# Can of worms



## Trevor Ochmonek (May 9, 2015)

Officially opened..


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Bye, MTBR, been nice knowing you.


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

You ruined the thing that made me laugh this morning.









I hope you are happy.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

It may stop the motor assisted from polluting the rest of the sub forums.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)




----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

formula4speed said:


> You ruined the thing that made me laugh this morning.
> 
> View attachment 1058374
> 
> ...


I was thinking the same thing! Uh oh...I just aided in the E-bike revolution. I'm sorry.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

Jeez, I honestly checked my calendar thinking it was april 1 already.

Great joke MTBR.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Good ol MTBR admins adding more forums to show off their disconnect with the MTB community...


----------



## the-one1 (Aug 2, 2008)

scottzg said:


> Good ol MTBR admins adding more forums to show off their disconnect with the MTB community...


I don't think they were connected to the community much anyways.


----------



## TomP (Jan 12, 2004)

OldManBike said:


> Bye, MTBR, been nice knowing you.


C'mon now everybody, e-bikes will be great for folks who need to carry stuff. Like extra adult diapers, oxygen, heart pills, coupons to the Country Kitchen Buffet, etc.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Wasn't there an e-bike subforum here several years ago that quietly went away?


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

Now that you admins are at it why don't you create a "bikes in Wilderness" and "best way to concealed carry while biking" sun forum


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

how long before there's a little message saying this forum is sponsored by someone like Bionx?


----------



## moefosho (Apr 30, 2013)

My neighbor who is old and has bad knees bought a low powered E- fatbike. He takes it out on double track and paved paths. He gets a workout without hurting his knees. This is what E bikes should be used for. Other than that... screw em.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

moefosho said:


> My neighbor who is old and has bad knees bought a low powered E- fatbike. He takes it out on double track and paved paths. He gets a workout without hurting his knees. This is what E bikes should be used for. Other than that... screw em.


They make brilliant colors when you burn them.


----------



## CactusJackSlade (Apr 11, 2006)

For all those knocking e-Bikes how many have tried one or seen one.... or know how they operate?

These are not like motocross bikes with electric motors. They are extremely stealth and you wouldn't know it if one was riding with you in a group.

I think anything that will get someone on a bike instead on their ass in front of the TV is a good thing.

Case in point, we had an eBike class last year at our local races. They had their own separate race all to themselves.... however one guy who demo'd one snuck into his regular class (Expert 50+)... Most did not know he was on an eBike until the last lap when he "let if fly" and steadily pulled away on the uphills. Also in comparing the eBike class lap times with similar riders there was only about a 45 second advantage on an 11 minute lap... They are a LOT heavier so the handling is way different... faster in spots (uphills and flats up to 20 mph) and way slower in tech and any place that requires handling.

Personally at some point (when I'm aged and decrepit) I will want one... but for now I will just watch them 

About my ONLY concern I have is trail access issues - I do not want eBikes clouding the current push for more MTB trail use...


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

CactusJackSlade said:


> About my ONLY concern I have is trail access issues - I do not want eBikes clouding the current push for more MTB trail use...


This is the issue. If electric motorbikes are among us on the trails, at the races, and on the forums... they're mountain bikers. If other racers can't tell an electric motorbike from a MTB you know that crazed entitled equestrian won't. Electric motorcycles are a lot of fun, but it's idiocy to lump them in with human powered bicycles. Image and trail access are bad enough already, they're an opportunity to restrict access to all 2 wheeled vehicles.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

CactusJackSlade said:


> For all those knocking e-Bikes how many have tried one or seen one.... or know how they operate?
> 
> These are not like motocross bikes with electric motors. They are extremely stealth and you wouldn't know it if one was riding with you in a group.
> 
> ...


A slippery slope started here. Old , fat and lazy is not a disability. Here in MA where I ride, no motor vehicles allowed. Black and white. Case closed.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Here in California since Jan 1 2016, a Class 1 ebike IS a bicycle, case closed. Black and White. 

Let me look out the window and see if the sky has fallen......... Nope, not yet.......

If the resistance is based upon public lands being acessible to only those of a certain fitness level or ultimately below a maximum age, how do you think the courts will rule? Given that ebikers are taxpayers too and typically of similar age as the judges.........

If we are talking about equal access to illegally built secret/outlaw trails on private lands, then we are all trespassing together and you have no more rights there than anyone else. And if you are the one who built said illegal trail in the first place: being lead criminal trespasser doesn't give you any special "ownership" rights over anyone else either.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> Here in California since Jan 1 2016, a Class 1 ebike IS a bicycle, case closed. Black and White.
> 
> Let me look out the window and see if the sky has fallen......... Nope, not yet.......
> 
> ...


Nope, you're wrong. Land Managers have the ultimate say, it's written into the law that way on purpose. Just because you keep posting the same misinformation doesn't make it true so please stop.


----------



## TomP (Jan 12, 2004)

WoodlandHills said:


> Here in California since Jan 1 2016, a Class 1 ebike IS a bicycle, case closed. Black and White.
> 
> Let me look out the window and see if the sky has fallen......... Nope, not yet.......
> 
> If the resistance is based upon public lands being acessible to only those of a certain fitness level or ultimately below a maximum age, how do you think the courts will rule? Given that ebikers are taxpayers too and typically of similar age as the judges...


So you're confirming that e-bikes are for geezers!

