# One Solution: e-permits!



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Conditions and issues vary on location. In central Idaho we still have lots of room and lots of trails of all types. Access is increasingly a "settled" issue. There are numerous hiking/horses only trails, numerous non-motorized mtb trails, and numerous motorized trails, and those distinctions don't keep hikers away from the nice ones. 

In this context, here is one option: e-permits for 250w pedelecs on mtb trails. It might work like this.

You decide you want to take your turbo Levo on a non-motorized mtb trail. You sign in online and print a self-permit to display on the bike (already self permits are in wide use in the wilderness).

Records of use are maintained either by non-profit or local USFS. 

That way:
1) we develop a data set of where and how often 250w bikes go. 
2) we can determine if there is an increased impact on trails.
3) other riders who have a problem with the pedelecs can report it and the offenders can be located.
4) the whole process of getting a permit will have most pedelec riders on extra-polite behaviors, and make them aware of concerns by mtb riders.
5) especially "questionable" trails could be excluded from permit access. 

Such a program could be put in place for a finite period, 5 years, and then be subject to re-evlauation, based on real data. 

What does everyone think about this idea, in theory?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Idaho? Like 30 people live there. Motor? Motor only trail.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Motorized trails for motorized vehicles. Odd concept, but it will work, I assure you.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

I think it's a very reasonable approach to gathering real usage data, but you already know my position on e-bikes in general (I'm the cut and dry guy).


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

You guys are really hung up on symantics. LOL

You think a 250w pedelec should be restricted exactly like a KTM 300, even though the impact is entirely different?

I can't ride my KTM on the bike path. But my 250w is no problem. But I guess bike paths are motorized, right?

Instead of labels, perhaps some attention to what things actually are might be in order 

In the real world, you show somebody a turbo Levo and ask them, what is this?

How many will answer "motorcycle"?

In fact I'd bet most would answer: "that's a mountain bike!"

Both labels would be inaccurate.


----------



## Johnny_T (May 29, 2004)

uhoh7 said:


> You think a 250w pedelec should be restricted exactly like a KTM 300


Yep


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Johnny_T said:


> Yep


why?


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Symantics, really? Motor versus no motor is just symantics?


----------



## Maday (Aug 21, 2008)

motor = motorized... pretty simple to understand.

Oh maybe we talking about this situation....
"For those who understand, no explanation it necessary.
For those who don't understand, no explanation is possible."

or

"For those who understand, no explanation it necessary.
For those who invest in e-bikes for profit, no explanation is possible."


----------



## Johnny_T (May 29, 2004)

uhoh7 said:


> why?


Because if a trail is designated non-motorized, it doesn't matter how powerful your motor is, your are breaking the law if you ride it whether you are on your emotorbike or your KTM 300. You specifically say a 250w motor, but Specialized is already selling emoterbikes with twice that power and as demand and technology increase, so will the power. There is no way to regulate what would be allowed or not other than the simple, straightforward reasoning that a trail is either motorized or non-motorized so the vehicles on that trail should either have a motor or not.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Johnny_T said:


> Because if a trail is designated non-motorized, it doesn't matter how powerful your motor is, your are breaking the law if you ride it whether you are on your emotorbike or your KTM 300.


Oh, I see. The justification for the law is it's a law.

So, as a law acolyte, I assume you never exceed the speed limit? Never used a banned substance? Always declare every penny you spend online to state tax folks?


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Colorado defines an "Electrical assisted bicycle" as having less than 750w and top speed of 20 MPH. They have already classified it differently from Motorcycles and Motor vehicles in general.

I'm pretty sure that in most states, motor does not equal motorized.


----------



## Johnny_T (May 29, 2004)

uhoh7 said:


> Oh, I see. The justification for the law is it's a law.
> 
> So, as a law acolyte, I assume you never exceed the speed limit? Never used a banned substance? Always declare every penny you spend online to state tax folks?


lol well.......I may have a few minor infractions but it doesn't mean I want the laws to change (I already live in Colorado where the banned substance laws are just about right).


----------



## Johnny_T (May 29, 2004)

Surly29 said:


> Colorado defines an "Electrical assisted bicycle" as having less than 750w and top speed of 20 MPH. They have already classified it differently from Motorcycles and Motor vehicles in general.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that in most states, motor does not equal motorized.


So what does the definition of "Electrical assisted bicycle" buy the user? Are they allowed anywhere other than on the same trails as motorcycles? I have been very curious about the legality in Colorado. So far I have seen very few ebikes in use.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Johnny_T said:


> lol well.......I may have a few minor infractions but it doesn't mean I want the laws to change (I already live in Colorado where the banned substance laws are just about right).


at least you are honest 

Laws need to be reasonable and rational if we expect people to respect them. A law which equates a 250w pedelec with a KTM 525 is not rational or reasonable. The non-equation of these two bikes on bike paths cements the fact.

People who don't like the idea of e-bikes (based on nothing since you never see them) may, as is natural, try to rationalize the view. Harping on the false equivalency between pedelecs and motorcyles as both "motorized", despite completely different impacts is just trying to justify an emotional view, it seems to me.

