# How long will we continue the MTB access argument?



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

I mean specifically about ebikes ruining access for all bikes on trails. If by 2050 we have a net gain of trail access for mountain bikes will people still continue to complain about potentially losing access to trails? What if by 2025 30% of MTB users are on some form of assisted bike. Will we still be complaining about how they will get all the trails shut down to all bikes? 

Please everone we all understand that ebikes are the spawn of Satan and legal code xyz says the terrorists win if you buy an ebike. 

I'm just asking if you think there's a time limit for this concern. I'm thinking the snowboarding analogy is similar. When snowboards first came out the skiiers threw mad shade at snowboarding. IIRC some resorts had a snowboarding ban. But over time snowboarding gained widespread acceptance and we have peace between the skiiers and boarders. 

What I would guesstimate is that the ebike movement is plowing forward with great momentum and I don't see any reason it will slow down anytime soon. 

Eventually we will have a significant number of ebike stakeholders that would be pissed of a land manager is threatening to shutdown a trail, hopefully making it harder for them to do so. 

I could be totally wrong, trump could call for the annihilation of all ebikes tommorow or every accessible trail could be closed to MTB in the next 6 months. However I don't think this is likely.

Note: a wise user named Harryman pointed out that the bike access issue is probably most likely going to affect ebike access to trails and likely not affect normal MTB access. I would agree that we will probably see more "No ebikes allowed" signs on trails rather than an outright ban on all MTBs on trails. But with so many manufacturers making new ebikes and with the growing numbers of ebikers I would not be surprised if EMTBs gain access to trails they were prohibited from previously.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

It is going to be talked about until a trail actually gets close with the official reason cited as illegal eBike use on a non-eBike trail or until all trails become open to eBikes.

I do not see the latter happening on a universal scale in the US ever.

To say the eBike movement is plowing forward with momentum is certainly true of street based commuters and the like, the eMTB movement is much smaller and slower than that and due to the cost and niche market I doubt it will ever be as large as the pedal MTB market is now.


The future is very hazy, and we will just have to wait and see what happens.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Phantastic79 said:


> Please everone we all understand that ebikes are the spawn of Satan and legal code xyz says the terrorists win if you buy an ebike.
> 
> I'm just asking if you think there's a time limit for this concern. I'm thinking the snowboarding analogy is similar. When snowboards first came out the skiiers threw mad shade at snowboarding. IIRC some resorts had a snowboarding ban. But over time snowboarding gained widespread acceptance and we have peace between the skiiers and boarders.
> 
> ...


No one has issues with ebikes.

Ebikes are great especially for commuting and people who need a little extra motivation to exercise do so. I don't think there is a single member here that would argue against that. So ease off your assumptions

Skiis do not have motors and either do snowboards so you can't use snowboards at ski resorts as an analogy. Try using say, snowmobiles. Those have motors, skiis and snowboards don't.

Ebikes will continue to grow to a certain extent here in the US that is for sure. However, given how spread out our country and communities are, I don't think they will ever get as popular as they are or will be in Europe.

As far as Emtbs, they will, for the most part be prohibited from trails designated as "non-motorized vehicle" trails and that will not change regardless of how popular ebikes become. Luckily here in this country we take our park lands pretty seriously and do a lot to protect them.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Actually more and more states are authorizing class 1 pedal assist on "non-motorized" trails. Not sure how a State like Illinois had time to bother with changing that but they did.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## CycleKrieg (Dec 19, 2013)

RAKC Ind said:


> Actually more and more states are authorizing class 1 pedal assist on "non-motorized" trails. Not sure how a State like Illinois had time to bother with changing that but they did.


Really? How do they get around the "non-motorized" part with a motor? What about trails on non-state land? And how do they get around the grant requirements for trail building that are non-motorized use? Is Illinois code in the DOT (roads, etc.) or the DNR side (trails, etc.)?

I only ask that because here in MN, our DOT state laws were changed for e-bikes. The MN DNR has adopted those requirements on a case-by-case basis. So far, only one location of the DNR's allows e-MTBs. But since 99% of our trails are on city or county land in Minnesota, those are on a land manager by land manager basis also. Guess what. Not a lot of places allow e-MTBs.

Also, my club is expanding into county land and guess what, our grant to build those trails is for non-motorized uses. So no e-MTBs on them. Ever. Thinking back to grants previous trails got in the past, I bet some large percentage of them are for non-motorized use also. So no e-MTBs on them ever too.

Most of us here don't think e-MTBs are the spawn of Satan. But we do think the companies and their cheerleaders are woefully uninformed as the land access issues here in the USA. We also think that attempting to shoehorn them into trails and locations without understanding the underlying issues is what could make us all lose access.

Oh, and these idiots: Public safety on trails | News, Sports, Jobs - Times Observer


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

I have no idea exactly. My guess is based on what I have been told via area club presidents in Illinois law allows them now. Obviously that simply means county, city etc can allow them and not be in violation of Illinois law. But decision comes down of course to immediate land manager and such. 

Personally I think banning the very basic pedal assist bikes is kind of crappy. Having demoed them they are of no concern to anyone. Granted they have a motor, they are different and ride like a bicycle, not something motorized. Cant nail a throttle and hit 20mph instantly causing issues.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

CycleKrieg said:


> Really? How do they get around the "non-motorized" part with a motor? What about trails on non-state land? And how do they get around the grant requirements for trail building that are non-motorized use? Is Illinois code in the DOT (roads, etc.) or the DNR side (trails, etc.)?
> 
> I only ask that because here in MN, our DOT state laws were changed for e-bikes.


Most DOT laws are for on-road use only and generally have ZERO to do with how dirt trail access is managed. Sometimes a land management group will decide to use the definitions put in place by the DOT to help define what is also allowed or not allowed on dirt trails, but in general they have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## CycleKrieg (Dec 19, 2013)

Klurejr said:


> Most DOT laws are for on-road use only and generally have ZERO to do with how dirt trail access is managed. Sometimes a land management group will decide to use the definitions put in place by the DOT to help define what is also allowed or not allowed on dirt trails, but in general they have nothing to do with each other.


Which was precisely my point.

We have a e-MTB guy here in MN (that is a rep for e-MTB manufacturer) who quotes the DOT code like its scripture, but doesn't seem to understand that does not apply to trails.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

CycleKrieg said:


> Which was precisely my point.
> 
> We have a e-MTB guy here in MN (that is a rep for e-MTB manufacturer) who quotes the DOT code like its scripture, but doesn't seem to understand that does not apply to trails.


Yeah, that's pretty common. Some people also like to try the silly approach of trotting out the Consumer Product Safety Commission equivocation of low powered PAS e-bikes with bicycles as a blanket pass to ride trails anywhere they want. 

We seem to have gotten past that level around here for the most part though. Just about everyone seems to realize that rules for roadways and product safety aren't the same thing as access guidelines for trails.


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

None of you guys have seemed to answer the core question. Do you guys think we will still complain about mountain bike access in 20 years if we don't see any mountain bike trails being shut down with a primary concern being e-bikes? I would think at some point people would stop being concerned about this issue if they don't actually see it happening but perhaps I'm wrong.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Phantastic79 said:


> None of you guys have seemed to answer the core question. Do you guys think we will still complain about mountain bike access in 20 years if we don't see any mountain bike trails being shut down with a primary concern being e-bikes? I would think at some point people would stop being concerned about this issue if they don't actually see it happening but perhaps I'm wrong.


 What I don't see changing is the ban on motorized vehicles here in MA( except for just a few riding areas) And yes, we will still be working on mt bike access.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Phantastic79 said:


> Do you guys think we will still complain about mountain bike access in 20 years if we don't see any mountain bike trails being shut down with a primary concern being e-bikes?


I won't.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Phantastic79 said:


> None of you guys have seemed to answer the core question. Do you guys think we will still complain about mountain bike access in 20 years if we don't see any mountain bike trails being shut down with a primary concern being e-bikes? I would think at some point people would stop being concerned about this issue if they don't actually see it happening but perhaps I'm wrong.


No, if the eBike industry manages to find a way to get the same level of access to MUT in all 50 states, then people will stop making conjecture about it. Again you are making a very big assumption that in 20 years from now eBikes will be common, they will all be Class 1 and no trails will ban them. I just don't see that happening. Trail access is sooo divisive, well before eBikes existed there were trail conflicts and access issues. There is an entire section of this forum dedicated to Trail access for a reason.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

It's not an entire "section"; it's almost every thread because, to date, it's been permitted.


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

tahoebeau said:


> No one has issues with ebikes.
> 
> Ebikes are great especially for commuting and people who need a little extra motivation to exercise do so. I don't think there is a single member here that would argue against that. So ease off your assumptions
> 
> ...


You really don't think the snowboarding analogy is even close here? Really? From what I recall they sited similiar fears about snowboarding ruining the sport. Many of them unfounded and eventually enough people started snowboarding that the parks had to adjust and let them in. And now it's a mainstream accepted sport.

We do see example of parks allowing class x ebikes as well.as parks specifically banning them. But as with many laws and policies they are not set in stone and can change. What drives lmmollthis change? Usually demand. It seems feasible that as the ebike community grows so will demand for access to different riding areas, we might see more areas open up to ebikes.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Sorry, my crystal ball isn't working too well today. Who knows what will be going on in twenty years? 

Wait… I'm getting a vision…

ebikes were just a passing fad, they were big one Christmas but then when all the kids trashed their $500 Chinese ebikes (or at least the ones that didn't burst into flames) their parents refused to buy another. And they caused so many problems on the trails that ebikes were all banned so there was no place for legitimate ebikes to ride.

No wait, seeing something else now…

ebikes became so stealth that no ones know who is using one and who isn't so it's all good on the trails, there is no such thing as a mountain bike anymore, just a few of us holding onto our old bikes. But why is everyone passing me (probably because I am now 74)?

No, that's fading, now I'm seeing…

Looks like we're under the North Korean flag here in what was the US and all leisure activities have been banned.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Phantastic79 said:


> You really don't think the snowboarding analogy is even close here?


Nope. Two non-motorized activities on privately held pay-to-play venues versus introducing motorized use to public lands where it's historically never been allowed are wildly disparate things.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

fos'l said:


> It's not an entire "section"; it's almost every thread because, to date, it's been permitted.


I was referring to this:
Trail Building and Advocacy - Mtbr.com



Phantastic79 said:


> You really don't think the snowboarding analogy is even close here? Really?


Yes really. Snowboards do not have motors.

Comparing skiing to snowboard applies to comparing 29ers to 26ers, not motorized to non-motorized.

Not even close IMO.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

I think the snowboard /skiing analogy is closer to suspension vs no suspension. I remember BITD when suspension first came out it was rather controversial for some with some beleiving suspension was too close to motorcycles and had not place in mountain biking. However, ultimately, still 100% human powered with or without suspension so arguments against didn't make it far just like with snowboarding.


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> I was referring to this:
> Trail Building and Advocacy - Mtbr.com
> 
> Yes really. Snowboards do not have motors.
> ...


Geez....I really think you guys are missing the point. I agree with you that an ebike is different. The point is that when snowboards came out the skiiers discriminated against them because they were different and not the current norm. Their argument lacked any substance and was eventually was disregarded by the public and the ski resorts that wanted more business.

99% of you guys say you don't give 2 shits if a guy rides an ebike on a trail. The other 1% is full of haterade. But what you are concerned about is that the ebike guy may be poaching and that may get the whole mountain shut down for all MTBs. This argument has some solid points. However....as remote as you may think it could be, there is a possibility that as more people ride ebikes on trails there may not be any actual trails shut down as a result. Or maybe as the ebike community grows it will add more voices, votes and concerns regarding access which will help with keeping the areas open to just MTBs or maybe even all bikes.

I don't know how old you are but you cant seriously think you'll still be concerned with access if in 20 years no trails get shut down as a result of ebikes.


----------



## R_Pierce (May 31, 2017)

Phantastic79 said:


> Geez....I really think you guys are missing the point. I agree with you that an ebike is different. The point is that when snowboards came out the skiiers discriminated against them because they were different and not the current norm. Their argument lacked any substance and was eventually was disregarded by the public and the ski resorts that wanted more business.
> 
> 99% of you guys say you don't give 2 shits if a guy rides an ebike on a trail. The other 1% is full of haterade. But what you are concerned about is that the ebike guy may be poaching and that may get the whole mountain shut down for all MTBs. This argument has some solid points. However....as remote as you may think it could be, there is a possibility that as more people ride ebikes on trails there may not be any actual trails shut down as a result. Or maybe as the ebike community grows it will add more voices, votes and concerns regarding access which will help with keeping the areas open to just MTBs or maybe even all bikes.
> 
> I don't know how old you are but you cant seriously think you'll still be concerned with access if in 20 years no trails get shut down as a result of ebikes.


You must have an agenda here? You arent willing to accept any single one of these guys answers. So move along eh? You clearly dont want to hear what they are saying, instead you are hoping for someone to fall in line with your thinking?


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

R_Pierce said:


> You must have an agenda here? You arent willing to accept any single one of these guys answers. So move along eh? You clearly dont want to hear what they are saying, instead you are hoping for someone to fall in line with your thinking?


What are you talking about? What answer did I not accept? I offered a rebuttal to all points given.

Yes. I have an agenda and that is agneda is the question I'm posing and I'm suggest that many concerns about access may be just speculative fear. So in using what IMO seems like reasonable arguments I'm hoping I can put some minds at ease in the context if MTB access.

And how are ya gonna tell the guy that started the thread to move along? That makes as much sense as jumping into a thread just to complain and not contribute to the conversation.


----------



## R_Pierce (May 31, 2017)

Phantastic79 said:


> What are you talking about? What answer did I not accept? I offered a rebuttal to all points given.
> 
> Yes. I have an agenda and that is agneda is the question I'm posing and I'm suggest that many concerns about access may be just speculative fear. So in using what IMO seems like reasonable arguments I'm hoping I can put some minds at ease in the context if MTB access.
> 
> And how are ya gonna tell the guy that started the thread to move along? That makes as much sense as jumping into a thread just to complain and not contribute to the conversation.


And every one of these guys has pretty much said the same thing. Which I think is pretty common in these parts (as clearly you must have noticed by the constant similar answers in many threads)

I dont care about e-bikes one way or another. But I would care if I had legitimate worry of trails getting shut down around here. Which, currently I do not because e-bikes just arent prevalent around this area.


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> No, if the eBike industry manages to find a way to get the same level of access to MUT in all 50 states, then people will stop making conjecture about it. Again you are making a very big assumption that in 20 years from now eBikes will be common, they will all be Class 1 and no trails will ban them. I just don't see that happening. Trail access is sooo divisive, well before eBikes existed there were trail conflicts and access issues. There is an entire section of this forum dedicated to Trail access for a reason.


I agree that it is highly unlikely ebikes will gain access to all the same area as MTB. There will always be at least a few that would always ban them for xyz reasons. All im saying is that hopefully within the next 20 years we won't see many MTB areas shut down as a rest of ebikes. At that point the only people really concerned with access is people with ebikes. Regular MTBers can ride on like the been for the last 20+ years and they'll not need to be concerned about trail access.


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

More likely all trails will ban all e-mtbs in perpetuity. 

Ideally, reponsible e-mtbers on Class 1s will ignore the ban, and ride the trails with impunity. Much in the same way responsible mtbers break speed limits (often by a significant amount) with impunity, because they understand when it's okay and when it's not okay.

One way to ride a Class 1 responsibly is to ride when nobody else is around. 

Another way to is turn the assist all the way down when others are around, and turn it back up when they're gone. 

Turning a blind eye to the responsible Class 1 riders, with respect to the ban, effectively silences a growing group of folks who might otherwise fight hard to gain legal access. With Class 1s out of the discussion, the rest of the ebikers stand little chance of gaining access.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

As I implied above, none of us know what will going on in twenty years. But since you aren't satisfied, I'll make some guesses.

Just like now with trails, things will vary by location. Some places will never allow motorized vehicles of any type, even if they are declared to officially be classed as non-motorized. Some places, especially more remote open desert areas, will allow ebikes. Some places will allow ebikes but then ban them. Some places will end up closing trails to all bikes. Just as some hikers, etc still have a problem with bicycles twenty years later, some people will still have a problem with ebikes.

Ebikes for off road may never be in the huge numbers you and some others are expecting in the US. I remember when Segways were launched. They were hyped to change modern society. City centers would be closed and everyone would get around on a Segway and how wonderful it would be. Even Steve Jobs got in on the hype. But it's been a good while since I have seen one and I never saw all that many. Yes, I know they are still around but they never exploded in popularity. 

Speaking of exploding, how about hover boards? They kind of are Segways but without the handlebar. Expensive toys that were popular briefly then quickly faded. Similar to the first wave of mopeds in the US, back in the early '80s. They were a big thing for a few years then largely faded away.

Motors were added to bicycles a long, long time ago. But yet a lot of people today still ride bicycles. I'm not talking about off-road; motorized bikes are not on the trails because they aren't allowed. But they are allowed on the roads and there are still a lot of people who choose to ride a non-motorized bike on the roads. Did motorized bikes mostly kill the whole track bike velodrome scene, once the most popular spectator sport in the US? I think motors may have contributed to its demise, they did start racing motorbikes on those tracks but then that whole scene crashed, which is kind of a pun.

But transportation in the US is rapidly changing. Besides electric cars (and bikes), Uber and similar systems are making private transportation less desirable. With self driving cars, this will continue. What is your car doing most of the day? Sitting being unused. But what if there was a system for sharing so that it is used, say 50% of the time? People could save a lot of money with this type of efficiency. But urban USA may also become like other countries, with people using small motorized vehicles to lower their costs and to get through traffic easier. Ding, ding, ebike! They are nice and clean, no messy gas to mess with like the mopeds of old. So ebikes for pavement very well may take off. And will this help lift off road ebikes? It might.

So what would stop off road ebikes from becoming popular? Well, I think if they truly acted like just another bike on the trail and were ridden by old mountain bikers (I'm 54 and have no intention of getting one) and the nice lady who wants to ride with her husband who is on a real bicycle, they would be ok. But the manufacturers know that is a very small market so they are going for a much broader base. I think they will attract too many of the "you mean I can ride a motorized bike on non-motorized trails? Hell yeah, I'm in!" types. And beginners who would never put in the effort to mountain bike but when they hear they can buy their way in, will do so but will find the cheap Chinese import bike can't cut it for long and they will not get involved enough to continue.

And as has been said multiple times, once you allow any ebike, you are allowing them all. The "hurdle" for trail access is that they have a motor. Once that has been cleared as being ok, a throttle is not much of a step; there is a much bigger difference between a mountain bike and a class one ebike than there is between a class one and class two ebike. And there is not really a way to distinguish the power of the ebike or if it has been modified and besides, there is no one to monitor the trail use anyway. This could lead to the trails being damaged by ebikes. Almost all of the trails I ride were built and are maintained by mountain bikers. If they do allow ebikes and that leads to a lot of trail damage, I'm pretty sure they would reverse that decision quickly. You kind of have a chicken and egg situation, if there aren't places to ride an ebike, will people buy them? If there aren't people wanting to ride them on trails, will the land manager change the policy for the few that do? But it is a fact that ebikes are becoming more and more stealth, something I see a lot mentioned in ebike discussions and it seems to be desired by a lot of ebikers. Someone was caught the other day racing in France using a hidden motor. The good thing is the these types of motors are really weak so in reality, they would not be a problem on the trails, in fact less of a problem that the legal ebikes. And those types of motors are very expensive and they will continue to get more powerful as time goes by, though hopefully they will hit a limit at some point.

Oh well, I need to get ready and go to work.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

EricTheDood said:


> More likely all trails will ban all e-mtbs in perpetuity.
> 
> Ideally, reponsible e-mtbers on Class 1s will ignore the ban, and ride the trails with impunity. Much in the same way responsible mtbers break speed limits (often by a significant amount) with impunity, because they understand when it's okay and when it's not okay.


You are basing your answer on your own view with a very narrow experience field. Only one trail network anywhere close to me has a speed limit; it is in a NPS area.



EricTheDood said:


> One way to ride a Class 1 responsibly is to ride when nobody else is around.


And ride when nobody is around? So haul your ebike to the trail head and then when you see there are cars in the parking lot, turn around and go home? That's how it would be around here.



EricTheDood said:


> Another way to is turn the assist all the way down when others are around, and turn it back up when they're gone.


This just confirms what I said (Probably in another thread); ebikers will run maximum assist as it's not really about getting a little help for most ebikers, it's about riding a motorized bike on non-motorized trails.



EricTheDood said:


> Turning a blind eye to the responsible Class 1 riders, with respect to the ban, effectively silences a growing group of folks who might otherwise fight hard to gain legal access. With Class 1s out of the discussion, the rest of the ebikers stand little chance of gaining access.


So you are admitting that ebikers are looking beyond class 1 access?


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Phantastic79 said:


> I mean specifically about ebikes ruining access for all bikes on trails. ..................
> 
> I'm just asking if you think there's a time limit for this concern. I'm thinking the snowboarding analogy is similar. When snowboards first came out the skiiers threw mad shade at snowboarding. IIRC some resorts had a snowboarding ban. But over time snowboarding gained widespread acceptance and we have peace between the skiiers and boarders.


I think the snowboarding analogy is apt. Bearing in mind that the whole eMTB access issue varies widely from state to state, region to region, trail system to trail system, my belief (based on attitudes around here) is that Class 1 and possibly Class 2, e-MTB's will ultimately, in the end, be allowed on most or all MTB trails as the inevitable commercial pressures and public demand intensify over the next few/several years.


----------



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

slapheadmofo said:


> Nope. Two non-motorized activities on privately held pay-to-play venues versus introducing motorized use to public lands where it's historically never been allowed are wildly disparate things.


Exactly^

To me the ski/snowboard analogy might apply to a bike park situation (private, for profit) but has nothing to do with public multi-use trails.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Exactly^
> 
> To me the ski/snowboard analogy might apply to a bike park situation (private, for profit) but has nothing to do with public multi-use trails.


It would be helpful to the argument if someone could come up with a rational argument as to why class 1 eMTBs shouldn't be allowed. What's the downside again? Has it actually been demonstrated, or is it all speculative?


----------



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

Cuyuna said:


> It would be helpful to the argument if someone could come up with a rational argument as to why class 1 eMTBs shouldn't be allowed. What's the downside again? Has it actually been demonstrated, or is it all speculative?


I've never said they shouldn't be allowed, only that they shouldn't automatically be allowed everywhere. They (ebikes) should follow the same protocol as every other user group (mtb's included) and be considered on a case by case basis.

One rational argument that lots of people find difficult to comprehend is that non-motorized spaces are treasured gems for many, of course you may not agree with that but then again they don't agree with you. Respect on both sides can lead to amiable solutions.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> I've never said they shouldn't be allowed, only that they shouldn't automatically be allowed everywhere. They (ebikes) should follow the same protocol as every other user group (mtb's included) and be considered on a case by case basis.


OK, I get that. And I think that's how it will go, initially, from area to area....case-by-case. Those area-by-area regulations will likely change based on users' experiences, positive, neutral, or negative as the situation evolves.



J.B. Weld said:


> One rational argument that lots of people find difficult to comprehend is that non-motorized spaces are treasured gems for many, of course you may not agree with that but then again they don't agree with you. Respect on both sides can lead to amiable solutions.


I get that too, and I'd agree with it if we were talking about noisy/smelly gasoline-powered bikes that certainly intrude on what would otherwise be a nice quiet ride through the woods. IMHO, an electric MTB wouldn't detract from the enjoyment of those "treasured gems".

For my part, I don't own an e-bike and have no plans to get one. OTOH, I am utterly indifferent to the concept and have no issue with sharing the local trails with them as long as they don't negatively affect _my_ goals for being out there on my Farley.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

The argument will (and should) go on in perpetuity.  The term non-motorized is more than just a classification used by land managers. More importantly, and so obviously glossed over on here, is that the concept of "non-motorized" is an ethos. It is a fundamental, underlying, ethic that people and their associated groups hold. Its a binary perspective, it either has a motor or it doesn't. No amount of word smithery or convoluted classification systems will get past this one simple point as it applies to the ethic of non-motorized. If it has a motor, it is a motorized vehicle. Regardless of trail erosion or user impacts, or pollution (sound or otherwise), or how the power is applied, the point is and always will be, from the perspective of this ethos, that motors do not belong on non-motorized trails. 

When real hover craft come out - the sci-fi kind, that are silent, non-polluting, and literally have zero physical impact on the landscape (from an erosion standpoint), people will be having this same argument. Because it is an ethic, a belief, a set of values about how we should interact with our landscape. Label it however you want, purist, elitist, whatever, just don't be naive and think its not there. Its actually the 500 lb gorilla in the room.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

watermonkey said:


> The argument will (and should) go on in perpetuity. The term non-motorized is more than just a classification used by land managers. More importantly, and so obviously glossed over on here, is that the concept of "non-motorized" is an ethos. It is a fundamental, underlying, ethic that people and their associated groups hold. Its a binary perspective, it either has a motor or it doesn't. No amount of word smithery or convoluted classification systems will get past this one simple point as it applies to the ethic of non-motorized. If it has a motor, it is a motorized vehicle. Regardless of trail erosion or user impacts, or pollution (sound or otherwise), or how the power is applied, the point is and always will be, from the perspective of this ethos, that motors do not belong on non-motorized trails.
> 
> When real hover craft come out - the sci-fi kind, that are silent, non-polluting, and literally have zero physical impact on the landscape (from an erosion standpoint), people will be having this same argument. Because it is an ethic, a belief, a set of values about how we should interact with our landscape. Label it however you want, purist, elitist, whatever, just don't be naive and think its not there. Its actually the 500 lb gorilla in the room.


Very well put.

Some e-bike proponents either don't understand or purposefully ignore the magnitude of change that bringing a motor into the equation brings about. It's a total game-changer as far as access goes.


----------



## CycleKrieg (Dec 19, 2013)

Cuyuna said:


> I think the snowboarding analogy is apt. Bearing in mind that the whole eMTB access issue varies widely from state to state, region to region, trail system to trail system, my belief (based on attitudes around here) is that Class 1 and possibly Class 2, e-MTB's will ultimately, in the end, be allowed on most or all MTB trails as the inevitable commercial pressures and public demand intensify over the next few/several years.


I wouldn't put money on that. If fact those "commercial pressures and public demand" is what could make all mountain bikers lose access, either on existing trails or lose our ability to gain new trails. Its what a lot of us are worried about.

I noticed your handle is "Cuyuna". While its true Cuyuna is a location where e-MTBs are allowed, its an not normal in MN. Most of our trails, especially around MSP, are on city parks that will never (legally) allow motorized uses. As the person that designed the county expansion for Cuyuna, I can tell you that no e-MTBs can ever go on those new trails (legally, I know people will poach). Not because the county wouldn't be OK with it (they would be) be because the money the Crew raised to build those trails specifically call out that money to be used for "non-motorized recreation". The fact of the matter is that any trail the Crew or others in the state do on county or city land, especially if is self-funded (as most trails in MN are) likely will not allow e-MTBs, either due to the land owner or the grants used to fund the trail building.

A lot of states east of the Rockies are in the same boat.

And no, the snowboard analogy is not apt because, regardless of what Bosch would have you believe, an electric motor is, in fact, a motor, regardless of its switching mechanism or its power output. Maybe a snowmobile on a ski slope would be a better analogy.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

CycleKrieg said:


> I wouldn't put money on that.


I have no intention of putting money on that. I think it's an interesting subject for idle speculation (or arguing on the internet) but I have nothing at stake...e-MTBs or none on these trails. If they ask me to vote, I'll vote "I don't care". But they won't ask. I'm hopeful that by the time I'm old or lame enough to need an e-MTB to achieve my mountain biking needs, the situation will be resolved. I suspect it will.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

EricTheDood said:


> More likely all trails will ban all e-mtbs in perpetuity.
> 
> Ideally, reponsible e-mtbers on Class 1s will ignore the ban, and ride the trails with impunity. Much in the same way responsible mtbers break speed limits (often by a significant amount) with impunity, because they understand when it's okay and when it's not okay.
> 
> ...


 Poaching trails, no good. Think this will help your cause for access? No speed limits where I ride, just common sense. Got some fines for you as well as enviro police to impound your motor vehicles here. Good luck with your agenda, seems fraught with danger. Dood. Poaching trails is not riding responsibly. Either regular mt bikes or e bikes.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

CycleKrieg said:


> As the person that designed the county expansion for Cuyuna, I can tell you that no e-MTBs can ever go on those new trails (legally, I know people will poach). Not because the county wouldn't be OK with it (they would be) be because the money the Crew raised to build those trails specifically call out that money to be used for "non-motorized recreation".


True, we have the same situation here, as well as I'm sure many other land managers do in other locations. Easements and funding are often tied to no motorized vehicle exclusions. What is happening though, and it's worth noting, is that ebikes are being legally defined as not being motor vehicles and in some cases in local code, as not being motorized either, specifically to alllow them on bike paths, and in some cases, non moto singletrack. So, it really comes down to your local agency and their goals.

Getting back to the OP. I think emtb access will be largely settled in 20 years, they'll be allowed where ever they are allowed, which I think will be in less places than some people and the bike industry would want, primarily because our laws allow ebikes that will be less like bikes and more like mopeds as tech advances. As well as, without enforcement, idiots on high powered ebikes will be the bad apples that taint the emtb image. If the industry can't get access on USFS and BLM, it'll never grow out of a small niche.

I don't think emtbs will cause mtbs to lose access to existing trails except in rare and unusual circumstances, emtbs will get the boot way before that happens. They will and already are increasing the complexity of future access simply because they exist.



> I think e-bikes are already having a negative impact on mtb advocacy. This topic came up at a Maloney Ridge (Skykomish) trail planning meeting last month. It was made clear that other agencies, user groups, enviro orgs and stewardship orgs would make the planning, permitting and funding process more difficult with e-bikes in the picture.


http://forums.mtbr.com/washington/how-report-mopeds-motorcycles-duthie-1057428.html#post13363219

I also don't see that there's any way they won't kill the possibility for Wilderness access since opponents, and they are many, will rightly say there's no way to distinguish between mtbs and emtbs.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Harryman said:


> Easements and funding are often tied to no motorized vehicle exclusions. What is happening though, and it's worth noting, is that ebikes are being legally defined as not being motor vehicles and in some cases in local code, as not being motorized either, specifically to alllow them on bike paths, and in some cases, non moto singletrack. So, it really comes down to your local agency and their goals.


Yes, I think that many of the true faithful here have one definition of a "non-motorized vehicle" whereas I'm not so sure that the various agencies, states, counties, will ultimately define them the same way. I think, ultimately, it will depend on how well e-MTBs blend into the individual trail systems. I don't think landowners, bike park owners, trail managers will necessarily see electric mountain bikes in the same light that they see dirt bikes and snowmobiles, or even e-bikes with a throttle. Time will tell. It certainly is a polarizing issue.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> Yes, I think that many of the true faithful here have one definition of a "non-motorized vehicle" whereas I'm not so sure that the various agencies, states, counties, will ultimately define them the same way. I think, ultimately, it will depend on how well e-MTBs blend into the individual trail systems. I don't think landowners, bike park owners, trail managers will necessarily see electric mountain bikes in the same light that they see dirt bikes and snowmobiles, or even e-bikes with a throttle. Time will tell. It certainly is a polarizing issue.


IME, 100% of the land managers I've dealt with are reasonable enough to see that ebikes are not bikes or a traditonal motorized vehicle like a moto. If they've looked into it, they also realize that 250w emtbs are not the future here in the US and find that worrisome. If the indsutry had simply adapted the EU regs, they'd be gaining access, since they can point to the EU where it's working. I live in mtb crazy Colorado and aside from a handful of state parks that have bike trails that allow emtbs, they're going nowhere. I'm sure they will gain access here and there, but as one park official told me "The best way to ban something forever is to allow it". Meaning, allowing an activity without knowing the ramifications often leads to blowback, then banning, and just like we've seen from the early days of mtbs, once banned from a trail, it's almost impossible to regain access to it. Our landmanagers will likely revisit it in the future once the dust settles. Seems sensible to me.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

*shrug*

Time will tell...


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

leeboh said:


> Poaching trails, no good. Think this will help your cause for access? No speed limits where I ride, just common sense. Got some fines for you as well as enviro police to impound your motor vehicles here. Good luck with your agenda, seems fraught with danger. Dood. Poaching trails is not riding responsibly. Either regular mt bikes or e bikes.


You many not see the difference between "poaching" a legal MTB trail on a Class 1 ebike and poaching an illegal trail off limits to all bikes. Or worse yet, an illegal trail off limits to everybody.

But there is a clear difference to folks who don't ride bikes, and their opinions matter. Hikers hate bikes. Equestrians hate bikes even more. Not having a battery on your downtube will not make them hate you any less.

My thoughts - if ebikers are going to be around (which they will), better to have them treading lightly, and on notice, than to give them full access and let potential problems snowball.

What's your solution? Fight tooth and nail against all ebikes? Who's going to fight for you? Are ebikes being discussed on hiking and equestrian forums? That's not a rhetorical question - I'm asking because I don't know.


----------



## CycleKrieg (Dec 19, 2013)

EricTheDood said:


> What's your solution? Fight tooth and nail against all ebikes? Who's going to fight for you? Are ebikes being discussed on hiking and equestrian forums? That's not a rhetorical question - I'm asking because I don't know.


Here is my solution in 3 parts.

Part 1 - e-MTB manufacturers agree to install some sort of land manager based "kill switch" on the motor part of the bike. RFID or geo-reference, RFID being the easiest. Cross the boundary and [power down sound] no e-MTB motor. Cross back over the boundary and [power up sound] e-MTB motor comes back on.

Part 2 - e-MTB proponents and sales personnel get educated about land use and land management realities here in USA. That means stop trying to push for blanket inclusion and telling customers "Oh yeah, its just like a normal bike, you can ride it everywhere".

Part 3 - Local trail clubs, groups and land managers do the work to ensure that, where possible, new trails are open to e-MTBs and review existing trails to see if e-MTBs are allowed. Where they are not, there should clear and unmistakable signage. Also, local clubs or personnel proposing a project, they should be up front about whether it will be open for e-MTB and should be willing to remove it should including endangers access.


----------



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

EricTheDood said:


> Hikers hate bikes. Equestrians hate bikes even more.


Totally untrue IME, half the mountain bikers I know also hike and I've had nothing but friendly encounters with horses and their riders.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Totally untrue IME, half the mountain bikers I know also hike and I've had nothing but friendly encounters with horses and their riders.


There appears to be a tendency here for people to think that their experiences and beliefs with and about hikers, mountain bikers, e-MTB'ers, land managers, and equestrians are universal.


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Totally untrue IME, half the mountain bikers I know also hike and I've had nothing but friendly encounters with horses and their riders.


By using the word "totally", you're implying that every biker's negative encounter with a hiker or equestrian is a lie.

If you ever visit a stable next to a MUT network, talk to the folks there. At best, they won't care for bikers even if they don't mind them.


----------



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

EricTheDood said:


> By using the word "totally", you're implying that every biker's negative encounter with a hiker or equestrian is a lie.


Nope, you made a blanket statement-


> "Hikers hate bikes. Equestrians hate bikes even more."


-which my experiences prove to be completely untrue. I'm sure there are plenty of areas where different user groups don't get along but that would mostly be due to over congestion, poor trail etiquette, and prejudiced notions which are sure to induce sour attitudes on all sides.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> There appears to be a tendency here for people to think that their experiences and beliefs with and about hikers, mountain bikers, e-MTB'ers, land managers, and equestrians are universal.


Bingo

Your theory will get confirmed about every 5th post or so.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Nope, you made a blanket statement-
> 
> -which my experiences prove to be completely untrue. I'm sure there are areas where different user groups don't get along but that would mostly be due to over congestion, poor trail etiquette, and prejudiced notions which are sure to induce sour attitudes on all sides.


Yup.
In the vast majority of shared trail systems I've ridden in New England, folks get along just fine.

On my local trails, hikers/walkers/trailrunners absolutely love mountain bikers as we're the ones who built and maintain the trail system, and it is highly appreciated. I get thanked all the time. (Got no equestrian traffic to speak of.)


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

EricTheDood said:


> You many not see the difference between "poaching" a legal MTB trail on a Class 1 ebike and poaching an illegal trail off limits to all bikes. Or worse yet, an illegal trail off limits to everybody.
> 
> But there is a clear difference to folks who don't ride bikes, and their opinions matter. Hikers hate bikes. Equestrians hate bikes even more. Not having a battery on your downtube will not make them hate you any less.
> 
> ...


 As said, poaching is poaching, not helpful to your cause or endearing land managers, at best. Think your hate is a little strong, not everybody everywhere. MA rider here, for the most part, no motorized vehicles allowed, got a motor? They are not considered bikes here, on off road multi use trails. Great solution, not allowed except at the 6 or so ORV areas. Been fighting for access for decades not, not quite done yet. You better believe poaching by motorized vehicles is on everyones radar. And FYI we ( my mt bike group) do plenty of trail days with and for hiking groups, trail groups and such. I also hike, bird watch and walk my dog on said trails. Most of the mt bikers I ride with also do trail work, and realize that sometimes access can be canceled. And REALLY fight hard to keep that access. So some self policing, a word or two and some heads up FYI goes along way. So we make nice, play nice, respect the other trail users and show up for trail work days. So lets review. You advocate poaching to try to get access. We mt bikers have been showing up for meetings, advocating access for decades, showing up for trail days, building bridges( physical and figuratively) and being a good trail steward. What is your solution for ebike access? seems like you have a LONG ways to go. The access argument is long from over.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> Yup.
> In the vast majority of shared trail systems I've ridden in New England, folks get along just fine.
> 
> On my local trails, hikers/walkers/trailrunners absolutely love mountain bikers as we're the ones who built and maintain the trail system, and it is highly appreciated. I get thanked all the time. (Got no equestrian traffic to speak of.)


Same for me here in the South. Only issue I've witnessed was one hiker who didn't like mountain bikers because he blamed them for why the parking lot is full. I pointed out that nearby parks that don't allow mountain bikes had greatly expanded their parking the last few years due to demand. My IMBA chapter maintains trails in a NPS area and when we have work parties, we get joined by a NPS ranger or two and some park volunteers and we get thanked by passing mountain bikers, hikers and trail runners. We help with "no bike" trails as well. Other nearby trails systems were built and are maintained by IMBA chapters and allow hikers and trail runners.


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

Okay, I get it. 

Perhaps trail access topics should really be moved to the regional discussion forums.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Cuyuna said:


> It would be helpful to the argument if someone could come up with a rational argument as to why class 1 eMTBs shouldn't be allowed. What's the downside again? Has it actually been demonstrated, or is it all speculative?


I posted this in another thread, but it is why I feel vehicles with motors should not be allowed on trails that specifically prohibits vehicles with motors.

"For me, it's that I find trails that don't allow vehicles with motors to be special. And one of the reasons these trails are special to me is because they seem to be more wild and unspoiled than other trails that allow vehicles with motors.

I beleive this is because it can take a lot of effort and determination to use these trails without the aid of a motor. Being able to use a vehicle with a motor will make these trails a lot easier, so a lot less effort and perseverance will be needed to use them. This means the masses will be able to purchase a suitable vehicle with a motor and now be more likely to use these trails more often since the trails would be a lot easier with that vehicle. So more people will be using the trails increasing the usage and they will be traveling faster with the aid of a motor increasing range and the usage even more. This will make these trails less wild and pristine and ultimately less special.