Seriously, this isn't about discriminating against people who are not fit, or who are not young. This is discriminating against MOTORCYCLES being treated as if they are BICYCLES.

Nobody says you can't ride your e-bike on trails. There are lots of trails that are legal for motorcycles.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

TomP said:


> So you're confirming that e-bikes are for geezers!
> 
> Seriously, this isn't about discriminating against people who are not fit, or who are not young. This is discriminating against MOTORCYCLES being treated as if they are BICYCLES.
> 
> Nobody says you can't ride your e-bike on trails. There are lots of trails that are legal for motorcycles.


 Not in California. A Class 1 ebike is a bicycle according to CA law. How hard is that to understand? The park rangers and trail monitoring groups all seem to understand it. And the other hikers, bikers and horse riders have been sharing the trails for months now. Locally all the state lands were opened to ebikes long before the law took effect with no ill effects except the wounded fee-fees of some of the Lycra crowd.


----------



## TomP (Jan 12, 2004)

WoodlandHills said:


> Not in California. A Class 1 ebike is a bicycle according to CA law. How hard is that to understand?


Fsck California.

How hard is that to understand?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

TomP said:


> Fsck California.
> 
> How hard is that to understand?


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TomP again".


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> Not in California. A Class 1 ebike is a bicycle according to CA law.


Dude, really?

How many times does this need to be clarified for you? 
You have no idea what you're talking about. No matter how many times you post the same nonsense, it won't make it true.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> Not in California. A Class 1 ebike is a bicycle according to CA law. How hard is that to understand? The park rangers and trail monitoring groups all seem to understand it. And the other hikers, bikers and horse riders have been sharing the trails for months now. Locally all the state lands were opened to ebikes long before the law took effect with no ill effects except the wounded fee-fees of some of the Lycra crowd.


This is wrong, and this discussion should not be taking place on a mountain bike forum.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

I must say that seeing all these silly people get all bent out of shape and so darned scared is sooo much fun!!! 

The next 5 years are going to be a hoot here!!! 

Can we have some more posts with the little whiffs of steam coming from your ears? They are the most fun to show folks.......


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> Dude, really?
> 
> How many times does this need to be clarified for you?
> You have no idea what you're talking about. No matter how many times you post the same nonsense, it won't make it true.


 And yet I ride that ebike alongside the Rangers and trail crews on single track every weekend and several days during the week. Who should I believe: your denial from 1000 miles away or my daily reality just out my backdoor?


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Has anyone found a way to mount an horizontal shaft gas small engine to a pannier rack in order to turn a DC generator? Basically, if I'm going to ride an ebike, I want it to be an all day affair.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

heyyall said:


> Has anyone found a way to mount an horizontal shaft gas small engine to a pannier rack in order to turn a DC generator? Basically, if I'm going to ride an ebike, I want it to be an all day affair.


 It's been tried and rejected: too much weight in the very wrong place. A pair of 20ah packs mounted low in the triangle should be good for over 60miles off-road based upon my results with a single pack. You could also keep a replacement in your backpack, it's only 12lbs...... The newest 18650 cells are getting more energy dense by the month and prices keep dropping too. In a year or two the 100 mile eMTB will be here, and it won't have some wimpy 250w Euro motor, nor will it cost $6000! Checkout the hi-power/long range pack:

52v Panasonic 11.5ah or 13.5ah Shark Pack - Luna Cycle

I have one of the 11's and a 13 NCRb on my FS fat ebike. When Teslas Gigafactory in Nevada gets fully online, the price per kWh will collapse and these will be cheap as chips.

Now if you ride it like an electric MX bike with a throttle in lieu of Power Assist, you can run that 100mile bike dry in 20miles!


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

I do appreciate that the e-bike threads have their own little place.

This is what they are like (bold type I added):



WoodlandHills said:


> Not in California. A Class 1 ebike is a bicycle according to CA law. How hard is that to understand? The park rangers and trail monitoring groups all seem to understand it. And the other hikers, bikers and horse riders have been sharing the trails for months now. Locally all the state lands were opened to ebikes long before the law took effect with no ill effects except the wounded fee-fees of some of the Lycra crowd.





WoodlandHills said:


> I must say that seeing all these silly people get all bent out of shape and so darned scared is sooo much fun!!!
> 
> The next 5 years are going to be a hoot here!!!
> 
> Can we have some more posts with the little whiffs of steam coming from your ears? They are the most fun to show folks.......





WoodlandHills said:


> *And yet I ride that ebike alongside the Rangers and trail crews on single track every weekend and several days during the week.* Who should I believe: your denial from 1000 miles away or my daily reality just out my backdoor?





WoodlandHills said:


> *I have a 1500w electric motor on mine: it ain't slow!* Of course I am limited to 30 or 40 miles between charges and the most we've climbed has been 2000 ft in an hour or so.
> 
> i started with BDs cheapest SS Fatbike for $399, put on a set of decent tires and just scored a cheap RST Renegade fork. Oh yeah, I changed the brakes to BB7s too. The motor and 20ah 52v battery was about $1000 and took an afternoon to install.





WoodlandHills said:


> Sorry, but I had to respond to this idiocy. *What is wrong with going up a trail at 15?* I assume that you go down trails at a lot higher speeds. I also assume that it is your responsibility to ride in a controlled and aware manner so as not to collide with anyone else on that trail. So what is the difference between going down and going up? Does the trail care?
> 
> Or is it all a bunch of self-righteous twaddle about eBikers not having "earned" the right to access public lands? And just how far do you think that ******** will go in a court of law examining land access? So you feel that sweat is a mandatory requirement to access taxpayer owned lands that are held in trust for the entire population? Climb down off of your absurd moral high horse and smell your own elitist roses: the ability to rapidly pedal a bicycle does not give you any right to look down your nose at anyone about anything! What a snob!





