# New EMTB access



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

I think it would be a good sticky thread for notices of change in eMTB access or not well known access.
For instance I wrote the US Forest Service in the San Juan National Forest office. I was asking for them to consider opening parts of the single track trails in their jurisdiction.
I actually got a reply I really did not expect and the rep forwarded this fact sheet which included an encouraging note that recreation managers there seem aware of the desire of eMTB to have more access and may be trying to provide more access. This may be old to news to residence of the area. 
You might consider writing to them if you are also interested in more trail access.
I was very glad to find out that the Hermosa Creek Trail, one of my favorite rides is open to eMTB. If I am reading the information correctly.

"
*E-Bikes on San Juan National Forest 
Fact Sheet AND Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)*

Let’s face it, if you have an e-bike/eMTB, many of the routes and trails open to e-bikes may not provide the experience you were looking for. Good news! Each district of San Juan National Forest has many trails open to e-bikes. The trails listed below offer single track riding experiences spanning the entire San Juan National Forest landscape. Plan ahead and prepare – some of these trails are demanding and remote."
*Dolores Ranger District*

 
 Ramparts North - #166

 South Coyote Park - #170

 Box Canyon - #617, #621

 Calico - #202, #208, #640 

 East Fork - #638

*Columbine Ranger District*

 
 Cutthroat - #496

 Hermosa Creek - #514

 
 Corral Draw - #521


 
 Jones Creek - #518

 Pinkerton-Flagstaff - #522

 Multiple options at Purgatory Ski Resort
*Pagosa Ranger District*

 
 Devil Mountain - #600

 Snow Springs - #605

 Do Right - #642

 Treasure Mountain Trail - #565


----------



## sharpendjay (Sep 8, 2020)

Let's be real here....e-bikers are going to ride wherever the hell they want because of their blatant disregard of the laws and complete lack of enforcement.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

You are never going to stop bad apples from doing bad things. Many people exceed the speed limit driving cars and kill other people. Most eMTB will follow the rules. If you don't like ebikes why read this forum?


----------



## louiesquared (6 mo ago)

sharpendjay said:


> Let's be real here....e-bikers are going to ride wherever the hell they want because of their blatant disregard of the laws and complete lack of enforcement.


If we're being real here, there are just as many MTB'rs riding illegal trails as there are eMTB'rs riding on trails they are not supposed to.


----------



## john.ecc (8 mo ago)

sharpendjay said:


> Let's be real here....e-bikers are going to ride wherever the hell they want because of their blatant disregard of the laws and complete lack of enforcement.


lol that's a bit of a broad statement... I'm not e-bikes biggest fan but owning one doesn't automatically make you a law breaking d**k?


----------



## sharpendjay (Sep 8, 2020)

mike_kelly said:


> You are never going to stop bad apples from doing bad things. Many people exceed the speed limit driving cars and kill other people. Most eMTB will follow the rules. If you don't like ebikes why read this forum?


I like e-bikes, I don't like the e-bikers I am seeing on trails where e-biking is prohibited.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

Well then why are you snarking on a thread designed to encourage/inform people to use legal trails? Add some singletrack trails that are legal.


----------



## evdog (Mar 18, 2007)

mike_kelly said:


> Most eMTB will follow the rules.


Riiiiiiiiiigght....  "This is a class 1 e-bike, it's allowed here!" "There weren't any signs" "I didn't know!" "It's just as much work as pedalling a real bike" "F off!" 




mike_kelly said:


> If you don't like ebikes why read this forum?


Threads in the moped subforum show up on the main page under "Recommended for you". If MTBR is going to lob softballs at us like this don't get all outraged when people take a swing. Feel free to write the powers that be and ask them to change this practice. They won't, because it drives traffic just like they want.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

Or you could change your practice and leave the eMTB forum alone. Why do you feel the need to comment? Nobody in this forum cares. This is the forum for people who use eMTB and like them. Maybe if you want to howl at the moon you could do it somewhere else?


----------



## evdog (Mar 18, 2007)

mike_kelly said:


> Or you could change your practice and leave the eMTB forum alone. Why do you feel the need to comment?


LOL. You must not have read my whole post. 


evdog said:


> Threads in the moped subforum show up on the main page under "Recommended for you". If MTBR is going to lob softballs at us like this don't get all outraged when people take a swing.


----------



## john.ecc (8 mo ago)

mike_kelly said:


> Or you could change your practice and leave the eMTB forum alone. Why do you feel the need to comment? Nobody in this forum cares. This is the forum for people who use eMTB and like them. Maybe if you want to howl at the moon you could do it somewhere else?


Unfortunately evdog is correct. They show up in our main feed, dangling there like bait.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

You could resist clicking on something titled "New EMTB access" since you are not interested in eMTB? Maybe. Or "resistance is futile"?
This could have been a useful thread to encourage legal ebike usage.


----------



## CGriffen (11 mo ago)

With out the ebikers I would have one or two guys locally who can ride with me for over 120 minutes (XC). They help me get faster, period...I just go 21mph and have them drain their batteries!