This is why I do not think vehicls with motors should be allowed on non-motorized vehicle trails."

Also, the class of the motor irrelevant since any class motor would make non-moto trails less special since it would greatly reduce the effort needed for people to use those trails.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Are you saying that people don't deserve to travel those wild and pristine trails unless they have the skill, the health, and the physical capability to pedal their way along them?


----------



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

Cuyuna said:


> Are you saying that people don't deserve to travel those wild and pristine trails unless they have the skill, the health, and the physical capability to pedal their way along them?


Are you saying that that every person deserves access to every trail regardless of their skill, health or physical capability? If that's the case then e-bikes are leaving a lot of people out of the picture. Concrete, kiosks, busses and tour guides will be needed to include everyone.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

EricTheDood said:


> More likely all trails will ban all e-mtbs in perpetuity.
> 
> Ideally, reponsible e-mtbers on Class 1s will ignore the ban, and ride the trails with impunity. Much in the same way responsible mtbers break speed limits (often by a significant amount) with impunity, because they understand when it's okay and when it's not okay.
> 
> ...


I cannot promote Poaching in any way, but this post is probably the most accurate as to what the future of the eMTB scene is going to look like.

Very few trails currently have a police state to ticket and fine for any infractions happening on the trails, off leash dogs, not picking up dog poop, riding bikes too fast (my local trails have a posted 15mph speed limit), etc.

So the reality is poaching will probably happen by eBike Riders and unless it gets someone severely injured or killed the authorities will not really enforce. The same thing is happening in area's where regular pedal driven MTB's are occasionally riding on trails that are either closed or designated non-bike.

I really hope in 20 years the issue has gone away, but I seriously doubt it will. There are still many trail access issues that have nothing to do with eBikes. Especially so in the more crowded area's. Just take a look at the Trail Building and Advocacy section or the NorCal and SoCal sections. Marin in NorCal is a hotbed of debate of Bikes VS Hikers, that debate has ZERO to do with motors.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Cuyuna said:


> Are you saying that people don't deserve to travel those wild and pristine trails unless they have the skill, the health, and the physical capability to pedal their way along them?


You don't have to pedal to enjoy non-motorized trails. Therefore, bike skills and physical capability to pedal on these trails is not needed to enjoy these trails.

However, one will most likely need to be in decent health to hike, horseback or pedal these trails. But, that is the entry fee for almost all outdoor activities and not specific to using non-motorized trails.

If your don't put in the effort to keep your body in decent enough health to hike a trail then yes, you don't deserve to be able to use a vehicle with a motor on non-motorized trails. Is there something wrong with that logic to you?


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Are you saying that that every person deserves access to every trail regardless of their skill, health or physical capability? If that's the case then e-bikes are leaving a lot of people out of the picture. Concrete, kiosks, busses and tour guides will be needed to include everyone.


Can't give everybody access, of course, but we can give _more _people access.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

singletrackmack said:


> If your don't put in the effort to keep your body in decent enough health to hike a trail then yes, you don't deserve to be able to use a vehicle with a motor on non-motorized trails. Is there something wrong with that logic to you?


It's a matter of perspective. I have no issue with allowing class 1 e-MTBs on non-motorized trails. Therefore, I don't agree with your interpretation of what is "logical".


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Cuyuna said:


> It's a matter of perspective. I have no issue with allowing class 1 e-MTBs on non-motorized trails. Therefore, I don't agree with your interpretation of what is "logical".


So your argument against my argument is that I am wron because you have no issue with allowing class-1 embts on non/motorized trails. And that my interpretation of what is logical is wrong because you have no issue with allowing class 1 embts on non-motorized trails.

That is literally what you just said.

*edit: forgot to ask, what is it that you do not find logical about my argument?


----------



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

Cuyuna said:


> Can't give everybody access, of course, but we can give _more _people access.


The majority of ebike users won't be physically disabled people, most people riding trails on ebikes already had access to them.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

singletrackmack said:


> You don't have to pedal to enjoy non-motorized trails. Therefore, bike skills and physical capability to pedal on these trails is not needed to enjoy these trails.
> 
> However, one will most likely need to be in decent health to hike, horseback or pedal these trails. But, that is the entry fee for almost all outdoor activities and not specific to using non-motorized trails.
> 
> If your don't put in the effort to keep your body in decent enough health to hike a trail then yes, you don't deserve to be able to use a vehicle with a motor on non-motorized trails. Is there something wrong with that logic to you?


+1, I was thinking similar


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

singletrackmack said:


> So your argument against my argument is that I am wron because you have no issue with allowing class-1 embts on non/motorized trails. And that my interpretation of what is logical is wrong because you have no issue with allowing class 1 embts on non-motorized trails.
> 
> That is literally what you just said.
> 
> *edit: forgot to ask, what is it that you do not find logical about my argument?


Well, yeah. I think you're wrong. Just as you think I'm wrong. The difference is that your disagreement with me doesn't offend me. We all get to have our opinion and express it here. You're OK with that, right?


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> The majority of ebike users won't be physically disabled people, most people riding trails on ebikes already had access to them.


I think there is a group of people out there who would like to go mountain biking but can't because they don't have the skills, the strength, the fitness, or the physical capability to pedal the climbs, and manage the switchbacks and climbs with rocks....would possibly be able to do it with some level of pedal assist.


----------



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

Cuyuna said:


> I think there is a group of people out there who would like to go mountain biking but can't because they don't have the skills, the strength, the fitness, or the physical capability to pedal the climbs, and manage the switchbacks and climbs with rocks....would possibly be able to do it with some level of pedal assist.


I work with people who lack skills, strength and fitness (nica coach) and you know what we do? We take them on easier loops with less technical features and elevation gain. The trails are still scenic and the the kids have a lot more fun because they stay in their comfort zone, which allows them to develop confidence, which accelerates skill development. More power can be useful but not if it encourages someone to ride trails above their skill level.

I think there are good arguments for riding an e-bike but the incapacitated or elderly one I don't buy, especially considering that the majority of people on them are perfectly able-bodied.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think there are good arguments for riding an e-bike but the incapacitated or elderly one I don't buy, especially considering that the majority of people on them are perfectly able-bodied.


Yes. I think I've seen you express that before. My experience, and therefore my conclusions and opinions, is different. So...no offense, but I disagree.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> I think there is a group of people out there who would like to go mountain biking but can't because they don't have the skills, the strength, the fitness, or the physical capability to pedal the climbs, and manage the switchbacks and climbs with rocks....would possibly be able to do it with some level of pedal assist.


This, right here, is exactly the kind of rationality that is going to cause issues on the trail. A perfect recipe for a total $hit$how. This is how the conversation will go:

"We're going to go out on a trail that is way over your head both in fitness and skill level, but you've got a motor now...its gonna be FUN!"


----------



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

Cuyuna said:


> Yes. I think I've seen you express that before. My experience, and therefore my conclusions and opinions, is different. So...no offense, but I disagree.


No offense taken, but do you think the majority of ebike owners are not able bodied?


----------



## Bodhii (Nov 21, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think there are good arguments for riding an e-bike but the incapacitated or elderly one I don't buy, especially considering that the majority of people on them are perfectly able-bodied.


I couldn't disagree more. I have been a World Cup ski racer, and a professional climbing and ski guide for much of my adult life. I have had a dozen knee surgeries, along with other occupational injuries. I have also been riding mtb since I was in my late teens when we would put together all kinds of different bike parts to come up with the best 'all terrain' bikes, lash them down to our kayak racks on our car roofs, and then go riding in Arches & Canyonlands NP, cuz there were no rules then. I now have a pulmonary problem, (never smoked tobacco), & now rely on using an eMTB. I regularly get passed both going up trails and going down trails, but I dearly love pedaling thru our most wonderful natural environments, & have fallen completely in love with riding flo trails! I ride everyday, when I am not completely snowbound. I have donated several $1000's to local MTB organizations in Idaho, Utah, and Ariz. This summer alone I have spent easily over 200 hrs. building and repairing severely washed-out bike trails after the Spring floods, despite my ailment. Yet, as this forum always wants to remind me, I would be called a lazy ass, illegal' trail poacher and much worse by many of the most veteran members here. And I will add that I have had the pleasure of meeting some good men with similar histories also riding eMTBs. I am not here to boast or to look for favors. But however opinions and decisions are made, I do hope that those with histories similar to mine are also considered.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> I think there is a group of people out there who would like to go mountain biking but can't because they don't have the skills, the strength, the fitness, or the physical capability to pedal the climbs, and manage the switchbacks and climbs with rocks....would possibly be able to do it with some level of pedal assist.


I'm unclear why this is important. I'm not being a d!ck, but really, there are other ways to recreate outside that don't require riding a bike. I do some of those things too. I can't ride a bike as far as I would like, or climb as much elevation in a day as I would like and I'm ok with it. I'm 55, it's only going to get worse, I don't expect the rules to change so I can continue to pursue a selfish activity like mountain biking.


----------



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

Bodhii said:


> I couldn't disagree more...........


Sorry for your ailments and kudos for carrying on. As far as the ebike access issue though realize you are the minority, the future will show that most people will buy ebikes for the fun factor alone, all you have to do is look at sales in Europe.

I've got no problem with ebikes at all but I definitely have an issue with universal access when only a few percent of the users will be people like you. I see it like the legalizing marijuana issue, call it a recreational drug and sell it as such and I'm totally good with that but I hate the bull$hit "medical marijuana" spiel where you have to go to a "doctor" and pretend to have some malady that only weed will cure.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I've said this other places but I'll take the time to say it again.

It all comes down to money, time and people. Those are the resources that land managers use to regulate their trails. They are also the resources they just don't have enough of.

You want class 1 ebikes on trails? Great. Limited to 250 watts (which none are)? Great.

Ok. So now how is it enforced? We've already, in this thread, had one user advocate poaching. I don't think any of the adults on this forum are naive enough to think ebikes won't be modified or just plain ridden on trails they don't fit the regulations of.

Enforcement takes money, time and people. No one has it to dedicate it to ebike enforcement. And so? Blanket ban. Easy and done. 

I work with the local BLM field office and am the trail maintenance coordinator for our IMBA chapter. From what I have heard and experienced, there is no reason or hurry to address allowing ebikes. 

In 20 years even more trail systems will be shut down to ebikes. Guaranteed. The ones that are closed now will still be closed. The ones that are open to them will close. Because of poaching and overpowered ebikes and the lack of money, time and people to reign it all back in. The trail systems on the fence will back off when they see the **** show that unenforced access causes. 

There you go.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Silentfoe said:


> In 20 years even more trail systems will be shut down to ebikes. Guaranteed. The ones that are closed now will still be closed. The ones that are open to them will close. Because of poaching and overpowered ebikes and the lack of money, time and people to reign it all back in. The trail systems on the fence will back off when they see the **** show that unenforced access causes.
> 
> There you go.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Nope. In 20 years, low-powered ebikes will be welcomed, since by then people will realize that they are no different than a regular mountain bike as far as anything that matters.

People who ride overpowered ebikes on trails where they are not allowed will be busted just like someone riding their moto today.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

honkinunit said:


> Nope. In 20 years, low-powered ebikes will be welcomed, since by then people will realize that they are no different than a regular mountain bike as far as anything that matters.
> 
> People who ride overpowered ebikes on trails where they are not allowed will be busted just like someone riding their moto today.


Based on your hopes and dreams? I just outlined EXACTLY what will happen but keep wishing.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> No offense taken, but do you think the majority of ebike owners are not able bodied?


I think there are a substantial number of people that would like to ride our local trails but are physically challenged enough to keep them from getting out there because they don't have the leg strength or the knees, or the ankles, or the hips to allow them to pedal the rather challenging singletrack system that we have....people that could do it if they had a pedal-assist option. I see those patients in my office every day. I'm 66. My heart rate hits 160+ occasionally every day that I'm out there. There are a lot of people my age and younger that can't muster that kind cardiovascular performance necessary to climb those hills on a conventional mountain bike.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Harryman said:


> I'm unclear why this is important. I'm not being a d!ck, but really, there are other ways to recreate outside that don't require riding a bike. I do some of those things too. I can't ride a bike as far as I would like, or climb as much elevation in a day as I would like and I'm ok with it. I'm 55, it's only going to get worse, I don't expect the rules to change so I can continue to pursue a selfish activity like mountain biking.


You may not expect the rules to change, but my point is...they should. My opinion. You may disagree, and I'm OK with that.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Cuyuna said:


> Well, yeah. I think you're wrong. Just as you think I'm wrong. The difference is that your disagreement with me doesn't offend me. We all get to have our opinion and express it here. You're OK with that, right?


Yes, totally agree this is a place to express your opinion and I am perfectly fine with what ever you believe. However, you were the one that asked for a good reason to not allow class 1 ebikes in traiis, so I gave you one.

You may not have liked the answer, but that does not mean it is not a good reason. My explanation is very clear and can logically be followed. If you don't like my reason, that's fine, but if you are going to say I am wrong, then the least you could do is to point out which part of my argument you feel is flawed.

_So, if you feel my reason is "wrong" than what part(s) of my reasoning do you think think is not valid?_

*If you can't answer that, than that means you are bassically admitting that there is truth to what I am saying, but you just don't like it.* And it's fine if you don't like it, but you not liking it doesn't mean it wrong.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Cuyuna said:


> I think there is a group of people out there who would like to go mountain biking but can't because they don't have the skills, the strength, the fitness, or the physical capability to pedal the climbs, and manage the switchbacks and climbs with rocks....would possibly be able to do it with some level of pedal assist.


Agree, that's me! Nothing wrong with that.


----------



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

Cuyuna said:


> I think there are a substantial number of people that would like to ride our local trails but are physically challenged enough to keep them from getting out there because they don't have the leg strength or the knees, or the ankles, or the hips to allow them to pedal the rather challenging singletrack system that we have....people that could do it if they had a pedal-assist option. I see those patients in my office every day. I'm 66. My heart rate hits 160+ occasionally every day that I'm out there. There are a lot of people my age and younger that can't muster that kind cardiovascular performance necessary to climb those hills on a conventional mountain bike.


We'll just have to disagree, there's always easier trails out there and I can't see people with weak joints and depleted cardiovascular systems safely tackling challenging trails just because they have a motor. Anyway it's not a valid reason reason to alter access laws for everyone.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Silentfoe said:


> Based on your hopes and dreams? I just outlined EXACTLY what will happen but keep wishing.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


If I had your Nostradamus skillset, I'd be a millionaire.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

You know what's crazy is their is more anti ebikers than ebikers on a ebike forum! Just change the heading to "ebike trail access forum" cause, that's what it is.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> I think there is a group of people out there who would like to go mountain biking but can't because they don't have the skills, the strength, the fitness, or the physical capability to pedal the climbs, and manage the switchbacks and climbs with rocks....would possibly be able to do it with some level of pedal assist.


Sounds like sXeXBMXer's story about parents who bring there kid to jazz band tryouts with their Guitar Hero set up.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chazpat said:


> Sounds like sXeXBMXer's story about parents who bring there kid to jazz band tryouts with their Guitar Hero set up.


My stepson actually got into music in general and ultimately being quite the shredder on a real guitar through Guitar Hero. He could play it in Performance Mode, where there were no screen prompts, it was all from memory. Was actually pretty bad-ass; boy's got some fast fingers.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Cuyuna said:


> I think there are a substantial number of people that would like to ride our local trails but are physically challenged enough to keep them from getting out there because they don't have the leg strength or the knees, or the ankles, or the hips to allow them to pedal the rather challenging singletrack system that we have....people that could do it if they had a pedal-assist option. I see those patients in my office every day. I'm 66. My heart rate hits 160+ occasionally every day that I'm out there. There are a lot of people my age and younger that can't muster that kind cardiovascular performance necessary to climb those hills on a conventional mountain bike.


Then they shouldn't be out there on bikes. Go for a walk, ride a bike on a path. That is what I plan on doing. 
I will be at Land Managers meetings speaking against motors on trails. These people will not be there. Most ebikers will not either.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Gutch said:


> You know what's crazy is their is more anti ebikers than ebikers on a ebike forum! Just change the heading to "ebike trail access forum" cause, that's what it is.


It's a mountain bike site. Where mountain bikers get together to talk about things that interest them. E-bikes, for the most part are not interesting to mountain bikers.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

sfgiantsfan said:


> It's a mountain bike site. Where mountain bikers get together to talk about things that interest them. E-bikes, for the most part are not interesting to mountain bikers.


e-moutain bikers are mountain bikers.

Do you really think you wake up one morning with the idea it would be fantastic to buy an e-bike to go riding in the mountain if you have never pedaled in your life?


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

eFat said:


> e-moutain bikers are mountain bikers.
> 
> Do you really think you wake up one morning with the idea it would be fantastic to buy an e-bike to go riding in the mountain if you have never pedaled in your life?


Yes. Mountain biking is hard, and there are a lot of people who would prefer to do the easy thing and get a bike with a motor.

E-bikers are not mountain bikers. They are motor-bikers masquerading as mountain bikers.

As for e-bikers on non-motorized trails, I don't see the ban changing any time soon. E-bikers who ride trails are a tiny niche that hopefully won't grow very much, and hopefully won't ever have the advocacy passion of real mountain bikers. I doubt that a person who is not willing to put the work in to pedal their own bike is going to put the work in to push for trail access.



Cuyuna said:


> There are a lot of people my age and younger that can't muster that kind cardiovascular performance necessary to climb those hills on a conventional mountain bike.


This is a stupid argument that keeps getting trotted out. Can't climb because you're too old? Walk the hill. Can't muster the strength to walk the hill with your bike? Wtf are you doing out on a mountain bike? You're going to break your hip; go home and play cribbage.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

singletrackmack said:


> You may not have liked the answer, but that does not mean it is not a good reason.


To be honest, it's not a matter of 'like" or "dislike". I'm utterly indifferent to your opinion. It has nothing to do with me or any of the trails I ride.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> My stepson actually got into music in general and ultimately being quite the shredder on a real guitar through Guitar Hero. He could play it in Performance Mode, where there were no screen prompts, it was all from memory. Was actually pretty bad-ass; boy's got some fast fingers.


Good for him. But I bet you never had expectations of him joining an actual musical group playing Guitar Hero nor expected the school to form Guitar Hero "bands" to accommodate him. And if he was young enough, he may have thought he was really playing guitar but I'm pretty sure you never did until he picked up a real guitar.

As sfg said, if someone can't handle a trail, they should ride on a path, do something they can handle rather than expect to be "accommodated".


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> I see it like the legalizing marijuana issue, call it a recreational drug and sell it as such and I'm totally good with that but I hate the bull$hit "medical marijuana" spiel


This brings up an interesting point. Folks with medical conditions might already be allowed to ride ebikes on trails where others aren't. Different rules apply to the disabled under the ADA.

This applies to Orange County Parks: 
Orange County Parks assessments of permissible or non-permissible OPDMD

YMMV in your area.

With this in mind, accessibility for the elderly and disabled should be left out of the discussion. If they already have access, it makes the point moot.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

EricTheDood said:


> With this in mind, accessibility for the elderly and disabled should be left out of the discussion. If they already have access, it makes the point moot.


The ADA protects the disabled, not the elderly. Age is irrelevant. There are 70+ year olds who ride (better than me, probably) and need no accommodation.

I don't think the ADA necessarily sanctions the use of e-mtbs. Motorized wheelchairs, maybe. Here's the ADA Title V section 508(c):

"(1) Congress reaffirms that nothing in the Wilderness Act prohibits wheelchair use in a wilderness area by an individual whose disability requires its use. The Wilderness Act requires no agency to provide any form of special treatment or accommodation or to construct any facilities or modify any conditions of lands within a wilderness area to facilitate such use. (2) Definition - for the purposes of paragraph (1), the term wheelchair means a device designed solely for use by a mobility impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area."

Key phrases - "disability requires its use" and "device designed solely for use by a mobility impaired person for locomotion"

E-MTB's do not fit either of those qualifications. Electric wheelchairs? Maybe.

Basically the ADA is saying what many of us are saying - just because you're disabled doesn't mean you should be allowed to ride an E-MTB wherever you want. You can access the trails by walking, or on your wheelchair. You do not have a god-given right to MTB, E-MTB, hike, or otherwise have fun.

All that said, the disabilities issue is a total red herring in this argument. Are you disabled, like with a handicap placard in your car window? Great. I doubt anyone is going to object to your use of a light e-assist MTB when you ride wherever you ride. I'm pretty damn sure that nobody in this thread fits that description.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Gutch said:


> You know what's crazy is their is more anti ebikers than ebikers on a ebike forum! Just change the heading to "ebike trail access forum" cause, that's what it is.


Because many of us are avid bikers who take pride in working on the continuum that is skill and strength building through hard work. Ebikes take away that continuum. And to some of us, that's the definition of laziness. Nothing irks many bikers more that laziness when it comes to our sport.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

1) This thread is about access, so any e-negatives are welcome to vent. If the rest don't care to spar, just talk about something else on another thread. We will stop other threads from becoming access arguments as in the past.
2) Last time I asked the Rangers in my local parks in Orange County, CA, they said that physically challenged individuals were permitted to ride e-MTB's there. I don't think anyone wants to mess with the ADA. It can get expensive.
3) How widespread it will become is unknown, but e-MTB's are permitted in the Santa Monica mountains and some Santa Clara parks now. That's a start.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

efat said:


> e-moutain bikers are mountain bikers.
> 
> Do you really think you wake up one morning with the idea it would be fantastic to buy an e-bike to go riding in the mountain if you have never pedaled in your life?


he cant comprehend this notion.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Crankout said:


> Because many of us are avid bikers who take pride in working on the continuum that is skill and strength building through hard work. Ebikes take away that continuum. And to some of us, that's the definition of laziness. Nothing irks many bikers more that laziness when it comes to our sport.


So, we're all still lazy ebikers? You win the title for hardcore MOFO!


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

eFat said:


> e-moutain bikers are mountain bikers.
> 
> Do you really think you wake up one morning with the idea it would be fantastic to buy an e-bike to go riding in the mountain if you have never pedaled in your life?


For the most part, I completely agree with this. There will be the odd SO or buddy who begins to ride, but from what I've seen in other ebike forums, almost 100% of new riders who start out with an ebike stick to roads and bike paths and have zero interest in true singletrack.

Which is why the claim that all these "new" emtbers will embrace trail advocacy, donate time, money and push for new trails rings hollow to me. It'll be the same old crowd that doesn't do anything except get on their bikes and ride, just like now.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

fos'l said:


> 1) This thread is about access, so any e-negatives are welcome to vent. If the rest don't care to spar, just talk about something else on another thread. We will stop other threads from becoming access arguments as in the past.
> 2) Last time I asked the Rangers in my local parks in Orange County, CA, they said that physically challenged individuals were permitted to ride e-MTB's there. I don't think anyone wants to mess with the ADA. It can get expensive.
> 3) How widespread it will become is unknown, but e-MTB's are permitted in the Santa Monica mountains and some Santa Clara parks now. That's a start.


The ADA does NOT apply to ebikes. In any way. Ebikes are not ADA compliant mobility devices. The ADA offers ebikers zero protections. The myth needs to die.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> The ADA does NOT apply to ebikes. In any way. Ebikes are not ADA compliant mobility devices. The ADA offers ebikers zero protections. The myth needs to die.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


While you are 100% correct, in my city park system they are terrified of ADA litigation, so for the small numbers of people on ebikes that will claim disability, their rangers are instructed to do nothing. That won't change unless the place starts getting overrun.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Harryman said:


> While you are 100% correct, in my city park system they are terrified of ADA litigation, so for the small numbers of people on ebikes that will claim disability, their rangers are instructed to do nothing. That won't change unless the place starts getting overrun.


Or until someone sues them for allowing motorized vehicles in a non motorized park.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Silentfoe said:


> Or until someone sues them for allowing motorized vehicles in a non motorized park.


Unfortunately, non motorized users don't have protections like the ADA or legal advocacy groups like the ACLU to prosecute the lawsuits.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Harryman said:


> While you are 100% correct, in my city park system they are terrified of ADA litigation, so for the small numbers of people on ebikes that will claim disability, their rangers are instructed to do nothing. That won't change unless the place starts getting overrun.


Let the dudes ride for crying out loud! Small number, who cares? Some of them may have served our country and risked their asses.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Silentfoe said:


> The ADA does NOT apply to ebikes. In any way. Ebikes are not ADA compliant mobility devices. The ADA offers ebikers zero protections. The myth needs to die.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Please tell us how you come to think this? I can tell you this for a fact you are not allowed to ask or demand to know what a persons handicap is even if your a cop , the fed ADA goes in to detail to say its not just wheel chairs that can be used . I some times use a two wheel elec scooter its great for zoos flea mkts I have challenged the cops to my use of my scooter inside a major stadium as I successfully pointed out what are the ramps inside for? why was I made to pay more for my handicap acess seat? you think all handicap ppl should be in a wheel chair of your choice .


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Gutch said:


> Let the dudes ride for crying out loud! Small number, who cares? Some of them may have served our country and risked their asses.


If someone has a legit disability, I could care less. Have at it. I'm just pointing out real world policies.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Well you could start by looking earlier in the thread where I literally cited the ADA title and section, quoted it, and then explained why E-bikes don't fit the definition of a mobility assistive device as defined in the statute.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

rider95 said:


> Please tell us how you come to think this? I can tell you this for a fact you are not allowed to ask or demand to know what a persons handicap is even if your a cop .


I wish you would look at this differently. No one is wanting to hassle a legitimately disabled person. And they should definitely be asked very politely. But there are @$$hats who cut in on YOUR assistance because they are lazy and most of us really do not like that. Why force you to have a disabled plate or rear view mirror ID, isn't that also encroaching on your privacy? If we do away with those, I'm afraid you would find yourself having to park further away as the disabled spots will be filled by people who cannot be questioned. I saw recently a big sting, I think maybe in San Fran where the cops busted a ton of people for using fake disabled tags so they could get better parking. Personally, every time I am "forced" to park further away and have to walk past empty disabled spots I thank the lord that I do not need them.

You should not have had to pay more for a seat at the ballgame.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Setting aside the obvious widespread issue of people misusing ADA tags and plates to park close to Wally World, I don't see any problem with letting anyone with an ADA recognized disability ride an e-bike. The population of people who are both disabled enough to get their disability recognized legally AND fit/capable enough to ride any kind of bike at all is *tiny*. And good for them for wanting to get out and do something. 

-Walt


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Walt said:


> Setting aside the obvious widespread issue of people misusing ADA tags and plates to park close to Wally World, I don't see any problem with letting anyone with an ADA recognized disability ride an e-bike. The population of people who are both disabled enough to get their disability recognized legally AND fit/capable enough to ride any kind of bike at all is *tiny*. And good for them for wanting to get out and do something.
> 
> -Walt


I'm a 100% disabled vet. Like Walt said, the population that actually needs a mobility device is miniscule.

The ADA outlines specifically what constitutes a mobility device. Ebikes and your two wheel scooter don't cut it. The portion of the ADA that outlines a recognized mobility device is short and easy to read.

You can't argue against it. By doing so you just prove yourself to be a DB that ruins the ADA for people who actually need it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## DL723 (Sep 25, 2017)

fos'l said:


> 1) This thread is about access, so any e-negatives are welcome to vent. If the rest don't care to spar, just talk about something else on another thread. We will stop other threads from becoming access arguments as in the past.
> 2) Last time I asked the Rangers in my local parks in Orange County, CA, they said that physically challenged individuals were permitted to ride e-MTB's there. I don't think anyone wants to mess with the ADA. It can get expensive.
> 3) How widespread it will become is unknown, but e-MTB's are permitted in the Santa Monica mountains and some Santa Clara parks now. That's a start.


I just had an good discussion with the OC Parks. My main question was about riding on the paved bike paths in the parks. (there's an ordnance that actually prohibits them even on paths) But the person who I spoke with basically said the spirit of the law is really intended towards motorcycles. The growing popularity of ebikes is a current topic they discuss and it sounds like they are working on clarifying the ordnance. I'm guessing they will also be discussing ebikes on mtb trails but I didn't ask.

Bottom line is as they become more popular, which I think orange county is a hotbed for these, they're will be more legislation separating ebikes from other motor vehicles. Doesn't mean they'll have free reign to go wherever manual powered bikes can go, but at least there will be less ambiguity. That being said, it doesn't sound like this clarification will arrive in the next few months so this sounds like a year type frame. This is just a local ordnance, but other areas tend to look at these type of early adopters and see how their rules play out. So should be interesting to see what they come up with.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

kpdemello said:


> Well you could start by looking earlier in the thread where I literally cited the ADA title and section, quoted it, and then explained why E-bikes don't fit the definition of a mobility assistive device as defined in the statute.


In my neck of the woods, even though Colorado passed the Class 1-2 e-bikes are ok where bikes go on paved trails...blah, blah, blah law, Pitkin Country trails and open space and the Town of Snowmass village have decided to ban e-bikes on the bike paths for a variety of reasons that I won't go into here. BUT...people with disabilities may use ebikes as OPMD's. You cannot ask these people if they have a disability, only if they are permitted to use an OPMD. They can lie, and you can't do anything about it. I totally agree with the Forest Service/BLM stance that ebikes should not be classified as OPMD's. Nobody NEEDS an ebike to get around anymore than I NEED my mountain bike to get around, nor should they be allowed on non-motorized trails under the guise of OPMD use.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Silentfoe said:


> I'm a 100% disabled vet. Like Walt said, the population that actually needs a mobility device is miniscule.
> 
> The ADA outlines specifically what constitutes a mobility device. Ebikes and your two wheel scooter don't cut it. The portion of the ADA that outlines a recognized mobility device is short and easy to read.
> 
> ...


 Sorry but you are wrong a seagway or a golfcart are both allowed for use as well as my two wheel scooter all of are reasonable to use as a handicap mobility , the word Reasonable is the key . You may disagree I have had more then one cop or security DB as you say challenge me on this and I have been proven right this is from my experience. And if you look on the Fed ADA site ther is about 5 pages that out lined this , I am going to the Cinn zoo next week end and will use my scooter there wanna bet?


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Rider95 is correct.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Gutch said:


> You know what's crazy is their is more anti ebikers than ebikers on a ebike forum! Just change the heading to "ebike trail access forum" cause, that's what it is.


This is not an eBike Forum, this is MTBR, Mountain Bike Review. This is a Mountain Bike Forum with an eBike section, it also has a Car and Biker section, but I would not call this a Car and Biker forum.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

When anybody goes to mtbr.com you can go to "Forums," then you scroll down and find "Ebikes". How is this not a ebike forum? Ebikes is under "classic mtb forums" am I missing something? Idc, it's obviously weighted anti, regardless what or where it is. But whatever, nobody likes change.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

This is my notification from mtbr.com
"In the ebike forum".


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

lol, ok, but this IS a mountain bike website, not an ebike nor a emtb website. So most of the people are mountain bikers and a few are ebikers. And yes, some are both but the majority are not.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

chazpat said:


> lol, ok, but this IS a mountain bike website, not an ebike nor a emtb website. So most of the people are mountain bikers and a few are ebikers. And yes, some are both but the majority are not.


Yes, got it! Been a member for 7 years, waaay before generation "e!"


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

rider95 said:


> Sorry but you are wrong a seagway or a golfcart are both allowed for use as well as my two wheel scooter all of are reasonable to use as a handicap mobility , the word Reasonable is the key . You may disagree I have had more then one cop or security DB as you say challenge me on this and I have been proven right this is from my experience. And if you look on the Fed ADA site ther is about 5 pages that out lined this , I am going to the Cinn zoo next week end and will use my scooter there wanna bet?





watermonkey said:


> Rider95 is correct.


Yes he is.

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

And in Orange County, "battery-powered bicycles" are explicitly allowed.

Orange County, California - ADA Accessibility


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

eFat said:


> e-moutain bikers are mountain bikers.
> 
> Do you really think you wake up one morning with the idea it would be fantastic to buy an e-bike to go riding in the mountain if you have never pedaled in your life?


I can't count the times I have heard " it's the only way my wife will ride with me" or "my young kid can ride with me" or "i was on the couch for years until ebkies. So yes, maybe not the first time they ride a bike but the only reason they ride in the mountains


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

The OPDMD reg's are pretty confusing but there are a multitude of conditions that would permit a land manager to ban e-bikes if they desire.

My understanding is "if regular bikes are permitted on a trail but e-bikes are not a handicapped person may still use an e-bike as an OPDMD".

For a hiking-only trail the land manager can play a number of cards restricting OPDMD use; the one impacting e-bikes the most would be posting a speed limit. (usually 5 mph) The other is handlebar width.

Generally if the OPDMD looks like a wheelchair it can be used.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> Oh please. As if whats-hi-name mack is some kind of final arbiter of what mountain biking and mountain bike trails should be. "Making the trails less wild and pristine"? That's the argument you're so anxious for me to rebut? It's a stupid reason, IMHO.
> 
> Increased use by e-bikers _won't_ make the trails less wild and pristine. The trail system that I ride allows e-MTBs. It's had NO effect on the "wild and pristine" nature of those trails since they opened in 2010. There's my rebuttal. It contains all the same level of evidence and solidly-supported position that his opinion did.


There are plenty of other reasons stated in other threads in this forum. We just get tired of posting them over and over for the new ebikers who come in and don't read through the history.



Cuyuna said:


> The trail system that I ride allows e-MTBs. It's had NO effect on the "wild and pristine" nature of those trails since they opened in 2010. There's my rebuttal.


You don't ride the same trails as pretty much everyone else here so that's not much of a rebuttal.


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

singletrackmack said:


> You don't have to pedal to enjoy non-motorized trails. Therefore, bike skills and physical capability to pedal on these trails is not needed to enjoy these trails.
> 
> However, one will most likely need to be in decent health to hike, horseback or pedal these trails. But, that is the entry fee for almost all outdoor activities and not specific to using non-motorized trails.
> 
> If your don't put in the effort to keep your body in decent enough health to hike a trail then yes, you don't deserve to be able to use a vehicle with a motor on non-motorized trails. Is there something wrong with that logic to you?


Last week I would have disagreed with you, but have changed my mind after seeing some of the trail-sanitizing photos in the Norcal forum. One word - appalling.

These are trails that are easily accessed by hikers (short distance from the parking lot), and the trail sanitizing was clearly catering to lesser-abled hikers, probably to avoid sprained ankles and slipping during the rainy season. The land manager, Midpen Open Space, outright bans e-bikes on all of their trail networks, so there's no love there.

I can see how eMTBs would make trails more accessible in terms of distance. I demo'd one and it's very possible for someone with below-average fitness to climb 1000' over several miles. I would hate to see an epic trail, 10-20 miles from the nearest parking lot, being sanitized for these folks. And for that reason, I'm changing my position to "ban e-bikes on non-motorized trails", and I'm also voting with my wallet by not buying one.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

EricTheDood said:


> Last week I would have disagreed with you, but have changed my mind after seeing some of the trail-sanitizing photos in the Norcal forum. One word - appalling.
> 
> These are trails that are easily accessed by hikers (short distance from the parking lot), and the trail sanitizing was clearly catering to lesser-abled hikers, probably to avoid sprained ankles and slipping during the rainy season. The land manager, Midpen Open Space, outright bans e-bikes on all of their trail networks, so there's no love there.
> 
> I can see how eMTBs would make trails more accessible in terms of distance. I demo'd one and it's very possible for someone with below-average fitness to climb 1000' over several miles. I would hate to see an epic trail, 10-20 miles from the nearest parking lot, being sanitized for these folks. And for that reason, I'm changing my position to "ban e-bikes on non-motorized trails", and I'm also voting with my wallet by not buying one.


Yes, that is a reason that has been stated in other threads. The elderly will get older and there will always be people needing more accommodation than others; how far do we go to accommodate? There are some parts of trails I don't ride but I don't expect to be accommodated so that I can.

Thank you for keeping an open mind.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Came across this gem today. These people are kooks buut keep in mind that there are plenty of people out there just like them. Tell me again how ebikes don't threaten traditional access?
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=272974363222961&id=104924783361254

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

They hate all bikers in that article.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

That sums up perfectly what we (non motor mt. Bikers)will be facing nationwide.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Silentfoe said:


> Came across this gem today. These people are kooks buut keep in mind that there are plenty of people out there just like them. Tell me again how ebikes don't threaten traditional access?
> https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=272974363222961&id=104924783361254
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Ironically, their arguments sound a lot like a number of the anti e-bikers here.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Except the anti ebikers aren't trying to ban bikes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## motocatfish (Mar 12, 2016)

fos'l said:


> 1) This thread is about access, so any e-negatives are welcome to vent. If the rest don't care to spar, just talk about something else on another thread. We will stop other threads from becoming access arguments as in the past.
> 2) Last time I asked the Rangers in my local parks in Orange County, CA, they said that physically challenged individuals were permitted to ride e-MTB's there. I don't think anyone wants to mess with the ADA. It can get expensive.
> 3) How widespread it will become is unknown, but e-MTB's are permitted in the Santa Monica mountains and some Santa Clara parks now. That's a start.


WHOOOOOA?!? fos'l & slapheadmofo are moderators now?!? WHOOOOOA?!?

Did hell freeze over?!? Won't opposing moderators in the same ebike thread be like this;






I look forward to reading our new eOverlords! ;-)

Catfish ...


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Cuyuna said:


> I think there is a group of people out there who would like to go mountain biking but can't because they don't have the skills, the strength, the fitness, or the physical capability to pedal the climbs, and manage the switchbacks and climbs with rocks....would possibly be able to do it with some level of pedal assist.


It would be very irresponsible to put these people at the top of the mountain. They will not gain the skills, strength, fitness or capability to get down just because they use a motor to get up there.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

motocatfish said:


> WHOOOOOA?!? fos'l & slapheadmofo are moderators now?!? WHOOOOOA?!?
> 
> Did hell freeze over?!? Won't opposing moderators in the same ebike thread be like this;
> 
> ...


From what I've seen, fos'l and slapheadmofo are pretty much aligned, and pretty much what a lot of us are saying.

From the ebike forum rules, copied from one of fos'l's posts (he even mentions SHM):

Haven't posted here in awhile, but just want to point out a few facts to other e-positives.
1. We can't and shouldn't expect help from the MTB crowd to gain access. SHM, a fair-minded individual, said it best: he's got many other considerations more worthy of his time. Those of us who did trail work, attended meetings and assisted on rides as docents for MTB, need to shut up and do it again.
2. We shouldn't expect assistance from the manufacturers. They're spending their money on advertising.
3. Stop the BS about e-MTB's being MTB's. They're a different class; who the hell are we trying to kid? Maybe there are areas where we can coexist, but obviously not everywhere and maybe nowhere.
4. Don't argue with certain individuals, just put them where they belong, on ignore. We have e-negatives who equate e-bikes with murder and in the past with child molestation (surprisingly not drug dealing yet). Can you expect to have a meaningful conversation with crazies? Also, ignore those who are going to pummel the next e-biker they see; we all know they're full of the stuff that makes grass grow. Most of 
these individuals are proving there are more horses asses in the world than horses.

Remember: if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one who yelps is the one who was hit.


----------



## motocatfish (Mar 12, 2016)

chazpat said:


> From what I've seen, fos'l and slapheadmofo are pretty much aligned, and pretty much what a lot of us are saying.
> 
> From the ebike forum rules, copied from one of fos'l's posts (he even mentions SHM):
> 
> ...


LOL!!! I know they are aligned with the rest of us ebikers! Its the pre-existing moderators vs. them I'm talking about.