WoodlandHills said:


> I stopped and talked to them in person to see if I was legal. I had called the park office earlier that morning and was told by the person there that I should go for a ride and ask the Ranger, so I did. He looked at my set-up, saw that I had no throttle and *asked how fast I could go*. I am a singlespeed and flat out I am geared for 20 mph *so he said I was OK*.
> I started eBiking about three weeks ago, I've only gone about 150 miles, but all of that has been in the same two parks and the Rangers have seen me many times. I just stopped to ask this weekend after all the fuss here made me wonder if I really was OK. And I was.





WoodlandHills said:


> *If someone is tearing around on a hopped up, illegal eBike*, shouldn't that individual be punished, just like any other biker who tears up trails and is a menace to others? We don't ban all MTBs if one person is a jerk, do we? I don't think Collective Punishment is really the best way to deal with law breaking individuals.





WoodlandHills said:


> According to California law my throttle less eBike is totally legal for all places any other bike can go: parks, bike lanes, single track, fire roads, etc. I have a legal bicycle and I enjoy riding wherever I am allowed to ride, just like any other bicycle.
> I am geared for a maximum of 20mph on the flat and my range is about 40 miles with my current 46t/22t SS gearing. With power assist level 5 I can climb the 35 degree hill in front of my house at 13mph, but I have to stand on the pedals.
> I run 1000 watts about 1hp and the whole kit cost $800 not counting the battery. It is a mid-drive so if I had a rear dérailleur I could use the gear cluster, but I lose the front gears for a single chainwheel. As soon as I get this one all polished and upgraded I will give it to my wife and build a full suspension version. BTW, the base bike is a $399 Bikes Direct Fat Bike and my wife can't wait to get it!
> I am 62 and quit riding back in 2004, now I am spending hours a week on the trails. My friends who have ridden my eBike all want me to show them how to build them for themselves. And why not? It only took 2 hours to assemble the bike AND install the drive!!!
> ...


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Thank you, that's very convenient. Hopefully it will continue the discussion...... Or one could hope the forum and ebikes will just go away: is that realistic though?


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

WH, why argue when you know you're right? The next thing these individuals are going to deny is there's an e-MTB race at Sea Otter this year. Guess you enjoy seeing the smoke too much.


----------



## jfudge02 (Mar 24, 2016)

scottzg said:


> If other racers can't tell an electric motorbike from a MTB you know that crazed entitled equestrian won't.


Entitled is a trait that describes not just the equestrians but also anyone who spends thousands of dollars on their bike, especially those that make them feel superior to another rider for any reason.



WoodlandHills said:


> Here in California since Jan 1 2016, a Class 1 ebike IS a bicycle, case closed. Black and White.
> 
> Let me look out the window and see if the sky has fallen......... Nope, not yet.......
> 
> ...


Well said! Why can't we all just be happy together? Who cares if someone needs help on the way up.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

jfudge02 said:


> Entitled is a trait that describes not just the equestrians but also anyone who spends thousands of dollars on their bike, especially those that make them feel superior to another rider for any reason.


en·ti·tled- believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.

Entitled would be thinking your motorcycle can go on trails because it vaguely resembles a bicycle. Your usage doesn't make any sense. You might be thinking of narcissistic?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

fos'l said:


> WH, why argue when you know you're right? The next thing these individuals are going to deny is there's an e-MTB race at Sea Otter this year. Guess you enjoy seeing the smoke too much.


 I think it would be nicer for all and far more productive for the forum to let the haters vent their bile and get it out of their systems. That way the negative fearmongering will eventually be buried under years of posts. Wouldn't want anyone to nurse a grudge for months and months, that's just not healthy....

I missed the whole intro of fat bikes, was there the same pushback and insults?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

scottzg said:


> en·ti·tled- believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
> 
> Entitled would be thinking your motorcycle can go on trails because it vaguely resembles a bicycle. Your usage doesn't make any sense. You might be thinking of narcissistic?


 If one's ebike is legally a bicycle under state law and park regulation, is it entitlement to insist that the law be enforced and observed? Calling a legal ebike a motorcycle will not change the laws nor will it change any minds of land managers who decide that complying with the law makes more financial sense than futilely resisting it.

It sure sounds like you are trying to defend having exclusive access to public lands by excluding certain bicycles as defined by state law in favor of those you approve of, if this is not entitlement in action, I don't know what is!


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

I got *****ed out the other day riding the Mt bike trails at FT Harrison st park by a woman hiker she was complaing that the MT biker's ruined her solitude, I stopped and explained to her that she was on a mulita use trail . She just gave me a disgusted look never noticing I was on a E bike LOL See you on a trail near you soon !!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> See you on a trail near you soon !!


Uhmmm, yeah, sure.


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

WoodlandHills said:


> If one's ebike is legally a bicycle under state law and park regulation, is it entitlement to insist that the law be enforced and observed? Calling a legal ebike a motorcycle will not change the laws nor will it change any minds of land managers who decide that complying with the law makes more financial sense than futilely resisting it.
> 
> It sure sounds like you are trying to defend having exclusive access to public lands by excluding certain bicycles as defined by state law in favor of those you approve of, if this is not entitlement in action, I don't know what is!