Obviously you are not the only one who uses this argument, it's number 1 on the e-basher list 

Though we disagree, i appreciate the nice tone, TY Johnny 

I also am emotional 

PS remember poaching (which I'm not advocating) is also not even a misdemeanor, it's an infraction. Threatening somebody because they are in the wrong place, on the other hand, may constitute a felony if the confrontation implies violence.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Johnny_T said:


> So what does the definition of "Electrical assisted bicycle" buy the user? Are they allowed anywhere other than on the same trails as motorcycles? I have been very curious about the legality in Colorado. So far I have seen very few ebikes in use.


For now I guess this applies mostly to bike paths; can't drive a motorcycle down a bike path. I think an eBike is considered the same as a "Low-powered Scooter" in terms of access. I agree with that.

EDIT: BTW, thank you for a reasonable discussion without the usual name calling and such.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Johnny_T said:


> Because if a trail is designated non-motorized, it doesn't matter how powerful your motor is, your are breaking the law if you ride it whether you are on your emotorbike or your KTM 300. You specifically say a 250w motor, but Specialized is already selling emoterbikes with twice that power and as demand and technology increase, so will the power. There is no way to regulate what would be allowed or not other than the simple, straightforward reasoning that a trail is either motorized or non-motorized so the vehicles on that trail should either have a motor or not.


 MA law says no motor vehicles allowed. The dirt bikes were allowed, got crazy, abused trails, laws and then were kicked out in all except at about 5 or 6 places here in the state. Atv's have the same bad history in this state. With these E bikes the same slippery slope will be started. How does one tell a 250, 500 or 750 watt bike by looking at them? You can't. Do I think a 250 pedal e bike will trash the trails, probably not. But that is not the point. The past 20 years are a sore spot for motors in the woods here in MA. Seems like there is a high hurdle for acceptance with a lot of bad past behavior to overcome. And currently not allowed by law. There are lot of user groups besides mt bikers here that won't approve of them either.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

But MA law also says an eBike is not a motor vehicle.

I don't care either way, but I don't think the law is as on your side as you think it is. Sorry if that sounds harsh.


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> You guys are really hung up on symantics. LOL
> 
> You think a 250w pedelec should be restricted exactly like a KTM 300, even though the impact is entirely different?


Nope. I posed this question in another thread, I guess I'll take another stab at it here-



> I'd like to hear one logical reason (from anyone) why electric bikes shouldn't be classified differently than bicycles and granted (or denied) access the same way as any other user group.


Makes a lot more sense than your proposal to me.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

uhoh7 said:


> Oh, I see. The justification for the law is it's a law.
> 
> So, as a law acolyte, I assume you never exceed the speed limit? Never used a banned substance? Always declare every penny you spend online to state tax folks?


^ I think you just rationalized away any form of law enforcement.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Surly29 said:


> Colorado defines an "Electrical assisted bicycle" as having less than 750w and top speed of 20 MPH. They have already classified it differently from Motorcycles and Motor vehicles in general.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that in most states, motor does not equal motorized.


Actually, in Colorado and in most other states, the sub 750W ebike definition only removes them from the state Motor Vehicle classification. They are still considered motorized. Some municipalities ban motorized vehicles from their bike paths and trails, some ban motor vehicles, some specify ebikes in particular one way or another.

The easiest assumption is that if it says no motor vehicles, ebikes are OK, if it says no motorized vehicles, they are banned.

I've been looking into it for a few months and access is generally very restrictive in Colorado, yet essentially unenforced.


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

No, you are completely right. A motor is motorized.

Perhaps I read too many other threads, but I wish people would stop calling them motor vehicle or comparing them to motorcycles when they clearly are not the same in the eyes of the law. They shouldn't be called motorcycles any more than they should be called bicycles.


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

chuckha62 said:


> Symantics, really? Motor versus no motor is just symantics?


In the legal world - absolutely.

Here in Michigan, under the law, an air rifle is a firearm.

How can something with no fire be a firearm? Because the law says it is.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Surly29 said:


> No, you are completely right. A motor is motorized.
> 
> Perhaps I read too many other threads, but I wish people would stop calling them motor vehicle or comparing them to motorcycles when they clearly are not the same in the eyes of the law. They shouldn't be called motorcycles any more than they should be called bicycles.


 Except in the state of California where legally they ARE bicycles.........


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

aborgman said:


> In the legal world - absolutely.
> 
> Here in Michigan, under the law, an air rifle is a firearm.
> 
> How can something with no fire be a firearm? Because the law says it is.


Calling a 250w pedelec a motorcycle is like calling a bow and arrow a firearm. 

Motorized ST trails are regulated with a particular sort of vehicle in mind: a 250lb bike with a gas engine, throttle, and huge power. Often 50 hp.

The 250w pedelec is silent, has no throttle, no gas engine, and appears near identical to a mtb. More importantly the impact is also near identical.

The word "motor" does not make these devices the same thing, obviously. But if you just hate them I guess it makes a good taking point.


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

If it's obvious they aren't the same as motorcycles, is it not as equally obvious they aren't the same as bicycles?

Do we actually have any solid information on the impact of e-bikes yet?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Depends what you mean by an ebike. And I'm not being snide, it's just that "ebike" like "bike" encompasses a broad world of vehicles.

If you mean 750W emtbs that are legal in the US, then no, they don't exist in significant enough numbers to study yet, sort of like mountain unicycles. It's all an experiment.


----------

