# What's your opinion on power, speed limits and access?



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

The CA regs were written by the guys who sell ebikes and I haven't found that the ebike community or any community had any input. They were a departure from the EU regulations and the only explanation that I've seen were a vauge, "americans are larger and like to go faster". They obviously just kept the higher level, picked who knows how, when the previous federal CPSA was defined.

I'm not going to ask about the regs regarding street riding, just off road. 

I'm curious to see where both sides of debate will stand, and if there is any middle ground. I have some contacts in my state senate who are adamant that they're don't want to blindly adopt the CA regs, so we're discussing alternatives. 

Let me know the reasons for your choices and try to keep it civil please. Say your piece and leave it at that.

Here's your choices:

Power & Speed

A - EU Pedelc - 250w/15.5mph
B - EU S-Pedelc - 250w/28mph
C- CA class 1/2 -750w/20mph
D- CA class 3 - 750w/28mph
E - 250w/20mph
F - Other, please define

Access

A- Legal everywhere except where prohibited
b- Legal on moto, banned on non moto single track, except where allowed
C- Legal on moto only
D - Other, please define


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I'd say 250/15 EU bikes should be allowed on any _bike specific_ trails unless banned, and allowed/not allowed on a case by case basis on MUTs.

Anything with more power should be moto trail/street only.

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

C,A. Any higher and it may be too much. I'm not going faster downhill on my Levo. Uphill, yes, but certainly not fast enough where I'm running anybody over.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Anybody read US Law?

The federal Consumer Product Safety Act defines a "low speed electric bicycle" as a two or three wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals, a top speed when powered solely by the motor under 20 mph (32 km/h) and an electric motor that produces less than 750 W (1.01 hp). 

But in effect this gives the e-mtb a lower top speed than a mtb on flat ground, pedaling. That can be unsafe if you are around cars. How fast can you sprint your mtb?

Is there some reason a e-mtb should not be allowed to go that speed?

So I would throw the speed limit out because it asks the e-bike to be slower than a bike. 

The true regulator is power. 250w continuous like we see in turbo levo etc, brose, bosch, yammi, shimano, this is all the limit which could ever be needed for anything a bike is allowed to do. Certainly it's fine on the trails, unless the rider is a jerk, which is always the case mtb or e-mtb. 

What about that 750w? Well, I don't know as I have not ridden one for 10 rides, which is the minimum to get a real idea. 

I doubt they are much threat, and in fact the 750w limit will LESSEN their time on the trail because of battery issues. 

Now if I put my selfish ME hat on, I'd say ANYBODY with ANYTHING more powerful than MINE should be BANNED


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Gutch said:


> C,A. Any higher and it may be too much. I'm not going faster downhill on my Levo. Uphill, yes, but certainly not fast enough where I'm running anybody over.


Which CA?

Access?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> Anybody read US Law?
> 
> The federal Consumer Product Safety Act defines a "low speed electric bicycle" as a two or three wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals, a top speed when powered solely by the motor under 20 mph (32 km/h) and an electric motor that produces less than 750 W (1.01 hp).
> 
> ...


Did you pick one? I couldn't tell.

Access?


----------



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

(power & speed) A,B,C,D,E, and possibly F should have b access



Walt said:


> I'd say 250/15 EU bikes should be allowed on any _bike specific_ trails unless banned, and allowed/not allowed on a case by case basis on MUTs.


I agree with this^ The thing I'm most adamant about is that this sign doesn't _automatically_ grant access to any motor assist no matter what the power.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Harryman said:


> Did you pick one? I couldn't tell.
> 
> Access?


Of your choices the most practical from both enforcement and riding perspectives would be D.

Still slower than a bike can go, but 28 will work in traffic.

The idea you are leaving out the street is ridiculous because bikes get ridden on and off road.

let look at the swiss laws:
Rules for e-bikes/electric bikes:

The minimum age for riding an electric bike is 14.
Young people under the age of 16 need a category M driving licence (motorised bicycle). For information on driving licence categories see. No licence is needed over the age of 16.

Pedal-assisted e-bikes with a speed of over 45 km/h are considered motorcycles.

E-bikes must use cycle lanes.

Slow e-bikes (up to 25km/h) are allowed to use roads signposted "no motorised bicycles". *Fast e-bikes can only use these roads with their motor switched off.*

Pedal-assisted e-bikes with a speed of over 25 km/h still need a number plate and vignette. (Get these from your canton's road traffic office if they are not supplied directly by the shop that sold you your bike).

Note the passage I have put in bold. A 15mph assist would not be such a burden if you can turn it off on the street, where it is unreasonable, and even unsafe for real riding, or change to a 28mph level.

Access? Legal anywhere a bike can go. Why not?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Harryman said:


> Which CA?
> 
> Access?


C, A with access unless prohibited.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

I'm cool with A,A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

Ok. As most people are aware, my main issue is linking MTB's with E-bikes. They should fight their own battles, rather than potentially screw up access other groups have fought long and hard for.

However, to assist the E-bikers with access I'd suggest:

A -> A
B-F -> B (And by allowed I mean explicitly permitted, not "There wasn't a sign saying no")

The only caveat is if people start rocking around on non-class A bikes and pretending they're class A. If that occurs, then:

A-F -> B (And by allowed I mean explicitly permitted, not "There wasn't a sign saying no")


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

E & A look good to me Harry, but could survive with the EU standard. I'd say PAS except for physically challenged individuals; let them have a throttle. Also, I wouldn't mind if physically challenged individuals were allowed to have a front & rear system for redundancy although wouldn't push this if others objected.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

I think you can forget the EU 15mph limit. All US bikes, including turbo levo are regulated at 20mph, as are bikes sold in the UK. Check me levo owners if I'm wrong. 

But for 20, the bikes are ready


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> I think you can forget the EU 15mph limit. All US bikes, including turbo levo are regulated at 20mph, as are bikes sold in the UK. Check me levo owners if I'm wrong.
> 
> But for 20, the bikes are ready


Thanks for your opinion, I know what's out there already, I'm only interested in what people would like moving forward. I'd rather this thread stay concise, there's plenty of other threads for dicussions.

You might want to check this out: UK electric bike usage law | Pedelecs - Electric Bike Community


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

fos'l said:


> E & A look good to me Harry, but could survive with the EU standard. I'd say PAS except for physically challenged individuals; let them have a throttle. Also, I wouldn't mind if physically challenged individuals were allowed to have a front & rear system for redundancy although wouldn't push this if others objected.


+1 on the hand throttle for the riders who are physically challenged. Thats what the Class 2 designation is about.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

If you can't pedal *at all* and need a hand throttle, should you be mountain biking at all?

I'm just struggling to think of a case where someone would have the physical ability to operate a 2 wheeled vehicle safely but not move their legs to pedal it.

-Walt


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

Walt said:


> If you can't pedal *at all* and need a hand throttle, should you be mountain biking at all?
> 
> I'm just struggling to think of a case where someone would have the physical ability to operate a 2 wheeled vehicle safely but not move their legs to pedal it.
> 
> -Walt


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

Im sure he is one of many. I personally know 1 guy who uses a hand crank (not motorized at all). But he dont enter the trails anymore.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Walt said:


> If you can't pedal *at all* and need a hand throttle, should you be mountain biking at all?
> 
> I'm just struggling to think of a case where someone would have the physical ability to operate a 2 wheeled vehicle safely but not move their legs to pedal it.
> 
> -Walt


Walt, those other examples; plus, remember MTB doesn't need to be on the trails that are arduous, maybe like you're envisioning; can be a mild trail in a park where the individual would need assistance.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Harryman said:


> Thanks for your opinion, I know what's out there already, I'm only interested in what people would like moving forward. I'd rather this thread stay concise, there's plenty of other threads for dicussions.
> 
> You might want to check this out: UK electric bike usage law | Pedelecs - Electric Bike Community


Harry, you are totally against e-mtb access to non-motorized trails. So what is the purpose of this thread, intelligence gathering for your campaign to keep us out?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> Harry, you are totally against e-mtb access to non-motorized trails. So what is the purpose of this thread, intelligence gathering for your campaign to keep us out?


I'm totally against having blanket access for 750w emtbs without having any systems in place to manage them or any data on how they will integrate into a non motorized system. Unlike most people, I work with land managers and representatives of other user groups on at least a weekly basis this time of year, who are also 100% against having a motorized vehicle dropped in their laps. Like me, they believe they will bring more problems for everyone to deal with with zero return. If the only choices are for 750w emtbs to be everywhere or nowhere, I'll fight for nowhere. I'm working towards a more measured approach that in the long run will benefit both sides.

I have no issues if they are allowed in specific areas in a deliberate manner. If it all works out, cool, lobby for more access, you'll have data to back it up and be able to get it.

I don't have a problem with 250w/15.5mph bikes either from a power speed standpoint, they work just fine in Europe right? I believe the 750w/20mph limit will hurt the ebike commuity far more than it will help. Keep the power low and they'll be good for an assist while climbing, but the added weight will limit how much fun they'll be elsewhere. For a lot of people, that is plenty. For the guys who flat out just want to go faster, and they'll be the ones who will cause problems just like on mtbs, it'll be less appealing. Give them 750w and the equation switches to be more in their favor.

Add in mods and unrestricted kitbikes and we have a free for all here compared to Europe.