Do state laws that consider them the same as a bicycle just fall under road use though? While I'm not personally that worried about e-bikes on the trails, they are motorized, and I think a lot of trails are pretty specifically for non motorized use.

I wouldn't think being classified as a bicycle would override the non-motorized rules?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

The law only applies to roadways, and bike paths and trails. Our local land use managers decided to comply with the INTENT of the law by extending it to the park trails. I rather suspect the if there are no issues, and to the best of my knowledge, there have no been any, then other managers will follow suit. If part of said agencies Misson is to promote usage it is going to be hard to keep us out forever at a Class 1 level.

All they have to do is change the signs to read "engineless vehicles only"........


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

You've got an electric engine.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Good thing here in MA," no motor vehicles allowed."


----------



## vadimhellbike (Mar 23, 2015)

*One Less Car*

I will weigh in with my personal experience. I live in an urban area of CA which is very crowded with cars. My street, my route to work and the parking lot at my job are all *packed* with cars. I decided to sell my three trucks and commute with an ebike. My workshift is long at 12-14 hours a day. I tried commuting with a regular bike and it took 30 minutes each way. Sounds reasonable, but who wants to be gone from home for 13-15 hours a day?

I built myself several quality e-bikes (which I find to be a fun & challenging hobby) and reduced my p-bike commute time by 50%. That adds up to a lot of extra time with my wife and kids. And, yes, I am a geezer at 50 years old with bad knees.

Incredibly, even with 10% of the staff commuting by bike and e-bike, there is still no room to park cars at my job. My street is packed with cars and the roads are still very congested. If I owned a car, I honestly would struggle to find a place to put it either at home or work.

And a guy needs a hobby. Am I hurting anyone by building ebikes? I think it is good, clean fun. And the money I spend is creating jobs.

My project is here if anyone is interested in dumping their car:
High quality car replacement e-bike

In building my bikes, most of the parts I buy are pure bike parts. And I spend *a* *lot* at the LBS. This is good for the pure bike economy. Understand that I will never own a car, so I guess that is bad for the automotive sector of the economy.


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

First I hated 29er's. now I own 3. Thankfully 27.5 came along. Then when boost hit it and gave me something new to rant about.
Now my latest thing is e-bikes. I can rant and piss and moan. But really I don't have a problem with them if they are considered a moped.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

I just ride any trail I like with my E bike no problems


----------



## Schecky (Jan 13, 2004)

Can we just call them what they are? An electric motorcycle.


There is MTBR, and RBR.
Shouldn't there be an entire separate forum for e-motorcycles? EBR?

ps-Can I block this forum?


----------



## Capt.Ogg (Jun 5, 2015)

Schecky said:


> ps-Can I block this forum?


Yes, just move on.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

A) this is complete bullsh*t

B) I've ridden with plenty of guys in their 60s/70s

C) When I'm 70 or 80 (if I make it to then) I don't give a sh*t if I can mountain bike. I'll be happy taking a walk through the woods remembering those times I did ride, or just appreciating what I have without needing to buy into consumerism and technology.

D) To me its not about access issues, its about being a lazy POS or hoping technology will make it easier for you. Hell I've taken to riding the CX bike on local trail because everybody and their mother has their full sissy geared super carbon wunderbikes. Whatever happened to it being hard? Testing yourself? Working for it? **** I'm in my 20s and I feel like my grumpy grandfather.


----------



## Dan-DK (Apr 6, 2016)

I have been reading a lot on this forum. There have been posts before about ebikes.
But I have newer commented because of the massive hate there is to ebikers. 
But now, we have our own little section on this forum and it is easier to find likeminded people.
The haters are always talking about fast and powerful ebikes with throttle. I think there is a lot of confusion about the types of bikes there is out there. In Europe where I am from, 95% off all ebikes are 250/0.3hp pedal assist only and a top speed of 25 km/h about 15.5 mph. It is about the same as an US class 1 ebike, You can’t call that a motorcycle.
I don’t understand why so many people hate ebikes, we don’t hate you, I don’t care if you overtake me on the flats or that your whole carbon bike weighs as much as one of my shoes, but you shout at me every time you see me, why? 
You don’t know me and you don’t know why I have an ebike. Are mountain bikers really that narrow minded?
I just want to have fun and enjoy the nature and trails, just like you. My ebike makes it easier for me to get out and I get a lot of exercise . I lost over 30 kg over the last year, all because for the first time in my life, I can keep up with my fitness friends and I love it!


----------



## Schecky (Jan 13, 2004)

Dan-DK said:


> I have been reading a lot on this forum. There have been posts before about ebikes.
> But I have newer commented because of the massive hate there is to ebikers.
> But now, we have our own little section on this forum and it is easier to find likeminded people.
> The haters are always talking about fast and powerful ebikes with throttle. I think there is a lot of confusion about the types of bikes there is out there. In Europe where I am from, 95% off all ebikes are 250/0.3hp pedal assist only and a top speed of 25 km/h about 15.5 mph. It is about the same as an US class 1 ebike, You can't call that a motorcycle.
> ...