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

mike_kelly said:


> *E-Bikes on San Juan National Forest
> Fact Sheet AND Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)*


This is good. I encourage ppl to check out, USFS interactive map if you don't already: Forest Service Visitor Map 

Hovering on a trail will give you allowed access. Further, selecting 'dirt bike' will show all the moto/eBike accessible single track.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

john.ecc said:


> Unfortunately evdog is correct. They show up in our main feed, dangling there like bait.


Oh, please. What a crock. I get "Recommended For You" threads about Vermont, New Hampshire (neither of which I have been to or have any interest in), Vintage (ditto), and all kinds of other topics. If I loathe the subject or even just have zero interest I'm not tempted to go in there and start spouting my superiority or why it's terrible. It's the same few trolls on every e-bike thread spewing their negativity about anything e-bike related. "Bait". 🤣


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

FWIW, I appreciate the OP's effort to construct a sticky with legal riding / access resources. That's needed.

Historically, mtbr and mountain biking in general has always included controversial topics. Some ya'll have thin skin and it's laughable to think eBikes are singled out, but they are hot in moment... dubious claims about wheelsize benefits are met with pushback just as readily as similar unfounded claims made by ebike advocates. Look at the threads on this site - it's not all just a cheering squad. Near fist fights over chainstay length and leverage ratios. Regardless, mtbr forums are basically meaningless now - feeds and alerts...like it or not, this is what they do - spur engagement. If mtbr offered an eBike filter, I'd probably use it... get some time back and passively pinpoint topics I'm more minded towards... but they don't. As an observation, most the negative ebike threads go south when the supposedly forbidden topics are brought up: poaching, derestriction mods... or a shared topic like changing access in an area.


----------



## john.ecc (8 mo ago)

BmanInTheD said:


> Oh, please. What a crock. I get "Recommended For You" threads about Vermont, New Hampshire (neither of which I have been to or have any interest in), Vintage (ditto), and all kinds of other topics. If I loathe the subject or even just have zero interest I'm not tempted to go in there and start spouting my superiority or why it's terrible. It's the same few trolls on every e-bike thread spewing their negativity about anything e-bike related. "Bait". 🤣


I've not said anything negative, I believe I was defending e-bikers with my earlier comment? I wouldn't have found this thread if it didn't show up in my main feed, I don't go looking for them. So no, it's not a "crock". Have a lovely day.


----------



## CGriffen (11 mo ago)

BmanInTheD said:


> Oh, please. What a crock. I get "Recommended For You" threads about Vermont, New Hampshire (neither of which I have been to or have any interest in), Vintage (ditto), and all kinds of other topics. If I loathe the subject or even just have zero interest I'm not tempted to go in there and start spouting my superiority or why it's terrible. It's the same few trolls on every e-bike thread spewing their negativity about anything e-bike related. "Bait". 🤣



Wait, you mean that the internet gave you a link that you were not directly interested in, waiting for even? Say it isnt so.....


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

Carl Mega said:


> FWIW, I appreciate the OP's effort to construct a sticky with legal riding / access resources. That's needed.
> 
> Historically, mtbr and mountain biking in general has always included controversial topics. Some ya'll have thin skin and it's laughable to think eBikes are singled out, but they are hot in moment... dubious claims about wheelsize benefits are met with pushback just as readily as similar unfounded claims made by ebike advocates. Look at the threads on this site - it's not all just a cheering squad. Near fist fights over chainstay length and leverage ratios. Regardless, mtbr forums are basically meaningless now - feeds and alerts...like it or not, this is what they do - spur engagement. If mtbr offered an eBike filter, I'd probably use it... get some time back and passively pinpoint topics I'm more minded towards... but they don't. As an observation, most the negative ebike threads go south when the supposedly forbidden topics are brought up: poaching, derestriction mods... or a shared topic like changing access in an area.


I just put these retards on ignore, and the threads are becoming more and more pleasant to read. It is also kind of fun to just press a button and someone disappears from my world entirely. Wish I could do that in real life.


----------



## evdog (Mar 18, 2007)

Carl Mega said:


> This is good. I encourage ppl to check out, USFS interactive map if you don't already: Forest Service Visitor Map
> 
> Hovering on a trail will give you allowed access. Further, selecting 'dirt bike' will show all the moto/eBike accessible single track.


Wow, thanks! I didn't realize the PCT was open to bikes - same with Wilderness trails in the Angeles NF!  










Seriously, USFS info online is notoriously inaccurate. Prior to their recent redesign the pages for individual trails almost never listed MTB as an allowed use, even on MTB primary trails. 

Quick look at the forests in Socal:

Cleveland NF & Inyo NF - list trails and uses, but seems to just show all trails outside Wilderness as open to bikes. But MTB is definitely not allowed on some of those. 
San Bernardino NF & Los Padres NF - don't list allowed uses
Angeles NF - shows PCT and many trails in Wilderness as open to bikes. Yay! 
Sequoia NF - doesn't even show trails on the map

Each forest shows roads xxxx'd out as closed (or don't show the road at all), which are still open to non-motorized use.