Hopefully no pre-existing heads explode!

Like I said ... I WELCOME our new eOverLords!!! ;-)

Catfish ...


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Those guys are level headed and will be great mods. 

-Walt


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Just to clarify,

MTBR has a Forum with many sections, you might call them sub-forums, you might call them sections, but overall it is one large forum that only requires one user account to post in any section of said forum. eBikes are just one small corner of this very large and diverse forum community. If the eBike section was it's OWN forum, you would need a separate account to access it. It is not it's OWN forum, it is a section of a Forum, or a Sub-forum.

This is an eBike Forum:
https://electricbike.com/forum/

Does that make more sense?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

It really doesn't matter where it is, but maybe you should change your signature.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Gutch said:


> It really doesn't matter where it is, but maybe you should change your signature.


Good point. Done.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Harryman said:


> For the most part, I completely agree with this. There will be the odd SO or buddy who begins to ride, but from what I've seen in other ebike forums, almost 100% of new riders who start out with an ebike stick to roads and bike paths and have zero interest in true singletrack.
> 
> Which is why the claim that all these "new" emtbers will embrace trail advocacy, donate time, money and push for new trails rings hollow to me. It'll be the same old crowd that doesn't do anything except get on their bikes and ride, just like now.


OK this is what I don't understand. Let me get the gist of the argument. The mountain bikers are afraid that an explosion of e-bikes on their trails will end up closing down THEIR trails. And then they can't have fun anymore. Is that the argument in a nutshell? The reason I don't understand it, and I need to choose my words carefully, not for the reasons you think, is that some of the most fun & exciting trails out there are the LEAST accessible to begin with. Why are you guys going on trails that are so populated with other humans? Is that real 'mountain' biking? E-bikes will not make a low-accessible trail more lower in accessibility. It will be the same. People on E-bikes probably don't even know about the aforementioned back trails to begin with.

The best trails out there usually don't even have trailheads. There is no ranger sitting there at the entrance wondering what kind of bike you have. There is NO ONE OUT THERE, besides the occasional biker or someone walking their dog. It's not a place where there are hundreds of walkers and hikers daily. It's in BFE, exactly the way I want it. No harassment by anyone. Someone else mentioned trail sterilization in Northern California. Some of those areas can be fun but there is no sense of adventure. The most common trailheads often are the most boring rides, you guys don't think so??? Back trails have plenty of adventure. This is one of the reasons I'm thinking about an e-bike so that I can go to the back trails without taking hours and hours of riding go get there.

Now, having said all of this, as a disclaimer I did spend two evenings this weekend looking for legal access entrance to a hilltop set of trails about 5 miles from my home, and found exactly two (one is a bit easier than the other). Several other access points over about a 6-mile stretch clearly said No Trespassing. And no, I did not jump the fence. The harder access point is a real (legal) trailhead, the easier one has no signs at all, but both trails meet towards the desired set of mountain bike trails so all should be legal. In other words don't break the law, but if no signs then no guilt.

Finally! Some answers to your FAQs on biking on public lands | Wilderness.org

Take a look at Google Maps, put it on Satellite, and go through every area of your county with a fine-toothed comb. There are hundreds of trails out there your buddies don't even know about, it's just a question of if they are legal to ride on or not. And no e-bikes, no rangers getting pissed off, just nature and the occasional fellow biker, hiker, dog-walker. It's past private property; it's county or state/BLM property that has no signs, because there is no need for them. Again, this can take more than a few miles to get to from pavement. No sterilization of the trails. No worrying that your common set of trails will be closed one day, because now you are on an uncommon set of trails. Just heed the signs, if there are any. I would not want someone one here accidentally shot because they happened to be on a trigger-happy rancher's property.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

So blah blah blah, poaching is ok as long as you don't get caught and there aren't any signs? 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

^^ Some of us have wives (well, Silentfoe IS in Utah so maybe?) and children and full time jobs and yard work and cars to maintain and basements to finish, etc, etc, etc and don't have time to venture far from home to ride most of the time. And where we live may be a lot more populated and built out than where you ride so there aren't these hidden trail networks and remote trails to ride to. I'd love to get out to more remote places and sometimes I do, but most of the time I don't have the time.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

motocatfish said:


> LOL!!! I know they are aligned with the rest of us ebikers! Its the pre-existing moderators vs. them I'm talking about.


Too funny...if only you knew how many times I've been labelled an e-bike 'hater' here.


----------



## av8or (Jun 9, 2013)

I would hate to see a blanket ban on e-bikes on trails. I don't own an e-bike right now but hear me out fellow mtbr's. Father time is slowly catching up on us (well, to me at least). On some days, I can ride with full gusto and on some days not so well. Some days I can ride on hours end and sometimes had to cut my ride short. I don't plan on getting an e-bike soon and I will ride my fatty on the trails while I am able to. But there will come a day when you and I would need the assistance of an e-bike if we want to continue to ride and that is a given, unless you totally want to give up the sport then, and I would rue the day when I am not allowed to ride the trails on an e-bike. Maybe instead of arguing against trail access to ebikes, we work together to set up a blueprint moving forward on getting some of them on the trails. It's not going to be perfect right away but it's a start and in the end, will benefit us all in the long run if you want to continue to enjoy the sport. Btw, I ride for FUN not exercise. If i want exercise, i'll ride a stationary bike.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Who really cares what anyone rides, as long as they are enjoying themselves. Ebikes will always be controversial with mtbs. I'll own another someday.


----------



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

av8or said:


> I don't plan on getting an e-bike soon and I will ride my fatty on the trails while I am able to. But there will come a day when you and I would need the assistance of an e-bike if we want to continue to ride and that is a given, unless you totally want to give up the sport then, and I would rue the day when I am not allowed to ride the trails on an e-bike.


Not a given, I'm an optimist. I figure by the time I'm too physically weak to ride the trails I do now my balance and coordination will be well on their way out too, a motor would likely just get me in trouble. I'll find easier trails, or just ride road.









I think very few people are for a blanket ban for ebikes on trails, I know I'm not.


----------



## av8or (Jun 9, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> Not a given, I'm an optimist. I figure by the time I'm too physically weak to ride the trails I do now my balance and coordination will be well on their way out too, a motor would likely just get me in trouble. I'll find easier trails, or just ride road.


Not really an optimist by your non-confident statement there, more like debbie downer.. I keed.



J.B Weld said:


> or just ride road.


Like i said, accept assistance or give up the sport.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Gutch said:


> So, we're all still lazy ebikers? You win the title for hardcore MOFO!


You so Gucci!


----------



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

av8or said:


> Not really an optimist by your non-confident statement there, more like debbie downer.. I keed.
> 
> Like i said, accept assistance or give up the sport.


My sport is cycling, I ride for fun *and* fitness!

I guess I may have worded my previous post wrong, what I meant to say was that I've no reason to expect that my mental capacities will outlast my physical ones, I expect them to decline gracefully together. To be sure I can't predict the future but for myself it would be pessimistic to believe otherwise.

Anyway, anyone who wants to be physically strong in your golden years should start now. Eat more vegetables, exercise daily, don't smoke or drink alcohol. Or do what I do and plan on trying not to complain too much when my poor habits inevitably catch up with me.


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

I'm really curious, are there any mature riders here that don't have significant physical injuries(sever arthritis, replaced hipped....etc) that just got old and tired and can't handle a diamond descent like the used to? I know it sounds feasible IRL just curious if anyone of you guys are actually in that boat.

I would think( and maybe totally wrong) that as long as my bones and muscles work reasonable and I dont have any severe ailments I should be able to ride everything I do until I'm like 80+ years old. 

I see plenty of skiers on diamond runs that look like they are in their 70s or older skiing pretty often. And I would assume skiing snowboarding us in particular with mountain biking, perhaps minus the climb. 

One other thing....who's the oldest mountain bike shredder on this forum? Anyone I their 80s?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Phantastic79 said:


> I'm really curious, are there any mature riders here that don't have significant physical injuries(sever arthritis, replaced hipped....etc) that just got old and tired and can't handle a diamond descent like the used to? I know it sounds feasible IRL just curious if anyone of you guys are actually in that boat.
> 
> I would think( and maybe totally wrong) that as long as my bones and muscles work reasonable and I dont have any severe ailments I should be able to ride everything I do until I'm like 80+ years old.
> 
> ...


I think the risks of mountain biking a black run are higher for older folks than is skiing. I'm in my late 40's and I do both. I can see myself skiing a lot longer than I can on some of the runs I do on my mountain bike. I figure I have 10 years, tops, left on my mountain bike till I start backing off of runs I do now. As I go into my late 50's-60's, my guess is I'll probably be doing more XC stuff on my mountain bike.

But I figure I'll ski black diamond runs well into retirement. It's not that I'm a better skier than a mountain biker. It's just that I think the risks associated with life-long skiing are less than mountain biking. If you've got solid skiing skis (intermediate and above) The terrain with skiing is more predictable, so less opportunities for injuries IMHO.

Bones and bruises just don't heal as fast as they used to as you start getting older. I'd happening to me know for sure as I get older.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Phantastic79 said:


> I'm really curious, are there any mature riders here that don't have significant physical injuries(sever arthritis, replaced hipped....etc) that just got old and tired and can't handle a diamond descent like the used to? I know it sounds feasible IRL just curious if anyone of you guys are actually in that boat.
> 
> I would think( and maybe totally wrong) that as long as my bones and muscles work reasonable and I dont have any severe ailments I should be able to ride everything I do until I'm like 80+ years old.
> 
> ...


 54 here, not f'ckin old yet. Everyone just falls over and goes to the couch at 60? Masters runners anyone? They have an 80+ year age winners for the marathons. No issues for me. I average 2,000 bike commuter miles per year, plus bikepacking plus mt biking almost every weekend. Add in trail work days, dog walking, hikes, on my feet work stuff. All good. Did a bikepacking ride this summer, mixed terrain, 60 lb Karate Monkey, 240 miles in 4 days with some serious VT hills.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

^Thats full gas! I saw a video of a dude that rode the divide. 2700 miles on a hardtail Motobecane. It put my ass into perspective!


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Phantastic79 said:


> I'm really curious, are there any mature riders here that don't have significant physical injuries(sever arthritis, replaced hipped....etc) that just got old and tired and can't handle a diamond descent like the used to? I know it sounds feasible IRL just curious if anyone of you guys are actually in that boat.
> 
> I would think( and maybe totally wrong) that as long as my bones and muscles work reasonable and I dont have any severe ailments I should be able to ride everything I do until I'm like 80+ years old.
> 
> ...


55, still ride everything I always have and more technical descents than I ever have. I've been riding mtbs over 30 years and am still learning. Having said that, the realities of getting older are; less muscle mass, longer recovery times, slower response times and higher consequences when crashing than when you're 25. Which is why I wear pads and a full face now. At that age, you are invicible, at least you think it. I fully expect that if I'm still alive and have a functioning carcass, I'll be riding mtbs into my 70's on "real" singletrack. 80's seems much less likely, crashing would get easier and the consequences severe. Gravel, dirt bike paths or road riding, for sure, I'll be at that.

I was a life long ski racer and have a long list of injuries from that as well as riding, that my body never lets me forget about, including a broken back, but nothing yet that keeps me off a bike. Bikes make it possible for me to continue on physically in many ways tbh.

Crashing skiing is nothing like crashing on rocks and dirt, it's usually softer and you slide. I'll be able to keep skiing well past riding. It's common to see skiers in their early 80s. These days, mid 80's is about the point where your body starts to run out of steam. Plus lifts.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

No doubt, at 85 if I fall I'm cooked! JK, I'm 47 and can't fathom ripping mtb at 80. Hell, I'd be lucky if I see 75.


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

This seems simple to me. If the trail doesn't allow motors, then don't take your ebike there. If motors are allowed, then go ride and don't apologize to anyone.

The park near my house (Annadel) does not allow motors, so I don't go there (anymore). I have plenty of fun on the street.

I did ride in Annadel two times before I decided not to be a scoundrel. 

I will also confess that my ebike is illegal on the road because it has more power than is legal and can go over the 28 mph legal ebike limit, but my thinking on street vs. dirt is different. On the street, I am riding next to other vehicles with 100 times the power and capable of four times my max speed. I think that riding safely presents no safety issue in this case.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> Are you saying that people don't deserve to travel those wild and pristine trails unless they have the skill, the health, and the physical capability to pedal their way along them?


 Yup. How is it any different than any other outdoor adventure on wild and pristine trails. Taking a chair lift to the top of the mountain? Outdoor SPORTS don't require a motor, nor should they. Back country skiing/ skinning/telemark. Work really hard for 2/4/6 hours to enjoy your ride down. Snowshoe or hike Tuckerman's Ravine ( NH, Mt Washington area) and ski down in spring. All the areas open to bikes that don't allow motors. You can pedal a bike but only a little? You are healthy enough to ride a bike with only a motor? Hmmm. The percentage of those with an ADA HP who could do all that? Slim, but if that's the case, no issues. Skill? E bikes require no skills? Seems like they would need more. Some sports are hard, and only meant for the hardcore enthusiast. White water kayaking? Gee I need a motor. Others can build skills and stamina, and use all those gears on the bike. I do all that, plus coffee and bacon. Those that don't can enjoy the bike paths along the river, I do that as well. Hard work, perseverance, endurance and skill building takes some time, " some" folks of different generations try to take the easy way out sometimes. Not rocket science.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> Wow. This is what I was talking about in my censored post. Trail access had nothing to do with who you think "deserves it". Also, many outdoor sports use motors. Maybe not ones that you participate in, but it ain't all about you.
> 
> Once again, eBike access discussions have nothing to do with rational thought, facts and data. It's all emotion and knee jerk reactions.


 Ummm. OP post and mine are all about mt bike and trail access. Talking about wild and pristine trails, usually not accessed with motors. Absolutely not about me. It's about not wanting motorized vehicles on hiking/biking trails, ie access. Those trails are open to everyone. Just not everyone with a motor. Got a trail with moto access? Go ebike it, not an issue. Thick skin needed here, not for everyone. Apparel section might be better suited for some.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> This is what I was talking about in my censored post.


Your post was not censored, it was deleted because it included very inflammatory and partisan political statements. Expressly forbidden here on MTBR.

Also, I did not delete it, but as a mod I can review what others have deleted.

Go down the political road again and face a time-out from the site.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

leeboh said:


> Yup. How is it any different than any other outdoor adventure on wild and pristine trails. Taking a chair lift to the top of the mountain? Outdoor SPORTS don't require a motor, nor should they. Back country skiing/ skinning/telemark. Work really hard for 2/4/6 hours to enjoy your ride down. Snowshoe or hike Tuckerman's Ravine ( NH, Mt Washington area) and ski down in spring. All the areas open to bikes that don't allow motors. You can pedal a bike but only a little? You are healthy enough to ride a bike with only a motor? Hmmm. The percentage of those with an ADA HP who could do all that? Slim, but if that's the case, no issues. Skill? E bikes require no skills? Seems like they would need more. Some sports are hard, and only meant for the hardcore enthusiast. White water kayaking? Gee I need a motor. Others can build skills and stamina, and use all those gears on the bike. I do all that, plus coffee and bacon. Those that don't can enjoy the bike paths along the river, I do that as well. Hard work, perseverance, endurance and skill building takes some time, " some" folks of different generations try to take the easy way out sometimes. Not rocket science.


I must disagree. Fortunately, where you ride has nothing to do with where I ride.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

chazpat said:


> So you think the trails should be made so everyone can ride them? You know, take out that difficult "tech" stuff?


I think _you_ should ride _your_ trails using whatever kind of bike _you_ prefer and that is allowed there. I'll do the same here.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> I think _you_ should ride _your_ trails using whatever kind of bike _you_ prefer and that is allowed there. I'll do the same here.


How reasonable is that?


----------



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

Cuyuna said:


> Are you saying that people don't deserve to travel those wild and pristine trails unless they have the skill, the health, and the physical capability to pedal their way along them?


If they lack the skill to pedal walking might be an option. Unless the trails are paved and equipped with escalators and elevator lifts someone is going to get left out, it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

From what I've seen there seems to be plenty of pristine areas that are handicapped accessible so it's not like that group hasn't been given thoughtful consideration.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> I think _you_ should ride _your_ trails using whatever kind of bike _you_ prefer and that is allowed there. I'll do the same here.


Ok with me! Just please don't try to get what is allowed changed, I'm happy with my non-motorized NPS trails as they are.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

AGarcia said:


> I think the risks of mountain biking a black run are higher for older folks than is skiing. I'm in my late 40's and I do both. I can see myself skiing a lot longer than I can on some of the runs I do on my mountain bike. I figure I have 10 years, tops, left on my mountain bike till I start backing off of runs I do now. As I go into my late 50's-60's, my guess is I'll probably be doing more XC stuff on my mountain bike.


Without knowing how well you actually go down those black diamond MTB trails, you may surprise yourself as you get older. In our AARP riding group, our oldest rider (at 62) is by far the most aggressive on DOUBLE BLACK trails. I'm the fastest on most stuff (aside from one youngster in his early 40's) but walk 95% of the double black stuff.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

The whole "lazy" or "not earning it" is a non-point. Who the hell cares how hard somebody else is working? If a user group can share trails responsibly and isn't causing undue amounts of degradation or user conflict, how many calories they burn while doing it isn't anybody else's damn business. Why would anyone worry about this? What's next, you have to whip out the HRMs and measure up before the fitness patrol will allow you to access public land? It's arrogant and ridiculous to try to use that as any sort of substantive argument against e-bikes IMH and it really has no place in an legitimate access discussion.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Really? The other moderator said it was deleted because I recognized all the hatin' going on towards eBikes. You guys should get your BS straight before you condescend to people with silly threats of time out. It makes you sound like an ineffective young mother.


Try re-posting whatever actual points you were trying to make without any political posturing and without using "hate" in any form and I'll be happy to leave it up. And please stop whining; it hurts my head.

:madman:


----------



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

slapheadmofo said:


> The whole "lazy" or "not earning it" is a non-point. Who the hell cares how hard somebody else is working? If a user group can share trails responsibly and isn't causing undue amounts of degradation or user conflict, how many calories they burn while doing it isn't anybody else's damn business. Why would anyone worry about this? What's next, you have to whip out the HRMs and measure up before the fitness patrol will allow you to access public land? It's arrogant and ridiculous to try to use that as any sort of substantive argument against e-bikes IMH and it really has no place in an legitimate access discussion.


Yep, can't wait for the power police to start pulling people over and check out the data.

*"Buddy you're only putting out 90 watts, get the hell out of here!"*


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

You don't buy an ebike for fitness, rather fun. The fitness is a bonus, just like every bicycle ridden.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gutch said:


> The fitness is a bonus, just like every bicycle ridden.


100% agrees with my personal take on riding. 
I understand that the importance of the fitness aspect varies across people wildly. There's nothing wrong with that at all; you do things for your reasons, other people do things for their reasons. Arguing purity of motivation when it comes to somebody else's leisure time is silly. I've done plenty of lazy ass cruises on my mountain bike and had a good time at it. Might've even had a few beers or taken a nap here and there. So what?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> If they lack the skill to pedal walking might be an option. Unless the trails are paved and equipped with escalators and elevator lifts someone is going to get left out, it's just a matter of where you draw the line.
> 
> From what I've seen there seems to be plenty of pristine areas that are handicapped accessible so it's not like that group hasn't been given thoughtful consideration.


There is a very important distinction that has to be made between modifying trails to make them accessible and denying access to an existing trail to those that may wish to use them with an OPDMD ("other power driven mobility device").

People with physical challenges are far more aware of their personal limits and abilities than we random strangers are. Not for me to say "nope, not allowed to try".


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

k2rider1964 said:


> Without knowing how well you actually go down those black diamond MTB trails, you may surprise yourself as you get older. In our AARP riding group, our oldest rider (at 62) is by far the most aggressive on DOUBLE BLACK trails. I'm the fastest on most stuff (aside from one youngster in his early 40's) but walk 95% of the double black stuff.


You give me hope!!!


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

I don't see anyone here advocating for modifying trails so that all types of riders can ride them. Nobody wants escalators. The riders on any given trail system should have to adjust their riding and equipment to the trail, however it was built and for whatever purpose, if they want to get out into those "wild and pristine" remote areas. For some that might mean fatter tires, or full suspension, or 203 mm rotors. For others it might mean an electric motor to provide pedal-assist. And for some...it might just end up being a no-go.


----------



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

slapheadmofo said:


> There is a very important distinction that has to be made between modifying trails to make them accessible and denying access to an existing trail to those that may wish to use them with an OPDMD ("other power driven mobility device").
> 
> People with physical challenges are far more aware of their personal limits and abilities than we random strangers are. Not for me to say "nope, not allowed to try".


OK, what if their physical limitations were more than could be overcome by a pedal assist bike, maybe they need 3000 watts and a throttle or a 125cc cycle to get themselves down the trail. Does it make sense to legalize those machines for trail use for everyone so a few people who might need them can use them?

My point is that ebike use for physically disabled people is a red herring because the percentage of people using them for that reason will be extremely low, the vast majority will be perfectly able bodied folks.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> OK, what if their physical limitations were more than could be overcome by a pedal assist bike, maybe they need 3000 watts and a throttle or a 125cc cycle to get themselves down the trail. Does it make sense to legalize those machines for trail use for everyone so a few people who might need them can use them?
> 
> My point is that ebike use for physically disabled people is a red herring because the percentage of people using them for that reason will be extremely low, the vast majority will be perfectly able bodied folks.


Agree it's nothing anyone should be worrying about as the numbers are small enough to be negligible, and allowing for ADA access has zilch to do with allowing general access.

The ADA has pretty clear guidelines as far as what can or can't be used as an OPDMD and where, and what steps are to be taken in order to keep certain classes of vehicles off of particular trail systems.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> The whole "lazy" or "not earning it" is a non-point. Who the hell cares how hard somebody else is working? If a user group can share trails responsibly and isn't causing undue amounts of degradation or user conflict, how many calories they burn while doing it isn't anybody else's damn business. Why would anyone worry about this? What's next, you have to whip out the HRMs and measure up before the fitness patrol will allow you to access public land? It's arrogant and ridiculous to try to use that as any sort of substantive argument against e-bikes IMH and it really has no place in an legitimate access discussion.


Outstanding response!


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> OK, what if their physical limitations were more than could be overcome by a pedal assist bike, maybe they need 3000 watts and a throttle or a 125cc cycle to get themselves down the trail. Does it make sense to legalize those machines for trail use for everyone so a few people who might need them can use them?


Who's talking about doing that? Anyway, in this state it doesn't matter. Those things are defined as motor vehicles, therefore illegal to ride on state trails. E-bikes that are less than 1000 watts and pedal-assisted _aren't_ defined as motor vehicles and _are_ allowed. Interestingly, that also applies to Segways, and other such "Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices" although it would take one damn special Segway to be able to negotiate even the greeenest singletrack around here. I'm assuming that that is in the law so those things can run on the paved trails.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> My point is that ebike use for physically disabled people is a red herring because the percentage of people using them for that reason will be extremely low, the vast majority will be perfectly able bodied folks.


Indeed, it's just a means to an end for the manufacturers, to tug on those heartstrings a little, they just want to sell ebikes.



> We did not want people to believe that this is only for the old and injured. This is for mountain bikers.


https://nsmb.com/articles/specialized-the-e-bike-dilemma/

Which ties into my agreement that who rides on an mtb or emtb, be it a hardcore broduro, someones newbie riding wife, or an old guy, and how much effort they put into is immaterial. The only thing that matters is impact on the trail and other user groups. A sense of entitlement, either for or against emtbs, has no bearing on management decisions.


----------



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

Cuyuna said:


> Who's talking about doing that?


Again, you're the one who brought up ebikes as means to allow people without sufficient health or physical capabilities to access pristine trails, all I'm saying is that you're still excluding many and that additional power might allow even more physically challenged individuals to access pristine trails. So help for the needy ends at 250 watts? That's going to leave a lot of people short on long technical climbs.

All hypothetical of course. If they're legal, they're legal and that's the end but there seems to be some things left to be decided and that's what I'm referring to. Promote them for what they are, fun toys but don't cloud the issue with red herrings.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Again, you're the one who brought up ebikes as means to allow people without sufficient health or physical capabilities to access pristine trails, all I'm saying is that you're still excluding many and that additional power might allow even more physically challenged individuals to access pristine trails. So help for the needy ends at 250 watts? That's going to leave a lot of people short on long technical climbs.
> 
> All hypothetical of course. If they're legal, they're legal and that's the end but there seems to be some things left to be decided and that's what I'm referring to. Promote them for what they are, fun toys but don't cloud the issue with red herrings.


I'm talking people with physical challenges, not outright cripples. I was talking about folks working on knee replacements. You took it to Stephen Hawking.

There is a middle ground there, between healthy 18 year-olds out on the trail and lugging grandpa out there from the nursing home and plopping him on his e-trike.


----------



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

Cuyuna said:


> I'm talking people with physical challenges, not outright cripples. I was talking about folks working on knee replacements. You took it to Stephen Hawking.
> 
> There is a middle ground there, between healthy 18 year-olds out on the trail and lugging grandpa out there from the nursing home and plopping him on his e-trike.


I referred to anyone who might need a little more than 250w pedal assist, and that line in the sand (250w) could be considered just as exclusive and even more arbitrary than motors/no motors. It won't bother me if you can't or just refuse to understand that.

Which leads to my main point that is even though some physically challenged people could benefit from ebikes that's not who they're marketed to and they won't be the majority users of them, and it should have no bearing whatsoever on policy issues regarding them.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> Again, you're the one who brought up ebikes as means to allow people without sufficient health or physical capabilities to access pristine trails, all I'm saying is that you're still excluding many and that additional power might allow even more physically challenged individuals to access pristine trails. So help for the needy ends at 250 watts? That's going to leave a lot of people short on long technical climbs.
> 
> All hypothetical of course. If they're legal, they're legal and that's the end but there seems to be some things left to be decided and that's what I'm referring to. Promote them for what they are, fun toys but don't cloud the issue with red herrings.


This is exactly the point. Class 1 eBikes make trails accessible to those who would not be able to ride otherwise.

I have two friends, one of which has been riding MTBs since they were invented. He has likely logged more miles on a MTB than all but the most hard-core rider here. But he is in his 60's now and simply not able to ride with all of his friends that he used to ride with. So he bought a Specialized Levo and problem solved... he's back riding with the old crew again. The other friend has been a hardcore MTB guy for many years. But he had a physical injury that put him in the same boat. One Specialized Levo later and he too is riding with his old crew.

It seems absurd to tell these two long-time MTBers that they simply can't ride with their friends anymore only because they are on a class 1 eBike. This is especially obnoxious given the fact that there is absolutely ZERO rational reason why class 1 eBikes should be banned.

Another great application of the class 1 is the hammerhead guy that would love to take his wife out with him on the trails. But given the huge gap in their level of conditioning, it is all but impractical. But put her on a class 1 eBike and now they are riding the trails in marital bliss.

There is literally nothing but wins that come from class 1 eBikes. More people riding them, more access for more people, balancing fitness levels so that people of differing abilities can reasonably ride together, and increasing trail demand which will likely result in more trails available. Now I challenge anyone to come up with one single rational, reasonable argument against class 1 bikes.

As I said before, it is folly to even have a discussion about eBikes without specifying class of bikes. To pretend that all eBikes are the same simply because they have a motor is sophomoric and not based on any facts, data or rational thought.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> I don't think it was whining that made your head hurt as much as grating on some big-ole feelings... but I'll play your silly game with you.
> 
> The points I made earlier which were "censored" are these:
> 
> ...


 Jimbo, couple of points here. Motor- No motor, clear line in the sand. Bikes don't have motors. E bikes are something else and need to be treated as such. CA seems to be the test case, good luck with that. 250 watts, 750, 2,000 watts? How to tell be looking? You can't. Fake stickers and controller over rides are out there. Think there is not a HUGE population just waiting to rip the trails on an e bike that goes really fast? Think again. And yes, motorized IS the point. MA rider here, no motorized vehicles allowed for the most part on multi use, state park trails. You really think that BLM and USFS don't make the rules regarding the trails? Uggg. Now you know why William Shakespeare said" First kill all the Lawyers" No offense to those fighting the good fight in the eyes of the law. The MA DCR( controls the state parks and make the rules) has full authority to make the rules and enforce them, how is that different than any other land manager? And where does it say this a pro bike forum? Willing to hear both sides of a discussion? And yes, opinions vary. You think riders or rangers are going to be able to tell the difference between watts? Bikers can't even tell some are e bikes. Dude. Rational argument? Don't need any, just need to follow the laws as they are set forth currently, for many parks, counties and riding areas. Don't like the laws? Change them. Get vocal, form a committee, go to meetings, show up and express an opinion. Just like mt bikers have been doing for the past 30 years. And now are the go to resource for trail advocacy and trail work in so many areas. And also have the land managers ear on many things. Including motorized vehicles. So there's that. Seems the e bike community needs to get active other than on some forum, IMHO.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> This is exactly the point. Class 1 eBikes make trails accessible to those who would not be able to ride otherwise.
> More people riding them, more access for more people, balancing fitness levels so that people of differing abilities can reasonably ride together, and increasing trail demand which will likely result in more trails available. Now I challenge anyone to come up with one single rational, reasonable argument against class 1 bikes.


More, more, more is exactly the point. Many of the trail systems here are on BLM land. BLM has many directives, one of them being habitat management - especially critical habitat. A lot of their trail systems around here have winter closures due to this critical habitat designation. Another metric they use for the "special recreation areas", a label that has very specific attributes to land management, is gauging how much use the trails see and how far into the "interior" of these special recreation areas mountain bikers and hikers travel. Generally speaking, the extremities of the trail systems see less traffic than the trailheads, and that factors into delineation criteria for new trails and the maintenance or closure of existing trails. Its already understood that class 1 e-bikes will result in more travel and traffic into the interior of these land management areas than is currently seen with human powered only travel, and from the impact on wildlife habitat perspective, e-bikes will result in greater use of these trails on the extremity of the trail systems, therefore, more impact.

So there you go, there's your rational argument against class 1 e-bikes.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

watermonkey said:


> More, more, more is exactly the point. Many of the trail systems here are on BLM land. BLM has many directives, one of them being habitat management - especially critical habitat. A lot of their trail systems around here have winter closures due to this critical habitat designation. Another metric they use for the "special recreation areas", a label that has very specific attributes to land management, is gauging how much use the trails see and how far into the "interior" of these special recreation areas mountain bikers and hikers travel. Generally speaking, the extremities of the trail systems see less traffic than the trailheads, and that factors into delineation criteria for new trails and the maintenance or closure of existing trails. Its already understood that class 1 e-bikes will result in more travel and traffic into the interior of these land management areas than is currently seen with human powered only travel, and from the impact on wildlife habitat perspective, e-bikes will result in greater use of these trails on the extremity of the trail systems, therefore, more impact.
> 
> So there you go, there's your rational argument against class 1 e-bikes.


I agree with you. That is the first rational argument that I have seen against class 1 eBikes. I genuinely appreciate your point.

MTBing is a rapidly growing pastime. So, if limiting the number of people on the trails is your goal, I believe you have much bigger fish to fry than going after class 1 eBikes.

We have a fundamental disagreement. I believe that showing a demand for trail use will pressure regulators to open new areas. You believe that more people using trails will result in greater restrictions. I appreciate your opposing viewpoint and on this issue, I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree if you are.

Again, thanks for proving me wrong that there is no rational argument against class 1 eBikes.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> This is exactly the point. Class 1 eBikes make trails accessible to those who would not be able to ride otherwise.


If you a legitimate ADA disability, you already can.



Jim_bo said:


> I have two friends, one of which has been riding MTBs since they were invented. He has likely logged more miles on a MTB than all but the most hard-core rider here. But he is in his 60's now and simply not able to ride with all of his friends that he used to ride with. So he bought a Specialized Levo and problem solved... he's back riding with the old crew again. The other friend has been a hardcore MTB guy for many years. But he had a physical injury that put him in the same boat. One Specialized Levo later and he too is riding with his old crew.


There is already a solution to this, it's called waiting for your friends, or not riding past your friends abilities, since like every other outdoor sport, in a group experience, you should tailor it to the weakest in the group. Or, ADA placard, see above.



Jim_bo said:


> Another great application of the class 1 is the hammerhead guy that would love to take his wife out with him on the trails. But given the huge gap in their level of conditioning, it is all but impractical. But put her on a class 1 eBike and now they are riding the trails in marital bliss.


I have a wife that I've been riding mtbs with since 1990, I wait for her to catch up, that has worked just fine so far. I know going in that that is the kind of ride it's going to be, I don't see why we need to change the laws so wives can keep up.



Jim_bo said:


> There is literally nothing but wins that come from class 1 eBikes. More people riding them, more access for more people, balancing fitness levels so that people of differing abilities can reasonably ride together, and increasing trail demand which will likely result in more trails available.


Unless they are making money off of it, I don't know of many land managers who really want more people on bikes on their trails. While I support more people riding bikes, I honestly don't want more bikes on mine, they're already crowded and I spend a lot of time fixing them. Do you want your favorite trails more crowded than they are now? More users on trails can lead to more trails in the right situations, I'd like a link to an ebike trail org, I have yet to see any advocacy coming from the ebike community. Just like I'm skeptical of mtber's getting involved with advocacy in a meaningful way, I don't see it happening with emtb riders either, since it's the same crowd.



Jim_bo said:


> Now I challenge anyone to come up with one single rational, reasonable argument against class 1 bikes.


Your buddy's Levo is a pale shadow of what we'll see of Class 1 bikes in the future. This years levo already has 15% more torque than last years, and 1000w less peak power than what you'll see out of 750w emtbs. There's been one study (IMBA's) that I know of done comparing 250w emtbs to mtbs, you keep mentioning "studies", I'd like links to the others if you don't mind, I'd like to see them. I know of none looking at the impact of 750w emtbs.

With 250w emtbs, your range is doubled, which doubles the impact per rider.

Climbing speeds can be significantly higher, depending on the trail and rider.

Like I said earlier, land managers don't care about emotional arguments for or against emtbs, so they really don't care if your wife can keep up, or your buddies can ride with their friends when it gets right down to it. And since they don't know the impact that 750w emtbs will have, either on the trail or on other users, many are taking a wait and see stance. Or, if you'd rather, they're continued to be banned. If the laws had been changed to match those in Europe, there would be at least anecdotal data to look at, and plenty of evidence that we can all get along. IME, I agree, there's currently not a ton of difference between a 250w mtb and a mtb except the range and speeds while climbing.



Jim_bo said:


> As I said before, it is folly to even have a discussion about eBikes without specifying class of bikes. To pretend that all eBikes are the same simply because they have a motor is sophomoric and not based on any facts, data or rational thought.


If you spend some time reading the forums, you'll see that most of the posters are well aware of the classes and the differences between them an a 10,000w electric bike, and most are pretty reasoned about it, for or against. A lot of the people who you label "haters" are like me actually, I don't have anything against ebikes, I just don't think they're a bicycle, they're something new and should be treated as a new class of vehicle. And I really resent that the bike industry via lobbyists, is trying to shove them down the throats of my local land mangers and by extension, my trail org. Be up front about it, and we could figure out the true impacts of 750w emtbs, how to manage it, and where it makes sense to allow access. That could be everywhere in some places, and more limited in others. Ignoring the difference between 250w and 750w ebikes, the reality of non enforcement and pretending that 10 years from now, it's all going to be fine doesn't make sense.

And, the last time you were here, there was one mod for the forum, and he sells ebikes, so he's pretty pro ebike. And Klurejr, who's a mod everywhere, and is pretty even handed IMO, especially considering what he has to deal with. Now there's two more, good guys both. I'm a mod, but not here, I'm just a civilian here, for the record.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Harryman said:


> If you a legitimate ADA disability, you already can.


No. No you can't.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

SHM, looks like the latest ploy of the irrational individual(s) is to claim that anyone with an opposing view is reacting emotionally. I thought this sub-forum had agreed a long time ago that e-MTB's are totally different than MTB's. Might want to close this thread since the same individuals are saying the same things continuously. Bottom line: all the verbiage will have no influence on access.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Moe Ped said:


> Why don't you feel free to post links to back up what ever points you're trying to make.
> 
> You're so deserving of banishment IMHO. Good thing I don't moderate here.


He makes lots of claims, doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of the actual laws governing any of it, disregards the impact those laws actually have and zero links. It's amusing to sit back and watch.

There's already a case in court about emtbs, feel free to follow that one jimbo, the USFS is pretty adamant about what they consider motorized.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...to-use-electric-bikes-on-nonmotorized-trails/

There's other federal definitions of ebikes, you can try these on for size as well

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/727/text

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2017-title16-vol2/xml/CFR-2017-title16-vol2-part1512.xml

While there are many laws defining ebikes as not being a motor vehicle and a bicycle, other agencies are still free to define them as motorized vehicles, which can lead them to being restricted to motorized roads and trails.

Have fun on your crusade, but avoid promoting the idea that ignoring the BLM and USFS's clearly stated policies is a worthy idea.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Man, you guys sure know how to make enemies. I *own* an e-bike and have a ton of neighbors and friends who are either old or have various ailments that would make e-bikes an awesome choice for our local trails. Yet they got banned this year, and I'm not going to spend any effort figuring out how to get access back - because the people advocating them just come across as nuts - we've got the lawyers who don't think the BLM can regulate the trails they are in charge of(really!??), folks who mod their bikes (and openly post about it here!) to go faster, people who will spend pages debating what "motor" means, etc.

Come off it. They're motorized. Class 1 bikes are no threat to anyone (IMO) but screaming over and over that they are just regular bikes or that your rights as a sovereign citizen are being violated by the jackboot BLM thugs or that there's no way anyone will ever make faster/more capable e-bikes that *don't* work on MUTs.... it's just dumb. You're alienating your best potential allies, which is the reasonable people and land managers who don't have a strong opinion yet. 

-Walt


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

FYI - thread clean-up coming shortly...apologize in advance for any legit points that are lost in the process, but I'm not going in and editing this mess line by line, so everyone will need to deal with it. 

Don't like it, lodge a complaint.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Thread is open.
Trigger finger is itchy...but mixed in with all the BS were many solid points.
Please try expressing them without being unnecessarily antagonistic, purposefully obtuse, or ignoring the guidelines. 
Thanks.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Harryman said:


> He makes lots of claims, doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of the actual laws governing any of it, disregards the impact those laws actually have and zero links. It's amusing to sit back and watch.
> 
> There's already a case in court about emtbs, feel free to follow that one jimbo, the USFS is pretty adamant about what they consider motorized.
> 
> ...


For the record, everything in this post is wrong, not applicable, and/or distracting. I provided a very solid, civil post providing details as such, but the moderators swept it away in their "thread clean up". I haven't really looked at all else that has been "cleaned up", but this one jumped out at me. I've long pointed out the bias from the moderators. Just more evidence here.

Wonder how long this will be here before the mods "clean this up". I believe that criticizing a moderator surely is a violation of the rules of this site as they are to be revered as above reproach.

***By the way.... this is my complaint that the moderator suggested I lodge. I assume he was serious and not simply unnecessarily antagonistic.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jimbo, read post 188? And have you read the forum guidelines and stickies? Might be a good start. Pedal on.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> For the record, everything in this post is wrong, not applicable, and/or distracting. I provided a very solid, civil post providing details as such, but the moderators swept it away in their "thread clean up". I haven't really looked at all else that has been "cleaned up", but this one jumped out at me. I've long pointed out the bias from the moderators. Just more evidence here.
> 
> Wonder how long this will be here before the mods "clean this up". I believe that criticizing a moderator surely is a violation of the rules of this site as they are to be revered as above reproach.
> 
> ***By the way.... this is my complaint that the moderator suggested I lodge. I assume he was serious and not simply unnecessarily antagonistic.