I can call it a motorcycle, because it's got a motor. 
IMO, most of the people promoting them on mountainbike sites are selling them.
It's great that they work for you and Europe. 
I am one of those who see them in the US as a path to limiting access. Access that is continually being limited.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Dan-DK said:


> I have been reading a lot on this forum. There have been posts before about ebikes.
> But I have newer commented because of the massive hate there is to ebikers.
> But now, we have our own little section on this forum and it is easier to find likeminded people.
> The haters are always talking about fast and powerful ebikes with throttle. I think there is a lot of confusion about the types of bikes there is out there. In Europe where I am from, 95% off all ebikes are 250/0.3hp pedal assist only and a top speed of 25 km/h about 15.5 mph. It is about the same as an US class 1 ebike, You can't call that a motorcycle.
> ...


The issue is that while there maybe users like you who use a pedal assist bike for riding trails, once you officially open the trails to electric bikes there will be users that will bring the electric bikes with throttles onto the trail. This is what could jeopardize trail access for all wheel vehicles in many areas.

It is not that people hate e-bikes, it is hatred of the potential to lose access to something that many of us have found long and hard battle to get in the first place. Battles against hikers, horses and land managers. The tides have turned in many municipalities and bikes are being embraced as a way to increase usage of certain areas, ensure trails are built and maintained and bolster sagging revenues through access passes and fees. This is a battle found for the last 30 years, and e-bikes don't just get to ride in on these coat tails. If you want access to the trails it is time to get grass roots and do the same thing mountain bikers have done all these years: prove you belong and aren't going to damage the trails, endanger other users, or create situations that land managers don't want to deal with.

You won't get this by saying you belong or by saying that it helps others to get out on trails they couldn't normally manage, the only way you will get this is the same we did. Copy the mountain bike history, get advocacy going, e-bike only trails, trail maintenance days, e-bike guidelines for trail usage, etc.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

I am a long time MT biker since the 90s and I could not ride the trails with out my E bike it has changed my life , and you wouldn't even know I was on a E bike if I stopped and talk to you on the trail .


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

rider95 said:


> I am a long time MT biker since the 90s and I could not ride the trails with out my E bike it has changed my life , and you wouldn't even know I was on a E bike if I stopped and talk to you on the trail .


It is immaterial whether one knows you are on an e-bike or not nor whether it helps get you out on the trails, what matters to most is will it get everyone kicked off the trails? As I mentioned previously, hikers and horse have for the most part accepted mountain bikers as someone they can share a trail with and someone they can rely on to fix and maintain trails. The concept that someone that maybe can't make it out on trails on a regular bike might now be able to make it out on trails isn't exactly comforting. If you don't have the strength or the mobility to get out on the trails under your own power, how do you expect someone to trust your skills when they are artificially enhanced? In the event that there is an accident between an e-biker and anyone else and land managers realize that they can't tell it was an e-bike, the potential solution to that is "no-bikes" and frankly I don't want to trust our trails to this.

So I'm sorry that you can't ride a bike on trails under your own power but don't potentially jeopardize access for everyone because of it.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Its is not immaterial to me and who is trusting my skills ?? you want to?? I am in all likely hood a better rider then you ,and been riding a lot longer . And what so called accident are you referring too?? the one Shopmockey made up??? there isn,t one we all need to ride with curtesy , and the trails are not yours I bet your the type that gets pissed because you have to stop for a family out on the trail.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

rider95 said:


> Its is not immaterial to me and who is trusting my skills ?? you want to?? I am in all likely hood a better rider then you ,and been riding a lot longer . And what so called accident are you referring too?? the one Shopmockey made up??? there isn,t one we all need to ride with curtesy , and the trails are not yours I bet your the type that gets pissed because you have to stop for a family out on the trail.


This isn't a dick measuring contest, you obviously don't understand what "No motorized vehicles" means but an electric bike has a motor, even if it is pedal assist and while you may not ride over your head because of its ability that won't stop someone else from doing so, especially as they get cheaper and more available.

When that person on an e-bike gets in an accident, whether with another user or even by themselves, it'll creates a moment in time where the land managers decide what to do about e-bikes, how to legislate e-bikes on their land it, and it would be very easy for them to just block all bikes, because as you said, you'd never even know it was one.

Until the trail owing authority makes a statement regarding e-bike use on their trails I wouldn't expect a happy welcome on those trails.

I've been mountain biking since 1985 and I've seen trails and acceptance come and go over the years. I've built trails that were illegal and disappeared and built trails that we went through the proper channels and are still going.

E-biking, no matter the reason you do it, is the biggest threat to trail access and the goodwill we have fostered since the early days. Like it or not you will be judged by your worst members, those that tear down MUP paths, those that go too fast for conditions on trails, those that modify their bikes into legitimate electric motorcycles. (Mountain bikers understand this, we have all suffered under our lowest common denominator) Opening trails to e-bikes opens trails to all these people and frankly the mountain bike community, at least on this forum, is not super supportive of this for all the reasons I just laid out.

And frankly my take is if you aren't strong enough to ride mountain bikes under your own power then you are more than likely outside of your strength zone on an e-bike considering the speeds it allows you to go on a trail.

Just my take because I know mountain biking is hard but you know this because you are more skilled and experienced than me.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

To paraphrase David Byrne, Stop making sense, Rockcrusher.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I'm sure I've said this before, but as far as I'm concerned, e-bikes don't really bother me in general I just want to make sure there remains a clear distinction between motorized and human powered. I've spent enough time fighting for access and permission to build trails that I know how important it is to be able to make that distinction. It's hard enough without being forced to spend time defending and justifying something you really don't have any interest in, but could be a factor in getting approval. The whole Wilderness issue is a prime example. 