This map is probably better than any other source I've seen from USFS but you still can't rely on it as-is. Hopefully they'll keep updating it. Since e-bikes are not allowed on USFS non-motorized trails the Motor Vehicle Use Maps are your best bet. I think you can get those as a map layer now on some services like Gaia or OnX


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

I was a eMTB hater 6 months ago. But the issues of ebikes, good or bad, have truly been beat to death. Times and physical ability change. Modern life has a rate of change that most humans can't tolerate. I still don't think able-bodied kids should be using assist but the argument that if it gets some them out is good and valid. As far as trails are concerned I think riders that show no respect for other users are bad regardless of MTB or eMTB, especially on multi-use trails.. My eMTB uses all the same components as any MTB so I am not going to be having any more impact on a single track trail than any other user. But we are all here because there are useful things to learn on MTBR from other users. It is a shame the eMTB members can't have a place to share ideas without others ranting because they are frustrated with change that they can't control. I understand but it does not help and it does not change anything with users that are different from you.

The point of this thread was to keep up to date on available legal trails. "Since e-bikes are not allowed on USFS non-motorized trails the Motor Vehicle"
This statement is no longer true. Each district can decide now to allow access on previously non-motorized only.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

evdog said:


> This map is probably better than any other source I've seen from USFS but you still can't rely on it as-is. Hopefully they'll keep updating it. Since e-bikes are not allowed on USFS non-motorized trails the Motor Vehicle Use Maps are your best bet. I think you can get those as a map layer now on some services like Gaia or OnX


Yeah, it's always a mixed bag including the MVUM which are a giant pain the butt and sometimes nearly illegible. Local to me, the USFS interactive pretty good though one trail in this thread isn't on there but it's brandy new. COTrex Colorado Trail Explorer (COTREX) plus a few other mapping sources I uses really help.

I do a lot of plotting offroad routes (moto) and I'm pretty much resigned to having to accept the limitations (and how it's an improvement over yesteryear). Closed gates, disputed land and people straight up messing with easements/right of way...it's all part of the deal. I wonder if motorized use is more accurate than bikes on the USFS interactive? Motorized vehicle use travel plans are more definitive.

When in doubt, call. Hope you get an informed person on the phone/email.

Oh- another thing w/ the USFS interactive - obviously it's only the stuff they manage. Some of the co-managed/blended stuff won't be there.


----------



## RM Rilke (5 mo ago)

It’s pretty simple at this point. Ebikes are statutorily defined as motor vehicles under federal law. All trails within the purview of the USDA are subject the this law. This includes all National Forest Service areas. Ebikes of all classes are only allowed on trails in National Forest areas where motor vehicles are allowed. Regional offices were provided with internal guidance on procedures to be followed if they wish to create a specific designation to allow ebikes on non motorized trails. They cannot unilaterally just decide ebikes are allowed on certain trails. The guidance is clear that use designation of a trail can only be changed with due administrative process. That includes a published plan, public comment, environmental impact assessment, etc. I don’t believe it has actually been successfully done. There hasn’t been time. The office in Tahoe was sued and it prompted the issuance of the guidance in April 2022. If you are on Forest Service land ebikes are not legal on non motorized trails. Simple as that. BLM is managed by the Department of the Interior. Different story.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

mike_kelly said:


> Or you could change your practice and leave the eMTB forum alone. Why do you feel the need to comment? Nobody in this forum cares. This is the forum for people who use eMTB and like them. Maybe if you want to howl at the moon you could do it somewhere else?


I don't own an eBike, have used one in the wild once and use this forum to get current information on eBikes. I have certain desires in what I want in an eBike and this forum seems the best place to get current info. So count me as neutral, I guess.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

RM Rilke said:


> It’s pretty simple at this point.


Agreed with what you wrote - it's a good telling of things. 

But in fairness to OP, he started w/ USFS - specifically San Juans who wisely prepped an ebike info packet. It includes nearby non-USFS riding areas, an new class1 non-ICE trail, resort trails and, of course, all the SJNF moto single track. It's a helpful breakdown for a visitor, covers a lot of area.

Probably a tall order, but it'd be good to have a thread like this that explicitly calls out open access (info packets, access/policy resources) in frequented places. Most traditional mtb people here haven't needed to pay much attention to different managing agencies prior to eBikes, but in actuality, there's always been material policy differences. Welcome to the motorized club fellas, you need to pay attention now like we've learned to do. Anyway, differentiating areas by: NPS, USFS, BLM, state parks, county OS, city/municipality OS, private etc is useful - gives you framing of their policy.

In practice, the practical callouts are simple:

Regarded as motorized (eg: all motorized trails, if any, open)
Regarded as distinct category (eg: in addition to motorized, open to explicitly included trails)
Regarded same as human powered bicycles (eg: open to any traditional bicycle included trails)


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

mike_kelly said:


> You are never going to stop bad apples from doing bad things. Many people exceed the speed limit driving cars and kill other people. Most eMTB will follow the rules. If you don't like ebikes why read this forum?


Because haters can't wait to come out from under their rocks and reply negatively to a post like yours.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

RM Rilke said:


> It’s pretty simple at this point. Ebikes are statutorily defined as motor vehicles under federal law.