That post was left there not out of bias, but because I don't moderate other moderators; that's above my pay grade.

By 'lodge a complaint', I mean take your perceived moderation issues out of this thread/subforum and go through whatever channels you feel you need to in order to get them handled. I don't know exactly what those channels are myself, but I guarantee that continued complaining about it here is going to get you precisely nowhere. Good luck in your endeavors.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Harryman said:


> While there are many laws defining ebikes as not being a motor vehicle and a bicycle, other agencies are still free to define them as motorized vehicles, which can lead them to being restricted to motorized roads and trails.


This is a key point....different agencies and managing organizations get to define the use of their trails. They could ban fat bikes, full suspension bikes, or motorized bikes....and they get to be the ones that define what those bikes are. In the case of BLM/FS, they are constrained by law, but as a regulatory agency, they get to craft regulations that they believe represent the intent of the legislation, including defining what a bicycle is and is not.

Clearly, the bulk of members here believe that if it has a motor, even for only pedal assist, it's a motor vehicle, but those definitions held by MTBR users are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how the various agencies define them. It seems silly for people here to be arguing about such definitions...you should be writing your Congressmen or other representatives.

Given the newness of e-bikes in the US and the evolving technology, and the huge number of agencies controlling land use in the US, it shouldn't be surprising that there is yet no universal definition among states, counties, private, and Federal agencies. I'm sure those definitions will evolve, just as e-bikes and e-bike usage are evolving.

In the meantime, it seems like the most prudent course is to just plan to obey the regulations set forth by those agencies until the landscape becomes clearer.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Sorry Jimbo; try again.

I suggest sticking strictly to the e-bike access issues and saving your myriad moderation complaints for a different venue. I will continue to delete any posts that go into that territory. Once again, good luck.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Jimbo you sure know how to obfuscate a discussion.

BTW a forum rule is that you post links to reference claims regarding access and etc.

Harryman posted some good links that were pertinent to how a least a couple of us saw this discussion.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> This is a key point....different agencies and managing organizations get to define the use of their trails. They could ban fat bikes, full suspension bikes, or motorized bikes....and they get to be the ones that define what those bikes are. In the case of BLM/FS, they are constrained by law, but as a regulatory agency, they get to craft regulations that they believe represent the intent of the legislation, including defining what a bicycle is and is not.
> 
> Clearly, the bulk of members here believe that if it has a motor, even for only pedal assist, it's a motor vehicle, but those definitions held by MTBR users are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how the various agencies define them. It seems silly for people here to be arguing about such definitions...you should be writing your Congressmen or other representatives.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of your points, with one exception. There is no need to write to a congressman concerning displeasure with a law if the law doesn't exist. Clearly, there is no law that prohibits driving a car while wearing a red shirt. But if the local police agency had a policy to ticket red shirt drivers, does that make it legitimate? No! Same applies here.

I'm also in agreement that we should take the prudent course of obeying what the regulations are stated to be (whether they are based on legitimate authority or not). However, the community should be pushing back on land managers demanding that they always default to full access of trails unless there is compelling reason to make restrictions. Whether or not there is compelling reason to ban class 1 eBikes should be the discussion.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

...


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> ..............the community should be pushing back on land managers demanding that they always default to full access of trails unless there is compelling reason to make restrictions.


Nope, individuals who feel strongly about that should pursue that agenda, the community may or may not agree.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Silentfoe said:


> No. No you can't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Yes yes I do when a club member I ran into when I was out riding a new trail on Friday noticed my e bike he said Oh e bikes not allowed here , we had a little talk after which he said I was welcome to use the trails and if anyone said anything just give them his name and tell them to come see him . After our little talk he said he nows sees e bikes in a diff way and yes I ride with my ADA placarded.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

rider95 said:


> Yes yes I do when a club member I ran into when I was out riding a new trail on Friday noticed my e bike he said Oh e bikes not allowed here , we had a little talk after which he said I was welcome to use the trails and if anyone said anything just give them his name and tell them to come see him . After our little talk he said he nows sees e bikes in a diff way and yes I ride with my ADA placarded.


An ebike is NOT an approved ADA mobility device. You are just abusing the system by claiming it is and by bullying other users into believing it is. It is bullying because there is a threat of legal action for any ADA denial and people are very gun shy about it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rider95 said:


> Yes yes I do when a club member I ran into when I was out riding a new trail on Friday noticed my e bike he said Oh e bikes not allowed here , we had a little talk after which he said I was welcome to use the trails and if anyone said anything just give them his name and tell them to come see him . After our little talk he said he nows sees e bikes in a diff way and yes I ride with my ADA placarded.


I personally am all for broad ADA exemptions for Class 1 e-bikes used as OPDMDs. I don't see any big issues with expanding the definitions to include them.


----------



## DL723 (Sep 25, 2017)

The strategy seems pretty clear by a lot of park systems. Ban them until more information can trickle out. Plain and simple, they have a motor so they are motorized vehicles. The spirit of the motorized vehicles rule is where arguments can be made about if class 1 should be lumped in there. It's also worth noting almost every official statement about ebikes being banned as motorized vehicles come with the disclaimer they leave it open for revisiting as ebikes develop.

And I think that last part is the key. A few of the parks I've talked to have already stated they're revisiting classifying them as motorized vehicles. But given government agencies move extra slow, it's going to take time. 

Until the path is laid out..talking to your park reps probably does more good than just ninja riding. Not for the risk of getting caught by rangers but having other riders report you. Which just generates more negative info. One park rep made a great point...this one actually supported ebikes and said this: She actually liked class 1 ebikes because it's kind of hard to go much faster than 20 mph on flat roads. One of her worst experiences with bikes was a mountain biker flying by her and clipping her as she was hiking. Bottom line is dbags get things banned..not really what they're riding.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Silentfoe said:


> An ebike is NOT an approved ADA mobility device. You are just abusing the system by claiming it is and by bullying other users into believing it is. It is bullying because there is a threat of legal action for any ADA denial and people are very gun shy about it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


I am planning my next western trip now I would be happy to spend a afternoon riding and showing you how e bikes can be a great benefit to riders like my self , maybe it would even help you to be a better person and more understanding of others users of public lands .


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rider95 said:


> I am planning my next western trip now I would be happy to spend a afternoon riding and showing you how e bikes can be a great benefit to riders like my self , maybe it would even help you to be a better person and more understanding of others users of public lands .


This wouldn't do a thing to change the actual guidelines though. Sf isn't the one who makes the rules. You would be a lot better served talking to someone at the ADA about it.

I actually think ADA restrictions as far as e-bikes go is a subject worthy of it's own thread, if anyone is interested in starting one. It's a bit of a sidebar to the overall access issues with a lot very particular aspects.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Though SF doesn't make the rules it doesn't keep him from thinking he knows the rules or law and will spout his oppion as such . I have worked with my local Mt bike club and the parks dept to allow some use of e bikes on our public trails there is nothing to fear from a ADA rider on a e bike .


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> An ebike is NOT an approved ADA mobility device. You are just abusing the system by claiming it is and by bullying other users into believing it is. It is bullying because there is a threat of legal action for any ADA denial and people are very gun shy about it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


 As in an " other powered mobility device"? The ADA has some pretty broad and sweeping powers to allow access. I have done some reading on it. Got some facts or quotes? Depends if the trail is set up for multi use and accessibility guidelines. I did some reading, lots of info out there. I think the numbers of HP folks using an e bike would be slim. Also varies from state to state as well as if the area is under fed regs.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rider95 said:


> Though SF doesn't make the rules it doesn't keep him from thinking he knows the rules or law and will spout his oppion as such . I have worked with my local Mt bike club and the parks dept to allow some use of e bikes on our public trails there is nothing to fear from a ADA rider on a e bike .


Can you share links to the information that causes you to think he's wrong? 
Otherwise, you're just 'spouting your oppion'.

FWIW, what Sf says DOES fit with what I've read regarding e-bikes as OPDMDs, and he HAS posted links to his sources. Please feel free to do the same; I'd be very interested in seeing them.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> I personally am all for broad ADA exemptions for Class 1 e-bikes used as OPDMDs. I don't see any big issues with expanding the definitions to include them.


I'm pretty confident that most doctors would have a pretty low threshold for granting e-bike exemptions if such exemptions were allowed.


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

Judging by the extremely biased initial post (which didn't really seem to open the door to all opinions), I question the value of even adding to this mess of a thread. It seems like most people already have their mind made up on this issue, and very few (if any) have changed their stance from people sharing their opinions here. Regardless, here are my opinions.

I am a mountain biker, hiker/backpacker, jeeper, and motorcyclist. I am a Tread Lightly! Master Trainer and I've worked with BLM, Forest Service, local clubs, and other orgs to keep our trails open. I donate money, attend trail cleanups, teach off-road recreation groups about how to leave minimal impact on the trail, attend town halls, write my congresspeople, and work with our trail groups.

I believe there is a place for all types of off road recreation. We all want to use the trails in our way, and some people want to ban people who want to use our trails differently. We need to remember that just because someone does not like our form of recreation doesn't mean that it should be banned. There is a place for shared access, and there's a place for exclusive access. That being said, I don't think all users should have access to *all* trails. I believe we should have hiking-specific trails, equestrian-specific trails, MTB-specific trails, etc. I also believe there are places for shared-use trails. But I do not believe that all trails should be open to all forms of recreation.

In my neck of the woods, the moto clubs have really stepped up and do an excellent job working with land owners and trail groups to maintain access and take care of the trails. They do this because they know what a thin line it is from having their trails shut down because of the careless actions of others. I applaud them. I share a lot of my singletrack trails with legal moto riders, and I'm fine with it. That being said, I'm glad motos aren't allowed on *all* my singletrack MTB trails (and I'm a moto rider too).

I think ebikes are great and they have their place. I think people who want to go more distance, or who want to be able to ride with disabilities should be able to use them as much as they want *on trails that are authorized for motorized use.* Nobody is saying ebikes should be banned from dirt. In fact, here in Moab there are lots of trails available for motorized recreation. People with disabilities, people who don't want to pedal the entire uphill, people with aging joints can all use them. They have options. However, I don't believe they belong on non-motorized MTB trails.

If there were more motorized singletrack out there, that'd be great for ebikers and motos alike, and I think that's where the ebike community should be focusing their efforts: gaining more motorized trail access. However, it's far easier to just rationalize how an ebike is more "bike" than "e", and use the existing trails that the MTB community has fought long and hard to establish than to open new routes. I think ebikes have the same difficult task as the moto guys do. A lot of people see them as destructive (which is completely overblown), and it's tough getting access opened to these areas.

I'm not anti ebike; I just think they should work on trail access with other motorized users, regardless of whether their motor kicks in via pedalling or via a throttle. Nobody is discriminating on people with disabilities; you can still ride your ebikes offroad, just like you can still ride motos off road.

A lot of ebikers make it sound like if they can't ride on MTB trails, they can't ride anywhere. That simply isn't the case. They can still ride everywhere else that a moto can. Yes, there are far fewer trails that meet that criteria, but they should be working with moto groups to increase access, rather than piggybacking on the efforts that non-motorized users have fought so hard to get.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> I'm pretty confident that most doctors would have a pretty low threshold for granting e-bike exemptions if such exemptions were allowed.


It's not actually in the doctor's hands. It's based on ADA guidelines as to what constitutes an OPDMD. My understanding was actually different than Silentfoe's as I was under the impression that e-bikes WERE ADA-compliant as OPDMDs, but after reading some of the information he shared, it's not as clear cut as I had thought.

You can start here to learn more:

Basic facts and requirements of Department of Justice Rule on Other Power Driven Mobility Devices


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

^^^^ Hmmm, balanced and thought out words, nice. In some areas with lots of people, with less land and even less trails to go around, conflicts are bound to happen. Hiker, horse, moto and shared use trails? All separate? Thats is a lot of trail in an ideal world. UT? Great. Not seeing that in most areas though. Would like to hear more about your moto trail work and tread lightly stuff( maybe in another thread? )


----------



## hardtail party (Oct 12, 2012)

Yes, we have hike, horse, moto, and mtb shared use trails on national forest land. We also have hiker-only trails there, along with equestrian-only trails. Allmost all moto trails are open to equestrians, mtb, and hikers too, but most non-motorized users tend to stray from those. We are definitely lucky in Utah with 70% federal land. That being said, the Salt Lake and Utah Valley areas are extremely population dense, but they've still found a way to make it work because of our amazing trail access groups. It's easy to throw out Utah as an outlier because it's not as population dense as socal, but don't diminish the amazing work of the trail access groups here. More areas could learn from groups like Evergreen, USA-All, and the other groups that are building more and more trails. 

Even in Utah though, we're constantly losing access to our trails due to environmental groups that want to ban anything mechanized (and regular pedal bikes meet the definition of mechanized).

When I lived in CA, I worked with trail access groups there as well. Unfortunately we lost a lot of trails in really short amounts of time. People find it easier to close trails to MTB (or any mechanized travel, to be honest) than to come to a solution that works for all. No amount of internet whining will fix our issue, but hopefully it prompts people to educate themselves and to get involved personally.

The future of our recreational privileges (whether MTB or ebike or moto) will hinge on users being more than just financial donors to our trail access groups; it's going to involve education, advocacy, volunteer work, and getting our hands dirty. MTB isn't going away. We have high schools here in Utah with 250+ kids on the high school team. Multiply that by 10 local high schools, and our local trails are PACKED. MTB is growing faster than ever, and the trails are only going to see more use, more traffic, and we're all going to have to learn to work together on this.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

sixstringsteve said:


> Judging by the extremely biased initial post (which didn't really seem to open the door to all opinions), I question the value of even adding to this mess of a thread. It seems like most people already have their mind made up on this issue, and very few (if any) have changed their stance from people sharing their opinions here. Regardless, here are my opinions.
> 
> I am a mountain biker, hiker/backpacker, jeeper, and motorcyclist. I am a Tread Lightly! Master Trainer and I've worked with BLM, Forest Service, local clubs, and other orgs to keep our trails open. I donate money, attend trail cleanups, teach off-road recreation groups about how to leave minimal impact on the trail, attend town halls, write my congresspeople, and work with our trail groups.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> It's not actually in the doctor's hands.


IF an e-bike of some variety is ever declared to be an OPDMD, a doctor's certification is going to be necessary as a component of "credible assurance" for those operating an OPDMD, just as such certification is needed for any other component of ADA assistive mechanisms or placards. However, it's true that might not be necessary because if someone is operating an OPDMD and can't provide "credible assurance" at that moment, they can't be asked it they're disabled nor what their disability is. In that regard, it's true that it's not necessarily in the doctor's hands.

I have no idea whether or not an e-bike qualifies as an OPDMD. It appears to be an arguable point, but, at least as far as the BLM/NFS is concerned, it doesn't matter at present because they're declared as neither OPDMD's, nor vehicles that are allowed on BLM land. That opinion came out about two years ago. Things change fast in Federal regulatory agencies, so I wouldn't bet against the future of the things.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> IF an e-bike of some variety is ever declared to be an OPDMD, a doctor's certification is going to be necessary as a component of "credible assurance" for those operating an OPDMD, just as such certification is needed for any other component of ADA assistive mechanisms or placards. However, it's true that might not be necessary because if someone is operating an OPDMD and can't provide "credible assurance" at that moment, they can't be asked it they're disabled nor what their disability is. In that regard, it's true that it's not necessarily in the doctor's hands.
> .


Right - the doctor makes an assessment of disability, but has nothing to do with any sort of decisions as far as allowable vehicles.

I would think that e-bikes stand a fair chance at being granted OPDMD status in many places in the future. Don't think there's any good reason they shouldn't.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

DL723 said:


> The strategy seems pretty clear by a lot of park systems. Ban them until more information can trickle out. Plain and simple, they have a motor so they are motorized vehicles. The spirit of the motorized vehicles rule is where arguments can be made about if class 1 should be lumped in there. It's also worth noting almost every official statement about ebikes being banned as motorized vehicles come with the disclaimer they leave it open for revisiting as ebikes develop.
> 
> And I think that last part is the key. A few of the parks I've talked to have already stated they're revisiting classifying them as motorized vehicles. But given government agencies move extra slow, it's going to take time.
> 
> Until the path is laid out..talking to your park reps probably does more good than just ninja riding. Not for the risk of getting caught by rangers but having other riders report you. Which just generates more negative info. One park rep made a great point...this one actually supported ebikes and said this: She actually liked class 1 ebikes because it's kind of hard to go much faster than 20 mph on flat roads. One of her worst experiences with bikes was a mountain biker flying by her and clipping her as she was hiking. Bottom line is dbags get things banned..not really what they're riding.


Great post!


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

sixstringsteve said:


> Judging by the extremely biased initial post (which didn't really seem to open the door to all opinions), I question the value of even adding to this mess of a thread. It seems like most people already have their mind made up on this issue, and very few (if any) have changed their stance from people sharing their opinions here. Regardless, here are my opinions.
> 
> I am a mountain biker, hiker/backpacker, jeeper, and motorcyclist. I am a Tread Lightly! Master Trainer and I've worked with BLM, Forest Service, local clubs, and other orgs to keep our trails open. I donate money, attend trail cleanups, teach off-road recreation groups about how to leave minimal impact on the trail, attend town halls, write my congresspeople, and work with our trail groups.
> 
> ...


Nice post. But I have a hard time with your inconsistency. You recognize that an eBike is much closer to a bike than a dirtbike (I'm extrapolating a bit), but you suggest they should be restricted to motorized vehicle trails. This seems inconsistent, especially for the class 1 eBikes. Obviously there is not going to be "eBike only" trails. So they should be grouped with the most closely related demographic. I don't think anyone could argue that a class 1 eBike is closer related to a dirt bike than a MTB, so consistency would suggest a direction different than what you recommend.

Again, eBike discussions without specifying class of eBike is incomplete and unproductive.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> Right - the doctor makes an assessment of disability, but has nothing to do with any sort of decisions as far as allowable vehicles.


Right - I didn't mean to imply otherwise.



slapheadmofo said:


> I would think that e-bikes stand a fair chance at being granted OPDMD status in many places in the future. Don't think there's any good reason they shouldn't.


I agree. I think it's imminent. There is and will be increasing pressure in that regard and very little to demonstrate a practical downside to pedal-assist (Class 1 or whatever) e-bikes.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> Nice post. But I have a hard time with your inconsistency. You recognize that an eBike is much closer to a bike than a dirtbike (I'm extrapolating a bit), but you suggest they should be restricted to motorized vehicle trails. This seems inconsistent, especially for the class 1 eBikes. Obviously there is not going to be "eBike only" trails. So they should be grouped with the most closely related demographic. I don't think anyone could argue that a class 1 eBike is closer related to a dirt bike than a MTB, so consistency would suggest a direction different than what you recommend.
> 
> Again, eBike discussions without specifying class of eBike is incomplete and unproductive.


 In your opinion. Of course. Human powered stuff together, motorized vehicles together, most people get this. Most trail users get this, but I guess not everyone does. 
Gee, " trails authorized for motorized use" Sixstring seem to get it. Seems a basic concept for most to understand.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> FWIW, what Sf says DOES fit with what I've read regarding e-bikes as OPDMDs, and he HAS posted links to his sources. Please feel free to do the same; I'd be very interested in seeing them.


Likewise, from what I've read, I agree with Sf that it doesn't appear that e-bikes fit within the OPDMD regs. Granted, I haven't looked at the OPDMD regs as closely as I have USFS and BLM policy on e-bikes in general, but it didn't seem to fit.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Nice post. But I have a hard time with your inconsistency. You recognize that an eBike is much closer to a bike than a dirtbike (I'm extrapolating a bit), but you suggest they should be restricted to motorized vehicle trails. This seems inconsistent, especially for the class 1 eBikes. Obviously there is not going to be "eBike only" trails. So they should be grouped with the most closely related demographic. I don't think anyone could argue that a class 1 eBike is closer related to a dirt bike than a MTB


I would agree with this for the most part.
The only issue I have is what would 'grouped with' actually mean? 
I don't see any issues with Class 1 bikes on many if not most trails that currently allow mountain bikes, as long as they are always treated as a unique user group, distinguished from 'traditional' mountain bikes. That way, whatever goes on with e-bikes doesn't affect mountain bikes, and mountain biker advocates aren't forced to become de-facto e-bike advocates.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

sixstringsteve said:


> am a mountain biker, hiker/backpacker, jeeper, and motorcyclist. I am a Tread Lightly! Master Trainer and I've worked with BLM, Forest Service, local clubs, and other orgs to keep our trails open. I donate money, attend trail cleanups, teach off-road recreation groups about how to leave minimal impact on the trail, attend town halls, write my congresspeople, and work with our trail groups.
> 
> I believe there is a place for all types of off road recreation. We all want to use the trails in our way, and some people want to ban people who want to use our trails differently. We need to remember that just because someone does not like our form of recreation doesn't mean that it should be banned. There is a place for shared access, and there's a place for exclusive access. That being said, I don't think all users should have access to all trails. I believe we should have hiking-specific trails, equestrian-specific trails, MTB-specific trails, etc. I also believe there are places for shared-use trails. But I do not believe that all trails should be open to all forms of recreation.
> 
> ...


I do not share your belief on pedal assist e-bikes not belonging on non-motorized trails, nor do I believe that pedal assist e-bikes are in the same vein as Jeeps, motorcycles, or other off-road type vehicles, but I appreciate your position and your well considered post.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Jim_bo said:


> Again, eBike discussions without specifying class of eBike is incomplete and unproductive.


Agreed.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> I That way, whatever goes on with e-bikes doesn't affect mountain bikes, and mountain biker advocates aren't forced to become de-facto e-bike advocates.


Many of us are one and the same. Regular mtb'ers who advocate for or support mountain biking and who have a pedal assist e-mtb in their quiver (notwithstanding claims made by folks on this forum who've never met me and yet claim that I'm not a "real" mountain biker).


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> Many of us are one and the same. Regular mtb'ers who advocate for or support mountain biking and who have a pedal assist e-mtb in their quiver (notwithstanding claims made by folks on this forum who've never met me and yet claim that I'm not a "real" mountain biker).


Has nothing to do with advocacy challenges though.
I happily ride all sorts of motorized vehicles off-road, but I sure don't want them lumped in with mountain bikes when it comes to trying to gain/keep trail access. Mountain bikes are a comparatively a much easier 'sell' to the powers that be. Once a motor is added, red flags go up all over the place. There's no good reason for mountain bike access to be tied to any other sort of access, specially any that involves a motor, no matter how small.

If you are interested and have the time and energy to advocate locally for e-bike access, more power to you. It would be unfair to expect those mountain bike advocates with no interest in e-bikes whatsoever (which I'm going to assume to be the overwhelming majority) to have to answer for them though.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> Has nothing to do with advocacy challenges though.
> I happily ride all sorts of motorized vehicles off-road, but I sure don't want them lumped in with mountain bikes when it comes to trying to gain/keep trail access. Mountain bikes are a comparatively a much easier 'sell' to the powers that be. Once a motor is added, red flags go up all over the place. There's no good reason for mountain bike access to be tied to any other sort of access, specially any that involves a motor, no matter how small.
> 
> If you are interested and have the time and energy to advocate locally for e-bike access, more power to you. It would be unfair to expect those mountain bike advocates with no interest in e-bikes whatsoever (which I'm going to assume to be the overwhelming majority) to have to answer for them though.


I see it a bit differently in terms of advocacy. I see it as one and the same (in the sense that I don't really see riding a bike like a Levo as appreciatively different in terms of its impact or usage than a regular e-bike. So I don't see the need to advocate any differently, or have a special category of advocates for a pedal assist e-bikes (other than helping others develop a proper understanding of current law). That being said, I appreciate that others like yourself, Harryman, Silentfoe and others may not share the viewpoint. I'm not trying to change your viewpoint (except to the extent that you or others may view things in absolutes). Instead, I'm simply making you, others aware that some folks, such as myself may have a different viewpoint... is all. People can and should advocate for whatever they believe in...


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> I see it a bit differently in terms of advocacy. I see it as one and the same. That being said, I appreciate that others like yourself do not. I'm not trying to change your viewpoint (except to the extent that you may view things in absolutes). Instead, I'm simply making you, others aware that some folks, such as myself may have a different viewpoint... is all.


So would your viewpoint be that mountain bike access be inextricably linked to e-bike access? So if a trail system decides for whatever reasons not to allow e-bikes, mountain bikes tossed out with them by default? And all of us MTB advocates with no interest in e-bikes whatsoever are now forced answer for them or risk losing ALL access because of guilt by association?

Please tell me you see the wildly obvious downsides and blatant unfairness of that scenario. Why shouldn't those that want to ride e-bikes just do their own advocacy instead of trying hang it all around the necks of mountain bikers? Because if you do have an actual experience with this sort of thing, you know for a fact that bringing a motor into the equation makes it a whole new ballgame for LMs and getting permissions, etc.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> So would your viewpoint be that mountain bike access be inextricably linked to e-bike access? So if a trail system decides for whatever reasons not to allow e-bikes, mountain bikes tossed out with them by default? And all of us MTB advocates with no interest in e-bikes whatsoever are now forced answer for them or risk losing ALL access because of guilt by association?
> 
> Please tell me you see the wildly obvious downsides and blatant unfairness of that scenario. Why shouldn't those that want to ride e-bikes just do their own advocacy instead of trying hang it all around the necks of mountain bikers? Because if you do have an actual experience with this sort of thing, you know for a fact that bringing a motor into the equation makes it a whole new ballgame for LMs and getting permissions, etc.


I'm in the camp that thinks that talking about e-bikes without sub-categorizing them isn't reasonable. I see a marked distinction between a pedal-assist-only bike and something with a throttle. In my view, a pedal-assist e-bike is just another category of mountain bike and should be regulated as such. I don't feel that way about the other two categories.

As to tossing out ALL MTB access, I can only speak from my experience on the trail systems that I ride, where e-bike use is a non-issue, but I just don't see that as an inevitable conclusion. Unless you throw in e-bikes that have the throttle and the power to roost the corners.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> I'm in the camp that thinks that talking about e-bikes without sub-categorizing them isn't reasonable. I see a marked distinction between a pedal-assist-only bike and something with a throttle. In my view, a pedal-assist e-bike is just another category of mountain bike and should be regulated as such. I don't feel that way about the other two categories.


Categorizing them is fine and makes total sense.

So, just as Class 1 e-bikers don't want to have to answer for or be lumped in with Class 2 or 3 e-bikers, nor do mountain bikers want to answer for or be lumped in with e-bikes of any class. That seems totally fair and reasonable to me.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> Categorizing them is fine and makes total sense.
> 
> So, just as Class 1 e-bikers don't want to have to answer for or be lumped in with Class 2 or 3 e-bikers, nor do mountain bikers want to answer for or be lumped in with e-bikes of any class. That seems totally fair and reasonable to me.


I don't disagree, although I see it more as lumping in hardtails with full-suspension bikes.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> So would your viewpoint be that mountain bike access be inextricably linked to e-bike access? So if a trail system decides for whatever reasons not to allow e-bikes, mountain bikes tossed out with them by default? And all of us MTB advocates with no interest in e-bikes whatsoever are now forced answer for them or risk losing ALL access because of guilt by association?
> 
> Please tell me you see the wildly obvious downsides and blatant unfairness of that scenario. Why shouldn't those that want to ride e-bikes just do their own advocacy instead of trying hang it all around the necks of mountain bikers? Because if you do have an actual experience with this sort of thing, you know for a fact that bringing a motor into the equation makes it a whole new ballgame for LMs and getting permissions, etc.


No, that is not my viewpoint. And I understand you and others have fears that linking pedal assist e-mtbs and their riders with regular mountain bikes and their riders can result in all mountain bikes being tossed out by default. I get that's a real fear, and that the fear is not unfounded.

But, no, I don't not believe it to be a "fact" that bringing a pedal-assist bike into the equation invariably makes access a whole new ballgame, as you suggest. Indeed, I don't see adding a pedal-assist motor to an ebike as that big a deal. Having ridden one many times.

That being said, if some mountain bikers only want to advocate for regular mountain bikes and not for pedal-assist e-bikes, that's ok in my book. I have no issue with that. But your statements assume that "regular" mountain bikers and pedal-assist e-bike riders are invariably two completely different groups of individuals, and consequently, there must be two separate advocacy groups. I reject that assumption. They can be one and the same. But they don't have to be. Still, I don't think you or anyone must advocate pedal-assist bikes as well if they are advocating for regular pedal bikes.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> As to tossing out ALL MTB access, I can only speak from my experience on the trail systems that I ride, where e-bike use is a non-issue, but I just don't see that as an inevitable conclusion. Unless you throw in e-bikes that have the throttle and the power to roost the corners.


On the trail systems I ride and in all states surrounding me, e-bikes are treated as motor vehicles for access purposes and are only allowed on OHV/ORV trails (at least on public lands). Now, I would have no problem if e-bikers got together and lobbied for Class 1 access to traditionally human powered trails. Wouldn't bother me a bit if they were successful. But in a world where, all of sudden out of the blue, 'the industry' decided 'mountain bikes have motors now', there are going to be a whole lot of traditional enemies of mountain bike access that will be frothing to use this as ammo against us. Aligning with ANY vehicle with a motor is bad for MTB access IME. Take a look back at our history and it's obviously something that goes against one of our biggest selling points.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> No, that is not my viewpoint. And I understand you and others have fears that linking pedal assist e-mtbs and their riders with regular mountain bikes and their riders can result in all mountain bikes being tossed out by default. I get that's a real fear, and that the fear is not unfounded.
> 
> But, no, I don't not believe it to be a "fact" that bringing a pedal-assist bike into the equation invariably makes access a whole new ballgame, as you suggest. Indeed, I don't see adding a pedal-assist motor to an ebike as that big a deal. Having ridden one many times.
> 
> That being said, if some mountain bikers only want to advocate for regular mountain bikes and not for pedal-assist e-bikes, that's ok in my book. I have no issue with that. But your statements assume that "regular" mountain bikers and pedal-assist e-bike riders are invariably two completely different groups of individuals, and consequently, there must be two separate advocacy groups. I reject that assumption. They can be one and the same. But they don't have to be. I don't think you or anyone must advocate pedal-assist bikes as well if they are advocating for regular pedal bikes.


I've never said they are necessarily always different individuals, just there is enough of the distinction between the vehicles that what would work for one isn't always going to work for the other. The motor cannot be ignored or brushed aside, or trivialized to the level of adding lock-on grips or tassels. Pretending that this is the way LMs and anyone else involved in making access decisions is going to treat them is puerile IME.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> I've never said they are necessarily always different individuals, just there is enough of the distinction between the vehicles that what would work for one isn't always going to work for the other. The motor cannot be ignored or brushed aside, or trivialized to the level of adding lock-on grips or tassels. Pretending that this is the way LMs and anyone else involved in making access decisions is going to treat them is puerile IME.


I guess we can agree to disagree.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> I guess we can agree to disagree.


Similar to the way that I'm sure many Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikers disagree with your stance I suppose. Not sure how you can feel those distinctions are important, but distinguishing between Class 1 and "Class 0" isn't. Seems a bit hypocritical no?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> Similar to the way that I'm sure many Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikers disagree with your stance I suppose. Not sure how you can feel those distinctions are important, but distinguishing between Class 1 and "Class 0" isn't. Seems a bit hypocritical no?


I suppose that some Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikers might disagree with my stance. That's ok. They're entitled to disagree if they see it differently.

But I do see a distinction between a relatively low speed class 1 pedal assist and a class 2 throttle bike or a class 3 pedelec. I think the distinctions are important (the existence of a motor on the bike is not the defining factor, but more so how it's set up/used), and it seems that those who were involved in writing the policies/regulations and also adopt the regulations felt they were important as well. I don't think it's a bit hypocritical at all.


----------



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

AGarcia said:


> I suppose that some Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikers might disagree with my stance. That's ok. They're entitled to disagree if they see it differently.
> 
> But I do see a distinction between a relatively low speed class 1 pedal assist and a class 2 throttle bike or a class 3 pedelec. I think the distinctions are important, and it seems that those who were involved in writing the policies/regulations and also adopt the regulations felt they were important as well. I don't think it's a bit hypocritical at all.


You see a distinction between class 1 and 2/3 but none between class 1 and a bicycle?


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

1) There are CA Class 1 (20 mph, PAS) bikes that have a level in which maximum power generates to the motor no matter how the rider pedals; accordingly, to me, CA Class 1 & 2 are the same, but realize the rationale of the opposing view.
2) I ride mostly MTB, and some eMTB, and can't conceive of asking MTB riders to assist in eMTB access.
3) Not a fan of the ACLU, but happy their specter SEEMS to be allowing physically challenged access on some trails otherwise prohibited for eMTB's (there's at least one where I reside).


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> So would your viewpoint be that mountain bike access be inextricably linked to e-bike access? So if a trail system decides for whatever reasons not to allow e-bikes, mountain bikes tossed out with them by default? And all of us MTB advocates with no interest in e-bikes whatsoever are now forced answer for them or risk losing ALL access because of guilt by association?
> 
> Please tell me you see the wildly obvious downsides and blatant unfairness of that scenario. Why shouldn't those that want to ride e-bikes just do their own advocacy instead of trying hang it all around the necks of mountain bikers? Because if you do have an actual experience with this sort of thing, you know for a fact that bringing a motor into the equation makes it a whole new ballgame for LMs and getting permissions, etc.


I think your fear is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most people not intimately familiar with MTBs and eBikes simply assume eBikes are eBikes. They don't see a difference between a class 1 eBike and a 10,000W electric dirt bike. Only the truly uninformed take the position "if it has a motor, it is a motorized vehicle". That's why I believe it is vitally important that you NEVER talk about "eBikes". You always ensure that you are talking about a specific class of eBikes.

There are already government agencies that accept the differences in classes. California has been leading the charge with creating classes of eBikes. Utah explicitly declares that a class 1 eBike is just a bicycle for regulatory purposes. And federal law that has been discussed in this thread show a clear distinction between an eBike (low speed electric bicycle) and motor vehicles. The only reason uninformed people talk about "eBikes" as a lot, is because informed people don't correct them and advise them of the classes of eBikes.

A MTBer would be foolish to try to draw a clear distinction between a class 1 eBike and a MTB as they are so very closely related. If you fear that the class 1's will get swept up because they have a motor, that same fear could spill over to MTBs because they travel similar speeds, are similar weights, use all the same components (except the motor) and are ridden in a similar fashion as each other. So, unless the community of informed people educate the uninformed, your fears may actually become reality.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> You see a distinction between class 1 and 2/3 but none between class 1 and a bicycle?


You mean distinction in motor vs. no motor? Of course. But in terms of impact of no motor bicycle vs. class one bicycle? No, I see nothing of significance in terms of impacts to the environment or to the use and enjoyment of others on the trail.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

fos'l said:


> 3) Not a fan of the ACLU, but happy their specter SEEMS to be allowing physically challenged access on some trails otherwise prohibited for eMTB's (there's at least one where I reside).


I'm a card carrying member... but then you can probably guess that.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> You mean distinction in motor vs. no motor? Of course. But in terms of impact of no motor bicycle vs. class one bicycle? No, I see nothing of significance in terms of impacts to the environment or to the use and enjoyment of others on the trail.


This is the right point. As far as a legitimate land manager is concerned, whether a bike has a motor, a sail, or is 100% human powered is irrelevant. They should ONLY be concerned about environmental impact and safety.

Think of it like this. There are guys who enjoy mountain-unicycling. Should they be banned from MTB trails? MTBs have 2 wheels, unicycles have only 1. Is that a reason to ban them? The obvious answer is "no". And the obvious reason is, because there is no significantly increased impact to the environment or safety. The number of wheels is really irrelevant.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> I suppose that some Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikers might disagree with my stance. That's ok. They're entitled to disagree if they see it differently.
> 
> But I do see a distinction between a relatively low speed class 1 pedal assist and a class 2 throttle bike or a class 3 pedelec. I think the distinctions are important (the existence of a motor on the bike is not the defining factor, but more so how it's set up/used), and it seems that those who were involved in writing the policies/regulations and also adopt the regulations felt they were important as well. I don't think it's a bit hypocritical at all.


And when you say 'policies/regulations' you're referring to CA correct?
Keep in mind, this isn't strictly a CA-centric discussion by any means.

Do you really purport not to be able to understand what distinguishes between an e-bike from a traditional bike? Nor to understand that for the vast majority of people, it's something they would find as obvious as the nose on their faces?

I don't buy it.


----------



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

AGarcia said:


> You mean distinction in motor vs. no motor? Of course. But in terms of impact of no motor bicycle vs. class one bicycle? No, I see nothing of significance in terms of impacts to the environment or to the use and enjoyment of others on the trail.


Based on most reviews here the average user can expect at least a 50% increase in average speed and range compared to riding a bicycle, you may not consider that additional impact but it shouldn't surprise you that others do.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> This is the right point. As far as a legitimate land manager is concerned, whether a bike has a motor, a sail, or is 100% human powered is irrelevant. They should ONLY be concerned about environmental impact and safety.
> 
> .


I agree. I just don't think mountain bikers with no interest in e-bikes of any sort at all should be forced to be the ones to have to convince the 'powers that be' of it. Having gone through many years of battling anti-bike groups, I know what a long, arduous and frustrating process it can be. It takes quite an entitled mindset to expect others fight your battles for you IMHO. I don't support banning e-bikes outright at all. I just don't feel that non-e-bikers have any duty to fight for e-bike access.

Do any of you spend a lot of time pushing for trail uses you don't take part in, say 4x4 or moto? Would you be willing to lose your access based on how successful those groups are at convincing land managers of their legitimacy? Or to lose your access based on how successful YOU are in lobbying for theirs?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> And when you say 'policies/regulations' you're referring to CA correct?
> Keep in mind, this isn't strictly a CA-centric discussion by any means.
> 
> Do you really purport not to be able to understand what distinguishes between an e-bike from a traditional bike? Nor to understand that for the vast majority of people, it's something they would find as obvious as the nose on their faces?
> ...


I'm aware of California's regulations. I'm also aware that other states are considering taking the policy and implementing it into their laws/regulations. So yes... I am aware we are taking about more than California. It's not a CA-centric discussion. That is why I specifically referred to both policy and regulations.

And no.. I do not purport or claim not to understand distinctions between an ebike and traditional bikes. As for what others see or believe, I leave that to them.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> And no.. I do not purport or claim not to understand distinctions between an ebike and traditional bikes.


Great.

So can you clarify exactly what you believe those distinctions to be?


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Based on most reviews here the average user can expect at least a 50% increase in average speed and range compared to riding a bicycle, you may not consider that additional impact but it shouldn't surprise you that others do.


Yes, the notion that others may perceive a 50% increase in average speed (i.e., one can now climb at 6mph instead of 4mph and one can now travel 15 miles instead of 10 mph in the same time) in and of itself as an additional impact does not surprise me.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> Great.
> 
> So can you clarify exactly what you believe those distinctions to be?


Sure... one has a battery and a motor. And the other does not. Those are physical distinctions I see. But in terms of use or impacts, I see no meaningful distinction.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

fos'l said:


> 1)
> 3) Not a fan of the ACLU, but happy their specter SEEMS to be allowing physically challenged access on some trails otherwise prohibited for eMTB's (there's at least one where I reside).