My choices are A and B.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Power & Speed

*A - EU Pedelc - 250w/15.5mph* < - This is reasonable considering all the Mutli-Use Trails have a 15mph Speed limit regardless (at least in my part of California that is the Law)
B - EU S-Pedelc - 250w/28mph
C- CA class 1/2 -750w/20mph
D- CA class 3 - 750w/28mph
E - 250w/20mph
F - Other, please define

Access

*A- Legal everywhere except where prohibited* < - This is reasonable as long as everyone, Human Powered MTB included keep it at 15mph or less.
b- Legal on moto, banned on non moto single track, except where allowed
C- Legal on moto only
D - Other, please define


----------



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

On the access issue a & b seem to be the same in regards to electric bikes with the exception that (b) would require consideration for each individual trail and possibly (hopefully) public input to decide what is best. As far as I remember that's was pretty much how mountain bikes gained access to hiking trails. 

Option (a) seems like it could (would?) automatically allow them in areas without the current users input and place the burden of removing them (if desired) on them. Or do I have that wrong?

Contrary to some opinions here I think hikers and equestrians desires and rights should be considered and respected and option (b) seems to accomplish that better than (a) to me. OK I've said my peace and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> On the access issue a & b seem to be the same in regards to electric bikes with the exception that (b) would require consideration for each individual trail and possibly (hopefully) public input to decide what is best. As far as I remember that's was pretty much how mountain bikes gained access to hiking trails.
> 
> Option (a) seems like it could (would?) automatically allow them in areas without the current users input and place the burden of removing them (if desired) on them. Or do I have that wrong?
> 
> Contrary to some opinions here I think hikers and equestrians desires and rights should be considered and respected and option (b) seems to accomplish that better than (a) to me. OK I've said my peace and I'll leave it at that.


There's no guarantee of a users input in either scenario. A) would require a land manager to specifially ban them or do nothing and they would be allowed. B) would be the reverse and a LM would have to specifically allow them. If there's a public process in there either way, great.


----------



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

Harryman said:


> There's no guarantee of a users input in either scenario.


I realize that but I would guess that under option (a) there might be many situations where the land managers did nothing, thereby granting access by default and denying any opportunity for potential public input until after the fact. With option (b) if nothing is done it's up to the e-bike community to advocate for access, thus granting time and opportunity for (potential) public input.

So I do see a difference in that regard.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

I agree, which is why I prefer B as well.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

C,A Since that is what I ride and is the status quo where I live and ride. 

Although, it would be nice to be able to have a Class 3: unlike a pMTB I am gearing limited to a maximum speed of 20mph on a flat road. I could try to pedal to add assist at that speed, but the cadence is way too high with my 30t chainwheel. On the descents once I reach 20mph that's it, it's all gravity after that. I become a rolling chicane getting passed left and right by pMTBs who have the gearing to permit the rider to actually have power input to the pedals over 20mph. At that speed all I can do is coast.......

It is ironic that a 250w pedalec is actually faster than my 750w Class 1 kit-type eMTB, since they have the ability for the rider to still effectively pedal and add speed downhill when I do not. I could alter my bike to be able to do so, but then it would not be Class 1 legal and I could not ride my local trails.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Harryman said:


> I don't have a problem with 250w/15.5mph bikes either from a power speed standpoint, they work just fine in Europe right? I believe the 750w/20mph limit will hurt the ebike commuity far more than it will help.


Harry, it's already a done deal. USA 250 watt bikes can go 20 mph. That will not change, unless you plan to rewrite the the federal law.

Nothing personal, but I feel your use of the E-bike forum to advocate your views against e-mtb access is inappropriate.

I believe mods should seriously consider moving all discussion of access to the trail building and advocacy forum where it belongs.

It's obvious the two sides will never agree in this forum. If you have an e-mtb you are going to be for access to non-motorized trails like a normal mtb. Harry and Walt are strongly against access, and the only reason most non-emtb riders participate here is to join the highly acrimonious discussion. This thread is the exception, and it's nice, but it's not going to last in general.

If we develop a new policy of moving those discussions to the advocacy forum, then we can start talking about more about e-mtbs here and less about who deserves what, which is beyond a distraction, it has rendered this forum unable to forfiill it's function of providing a place to share e-mtb information freeely for THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN EMTBS. MTBR now covers e-mtbs so I think it's reasonable to have a discussion forum here but letting the controversy over non-motorized access take really ruins the atmosphere (outside of this thread at the moment).

I don't think Harry and Walt should be censored, just that they should be talking about theirviews about regulations they advocate in the advocacy forum, or another forum about land policy. They can gather all the data they wish there and even post links to their questions here, to get emts rider participation.

Same goes for us. If we want to demand access to all trails we can do it there too and have those fights someplace contained, so they do not poison discussion of the emtbs mtbr is now reporting about.

Here we can talk about bikes and rides.

Of course I can hunker down and fight indefinitely right here. I once spent two years at thumpertalk educating about global warming, so I'm fully trained 

But it will be unpleasant and not a benefit to users, mods or mtbr to allow a single issue to divide the discussion of emtbs.

Let's move the access talk to advocacy, please.


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

Uhoh7, you're your own worst enemy.

If I had an E-bike and wanted trail access, then getting the MTB people in here, talking about their concerns, trail politics, and policy would be one of the most sensible things to do.

Pushing them to the advocacy forum works great for MTBers. As I've pointed out the very best thing for MTB access is to separate themselves from E-bikes as much as possible, and promote the "human powered" mantra. 

Now you want them to go and discuss trail access, in a forum with lots of input from MTBers and minimal input from E-bike users? That's gonna work just swell for you guys.


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> I believe .............................


So many words, yet none relevant. You should stay on point.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> ..............


The federal law only defines what can be sold as an ebike, previously they were defined as a moped. It has no bearing on use, which is set by the state and then the local level. So, it's not a done deal by any means. Look up the places you can legally ride any sort of emtb on non motorized single track in Colorado, it's an exceedingly short list.

This is a mountain bike forum, if you think an ebike sub forum here won't be filled with acrimony, you're naive. There's plenty of ebike and emtb forums if having everyone on your side is important to you, I don't complain about them there. I'm happy to post links if you'd like.

I started this thread because I believe there's possibility for a compromise and I wanted to see if there are people interested or if it's purely my way or the highway. I'm not very concerned about winning Internet arguments, it means nothing, but can be educational and good fun. If you don't like my thread, ignore it, it will die that much faster.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, I'm basically just here to see if I should ignore e-bikes, give e-bikes a helping hand on access, or oppose them everywhere. I'd like to support EU-limited bikes to get people who aren't traditional mountain bikers out enjoying the trails. I'm NOT interested in any vehicles that will increase speeds or impacts on other users. 

So I think this thread is very relevant - what limits are e-bike riders willing to accept? If they're really ok with going no faster overall than normal mountain bikes, it's hard to see why going faster than the EU standard would be necessary. I could get behind that.

What I'm not ok with is changing the basic user experience (for both mountain bikers and hikers) and risking access for non-motorized bikes. Human power only serves as a very effective check on people riding like jerks (though it's obviously not 100% effective) and it's easy to enforce. If we're going to move away from that, we need a *damn* good reason and plenty of safeguards in place.

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Harryman asked what we think as far as tolerances for ebikes and the reality is, it doesn't matter. Manufacturers will be pumping out these bikes. And yes, I am a traditional mtber and still are. This is the last time I post in this forum as its nothing but contraversy. There is no solution and a few guys on this forum have zero impact on the future. I respect every bodies opinion, but it's getting foolish. The big manufacturers are putting out a certain wattage for a reason. Anything else is the very rare extreme and not a threat. Just my opinion.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Gutch said:


> Harryman asked what we think as far as tolerances for ebikes and the reality is, it doesn't matter. Manufacturers will be pumping out these bikes. And yes, I am a traditional mtber and still are. This is the last time I post in this forum as its nothing but contraversy. There is no solution and a few guys on this forum have zero impact on the future. I respect every bodies opinion, but it's getting foolish. The big manufacturers are putting out a certain wattage for a reason. Anything else is the very rare extreme and not a threat. Just my opinion.


 Yep I have came to the same conclusion as you and don't care for some of the name calling that some use on here this forum will have little if any impact on e bikes , I was just in a new bike shop by my house the shop had lots of bikes including two ELEC bikes . And ther is another shop opening down the rd from me that will be elec bikes only!! Adapt or die


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Unfortunately, mountain biking in many places just might die.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Unfortunately, mountain biking in many places just might die.


No it wont! Lets say the worst case scenario happened. Lost all trail access, will you stop riding?

I wont

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Gutch said:


> There is no solution and a few guys on this forum have zero impact on the future.


It depends on who you know.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Nothing will change with reg mt biking but there will be new growth in the MT community that will bring even more fun and new ways to enjoy Mt Biking . The biggest problem for the anti e biker will be fighting the desire to ride one .


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Walt said:


> Yeah, I'm basically just here to see if I should ignore e-bikes, give e-bikes a helping hand on access, or oppose them everywhere. I'd like to support EU-limited bikes to get people who aren't traditional mountain bikers out enjoying the trails. I'm NOT interested in any vehicles that will increase speeds or impacts on other users.
> 
> So I think this thread is very relevant - what limits are e-bike riders willing to accept? If they're really ok with going no faster overall than normal mountain bikes, it's hard to see why going faster than the EU standard would be necessary. I could get behind that.
> 
> ...


The problem with arbitrary limits that exist without extensive data, is that there will always be a DIY kit that will skirt those limits. The free market exists here in America. You can try to control it like some communist country all you want, but that just means that people will (ironically) go purchase it from a communist country like China. There are the bbs kits which all look the same, have the same wiring but some are under the EU limit and some are over.

You want manufactures to make their bikes modification proof when your bike is not modification proof. If you want to ban bikes that can be modified, you are asking to have YOUR BIKE BANNED!

The EGO can be installed and removed in a minutes time, with all the regulations in place here in crazytown USA, these companies that make easily removable motors become increasing attractive. Irrational regulation should not be controlling the free market.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

PinoyMTBer said:


> No it wont! Lets say the worst case scenario happened. Lost all trail access, will you stop riding?
> 
> I won't.