It is simple that you are wrong.

Federal Law Governing Low-Speed Electric Bicycles:
Electric-assisted bicycles have been defined and regulated at the federal level since 2002. Public
Law 107-319 established that electric bicycles are regulated as consumer products under the
Consumer Product Safety Act, and more specifically, subject to the same regulations that govern
traditional, human-powered bicycles. Thus, electric bicycles are regulated by the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, and must comply with the bicycle safety standards at 16 C.F.R. Part
1512. *In addition, electric bicycles are explicitly not “motor vehicles” for the purposes of federal
law*, and are not subject to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration vehicle standards.
As a practical matter, Public Law 107-319 ensures that electric bicycles are designed,
manufactured, and tested like traditional bicycles for the purposes of consumer product safety
law. The main provisions of Public Law 107-319 are codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2085.


The USFS considers ebikes to be motor-vehicle on it's jursidiction. It is a rule not a statute.

From the USFS:
*E-Bikes and Future Access*
The Forest Service manages e-bikes as motor vehicles under the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212, Subpart B). The Travel Management Rule requires following National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning process when changes to the road and trail transportation system. This means changing a non-motorized trail to allow for e-bike use requires following the NEPA process. NEPA is a local level process, requires public input, and does not lead to pre-determined decisions.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Man, I cringe a little every time some posts the Fed/some state law when they are really talking about off-road land access. They are different things. Fed law is saying: you don't need to register it as a moto vehicle, nor is the vehicle subject to motorized safety standards and you are not subject to be treated as motorized vehicle on public roads.

Federal Land use, or any land use, is a bird of a different feather. SJ does a good job calling out the important bits: Travel Management plans, NEPA. As it always has been.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

But many land managers use that "statement" to allow land access to "motorized category" or "non-motorized category" vehicles as established by the FEDs.
It is of course even more complicated by the fact the US federal laws or rules have no bearing on every other adminstrative entity in the US. It is a big mess because every state, county, city and private resource can have entirely different rules. You could easily have a trail that crosses multiple jurisdictions like the Colorado Trail where some short sections cross WIlderness and MTB must detour around those sections.
That again is why a thread documenting legal single track for eMTB seems it would be useful. But clearly it is not possible.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

mike_kelly said:


> But many land managers use that "statement" to allow land access to "motorized category" or "non-motorized category" vehicles as established by the FEDs.
> ...
> That again is why a thread documenting legal single track for eMTB seems it would be useful. But clearly it is not possible.


No, not my experience. Land managers are largely professionals who use the _exact_ language that defines their travel management/land access rules. They need to - there are admin rules, laws & lawyers, elected officials, committees, oversight that requires the specificity. In this this thread, other online laypeople, use inexact language and reference citations without correct context.

Mike, you and I probably see eBikes differently, but I think a thread like this is useful and a good attempt at sharing info.


----------



## RM Rilke (5 mo ago)

mike_kelly said:


> It is simple that you are wrong.
> 
> Federal Law Governing Low-Speed Electric Bicycles:
> Electric-assisted bicycles have been defined and regulated at the federal level since 2002. Public
> ...


Well I obviously need to look at this more closely. Thanks.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

Carl Mega said:


> No, not my experience. Land managers are largely professionals who use the _exact_ language that defines their travel management/land access rules. They need to - there are admin rules, laws & lawyers, elected officials, committees, oversight that requires the specificity. In this this thread, other online laypeople, use inexact language and reference citations without correct context.
> 
> Mike, you and I probably see eBikes differently, but I think a thread like this is useful and a good attempt at sharing info.


Our experience is different and most land managers I have seen are clueless about ebikes and grasp at straws trying to figure out what to do. I think that is evident in a place like Tucson where ebike access on trails just a few miles apart is radiacally different. 
Frankly I still think negatively about using eMTB to shuttle up a hill to let gravity take you down. To me cycling is moving pedals. Not like downhill skiing. But I also see there are a lot more people than I original thought who have been riding for decades and finally are starting to have broken bodies through no fault of their own. I don't think the world needs anything more than class 1 ebikes. But those are my choices and I don't impose them on anyone else. I also don't think we need another waste stream of lithium batteries and dead motors. But if I don't move i am going to be dead soon. So I am going to use my eMTB to extend my life even if I don't get as much exercise because in my case movement is the need.
Change is hard to accept. I hate that I can't get parts for my Sram 10s gripshift anymore even though it is only a few years old. I kick and scream as I am dragged forward. I don't think a lot of change is good either. But I have to adapt or crawl in the corner and cry.
I think this situation is like any where some group gets in the door and then closes it and locks it. It is kinda survival of the fittest for resources. Hiker get wilderness and then they lockout the cyclist. Cyclists get trail access and then they lock out the eBIkes. It is understandable. You got something good and you don't want to lose it.
But eBikes are still way too contentious for a conversation it appears. I will do what I need to do to survive and since I am retired I don't need to justify it to anyone because I never see anyone on the trails. It is too bad you can't do something useful on these forums without people ruining the thread.
I also don't need to post on these forums so I think I will go ride.
Hope you have a great ride today also Carl.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

mike_kelly said:


> Our experience is different and most land managers I have seen are clueless about ebikes and grasp at straws trying to figure out what to do. I think that is evident in a place like Tucson where ebike access on trails just a few miles apart is radiacally different.
> ...
> Hope you have a great ride today also Carl.