How could you not be a fan of an organization that is completely committed to protecting your civil liberties?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> Based on most reviews here the average user can expect at least a 50% increase in average speed and range compared to riding a bicycle, you may not consider that additional impact but it shouldn't surprise you that others do.


I completely refute your conclusion of a 50% increase in average speed and range compared to a conventional MTB. I'd love to see what you have to support such a wild assertion.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I think your fear is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most people not intimately familiar with MTBs and eBikes simply assume eBikes are eBikes. They don't see a difference between a class 1 eBike and a 10,000W electric dirt bike.


And this is one reason mountain bikers do not want to be associated with ebikes and why we should not be the ones having to explain ebikes to "most people"; that's on ebikers.



Jim_bo said:


> A MTBer would be foolish to try to draw a clear distinction between a class 1 eBike and a MTB as they are so very closely related.


Go ahead and insult most of the people on this site. Humans and chimps are so very closely related as well (which I'm sure you are aware of):

Humans and chimps share a surprising 95 percent of their DNA. How can we be so similar--and yet so different?

Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> And this is one reason mountain bikers do not want to be associated with ebikes and why we should not be the ones having to explain ebikes to "most people"; that's on ebikers.


But the same uninformed people who don't see a difference between a class 1 eBike and an electric dirt bike also won't see the difference between a class 1 eBike and and MTB. For them, it is a simple leap of logic.

MTB = class 1 eBike, and
class 1 eBike = electric dirtbike, therefore 
MTB = electric dirt bike.

These are the kinds of leaps of logic that will occur if informed people do not correct and educate uninformed people of the distinctions. And given the very close nature of a class 1 eBike and an MTB and the near identical impacts, it is folly to attempt to separate the two in the minds of the uninformed. The difference is only esoteric. The distinction of motor vs no motor is as obscure to the uninformed as full suspension or hardtail.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> I completely refute your conclusion of a 50% increase in average speed and range compared to a conventional MTB. I'd love to see what you have to support such a wild assertion.


You're right, I was being too conservative, it's probably closer to 100%


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

What I find the most disingenuous about all the rallying around "Class 1".... you can't regulate class 3 access once the door is opened.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I've got to say, I'm impressed at the level headedness displayed recently here. Thank you.

For those of you not initiated in land access battles, I thought I might try to paint a picture.

As many of you know, I'm a BLM trail ambassador.

I'm also the Trail Maintenance Coordinator for Eastern Washington County, within the Dixie Mountain Bike Trails Association, or the DMBTA. An IMBA chapter.

This gives me seat at the table within many access discussions. I don't take that priveledge lightly.

When we approach a land owner, any land owner, we have to have a "sales" plan. What we want to do, how we are going to do it, how much it will cost, who will pay for it, who it will benefit and how it will be maintained. Of course, there are other points brought up as well. 

Being a mountain bike centric group, we of course always lobby for our own access. We have learned to build trails in a manner that discourages motorized use. Dirt bikes and atv's absolutely destroy our trails and are a serious menace to multi use trails. We also try to discourage equestrian use for trail maintenance and safety issues. Hikers always get a pass unless we build DH flow trails and then safety is an issue.

Land managers in general do not like motorized approved trails. They have a bad history of tearing up the land. If someone builds motorized trails, great. That's not our thing. We almost always have to seriously go out of our way to show that we can limit access to only human powered uses. This is often in our land use permits.

With most western lands being in the "publics" hands, either through the BLM, USFS or SITLA, we are bound by their definitions of motorized. It's not in our interest to fight that fight as we have bigger fish to fry. Getting an allowance for ebikes doesn't do us any good. Ebikers are not generally trail advocates. They don't show up at access meetings. They don't do trail work. Contrary to anecdotes here, they are also not part of the mountain bike tribe. These are things seen by us.

I see your obsessive argument for allowance of class 1 at the expense of the other 2 classes. I can tell you for a fact, ALL land owners do not see a distinction. They see motorcycles. Because they see the slippery slope. You can argue against that all you want but it exists. As I've said many times before, limiting access to one type of ebike requires people, time and money. Without those, there cannot be regulation and without regulation, you have poaching. If a sign at a trailhead says something along the lines of "ebikes allowed: limited to class 1 and 250 watts", can any of you guarantee that it won't be abused? None of us can. That's ridiculous. But it will be abused regardless. And as I said before, land managers are usually adamant that there will be no motorized access. So, a simple ban on ANYTHING motorized is the straight forward way to solve that problem.

I hope that clears it up.

Could ebikes someday be allowed? Sure. But so far we have seen zero advocacy work on their own behalf. Most ebikes are bought from specialty shops who sell them to retirees or younger guys looking to go faster. There are a few who used to get out and mountain bike but are now either worn out or overweight. Any of those demographics are not likely to join the advocacy fight. 

You won't see many mountain bikers going out on a limb to advocate for ebikes. 

A quick anecdote. As a guide I was recently (2 days ago) approached by an individual who wanted to ride our local trails. He had a normal mtb and a Levo. He said he didn't have a ton of time and so he may just ride the Levo. I had to explain to him that not a single inch of single track in our area was open to motorized vehicles. He was baffled. When he bought the bike it was explained to him that Utah law said it was a bicycle and he could ride it anywhere a bicycle was allowed. I explained the reality and he was a bit shocked and put off that the shop had been less than honest in getting a sale. This is not the first time I've experienced this. It's frustrating. The marketing and propaganda campaign surrounding ebikes is immense. I hope it doesn't come crashing down around their heads. What it is doing is making enemies of anyone in a position to make changes.

That is all.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> But the same uninformed people who don't see a difference between a class 1 eBike and an electric dirt bike also won't see the difference between a class 1 eBike and and MTB. For them, it is a simple leap of logic.
> 
> MTB = class 1 eBike, and
> class 1 eBike = electric dirtbike, therefore
> ...


Exactly. That's why we don't want ebikes of any class to be considered bicycles.

It's a whole lot easier for people to accept and understand "does not have motor/has motor" than trying to explain to them "doesn't have a motor or it has a motor but it's really weak and doesn't damage anything/has a motor a little bit bigger or a lot bigger".

You can make the argument that a 50cc moped is closer to a bicycle than a Ninja sport bike; in a lot of ways it is. In other ways, it isn't.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

d365 said:


> What I find the most disingenuous about all the rallying around "Class 1".... you can't regulate class 3 access once the door is opened.


Well this goes to a much bigger issue. Should the burden of government regulation infringe upon the public's right to access? If it does, it transfers the burden of regulation from government to the public.

A similar question was part of the marijuana legalization issue. The argument has been made that it is difficult to test for marijuana impairment while driving since the THC remains in the fatty tissues for up to 30 days. But the question is, should the public be denied access simply because government is inept to regulate?

California has taken a step to addressing this issue. While they have made distinctions between classes of eBikes, they go further and require manufacturers to clearly indicate the class of bike on the bike itself. I know some argue that people will modify their bikes illegally, but that is true in every aspect of regulation. Nothing stops me from removing the catalytic converter on my vehicle once I get it smoged. So, once again, the unlawful few ought not dictate access for the overwhelming majority of lawful users. If it does, then we are all assumed to be law-breakers until government can find a way that we can satisfactorily prove our lawfulness. This violates the whole concept of presumption of innocence.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> Exactly. That's why we don't want ebikes of any class to be considered bicycles.


We'll just have to agree to disagree.



> It's a whole lot easier for people to accept and understand "does not have motor/has motor" than trying to explain to them "doesn't have a motor or it has a motor but it's really weak and doesn't damage anything/has a motor a little bit bigger or a lot bigger".


I think that's kinda like saying that there's a distinction between a sandwich with ham in the middle and a sandwich without ham in the middle. The uninformed will only see two pieces of bread with stuff in the middle and conflate the two as being the same.

Again, a class 1 eBike looks like an MTB, rides like an MTB, has a similar impact as an MTB, is operated like an MTB, uses similar components as an MTB and unless you pointed them out, most of the uninformed public would not be able to tell the difference between the class 1 eBike and the MTB. From the uninformed public's perspective, they see Motor/no-motor, full suspension/hardtail whatever... they're all bikes you ride in the mountains... they're all mountain bikes.

You can continue to make a distinction between motor/no motor. On that issue we are at impasse and we will simply not agree. But I believe you make your distinction at your own peril.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Land managers don't care about whether the general public can tell the difference, though. I got to watch (and participate a little bit) in the process here in Park City - and land managers care a LOT about all of this stuff:
-Motors/no motors.
-Difficulty/impossibility of enforcing Class-1-only rules. 
-Impact on public perception and potential problems with land use agreements (most of our trails cross private property using recreation easements that specify no motors)
-Impact on funding (lots of maintenance and trail building is funded by clubs and trail organizations)

I agree with you that class 1 bikes could blend in pretty seamlessly almost anywhere - but nobody has explained how/why that will be the stopping point. Land managers are conservative by nature and have zero interest in triggering a problem with more and more powerful motorized vehicles. Hence they *generally* (at least around here) want nothing to do with e-bikes of any power/speed.

-Walt


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Silentfoe said:


> I've got to say, I'm impressed at the level headedness displayed recently here. Thank you.
> 
> For those of you not initiated in land access battles, I thought I might try to paint a picture.
> 
> ...


Off-topic for a second:

BTW, I've had the distinct honor and privilege to be shown around Gooseberry Mesa by your colleague. It was an awesome experience. I've also been to the Hurricane MTB festival a few times (including the inaugural event), but I'm gonna miss it this year by a few weeks due to my son's spring break schedule. Instead, i'm heading in your area the first week of April. Do you have any recommendation for riding with an 8 year old and a 10 year old both are ok with green level rides but struggle a bit with more advanced singletrack. I was thinking the Bear Claw Poppy area might be ok? Thoughts? Also, do you have any recommendations for some scenic non-singletrack dirt trails suitable for my wife and her Levo? (Like I've said previously, I have no desire to be a test case challenging BLM policy, notwithstanding my clear understanding of the law... doubly true when I'm on vacation).


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> I've got to say, I'm impressed at the level headedness displayed recently here. Thank you.
> 
> For those of you not initiated in land access battles, I thought I might try to paint a picture.
> 
> ...


Then you, of all people, should be advocating this point. You are in Utah and Utah state law specifically says that a class 1 eBike is the same thing as a bicycle and will be regulated as such. The only difference in your neck of the woods is state vs federal. However, a state law is far more persuasive than any individual on this site. You have the unique opportunity to seek to align BLM/USFS policy with state law. You keep acting as if the eBiker and the MTBer are different animals. They are not. They are the same person. Just as AGarcia.



> Being a mountain bike centric group, we of course always lobby for our own access. We have learned to build trails in a manner that discourages motorized use. Dirt bikes and atv's absolutely destroy our trails and are a serious menace to multi use trails. We also try to discourage equestrian use for trail maintenance and safety issues. Hikers always get a pass unless we build DH flow trails and then safety is an issue.


Again, this is a matter of bias. I think you need to do some soul searching. If the BLM came to you tomorrow and said "Hey, we just realized that class 1 eBikes are not classified as motorized vehicles and therefore not banned, so we want your input on how we want to shape policy for them", what would you say? Would you take the "anti-ebike" position and say "screw them!" Or would you realize that the class 1 eBiker and the MTBer are the same breed of person and advocate for them both? The honest answer to that question exposes your bias. If the answer is "screw them!", then I question you as a "trail ambassador". If your answer is the latter, then you should recognize your unique position to act on that right now.



> Land managers in general do not like motorized approved trails. They have a bad history of tearing up the land. If someone builds motorized trails, great. That's not our thing. We almost always have to seriously go out of our way to show that we can limit access to only human powered uses. This is often in our land use permits.


I completely understand. That's why you advocate that BLM policy follow Utah state law and treat class 1 eBikes as a non-motorized vehicle.



> With most western lands being in the "publics" hands, either through the BLM, USFS or SITLA, we are bound by their definitions of motorized. It's not in our interest to fight that fight as we have bigger fish to fry. Getting an allowance for ebikes doesn't do us any good. Ebikers are not generally trail advocates. They don't show up at access meetings. They don't do trail work. Contrary to anecdotes here, they are also not part of the mountain bike tribe. These are things seen by us.


I don't suppose we really need to rehash the point that the definition of "motorized vehicle" you reference is already excluded. I think you know this to be legally true, but I believe you don't want it to be true because of some principle.



> I see your obsessive argument for allowance of class 1 at the expense of the other 2 classes. I can tell you for a fact, ALL land owners do not see a distinction. They see motorcycles. Because they see the slippery slope. You can argue against that all you want but it exists.


The state of Utah is a land owner and they see a difference. The only question is, do you want to leverage that or do you want to perpetuate a bias?



> As I've said many times before, limiting access to one type of ebike requires people, time and money. Without those, there cannot be regulation and without regulation, you have poaching. If a sign at a trailhead says something along the lines of "ebikes allowed: limited to class 1 and 250 watts", can any of you guarantee that it won't be abused? None of us can. That's ridiculous. But it will be abused regardless. And as I said before, land managers are usually adamant that there will be no motorized access. So, a simple ban on ANYTHING motorized is the straight forward way to solve that problem.


That is so naïve. You are going to have "poaching" regardless. Pretending that you can ban everything and there will be no poaching is absurd. Just ask the DEA if making drugs illegal stopped drug use.

The point that you as a trail ambassador should be promulgating is that motor/no motor is irrelevant. Environmental impact is the only thing the land managers should be concerned about. That's the stance the state of Utah has taken. Why would you be opposed to following the lead of your own state?



> Could ebikes someday be allowed? Sure. But so far we have seen zero advocacy work on their own behalf.


Like any legislation, momentum is your biggest obstacle. If you get the ball rolling in the right direction early, that's easy. If you wait until the ball is rolling and then you try to stop it and push it the other direction, that's hard. And I completely disagree with you with respect to the advocacy, trail work, etc. As I've said, the class 1 eBiker and the MTBer are the same person.



> Most ebikes are bought from specialty shops who sell them to retirees or younger guys looking to go faster. There are a few who used to get out and mountain bike but are now either worn out or overweight. Any of those demographics are not likely to join the advocacy fight.


Now you are leading me to believe that you are part of the uninformed masses. When's the last time you were in a Giant or Specialized dealer's showroom? There are class 1 eBikes right there. Not in "specialty shops selling them to retirees and young guys looking to go faster. This is a gross stereotype of class 1 eBikes that demonstrate your severe misunderstanding of them. If you are going to be a legitimate trail ambassador, my recommendation is that you learn something about class 1 eBikes. Take one out for a ride. I'll even volunteer to pay the rental fee if you'll take one out for a day (just PM me with details and I'll provide your dealer with a credit card number).



> You won't see many mountain bikers going out on a limb to advocate for ebikes.


Again, disagree. They are the same person. Even if the MTBer doesn't own an eBike, there are very few of us who haven't looked at one and thought, "aaawww yeeeeaahhh!"



> A quick anecdote. As a guide I was recently (2 days ago) approached by an individual who wanted to ride our local trails. He had a normal mtb and a Levo. He said he didn't have a ton of time and so he may just ride the Levo. I had to explain to him that not a single inch of single track in our area was open to motorized vehicles. He was baffled. When he bought the bike it was explained to him that Utah law said it was a bicycle and he could ride it anywhere a bicycle was allowed. I explained the reality and he was a bit shocked and put off that the shop had been less than honest in getting a sale. This is not the first time I've experienced this. It's frustrating. The marketing and propaganda campaign surrounding ebikes is immense. I hope it doesn't come crashing down around their heads. What it is doing is making enemies of anyone in a position to make changes.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


The dealer did not lie. Utah law does say a Levo is a bicycle. He simply omitted the part that most trails in your area are not under the jurisdiction of the state of Utah.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> Then you, of all people, should be advocating this point. You are in Utah and Utah state law specifically says that a class 1 eBike is the same thing as a bicycle and will be regulated as such. The only difference in your neck of the woods is state vs federal. However, a state law is far more persuasive than any individual on this site. You have the unique opportunity to seek to align BLM/USFS policy with state law. You keep acting as if the eBiker and the MTBer are different animals. They are not. They are the same person. Just as AGarcia.
> 
> Again, this is a matter of bias. I think you need to do some soul searching. If the BLM came to you tomorrow and said "Hey, we just realized that class 1 eBikes are not classified as motorized vehicles and therefore not banned, so we want your input on how we want to shape policy for them", what would you say? Would you take the "anti-ebike" position and say "screw them!" Or would you realize that the class 1 eBiker and the MTBer are the same breed of person and advocate for them both? The honest answer to that question exposes your bias. If the answer is "screw them!", then I question you as a "trail ambassador". If your answer is the latter, then you should recognize your unique position to act on that right now.
> 
> ...


Wow. Just wow. I'm not going to do it but I challenge you to go through your post and count how many times you write "you" as in things you think I should be doing.

Where is the list of things you are doing for your sport? I've listed the things I am doing. I very specifically and clearly outlined that.

Your demands that I bend to your opinion and advocate for your sport are intriguing.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> Again, disagree. They are the same person. Even if the MTBer doesn't own an eBike, there are very few of us who haven't looked at one and thought, "aaawww yeeeeaahhh!"


Not really, but there are always some outliers.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> I suppose that some Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikers might disagree with my stance. That's ok. They're entitled to disagree if they see it differently.
> 
> But I do see a distinction between a relatively low speed class 1 pedal assist and a class 2 throttle bike or a class 3 pedelec. I think the distinctions are important (the existence of a motor on the bike is not the defining factor, but more so how it's set up/used), and it seems that those who were involved in writing the policies/regulations and also adopt the regulations felt they were important as well. I don't think it's a bit hypocritical at all.


 Yes there differences in classes. 1,2,3, throttle etc. How to tell by looking? You can't easily close that door once opened. Controller overrides and fake labels already exist. Going past on a trail or fire road? They all look the same. Hence my fears of all e bikes and mt bikes getting lumped together and booted off the trails. There are many others thinking this way as well.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

AGarcia said:


> Off-topic for a second:
> 
> BTW, I've had the distinct honor and privilege to be shown around Gooseberry Mesa by your colleague. It was an awesome experience. I've also been to the Hurricane MTB festival a few times (including the inaugural event), but I'm gonna miss it this year by a few weeks due to my son's spring break schedule. Instead, i'm heading in your area the first week of April. Do you have any recommendation for riding with an 8 year old and a 10 year old both are ok with green level rides but struggle a bit with more advanced singletrack. I was thinking the Bear Claw Poppy area might be ok? Thoughts? Also, do you have any recommendations for some scenic non-singletrack dirt trails suitable for my wife and her Levo? (Like I've said previously, I have no desire to be a test case challenging BLM policy, notwithstanding my clear understanding of the law... doubly true when I'm on vacation).


Pm sent

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Jim_bo said:


> Then you, of all people, should be advocating this point. You are in Utah and Utah state law specifically says that a class 1 eBike is the same thing as a bicycle and will be regulated as such. The only difference in your neck of the woods is state vs federal. However, a state law is far more persuasive than any individual on this site.
> 
> The dealer did not lie. Utah law does say a Levo is a bicycle. He simply omitted the part that most trails in your area are not under the jurisdiction of the state of Utah.


Let me clarify - the UT does indeed allow e-bikes to be classified as bikes. However, it also allows local authorities to regulate e-bikes on their own paths/trails as they see fit. Federal land has it's own rules that supercede state law.

It is not the case that you can simply take an e-bike anywhere in UT and it will be considered a bike. The law was intended to allow e-bikes to use public roadways (and some bike paths) without having to have license/registration/insurance, not to allow them anywhere/everywhere.

A bike shop/dealer "omitting" the information that 90% of the trails in UT are illegal on an e-bike (heck, it might be more than that, PC/Moab/St. George have got to constitute 50+% of all the singletrack in the state on their own) seems like something awfully misleading, to me. I would be angry too if I'd bought an expensive bike and been told that.

-Walt


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> I think that's kinda like saying that there's a distinction between a sandwich with ham in the middle and a sandwich without ham in the middle. The uninformed will only see two pieces of bread with stuff in the middle and conflate the two as being the same.
> 
> ...


 You seem to be in very, very tiny minority that can't distinguish between something with a motor and something human powered. And have hard time grasping that others DO see a huge, clear line in the sand between motorized and non motorized. How about land managers, trail organizations, trail grants and whole organization devoted and built around NON motorized uses ? Ie human power, like hiking, biking, xc skiing and such. Every single bike race promoter and participant seems to be able to tell the difference between a motor and a non motorized vehicle, some still get their race cheat in though. And bikes don't have motors. FYI, see stickies at the start of this forum, please. Or do a poll, really.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Like any legislation, momentum is your biggest obstacle. If you get the ball rolling in the right direction early, that's easy. If you wait until the ball is rolling and then you try to stop it and push it the other direction, that's hard.


Which is exactly why so many of us are against ebikes on SOME mtb trails. Once we allow Class 1, if they cause mountain bikers issues with trail access, we realize it will be too late.



Jim_bo said:


> As I've said, the class 1 eBiker and the MTBer are the same person.


So I guess most of us are arguing with ourselves? The vast majority of mountain bikers I have spoken with would not agree with you.



Jim_bo said:


> Again, disagree. They are the same person. Even if the MTBer doesn't own an eBike, there are very few of us who haven't looked at one and thought, "aaawww yeeeeaahhh!"


I guess I'm one of the very few.

The sad truth is, in the end, the ebikers will probably win. Not because the land managers will decide they are ok or that the federal government will force all trails to allow them, but because they will become harder and harder to distinguish from real bicycles. There are plenty of people who would like to ride a vehicle with a motor on mountain bike trails but don't because they are afraid they will get in trouble or, more likely, because they are uncomfortable with the other trail users knowing they are doing something wrong, even if they do not say anything. But once the hidden downtube motors are better developed and more commonly available, these folks will have no issue riding them illegally on trails. The ebike industry seems to be very interested in "stealth" (it's even the name of one bike company) and "looks like a regular mountain bike" and so do a lot of the people interested in them. Why is this?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> I completely refute your conclusion of a 50% increase in average speed and range compared to a conventional MTB. I'd love to see what you have to support such a wild assertion.





> "Last time I attended a brand's demo I ascended and descended a mountain once in one hour 20 on my own steam. On the electric bike I hit the peak three times in one hour 40 and enjoyed three different descents," one dealer visiting Cube told us en-route to the airport.


https://cyclingindustry.news/editors-comment-talking-round-the-last-of-the-electric-bike-naysayers/



> The first climb is normally 30 minutes of hell as you fight 157m of elevation over 4.8km of fire road. Breezed up it in 16 mins, grinning like a loon.


Specialized Turbo Levo FSR Comp 6Fattie | Page 2 | Pedelecs - Electric Bike Community



> Conclusions :- speed almost doubled (with a reasonable consumption)


https://www.lift-mtb.com/accueil-faq-english/strava-english/



> The climbing heart rate for the Trek even surpassed that for a standard mtb climb but the time was more than halved.


https://dirtmountainbike.com/bike-reviews/e-bikes/e-mtb-vs-mtb-climbing-test.html

How Much Trail Do You Use In An Hour? (A Trail User Speed Comparison) â€" Jimmy Mac On Two Wheels



> Absolutely love getting in a 20 mile ride in half the time.


http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/turbo-levo-owners-what-did-you-pay-1021758.html#post12935718



> I rode from my house to Expresso trail on Fromme, traversing singletrack to arrive at the fireroad before climbing and descending, and made it home in 42 minutes. I don't think I could do the same ride under my own power in less than 90 minutes.


https://nsmb.com/articles/haibike-e-bike/

All:

For the record, the only difference between a Class 1, 750w ebike and a Class 3 750w ebike is a software setting that shuts off the power at 20 or 28 mph. They're not some radically different vehicle. Class 2 has a thottle, again, not a big difference IMO. While I think there should be a clear distinction between discussing these, and high powered electric bikes which aren't legally ebikes, in reality they're going to be lumped together by the public.

Motor vehicles and motorized vehicles are not terms to be used interchangebly.

Legally, land managers are often hamstrung because covenants tied to the funding of trails prohibit motorized vehicles. So, to allow them they need to have the code changed to redefine ebikes as non motorized.

While ebike laws are often promoted as being top down, they all allow land managers to decide locally. Which in most cases means the decisions get made by the people who are on the ground, their recommendations get passed up to the administrators who decide to ammend the codes, which the lawyers then rewrite. Rangers usually don't just make it up as they go along, if they say something is prohibited, there is usually code behind it. Lobbying your congressman won't do much, I'm afraid.

Basing emtb impact on a Levo is not very accurate considering what is coming. While I agree that the Class 1 emtbs we see now are much, much closer to a bike than a moto, they will continue to diverge and become more moped like, because the laws allow it, and the market will demand it.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

leeboh said:


> Yes there differences in classes. 1,2,3, throttle etc. How to tell by looking? You can't easily close that door once opened. Controller overrides and fake labels already exist. Going past on a trail or fire road? They all look the same. Hence my fears of all e bikes and mt bikes getting lumped together and booted off the trails. There are many others thinking this way as well.


I get the fear. I understand lots of others feel this way. And I don't have an easy answer, at least when it comes to quick identification of class 1 versus class 3 bikes. .

But just as much as I believe the "ban mtbs from trials" often put forth by hikers and horseback riders wrong, I also believe that calling for a "ban all e-mtbs" is the wrong approach. At that point, we're no better than hikers or horse-riders wanting to boot the "other" group out. There's got to be a better solution than that, it seems to me.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Walt said:


> Land managers don't care about whether the general public can tell the difference, though. I got to watch (and participate a little bit) in the process here in Park City - and land managers care a LOT about all of this stuff:
> -Motors/no motors.
> -Difficulty/impossibility of enforcing Class-1-only rules.
> -Impact on public perception and potential problems with land use agreements (most of our trails cross private property using recreation easements that specify no motors)
> ...


You're in Utah also. See the points I made to silentfoe about current Utah state law.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Jim_bo said:


> You're in Utah also. See the points I made to silentfoe about current Utah state law.


See my previous reply. UT law says, basically, that it's a bike on land managed by UT unless local authorities want to restrict further.

So BLM, USFS - no. State law irrelevant, Federal land. Park City, no, Summit County and various smaller land management agencies have decided to not allow on singletrack. State law is irrelevant there too. Finally, many trails (including those on state land) are on conservation or recreation easements that don't allow motors. Those easement agreements *also* supercede the state law.

-Walt


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> Wow. Just wow. I'm not going to do it but I challenge you to go through your post and count how many times you write "you" as in things you think I should be doing.
> 
> Where is the list of things you are doing for your sport? I've listed the things I am doing. I very specifically and clearly outlined that.
> 
> ...


The first thing I have done is to limit the perpetuation of misconception that all eBikes are alike. The second thing I have done is to volunteer to pay for my trail ambassador to demo a class 1 eBike so he may have a less biased and narrow minded view towards them.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Harryman said:


> While ebike laws are often promoted as being top down, they all allow land managers to decide locally. Which in most cases means the decisions get made by the people who are on the ground, their recommendations get passed up to the administrators who decide to ammend the codes, which the lawyers then rewrite. Rangers usually don't just make it up as they go along, if they say something is prohibited, there is usually code behind it. Lobbying your congressman won't do much, I'm afraid.


Which makes a TON of sense. Around me the trails really vary. Some trails do not allow bikes, most do not allow horses, some allow horses but not bikes, some at least discourage hikers (one way flow trails with jumps). I'm sure there are trails that would be fine with ebikes, but not all mountain bike trails would be. And this is why ebikers should be their own user group and not lumped in with mountain bikes (I think we've said that).


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

d365 said:


> What I find the most disingenuous about all the rallying around "Class 1".... you can't regulate class 3 access once the door is opened.


I don't find it disingenuous at all. The regulatory state can always regulate. But I think you probably mean there could be difficulty in enforcement of regualtions. (i.e., a Class 1 bike disguised as a Class 3, or a Class 1 bike modified to operate as a Class 3 bike). That I could see as a potential problem as well. Not an insurmountable problem, necessarily, but something that would have to be thought through.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> Off-topic for a second:
> 
> BTW, I've had the distinct honor and privilege to be shown around Gooseberry Mesa by your colleague. It was an awesome experience. I've also been to the Hurricane MTB festival a few times (including the inaugural event), but I'm gonna miss it this year by a few weeks due to my son's spring break schedule. Instead, i'm heading in your area the first week of April. Do you have any recommendation for riding with an 8 year old and a 10 year old both are ok with green level rides but struggle a bit with more advanced singletrack. I was thinking the Bear Claw Poppy area might be ok? Thoughts? Also, do you have any recommendations for some scenic non-singletrack dirt trails suitable for my wife and her Levo? (Like I've said previously, I have no desire to be a test case challenging BLM policy, notwithstanding my clear understanding of the law... doubly true when I'm on vacation).


I own a vacation rental house in Hurricane. If you PM me when you go, I'd enjoy hooking up and do some riding if you have time.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Walt said:


> A bike shop/dealer "omitting" the information that 90% of the trails in UT are illegal on an e-bike (heck, it might be more than that, PC/Moab/St. George have got to constitute 50+% of all the singletrack in the state on their own) seems like something awfully misleading, to me. I would be angry too if I'd bought an expensive bike and been told that.


I don't disagree with that!


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> I get the fear. I understand lots of others feel this way. And I don't have an easy answer, at least when it comes to quick identification of class 1 versus class 3 bikes. .
> 
> But just as much as I believe the "ban mtbs from trials" often put forth by hikers and horseback riders wrong, I also believe that calling for a "ban all e-mtbs" is the wrong approach. At that point, we're no better than hikers or horse-riders wanting to boot the "other" group out. There's got to be a better solution than that, it seems to me.


 MA booted out motorized users for the most part years ago. The onus is on the e bikers to show cause, be a good trail user, a good trail steward and all around nice guy or gal. Seems like they have along way to go. Add in some bike makers and sellers outright deception, half truths or lies about what can be ridden and where, seems like a bad start, perception is a very powerful thing. The way the rules are written, existing policies and the current trail stewards, not seeing it changing anytime soon here in MA.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Jim_bo said:


> . But I believe you make your distinction at your own peril.


The 'Peril' in question here is the closure of trails that are currently open to Non motorized mt. Bike use being closed. Everything about your arguments goes towards why opponents of mt. Bikes will use as ammunition to close them.
The fact that you refuse to see this is an example of obtuseness and not ignorance.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> Legally, land managers are often hamstrung because covenants tied to the funding of trails prohibit motorized vehicles. So, to allow them they need to have the code changed to redefine ebikes as non motorized.


Motorized vehicles, by definition are vehicles that are self-propelled, and pedal assist bikes are not self-propelled = not a "motorized vehicle." So in the case of BLM, it literally is folks in D.C. "making it up as they go along" through the issuance of policy letters that are handed down to Land Managers.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Jim_bo said:


> I own a vacation rental house in Hurricane. If you PM me when you go, I'd enjoy hooking up and do some riding if you have time.


Will do!!!


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> Has nothing to do with advocacy challenges though.
> I happily ride all sorts of motorized vehicles off-road, but I sure don't want them lumped in with mountain bikes when it comes to trying to gain/keep trail access. Mountain bikes are a comparatively a much easier 'sell' to the powers that be. Once a motor is added, red flags go up all over the place. There's no good reason for mountain bike access to be tied to any other sort of access, specially any that involves a motor, no matter how small.
> 
> If you are interested and have the time and energy to advocate locally for e-bike access, more power to you. It would be unfair to expect those mountain bike advocates with no interest in e-bikes whatsoever (which I'm going to assume to be the overwhelming majority) to have to answer for them though.


I agree with most, however- all my mtb buddies I've rode with for ever have added an emtb to their quiver, and yes some are expert mtbrs. They all have and still do their share of everything and obviously still ride mtbs. I honestly believe there is a point of burn out where emtbs might "refuel" the spark.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> Categorizing them is fine and makes total sense.
> 
> So, just as Class 1 e-bikers don't want to have to answer for or be lumped in with Class 2 or 3 e-bikers, nor do mountain bikers want to answer for or be lumped in with e-bikes of any class. That seems totally fair and reasonable to me.


Dude, ALOT of mtbrs ride emtb. That is what makes this so crazy!


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> Based on most reviews here the average user can expect at least a 50% increase in average speed and range compared to riding a bicycle, you may not consider that additional impact but it shouldn't surprise you that others do.


50% increase in range! What ebike are you riding? Quite the opposite as far as range with climbs, IME.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Silentfoe said:


> I've got to say, I'm impressed at the level headedness displayed recently here. Thank you.
> 
> For those of you not initiated in land access battles, I thought I might try to paint a picture.
> 
> ...


Bravo.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Gutch said:


> 50% increase in range! What ebike are you riding? Quite the opposite as far as range with climbs, IME.


He did just post about 10 reviews backing up that statement.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Go "guide" your ass up a few climbs on your mtb, then do the same on your Levo. Oh ****, my battery is cooked. You can't do 40 miles in Pisgah on a Levo. NFW. If you owned a few, I'd understand, otherwise take the links and go play golf.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Or better yet, I'll go out to Utah on my next mtb destination and put you on my Levo and I'll ride my Pivot and we'll see who's got the further range.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I may be wrong though. You could weigh 90#. If that's the case maybe 25-30 miles MAX on a Levo with 4-5k climb on ECO setting.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Gutch said:


> 50% increase in range! What ebike are you riding? Quite the opposite as far as range with climbs, IME.


I think what he is getting at, is along the lines of, if you would ordinarily climb 1000 feet in an hour with a regular mtb, you can easily cover 1500 feet in an hour on an pedal assist emtb. Or, if your regular emtb ride extended to about 2000 feet gain before you got tired, you can stretch that out to 3000 feet before you got tired on an pedal assist emtb. That seems, to me, to be a pretty fair assessment of what an emtb adds to your overall ride.

Also, if you climb at 5mph with a regular mtb, it's probably safe to say could likely climb at 7.5 mph with the same level of effort on a pedal assist emtb. That's totally within reason, seems to me, based on my experience.


----------



## av8or (Jun 9, 2013)

Here's a trail impact study created by IMBA. It compares the impact of ebikes vs mountain bikes and motorcycles. Long read so if you have the time, have at it. If you are lazy like me, go skip to page 23 for conclusion. Let the debate begin.

http://1d8piv1xedxt3k9gin22z4pqb30-...loads/2016/10/eMTB-Trail-Study_April-2016.pdf


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

AGarcia said:


> I think what he is getting at, is along the lines of, if you would ordinarily climb 1000 feet in an hour with a regular mtb, you can easily cover 1500 feet in an hour on an pedal assist emtb. Or, if your regular emtb ride extended to about 2000 feet gain before you got tired, you can stretch that out to 3000 feet before you got tired on an pedal assist emtb. That seems, to me, to be a pretty fair assessment of what an emtb adds to your overall ride.
> 
> Also, if you climb at 5mph with a regular mtb, it's probably safe to say could likely climb at 7.5 mph with the same level of effort on a pedal assist emtb. That's totally within reason, seems to me, based on my experience.


That's true. MY interpretation of "RANGE" is how far you can go before you bonk or your battery is dead. I'm certain SF and a few others could ride their mtb longer than a Levo before no battery. In bursts or segments, no question. When I hit the range button on my Bugatti, it tells me how far I can go before I'm in jail! JK 😀


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

av8or said:


> Here's a trail impact study created by IMBA. It compares the impact of ebikes vs mountain bikes and motorcycles. Long read so if you have the time, have at it. If you are lazy like me, go skip to page 23 for conclusion. Let the debate begin.
> 
> http://1d8piv1xedxt3k9gin22z4pqb30-...loads/2016/10/eMTB-Trail-Study_April-2016.pdf


Good stuff.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Gutch said:


> That's true. MY interpretation of "RANGE" is how far you can go before you bonk or your battery is dead. I'm certain SF and a few others could ride their mtb longer than a Levo before no battery. In bursts or segments, no question. When I hit the range button on my Bugatti, it tells me how far I can go before I'm in jail! JK 😀


 Yeah, I'm pretty sure they could!


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

av8or said:


> Here's a trail impact study created by IMBA. It compares the impact of ebikes vs mountain bikes and motorcycles. Long read so if you have the time, have at it. If you are lazy like me, go skip to page 23 for conclusion. Let the debate begin.
> 
> http://1d8piv1xedxt3k9gin22z4pqb30-...loads/2016/10/eMTB-Trail-Study_April-2016.pdf


It's something but not very comprehensive. Lots of laps but no disclosure on what make/model e-bike is being used for the test other than "350 watt". No info on the MTB either. Nor the moto other than "100 to 200 times more powerful than the e-bike".

The "throttle test" results in Appendix A leads me to believe that the testers had a bias going into project. They do mention that it was a "very limited test" but the result shown imply that that a Class 2 e-bike is *6 times more damaging* than a Class 1 e-bike of the same power. I smell bull$hit.

Again, no info on how anything on the hardware end was configured.


----------



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

Ebikes are (will be) popular because people can go farther and faster on them, I can't believe anyone would seriously try to argue against that. Who would buy or ride one otherwise?

Ebikes riders will cover significantly more miles than they would on a bicycle. More trail miles = more impact = different user group.


----------



## DL723 (Sep 25, 2017)

AGarcia said:


> I think what he is getting at, is along the lines of, if you would ordinarily climb 1000 feet in an hour with a regular mtb, you can easily cover 1500 feet in an hour on an pedal assist emtb. Or, if your regular emtb ride extended to about 2000 feet gain before you got tired, you can stretch that out to 3000 feet before you got tired on an pedal assist emtb. That seems, to me, to be a pretty fair assessment of what an emtb adds to your overall ride.
> 
> Also, if you climb at 5mph with a regular mtb, it's probably safe to say could likely climb at 7.5 mph with the same level of effort on a pedal assist emtb. That's totally within reason, seems to me, based on my experience.


A lot also depends on the terrain. What is counterintuitive is the flatter the terrain, the less of an advantage. If the route is mostly long climbs, the bigger the advantage but lower the range.






this vid actually demonstrates the speed difference pretty well (ebike vs hardtail).

On a related note i just road 25 miles around some sierra nevada mountain roads and it honestly felt like i used less energy than riding 10 miles normally. With leaving it on eco/normal and only used high on steeper sections i had 60% battery left. Thats the biggest gain imo. As long as you are smart about battery usage you prob will go twice as far as you normally do just purely based on your own energy saved.


----------



## av8or (Jun 9, 2013)

Moe Ped said:


> It's something but not very comprehensive. Lots of laps but no disclosure on what make/model e-bike is being used for the test other than "350 watt". No info on the MTB either. Nor the moto other than "100 to 200 times more powerful than the e-bike".
> 
> The "throttle test" results in Appendix A leads me to believe that the testers had a bias going into project. They do mention that it was a "very limited test" but the result shown imply that that a Class 2 e-bike is *6 times more damaging* than a Class 1 e-bike of the same power. I smell bull$hit.
> 
> Again, no info on how anything on the hardware end was configured.


quoted from "study limitations sections".. like you said. it's something, a start, hopefully an eye opener to some.

"This was a small study, under a limited set of environmental and trail conditions, and user behavior. This study does not, and should not be interpreted to represent consensus on the environmental impacts of Class 1 eMTB. However, it is a first step in better understanding the physical impacts to tread surfaces from their use, and how these impacts may be similar to or different from other two-wheeled uses."

on the other hand..