That's exactly the attitude that gets trails closed! If I lose access to trails, I will not ride them. I really enjoy mountain biking, but it isn't my life.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Linktung said:


> The problem with arbitrary limits that exist without extensive data, is that there will always be a DIY kit that will skirt those limits. The free market exists here in America. You can try to control it like some communist country all you want, but that just means that people will (ironically) go purchase it from a communist country like China. There are the bbs kits which all look the same, have the same wiring but some are under the EU limit and some are over.
> 
> You want manufactures to make their bikes modification proof when your bike is not modification proof. If you want to ban bikes that can be modified, you are asking to have YOUR BIKE BANNED!
> 
> The EGO can be installed and removed in a minutes time, with all the regulations in place here in crazytown USA, these companies that make easily removable motors become increasing attractive. Irrational regulation should not be controlling the free market.


I'd rather lose trail access to sensitive and crowded trails than allow electric motorcycles on them.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

mountainbiker24 said:


> That's exactly the attitude that gets trails closed! If I lose access to trails, I will not ride them. I really enjoy mountain biking, but it isn't my life.


Thats the big difference between us. Riding is an important part of my life. I've been enjoying it since I was a little kid and I will continue to do it until I no longer can. My kids will continue my passion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

PinoyMTBer said:


> Thats the big difference between us. Riding is an important part of my life. I've been enjoying it since I was a little kid and I will continue to do it until I no longer can. My kids will continue my passion.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's been a big part of my life as well, but fortunately it isn't the most important part. The forests, deserts, fields, and mountains are more important than riding a bicycle. If it's possible to enjoy God's gifts on bicycles and e-bikes, that's wonderful, but it's ridiculous to endanger other trail users or irreversibly damage trails just because it's fun.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

mountainbiker24 said:


> It's been a big part of my life as well, but fortunately it isn't the most important part. The forests, deserts, fields, and mountains are more important than riding a bicycle. If it's possible to enjoy God's gifts on bicycles and e-bikes, that's wonderful, but it's ridiculous to endanger other trail users or irreversibly damage trails just because it's fun.


Endanger other trail users ?? like riding a public trail like its a red bull down hill course?? posting your times on the net ?? trail damage? oh the great big wooden high bank contraption that makes a MT biker ride at a high speed just to stay on it . Lets be reasonable here .


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

In the long run I really think Speed is going to be the major factor in how Land Managers approach this. Since we know they are willing to close trails from users recording 20mph speeds and faster on Multi-Use trails in Northern California, that is a concern for them.

Regardless of wattage, can those who purchase e-Bikes keep them at the posted 15mph or less on Multi-Use Trails? Yes or no? Time will tell, but History shows us that people will always go faster than the posted speed limit regardless of conditions.

Limiting them from the factory does not work, people love to mod things and will always figure out a way around manufacturer imposed limits, just look at those who jail-break iPhones and load customer Roms on Android Phones. It is super popular, and once one user does all the hard work they are more than happy to share the results online and give the code away.

I think much of the burden is going to be on other trail users policing the few idiots with high powered e-Bikes(and those who insist on pedaling fast enough) that are traveling above 15mph on a Multi-Use trail.

I have ridden e-bikes and I am not a fan and will probably never get one since it defeats the purpose of me earning my descents via the climbs. But after a lot of reading and thinking on this Subject I am starting to see that this is indeed a Problem for All Mountain Bikers, we will have to step up our game of policing other users about speed limits regardless of Pedal power or Battery Power, and just hope that this new group of E-Bike users are not recording and posting speeds online where Land Mangers can simple download the figures and make decisions about closures based on that alone. 

To think this will not be an issue in your area because it is working in Europe and Australia is Ignorant at best, Stupid at worst.

While it probably "should not" be on the shoulders of the MTB Community who spent so many years gaining trail access, it will fall on us yet again, the least the E-Bike community can do is step up and join us at the table.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> If we develop a new policy of moving those discussions to the advocacy forum, then we can start talking about more about e-mtbs here and less about who deserves what, which is beyond a distraction, it has rendered this forum unable to forfiill it's function of providing a place to share e-mtb information freeely for THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN EMTBS. MTBR now covers e-mtbs so I think it's reasonable to have a discussion forum here but letting the controversy over non-motorized access take really ruins the atmosphere (outside of this thread at the moment).


I am not going to move this thread, but I went ahead and started one for you in trail advocacy.
http://forums.mtbr.com/trail-buildi...ikes-trail-advocacy-1019750.html#post12772468


----------



## Bikedriver (Jun 11, 2016)

uhoh7 said:


> Harry, it's already a done deal. USA 250 watt bikes can go 20 mph. That will not change, unless you plan to rewrite the the federal law.
> 
> Nothing personal, but I feel your use of the E-bike forum to advocate your views against e-mtb access is inappropriate.
> 
> ...


I totally agree with you uhoh7. Nicely said.


----------



## Bikedriver (Jun 11, 2016)

Class C is perfect for off road on any bike trial with exceptions in certain areas as necessary. The US is vast and vastly different from riding area to riding area...the same law for every bit of land in every state and city makes no sense. 



A is perfect for CA class 1/2. Legal everywhere except where prohibited is a smart approach thus allowing certain areas that might be too crowded or whatever to prohibit them if it makes sense. 


I think only Class D+ should be road or moto only.

And let's be real everyone...many to most serious ebike riders in Europe convert their EU (power and speed) up to 20 mph. Those who keep it at 15 don't have the skills to ride 20. It's kind of like the speed limits you see on the road here in the USA. Good luck with that. Curious, how many of you posting here actually abide by the state and Federal speed limit laws 100% of the time? Anyone? 


I think the reason for 20 makes a lot of sense will become clear to those that actually ride ebikes...15 is too slow off road for those highly skilled and technical riders.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Bikedriver said:


> ...15 is too slow off road for those highly skilled and technical riders.


Highly skilled and technical riders should be on mountain bikes on mountain bikes trails. If an e-bike is too slow, get a motorcycle and ride motorcycle trails. Most mountain bike trails were not designed for high speeds at all times. In fact, many trails were designed for foot traffic with limited sight lines and multi-directional traffic. Do some mountain bikers ride recklessly? Of course, and that's a problem that will only be increased if more people (many without the skills and/or experience necessary to ride at speed) are given easy access to more speed. Limits are necessary to control wheel spin and speed-created conflicts, and if that speed is too slow then maybe an e-bike is not the way to go.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Bikedriver said:


> And let's be real everyone...many to most serious ebike riders in Europe convert their EU (power and speed) up to 20 mph.


I'd love to see your source for that, I know dongles are an issue in places and all the ones I've seen for sale simply double the upper limit, whatever it may be. Do you live there?


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Harryman said:


> I'd love to see your source for that, I know dongles are an issue in places and all the ones I've seen for sale simply double the upper limit, whatever it may be. Do you live there?


There is a bunch of options and even US e-bike carriers have them and will install for you (motostrano)

The one I use use I really like, about the same price, but by default the limit is on, i.e. each time you start it. speed reading is always correct. the light button controls it. I've done two substantial ST rides yesterday and today. Did I turn off the restriction? No. Why? Harry has me feeling guilty......haha, not really. Because on single track here you never feel like you need to. Mine, like all US bikes is limited at 20 though, not 15, which I feel is overkill.

However when I go into commuter mode, I always derestrict which leaves me with a realistic top speed of about 28 mph. Past 25 you are huffin and puffing even on flat pavement. But my 27+ tires might be a factor there.

When nobody is in sight I cruise along at about 22mph, but when I pass people either way, walking or riding, I slow to well under 20. For the roads in Idaho I am legal to 30 mph. 

I have yet to see a video of a e-mtb being ridden irresponsibly off road, but mtbs.....youtube has nuts galore as you all know.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Highly skilled and technical riders should be on mountain bikes on mountain bikes trails. If an e-bike is too slow, get a motorcycle and ride motorcycle trails. Most mountain bike trails were not designed for high speeds at all times. In fact, many trails were designed for foot traffic with limited sight lines and multi-directional traffic. Do some mountain bikers ride recklessly? Of course, and that's a problem that will only be increased if more people (many without the skills and/or experience necessary to ride at speed) are given easy access to more speed. Limits are necessary to control wheel spin and speed-created conflicts, and if that speed is too slow then maybe an e-bike is not the way to go.


By that rationale, you're claiming your a very technical and skilled mtber, but have never ridden over 15mph? Skills determine how fast you're going to ride on a trail that is not congested. It would not matter what bike you are on. Like I've said, I'm not quicker on downhills riding my Levo. And if you guys think you can go 20 mph up any type of grade, than Peter Sagan obviously has a twin. 😳 I wasn't going to comment here, but I simply couldnt resist! Again, I truly believe the mass population that buys ebikes are going to be experienced bikers like myself. Ever think every now and then you wanna take it a little easy and cruise some trails after full gas on a regular mtb? Viola- ebike.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Gutch said:


> By that rationale, you're claiming your a very technical and skilled mtber, but have never ridden over 15mph? Skills determine how fast you're going to ride on a trail that is not congested. It would not matter what bike you are on. Like I've said, I'm not quicker on downhills riding my Levo. And if you guys think you can go 20 mph up any type of grade, than Peter Sagan obviously has a twin.  I wasn't going to comment here, but I simply couldnt resist! Again, I truly believe the mass population that buys ebikes are going to be experienced bikers like myself. Ever think every now and then you wanna take it a little easy and cruise some trails after full gas on a regular mtb? Viola- ebike.