So my experience is based on working in a land management agency, advocacy...but probably more importantly, my household includes people who are actual land managers.... decades of experience. I've not read in any thread here where people recognize how much effort goes into a policy change like proponents are championing. From procedural and process for changes, to admin, to funding, enforcement, proposals & plans, to stakeholders & public engagement, conservation & environmental needs, to lawyer review, to softskills work on meshing with user group boards for changes... nevermind the murky waters of a coherent policy trying to accommodate a new use that has only been in existence for handful of years - will it be the same in another five? ten? Despite what others are saying, there's no study that can objectively be included (reasoned decision) without a disclaimer about how there's no longitudinal confirmation as of yet - brief snapshots, findings tbd. 

Now, your observation about two different areas with varying approaches....if you worked in advocacy, land conservation or similar, this becomes more apparent to why. Different land, different agency have varying degrees of discretion as to what they can enact and how. Are you dealing with protected land? Whole different ball of wax vs. open-deeded land with no conservation controls. Local vs. Federal, etc. And this isn't just about eBikes... new trails, new parks, motorized access, pickleball courts to bird sanctuaries - absolutely none of this is a particularly special case for eBikes.. Every material change is bound by the agency, funding, legal aspects of the public resource.

If more people actually engaged on the legwork to make things happen, there'd be a better understanding of how the process works and how to get your best result. I see a lot of folly where ppl try to advocate their wishes, but have absolutely no clue to what it would take to enact or if it is even the right agency or mechanism or if it is even feasible. This causes animus because they are frustrated but they are clueless (and hostile) as to how to initiate change. Straight up, most people don't really try... a public comment here or there but mostly complaining on the webz.

Sop back to it, the people you called clueless are the people who actually know how to make changes and have been doing it - managing that land to the public good for decades. They are absolutely not clueless, professionals who know the ins/outs - manage important details you'll never even think about - whose hard work has brought us riding areas we've all enjoyed. 

Anyway, I'll be out there today Mike. Don't you worry. Everyday like clockwork, breathing, pedaling and taking it all in. Time of my life, daily.


----------



## RM Rilke (5 mo ago)

Carl Mega said:


> Agreed with what you wrote - it's a good telling of things.
> 
> But in fairness to OP, he started w/ USFS - specifically San Juans who wisely prepped an ebike info packet. It includes nearby non-USFS riding areas, an new class1 non-ICE trail, resort trails and, of course, all the SJNF moto single track. It's a helpful breakdown for a visitor, covers a lot of area.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your response. I’m a retired Criminal Lawyer so Admin. Law is definitely not my strength. I agree that it would be a great idea to put together something that simply defines the general state of the law as it pertains to ebike use in different areas. That’s what I was going for. I’m not against ebikes. I have one. But I am very concerned about losing access for all bikes because of trail managers seeing the lawlessness and trail conflicts. I am old enough to remember how fragile that access is, and difficult it was to get. I gave it a try, but my foray wasn’t researched enough. I will try to put something together after I get a copy of the guidance. I do think it would be a great idea if ebikers had a more organized approach that worked with existing mountain bike groups. Showing a little deference and good will would help tremendously.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

Carl Mega said:


> So my experience is based on working in a land management agency, advocacy...but probably more importantly, my household includes people who are actual land managers.... decades of experience. I've not read in any thread here where people recognize how much effort goes into a policy change like proponents are championing. From procedural and process for changes, to admin, to funding, enforcement, proposals & plans, to stakeholders & public engagement, conservation & environmental needs, to lawyer review, to softskills work on meshing with user group boards for changes... nevermind the murky waters of a coherent policy trying to accommodate a new use that has only been in existence for handful of years - will it be the same in another five? ten? Despite what others are saying, there's no study that can objectively be included (reasoned decision) without a disclaimer about how there's no longitudinal confirmation as of yet - brief snapshots, findings tbd.
> 
> Now, your observation about two different areas with varying approaches....if you worked in advocacy, land conservation or similar, this becomes more apparent to why. Different land, different agency have varying degrees of discretion as to what they can enact and how. Are you dealing with protected land? Whole different ball of wax vs. open-deeded land with no conservation controls. Local vs. Federal, etc. And this isn't just about eBikes... new trails, new parks, motorized access, pickleball courts to bird sanctuaries - absolutely none of this is a particularly special case for eBikes.. Every material change is bound by the agency, funding, legal aspects of the public resource.
> 
> ...


Me too, take care


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

RM Rilke said:


> because of trail managers seeing the lawlessness and trail conflicts.