"Perception of impacts - both social and environmental - is an issue that Class 1 eMTBs face, inpart because there are relatively few eMTBs currently on trails. Trail users and land managershave limited opportunity to observe and interact with this new use and may assume the worst interms of impacts. Land managers should not just weigh environmental impacts, but shouldhonestly address the social factors that also contribute to access decisions."


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Ebikes are (will be) popular because people can go farther and faster on them, I can't believe anyone would seriously try to argue against that. Who would buy or ride one otherwise?
> 
> Ebikes riders will cover significantly more miles than they would on a bicycle. More trail miles = more impact = different user group.


More trail miles does not necessarily or invariably equal more impact. That's a flawed assumption without any basis in fact.

But assuming it is....lets assume you are correct for a moment: Consider that studies to date have shown no appreciable difference caused by individual e-mtbs versus regular bikes (for example, see the IMBA study linked above). So if "miles covered per ride" is your only basis for judging impact, then any increase in bike miles --whether it be through emtb or through regular bike-- is potentially impactful. If so, then a properly acting agency may have no choice other than to begin setting limits on the number of miles that can be covered by individual bikes before no more bikes can be allowed. Maybe riders --whether regular bikes or e-mtbs-- should have a "per day mileage" limitation, or a "total miles ridden" limitation, or even a "number of riders" on a particular trail per day, per month or per year limitation." Those are the considerations agencies would eventually have to make.

So if you think you're making a "mileage" argument in efforts to limit e-mtb use, really what your doing exposing handing all mtb opponents a viable weapon to restrict all bike use.


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

AGarcia said:


> More trail miles does not necessarily or invariably equal more impact. That's a flawed assumption without any basis in fact.
> 
> But assuming it is....lets assume you are correct for a moment: Consider that studies to date have shown no appreciable difference caused by individual e-mtbs versus regular bikes (for example, see the IMBA study linked above). So if "miles covered per ride" is your only basis for judging impact, then any increase in bike miles --whether it be through emtb or through regular bike-- is potentially impactful. If so, then a properly acting agency may have no choice other than to begin setting limits on the number of miles that can be covered by individual bikes before no more bikes can be allowed. You being to think maybe riders should have a "per day mileage" limitation, or a "total miles ridden" limitation, or even a "number of riders" on a particular trail per day, per month or per year limitation."
> 
> So if you think you're making a "mileage" argument in efforts to limit e-mtb use, really what your doing exposing handing all mtb opponents a viable weapon to restrict all bike use.


Good god, I hope you aren't a lawyer.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

rideit said:


> Good god, I hope you aren't a lawyer.


What might have tipped you off??


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> More trail miles does not necessarily or invariably equal more impact. That's a flawed assumption without any basis in fact.
> 
> But assuming it is....lets assume you are correct for a moment: Consider that studies to date have shown no appreciable difference caused by individual e-mtbs versus regular bikes (for example, see the IMBA study linked above). So if "miles covered per ride" is your only basis for judging impact, then any increase in bike miles --whether it be through emtb or through regular bike-- is potentially impactful. If so, then a properly acting agency may have no choice other than to begin setting limits on the number of miles that can be covered by individual bikes before no more bikes can be allowed. Maybe riders --whether regular bikes or e-mtbs-- should have a "per day mileage" limitation, or a "total miles ridden" limitation, or even a "number of riders" on a particular trail per day, per month or per year limitation." Those are the considerations agencies would eventually have to make.
> 
> So if you think you're making a "mileage" argument in efforts to limit e-mtb use, really what your doing exposing handing all mtb opponents a viable weapon to restrict all bike use.


Of course there's other choices, they could do what they did here, they said "More miles per rider = more laps on the same trails? No thank you".

As someone who spends much of my free time designing, building and maintaining trails, I can assure you every user impacts the trail, moves dirt around and trail surfaces are constantly changing because of it. More miles = more impact, which doesn't matter if the population is low, or resources are there to mitigate it. If neither of those are true, it's an issue.

Waving these issues away instead of dealing them will only hurt emtb access in the long run.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

My own experience with Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes climbing really steep grades is the opposite of the test results (but not 6 times opposite) shown in this study. With the throttle I can finesse the power and avoid spinning out or doing a wheelie. I just don't know how they could have gotten the results they did; unless the Class 1 rider had to jump off part way up and pushed over the top while the Class 2 rider was fishtailing.

Again, including this test in the report makes me suspicious of the whole thing.

BTW of the 4 e-bikes I have ridden lately one is a "pure" Class 1 and the others can go from Class 1 to Class 2 (and back again) with the flip of a switch. Easy to make back to back comparisons on different terrain. The Class 1 is more fun in a challenging manner but if trying to get somewhere with a heavy load Class 2 is the best.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> I get the fear. I understand lots of others feel this way. And I don't have an easy answer, at least when it comes to quick identification of class 1 versus class 3 bikes. .
> 
> But just as much as I believe the "ban mtbs from trials" often put forth by hikers and horseback riders wrong, I also believe that calling for a "ban all e-mtbs" is the wrong approach. At that point, we're no better than hikers or horse-riders wanting to boot the "other" group out. There's got to be a better solution than that, it seems to me.


Yup.

I have no beef at all with e-bikes gaining or losing access based on their own actions and impacts. In low numbers and with low power, I don't see them causing undue trail degradation on 'typical' mountain bike trails. I think they should be allowed as OPDMDs under the ADA and I really can't say I honestly give a **** if some old buck is out sneaking in a few miles poach miles. In most places I've ridden, Class 1 e-bikes would be fine IMHO. Concerns are as noted enough times that we all know them by heart.

The only real problem I have is more of a political issue than anything else. Simply the word "motor" opens up a shitstorm of epic proportions.

Speaking of shitstorms, RIP John Dunsworth. He made me laugh many, many times. :sad:


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> Speaking of shitstorms, RIP John Dunsworth. He made me laugh many, many times. :sad:


Hahahahahaha! I've never seen or heard of him before, but know I've got to see more!!!! freakin hilarious and apropos! Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> Hahahahahaha! I've never seen or heard of him before, but know I've got to see more!!!! freakin hilarious and apropos! Thanks for the laugh!


Netflix has the full Trailer Park Boys series. Good stuff!


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> Ebikes are (will be) popular because people can go farther and faster on them, I can't believe anyone would seriously try to argue against that. Who would buy or ride one otherwise?
> 
> Ebikes riders will cover significantly more miles than they would on a bicycle. More trail miles = more impact = different user group.


Please go ride a Levo as FAR as you can til dead battery even on the lightest ECO setting. Now do the same with your mtb. Unless you can't ride far or long, human power will outlast your battery on the Levo. THIS IS WHAT IVE EXPERIENCED BEING THE OWNER OF 3 LEVO'S. But I guess real life experience does not matter.


----------



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

AGarcia said:


> More trail miles does not necessarily or invariably equal more impact. That's a flawed assumption without any basis in fact.


You forgot to add "in your opinion". Who made you judge and jury? I thought you were just a lawyer? Allegedly anyway.

More trail miles covered does leave more physical impact no matter what the means of travel but that's not what I'm talking about, there are other impacts besides tracks on the ground.

Cyclists as a group have limited speed and range, some will go further and faster but the average has remained more or less steady over the past 30 or so years. Ebikes have limited speed and range too but it's more than (average) human powered and range will surely increase greatly over the coming years.

Anyway, JMHO.


----------



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

Gutch said:


> Please go ride a Levo as FAR as you can til dead battery even on the lightest ECO setting. Now do the same with your mtb. Unless you can't ride far or long, human power will outlast your battery on the Levo. THIS IS WHAT IVE EXPERIENCED BEING THE OWNER OF 3 LEVO'S. But I guess real life experience does not matter.


I'm not talking about maximum possible range but the distance people actually ride. Most posters here say they bought an ebike because it allows them to go further, gain more elevation and do it in less time than they were able to do on a bicycle. That's why they bought them.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm not talking about maximum possible range but the distance people actually ride. Most posters here say they bought an ebike because it allows them to go further, gain more elevation and do it in less time than they were able to do on a bicycle. That's why they bought them.


Can you back that up? My impression is that most posters here say they bought an e-bike so they can pedal with less effort.

Anyway, I think that line of rationale doesn't play. I doubt that a) the trail usage will be significantly greater and b) that increased trail usage damages a typical mountain bike trail in some way.

JMHO


----------



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

Cuyuna said:


> Can you back that up?


Nope, but I've read multiple posts here saying just that.

Again, by impact I'm not referring only to tracks on the ground.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Again, by impact I'm not referring only to tracks on the ground.


Yeah, me too. Based on my experience, I doubt that e-bikes will have a significant impact on mountain biking, with the possible exception of the moral outrage it will provoke in the true-believers.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> Can you back that up? My impression is that most posters here say they bought an e-bike so they can pedal with less effort.
> 
> Anyway, I think that line of rationale doesn't play. I doubt that a) the trail usage will be significantly greater and b) that increased trail usage damages a typical mountain bike trail in some way.
> 
> JMHO


 Not quite following you, at all. Say a 1.5 hr ride. The e bikes climb at 8 mph instead of say 4 mph. Faster and more distance in the same 1.5 hrs than a mt bike, more trail impact. You're saying more trail use doesn't impact the trail? Where? All trail use does impact, depends on soil type, terrain and climate. Do you do any trail work? Think about wet weather riding, ruts, blown out corners, braids, soil transportation as well as a host of other issues with high trail use, be it hiking, biking or motorized vehicle use. Typical mt. bike trails wary widely, rocks like here in MA and New England, clay soils more south, loamy in the PNW, dry and arid in them desert places.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Please go ride a Levo as FAR as you can til dead battery even on the lightest ECO setting. Now do the same with your mtb. Unless you can't ride far or long, human power will outlast your battery on the Levo. THIS IS WHAT IVE EXPERIENCED BEING THE OWNER OF 3 LEVO'S. But I guess real life experience does not matter.


And you don't think the battery life will improve over time?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

> Originally Posted by Cuyuna
> Can you back that up? My impression is that most posters here say they bought an e-bike so they can pedal with less effort.
> 
> Anyway, I think that line of rationale doesn't play. I doubt that a) the trail usage will be significantly greater and b) that increased trail usage damages a typical mountain bike trail in some way.
> ...


I can post quite a few e-bike rides from Strava that suggest that riders exert the same effort but go further faster and the "50% increase" is about right.

Here's a with and without for 2 nearly identical length patrol rides (exact same route) at CA's Henry W Coe SP by my buddy Larry:

















Larry rides the Levo mostly in Eco mode, sometimes he'll bump it up near the end of a ride to get full use from the battery. For those that don't know; Coe is a rugged place to ride---mostly all up and down with plenty of steep trails and roads.

Thanks to Coe being near Specialized Bicycle's world headquarters in Morgan Hill they use Coe extensively for testing their products. I speak first handed that increased bike traffic certainly does increase wear and tear on trails; and e-bikes create a noticeable increase in damage. We can always tell when Specialized has been making their test runs.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Moe Ped said:


> I can post quite a few e-bike rides from Strava that suggest that riders exert the same effort but go further faster and the "50% increase" is about right.
> 
> Here's a with and without for 2 nearly identical length patrol rides (exact same route) at CA's Henry W Coe SP by my buddy Larry:


Interesting.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

leeboh said:


> Not quite following you, at all. Say a 1.5 hr ride. The e bikes climb at 8 mph instead of say 4 mph. Faster and more distance in the same 1.5 hrs than a mt bike, more trail impact. You're saying more trail use doesn't impact the trail? Where? All trail use does impact, depends on soil type, terrain and climate. Do you do any trail work? Think about wet weather riding, ruts, blown out corners, braids, soil transportation as well as a host of other issues with high trail use, be it hiking, biking or motorized vehicle use. Typical mt. bike trails wary widely, rocks like here in MA and New England, clay soils more south, loamy in the PNW, dry and arid in them desert places.


https://www.imba.com/news/eMTB-early-study-resultsIf your concerns are valid, we had better start limiting access on MTB trails as has been mentioned. There should be quotas on how many riders allowed per unit time.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

chazpat said:


> And you don't think the battery life will improve over time?


Man, I sure hope it does! I also hope the weight comes down another 10-15# 140mm with some strong 29er wheels. If in my area new trails open or they are allowed on previous MUT trails, id never pedal a normal bicycle again. Too much fun. Pedaled normal bikes my whole life, getting boring sometimes (although I still ride) Going uphill has never been more fun!


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> I think what he is getting at, is along the lines of, if you would ordinarily climb 1000 feet in an hour with a regular mtb, you can easily cover 1500 feet in an hour on an pedal assist emtb. Or, if your regular emtb ride extended to about 2000 feet gain before you got tired, you can stretch that out to 3000 feet before you got tired on an pedal assist emtb. That seems, to me, to be a pretty fair assessment of what an emtb adds to your overall ride.
> 
> Also, if you climb at 5mph with a regular mtb, it's probably safe to say could likely climb at 7.5 mph with the same level of effort on a pedal assist emtb. That's totally within reason, seems to me, based on my experience.


But that's all a red herring argument. If you're really opposed to eBikes because of increased trail use, then that creates the argument that we need to limit the number of riders on a trail. That's a slippery slope we really don't want to step on.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> But that's all a red herring argument. If you're really opposed to eBikes because of increased trail use, then that creates the argument that we need to limit the number of riders on a trail. That's a slippery slope we really don't want to step on.


As a trail user, I wouldn't use this argument for exactly that point.
It is something that LMs consider though.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

> Originally Posted by leeboh
> Not quite following you, at all. Say a 1.5 hr ride. The e bikes climb at 8 mph instead of say 4 mph. Faster and more distance in the same 1.5 hrs than a mt bike, more trail impact. You're saying more trail use doesn't impact the trail? Where? All trail use does impact, depends on soil type, terrain and climate. Do you do any trail work? Think about wet weather riding, ruts, blown out corners, braids, soil transportation as well as a host of other issues with high trail use, be it hiking, biking or motorized vehicle use. Typical mt. bike trails wary widely, rocks like here in MA and New England, clay soils more south, loamy in the PNW, dry and arid in them desert places.





Cuyuna said:


> https://www.imba.com/news/eMTB-early-study-results


Another problem with the eMTB-Trail-Study_April-2016.pdf is that it does not take into account the increased useage afforded by e-bikes. The testing was based on an equal number of laps; not the increased number of laps an e-biker might be able to do.

Back to a real-world situation; in Henry Coe SP a very popular 7+ mile MTBing loop is up the Jim Donnelly Trail, down Spike Jones Trail and return by the level Gilroy Hot Springs Rd. A regular bloke will do this loop once and then maybe go ride elsewhere. Really fit riders might do 2 or 3 laps. With e-bikes "regular blokes" are now doing 2 or 3 laps (about the battery limit) before calling it a day.

More riders doing more mileage; there is an effect to the trails.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Moe Ped said:


> It's something but not very comprehensive. Lots of laps but no disclosure on what make/model e-bike is being used for the test other than "350 watt". No info on the MTB either. Nor the moto other than "100 to 200 times more powerful than the e-bike".
> 
> The "throttle test" results in Appendix A leads me to believe that the testers had a bias going into project. They do mention that it was a "very limited test" but the result shown imply that that a Class 2 e-bike is *6 times more damaging* than a Class 1 e-bike of the same power. I smell bull$hit.
> 
> Again, no info on how anything on the hardware end was configured.


This is true. But there is something else to consider. What is the standard? Are we comparing an eBike to a mtb, or is there some objective standard? Because if we are only comparing to an mtb, then one mtb may have more impact than another, so the standard continuously changes. This is part of the demand that we should be placing on land managers that they allow full access as a default and only deviate when supportable, objective standards are exceeded.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Harryman said:


> Of course there's other choices, they could do what they did here, they said "More miles per rider = more laps on the same trails? No thank you".
> 
> As someone who spends much of my free time designing, building and maintaining trails, I can assure you every user impacts the trail, moves dirt around and trail surfaces are constantly changing because of it. More miles = more impact, which doesn't matter if the population is low, or resources are there to mitigate it. If neither of those are true, it's an issue.
> 
> Waving these issues away instead of dealing them will only hurt emtb access in the long run.


But this thought process opens you up to regulating and restricting cross country bikes because people tend to ride them for more miles than all mountain bikes. And so on and so on. It's a dangerous argument.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> You forgot to add "in your opinion". Who made you judge and jury? I thought you were just a lawyer? Allegedly anyway.
> 
> More trail miles covered does leave more physical impact no matter what the means of travel but that's not what I'm talking about, there are other impacts besides tracks on the ground.
> 
> ...


Impact is a combination of many variables. To suggest that impact is determined simply by one variable is a flawed assumption not based in fact.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

All this talk about impact is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Federal land managers, from what I've seen, are not arguing impact. They are arguing motorized vs non motorized. It seems that they aren't really concerned about actual impact. That's what makes them capricious in their attempt to restrict all eBikes.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> But this thought process opens you up to regulating and restricting cross country bikes because people tend to ride them for more miles than all mountain bikes. And so on and so on. It's a dangerous argument.


That's beyond ridiculous. A bike is a bike is a bike. If a trail system allows bikes, they allow bikes. This train of thought just shows your ignorance in the land access battle. No land manager, federal, state or private is going to go so far as to limit a type of bicycle.

Why? Because once again, and because you fail to grasp the concept: money, people and time.

This all loops back to ebikes being classified as motorized vehicles by nearly all LM's. They are banned. Therefore they don't add to additional user miles or erosion. LM's are not going to start limiting access for all bikes because of ebikes because ebikes already don't exist in the argument.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Cuyuna said:


> Awww....and this new, revised thread was going so well for awhile.


It still is. I'm just tired of demands placed on others.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

I just rode our new flow trail built on park land its 5 mi long with lots of big 5ft piles of drit jumps some crazy rock slab jump gaps big big banked turns , its a brand new trail nothing was there before no other trail carved out of virgin forest drops 300ft lots of fun big air riders hitting over 30mph . In the last week probably over 500 riders went down it I could not help but to notice all the skid marks on it , I was taught not to skid my Mt bike and my Max sp was 17 and I rolled around them big huge scary gap jumps . Sure hope this old e biker didn't hurt it to much and sorry for getting in the way of a Mt biking god looking to clear a gap jump at 30 mph plus good thing there wasn't 5 or 10 e bikes look at the impact 10 of us old e bikers would have on our public park .


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> This is part of the demand that we should be placing on land managers that they allow full access as a default and only deviate when supportable, objective standards are exceeded.


Most public land already allows full access, to existing trails anyway, on foot. Like most people, I think you assume that the primary reason public land exists is for recreation, which isn't true. It's preservation, recreation and the various popular uses are secondary to that, which is how it should be.

It's obvious that you believe a 250w PAS ebike is benign and should be allowed anywhere a bike can go, and no one will dissuade you from that. Which, this being the internet doesn't really matter, especially since it has no bearing on the discussions taking place with the people who are actually making the decisions in the real world.

This is a couple of years old, so the profile of ebikes has risen considerably since the survey was conducted, at least in my area, many of the land managers are pretty familiar with ebikes these days having ridden them and the current laws. It's an interesting read.

http://b.3cdn.net/bikes/8834549e2b0ec018d0_qum6b48z6.pdf


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> https://www.imba.com/news/eMTB-early-study-resultsIf your concerns are valid, we had better start limiting access on MTB trails as has been mentioned. There should be quotas on how many riders allowed per unit time.


 Nope, just disagreeing with your assessment that e bikes don't increase trail use and that more trail use doesn't damage trails. All trail activity has a trail impact. Hiking biking and motorized vehicles. Seems the answer most land managers are saying is limiting or prohibiting motorized vehicles. So there's that.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> That's beyond ridiculous. A bike is a bike is a bike. If a trail system allows bikes, they allow bikes. This train of thought just shows your ignorance in the land access battle. No land manager, federal, state or private is going to go so far as to limit a type of bicycle.
> 
> Why? Because once again, and because you fail to grasp the concept: money, people and time.
> 
> ...


 Well said. Motorized vs human power. Most everyone gets the distinction.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> Well said. Motorized vs human power. Most everyone gets the distinction.


Motorized vs human power is arbitrary unless it is tied back to an objective standard, such as level of impact. For land managers to deny access based on arbitrary standards is intolerable. If you accept that, then you'll accept anything (as long as it doesn't affect you directly). If we are going to accept arbitrary restrictions, should we restrict 26" wheels? Should we restrict 140mm+ of travel? Should we restrict tires wider than 2.6"? These would all be arbitrary standards as well unless they could be tied back to an objective standard.

I think you guys are missing a big point here. Once you start to accept arbitrary restrictions, then you open the door for any arbitrary restriction. Just because this one doesn't affect you directly doesn't mean the next one won't.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> Motorized vs human power is arbitrary unless it is tied back to an objective standard, such as level of impact. For land managers to deny access based on arbitrary standards is intolerable. If you accept that, then you'll accept anything (as long as it doesn't affect you directly). If we are going to accept arbitrary restrictions, should we restrict 26" wheels? Should we restrict 140mm+ of travel? Should we restrict tires wider than 2.6"? These would all be arbitrary standards as well unless they could be tied back to an objective standard.
> 
> I think you guys are missing a big point here. Once you start to accept arbitrary restrictions, then you open the door for any arbitrary restriction. Just because this one doesn't affect you directly doesn't mean the next one won't.


 Hmmm, lets start with this, bikes don't have motors. E bikes are something different and need to be treated as such. Not arbitrary. At all. That is the big point, most get it. And you claim not to own an e bike? Interesting. You seem to be grasping at straws to try to make some of your points. Fans, wheel size, unicycles, please go back to your own post #325. It's about the motor. Really nothing else. They are not restricting e bikes. The restrictions against motorized vehicles have been in place for some time now. Nothing new except under a different guise. Familiar with mt bike access battles? MA guy here. 30 year uphill slog, in some areas to gain access, still not done. Mt bikes are very popular, large active, and a vocal user group, that plays well with others and gets along. We show up for work days, get stuff done, forge relationships with land managers and stake holders. We have become, for some areas, the go to trail work guys and gals. Who do you think has a great relationship with the decision makers? Who do you think has the land mangers ears and a seat at the table? Ever hear of the AMC? Audubon society ? Sierra club? Huge population of trail users, what do think their take is on allowing trail access to motorized vehicles? That is the big point. Really. You seem to have an idealized thought process of how things should be, rather than how things really are. And bikes don't have motors, start there. Cheers.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> Motorized vs human power is arbitrary unless it is tied back to an objective standard, such as level of impact. For land managers to deny access based on arbitrary standards is intolerable. If you accept that, then you'll accept anything (as long as it doesn't affect you directly). If we are going to accept arbitrary restrictions, should we restrict 26" wheels? Should we restrict 140mm+ of travel? Should we restrict tires wider than 2.6"? These would all be arbitrary standards as well unless they could be tied back to an objective standard.
> 
> I think you guys are missing a big point here. Once you start to accept arbitrary restrictions, then you open the door for any arbitrary restriction. Just because this one doesn't affect you directly doesn't mean the next one won't.


Nope. Bike vs. Motor. Only restriction and it's easy to comprehend.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm not talking about maximum possible range but the distance people actually ride. Most posters here say they bought an ebike because it allows them to go further, gain more elevation and do it in less time than they were able to do on a bicycle. That's why they bought them.





Cuyuna said:


> Can you back that up? My impression is that most posters here say they bought an e-bike so they can pedal with less effort.


How about asking Specialized? They know how these bikes are intended to be used. 

"...our Turbo electric bikes give you the power to go farther and faster then ever before."

"...and on the dirt, they give you the power to ride more trails"

"A trail bike that gives you the power to ride more trails."


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Who in their right mind would want to ride more trails?🤔


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Don't forget the faster part. Who wants to go slower, right? 

But that's the point. Ebikes are intended for going faster and farther than you can on a normal pedal bike. Therefore, more impact to trails.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I think you guys are missing a big point here. Once you start to accept arbitrary restrictions, then you open the door for any arbitrary restriction. Just because this one doesn't affect you directly doesn't mean the next one won't.


It's not arbitrary. Go back and read some past posts. The motor line is real in the minds of the people that make the decisions as well as the majority of invested trail users. Whatever it's based on, it's there, no question. I really don't see being able to rally mountain bikers to take up the e-bike crusade based on 'next they're coming for you'. Gotta find a better strategy for trying to get acceptance from the MTB community at large I think.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Everyone wants to ride more trails. On a bike, you're limited by human effort, which even with all the technological advances hasn't increased for most riders dramatically, especially climbing, where most of us spend the majority of our times. There's a 13 mile loop here for example where in the 80s, the fast racer dudes could just manage to do it under an hour, and today, that's still a top time. Having ridden since then, I can tell you that bikes are certainly easier to ride fast, far more comfortable, efficient, capable of serious terrain and safer (brakes and tires primarily), but riders haven't developed dramatically more power than they used to. The few fast guys can still climb like goats and do it all day long, most of us can't. I'd have to do research to see what the increase in average speeds has been over the years but I doubt it's more than 20% spread over 30 years, and will only increase in tiny increments. The big gains have been already made. 

Ebikes are only limited by arbitrary and unenforced laws, are easily modified and by how much battery and motor weight you're willing to deal with. Improvements in both will have a direct correlation to higher average speeds which are already 50 - 100% higher than current bikes.

Land managers aren't oblivious to the difference, in some places its not an issue, in others it certainly is.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Just to chime in as a three year ebiker; I became interested in the technology and enjoy the "discipline" as a change of pace which is fun. Don't need to do it since I still MTB a lot. I don't care about longer distances, less time or whatever (although my wife and I may make our first bike camping trip on e-MTB's - hasn't happened yet, so don't know).

There are a few proponents on the e-MTB=MTB "team"; they aren't changing anybody's mind and seem steadfast in their belief, but if both sides want to flail away --- keep at it.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

fos'l said:


> There are a few proponents on the e-MTB=MTB "team"; they aren't changing anybody's mind and seem steadfast in their belief, but if both sides want to flail away --- keep at it.


I actually think it's gone beyond "flail" and passed right over into mental masturbation. Same people saying the same things over and over again. Add to that the apparent moderator manipulation with disappearing posts (well-meaning, I'm sure) and I gotta agree flail away guys. This is indeed pointless.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Cuyuna said:


> I actually think it's gone beyond "flail" and passed right over into mental masturbation. Same people saying the same things over and over again. Add to that the apparent moderator manipulation with disappearing posts (well-meaning, I'm sure) and I gotta agree flail away guys. This is indeed pointless.


Pointless? Yes, tyring argue that bicycles with electric motors should be allowed on trails that ban motors is a rather pointless argument.

This thread however is pure entertainment. Almost every page has gems like the below response to your hilarious notion that people buy ebikes to ride the same distance at the same speed, but with less effort and that you wanted to know if it could be "backed up" that this was not the reason people bought ebikes.

That had me getting the popcorn ready. And sure enough, I was not disappointed with a response showing the specialized ads. Classic!!! and of course you didn't respond directly, but instead misdirected by complaining. Also, classic!!!

Please keep 'em coming! The below interaction is pure gold.



J.B. Weld said:


> I'm not talking about maximum possible range but the distance people actually ride. Most posters here say they bought an ebike because it allows them to go further, gain more elevation and do it in less time than they were able to do on a bicycle. That's why they bought them.





Cuyuna said:


> Can you back that up? My impression is that most posters here say they bought an e-bike so they can pedal with less effort...





singletrackmack said:


> How about asking Specialized? They know how these bikes are intended to be used.
> "...our Turbo electric bikes give you the power to go farther and faster then ever before."
> "...and on the dirt, they give you the power to ride more trails"
> "A trail bike that gives you the power to ride more trails."
> View attachment 1163020


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

singletrackmack said:


> Don't forget the faster part. Who wants to go slower, right?
> 
> But that's the point. Ebikes are intended for going faster and farther than you can on a normal pedal bike. Therefore, more impact to trails.


Yes, I agree with the faster and farther (in an allotted amount of time) But if your going way out in the wilderness, you bring your mtb so you don't get hosed. Or I strap a solar panel on my backside and keep hammering!


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Harryman said:


> Everyone wants to ride more trails. On a bike, you're limited by human effort, which even with all the technological advances hasn't increased for most riders dramatically, especially climbing, where most of us spend the majority of our times. There's a 13 mile loop here for example where in the 80s, the fast racer dudes could just manage to do it under an hour, and today, that's still a top time. Having ridden since then, I can tell you that bikes are certainly easier to ride fast, far more comfortable, efficient, capable of serious terrain and safer (brakes and tires primarily), but riders haven't developed dramatically more power than they used to. The few fast guys can still climb like goats and do it all day long, most of us can't. I'd have to do research to see what the increase in average speeds has been over the years but I doubt it's more than 20% spread over 30 years, and will only increase in tiny increments. The big gains have been already made.
> 
> Ebikes are only limited by arbitrary and unenforced laws, are easily modified and by how much battery and motor weight you're willing to deal with. Improvements in both will have a direct correlation to higher average speeds which are already 50 - 100% higher than current bikes.
> 
> Land managers aren't oblivious to the difference, in some places its not an issue, in others it certainly is.


 This is a first, going to disagree with you, about the climbing aspect. Not everyone lives in the mountains. Sure, central time and pacific time, but not all have long , sustained climbs. I just have little hills for the most part, ridges and leftover glacial topography. Carry on, cheers.


----------



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

leeboh said:


> This is a first, going to disagree with you, about the climbing aspect. Not everyone lives in the mountains. Sure, central time and pacific time, but not all have long , sustained climbs. I just have little hills for the most part, ridges and leftover glacial topography. Carry on, cheers.


Even with small hills the majority of the time on a ride is spent climbing, the more elevation per mile the more the discrepancy.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> Even with small hills the majority of the time on a ride is spent climbing, the more elevation per mile the more the discrepancy.


 Have you pedaled in Eastern MA? What is elevation? Where the trees get a little shorter? 100-200 ft max of vert. Really. We have teck downs as well. So no, most of my time is not spent climbing. Flat, rolling, up, down. Maybe 1/3 rd max. YRMV. But getting OT here. Even less need for a motor where I pedal. The tech and chuck would be a chore to say the least.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> I actually think it's gone beyond "flail" and passed right over into mental masturbation. Same people saying the same things over and over again. Add to that the apparent moderator manipulation with disappearing posts (well-meaning, I'm sure) and I gotta agree flail away guys. This is indeed pointless.


Well, in lieu of anybody actually getting the point through to some folks, for our purposes here we will default to the forum guidelines.

E-bikes are NOT the same as mountain bikes as far as discussions here go. People can feel free to go elsewhere to make that argument as much as they would like, but since everything on that topic has been discussed to death, expect more moderator 'manipulation' to keep things on track and in line with the guidelines.

As always, all are feel free to contact the 'powers that be' with any moderation issues.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> I actually think it's gone beyond "flail" and passed right over into mental masturbation. Same people saying the same things over and over again. Add to that the apparent moderator manipulation with disappearing posts (well-meaning, I'm sure) and I gotta agree flail away guys. This is indeed pointless.


I dunno, Mr Garcia did come out and clarify that he understands the distinction between a mountain bike and an e-bike. That's progress IMO.



AGarcia said:


> Sure... one has a battery and a motor. And the other does not. Those are physical distinctions I see. But in terms of use or impacts, I see no meaningful distinction.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> More trail miles does not necessarily or invariably equal more impact. That's a flawed assumption without any basis in fact.
> 
> But assuming it is....lets assume you are correct for a moment: Consider that studies to date have shown no appreciable difference caused by individual e-mtbs versus regular bikes (for example, see the IMBA study linked above). So if "miles covered per ride" is your only basis for judging impact, then any increase in bike miles --whether it be through emtb or through regular bike-- is potentially impactful. If so, then a properly acting agency may have no choice other than to begin setting limits on the number of miles that can be covered by individual bikes before no more bikes can be allowed. Maybe riders --whether regular bikes or e-mtbs-- should have a "per day mileage" limitation, or a "total miles ridden" limitation, or even a "number of riders" on a particular trail per day, per month or per year limitation." Those are the considerations agencies would eventually have to make.
> 
> So if you think you're making a "mileage" argument in efforts to limit e-mtb use, really what your doing exposing handing all mtb opponents a viable weapon to restrict all bike use.


I would hate to see some sort of limitation to how many miles anyone can travel on a trail to help reduce impact.

This is anecdotal, so take it as you will:
I personally have seen a huuuge increase in riders on my local trails over the last 10 years. I host a weekly ride with friends every Tuesday evening for the last 10 years in the same nature preserve. In that time a few new trails have sprung up, but not in equal proportion to the increase in riders.

What I have not seen is any trails get so bad they are un-ridable or un-maintainable due to the increased use. The trails that were well built to begin with hold up great, and others need more maintenance. But overall the trails are just fine, no endangered species are dying off, etc.

Perhaps that is not the case where you ride.

Based on this "evidence" I have witnessed in person, adding some Class 1 eBikes to the mix is not going to "harm the environment".

The only issue I can see coming up is if someone is riding their eBike up a steep trail that would not be possible to do without the motor assisting them and creating user conflict where none existed before eBikes existed.


----------



## DL723 (Sep 25, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> Well, in lieu of anybody actually getting the point through to some folks, for our purposes here we will default to the forum guidelines.
> 
> E-bikes are NOT the same as mountain bikes as far as discussions here go. People can feel free to go elsewhere to make that argument as much as they would like, but since everything on that topic has been discussed to death, expect more moderator 'manipulation' to keep things on track and in line with the guidelines.
> 
> As always, all are feel free to contact the 'powers that be' with any moderation issues.


It's pretty obvious ebikes won't be considered bikes by non ebikers...ever. I don't think it even matters in the whole access argument. Access is dictated by land owners, park officials, the man..etc. Seems the majority have already decided they are different and one has a motor..the other doesnt. The fight for access shouldn't fall on convincing them (the powers that be..not the internet) they don't have a motor or the motor doesn't give a riding advantage. It should just be the use of a low powered motor isn't going to have a negative impact. Once those arguments are won, I think the pr campaign becomes more important. Just because you're allowed somewhere doesn't mean it's going to be happy riding. Pretty sure some are still going to have issues with change and that's where trying to convince the masses, it's ok will matter.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

DL723 said:


> It's pretty obvious ebikes won't be considered bikes by non ebikers...ever. I don't think it even matters in the whole access argument.


They will if the people that don't want any bikes on the trails at all can use 'mountain bikes have motors now' to their advantage in keeping bikes off trails. That's why it's the one thing I'm adamantly against when it comes to e-bikes. There are some people here who do seem intent on insisting that the motor shouldn't be considered a motor, and that adding it is no different than putting on new grips. I believe that viewpoint to be nothing but purposeful obtuseness, which is pretty much in line with what the forum guidelines spell out.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> They will if the people that don't want any bikes on the trails at all can use 'mountain bikes have motors now' to their advantage in keeping bikes off trails. That's why it's the one thing I'm adamantly against when it comes to e-bikes. There are some people here who do seem intent on insisting that the motor shouldn't be considered a motor, and that adding it is no different than putting on new grips. I believe that viewpoint to be nothing but purposeful obtuseness, which is pretty much in line with what the forum guidelines spell out.


While there is a lot of spin being spun trying to wave off any possible issues, not everyone is buying. While not entirely accurate in their remarks regarding legislation, I thought this was a very reasoned position.

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

Bold is mine, note the implications of that statement.



> Impact on the Hiking Community - An increased number of bicycles on a trail may lead to a significantly diminished hiking experience for hikers. A feeling of not being safe among numerous comparatively high-speed vehicles could inadvertently lead to the displacement of hikers. If such displacement takes place, American Hiking Society insists upon the creation *or designation* of foot-only trails that would best meet the needs of hikers.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> I would hate to see some sort of limitation to how many miles anyone can travel on a trail to help reduce impact.
> 
> This is anecdotal, so take it as you will:
> I personally have seen a huuuge increase in riders on my local trails over the last 10 years. I host a weekly ride with friends every Tuesday evening for the last 10 years in the same nature preserve. In that time a few new trails have sprung up, but not in equal proportion to the increase in riders.
> ...


Agreed. It's also the case in the Orange County area. Lots more traffic over the past 10 years or so, but trails are holding up ok thanks in large part to efforts of folks maintaining the trails (folks like yourself, mntbikej, Harryman, Silentfoe and others on this forum doing trailwork and providing other support. I may not always agree with you, but I thank you).


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> I dunno, Mr Garcia did come out and clarify that he understands the distinction between a mountain bike and an e-bike. That's progress IMO.


Hahaha. Thanks! I think...  My points of contention have never really been with the physical distinction. Obviously, a motor makes it different than a bike without a motor, physically. Legally, I contend, is a different story..... But I've stated that many times before, and will spare you and others from another diatribe.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

As AG stated, some of the places in OC are becoming pretty crowded. Fortunately, there are many areas that are relatively unoccupied. I go to the crowded spots only when showing a visitor around and the individual wants to see a particular riding area. My condolences to those without this option.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Gutch said:


> Yes, I agree with the faster and farther (in an allotted amount of time) But if your going way out in the wilderness, you bring your mtb so you don't get hosed. Or I strap a solar panel on my backside and keep hammering!


Or in my case...The same trail, the same distance, and the same speed with the same group of friends...but with less effort on my part.

Yep..

I confess that I take out the Levo on the occasional Sunday mornings where I'm feeling particularly lazy after a busy Saturday, but still want to get together with the guys for the Sunday morning post-ride breakfast. So I just ride at whatever speed the group is going...breathing calmly while my buddies are huffing uphill.

I make it a rule to never ride alone... So if I'm on the Levo, even if "I have the power to go faster and farther" I'm only going as far or as fast as I would be going on any other ride....just less effort. Not everyone uses their e-bikes in that way.... I get that.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

"For the first time in the history of mankind, we have finally discovered a situation where adding a motor to a vehicle actually resulted in people not going faster OR traveling further.", said nobody, ever.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

AGarcia said:


> Or in my case...The same trail, the same distance, and the same speed with the same group of friends...but with less effort on my part.
> 
> Yep..
> 
> ...


No doubt. It's not always full gas. The Levo is fun for just farting around and taking it easy. I almost always ride alone, however group rides are fun also.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

The Levo is a blast on the beach!


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

How long will we continue the MTB access argument?









Obviously


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

Whithout a perpetual back and forth about motors and access the ebike forum would be nothing but tumbleweeds and crickets.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

Gutch said:


> Or better yet, I'll go out to Utah on my next mtb destination and put you on my Levo and I'll ride my Pivot and we'll see who's got the further range.


 I don't think the range of a Pivot has ever been determined! LOL


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

True, however sustained climbs on steepish grades drain the Levo's battery. Although it is great, I believe SOME riders human power can outdistance it. Do you bring your Levo on 6hr epics? I DO NOT want to lug that sucker out after a full day!


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Having actively advocating for mountain biking access for a decade, I am disappointed to hear mountain bikers suggest or wish for a blanket ban of another trail user group. The issues we face in San Diego County may be non-existent where you are so why should policy based upon my area be forced upon you, and vice-versa.

I read many so called "reasons" why electric motor bikes must be banned from trails. I personally do not buy into most of them. Not saying the reasons do not have legitimacy, but most arguments based upon erosion and speed can easily be made against mountain bikers. I'm sure there will be a percentage of electric motor bikers that have limited mountain biking experience and may find themselves unprepared or in over their heads, far from the trail head.