TY for that post. I doubt you will make an impression on that guy, but lots of others lurk here with more open minds 

The best antidote to the local negativity: A ride on the e-mtb. It is too damn fun 

I have 2 killer backcountry motorbikes, a KTM and a GG txt300 pro. I have not ridden either since my Haibike arrived.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I'm not really trying to make an impression, just tired of the comments that we are not respectful, ride way too damn fast, litter on trails etc.. Wtf? I love riding my ebikes as much as my normal bikes. I follow the rules, why the constant stereotype? No love from brothers with two wheels..


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> There is a bunch of options and even US e-bike carriers have them and will install for you (motostrano)
> 
> The one I use use I really like, about the same price, but by default the limit is on, i.e. each time you start it. speed reading is always correct. the light button controls it. I've done two substantial ST rides yesterday and today. Did I turn off the restriction? No. Why? Harry has me feeling guilty......haha, not really. Because on single track here you never feel like you need to. Mine, like all US bikes is limited at 20 though, not 15, which I feel is overkill.
> 
> ...


Your arguments are awful.
Are you suggesting that E-bikers will be perfect trail users? Never misbehaving, breaking the rules? In spite of the fact that you yourself have modded your bike to be non-legal?

You seem to be under the impression that people are here discussing the problems of E-bikes because they have some form of personal hatred for e-bikes? This suggests that you still have not managed to get your head around the main debate being discussed.

Most of us here have concerns about E-bikes and the ramifications for trail access.
How is "A ride on the e-mtb. It is too damn fun" a useful solution.

I think we need a few rules for your type of posts. This should cut down on the words required to respond to your posts.
Uhoh7's rules for posting.
1) If uhoh7 doesn't like the debate he'll divert it with pretty pictures and non-productive tangents.
2) Mountain bikers are irresponsible trail users, whereas E-bikers are perfect trail users - based on uhoh7's own "perfect" behaviour and anecdotes.
3) Uhoh7 will happily conflate different E-bike classes where suitable for the argument at hand. Trail access - oh sure, EU class 1. What do you mean they shouldn't ride a B52 on the trail. It's an E-bike.
4) MTBs and E-bikes are exactly the same. 
5) MTBs and E-bikes are completely different and you shouldn't discuss e-bikes without having ridden them.
6) All arguments made against E-bikes are entirely due to the arguer having some personal hatred of E-bikes. Never mind the fact that E-bikes may have significant effects on MTB trail access and politics. 
7) Trail access concerns can be mitigated, so long as the activity is "fun".

That's it for the moment.


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

Gutch said:


> I'm not really trying to make an impression, just tired of the comments that we are not respectful, ride way too damn fast, litter on trails etc.. Wtf? I love riding my ebikes as much as my normal bikes. I follow the rules, why the constant stereotype? No love from brothers with two wheels..


Got some examples of these comments?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Martin.au said:


> Got some examples of these comments?


I don't have time to read thru the ENTIRE Ebike forum again, I've got to get a good nights sleep and charge my Levo. Tommorow is a big day, going for personal best, then posting on strava! I'm just kidding ok?


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

Gutch said:


> I don't have time to read thru the ENTIRE Ebike forum again, I've got to get a good nights sleep and charge my Levo. Tommorow is a big day, going for personal best, then posting on strava! I'm just kidding ok?


Are you mixing up comments regarding the behaviour of people in general - eg: that some people will go too fast, some people will break the rules, etc - with comments directed at you?

Because most comments I've read have been fairly careful about distinguishing a particular users behaviour, from the entire population of human behaviour.

There is a problem of tarring all with the same brush, but at the same time, there's also a problem of people assuming that is occurring, when it isn't.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Bikedriver said:


> I think the reason for 20 makes a lot of sense will become clear to those that actually ride ebikes...15 is too slow off road for those highly skilled and technical riders.


Most Multi-Use Trails have a 15mph speed limit on them, not a 20mph speed limit. Perhaps where you live it is different, but I know of zero multi-use trails where anything above 15mph is acceptable.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> I have yet to see a video of a e-mtb being ridden irresponsibly off road, but mtbs.....youtube has nuts galore as you all know.







Now you can no longer make that statement. ;-)


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Now you can no longer make that statement. ;-)


Would you like to see a million youtub videos of REG mt bikers ridding like that??


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

rider95 said:


> Would you like to see a million youtub videos of REG mt bikers ridding like that??


Sure, however the comment made was that he had yet to see "a" or just one video of someone riding an e-MTB irresponsibly.

I wanted to show him "a" or just one video of it.

e-bikes are still in the infancy of the game and have not become as prolific as pedal bikes so of course there will be way more video's of idiots on pedal bikes than on e-bikes. As time marches on and more people buy them we will get to see more videos of them.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> Most Multi-Use Trails have a 15mph speed limit on them, not a 20mph speed limit. Perhaps where you live it is different, but I know of zero multi-use trails where anything above 15mph is acceptable.


 Speed limit? What's that. Never heard of one in MA. Ever. How fast ya going to pedal on a dirt road? Downhill? Usually rocks and sight lines are the limiting factor, common sense as well. That and giant rocks, curves, roots, small rocks and trees. Plus that little guy on your shoulder who says, " slow down, you're gona die"


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

leeboh said:


> Speed limit? What's that. Never heard of one in MA. Ever. How fast ya going to pedal on a dirt road? Downhill? Usually rocks and sight lines are the limiting factor, common sense as well. That and giant rocks, curves, roots, small rocks and trees. Plus that little guy on your shoulder who says, " slow down, you're gona die"


For a brief time the Carlsbad Police were patrolling my local riding area and enforcing the 15mph speed limit. I do not think they actually caught anyone as I have yet to see anyone pedaling that fast on the fairly crowded trails around the Lake.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

Gutch said:


> Again, I truly believe the mass population that buys ebikes are going to be experienced bikers like myself. on a regular mtb?


Based on my experience so far, you couldn't be more wrong. I have yet to see an e-bike on a SoCal trail but I see plenty on my weekly road rides. *Most* are being ridden by senior citizens who probably haven't ridden a bike in 20+ years and have no clue what's going on around them. They are literally a danger to themselves and everybody else the way they ride....absolutely clueless. The rest of the folks I see on them are either commuter type folks or as I saw yesterday, women riding an bike to keep up with their non e-bike riding male companion.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I'm glad I don't live and ride in SoCal!


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

k2rider1964 said:


> Based on my experience so far, you couldn't be more wrong. I have yet to see an e-bike on a SoCal trail but I see plenty on my weekly road rides. *Most* are being ridden by senior citizens who probably haven't ridden a bike in 20+ years and have no clue what's going on around them. They are literally a danger to themselves and everybody else the way they ride....absolutely clueless. The rest of the folks I see on them are either commuter type folks or as I saw yesterday, women riding an bike to keep up with their non e-bike riding male companion.


How many of those geezers were riding electric mountain bikes?

I am on the bike path alot more than ever now. I never realized what chaos takes place there. And I have the only e-bike in sight


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

k2rider1964 said:


> women riding an bike to keep up with their non e-bike riding male companion.


Was she blond and was this in Oceanside? I have a roadie friend who's wife rides her e-bike Beach Cruiser and he pedal powers his beach cruiser when they go bar hoping... haha.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

uhoh7 said:


> I have the only e-bike in sight


Doesn't that make you feel inadequate?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Harryman said:


> I'm not going to ask about the regs regarding street riding, just off road.


California resident (and native) here; I think the Calif. new regs are OK (albeit misleading) so for "power and speed" so it's "C" & "D" and for "Access" it would be "A" (as the Calif. law is written). Caveat here is the "...everywhere except where PROHIBITED"; easy to prohibit the Class 1 and 2 so land managers need to step up to the plate and make the prohibition happen.

750 watt/20 (28) mph is quite generous; shouldn't be any argument that anything over is a motorcycle.

I'd say e-bikes OK on historically non-moto fireroads; keep them off historically non-moto single track.

Food for thought; will we see e-bikes included in the Olympics any time soon?

I didn't think so...


----------



## dbhammercycle (Nov 15, 2011)

A,B seems sensible. I can see an argument for ebike motors that provide more torque than horsepower. I can certainly can imagine a need for a quick start after a stop on the trail,especially on the uphill. I don't see a real need for speed so maybe 20mph is reasonable but 15 seems more sensible for multi-use trails and is perhaps better for single track as well.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

pliebenberg said:


> California resident (and native) here; I think the Calif. new regs are OK (albeit misleading) so for "power and speed" so it's "C" & "D" and for "Access" it would be "A" (as the Calif. law is written). Caveat here is the "...everywhere except where PROHIBITED"; easy to prohibit the Class 1 and 2 so land managers need to step up to the plate and make the prohibition happen.
> 
> 750 watt/20 (28) mph is quite generous; shouldn't be any argument that anything over is a motorcycle.
> 
> ...


 Apparently we have already seen them at high level road bike racing and the TDF, we just did not know it at the time. When the Champions of cycling have been shown to poison their bodies for a chemical advantage, why wouldn't they mechanically dope too? But that sort of thing could never happen in the world of pro MTB racing.

All joking aside, at the Olympics, like at the X-Games, money talks and big money talks the loudest. We already have an ebike event at Sea Otter and it will not be long before we have some sort of electric powered event at the XGames. The industry will demand it and their lackeys in the media and at the sanctioning bodies will comply. The same thing happened when the business-types discovered there was a fortune to be made in off-road bikes a few decades ago. The young foot soldiers in that sales push are probably running the marketing departments at the corporate level today...... So, yes, I can see racing some sort of ebike at the Olympics in the not too distant future.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

Klurejr....yes the girl on the bike riding with her male companion was blonde and it WAS in Oceanside but it was before 9 am so they probably weren't bar hopping. Her e-bike was more like a city bike hybrid with full metal fenders. She was riding on the street next to her friend on a road bike. That was Tuesday...