They are a problem. But it seems it comes with the territory now with every aspect of life. It is also not limited to eMTB but MTB also. People drive cars criminally and kill other people. People use gun criminally and kill other people but we don't outlaw all cars and guns etc etc. I don't think I should be excluded from using my eMTB just because there are some people who abuse the privilege or are just plain jerks. If I use my class 1 eMTB responsibly, am respectful of other users and my eMTB does not affect the trails any more than any other user then to deny me access is discrimination. Period.
The problem is that no one wants to pay for enforcement and so the land managers choose to just deny access. It is easier when there is no money for enforcement. Maybe because of that they have no other practical choice. In my area, thank goodness, the land managers don't want to deal with the problem so they have a don't ask don't tell policy. Maybe that is just the way it has to be in our society. If there is no real conflict then it actually works.


----------



## smr238 (3 mo ago)

sharpendjay said:


> Let's be real here....e-bikers are going to ride wherever the hell they want because of their blatant disregard of the laws and complete lack of enforcement.


Not all will. to to lump all e bike riders is the same **** I heard 30 years ago from hikers and horse back riders when bikers wanted places to ride. They’re to fast. They buzz us walking down the trail. They ride where they’re not supposed to. I don’t own an e bike. I haven’t seen a single issue arise from the ones I see on the trails. You have a member who obviously want to follow the rules and put information out for other like minded people. Vomiting your opinion on a thread to help follow rules is useless. Get over yourself a go ride.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

AEyogi said:


> I just put these retards on ignore, and the threads are becoming more and more pleasant to read. It is also kind of fun to just press a button and someone disappears from my world entirely. Wish I could do that in real life.


It'd be better if this site allowed for a "block" function that hid your comments (or entire threads you started) from people you blocked, instead of just hiding their comments from you via an "ignore" list. I think that would go a long way in reducing the trolling that goes on here.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Ebikes rule! and are F-ing fun. Get out and ride wherever you see dirt. It’s a shame bikers argue over a friggin bicycle. Bigger sh-t to worry about.


----------



## SteveF (Mar 5, 2004)

Gutch said:


> Ebikes rule! and are F-ing fun. Get out and ride wherever you see dirt. It’s a shame bikers argue over a friggin bicycle. Bigger sh-t to worry about.


"Bicycles" don't have motors.


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

From the Oxford dictionary:
"a vehicle composed of two wheels held in a frame one behind the other, propelled by pedals and steered with handlebars attached to the front wheel."
My eMTB fits that description completely.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Just stop. I though you wanted a thread on access/riding?


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

You are correct. I'll tie my hands together. Not that the intended thread is possible it appears. It does not help that the thread was moved to Advocacy which will inflame things more.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

mike_kelly said:


> It does not help that the thread was moved to Advocacy which will inflame things more.


I didn't catch that. Yeah. Welp.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I used to have these same discussions 6 years ago on this site. Gets old.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

mike_kelly said:


> You are correct. I'll tie my hands together. Not that the intended thread is possible it appears. It does not help that the thread was moved to Advocacy *which will inflame things more*.


They like to do that. Ebike advocacy should stay in the ebike sub-forum imho. Moving it to the general advo page draws too many haters.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Bottom line for those of us in the "OC": e-bikes are prohibited in all city, county and state parks. Class 1 & 2 can be ridden on most bike paths (there are some that prohibit it expressly). Doubt that will change in the near future. Of course, it's only policed in a few areas, so many ride all levels of "e" with impunity.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> They like to do that. Ebike advocacy should stay in the ebike sub-forum imho. Moving it to the general advo page draws too many haters.


Re read the rules of the eBike section. It is for the discussion of eBikes and eBike parts, this section is for the discussion of trail advocacy. EBike trail advocacy belongs here.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> Re read the rules of the eBike section. It is for the discussion of eBikes and eBike parts, this section is for the discussion of trail advocacy. EBike trail advocacy belongs here.


But, what's going on here in this thread, and really in most of these forums related to ebikes, is _opposition_ not advocacy. If you're going to call this an advocacy sub-forum, then people shouldn't be allowed to interject their opposition.


.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

_CJ said:


> If you're going to call this an advocacy sub-forum, then people shouldn't be allowed to interject their opposition.
> 
> 
> .


I’d say that motor bikes on trails intended for human powered bikes is directly related to advocacy


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

^You get it. There are dishonest narratives that further hurt legitimate advocacy efforts; they permeate throughout this site so there's a reality based pushback. They may make you feel good, but in the long run they are counter productive. 

Objectively addressing capabilities, circumstances, enforcement, legal obstacles and the cooperation / credibility amongst stakeholder user groups - is advocacy. There's work involved so, of course, the loudest and laziest get to now complain about two things: that not everyone has the same opinion and about the leg work needed to get results.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Sir kayakalot said:


> I’d say that motor bikes on trails intended for human powered bikes is directly related to advocacy


Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Referring to an ebike as a "motor bike" is opposition, not advocacy.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

_CJ said:


> Thanks for demonstrating my point.
> 
> Referring to an ebike as a "motor bike" is opposition, not advocacy.


How can you say that? It LITERALLY has a motor on it


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Re read the rules of the eBike section. It is for the discussion of eBikes and eBike parts, this section is for the discussion of trail advocacy. EBike trail advocacy belongs here.