If places decide to allow them, or disallow them, depending on what sort of user group e-bikers end up being, I simply don't want to be tied to their fate. It particularly bugs me when people say "it's legally the same as a bicycle and you can take it anywhere a bike is allowed". It's not the same thing and needs to be handled independently of mountain bike policies. 

Other than that, if you've got legal riding, whatever, have fun.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

May I ask how many have seen a E bike in person? How many have come across one on your fav trail????


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Seen 'em. Ridden 'em. Like 'em. They're VERY cool in the proper context. They're not allowed on my local trails, as our trails are for non-motorized bikes only. Again, the delineation is clear.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

The industry has spoken...
...we will all comply!


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

OldManBike said:


> Bye, MTBR, been nice knowing you.


 Oh stick around this will get interesting!

Mopeds anyone?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rider95 said:


> May I ask how many have seen a E bike in person? How many have come across one on your fav trail????


Also seen and tried a couple. Meh. Piggish things that wouldn't work well at all on my favorite trails.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Why does my MT bike park have handicap parking??? Its a small park only used for Mt biking maybe some hikers its owed by the parks dept , but it now has two handicap parking spaces ???. Why would a MT biker need a handicap space??? we have been riding there since the 80s at least in fact my company that I retired from donated the land for it to be a MT bike park . I have never seen another person using them only me I have to sit in a chair to get my gear on for my ride but I sure do thank them for it .


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rider95 said:


> Why would a MT biker need a handicap space.


Cuz:

My Story - RyanDeRoche.com


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

The sky does indeed need to fall. A little population thinning would be good for Mother Earth.


----------



## banjor (Dec 8, 2015)

rider95 said:


> Why does my MT bike park have handicap parking???


A few years ago (at age 36) I injured my back so badly that I still need a cane to walk. Even with a cane, I have trouble walking long distances. I'm always really glad when I get to a trailhead and find disabled parking spots. It makes it easier for me to get prepped and onto the trail, where I can still put the miles behind me like I always could. I joke that my bikes are my wheelchairs now. The truth is, when I did have to use a wheelchair after the accident, I was more worried that I would never be able to ride again than I was that I wouldn't be able to walk.

If my injuries had been worse, I can imagine that an e-bike would still let me get out and enjoy my favorite hobby. On the other hand, I don't want to have to share the tight, technical single track that I love to ride with bikes that can ride at a dangerously large speed differential to a pedal-powered bike.

I remember back 15-20 years ago, when hardtail riders were complaining about rich a-holes on full sussers ruining it for everyone. I kept riding my riding my hardtail (a '97 Bontrager Race Lite) as long as possible, but at 35, with back giving me trouble already, I had to give in and buy a full suspension bike. Someday, I'll probably have to put away my full suspension bike and switch to an ebike, and when that happens I hope there are plenty of long, flowy XC routes open to ebikes. We all get old.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Hawg said:


> The sky does indeed need to fall. A little population thinning would be good for Mother Earth.


 I am curious: would you feel the same if the thinning started with your Mom and Dad and went on to your girlfriend and those guys you drink beer with on the weekends? Or should it happen to some group of Others, perhaps folks who look different or maybe have a different religion? Just askin..........


----------



## danielsilva (Aug 13, 2011)

rockcrusher said:


> The issue is that while there maybe users like you who use a pedal assist bike for riding trails, once you officially open the trails to electric bikes there will be users that will bring the electric bikes with throttles onto the trail. This is what could jeopardize trail access for all wheel vehicles in many areas.


While i don't really like e-bikes or even see the point of them besides commuting, i can't understand the point you're making. If the problem is whether they're pedal assist or not why not just legislate it ? I don't see how a measly 250w pedal assist bike will damage trails more than a heavy rider on a enduro bike with fat tires will.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

rider95 said:


> May I ask how many have seen a E bike in person? How many have come across one on your fav trail????


Out of curiosity, have you ridden at Brown Co, specifically Walnut or Schooners, or OBannon Woods?

1. I wonder how many ebikes I will see on the trail because of cost.
2. So if the generalization that ebike riders are not capable of riding regular bikes, what about falling? I may be stating the obvious, but less conditioned individuals are less likely to tolerate a crash which is an inherent part of our sport. 
3. Does experience matter? Not only in regards to falls, but knowing ones limits. Not just fast downhills can cause injury. 
4. The trails I mentioned above tend to be more technical. The previously mentioned issues can be affected by tougher trails. 
5. Because of the above, will ebikes in America essentially be an non issue? I think the limiting factor is cost and most Americans desire to be transported rather than ambulate. ATVs - heck yah, but ebikes? Why? "That's what dirt bikes are for buddy". I'm looking from a small town or country person's perspective. Europe, well is small, and rural areas are much less in quantity. So, yes in metro parks like Ft. Harrison, I would expect to periodically see a ebike. If the "I was run over by an ebike story" was true, the stoner protagonist will not be a regular on the trails.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Yes I ride Brown county a lot and 96st in fact I have been riding 96st since the 80s and the company I am retierd from donated the land to the city for a MT park ,And now you are saying since I ride a (low power) e bike in your oppion I should not be allowed to ride 96st or any trail?? .And you question my ability? my ability is nothing like it was I mostly just plod along and am quite happy just doing that , But I have ridden Moab lots both on my Proflex and my YZ450 I have done the down hill @ Durango and chased John Tomac around the xc trail I have rode SnowShoe , the Vortex at Santos, I hope my almost 50yr of riding is enough in your eyes for me to be on the same trail with such a trail expert as your self even if I have only been riding your trail since the 80s


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

I am questioning your level of skill but not from an air of superiority. I am wondering if everyone should be up in arms over a rare bird such as yourself. I do have fears regarding ebikes and the possible consequences, but at this point they are unproven. I am 53 years old and can see the end of the tunnel as far as my abilities. I'm also old enough to never say never. 