Fast forward to today and I ran across (2) more older gentlemen (I'm 51 myself) on e-bikes doing their best to take up the entire 12 foot bike path even though there's even a painted center lane. When I called up that I was coming, the main offender panicked, swerved over and almost took out his buddy before just slamming on the brakes and coming to a stop. Not saying none of this occurs with people riding on "regular" bikes but *so far*, e-bike riders I've run across have had about a 90% clueless rate.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

k2rider1964 said:


> Klurejr....yes the girl on the bike riding with her male companion was blonde and it WAS in Oceanside but it was before 9 am so they probably weren't bar hopping. Her e-bike was more like a city bike hybrid with full metal fenders. She was riding on the street next to her friend on a road bike. That was Tuesday...
> 
> Fast forward to today and I ran across (2) more older gentlemen (I'm 51 myself) on e-bikes doing their best to take up the entire 12 foot bike path even though there's even a painted center lane. When I called up that I was coming, the main offender panicked, swerved over and almost took out his buddy before just slamming on the brakes and coming to a stop. Not saying none of this occurs with people riding on "regular" bikes but *so far*, e-bike riders I've run across have had about a 90% clueless rate.


 That would imply that 90% of ebike riders are new to cycling and that would imply that the marketing is working. And that is a Good Thing: adding to the numbers of cyclists can only be a positive for all concerned, ebike or otherwise.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

k2rider1964 said:


> Klurejr....yes the girl on the bike riding with her male companion was blonde and it WAS in Oceanside but it was before 9 am so they probably weren't bar hopping. Her e-bike was more like a city bike hybrid with full metal fenders. She was riding on the street next to her friend on a road bike. That was Tuesday...


Was she Blond? Holy cow I bet that was them... lol


----------



## GhostOfForumsPast (Feb 16, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Most Multi-Use Trails have a 15mph speed limit on them, not a 20mph speed limit. Perhaps where you live it is different, but I know of zero multi-use trails where anything above 15mph is acceptable.


You need to expand your horizons, at a minimum. There are many multi-use trails in the Western US that do not have speed limits. These trails are on USFS and BLM land.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

GhostOfForumsPast said:


> You need to expand your horizons, at a minimum. There are many multi-use trails in the Western US that do not have speed limits. These trails are on USFS and BLM land.


The place I ride every week is .3 mile from my front door, and it is a nature preserve in the middle of Suburban Carlsbad, Ca. The nearest BLM land is 60+ miles away. Have you considered that the majority of those who MTB live in Cities and Urban Area's and do not always have the option to drive for over an hour to get to some more open land? I currently have two motorcycles, both street. I would like to have a dirt bike again, but to get to any approved OHV access I have over an hour in the car to get to it and at the moment I just do not have the time for that, so I ride my MTB nearby.

Much of the BLM land IS also OHV friendly, thus motorized vehicles are allowed. As a teen living in Kern County my friends and I used to go ride our dirt bikes on BLM Land all the time in the desert, none of that was non-motorized Multi-Use Trail. I do not know of any BLM land here in SoCal that has Multi-use single track where motorized traffic is not allowed, at least not in San Diego.


----------



## GhostOfForumsPast (Feb 16, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> I do not know of any BLM land here in SoCal that has Multi-use single track where motorized traffic is not allowed, at least not in San Diego.


Many multi-use trails include sharing the trail with the occasional moto.

You included no qualifier about only multi use trails near where you lived - you simply made a sweeping generalization about all mutli-use trails.

"Most Multi-Use Trails have a 15mph speed limit on them, not a 20mph speed limit. Perhaps where you live it is different, but I know of zero multi-use trails where anything above 15mph is acceptable."

Again, time to expand your horizons as your statement is false.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

GhostOfForumsPast said:


> Many multi-use trails include sharing the trail with the occasional moto.
> 
> You included no qualifier about only multi use trails near where you lived - you simply made a sweeping generalization about all mutli-use trails.
> 
> ...


I said Most, not ALL. And I stand by my statement, MOST Multi-use trails in SoCal have a 15mph speed limit.


----------



## GhostOfForumsPast (Feb 16, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> And I stand by my statement, MOST *Multi-use trails in SoCal* have a 15mph speed limit.


That's not what you posted. Even that is erroneous because you're willfully ignoring the thousands of miles of multi use trails on USFS and BL land.

"Most Multi-Use Trails have a 15mph speed limit on them, not a 20mph speed limit. Perhaps where you live it is different, but I know of zero multi-use trails where anything above 15mph is acceptable."


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

GhostOfForumsPast said:


> That's not what you posted. Even that is erroneous because you're willfully ignoring the thousands of miles of multi use trails on USFS and BL land.
> 
> "Most Multi-Use Trails have a 15mph speed limit on them, not a 20mph speed limit. Perhaps where you live it is different, but I know of zero multi-use trails where anything above 15mph is acceptable."


Please enlighten us then, What area's that are mutli-use trails (meaning Pedestrians, Equestrians and Bicyclists) have a 20 mph speed limit on the trails? Go ahead an cite specific locations.

I am pretty sure the answer is still that MOST are 15mph, not 20mph.


----------



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

Until now I had never in my entire life heard of a speed limit on any trail, it actually struck me as comical until I realized it's for real. Are there signs along these trails like there are on roadways? How on earth would one know if they were above the limit? I suppose a traffic cop pulls you over? Ay caramba!

Please don't mistake this for an anti-ebike statement because it isn't, but human power combined with adequate space and manners is beautiful because it requires no complicated rules or regulations.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

IMHO trail speed limits are more for assessing blame than actual speed control. If you hit anyone or anything and it looks to observers that you were going over 15mph than its your fault. It looks like a Basic Speed limit that was put onto the books to keep hikers and horses happy by giving them a stick to beat bikers (of any sort) with.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Until now I had never in my entire life heard of a speed limit on any trail, it actually struck me as comical until I realized it's for real. Are there signs along these trails like there are on roadways? How on earth would one know if they were above the limit? I suppose a traffic cop pulls you over? Ay caramba!
> 
> Please don't mistake this for an anti-ebike statement because it isn't, but human power combined with adequate space and manners is beautiful because it requires no complicated rules or regulations.


In San Diego the speed limits are posted on the main trail rules sign at the trail heads, along with pick up your dog poop, stay on designated trails, etc, etc....


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> Until now I had never in my entire life heard of a speed limit on any trail, it actually struck me as comical until I realized it's for real. Are there signs along these trails like there are on roadways? How on earth would one know if they were above the limit? I suppose a traffic cop pulls you over? Ay caramba!
> 
> Please don't mistake this for an anti-ebike statement because it isn't, but human power combined with adequate space and manners is beautiful because it requires no complicated rules or regulations.


You may think it's a joke but in California most MTB-accessible land has speed limits for bikes. All State Parks for starters. Most open spaces near urban centers. Further out not so much.

Hang around the NorCal forum for long and an oft-discussed topic is the frequent use of radar on trails. (hefty fines)

15 mph is pretty standard. _(prima facie speed limit per CVC 38310; doesn't even need posting)_


----------



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

pliebenberg said:


> You may think it's a joke...[/I]


No I can believe it, it might even be in the fine print on trailhead signs where I'm at but it wouldn't matter much anyway. More often than not I don't see even one other rider (besides me) out there on a 2 hour ride, and I've _never_ seen any sort of official or ranger.


----------



## GhostOfForumsPast (Feb 16, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Please enlighten us then, What area's that are mutli-use trails (meaning Pedestrians, Equestrians and Bicyclists) have a 20 mph speed limit on the trails? Go ahead an cite specific locations.
> 
> I am pretty sure the answer is still that MOST are 15mph, not 20mph.


Nope. Just consider the miles and miles of trail in Cleveland and Angeles National forests. Additionally, Multi-use trails are not limited to your artificial definition.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

GhostOfForumsPast said:


> Nope. Just consider the miles and miles of trail in Cleveland and Angeles National forests. Additionally, Multi-use trails are not limited to your artificial definition.


I decided to look it up and there is no specific Speed Limit Set on National Forest Trails:
Mountain Biking | US Forest Service



> * Yield right-of-way to other trail users. Horses spook when they see an unfamiliar object, especially one that moves quickly and quietly.
> * Slow down and use caution when passing others. If necessary, dismount your vehicle or bicycle on the downhill side and wait for horses and hikers to pass.
> * Control your speed at all times and approach turns in anticipation of someone around the bend. Reckless riding and high downhill speeds are not appropriate.


So what is debatable then is what is considered "high downhill speeds"?

I found this info:
Trail Use Rules - CrazyBearBikes.com

Note the following:


> Speed limit on trail is 15 mph in national, state parks and MRCA land. There is no limit in National forest but you have to manage your speed. Keep in mind that you are not alone on the trail and that you might have to stop at any time.


So the Standard set by the National and State Parks is 15mph as well as on MRCA Land (Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority)
This is also the standard set by many local municipalities that manage the Trails in San Diego County.

I think it is reasonable to state that 15mph is probably the benchmark for what the Forest Service would consider to be the limit before it is considered a "high downhill speed" and thus against the law on forest service trail networks.

Do you think that is unreasonable?


----------



## GhostOfForumsPast (Feb 16, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> I think it is reasonable to state that 15mph is probably the benchmark for what the Forest Service would consider to be the limit before it is considered a "high downhill speed" and thus against the law on forest service trail networks.
> 
> Do you think that is unreasonable?


No, I don't think it's reasonable since there is no speed limit and the USFS has not defined "high downhil speed."

It's simply not against the law.

In fact, the USFS has specifically encouraged and endorsed the opening of downhill trails where the speeds are much higher (see Downieville for only one example).