You should follow your own rules:
"We'll have some guidelines that we're refining. Something like this:

· Ebike forum is for generating a positive experience, no drama or trolls.
· This section is for discussion of ebike, ebike specific accessories, stories or what's new in the OEM.
·* Let's talk about legal only trails.* Any talk about illegal riding can be deleted at moderators discretion
· Any post about derestricting/modifying software will be deleted.
· OEM bike discussion and technologies is the key target (Specialized, Giant, YT, Trek, Focus, Pivot, etc&#8230. Add-on motors, limit discussions to under 1000 watt varieties
· Threads started to purposefully incite other users will be deleted.
· If you cannot tell a difference between a motorcycle and class 1 or 2 ebike, please don't post."

I agree that putting this in trail advocacy just adds fuel to the troll fire.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Sir kayakalot said:


> How can you say that? It LITERALLY has
> 
> 
> mike_kelly said:
> ...


Oh, look....this one too!

"- _If you cannot tell a difference between a motorcycle and class 1 or 2 ebike, please don't post._"

.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

_CJ said:


> Oh, look....this one too!
> 
> "- _If you cannot tell a difference between a motorcycle and class 1 or 2 ebike, please don't post._"
> 
> .


I can tell the difference easily. They ALL have motors, just different horsepower


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

This is truly a big waste of time, cheers


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

newflash for the reality deniers: you're in the advocacy forum fellas. not ebike safe spaces where only cheerleading is allowed. rubber hits the road here.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Sir kayakalot said:


> How can you say that? It LITERALLY has a motor on it


motorized bicycle has been the established term - many/most the regulations use this language. With ebikes on the scene, authoritive documents I've seen spell it out: electric motorized bicycles.

Seems like a strange hill for that guy to die on.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Sir kayakalot said:


> I can tell the difference easily. They ALL have motors, just different horsepower


yeah, it's cute how you're using the term "motor bike" to conflate ebikes with motorcycles in obvious opposition to ebikes using the same trails as traditional MTB's. As I said before, that's opposition, not advocacy, and apparently in clear violation of forum rules, but you persist, and the admins apparently condone it.

At the end of the day, you're holding hands with the very people who want to limit traditional MTB trail access too. You don't have to like ebikes, that's fine, but your opposition to eMTB's only serves to hurt the sport of mountain biking on the whole.


.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

I am not against ebikes. I have friends that have them. I will get one if I’m in bad enough physical shape that I can’t ride a bicycle. But the reality is, ebikes do cause conflict on certain trails and no matter how you spin it, the ebike has a motor


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

Sir kayakalot said:


> I am not against ebikes. I have friends that have them. I will get one if I’m in bad enough physical shape that I can’t ride a bicycle. But the reality is, ebikes do cause conflict on certain trails and no matter how you spin it, the ebike has a motor


Semantics. You know that if you say "motor bike" your listener will understand you to mean a motorcycle, not an ebike, it is the connotation of the term. You are just being inflammatory to entertain yourself.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

I like having access in the advocacy section so it doesn't poison the ebike forum and is easily ignored by never opening it (I opened it a couple of times because it was on the "front page"). Keep it here and let the haters come out from under their rocks and pollute without poisoning the ebike threads.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Not really surprising that the most fervent seek shelter in the echo chamber. It's safe. You'll never be exposed to grounding, reality aspects of advocacy like this well worded bit from Pisgah Conservancy:

*Symbiotic Relationship*
Pisgah is a treasure enjoyed by hikers, mountain bikers, equestrians, fishermen, hunters, and others. It is the intent of TPC to support projects that are, as much as is reasonably possible, supported by *all user groups*. *This does not mean we will always have unanimity of opinion.* It means that TPC is intended to be a *unifying influence*, to provide a *forum where different opinions can be heard*, and where action can be taken that supports the *most important common goals of all groups*.



https://www.pisgahconservancy.org/about-us/project-plan/symbiotic-relationship.html



Or how recreation interests need to mesh with the rest of the realities of land management: https://www.pisgahconservancy.org/about-us/project-plan/recreation-support.html


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

Carl Mega said:


> Not really surprising that the most fervent seek shelter in the echo chamber. It's safe. You'll never be exposed to grounding, reality aspects of advocacy like this well worded bit from Pisgah Conservancy:
> 
> *Symbiotic Relationship*
> Pisgah is a treasure enjoyed by hikers, mountain bikers, equestrians, fishermen, hunters, and others. It is the intent of TPC to support projects that are, as much as is reasonably possible, supported by *all user groups*. *This does not mean we will always have unanimity of opinion.* It means that TPC is intended to be a *unifying influence*, to provide a *forum where different opinions can be heard*, and where action can be taken that supports the *most important common goals of all groups*.
> ...


Or maybe we are sick of the idiots who **** on ebikes and those who use them but have no useful insight. It is just the same tired recycled trolling over and over again for the sole purpose of entertaining themselves by making others upset. I would be interested in dissenting views from those who have something unique to contribute and who can act like grownups, but I have not seen much of that going on here. Although the MTBR experience is getting slowly better as I put more retards on ignore.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

AEyogi said:


> Or maybe we are sick of the idiots who **** on ebikes and those who use them but have no useful insight.
> ...
> I put more retards on ignore.