I want to learn from your experiences. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

rider95 said:


> Yes I ride Brown county a lot and 96st in fact I have been riding 96st since the 80s and the company I am retierd from donated the land to the city for a MT park ,And now you are saying since I ride a (low power) e bike in your oppion I should not be allowed to ride 96st or any trail?? .And you question my ability? my ability is nothing like it was I mostly just plod along and am quite happy just doing that , But I have ridden Moab lots both on my Proflex and my YZ450 I have done the down hill @ Durango and chased John Tomac around the xc trail I have rode SnowShoe , the Vortex at Santos, I hope my almost 50yr of riding is enough in your eyes for me to be on the same trail with such a trail expert as your self even if I have only been riding your trail since the 80s


The thing is, no one wants to exclude you from using the trails, you just have to use the appropriate vehicle, just like everyone else. I have no reason think you are a bad person, or an inept mountain biker, but having ridden the trails for a long time doesn't give you an special rights either. If a trail is for non-motorized use, it applies to you the same way it applies to everyone else.

I've been walking on sidewalks my entire life, but bikes aren't allowed on sidewalks here. Having used them my entire life doesn't entitle me to ride my bike there. It's not any kind of discrimination against me, I can still use the sidewalks, I just have to use them within the confines of the rules.

E-bikes aren't evil, but they are motorized, so if you want access to non-motorized trails you will have to get the rules changed. This involves a lot of leg work, as the people who work for MTB access can attest to.


----------



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

formula4speed said:


> The thing is, no one wants to exclude you from using the trails, you just have to use the appropriate vehicle, just like everyone else. I have no reason think you are a bad person, or an inept mountain biker, but having ridden the trails for a long time doesn't give you an special rights either. If a trail is for non-motorized use, it applies to you the same way it applies to everyone else.
> 
> I've been walking on sidewalks my entire life, but bikes aren't allowed on sidewalks here. Having used them my entire life doesn't entitle me to ride my bike there. It's not any kind of discrimination against me, I can still use the sidewalks, I just have to use them within the confines of the rules.
> 
> E-bikes aren't evil, but they are motorized, so if you want access to non-motorized trails you will have to get the rules changed. This involves a lot of leg work, as the people who work for MTB access can attest to.


^too reasonable for this crowd.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

If someone gets in over their head doing something they chose to do, tough ****.
I don't agree with (or really understand) the whole "nanny" outlook; maybe it's a California thing.

Oh, and 53 is near the end? 
Please...


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

I didn't say 53 is near the end. I met a guy who started at 53 and who is now 73 and rides a Rip 9 at the Shed. I plan to surpass him. I'm more aware of my own mortality now and speak for myself. That includes people becoming injured on ebikes. All of use are responsible for our actions so honestly I don't care if someone injures themselves because of their lack of skill. Most newbie 53 year olds are not capable of riding any mountain bike safely on real trails. That is the state of our society from a health perspective. I have ridden Brown Co a lot and not have been terrorized my an ebike. Annoyed by knuckle heads bombing down from Hesitation point when I'm climbing yes. So why all the anger. Speaking for myself, when I hit 103 and puttering around, who I'm I hurting?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Look at the back of my bike see that placard ??? my e bike does not go faster then you can peddle nor does it spin the tires it makes no more of a impact on OUR trails than a reg MT bike . It does allow a handicap rider who would not be able to ride do so with out making any unreasonable changes or any changes except one and that is all ready there and that is there is a handicap parking spot already there . The only changes I am asking is to change your opinion .


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

rider95 said:


> View attachment 1064669
> Look at the back of my bike see that placard ??? my e bike does not go faster then you can peddle nor does it spin the tires it makes no more of a impact on OUR trails than a reg MT bike . It does allow a handicap rider who would not be able to ride do so with out making any unreasonable changes or any changes except one and that is all ready there and that is there is a handicap parking spot already there . The only changes I am asking is to change your opinion .


I'm with you brother.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Jesus. I can't stand reading this forum. It get's pointed out over and over again, that the problem isn't your 750w e-bike. The problem is that if 750w e-bikes are allowed to ride the non-motorized trails, then faster, higher powered e-bikes will follow suite. There are plenty of higher powered e-mtbs available right now (3000w+)... not to mention in another 5-10 yrs. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Every e-bike enabler just tries to gloss over this fact. Avoid discussing it at all cost. Head in the sand mentality. Redirect the question.

Maybe if the e-mtb crowd would just help in addressing this most important issue to ALL OF US... then things would move along. But that hasn't been the case at all, so far as I have read... Just ignore the real issues.


----------



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

Hypothetical situation; Dude weighs 475# and has diabetes (self induced) and really wants to enjoy the same trails the rest of us do. 750 watts obviously won't do it so he opts for a low powered petrol rig instead. Since he's technically "handicapped" does he have the right to hit any trail he chooses regardless of restrictions?