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

GhostOfForumsPast said:


> No, I don't think it's reasonable since there is no speed limit and the USFS has not defined "high downhil speed."
> 
> It's simply not against the law.
> 
> In fact, the USFS has specifically encouraged and endorsed the opening of downhill trails where the speeds are much higher (see Downieville for only one example).


Fair enough. Only time will tell if the USFS decides to make that definition more clear.


----------



## daven007 (Feb 18, 2008)

C & A

Class 1 eBikes pose no danger or damage to trails already open to mountain bikes and should be fine. 

The "750w" thing is deceptive. A bike that is rated for "250w" might be able to deliver peak power of "500w", but without a throttle, you can't realistically sustain that. If you sustained 750w, you would drain the average battery in 30 or 40 minutes. 

The key is the speed limit. My Levo starts cutting out assist at about 18mph. It is gear limited to pedaling at maybe 25. My rides on moderate (only a few un-rideable sections) trails all seem to end up with 8-9 mph average speed with a high of maybe 20. That's a freewheeling 20, and using only 20 percent of the power of the assist on the ride. 

If the bike is pedelec only, then "750w" just means less effort climbing a hill. Not higher speeds that matter. Unless it is "sense of pride on the streets of San Francsico" that matters. ;-)

(If "750w" truly meant 3x the assist of my bike, that starts smelling like a lightweight electric motorcycle to me. Especially with a throttle. Burnouts when you pedal? )

California seems headed in this direction. Locally, the issue is "bikes v horses" and inconsiderate "bombers" on bikes that have gotten incrementally more capable as technology has progressed.


----------



## Bikedriver (Jun 11, 2016)

k2rider1964 said:


> Based on my experience so far, you couldn't be more wrong. I have yet to see an e-bike on a SoCal trail but I see plenty on my weekly road rides. *Most* are being ridden by senior citizens who probably haven't ridden a bike in 20+ years and have no clue what's going on around them. They are literally a danger to themselves and everybody else the way they ride....absolutely clueless. The rest of the folks I see on them are either commuter type folks or as I saw yesterday, women riding an bike to keep up with their non e-bike riding male companion.


I don't agree with you one bit on this. I ride ebikes with a group of 6 guys (and 1 girl) ...every single one of them, including myself, is a life long MTB rider with exceptional riding skills. 3 of them race competitively.

Riding a granny ebike on the road doesn't take skill.

Riding a modern ebike on technical trails off road takes skill, so when you do eventually see some on the trials, most likely they are bikers already and they are going to be skilled riders with a lot of MTB experience.


----------



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

daven007 said:


> Class 1 eBikes pose no danger or damage to trails already open to mountain bikes and should be fine.


You don't know that.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Bikedriver said:


> I don't agree with you one bit on this. I ride ebikes with a group of 6 guys (and 1 girl) ...every single one of them, including myself, is a life long MTB rider with exceptional riding skills. 3 of them race competitively.
> 
> Riding a granny ebike on the road doesn't take skill.
> 
> Riding a modern ebike on technical trails off road takes skill, so when you do eventually see some on the trials, most likely they are bikers already and they are going to be skilled riders with a lot of MTB experience.


I COMPLETELY AGREE. It's like every anti ebiker on here believes we are all newbies and we don't own other bikes or understand trail stewardship. I'm actually slower on my Levo downhill than my 6 fattie. Uphill on my Levo I'm virtually roosting the trail and pin balling off everybody on the trail! Umm sarcasm guys, lighten up, none of us getting paid to ride!


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> You don't know that.


 Actually, I think he does. The rangers in our park told me they haven't had any problems in the year or so since they permitted Class 1s onto all trails. Nor have they had to do any extra trail work in that period, at least that's what he says.....


----------



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

WoodlandHills said:


> Actually, I think he does.


Fortuneteller? Time machine?

Nobody can predict future impact based on the tiny current sampling. And I'm not referring to trail surface impact but impact to other users and inhabitants, which is something usually ignored in the "me first" mentality that seems so prevalent these days.

I'd say the odds are good that a large percentage of future electric mountain bike buyers will new riders. In other words e'mtb's will represent an entire new user group, and you or nobody else can predict the impact of that.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

I really feel these classes and designations are largely irrelevant because the bikes are ever more modular and easily modifiable, and it's in the manufacturer's best interest to allow that (at least in the short term, they haven't realized the long term consequences yet, and even when they do, no brand will want to be the one selling the unmodifiable bike, just for the greater good). 

And, consumers have shown they want modifiability and total control for their products time and time again: be it mobile phones, guns, PCs, there is strong backlash against brands who try to wall off their garden (kuerig's DRM for coffee disaster, the all powerful Apple capitulating and eliminating DRM music, etc.). 

And assuming that proves true, some percentage of those consumers will modify and want the biggest, baddest, fastest, whatever for their ebike, just like they do for their truck, car, gun, etc. Its already been posted here by some, and it will continue despite the backlash.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Procter said:


> I really feel these classes and designations are largely irrelevant because the bikes are ever more modular and easily modifiable, and it's in the manufacturer's best interest to allow that (at least in the short term, they haven't realized the long term consequences yet, and even when they do, no brand will want to be the one selling the unmodifiable bike, just for the greater good).
> 
> And, consumers have shown they want modifiability and total control for their products time and time again: be it mobile phones, guns, PCs, there is strong backlash against brands who try to wall off their garden (kuerig's DRM for coffee disaster, the all powerful Apple capitulating and eliminating DRM music, etc.).
> 
> And assuming that proves true, some percentage of those consumers will modify and want the biggest, baddest, fastest, whatever for their ebike, just like they do for their truck, car, gun, etc. Its already been posted here by some, and it will continue despite the backlash.


 It may or may not work out this way, but what if it does?

We already deal with those who violate rules by punishing the violators: if I try to shoot my FAL at the pistol range I will be banned. They won't ban all .308s from the entire range, just the moron who tried to shoot one at the pistol range! If I run my boat through the no wake zone at 75mph, I'll get a ticket and possibly thrown off the lake, but the Rangers won't ban all boats with BBC motors from the lake. I can buy a motorcycle that will go 185mph and ride it anywhere I want, but if I break the speed limit I will pay escalating fines and quickly lose my right to drive. The same thing will happen to the idiots who build eMX bikes and try to take them on bike trails that happens to those who try to ride their gasoline bikes there now: they get caught and dealt with. If a problem as big as the doomsayers predict develops with swarms of new ebikes on the trails violating every rule in existence through ignorance or sheer malevolence, well, there will be lots of violators to pay for more enforcement.

There will also be a new mass of tens of thousands of riders to organize in support of access and to volunteer for trail work should the worst case scenarios of some here come to pass. And if many of those new riders are a bunch of out of shape old farts who would never think of going out on the trails w/o an ebike, so what? How many volunteer organizations in your community are mostly staffed by the retired: those with the most time and money to get involved in things that they care about. So why would this be any different and why wouldn't these new riders be another constituency in support of wider access, one that has repeatedly demonstrated the highest voting rates of any demographic in the country.

The coming of ebikes and ebikers should be looked at as an opportunity not a threat.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> It may or may not work out this way, but what if it does?
> 
> We already deal with those who violate rules by punishing the violators: if I try to shoot my FAL at the pistol range I will be banned. They won't ban all .308s from the entire range, just the moron who tried to shoot one at the pistol range! If I run my boat through the no wake zone at 75mph, I'll get a ticket and possibly thrown off the lake, but the Rangers won't ban all boats with BBC motors from the lake. I can buy a motorcycle that will go 185mph and ride it anywhere I want, but if I break the speed limit I will pay escalating fines and quickly lose my right to drive. The same thing will happen to the idiots who build eMX bikes and try to take them on bike trails that happens to those who try to ride their gasoline bikes there now: they get caught and dealt with. If a problem as big as the doomsayers predict develops with swarms of new ebikes on the trails violating every rule in existence through ignorance or sheer malevolence, well, there will be lots of violators to pay for more enforcement.
> 
> ...


You overstate the numbers of new riders that will actually become involved in trail access issues. While you spend years organizing, the rules and laws prohibiting motorized bikes will be mounting. Your grasp of this shows how little of a grasp you have in the matter of trail access.


----------



## daven007 (Feb 18, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> You don't know that.


Yes. I do. The trail signs for Class 1 bikes are going up. I saw one today.

Two new guys rode my bike today and loved it.

One of my riding mates was riding a bike loaned to him by a pro rider. That pro rider test rode my bike and loved it. When I mentioned the controversy, he said, "Those guys are posers."

I got a good laugh out of that.


----------



## daven007 (Feb 18, 2008)

Gutch said:


> I COMPLETELY AGREE. It's like every anti ebiker on here believes we are all newbies and we don't own other bikes or understand trail stewardship. I'm actually slower on my Levo downhill than my 6 fattie. Uphill on my Levo I'm virtually roosting the trail and pin balling off everybody on the trail! Umm sarcasm guys, lighten up, none of us getting paid to ride!


Couldn't agree more. My ride today was a perfect example. It has been a while since I have ridden technical routes. I can't keep up on the downhill sections. I am "fear and common sense limited".  The bike is not magical.

I ride with an awesome group of guys. They think the bike is great. I am looking at some other bikes that are non-eBikes. My Levo is just another tool.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

tiretracks said:


> You overstate the numbers of new riders that will actually become involved in trail access issues. While you spend years organizing, the rules and laws prohibiting motorized bikes will be mounting. Your grasp of this shows how little of a grasp you have in the matter of trail access.


 I am not overstating anything. I'm simply relating what the doomsayers here have told us will happen in the very near future: hordes of new ebikers on the trails, most of them fat old clueless newbies who will ruin it for everyone else. Those are the typical predictions made by the anti-ebike crowd here.