Advocating for mountain biking trail access in the county with the greatest number of endangered species in the country, a county with 90% of the population of the State of Colorado, a county where a trail, one trail, may pass through three, four land management agency jurisdictions, we have our work cut out. My colleagues in other areas may share some of our issues and have their own specific issues. What brings us together is the fact that we all advocate for non-motorized use, which includes equestrian and hikers.

Just because some electric motor manufacturers got together to fund lobbyists to push a BS 3 "classes" of electric motor bikes does not change the fact that each class indeed has a motor. You can argue all you want about watts, assistance, you are expecting, you believe you are entitled to the access that has been hard won for mountain bikers.

It is easy to recognize the fact that close to 100% of electric motor bike owners have never advocated for mountain biker access because if you had then you would accept the fact a motor is a motor or you would have to conclude you no longer believe in non-motorized trail advocacy. Either way doesn't sit well with mountain bikers.

I hope to see the electric motor bikers get organized and work hard to advocate for electric motor bike access. I would never support a blanket ban like the one denying mountain bikers access to Wilderness.

This guy showed up last week in one of our county parks. Had he shown up at an Ecological Reserve in Carlsbad I'm pretty sure the unofficial but acknowledged mountain bike access would be revoked immediately and funding for enforcement would flow in. The Land Manager is CDFW, who has authority not only of their property, but just about every project in the county. As long as the real potential of losing trail access remains, we will continue to argue for trail access.




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2044402272365355


----------



## deuxdiesel (Jan 14, 2007)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2044402272365355


[/QUOTE]

And this is what worries me the most- any advocates for e-bikes are incredibly ignorant if they don't think people will eventually stretch the capabilities of an e-bike into something like this. Non-motorized trails mean just that.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Boulder Pilot said:


> Having actively advocating for mountain biking access for a decade, I am disappointed to hear mountain bikers suggest or wish for a blanket ban of another trail user group...


So you have no problem with motos being used on non-motorized trails? I mean, it would be disappointing to suggest a blanket ban of another trail user group, right?


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> The only real problem I have is more of a political issue than anything else. *Simply* *the word "motor" opens up a shitstorm of epic proportions. *


Yep, once the doors are open to them there'll be no way of telling the difference between 250 watts and 2500 watts. The assumption will be, if it looks like a mountain bike it's probably motorized.

The whole argument about trail use and mileage is mute compared to this larger problem. Once people start associating ALL mountain bikes with e-bikes then the doors to trail access will slam shut. Then what you'll have is what MX riders have to deal with, limited specialized trails just for mountain bikes.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Poor thing cant tell a tesla from a hoover board so how did you miss the whole 750w pedal asset ??? thing?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

rider95 said:


> Poor thing cant tell a tesla from a hoover board so how did you miss the whole 750w pedal asset ??? thing?


Good thing we don't have to.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but
1) The eMTB riders that I know, myself included, have gone through MTB access issues,
some since the early 1980's when MTB started (for me) in CA.
2) These eMTB riders aren't trying to be accepted on any platform but our own.
3) Read the stickie: these eMTB riders REALIZE that eMTB's are a separate class from MTB's
4) It's up to the MTB community, myself included (since I MTB 90% of the time), to insure
we aren't included with eMTB and denied access. 

The few really obtuse individuals who continually spew that eMTB's are trying to gain access on the basis of their similar appearance to MTB's can keep stroking each other and repeating the same crap, but crap by any other name is still crap.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

fos'l said:


> I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but
> 1) The eMTB riders that I know, myself included, have gone through MTB access issues,
> some since the early 1980's when MTB started (for me) in CA.
> 2) These eMTB riders aren't trying to be accepted on any platform but our own.
> ...


What forum have you been reading?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



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

fos'l said:


> The few really obtuse individuals who continually spew that eMTB's are trying to gain access on the basis of their similar appearance to MTB's can keep stroking each other and repeating the same crap, but crap by any other name is still crap.


I suppose you might consider me one of those "obtuse individuals" since I've said things along those lines a few times so I guess I'll respond.

Anyone looking objectively at the issue should at least consider the financial implications of an entire new market being opened, and that this particular bounty relies heavily on access. The fact that these machines look and act (almost) like bicycles greatly facilitates the chance of laws being adopted that proclaims them to be the same thing as bicycles, thus granting universal access and possibly saddling mtb's with their (potential) issues. This seems to be exactly what may eventually happen and if it does it will be at least partially due to the fact that they look like bicycles.

This has nothing to do with the individuals who buy or ride them but is industry driven. I understand that you disagree but why not discuss instead of calling names?

Also your post seems opinionated and unnecessarily inflammatory, isn't that pretty much the exact opposite of what a moderator is supposed to do?


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

1) If you're afraid of eMTB access ruining MTB opportunity, fight against it even if your opponent is the manufacturers. What is said here will have no influence.
2) If you don't like the fact that eMTB's look too much like MTB's, pretty much all you can do is paint yours some outrageous fluorescent color (in other words, tough).
3) I'm tired of the continuous whining from e-negatives that e-positives are asking them for assistance, when we're not and have stated that repeatedly. If pointing out the truth is too incendiary, we're all in trouble.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

fos'l said:


> The few really obtuse individuals who continually spew that eMTB's are trying to gain access on the basis of their similar appearance to MTB's can keep stroking each other and repeating the same crap, but crap by any other name is still crap.


Seriously? When the industry pays People4Bikes to introduce legislation nationwide that legally changes an ebikes definition from motorized bicycle to bicycle? When the stated goal is to make them indistiguishable from a bicycle?

Shimano to make e-bikes indistinguishable from normal bikes - BikeRadar

I can't even tell you how many ebike reviews talk about how stealthy the new model is. This isn't simply for aesthetics, the goal is to be difficult to pick out.

While I agree that there is a considerable segment of the ebike population that is fully aware that ebikes aren't bikes and will conceded that they should be judged on their own merits, there are many, including here in this forum, who are fully embracing the industry's schizophrenic party line that they are exactly the same as bikes, except in their ads where they tout they aren't, since you can ride them farther and faster.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

This is enlightening:
http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-m...ans-crack-down-improper-use-electric-bikes#/0

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

NY State is a joke.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

fos'l said:


> 1) e-negatives... e-positives


Hey, that's pretty good!


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Harry, I talked to different representatives from People for Bikes at Interbike and the Long Beach (CA) Expo. Both groups stated emphatically that their only goal was to gain access for ebikes on bike paths. I'm not completely naive and realize they could have been prevaricators, but it didn't sound like it. As (I think) you've stated, local jurisdictions make local rules regarding access. Anyone really against eMTB's should mobilize in this direction. Regarding how closely eMTB's and MTB's look, what did you expect from the industry? It might be a problem, but everyone needs to realize that it was inevitable. Eventually, I expect to see coaxial motors and batteries that are almost invisible.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> This guy showed up last week in one of our county parks. Had he shown up at an Ecological Reserve in Carlsbad I'm pretty sure the unofficial but acknowledged mountain bike access would be revoked immediately and funding for enforcement would flow in. The Land Manager is CDFW, who has authority not only of their property, but just about every project in the county. As long as the real potential of losing trail access remains, we will continue to argue for trail access.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did that moron really ride his electric dirt bike at Lake Hodges.... Sheesh.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

fos'l said:


> Both groups stated emphatically that their only goal was to gain access for ebikes on bike paths.


I've talked to several of their staff as well, and that is what they state. And then they write text that is, like in CA and UT, either clearly stated or interpreted to allow them on non moto singletrack. Or vague enough that it leads to confusion everywhere like here.

Yup, individuals can have a lot of influence on the local and state level which is where it's all decided.


----------



## DL723 (Sep 25, 2017)

Silentfoe said:


> This is enlightening:
> Mayor de Blasio and NYPD Announce Plans to Crack Down on Improper Use of Electric Bikes | City of New York
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


New York seems to be pretty much a large scale representation of the debate on this thread haha.




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10155618175616166



There's another forum that basically is confused by this crack down based on what the mayor says at 8:45 of the press conference. "With the exception of people with disabilities....pedal assisted bikes" Is he talking about ADA riding pedal assist or ADA and Pedal Assist. Either way it sounds like by next year there's going to be a state legislation push to allow only Class 1. Which may be supported by NYC, according to some of the lobbying folks.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Cuyuna said:


> I think there are a substantial number of people that would like to ride our local trails but are physically challenged enough to keep them from getting out there because they don't have the leg strength or the knees, or the ankles, or the hips to allow them to pedal the rather challenging singletrack system that we have....people that could do it if they had a pedal-assist option. I see those patients in my office every day. I'm 66. My heart rate hits 160+ occasionally every day that I'm out there. There are a lot of people my age and younger that can't muster that kind cardiovascular performance necessary to climb those hills on a conventional mountain bike.


These people really are in such poor shape that they probably wouldn't even want to ride an E-bike that required any effort on their part. My typical out-of-shape patient isn't exactly straining at the leash to get out on the trails. Most don't even know what a mountain bike is, exactly.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Gutch said:


> Let the dudes ride for crying out loud! Small number, who cares? Some of them may have served our country and risked their asses.


I served my country. Doesn't give me the right to flout the law...not that I don't flout some laws, you understand, but if I get caught I'm not going to pull the veteran card.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

cool.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Ailuropoda said:


> I served my country. Doesn't give me the right to flout the law...not that I don't flout some laws, you understand, but if I get caught I'm not going to pull the veteran card.


Good on you for not being the douchey type to do so.


----------



## DL723 (Sep 25, 2017)

Haha, I understand your frustration and actually agree with a lot of the points you make..but wouldn't all this effort be better used lobbying with people who can actually make a difference? Right now this is the same as a PR campaign. Calling up land managers and reps with these points will probably more effective.

Or...just post on an electric bike forum. You'll get a lot more support and maybe some cohesive action can form. This is almost arguing for the sake of arguing. Just my two cents


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> The only posts that don't survive are the posts that are e-positive, rational and factually based. Those are intolerable. Also, the associated posts are deleted so as to sanitize the page from that evil e-positive perspective. In contrast, an emotionally charged, agenda based e-negative post seems to be welcomed here.


You are so wrong about that it hurts.

1> I did not delete your posts or the others from 5 hours ago, just making that clear.
2> you have shown to have a history of antagonistic posts since you joined this site.
3> Plenty of Pro-ebike posts that are rational and fact based stay right where they were left. The ones that get removed are typically removed for being purposely ignorant or purposely inflammatory, many of the posts you have made over the years are exactly that, not rational and looking to stir the pot. That is why your posts and the ones responding to them in an also irrational manner just get deleted. All the moderators are volunteers and most of the time it is just easier to blanket delete all posts instead of trying to manually clean up each one. When a thread gets too far off the rails, it is easier to just bin the entire thread.

This post of yours I quoted is way off-topic, but I am addressing it here anyway. If you have further complaint, take offline to a PM to one of the 3 moderators in charge of this section, or post in the site feedback forum. Do not take this or any other thread off-track to attack the moderators again.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Jimbo, tell us again how taping a hand held fan to your bike is the same as a 250w levo again.....please enlighten us all.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Jimbo, tell us again how taping a hand held fan to your bike is the same as a 250w levo again.....please enlighten us all.


It's not my argument that it's the same. It's the "if it's got a motor, it's a motorized vehicle" crowd that makes that argument. Why don't you ask them for enlightenment.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> It's not my argument that it's the same. It's the "if it's got a motor, it's a motorized vehicle" crowd that makes that argument. Why don't you ask them for enlightenment.


You're beyond obtuse. Yes, if a bike has a motor, it is a motorized vehicle. Taping a fan to your bike does not mean it has a motor and not a single idiot believes that. A fan taped to your bike does nothing for it. If your bike has a motor, it means it has a motor that in some way propels it. Everyone believes that definition but you for some reason.

This red herring fan BS that you keep thinking is an issue, is not. And no one cares. That's why you never get an answer regarding it. I can't even believe I said something but, gawd, this has to stop.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Number 400! woo-hoo!

For the record current USA model Turbo Levos peak at 530 watts; let's quit trying to kid that they're still milquetoast 250 watt pedelecs.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> You're beyond obtuse. Yes, if a bike has a motor, it is a motorized vehicle. Taping a fan to your bike does not mean it has a motor and not a single idiot believes that. A fan taped to your bike does nothing for it. If your bike has a motor, it means it has a motor that in some way propels it. Everyone believes that definition but you for some reason.
> 
> This red herring fan BS that you keep thinking is an issue, is not. And no one cares. That's why you never get an answer regarding it. I can't even believe I said something but, gawd, this has to stop.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


It's amazing how much you just contradicted yourself. A fan does in fact add to propulsion, just not very much. But feel free to alter the analogy to using that 5V fan motor tied directly to the drive train if it clarifies things for you. It's your definition of motorized vehicle you are arguing against, not mine.

So now it seems that you are not arguing "if it had a motor, it's a motorized vehicle". Now you seem to be arguing amount of propulsion. And that contradicts everything you have argued about to this point. You seem to become agitated when the weakness of your argument is exposed. You should work on that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Not the fan again!


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

:madman:


----------



## gooseberry1 (Mar 16, 2016)

Jim_bo said:


> You apparently miss the point of any policy of BLM and USFS to ban class 1 eBikes is beyond their authority as it is not supported by statute.


Just let look at what you are saying above and let's look at it from the other side.

You apparently miss the point of any policy of BLM and USFS to ban class 1 eBikes is within their authority as it is supported by statute.

They don't have any way of telling if that is a class1 ebike or not and is much simpler for them to say yes it has a motor or not it does not.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

gooseberry1 said:


> Jim_bo said:
> 
> 
> > You apparently miss the point of any policy of BLM and USFS to ban class 1 eBikes is beyond their authority as it is not supported by statute.
> ...


----------



## gooseberry1 (Mar 16, 2016)

Jim_bo said:


> gooseberry1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying that enforcement will be simple. I'm only saying that it is unsupported by statute. But then, how do you know a weapon is fully automatic simply by looking at it? How do you know a car has had pollution controls removed by watching it drive down the road? Again, we don't punish the masses of law abiding citizens for the misdeed of an unlawful few.
> ...


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

JB seems to want someone to spar with, which is inane as well as inconsequential since we're doing nothing but offering opinions. I'm e+ to the max, have several "rides" (DIY and OEM) with more being incubated, and disagree with almost everything he states. If this thread can't produce anything but what we've experienced lately, I'm going to close it.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

The primary points you promulgate, AFAICT, are that "Class 1" e-MTB's are a sub-class of MTB's just like full suspension, hardtails etc and that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't thinking rationally. I disagree. I have advocated Class 1 access where they won't influence existing activities negatively and this is best determined locally, but it's just an opinion.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

I'd like to see if jimbo can produce any evidence that class 1 750w/20mph bikes have the same impact on trails and other user groups as mtbs, as he believes. I'm happy to wait and see what happens in CA over the next 5 years or so myself


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Harryman said:


> I'd like to see if jimbo can produce any evidence that class 1 750w/20mph bikes have the same impact on trails and other user groups as mtbs, as he believes.


You will be well embarrassed to prove the opposite.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

fos'l said:


> JB seems to want someone to spar with, which is inane as well as inconsequential since we're doing nothing but offering opinions. I'm e+ to the max, have several "rides" (DIY and OEM) with more being incubated, and disagree with almost everything he states. If this thread can't produce anything but what we've experienced lately, I'm going to close it.


Thank you, fos'l.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Seems a shame to have to bin everything just because of one person.
Once this thread is closed, he'll just go to work on another one.
There's gotta be a better solution. 
Hmmm....


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

fos'l said:


> The primary points you promulgate, AFAICT, are that "Class 1" e-MTB's are a sub-class of MTB's just like full suspension, hardtails etc and that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't thinking rationally. I disagree. I have advocated Class 1 access where they won't influence existing activities negatively and this is best determined locally, but it's just an opinion.


No, I haven't argued that class 1 is a sub class of mtb. I argued that they are most appropriately used on mtb trails, their popularity is growing and will have to be dealt with, and there is no legitimate current policy that prohibits their use from mtb trails on federal lands. I also suggest that all the e- negative sentiment is counter productive to mtbs and comes across as exclusionary and childish. It would be similar to equestrian seeking blanket bans of mtbs for similar exclusionary reasons.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Harryman said:


> I'd like to see if jimbo can produce any evidence that class 1 750w/20mph bikes have the same impact on trails and other user groups as mtbs, as he believes. I'm happy to wait and see what happens in CA over the next 5 years or so myself


I think the IBMA study has already done that. But your point is really moot. BLM and USFS have not argued environmental impact. They simply see a motor and attempt to regulate on that basis alone. Their attempt at regulation is arbitrary, capricious and lazy. But governing agencies that have been objective about eBikes have come to the conclusion also that they should be treated as bicycles for regulatory purposes.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Clearly USFS and BLM are empowered, within statutory limitations, to regulate federal land. And since no statutory supported policy currently exists concerning class 1 eBikes, I am suggesting that this is an opportune time for the MTB and eBike community to come together to suggest reasonable regulation.


I think you are halfway there. The e-Bike crowd and the manufactures absolutely should be doing this. However to suggest to a user group (human powered, pedal driven MTBers) that may have no interest in fighting for trail access for another user group is going to get you nowhere. Surely you have seen that by now. I suggest that you stop insisting that regular MTBers need to join the ebike revolution. Some may join your cause, but stop being offended that many will not.



> Class 1 eBikes are here to stay. Those who passionately oppose them will end up on the wrong side of history. Everyone would be far better off if the MTB community as a whole worked to reasonably bring them into the fold rather than attempt to provide a blanket exclusion.


Stop trying to predict the future, you actually have no way to say for certain that they are or are not here to stay.

Jim - I have warned you before, and I am warning you again. Stop being so divisive, this same argument has been discussed before many times, and I am sure other users will re-hash it again in the future. It is going no where.

The nature of trail access across the 50 states can vary wildly, do not expect that all area's are just going to conform to your desired expectations.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> No, I haven't argued that class 1 is a sub class of mtb. I argued that they are most appropriately used on mtb trails, their popularity is growing and will have to be dealt with, and there is no legitimate current policy that prohibits their use from mtb trails on federal lands. I also suggest that all the e- negative sentiment is counter productive to mtbs and comes across as exclusionary and childish. It would be similar to equestrian seeking blanket bans of mtbs for similar exclusionary reasons.


 I think you are confusing mt bikes and e mt bikes, 2 entirely different things. I'm also not e negative. Motorized vehicles are banned where I ride in MA. So not allowed. MA has already dealt with them.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> Are you really afraid to call for banning me from this site openly? And what rules violation would you allege that hasn't been committed by most of the posters on this thread (to include moderators)? Or do you simply think it's appropriate to ban people with differing opinions than yourself?
> 
> The hard truth is, with the growth in popularity of class 1 eBikes and the money that will follow it, eventually, I will be in the majority and you will be in the minority. You are simply picking a battle that won't be won. You may as well have been the guy arguing against "horseless carriages" because they have no place on the street alongside your horse and buggy.


 You think the e bike battle is the same in CA as the rest of the US? Not hardly. CA seems to be the test case, lots of push back in some places there already.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> But again, when someone attacks me personally instead of challenge my point, then I know that I'm on the right track.


You haven't noticed that many people have challenged your points? Are your points the only correct ones?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> I think you are halfway there. The e-Bike crowd and the manufactures absolutely should be doing this. However to suggest to a user group (human powered, pedal driven MTBers) that may have no interest in fighting for trail access for another user group is going to get you nowhere. Surely you have seen that by now. I suggest that you stop insisting that regular MTBers need to join the ebike revolution. Some may join your cause, but stop being offended that many will not.


I think you are getting to the meat of the issue here. You allege that a person who rides a class 1 eBike is not an MTBer. I say you are short-sighted and wrong. The same argument could have been made at the introduction of suspension, 29" wheels, fat tires, etc. The "human powered" issue is a red herring. It is arbitrary and only used as an opportunistic argument to support your pre-determined notions.



> Stop trying to predict the future, you actually have no way to say for certain that they are or are not here to stay.


And you have no way of predicting the future. But given the course of history, I'd say that my prediction is a better educated guess than yours.



> Jim - I have warned you before, and I am warning you again. Stop being so divisive, this same argument has been discussed before many times, and I am sure other users will re-hash it again in the future. It is going no where.


I'm sorry... but your warnings are hollow and insincere.

First, if you suggest that having a differing opinion is being divisive, then I dispute your suggestion. MTBers have many sub-categories: cross country, trail, enduro, down-hill, etc. There are many differences in each of these sub categories as well as similarities. I have been suggesting that class 1 eBikes are merely a new sub-category. They are most appropriate on the same trails as MTBs, many people who already ride MTBs ride them and several regulatory agencies have overtly declared them to be the same. It is YOU, and the other e-negatives, that are trying to be divisive by excluding class 1 eBikes from MTB's. And furthermore, when you have another moderator flagrantly violate the rules by calling me an idiot and you allow his post to stand with no admonishment, your credibility as a moderator is something close to zero.



> The nature of trail access across the 50 states can vary wildly, do not expect that all area's are just going to conform to your desired expectations.


I haven't been arguing about different states. I have been making the point that a blanket ban on class 1 eBikes on all FEDERAL MTB trails is neither lawful, reasonable, or rational.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> You think the e bike battle is the same in CA as the rest of the US? Not hardly. CA seems to be the test case, lots of push back in some places there already.


You make my point for me. Circumstances in CA, UT, NV or other areas may be significantly different than in other states/areas. That's why a nation-wide blanket ban of class 1 eBikes is irrational and irresponsible.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> You haven't noticed that many people have challenged your points? Are your points the only correct ones?


I see that the overwhelming majority of responses to my posts are personal attacks. I have been disappointed as of yet as to the very minute amount of responses that deal with the points that I have made. So, if you'd like to refute a point, I'd be more than willing to discuss it in a civil, rational manner. To assist, I'll give you a list of issues you can choose from:

1. Class 1 eBikes are not currently banned from non-motorized BLM and USFS trails because the regulatory policy does not conform with statutes.

2. A motor, in and of itself, is not a rational or reasonable justification for banning class 1 eBikes from MTB trails.

3. Class 1 eBikes are just a new sub-category of MTBs

So, if you'd like to have a civil discussion, pick an issue, make a civil, thoughtful counter-point. We can all benefit and learn from reasonable debate and discussion.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> I see that the overwhelming majority of responses to my posts are personal attacks. I have been disappointed as of yet as to the very minute amount of responses that deal with the points that I have made. So, if you'd like to refute a point, I'd be more than willing to discuss it in a civil, rational manner. To assist, I'll give you a list of issues you can choose from:
> 
> 1. Class 1 eBikes are not currently banned from non-motorized BLM and USFS trails because the regulatory policy does not conform with statutes.
> 
> ...


All of your items have been addressed ad nauseam. They have been explained, refuted, and beat down. You cling to them without reason. That is why people are frustrated with your posts. Because you don't get it. You are absolutely wrong on every point. That's not just opinion. It's a fact. You will respond and say it isn't.

If you want to feel right, go to a different site.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

This sort of crap is why I pretty much went from neutral/slightly pro e-bike to "forget it, I'm not helping these idiots" - the ban hammer came down in Park City (with a bit of my input involved) and it's going to take a LOT of convincing to change that at this point.

That's a bummer, because I think class 1 bikes could have fit in just fine with a little compromise and some thought about how to prevent problems. But the "advocates" (and the folks with DIY 1500W DH sleds) killed that idea by coming across as lunatics.

Policies on the ground are determined by land managers, and they're influenced by both their own experience, and by input from the general public. When you say things like "15.5mph is lame" and "it's not really a motor because state law says X" or "the BLM jackboot black helicopter thugs aren't recognizing my rights as a sovereign citizen" YOU ARE ALIENATING PEOPLE.

Stop it. Just say "yeah, it's got a motor, yes, it's a little faster in certain places, but it's not really faster where it matters, and there are lots of trails that are directional or have good sight lines or are bike-only where class 1 would fit in great - let's talk about good places to test this out and see how it goes. If people start modding their bikes and causing problems, then we can pull the plug." Hell, I can suggest some great trails off the top of my head all over the west. 

-Walt


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Walt said:


> This sort of crap is why I pretty much went from neutral/slightly pro e-bike to "forget it, I'm not helping these idiots" - the ban hammer came down in Park City (with a bit of my input involved) and it's going to take a LOT of convincing to change that at this point.
> 
> That's a bummer, because I think class 1 bikes could have fit in just fine with a little compromise and some thought about how to prevent problems. But the "advocates" (and the folks with DIY 1500W DH sleds) killed that idea by coming across as lunatics.
> 
> -Walt


So, putting your frustrations aside, what kind of compromises and thought to prevent problems did you have in mind?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Jim_bo said:


> So, putting your frustrations aside, what kind of compromises and thought to prevent problems did you have in mind?


If you had read any of the posts I've put up on various previous threads, you would already know the answer to this. Long story short: improved trail design (chicanes/speed check features, good sight lines, stacked loops to spread users, etc), more directional/bike specific trails, selective opening of appropriate trails and monitoring for rider behavior, modifications/overpowered bikes, etc.

Adopting the EU 250w/15.5mph limits (and instituting mandatory testing/fines for manufacturers) would probably help a lot, too. Blame People for Bikes for screwing that one up, because *nobody* in the land manager game will be ok with 750w/20mph bikes on trails.

But those things take more time than whining about how your motorized bike should be allowed everywhere. In fact, those things will take many years and lots of effort. So my expectation is that they won't happen at all. I'd love to be proven wrong.

-Walt


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Fact is: bicycles are not propelled by motors. There's your fact. Doesn't matter if a (even partially) motor propelled two wheel vehicle looks like a bicycle, uses most of the parts of a bicycle, is regulated as a bicycle, or does no more damage than a bicycle; it's still not a bicycle. You can't argue that fact away.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> 3. Class 1 eBikes are just a new sub-category of MTBs


Nope, they're not, and that argument is long dead and buried here.
Feel free to go discuss it somewhere else.

"Based on these definitions any posts that specifically refers to an Electric Bicycle as a regular bicycle or a Mountain Bike will be deleted."

http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/read-before-you-post-ebike-forum-rules-1022310.html


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Walt said:


> If you had read any of the posts I've put up on various previous threads, you would already know the answer to this. Long story short: improved trail design (chicanes/speed check features, good sight lines, stacked loops to spread users, etc), more directional/bike specific trails, selective opening of appropriate trails and monitoring for rider behavior, modifications/overpowered bikes, etc.
> 
> Adopting the EU 250w/15.5mph limits (and instituting mandatory testing/fines for manufacturers) would probably help a lot, too. Blame People for Bikes for screwing that one up, because *nobody* in the land manager game will be ok with 750w/20mph bikes on trails.
> 
> ...


Most of your mitigations have to do with trail design, not class 1 eBikes. But you seem to concede that a 250W/15mph standard is acceptable. To that, I have 2 points:

1. On what basis do you believe that 250 W is ok, but 750 is not? Is there something tangible you can reference, or just a gut feeling?

2. 750W/20 mph is not a federal standard. It is a standard being driven by California. So, would you concede to the 250W standard on federal land?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Jim_bo said:


> 1. On what basis do you believe that 250 W is ok, but 750 is not? Is there something tangible you can reference, or just a gut feeling?
> 
> 2. 750W/20 mph is not a federal standard. It is a standard being driven by California. So, would you concede to the 250W standard on federal land?


1. 250W is what a reasonably fit human (but not a pro athlete) can do for a sustained period of time. If the goal is to allow access to mountain biking for those with health problems, the elderly, etc, and also to make mountain biking easier for those who don't want to struggle/sweat as much, that's more than enough to accomplish the goal. Heck, 100W would probably be enough, really.

I *own* a 750W e-bike (for child-hauling purposes) and I can ride it 20mph up a 15% grade with 120 pounds of kids on the back. Putting that bike on a mountain bike trail would be pretty equivalent to putting a motorcycle on the trail - it would be *much* faster than even the fastest unassisted riders. Speed is a big problem already on MUTs, hence >250w is IMO a bad idea.

2. The 750w/20mph limits are state law in many places now (not just CA). I have already said that with a few reasonable caveats (some trails just not appropriate) I'd be fine with 250w/15.5mph bikes on most trails. Moab, for example, would be a great place for e-bikes, you can see for miles on most trails and there are very few hikers on the singletrack.

-Walt


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Most of your mitigations have to do with trail design, not class 1 eBikes. But you seem to concede that a 250W/15mph standard is acceptable. To that, I have 2 points:
> 
> 1. On what basis do you believe that 250 W is ok, but 750 is not? Is there something tangible you can reference, or just a gut feeling?
> 
> 2. 750W/20 mph is not a federal standard. It is a standard being driven by California. So, would you concede to the 250W standard on federal land?


And this is one of the problems with considering an ebike to be the same as a bicycle, Jim. Where DO you drawn the line? Why is an ice bike then discriminated against or should they not be? What if the sound could be muffled and they have acceleration retarders, are they then ok on mountain bike trails? Or as they are now, it's up to the rider to be responsible right? Shouldn't discriminate against what other's want to do, right?


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Jim_bo said:


> I'm not interested in finding a group of people who are inclined to agree with me simply because what I say fits their pre-existing agenda. I'm interested in having a civil, rational, fact based discussion on the pros and cons of integrating class 1 eBikes into the MTB world. I'm very interested in rational opposing opinions. However, civil, rational, fact based discussion is as rare here as hens teeth.
> 
> So, the point of my last post was not to persuade, but simply to recognize the obvious, emotion based bias that the posters and moderators on this forum hold towards eBikes.
> 
> ...


I'm assuming you are referencing my previous post. In the post I stated I was against and would not support a blanket ban on electric mountain bikes. Land Managers must be held accountable for decisions regarding access. Mountain bikers have and do experience the results of arbitrary policies that are not based upon facts or science and I do not wish the same for the electric bicycle riders.

I understand the frustration of trying to argue on the internet. Especially when one is personally being attacked, even disrespected. One has to understand that one of the benefits of the internet forum format can also be a liability. Forums are great for seeking opinions, trying to understand differences of opinions. But if you are going to create a thread with a title that dismisses opposing viewpoints, you are opening yourself up to some of the non-constructive comments in this thread. Regardless, the personal attacks are not justified, and I would hope all of us, moderators included, strive to do better.

My previous post said I was against any blanket ban, dismissed the majority of reasons (excuses) being used against electric bicycle trail access and encouraged the electric bicycle riders to organize and advocate for what they want. If you want to accuse me of being short sighted because you don't care for my opinion that electric bicycles must be managed separately from mountain bikes that's your choice. If you want to infer that I "simply ignore reason" again, your choice. It is rare that I post, rarer that I mention I'm an advocate. I did so here to establish my position, and hopefully other mountain bikers, that electric bicycles must not be subjected to a blanket ban of access.

My position still stands. SDMBA is organizing a Land Managers summit to discuss electric bicycle access on local, State and Federal lands in San Diego County. The goal is to bring people together to identify the issues, discuss concerns and develop strategies. Part of the reason why I've not had time to participate in this entertaining thread.

I'm scratching my head, maybe someone can help me out. There's stated interest in having a civil, rational fact based discussion on the pros and cons of integrating class 1 eBikes into the MTB world. Jim_bo, out of the 400+ posts just in this thread, are you stating that there is not one con? You have seemed to dismiss every opposing view.

Jason Showalter
Board Member, USFWS Liaison
San Diego Mountain Biking Association


----------



## DL723 (Sep 25, 2017)

Jim_bo said:


> Most of your mitigations have to do with trail design, not class 1 eBikes. But you seem to concede that a 250W/15mph standard is acceptable. To that, I have 2 points:
> 
> 1. On what basis do you believe that 250 W is ok, but 750 is not? Is there something tangible you can reference, or just a gut feeling?
> 
> 2. 750W/20 mph is not a federal standard. It is a standard being driven by California. So, would you concede to the 250W standard on federal land?


Not sure point 2 is accurate..

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html/USCODE-2011-title15-chap47-sec2085.htm

Seems like a federal definition and one that you should probably support if you want ebikes to spread. Because without that definition, they would be grouped with mopeds..


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> You make my point for me. Circumstances in CA, UT, NV or other areas may be significantly different than in other states/areas. That's why a nation-wide blanket ban of class 1 eBikes is irrational and irresponsible.


 IYHO. Jurisdictions vary by state, county etc. As well as land manager/ property/ conservation restrictions. Not that much Fed/BLM/Wilderness stuff in New England. Some, not lots. Rules have been in place regarding motorized vehicles on multi use off road trails for decades. Nothing new. Lots of places in say NH, VT and ME for motorized vehicle access. Ride there.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Walt said:


> 1. 250W is what a reasonably fit human (but not a pro athlete) can do for a sustained period of time. If the goal is to allow access to mountain biking for those with health problems, the elderly, etc, and also to make mountain biking easier for those who don't want to struggle/sweat as much, that's more than enough to accomplish the goal. Heck, 100W would probably be enough, really.
> 
> I *own* a 750W e-bike (for child-hauling purposes) and I can ride it 20mph up a 15% grade with 120 pounds of kids on the back. Putting that bike on a mountain bike trail would be pretty equivalent to putting a motorcycle on the trail - it would be *much* faster than even the fastest unassisted riders. Speed is a big problem already on MUTs, hence >250w is IMO a bad idea.
> 
> ...


So, it seems that you are not part of the "if it has a motor, it's a motorized vehicle and should be banned" crowd. You seem to be less concerned about the mere presence of a motor and more concerned with the size of the motor. That's a perfectly reasonable position. I don't really have a strong positron between 250 and 750. But I do see your point about 750 being too much.

This is where this discussion should be. Not around the irrelevant nonsense that has dominated this thread.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Boulder Pilot said:


> I'm assuming you are referencing my previous post. In the post I stated I was against and would not support a blanket ban on electric mountain bikes. Land Managers must be held accountable for decisions regarding access. Mountain bikers have and do experience the results of arbitrary policies that are not based upon facts or science and I do not wish the same for the electric bicycle riders.
> 
> I understand the frustration of trying to argue on the internet. Especially when one is personally being attacked, even disrespected. One has to understand that one of the benefits of the internet forum format can also be a liability. Forums are great for seeking opinions, trying to understand differences of opinions. But if you are going to create a thread with a title that dismisses opposing viewpoints, you are opening yourself up to some of the non-constructive comments in this thread. Regardless, the personal attacks are not justified, and I would hope all of us, moderators included, strive to do better.
> 
> ...


I think that you and I are far more in agreement than opposition.

Arguments that I find arbitrary, capricous, ill-informed and I completely disagree with are:

1. eBikers should not be allowed on my trail because they haven't earn the fitness right to do so.

2. The mere presence of a motor is enough to support a ban of eBikes.

3. Current policy of BLM and USFS banning all eBikes on MTB trails is lawful and enforceable

Arguments that I think are valid and worthy of discussion are:

1. 750W is too much power for use on an MTB trail

2. Environmental impact must be considered when making policy, but clear and convincing evidence must exist before any exclusions occur.

3. Same for item 2 with respect to safety

4. Manufacturers should work with land managers (and vice versa) to provide practical ways to enforce reasonable regulations.

The later 4 are topics that should be discussed. The former 3 topics should be dismissed readily.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> IYHO. Jurisdictions vary by state, county etc. As well as land manager/ property/ conservation restrictions. Not that much Fed/BLM/Wilderness stuff in New England. Some, not lots. Rules have been in place regarding motorized vehicles on multi use off road trails for decades. Nothing new. Lots of places in say NH, VT and ME for motorized vehicle access. Ride there.


I don't live in the North East. And my posts have been geared towards BLM and USFS policy, not individual states.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Jim_bo said:


> So, it seems that you are not part of the "if it has a motor, it's a motorized vehicle and should be banned" crowd. You seem to be less concerned about the mere presence of a motor and more concerned with the size of the motor. That's a perfectly reasonable position. I don't really have a strong positron between 250 and 750. But I do see your point about 750 being too much.
> 
> This is where this discussion should be. Not around the irrelevant nonsense that has dominated this thread.


I'm simply concerned with impacts on existing user experience (*all* users, mountain bikers being only one group). If e-bikes can be integrated with no impact on other trail users, it's a no-brainer to allow them.

If, on the other hand, e-bikes on a trail will negatively affect other users ("I don't want to ride down that descent anymore, the e-bike guys ride up it so fast I don't feel safe", "there are so many people riding this trail on e-DH bikes now that I don't want to hike there with my kids anymore", etc) then a ban is, IMO, perfectly justified. Just like a ban on *all* bikes is justified on some trails (highly congested ones, ones where the trail design doesn't allow safe use by users going different speeds, etc).

Honestly, too, the manufacturers should have been having this discussion years ago with the public and with land managers. They didn't do that, and now there are bans all over the place that will be VERY hard to overturn.

-Walt


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jimbo, e bikes are not a sub category of mt bikes. Bikes don't have motors. Talk about irrelevant. See also stickies at the beginning of this forum, " ebikes are not in the same category as mt bikes" Dude. So where do you ride your e bike in Cali? Everywhere?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

DL723 said:


> Not sure point 2 is accurate..
> 
> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html/USCODE-2011-title15-chap47-sec2085.htm
> 
> Seems like a federal definition and one that you should probably support if you want ebikes to spread. Because without that definition, they would be grouped with mopeds..


The law you cite only has the purpose of stating that low speed electric bicycles are not subject to consumer safety laws concerning motor vehicles. It isn't applicable to regulating eBikes for the purpose of trail access. However, it is a starting point.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> Jimbo, e bikes are not a sub category of mt bikes. Bikes don't have motors. Talk about irrelevant. See also stickies at the beginning of this forum, " ebikes are not in the same category as mt bikes" Dude. So where do you ride your e bike in Cali? Everywhere?


I've said repeatedly, I don't own an eBike. And a forum sticky or your definition of an MTB sub category doesn't make it so.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> This is where this discussion should be. Not around the irrelevant nonsense that has dominated this thread.


If you'd go back and read this thread from the beginning, you'll see that the discussion was here already. It didn't go off the rails until YOU joined the conversation. The fact that you're just now realizing what Walt's take on things is tells me that you pay little to no attention to what anyone else actually says.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Walt said:


> I'm simply concerned with impacts on existing user experience (*all* users, mountain bikers being only one group). If e-bikes can be integrated with no impact on other trail users, it's a no-brainer to allow them.
> 
> If, on the other hand, e-bikes on a trail will negatively affect other users ("I don't want to ride down that descent anymore, the e-bike guys ride up it so fast I don't feel safe", "there are so many people riding this trail on e-DH bikes now that I don't want to hike there with my kids anymore", etc) then a ban is, IMO, perfectly justified. Just like a ban on *all* bikes is justified on some trails (highly congested ones, ones where the trail design doesn't allow safe use by users going different speeds, etc).
> 
> ...


Despite many previous differences, we seem to be finding common ground. I agree with just about everything in your post.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Boulder Pilot said:


> I'm scratching my head, maybe someone can help me out. There's stated interest in having a civil, rational fact based discussion on the pros and cons of integrating class 1 eBikes into the MTB world. *Jim_bo, out of the 400+ posts just in this thread, are you stating that there is not one con? You have seemed to dismiss every opposing view. *
> 
> Jason Showalter
> Board Member, USFWS Liaison
> San Diego Mountain Biking Association


On Point.

Jim - give it a rest please. Bikes with Motors are not equal to bikes without motors. No matter how much you might think they are physically the same and should be treated the same, they are not the same. That fact is not really up for debate, it either has a motor or it does not.