R word, really? Not much into asteya? Seek satya. I'd like a word with your teacher. Gross.

I've laid out variety of aspects of land management, dealing with protected land and legal intricacies, objective consideration of your ask and probably most important reality check: you share these resources with other users, negotiation and compromise is part of deal. You guys have brought: the R word. Uh-huh.

It's not all about you. Shaucha & santosha.


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

Carl Mega said:


> R word, really? Not much into asteya? Seek satya. I'd like a word with your teacher. Gross.
> 
> I've laid out variety of aspects of land management, dealing with protected land and legal intricacies, objective consideration of your ask and probably most important reality check: you share these resources with other users, negotiation and compromise is part of deal. You guys have brought: the R word. Uh-huh.
> 
> It's not all about you. Shaucha & santosha.


I apologize in that my post could be interpreted to mean that I was calling you the "R" word, which was not my intention. My post was in response to your criticism about an "echo chamber" and that my preferences is to have a discussion without all of the toxic trolling.


----------



## BigStatiK (Jul 26, 2020)

Bro-Ped™


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mike_kelly said:


> You should follow your own rules:
> "We'll have some guidelines that we're refining. Something like this:
> 
> · Ebike forum is for generating a positive experience, no drama or trolls.
> ...


This thread is about advocating for new eMTB access, not the discussion of an existing Trail where eMTB's are already approved for access. So this is an advocacy thread. If you cannot handle some mountain bikers calling a bicycle with a motor on it a motorized bicycle, then how on earth are you gonna handle the Hiker and Equestrians Crowds when you show up to Meetings to advocate for eMTB access on the trails you want to expand them on?

You will need a much stronger constitution to deal with those maniacs' in the advocacy meetings.


Wanna know why you run into so much resistance? You do not make very good arguments for your sport, and constantly denying that they have a motor and making comments like "they are only slightly faster" just proves you have no chops to actually stand up and advocate for them. I have ridden a few Class 1 eMTB's and some street versions of eBikes. I personally think Class 1 will work in _MOST_ places that regular Mountain Bikes already have access, but I am also reasonable enough to know that in other places that might not work. Once a person can clear the hurdle that yes they are motorized and yes they can be ridden as much as 3 times faster uphill, then they can finally have an honest discussion about how to advocate for such devices on Muti-use trails. As long as one denies those basic facts they are doomed to never make any headway in a real advocacy meeting for trail access.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

AEyogi said:


> Semantics. You know that if you say "motor bike" your listener will understand you to mean a motorcycle, not an ebike, it is the connotation of the term. You are just being inflammatory to entertain yourself.


Dang dude, in denial much?


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

AEyogi said:


> Although the MTBR experience is getting slowly better as I put more retards on ignore.


It’ll be difficult to come together when you’re ignoring everyone that disagrees with you


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

Sir kayakalot said:


> It’ll be difficult to come together when you’re ignoring everyone that disagrees with you


If you have something to say, I will listen. I ignore those who are just trolling. If it were just once in a while, no big deal, but it seems like any thread in which an ebike is mentioned draws the idiots out to make dumb comments. I am just tired of that, and choose a different experience.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

AEyogi said:


> If you have something to say, I will listen. I ignore those who are just trolling. If it were just once in a while, no big deal, but it seems like any thread in which an ebike is mentioned draws the idiots out to make dumb comments. I am just tired of that, and choose a different experience.


Choose a different experience by adding something useful, here's a relevant place to start: Are ski areas a good opportunity for expanded e-bike access? What is their status for motorized use? https://snowbrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/map-1536x1140.jpeg


----------



## mike_kelly (Jul 18, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> This thread is about advocating for new eMTB access, not the discussion of an existing Trail where eMTB's are already approved for access. So this is an advocacy thread. If you cannot handle some mountain bikers calling a bicycle with a motor on it a motorized bicycle, then how on earth are you gonna handle the Hiker and Equestrians Crowds when you show up to Meetings to advocate for eMTB access on the trails you want to expand them on?
> 
> You will need a much stronger constitution to deal with those maniacs' in the advocacy meetings.
> 
> ...


This thread is NOT about advocacy. It is about identifying legal existing trails that many people might not know about. I started the thread I ought to know. The rest of the crap in this thread was unwanted and unwelcome. The thread does not belong in advocacy unless you are trying to create click bait.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mike_kelly said:


> This thread is NOT about advocacy. It is about identifying legal existing trails that many people might not know about. I started the thread I ought to know. The rest of the crap in this thread was unwanted and unwelcome. The thread does not belong in advocacy unless you are trying to create click bait.


My apologies, the thread title is very misleading. I created a new Sitcky in the eBike section for this purpose. If you provide trails with links to back up the rules of the trails I will help maintain the first post in it.









List of Trails that Currently allow Class 1 Pedelec...


Please post the trail systems that allow Class 1 eBike access. All trials on this list MUST be accompanied with a direct web link to the Land Management site that specifically states they are allowed. This is not a thread about getting new access or advocating for new access. Any content for...




www.mtbr.com


----------