And if it's going to take years to organize the ebikers, then you better get started since you've wasted a few years with your heads in the sand. One tip: disparaging and insulting those you will need to persuade and convince to join you is not a good way to start........:nono:


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> I am not overstating anything. I'm simply relating what the doomsayers here have told us will happen in the very near future: hordes of new ebikers on the trails, most of them fat old clueless newbies who will ruin it for everyone else. Those are the typical predictions made by the anti-ebike crowd here.
> 
> And if it's going to take years to organize the ebikers, then you better get started since you've wasted a few years with your heads in the sand. One tip: disparaging and insulting those you will need to persuade and convince to join you is not a good way to start........:nono:


"We" don't need you.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

tiretracks said:


> "We" don't need you.


 That's the "head in the sand part"........


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> That's the "head in the sand part"........


Care to explain why you think that mountain bikers cannot exist without the advocacy of emotorbikers? In plain English please, not in parables, fantastic rhetoric or ramblings of dubious sanity.


----------



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

WoodlandHills said:


> One tip: disparaging and insulting those you will need to persuade and convince to join you is not a good way to start........:nono:


Persuade and convince who to join us?


----------



## daven007 (Feb 18, 2008)

Again we see confirmation that this has nothing to do with "access" or "damage" of "safety".

It is petty tribalism.

I will personally enjoy the fact that the type of person who is anti-eBike on mountain trails will be betrayed by the folks that they tend to vote for.

California will lead the way. 

Worse case scenario: In the interest of serving "under served communities", Class 1 eBikes will be allowed on all MTB trails with a "note from your doctor" that will be as easy to get as a "medicinal marijuana card".

If the Feds try to get in the way, they will be brushed aside by the State. The Feds don't have the manpower to create checkpoints at trailheads to inspect increasingly hard to spot eBikes. If the Feds harass riders, local authorities will step in. 

The future looks bright for Class 1 eBikes.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

daven007 said:


> Again we see confirmation that this has nothing to do with "access" or "damage" of "safety".
> 
> It is petty tribalism.
> 
> ...


Continue the Unicorn hunt.


----------



## daven007 (Feb 18, 2008)

tiretracks said:


> Continue the Unicorn hunt.


My search for the guy cited on a mountain bike trail for riding a Class 1 eBike in a courteous manner continues.

My search for evidence of trail closures that were the result of Class 1 eBikes wanting access will continue.

Those are the unicorns I am hunting.

Tribal, religious zealots? They are EVERYWHERE. No challenge in that.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> There will also be a new mass of tens of thousands of riders to organize in support of access and to volunteer for trail work should the worst case scenarios of some here come to pass.


Based on my actual, long term, real life experience organizing volunteer trail build days, new riders are the last ones who will become involved on a volunteer level. If people make the connection that the trails that they love to use are not just "there" and that they coould give back and help out, it happens after years of use. For some people, maybe 1% of the population, it's like a lightbulb goes off and they decide to pitch in, for most people, it doesn't. So, while it's a comforting thought that a new community of ebikers will bring all this new help, they won't. A new community of any users won't, they are oblivious.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

daven007 said:


> My search for evidence of trail closures that were the result of Class 1 eBikes wanting access will continue.


How about closing trails to pedelcs? Close enough?

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


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

tiretracks said:


> Continue the Unicorn hunt.


 Just keep clicking your heels together ther Dorothy and keep repeating there are no E bikes I will wish them away


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

tiretracks said:


> Care to explain why you think that mountain bikers cannot exist without the advocacy of emotorbikers? In plain English please, not in parables, fantastic rhetoric or ramblings of dubious sanity.


 Lots of people here are convinced that the coming swarms of ebikers will cause all trails everywhere to be closed to ALL bicycles. If you think that's a serious possibility, do you want that to happen? If not, maybe you should try to teach, persuade, and enlist them in YOUR cause instead.

Or you could continue with an antagonistic relationship, insulting and belittling ebikers whenever and wherever you meet them. Maybe that route will payoff in the long run....... Let's wait and see.


----------



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

WoodlandHills said:


> Lots of people here are convinced that the coming swarms of ebikers will cause all trails everywhere to be closed to ALL bicycles. If you think that's a serious possibility, do you want that to happen?


This is only hypothetical but _*If*_ electric bikes gain equal access as bicycles to all trails and become as popular as I think they might and start causing undo conflicts among hikers and equestrians (due to speed, traffic, or both) then I seriously hope all bicycles lose all access.

As much as I love mountain biking I treasure motor-free wilderness areas even more.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> Lots of people here are convinced that the coming swarms of ebikers will cause all trails everywhere to be closed to ALL bicycles. If you think that's a serious possibility, do you want that to happen? If not, maybe you should try to teach, persuade, and enlist them in YOUR cause instead.


Or, you could try what is working here, which is that the land managers, mtbers, hikers and equestrians are united in keeping non motorized trails free from motorized vehicles. We get along just fine currently.

They're coming, but they don't have to be allowed everywhere.


----------



## daven007 (Feb 18, 2008)

Harryman said:


> How about closing trails to pedelcs? Close enough?
> 
> 'Our trails aren't built for that': eBike riders risk fines in Canberra nature parks


For you, Harry, this is probably all the evidence you need that kangaroos pose a risk to motorists where you live, but me? No.

Lol. ;-)

By the way, a dingo really did eat that poor woman's baby.

The tiny island nation of Austria (or whatever it is called) is known for a heavy-handed approach to dealing with it's prison-descended population. Look up "hooning".

I am confident that the mountain bike industry will throw its thousands of dollars in lobbying might at the issue and lawmakers will cave to the persuasive pedelec argument.

Haven't any of you seen Muriel's Wedding?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> This is only hypothetical but _*If*_ electric bikes gain equal access as bicycles to all trails and become as popular as I think they might and start causing undo conflicts among hikers and equestrians (due to speed, traffic, or both) then I seriously hope all bicycles lose all access.
> 
> As much as I love mountain biking I treasure motor-free wilderness areas even more.


Likewise.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

daven007 said:


> I am confident that the mountain bike industry will throw its thousands of dollars in lobbying might at the issue and lawmakers will cave to the persuasive pedelec argument.


Maybe, but I wouldn't be so sure. The cats out of the bag with the stealth mode of slipping new legislation in at the state level, at least here. I know a couple of state reps here who will fight it tooth and nail, they're more against ebikes than I am.

Likewise, on the local level where true access takes place, not all land managers have swallowed the fantasy that it's only going to be old guys on 250w bikes. They're considering allowing ebikes on the bike paths here, they just laugh at the notion of allowing them on their singletrack. The guys who sell ebikes have less influence than you give them credit for.

Since you can't ride emtbs here anywhere fun, there's not many being sold, and there's little demand.

You are free to ignore the facts that like every other user group, emtbs will bring problems with them, but among the people that actually make the decisions regarding access, they aren't.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

The only way to meet national and state carbon emission reduction goals is to decrease the number of trips taken in ICE vehicles. There are two ways to do this: mass transit and electric vehicles. Governments will soon be forced to use a carrot and stick approach to force the general public to choose by making ICEs more expensive to own and operate and by incentivizing EVs of all sorts including ebikes. One of the cheapest and quickest incentives is complete parity with pbikes for low speed, low power ebikes as we see in California. Simply changing definitions in the vehicle code and state law costs nothing and promotes ebike use statewide on all state administered land: expect to see other states follow and to see similar action at the federal level. It has nothing to do with trail access and land use, but everything to do with greenhouse gases and climate change.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> The only way to meet national and state carbon emission reduction goals is to decrease the number of trips taken in ICE vehicles. There are two ways to do this: mass transit and electric vehicles. Governments will soon be forced to use a carrot and stick approach to force the general public to choose by making ICEs more expensive to own and operate and by incentivizing EVs of all sorts including ebikes. One of the cheapest and quickest incentives is complete parity with pbikes for low speed, low power ebikes as we see in California. Simply changing definitions in the vehicle code and state law costs nothing and promotes ebike use statewide on all state administered land: expect to see other states follow and to see similar action at the federal level. It has nothing to do with trail access and land use, but everything to do with greenhouse gases and climate change.


So commuting on an emotorbike may be a method in which to achieve lowered emissions which by the way has absolutely no bearing on non-motorized trail access.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

There's no issues with using ebikes as transportation anywhere that I am aware of. They have complete parity with bikes on the road, and in most places on bike paths as well. I think it's the perfect application for them. The only way I could see incentivizing that use is a tax credit or voucher. 

I don't see the connection that riding an electric bike on singletrack reduces ICE use and carbon emmissions any more than riding a mtb.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

I'm just explaining why you are going to see the legal definition of bicycle expanded in other states in the coming years, just like in California. And, just like in California, it will immediately affect access to all state land, including trails. It's not the intent or purpose of the definition change: equal access for Class 1's on trails, but equal access is one of the overall changes that will occur.

Changing definitions in the Civil, Criminal and Vehicle Code is cheap, it's fast and it seems to be working here in California to promote ebike usage. In that case it's not unreasonable to expect to see the idea catch on in other places.... Did I mention that it's a cheap way for legislators to look like they care....?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Harryman said:


> There's no issues with using ebikes as transportation anywhere that I am aware of. They have complete parity with bikes on the road, and in most places on bike paths as well. I think it's the perfect application for them. The only way I could see incentivizing that use is a tax credit or voucher.
> 
> I don't see the connection that riding an electric bike on singletrack reduces ICE use and carbon emmissions any more than riding a mtb.