That said, how a Class 1 eBike is granted access is a very different argument, currently there are some places where they are not permitted, BLM and USFS "non-motorized" trails being some of those places. The BLM and USFS has documented those restrictions on their websites.
BLM eBike Policy
USFS eBike Policy
I happen to agree that many of those BLM and USFS trails would be fine with having a class 1 eBike allowed on them, but do not expect everyone to agree with you and do not expect every MTB rider who is not interested in owning a motorized bike to go to bat for this new user group.

eBikes are a new user group on the trails. Even the "e-positives", as you like to call them, on this site agree that eBikes are not the same as a pedal bike, nor are they the same as a motorcycle, they exist in their own category.

The reason you continue to get backlash from other users is all of this has been covered before, but you continue to beat the same dead horse and it is getting old.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I don't live in the North East. And my posts have been geared towards BLM and USFS policy, not individual states.


And many of us don't live in the southwest.
BLM and USFS policies really aren't of much concern to anyone around here.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Jim_bo said:


> Despite many previous differences, we seem to be finding common ground. I agree with just about everything in your post.


What? I've been posting the same basic thing for the entire time this board has existed.

People for Bikes and the various manufacturers really screwed up (on the mountain bike side - the situation for road/commuter e-bikes is much improved over the days when you needed insurance!), and the mess they made will take years to sort out. Hopefully it will end with some reasonable access for low power e-bikes and not too many bad eggs roosting around on 3000W motos with cranks bolted on.

-Walt


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Walt, don't know whether PfB is to blame; probably they proposed what their "bosses" dictated. You're correct; it'll take a lomg time to reverse. Then, there's the DIY conundrum.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> ..............So, if you'd like to refute a point, I'd be more than willing to discuss it in a civil, rational manner.


I have, you didn't. You are condescending and dismiss anything you don't agree with, in other words you're a hypocrite.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> I have, you didn't. You are condescending and dismiss anything you don't agree with, in other words you're a hypocrite.


As have I several frustrating times. Very clearly and calmly. It's obvious he ignores it all. It's a vacuum in here.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## gooseberry1 (Mar 16, 2016)

Silentfoe said:


> As have I several frustrating times. Very clearly and calmly. It's obvious he ignores it all. It's a vacuum in here.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


I'm done trying with him and have come to conclusion he is just out to see who he can troll on this one

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

gooseberry1 said:


> I'm done trying with him and have come to conclusion he is just out to see who he can troll on this one
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


plus 1


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

How about + every1; let him opine with himself.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

I wish the dissenters who continue to troll this thread claiming that I should "give it a rest" would simply just put me on "ignore" or not participate. It's ironic that these trolls have brought nothing new to the table through their incessant ranting, yet they accuse me of beating a dead horse. How about this for a change... if you don't have anything productive to say, don't say anything.

Now, that said, there are some interesting things to discuss:

Since momentum seems to be moving away from "it's got a motor, so ban it" to a more rational "the size of the motor determines appropriateness", there should be discussion concerning motor size. I know of the IBMA study that concluded a "type 1" eBike causes no more environmental impact than a conventional MTB. However, the articles I have seen concerning this study only speaks towards "type 1" bikes as being pedal assist, 20mph bikes. It says nothing about the motor power. 

Question: Does anyone know if the IMBA study included "type 1" bikes of more than 250W?

It seems that drawing a line in the sand based on wattage is kinda arbitrary because an irresponsibly ridden conventional MTB can produce more impact than a 750W class 1 eBike ridden responsibly. But a line in the sand has to be made.

One person alleged that 250W is about the amount of power that a reasonably fit person can produce. I have nothing to verify this, but it sounds reasonable. A land manager ought not care how power is delivered to the rear wheel, rather they should be concerned about how much power. If so, does this seems like a reasonable standard? And if 250W is a reasonable standard, what can the MTB community do to drive that?

Question: Can anyone provide some background on PFB's rationale for lobbying for 750W as a class 1?





Given that this is an eBike forum, this is an appropriate place for this discussion. What is inappropriate in an eBike forum is the wholesale discounting of eBikes in general or constant attempts to dissuade discussion from exploring ways to create access for class 1 eBikes on MTB trails (where most people agree they would cause no more impact than a conventional MTB).





My observation has been that the e-negatives (someone else coined that phrase, I just adopted it because our moderators seemed to be triggered by the word "hater") aren't really arguing environmental impact or safety. Instead, they are largely arguing that they don't want to see eBikes erode access to existing MTB trails by land managers who see blanket bans as a reasonable tool of management. So, it seems to me that most of the e-negatives are really Fed-negatives for they are fearful of arbitrary and capricious regulations from federal land managers. This is a land manager problem, not an eBike problem. My point from the beginning is that if we allow land managers to arbitrarily ban classes of bikes based on anything other than legitimate and measurable environmental impacts or safety, then that cloud constantly hangs over our heads. This is less an eBike issue and more of a tyranny issue. We should NOT tolerate restricted access to public land without good cause. The assumption should always be that full access is granted unless specific justification is given for any restriction. The MTB community should already understand this. 

My recommendation is that this should be treated as a capricious land management issue that could affect not only class 1 eBikes, but DH bikes, fat bikes or any other class of bikes that land managers would deny access based on arbitrary reasons. The constant message from the entire trail using community should be that restrictions are only acceptable when there are measurable and substantial impacts to the environment and safety.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jimbo, Tyranny? Nice. They are not banning classes of bikes, bikes don't have motors. They have and continue to regulate motorized vehicles, as is in their power as land mangers. The title of this whole thread? " How long will we continue the mt bike access argument" ? As long as some here think e bikes and mt bikes are the same. And this is the e bike forum, not the pro e bike forum. Full access? To what? Jeeps, horses, bikes, hikers? Not everything everywhere, dude. Are you in politics by chance? So no e bike? Why are you here? Mt biker advocating for more trail access? Hmmm. Your assumptions differ from almost all other trail users. And stop trying to mingle any other kind of bike with that of motorized vehicles. Kind o wearing thin. The line in the sand is the motor, clear to all reasonable trail users, clear to all land managers, policy makers and stake holders, except a tiny minority.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

It's not arbitrary. 

It IS an e-bike issue.

E-bikes are not a 'class' of bicycles.

Try your 'I demand instant and full access for any and all possible vehicles cuz tyranny' angle with some LMs and let us know how well that works out for you.

You really don't understand how this stuff works at all.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> Jimbo, Tyranny? Nice. They are not banning classes of bikes, bikes don't have motors. They have and continue to regulate motorized vehicles, as is in their power as land mangers. The title of this whole thread? " How long will we continue the mt bike access argument" ? As long as some here think e bikes and mt bikes are the same. And this is the e bike forum, not the pro e bike forum. Full access? To what? Jeeps, horses, bikes, hikers? Not everything everywhere, dude. Are you in politics by chance? So no e bike? Why are you here? Mt biker advocating for more trail access? Hmmm. Your assumptions differ from almost all other trail users. And stop trying to mingle any other kind of bike with that of motorized vehicles. Kind o wearing thin. The line in the sand is the motor, clear to all reasonable trail users, clear to all land managers, policy makers and stake holders, except a tiny minority.


You are one of the ones I had hoped would simply put me on ignore. Your responses, much like the one above, are typically emotionally led and personal in nature. You are obviously less interested in a productive conversation about eBikes than you are in berating me. Your lines in the sand are arbitrary. As I have said before, class 1 eBikes are NOT going to go away. So, put yourself in a land manager's position. When the overwhelming evidence is that class 1 eBikes are most appropriate on MTB trails, where do you think they are going to end up? Money and technology simply do not wait around for luddites.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

I did do a quick google search and found THIS which validates human output at approximately 250W nominal. So this may be a good starting point.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> I did do a quick google search and found THIS which validates human output at approximately 250W nominal. So this may be a good starting point.


You do realize they're talking about professional cyclists don't you? Get a power meter and then get back to us with your results.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> You are one of the ones I had hoped would simply put me on ignore.


I suggest you take your own advice and make liberal use of the 'ignore' function yourself.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> You do realize they're talking about professional cyclists don't you? Get a power meter and then get back to us with the results.


Read the article. It claimed 250W just riding along with the pack. But it also talked about out 400 - 500W if they were pushing.

So, are you just trying to poke holes, or are you recommending a lower power level? Productive or incendiary?


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> Read the article. It claimed 250W just riding along with the pack. But it also talked about out 400 - 500W if they were pushing.
> 
> So, are you just trying to poke holes, or are you recommending a lower power level? Productive or incendiary?


The average cyclist could not ride along with a pack of professional cyclists, not even close. Pros can only hold 400-500 watts for a relatively short period of time.

Do some research on the average cyclists power output. I've seen pros on strava that record low 200w averages on very fast mtb rides.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> The average cyclist could not ride along with a pack of professional cyclists, not even close. Pros can only hold 400-500 watts for a relatively short period of time.
> 
> Do some research on the average cyclists power output. I've seen pros on strava that record low 200w averages on very fast mtb rides.


Again, I am not advocating 250W. I am only saying that Walt suggested it and I think it is reasonable. If you have a better recommendation, make it. Have a basis for that recommendation, and then defend it once questioned. But to simply poke holes for the sake of poking holes is unproductive.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> You are one of the ones I had hoped would simply put me on ignore. Your responses, much like the one above, are typically emotionally led and personal in nature. You are obviously less interested in a productive conversation about eBikes than you are in berating me. Your lines in the sand are arbitrary. As I have said before, class 1 eBikes are NOT going to go away. So, put yourself in a land manager's position. When the overwhelming evidence is that class 1 eBikes are most appropriate on MTB trails, where do you think they are going to end up? Money and technology simply do not wait around for luddites.


 Me? I as a mt biker am interested in not losing access to my trails. Productive conversations? Sure. They are not my lines in the sand. The policy makers, law makers, DOT, Land managers, Fed and state Hiway officials and land use stake holders all have rules and regulations regarding bikes, ebikes and motorized vehicles. Sometimes they overlap, and almost every one has their own definitions. CA seems to be the test case for e bikes. Mixed results already, we'll see in a few years how this shakes out there. Land managers position? Here in MA, already decided. No motorized vehicles on multi use, off road trails on state land, except for maybe 6 places or so that allow ORV. Much of the mt biking here is on state lands. Other riding areas include town and state conservation areas, which don't allow motorized vehicles, per their own rules and regs. Jimbo, you keep talking about how the Feds and BLM are excluding e bikes? No, just on mt biking trails. So many areas that allow motorized vehicles, orv, motorcycles and jeeps? Correct? E bikes would be welcome there. Problem solved. I agree( see, civil) e bikes are not going to go away. Thinking about getting one, would make a great commuter( 17 miles one way, about 2,000 miles per year) What evidence do you have about e bikes being appropriate on mt biking trails? Seems they would be better suited for dirt roads and ORV places, since they are motorized. Faster and higher uphill closing speeds than a mt bike? Problems abound. Mt bikers have earned their seat at the table as a responsible trail user. We show up for trail days, play nice, work well with others and are a key part in many land mangers resources for getting trail work done and problem solving. E bikers have done what? Demand access because ? And bikes don't have motors. Start there. Really. And one more thing, look beyond mt bikes and even e bikes. Most places I pedal, bikes are a minority trail user, hikers, bird watches, dog walkers all out number the mt bikers, by far. Almost all of the trails I ride are multi use, and I'm sure they would be loud and clear about allowing motorized vehicles access to trails. Cheers, pedal on. What kind of mt bike do you ride btw?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I wish the dissenters who continue to troll this thread claiming that I should "give it a rest" would simply just put me on "ignore" or not participate. It's ironic that these trolls have brought nothing new to the table through their incessant ranting, yet they accuse me of beating a dead horse. How about this for a change... if you don't have anything productive to say, don't say anything.


Calling a moderator a troll? bad move sir.

How about you don't say anymore on this topic for a while?

Thread Closed. Temp ban.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Upon further consideration I am re-opening this thread. Please keep it civil.


----------



## gooseberry1 (Mar 16, 2016)

Thank you KJ. 

What really needs to happen and is what mt bikers have had to for years and that’s get approved access little by little showing that they can be responsible to the general public. The worst thing to happen is mountain bikes get pulled into a bad review because the public does not differentiate them from ebikes so all that hard work goes down the drain. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Mabey you should ask the ppl who run Cactus Jacks the horse trail rides in Santos FL how theay feel about sharing the trails with MT bikers ,I ran into a group spent better part of a hr talking to them on my E bike . I did my best to try n leave a good impression explaining were old dudes on E bikes were nothing like the others he seemed to see this by the way the look on his face changed .


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Cuyuna said:


> I'm pretty confident that most doctors would have a pretty low threshold for granting e-bike exemptions if such exemptions were allowed.


Heck. I'm a doctor. I'm no fan of eBikes but I'd be fair in granting those hypothetical exemptions. But maybe I'd do a little counseling on the benefits of not using a motor when exercising.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

You know, even though I am pushing 54 now I am still pretty fit. I do a lot of cross-training so I have upper body strength and not just quads of steel but T-rex arms.

I think a lot of us older guys are actually a lot fitter than the majority of 20 and 30-year-olds, many of who seem to have been raised in the URL, not IRL. With that being said, I wouldn't really mind seeing some fat, out-of-shape guy using his throttle. Just makes me feel good about my decision not to be fat and out-of-shape. 

I live in Louisiana, however, so I don't actually see a lot of mountain bikers. Most of the trails around here are multi-use so Ebikes wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Ailuropoda said:


> Heck. I'm a doctor. I'm no fan of eBikes but I'd be fair in granting those hypothetical exemptions. But maybe I'd do a little counseling on the benefits of not using a motor when exercising.


Have you actually spent time riding an e-bike on the trails? You have a clear understanding of the actual effort involved in riding a class 1 bike?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> Have you actually spent time riding an e-bike on the trails? You have a clear understanding of the actual effort involved in riding a class 1 bike?


Or even full-on ICE off road bikes?

Sounds like the standard 'elitist' angle to me, along with thinking that everyone out there riding bikes is mainly concerned with trying to get a trophy for being the 'best exerciser'.

That's not even remotely what it's about for many of us. People ride for their own reasons, not yours.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

To me, it also sounds a little like a doctor asking/lecturing about guns in the home when he/she has absolutely no personal experience with firearms. Doctors sometimes have a little trouble understanding the depth of their expertise and the extent of their biases.

I don't own an e-bike because the reason I ride these days is cardiovascular fitness and quad strength after an elaborate bilateral knee disaster a few years ago. I don't need or want the relief of energy spent per unit time. But others have other reasons for wanting to be out there and if they asked me for some kind of permit to allow them to ride an e-bike then I'd just say "you bet" and skip the fitness lecture. That won't happen around here because a) there is no such thing as an e-bike permit and b) class 1 e-bikes are completely legal on state trails.


----------



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

Klurejr said:


> Upon further consideration I am re-opening this thread. Please keep it civil.


Yeah! We get to keep arguing about emtb access a little longer!

99% of future ebike purchasers will buy them because they're fun, not because of physical disabilities. Betcha a dollar and a donut.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> 99% of future ebike purchasers will buy them because they're fun, not because of physical disabilities. Betcha a dollar and a donut.


I think your percentages are overstated but I agree that that will be the majority reason.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

I built my first e bike about 6 yr ago I had just gotten out of 2 weeks in the hosp A fib and other things my heart DR wanted me to do some rehab in his gym, said I needed to get active and start working out for my heart . So now I have built 3 e bikes and every 6 mo check in with my heart Dr he ask about my e bike if I am still riding , I say yeah its out front I tell him about my Mt biking trips he just grins and says keep doing what your doing . I see him again next week


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> I built my first e bike about 6 yr ago I had just gotten out of 2 weeks in the hosp A fib and other things my heart DR wanted me to do some rehab in his gym, said I needed to get active and start working out for my heart . So now I have built 3 e bikes and every 6 mo check in with my heart Dr he ask about my e bike if I am still riding , I say yeah its out front I tell him about my Mt biking trips he just grins and says keep doing what your doing . I see him again next week


You are the exception.


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Yeah! We get to keep arguing about emtb access a little longer!
> 
> 99% of future ebike purchasers will buy them because they're fun, not because of physical disabilities. Betcha a dollar and a donut.


Riding an ebike is still excercise. Probably wont get anyone shredded but much better than beer curls. When I ride with my nonbike friends i let them use my ebike and theyre usually sore the next day.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Thank you its made a big improvement really allowed me to get out have fun again.


----------



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

Phantastic79 said:


> Riding an ebike is still excercise.


I've never suggested otherwise.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Phantastic79 said:


> Riding an ebike is still excercise. Probably wont get anyone shredded but much better than beer curls. When I ride with my nonbike friends i let them use my ebike and theyre usually sore the next day.


The "beer" curls are the post ride goodness, doesn't matter what you ride, if you ride it hard enough the dang beer tastes like victory!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> The "beer" curls are the post ride goodness, doesn't matter what you ride, if you ride it hard enough the dang beer tastes like victory!


I'm tasting victory right now, rode after work.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Still counsel him, especially if he's young, on starting slow and not using a motor.


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

There was a lady in Florida got pinched for DUI riding a horse.

Beer Curls huh


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

matt4x4 said:


> There was a lady in Florida got pinched for DUI riding a horse.
> 
> Beer Curls huh


Do you have a link to an article that talks about this incident? I am genuinely curious as I was always taught a Horse is the one mode of transportation you cannot get a DUI on since the horse can actually "drive" itself home on it's own terms and the rider is just along for the ride and not 100% in control.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> Do you have a link to an article that talks about this incident? I am genuinely curious as I was always taught a Horse is the one mode of transportation you cannot get a DUI on since the horse can actually "drive" itself home on it's own terms and the rider is just along for the ride and not 100% in control.


In AZ. if it's on a public thoroughfare the mode of transportation matters not.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Maybe the horse was drunk too?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> Maybe the horse was drunk too?


There is always that....


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> Do you have a link to an article that talks about this incident? I am genuinely curious as I was always taught a Horse is the one mode of transportation you cannot get a DUI on since the horse can actually "drive" itself home on it's own terms and the rider is just along for the ride and not 100% in control.


Here is one from Colorado.

https://www.reuters.com/article/ouk...runken-horseback-riding-idUKBRE9891GX20130910

The guy should have just blown some ganja, in Boulder they would not even have been able to notice whether he was stoned or not.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Here's the Florida story:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/11/04/a-florida-woman-rode-her-horse-on-a-highway-drunk-she-was-charged-with-a-dui/?utm_term=.0fccfc739bd1

Good write-up IMHO.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Moe Ped said:


> Here's the Florida story:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/11/04/a-florida-woman-rode-her-horse-on-a-highway-drunk-she-was-charged-with-a-dui/?utm_term=.0fccfc739bd1
> 
> Good write-up IMHO.





> Whether an intoxicated person on horseback can be charged with a DUI or DWI varies from state to state.
> 
> In 1993, an appellate court in California ruled in People vs. Fong that people riding animals on the highway are subject to the same rules as the drivers of automobiles, meaning people must ride their animals at a reasonably safe speed and avoid reckless behavior.
> 
> The issue was a hot topic in Montana in 2011, when the state's department of transportation aired an advertisement featuring a horse picking up its owner after a night of drinking at the bar. In Montana, horseback riders can't be arrested for driving under the influence, because state law's criteria for a vehicle in a DUI excludes devices moved by "animal power."


Interesting.


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

Oh I am sure a simple google search will find it quickly enough. Not sure of the legal ramifications behind a charge like that as its not a motorized vehicle, unlike a scissor lift, ride on mower, ebikes, and so on.

On the flip side of things, DUI'ers are allowed to ride pretty powerful electric scooters in that state.

Each state sets its own laws.

DUI on a horse: Florida woman arrested after riding on busy road - Orlando Sentinel

She was dubs or trips on that horse, so clearly not thinking straight riding along side a busy highway.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

matt4x4 said:


> Oh I am sure a simple google search will find it quickly enough. Not sure of the legal ramifications behind a charge like that as its not a motorized vehicle, unlike a scissor lift, ride on mower, ebikes, and so on.


In Colorado you can get a DWAI for .05 or a full DUI for .08. On a bicycle.

That's right, two microbrews and you can be busted with a DWAI, with all of the same fines, penalties, legal fees, and license points as if you were in a car.

Not only that, but you can be given a DWAI or DUI for just sitting in your car, legally parked, engine off, keys in your pocket or console or glovebox.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

To answer the original question...


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

honkinunit said:


> In Colorado you can get a DWAI for .05 or a full DUI for .08. On a bicycle.
> 
> That's right, two microbrews and you can be busted with a DWAI, with all of the same fines, penalties, legal fees, and license points as if you were in a car.
> 
> Not only that, but you can be given a DWAI or DUI for just sitting in your car, legally parked, engine off, keys in your pocket or console or glovebox.


I don't want to drag this thread too far off topic, but I do have the controversial opinion that DUI laws are all unconstitutional. If someone wants to start a thread in a general topic forum, I'll be more than happy to explain why.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

I hear so many people demand that ALL eBikes should be banned from MTB trails because MTBs don't have motors. I disagree simply from the perspective that there is no clear definition of what a MTB is. But that aside, for those with that hardcore position that MTBs do not have motors, would you also take that same position and claim that MTBs only have two wheels and as such ban these from MTB trails?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> View attachment 1166468
> View attachment 1166469
> 
> 
> I hear so many people demand that ALL eBikes should be banned from MTB trails because MTBs don't have motors. I disagree simply from the perspective that there is no clear definition of what a MTB is. But that aside, for those with that hardcore position that MTBs do not have motors, would you also take that same position and claim that MTBs only have two wheels and as such ban these from MTB trails?


For all discussion purposes on this board (and because common sense dictates it), you can consider it gospel that MTBs DO NOT have motors and e-bikes DO have motors and that is the difference between them.

Please refamiliarize yourself with the posting rules.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> For all discussion purposes on this board (and because common sense dictates it), you can consider it gospel that MTBs DO NOT have motors and e-bikes DO have motors and that is the difference between them.
> 
> Please refamiliarize yourself with the posting rules.


Wait. What? Surely you jest.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> View attachment 1166468
> View attachment 1166469
> 
> 
> I hear so many people demand that ALL eBikes should be banned from MTB trails because MTBs don't have motors. I disagree simply from the perspective that there is no clear definition of what a MTB is. But that aside, for those with that hardcore position that MTBs do not have motors, would you also take that same position and claim that MTBs only have two wheels and as such ban these from MTB trails?


 Geeze, nothing learned I guess. Mt bike, human powered, usually with knobby tires. E bike, battery plus motor. Hard time grasping the concept? See the start of this forum about posting rules. Really.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> 99% of future ebike purchasers will buy them because they're fun, not because of physical disabilities. Betcha a dollar and a donut.


I totally agree with that! But I think 90% is more accurate. In the beginning I was in the 10% - bought an ebike due to a recent injury(physical disability) and now I'm in the 90% "Because They're FUN".

My Ebike helped me rehabilitate a severely injured leg, E-MTBs ARE NOT the same as mountain bikes. THAT IS A FACT!


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I don't want to drag this thread too far off topic, but I do have the controversial opinion that DUI laws are all unconstitutional. If someone wants to start a thread in a general topic forum, I'll be more than happy to explain why.


feel free to start it yourself in the OC:

Off Camber (off topic) - Mtbr.com


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

And here we go again.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Silentfoe said:


> And here we go again.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


I took his advise and put him on my ignore list. That suggestion was the best post he has made!


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> feel free to start it yourself in the OC:
> 
> Off Camber (off topic) - Mtbr.com


You clearly misunderstand the point of my statement. I was offering an opinion to anyone who may be interested. I wasn't looking for a forum. But I appreciate you suggesting the obvious.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> For all discussion purposes on this board (and because common sense dictates it), you can consider it gospel that MTBs DO NOT have motors and e-bikes DO have motors and that is the difference between them.
> 
> Please refamiliarize yourself with the posting rules.


I consider nothing I read on this site to be "gospel". Groupthink and mob rule does not create fact. But that point aside, you obviously didn't grasp the point of my question. If you'd like to reread my post and respond to the question that was asked rather than make an irrelevant and incendiary point, I'd be more than happy to discuss your response.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> Geeze, nothing learned I guess. Mt bike, human powered, usually with knobby tires. E bike, battery plus motor. Hard time grasping the concept? See the start of this forum about posting rules. Really.


I'll refer you to my response to slapheadmofo


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> And here we go again.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Nothing productive to respond?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> I took his advise and put him on my ignore list. That suggestion was the best post he has made!


Thank goodness....


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> I don't want to drag this thread too far off topic, but I do have the controversial opinion that DUI laws are all unconstitutional. If someone wants to start a thread in a general topic forum, I'll be more than happy to explain why.


Well I for one think we've argued about this access bs long enough so I welcome any thread drift, this one especially because I'm sick and tired of cops hassling me about bac this and open container that when they pull me over for driving on sidewalks or some other minor offense. Don't they have anything better to do?


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Well I for one think we've argued about this access bs long enough so I welcome any thread drift, this one especially because I'm sick and tired of cops hassling me about bac this and open container that when they pull me over for driving on sidewalks or some other minor offense. Don't they have anything better to do?


Remind them that you pay their salary. They love that lline.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> View attachment 1166468
> View attachment 1166469
> 
> 
> I hear so many people demand that ALL eBikes should be banned from MTB trails because MTBs don't have motors. I disagree simply from the perspective that there is no clear definition of what a MTB is. But that aside, for those with that hardcore position that MTBs do not have motors, would you also take that same position and claim that MTBs only have two wheels and as such ban these from MTB trails?


 You can disagree all you want. Clear? Hmmm. Just follow the rules set up by whatever land manager and governing body that controls trail access. This post is about mt bike access. Not e bike access. Mt bike, human powered. E bike, motorized with a battery. I'm not demanding anything. E bike fan, not so much. Just following the rules where I ride. Almost all land agencies have rules concerning trail access, usage and rules. Motorized vehicles are always addressed in those rules. Starts there. Where do you ride your e bike?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Aren’t you guys tired of arguing over this thread? I get enough argument from the wife!


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Aren't you guys tired of arguing over this thread? I get enough argument from the wife!


She's not into ebikes either, huh?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Oh hell no, she loves her ebike! It’s a road version, so need not apply.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> You can disagree all you want. Clear? Hmmm. Just follow the rules set up by whatever land manager and governing body that controls trail access. This post is about mt bike access. Not e bike access. Mt bike, human powered. E bike, motorized with a battery. I'm not demanding anything. E bike fan, not so much. Just following the rules where I ride. Almost all land agencies have rules concerning trail access, usage and rules. Motorized vehicles are always addressed in those rules. Starts there. Where do you ride your e bike?


The irony of your post is what has been discussed many times over. Class 1 eBikes are not legally banned from non-motorized trails on federal land. I'm OK with agreeing to disagreeing. But when you say that we should just do what the rules say, that means ride your class 1 eBike on BLM and USFS MTB trails as much as you like.

I'll say one more time. I don't have an eBike.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> Class 1 eBikes are not legally banned from non-motorized trails on federal land...ride your class 1 eBike on BLM and USFS MTB trails as much as you like.


Yes, yes they are legally banned. Here you are, yet again, advocating for poaching trails with an ebike and telling others that they can.

Ready to be banned again?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I consider nothing I read on this site to be "gospel". Groupthink and mob rule does not create fact. But that point aside, you obviously didn't grasp the point of my question. If you'd like to reread my post and respond to the question that was asked rather than make an irrelevant and incendiary point, I'd be more than happy to discuss your response.


There is nothing "incendiary" about the forum guidelines.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Jim_bo said:


> ....


How much time you dedicate to writing all of that B.S. is amazing.

Not a single thing you wrote is true.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Jim_bo, since USFS currently bans all electric motorized wheeled vehicles on non motorized trails, regardless of class, size, religious belief or color, and you continue to argue that these vehicles are not legally banned, are you really arguing the legality of the ban? 

If so, you being an intelligent person must see how someone could read your opinions as you denying the USFS taking a position on this matter, when clearly USFS has. 

As an advocate for mountain bikers, there are many times that I will be advocating for equestrians and hikers because if we allow decisions to deny access to another group based upon anything short of science and irrefutable facts then we open the door to have the same happen to us in the future. I've attended Council meetings and wrote State and federal law makers in support of other non motorized trail users.

It is my opinion that if manufacturers had seriously considered the impact and possible perceived impact that an additional trail user group would have and valued trail access for all then land managers would not so easily be able to use the blanket ban to "deal" with electric motorized vehicle access. Instead, the manufacturers and their lobbyists try to avoid the matter by creating multiple "classes", "levels" and state that one should be considered ok for access and the others not. Had the manufacturers stood on their own feet and presented their vehicle as appropriate for multi-use trail access along with studies to back up their position then electric motorized vehicles would be treated just like other multi use trail users. 

SDMBA held a 4 day trail building and stewardship last week, attended by USFS, State, city and county employees. The general consensus is that land managers are not so much against the idea of electric motorized vehicle access on multi use trails. A land manager told me, "The problem, which seems to have been purposely created, is that this category of transportation has multiple groups and someone determined that at least one of the groups is not appropriate for multi use trails. That would be like saying 9 speeds are ok but any other speeds are not. Or certain breeds of horses are ok but others are not. Kinda of insulting to land managers". 

Where trail access issues are real, where mountain bikers face genuine threats to access, I feel confident in stating anyone that is a party to the threat will be in for a battle.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Boulder Pilot said:


> Jim_bo, since USFS currently bans all electric motorized wheeled vehicles on non motorized trails, regardless of class, size, religious belief or color, and you continue to argue that these vehicles are not legally banned, are you really arguing the legality of the ban?
> 
> If so, you being an intelligent person must see how someone could read your opinions as you denying the USFS taking a position on this matter, when clearly USFS has.
> 
> ...


I'm sure he's been banned again.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Silentfoe said:


> Yes, yes they are legally banned.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Nevermind...


----------



## TNTE3 (Nov 10, 2017)

The whole war between ebikes and the comment a real bike. 
So i have spent two months on a class 1 ebike and the more i ride it the more i like it. 
I spin the rear tire less on ebike then my (REAL BIKE!) lump 4-5 downhill in a ride vs 2 climbs in a day. 
My average heart rate is higher with ebike and my rides longer. 
I ride on ohv trails that very chunky and steep so cleaning the climbs is tough task even on a ebike. 
But where i have a problem is the difference between mechanized and motorized. 
The 250w class 1 pedal assist for all intent shouldn’t be classified any different then mechanized bike. 
But like anything regulating the ebike brings in a whole new problem. There to many throttle controlled 700+ w ebikes and that isn’t a bicycle anymore. 
The part that really chaps my back side is those who load there DH bikes into a van or chair lift and haul to the top and decend the mountain call me a cheater when i have help pedaling my class 1 to the top. 
My class 1 still requires i put 100% of the effort i ride my real bike at, i just get there a little faster on ebike and allows me multiple DH hits in a day. 
More people will cross over to class 1 as they will get lighter and better for those who enjoy DH riding in areas that don’t have shuttle or lifts. 
I see the class 1 as a full squish + size tire bike as slight climb advantage over light HT bike and i can enjoy trails that riding a heavy DH bike just wouldn’t be fun to get up the climbs.


----------



## TNTE3 (Nov 10, 2017)

Then there the real mountain bikers who want access to all the ohv trails but ohv money pays to support those trail systems and the mtb riders paid nothing and can access there motorized trail systems without paying into the pot that creates them. 
So why don’t the mtb need a green sticker to ride ohv systems.


----------



## drboudreaux (Nov 1, 2004)

fos'l said:


> It's not an entire "section"; it's almost every thread because, to date, it's been permitted.


Trail Building and Advocacy - Mtbr.com


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Been there, done that for many years; built trails, cleared areas, led rides, helped individuals with problems, attended meetings, etc as an MTBer, and doing whatever's needed as an MTB and e-MTB advocate now. Why don't you read a few threads before you start tossing stones?


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

fos'l said:


> Been there, done that for many years; built trails, cleared areas, led rides, helped individuals with problems, attended meetings, etc as an MTBer, and doing whatever's needed as an MTB and e-MTB advocate now.


----------



## drboudreaux (Nov 1, 2004)

...


----------



## drboudreaux (Nov 1, 2004)

fos'l said:


> Been there, done that for many years; built trails, cleared areas, led rides, helped individuals with problems, attended meetings, etc as an MTBer, and doing whatever's needed as an MTB and e-MTB advocate now. Why don't you read a few threads before you start tossing stones?


Not tossing stones. Pointing out that there is an entire section dedicated to access. You disputed that assertion in a previous post.

Also re tossing stones, ease up man. I didn't realize that merely posting a link to the trail building and advocacy forum was "tossing stones." It is certainly ironic that me simply linking to another forum apparently served as an invitation for you to accuse me of tossing stones. Chill out dude. Go for a pedal or something.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Sorry; somehow I created a double post


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

drboudreaux said:


> Not tossing stones. Pointing out that there is an entire section dedicated to access. You disputed that assertion in a previous post.
> 
> Also re tossing stones, ease up man. I didn't realize that merely posting a link to the trail building and advocacy forum was "tossing stones." It is certainly ironic that me simply linking to another forum apparently served as an invitation for you to accuse me of tossing stones. Chill out dude. Go for a pedal or something.


1) My reference, which was more than a month ago, was to a time when almost every e-bike thread would devolve into an access issue no matter the original topic.
2) If you weren't tossing a stone when you referenced my post, you did a good job disguising your intent.
3) Somehow I had a double post and deleted the wrong one. 
4) Ease up yourself, man.


----------



## drboudreaux (Nov 1, 2004)

fos'l said:


> 1) My reference, which was more than a month ago, was to a time when almost every e-bike thread would devolve into an access issue no matter the original topic.
> 2) If you weren't tossing a stone when you referenced my post, you did a good job disguising your intent.
> 3) Somehow I had a double post and deleted the wrong one.
> 4) Ease up yourself, man.


Now you are making numbered lists and telling me to ease up. That's funny.

It is nice to see the moderators in this forum setting such good examples. Carry on.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

TNTE3 said:


> Then there the real mountain bikers who want access to all the ohv trails but ohv money pays to support those trail systems and the mtb riders paid nothing and can access there motorized trail systems without paying into the pot that creates them.
> So why don't the mtb need a green sticker to ride ohv systems.


 Hmmm, interesting post. So you would have hikers and horse riders pay too? And almost all the mt bikers I know want to ride sweet singletrack, not torn up, muddy dirt roads.


----------



## TNTE3 (Nov 10, 2017)

leeboh said:


> Hmmm, interesting post. So you would have hikers and horse riders pay too? And almost all the mt bikers I know want to ride sweet singletrack, not torn up, muddy dirt roads.


The Georgetown trails are 95% single track and there ohv, there not muddy dirt roads there actually considerably better single track then forest hill mtb trails that don't allow ebikes. Horses have there designated trails and are not allowed on motorized routes. Quads and heels are also not allowed, and no one dares to try.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

leeboh said:


> Hmmm, interesting post. So you would have hikers and horse riders pay too? And almost all the mt bikers I know want to ride sweet singletrack, not torn up, muddy dirt roads.


A lot depends on where you are, out west, there's great moto legal, multi use singletrack that I love to ride. Like this:









If it came down to it, I'd support a yearly tag for mtbs if it went back into trails like it does in Colorado. Trails cost money, and more money = more trails.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Harryman said:


> A lot depends on where you are, out west, there's great moto legal, multi use singletrack that I love to ride. Like this:
> 
> View attachment 1167308
> 
> ...


Indeed. Mountain bikers will spend $8k on a new bike every year but whine about paying a $15 entry fee to a park. Putting money into trails (through a tag or whatever) would IMO be a good thing.

-Walt


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Harryman said:


> A lot depends on where you are, out west, there's great moto legal, multi use singletrack that I love to ride.


Around here, the moto guys got screwed when ATVs came on the scene. I know plenty of trails that were in better shape when they were moto trails than they are now that the motos got kicked out and they're mainly used as MTB trails now. Vietnam trails in Milford MA is a great example. When I first rode there back in the early 90s before MTBers discoved the place and MXers got tossed out, you could follow a well defined, narrow beast of a technical singletrack for hours up and over all sorts of crazy glacial granite features. Now, you can't go 10 feet without dealing with yet another intersection/go-around/cheat line/blown out corner, etc. MTBers totally blew the place out. I don't even like to ride there any more because it's barely trail anymore, it's just a big spaghetti mess of random fragments.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> MTBers totally blew the place out.


you meant to say ATVers right?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> you meant to say ATVers right?


Nope. MTBers. Never saw many 4 wheelers there at all - too much rock. Moto (as in 2 wheel) guys laid down the original bad-ass singletrack and weren't afraid of working in some very challenging rock sections. XC-ish MTBers made go-arounds everywhere, then go-arounds to the go-arounds, then go-arounds to the go-around go-arounds...the builders had to take to lining the edges of the trails completely with half-buried rocks just to keep people from going around everything. More agro MTBers built off-shoots all over the place to work in other features. You have to make a decision every few seconds as far as which way to turn now and there is no continuity at all anymore.

I personally think moto and mtb can definitely successfully share certain trails. It's when the ATVs start coming in that you get the huge mud pits and wide-ass trashed out dirt roads. Those guys tend to go around frigging everything, where moto guys are much more likely to keep things on the narrow. At least that's my experience.


----------



## TNTE3 (Nov 10, 2017)

That’s one nice thing about the rock creek trails, not many possibilities to make go arounds, trees, banks or drop offs. Your pretty committed to the existing trail. 
Most the riders in this area are also trail volunteers who maintain the trail system. 
Very few newcomers come in because it’s tough system to navigate and very easy to get lost, one wrong turn and you maybe faced with a 2hr hike up and out as it’s to steep to climb on a mtb. Even with a 250w ebike the climbs are demanding and extremely diff to clean. But link the trails together properly and you end up with miles of fast technical DH runs and very little traffic. This system is great area for ebikes and with shuttle runs and guides you can have a blast on a good DH or enduro bike.
the question would you charge hikers, bikers and horse riders. 
The answer is hell yes. 
Ohv has limited ohv trail systems and mtb trails are prob 10to1 where ohv can’t ride on the mtb trails. When IN fact look at California trails funds ohv money has been used to build trails for everyone but ohv. 
It’s a touchy subject. Why do mechanized bikes get access to ohv trails but ohv have no access to mechanized bike travel. Modern mountain bike has ya multiplying gear sets that increase power output of its rider, you get down the the very basics that’s not much different then motorized. When i look at the environmental impact of the mtb trails and compare them to the ohv single track trails i see less damage on the single track ohv trails. having several mtb’s, two ebikes, xc mtb and an enduro bike. I also have several motorcycles trail bike and motocross bike. I spend around 100hrs a year doing trail maint on both mtb trails and ohv trails each year so i feel i earn my keep to access the trails on my mountain bike. My yearly tags on my dirt bikes pay for the trails. I also do the repair and maint on all the local forest service motorcycles through my shop and give them big discounts to keep there bikes running top shape with there limited budget. 
But recently, last week in fact the largest volunteer group in a dacade to do trail maint was organized by mtb’ers. Close to 20 volunteers worked on trails for half Day and accomplished about 3 miles of trail improvements and then got rained out and haven’t been able to enjoy there hard work yet.


----------



## Ricisan (Aug 30, 2006)

I tried to use the skis vs snowboard drama and the irresponsible speeds argument in the Int and Bunny slopes. That was shot down fast by the haters. As we have seen, skiers and snowboarders share the slopes w/o problem. 
Those that are observed by the ski patrol going too fast in the wrong area. They get their lift ticket taken. That seems to have the desired effect, that is using self control!


----------

