


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> Right, cuz road rules apply to trails now.
> So I guess you aren't too happy about this part:
> 
> "Motorized bicycles may be operated on bicycle lanes adjacent to the various ways, but shall be excluded from off-street recreational bicycle paths."
> ...


Yeah, we already went over this, but if you want to ride your eBike on off-street recreational bicycle paths go for it. 25 dollars is too rich for my blood though.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

figofspee said:


> Yeah, we already went over this, but if you want to ride your eBike on off-street recreational bicycle paths go for it. 25 dollars is too rich for my blood though.


 As said, road rules. And not 25 dollars. You could fall under the perview of environmental police, depends on the property. 250 fine, impoundment of vehicles, sometimes a fine to get it back. And where do you ride again Mr fig?


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

figofspee said:


> Yeah, we already went over this, but if you want to ride your eBike on off-street recreational bicycle paths go for it. 25 dollars is too rich for my blood though.


Thank you for sharing your opinion on the privilege of legal access and your opinion of those that have advocated to secure legal access.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

figofspee said:


> Yeah, we already went over this, but if you want to ride your eBike on off-street recreational bicycle paths go for it. 25 dollars is too rich for my blood though.


You are your own worst enemy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

So much stupid.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

Why can't e bike stuff be in the e bike forum?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

twodownzero said:


> Why can't e bike stuff be in the e bike forum?


It's been declared a 'safe space' from any pesky access discussions.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Good for MA.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

twodownzero said:


> Why can't e bike stuff be in the e bike forum?


This is a discussion of trail access, not a discussion of eBike's or eBike parts.


----------