 When on my mountain bike, only a "little" green house gasses are produced. And what power does a ebike get charged with?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> I'm just explaining why you are going to see the legal definition of bicycle expanded in other states in the coming years, just like in California. And, just like in California, it will immediately affect access to all state land, including trails. It's not the intent or purpose of the definition change: equal access for Class 1's on trails, but equal access is one of the overall changes that will occur.
> 
> Changing definitions in the Civil, Criminal and Vehicle Code is cheap, it's fast and it seems to be working here in California to promote ebike usage. In that case it's not unreasonable to expect to see the idea catch on in other places.... Did I mention that it's a cheap way for legislators to look like they care....?


You don't think for a second that the advocacy groups that are opposed to emotorbikes haven't already chosen this route? Way ahead of you.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> I'm just explaining why you are going to see the legal definition of bicycle expanded in other states in the coming years, just like in California. And, just like in California, it will immediately affect access to all state land, including trails. It's not the intent or purpose of the definition change: equal access for Class 1's on trails, but equal access is one of the overall changes that will occur.
> 
> Changing definitions in the Civil, Criminal and Vehicle Code is cheap, it's fast and it seems to be working here in California to promote ebike usage. In that case it's not unreasonable to expect to see the idea catch on in other places.... Did I mention that it's a cheap way for legislators to look like they care....?


 Keep dreaming. Change comes slowly to us Yanks. Especially change coming from the left coast in La La land. Time will tell of course.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

leeboh said:


> When on my mountain bike, only a "little" green house gasses are produced. And what power does a ebike get charged with?


 As I said above, this has nothing to do with those who ride bikes of any sort for recreation, nor do these definition changes have anything to do with those who already commute on bikes. It is all about substituting EV trips for ICE trips anywhere and anytime to lower regional carbon emissions. And one of the the cheapest ways to promote substitution of ICE trips with EV trips is to get people onto electric bicycles for short trips by allowing them to use the existing bicycle infrastructure. And the cheapest and easiest way to do that is to change the definition of bicycle. Equality of access to multi use trails administered by the state is just a one of many benefits of this approach, as is access to bike lanes and paths.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

leeboh said:


> Keep dreaming. Change comes slowly to us Yanks. Especially change coming from the left coast in La La land. Time will tell of course.


 Is your state one of the 12 that simply adopted Californias emission standards as their own? The standards that forced the federal government to rewrite national standards to a much stricter level........ We have a history of progressive change that is first laughed at, then studied and finally adopted by the rest of the country. Will this be different? I wouldn't bet against it......

Heres a list of the CARB states are any of them "Yanks" or are any of them on the "right coast"?
Arizona
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine
Maryland 
New York
Pennsylvania 
Vermont
Rhode Island
Washington
Oregon
New Jersey
New Mexico

You can have your own opinion, but you don't get to have your own facts.....


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> As I said above, this has nothing to do with those who ride bikes of any sort for recreation, nor do these definition changes have anything to do with those who already commute on bikes. It is all about substituting EV trips for ICE trips anywhere and anytime to lower regional carbon emissions. And one of the the cheapest ways to promote substitution of ICE trips with EV trips is to get people onto electric bicycles for short trips by allowing them to use the existing bicycle infrastructure. And the cheapest and easiest way to do that is to change the definition of bicycle. Equality of access to multi use trails administered by the state is just a one of many benefits of this approach, as is access to bike lanes and paths.


 What does this have to do with mt bike trails? For commuters? No combustion motors on the trails where I live. And a commuter bike is going to ride tech mt bike trails? Good luck with that.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> I'm just explaining why you are going to see the legal definition of bicycle expanded in other states in the coming years, just like in California. And, just like in California, it will immediately affect access to all state land, including trails. It's not the intent or purpose of the definition change: equal access for Class 1's on trails, but equal access is one of the overall changes that will occur.
> 
> Changing definitions in the Civil, Criminal and Vehicle Code is cheap, it's fast and it seems to be working here in California to promote ebike usage. In that case it's not unreasonable to expect to see the idea catch on in other places.... Did I mention that it's a cheap way for legislators to look like they care....?


This is Colorado's, updated in 2009, it's a DOT reg, so it has no bearing on trails:



> (28.5) "Electrical assisted bicycle" means a vehicle having two tandem wheels or two parallel wheels and one forward wheel, fully operable pedals, an electric motor not exceeding seven hundred fifty watts of power, and a top motor-powered speed of twenty miles per hour.


http://tornado.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/2013TitlePrintouts/CRS Title 42 (2013).pdf

They're not motor vehicles, like CA, they are a new class. They are legal on all pavement and they leave it up to the locals to decide on where to expand access. If you want to use one for transport, you can, it's easy. Buy or build one and go ride it. It hardly seems restrictive to me.

State parks are their own jurisdictions here btw, they make their own decisions. It's weird.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> Is your state one of the 12 that simply adopted Californias emission standards as their own? The standards that forced the federal government to rewrite national standards to a much stricter level........ We have a history of progressive change that is first laughed at, then studied and finally adopted by the rest of the country. Will this be different? I wouldn't bet against it......
> 
> Heres a list of the CARB states are any of them "Yanks" or are any of them on the "right coast"?
> Arizona
> ...


 Ugg, roads and bike paths are not off road, multi use trails that currently BAN, motorized off road trail use. Fact. Do I need to type slower?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

leeboh said:


> What does this have to do with mt bike trails? For commuters? No combustion motors on the trails where I live. And a commuter bike is going to ride tech mt bike trails? Good luck with that.


 If you bothered to read the last sentence of my post you will see what this has to do with mt bike trails. Equal access means equal access and if an electric commuter bike is permitted than an eMTB is permitted. Most if not all riders who ride trails will use an eMTB off-road instead of a commuter bike though, don'tcha think?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

It's like arguing with Rainman.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

leeboh said:


> Ugg, roads and bike paths are not off road, multi use trails that currently BAN, motorized off road trail use. Fact. Do I need to type slower?


 Great change of direction..... I hope you didn't strain anything with such a rapid pivot.

Want to try to respond to my point about your comment regarding the influence of "the left coast" on "yanks" instead? Or would you rather continue ignoring inconvenient facts?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> If you bothered to read the last sentence of my post you will see what this has to do with mt bike trails. Equal access means equal access and if an electric commuter bike is permitted than an eMTB is permitted. Most if not all riders who ride trails will use an eMTB off-road instead of a commuter bike though, don'tcha think?


 Yikes. Ok, so type very slow for me and everyone else. You seem to be jumping too fast in your own mind. CA emission laws. I read that. Paved roads, yup, e commuter bikes encouraged, alt vehicles, mass transit, carpooling yada , yada. I get that. What does federal emission laws have to do with my local sate park? And off road rules as it pertains to multi use trails? Facts please? MA is not CA. A dirt trail is not a bike path, road or hiway. What am I missing? Seriously, nobody can follow your facts here. E commuter bike is permitted where?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> Equal access means equal access and if an electric commuter bike is permitted than an eMTB is permitted.


My state is a home rule state, so by allowing ebikes where bikes can travel within their jurisdiction, they've already gone as far as they can. The state allows recreational marijuana, it's up to the individual cities to decide if they allow it to be sold. Mine doesn't, the one next door does. Same idea.

Since emtbs or mtbs on singletrack don't get butts out of car seats, I'm still not sure how in the quest for carbon credits, trail access applies in any of this?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Mountain bikes, of any type, are completely irrelevant to carbon emissions by any reasonable standard. 

It's not even worth discussing. We are talking about riding around in circles to *nowhere* on dirt trails for fun. Meaningless fun. Don't try to make it something it's not.

-Walt


----------



## myke2241 (Aug 11, 2009)

WoodlandHills said:


> Is your state one of the 12 that simply adopted Californias emission standards as their own? The standards that forced the federal government to rewrite national standards to a much stricter level........ We have a history of progressive change that is first laughed at, then studied and finally adopted by the rest of the country. Will this be different? I wouldn't bet against it......
> 
> Heres a list of the CARB states are any of them "Yanks" or are any of them on the "right coast"?
> Arizona
> ...


Hey now, I live in CA but I'm from the Midwest. The thought that CA has the gold standard of law makers is foolish. CA is no longer a influence in that regard and if you know anything about CARB or the Coastal Commission. You would understand those groups would ban ebikes if confronted with finding a solution. They rather see people on real bikes.

Also look at the story of eagle mountain or Salton Sea. That should give you a better idea of time frame somewhere in the middle of those two things.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Notaskitrail (Apr 29, 2012)

I just want ebikes to stay off the sidewalks in Boston


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Notaskitrail said:


> I just want ebikes to stay off the sidewalks in Boston


I don't blame you at all. Every bike should be off sidewalks.


----------



## JohnMcL7 (Jul 26, 2013)

Living in the UK with the EU power restrictions I think they're pretty sensible (which is A,A from the original post) and I have cycled with a few e-bikers occasionally on our group rides. In each case the e-bike riders are experienced mountain bikers that have been unable to ride normally due to health issues, there always seems this worry that ebikes are going to cause an explosion of use but the fact riders need some technical ability means that hasn't happened here.

The main concern is motor bikes as a cheap off road and generally not legal motorbike can be had for a few hundred quid, far cheaper than legal ebike and much cheaper than a high powered illegal ebike plus they tend to just rip trails up.

John


----------



## PierreR (May 17, 2012)

I vote for C. 15mph seem too low in some places. With 750 watts what I find is that I do not have to carry as much momentum as possible so I can approach climbs with a clearer head and greater safety. I think with 250 watts I would still be trying to carry a lot of momentum. 500 watts maybe not. Haven't had a trip to ER since going electric. 
No matter what laws you enact, you will encounter law breakers. They are always with us. I have encountered many dirt bikes on mtb only trails. Even no access does not stop a lot of violators.


----------