DrDon said:


> Speaking for myself, when I hit 103 and puttering around, who I'm I hurting?


Most 103 year olds aren't going to have the legs or lungs to tackle gnarly technical singletrack with "pedal assist" rigs, aren't we discriminating by not allowing them to use whatever vehicle is necessary? In many cases the vehicle isn't the only limiting factor, should we be grading and paving a road to the bottom of the Grand Canyon so everyone has equal access? No fair that only elitist hikers and mules can visit there!


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

d365 said:


> Jesus. I can't stand reading this forum. It get's pointed out over and over again, that the problem isn't your 750w e-bike. The problem is that if 750w e-bikes are allowed to ride the non-motorized trails, then faster, higher powered e-bikes will follow suite. There are plenty of higher powered e-mtbs available right now (3000w+)... not to mention in another 5-10 yrs. Why is this so hard to grasp?
> 
> Every e-bike enabler just tries to gloss over this fact. Avoid discussing it at all cost. Head in the sand mentality. Redirect the question.
> 
> Maybe if the e-mtb crowd would just help in addressing this most important issue to ALL OF US... then things would move along. But that hasn't been the case at all, so far as I have read... Just ignore the real issues.


This scenario may or may not occur. Reacting to what may happen is often not the best course of action.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Hypothetical situation; Dude weighs 475# and has diabetes (self induced) and really wants to enjoy the same trails the rest of us do. 750 watts obviously won't do it so he opts for a low powered petrol rig instead. Since he's technically "handicapped" does he have the right to hit any trail he chooses regardless of restrictions?
> 
> Most 103 year olds aren't going to have the legs or lungs to tackle gnarly technical singletrack with "pedal assist" rigs, aren't we discriminating by not allowing them to use whatever vehicle is necessary? In many cases the vehicle isn't the only limiting factor, should we be grading and paving a road to the bottom of the Grand Canyon so everyone has equal access? No fair that only elitist hikers and mules can visit there!


I'll be the first


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Its the reasonable part of the ADA that will apply ie what is reasonable and to who? the mt bike community is very nervous about e bikes this is understandable .


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Hypothetical situation; Dude weighs 475# and has diabetes (self induced) and really wants to enjoy the same trails the rest of us do. 750 watts obviously won't do it so he opts for a low powered petrol rig instead. Since he's technically "handicapped" does he have the right to hit any trail he chooses regardless of restrictions?
> 
> Most 103 year olds aren't going to have the legs or lungs to tackle gnarly technical singletrack with "pedal assist" rigs, aren't we discriminating by not allowing them to use whatever vehicle is necessary? In many cases the vehicle isn't the only limiting factor, should we be grading and paving a road to the bottom of the Grand Canyon so everyone has equal access? No fair that only elitist hikers and mules can visit there!


No. Ebikers shouldn't poach trails off limits to them.

Outdoor recreation access is a privilege not a right.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

DrDon said:


> I didn't say 53 is near the end.





DrDon said:


> I am 53 years old and can see the end of the tunnel as far as my abilities.


Oh.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rider95 said:


> View attachment 1064669
> Look at the back of my bike see that placard ??? my e bike does not go faster then you can peddle nor does it spin the tires it makes no more of a impact on OUR trails than a reg MT bike . It does allow a handicap rider who would not be able to ride do so with out making any unreasonable changes or any changes except one and that is all ready there and that is there is a handicap parking spot already there . The only changes I am asking is to change your opinion .


No one (who isn't a dick) cares about legitimately handicapped people using an e-bike as an OPMD. Neither does the law; you're perfectly legal per the ADA. But disable use is a very small percentage of the market; lazy is NOT a disability. When I'm too lazy to ride my bike, I grab something with a motor and head to trails that cater to motors. I don't demand that I be allowed to take my motorized machine on passive recreation/human powered trails.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Its just that you are wrong I do have some rights because I am handicap I have the ADA that's why I can park in the handicap spot , I have the law on my side and the only thing keeping me from enjoying public lands the way you do is your opinion, I am willing to fight for my access If my so called ADA rights supersedes you having your opinion and feelings hurt by my E bike access.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

OK well at lest you think I am ok lol sorry , then I get a pass??


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

rider95 said:


> Its just that you are wrong I do have some rights because I am handicap I have the ADA that's why I can park in the handicap spot , I have the law on my side and the only thing keeping me from enjoying public lands the way you do is your opinion, I am willing to fight for my access If my so called ADA rights supersedes you having your opinion and feelings hurt by my E bike access.


Actually you don't have the law on your side. The law for access to a trail is set by the governing body. The ADA is an nondiscrimination guideline, it is a federal guidelines set to ensure that buildings, elements and areas are accessible to all people. However just as all elements don't have to be access to all, certain governing bodies can make laws that can discriminate. As the previously mentioned example of the Grand Canyon, it isn't the expectation that is should be open to all differently-abled user, with any nondiscrimination guideline there is the expectation that it is with the boundaries of common sense. Just as we don't have to make cell phone towers accessible, or that all cars are accessible, not all external amenities need to be accessible to all.

I can see land managers opening certain trails to e-bike use, just as certain trails are open to just mountain bikes, provision to accessible use isn't a guarantee on hiking trails and it would be hard to cite precedent that they are. I have yet to see braille on any major hiking trail or biking trail or multiuse trail on any public trails that I have been one because the expectation is that there isn't the precedent that the trail is required to be accessible.

If you want to argue that this trail is open to accessible use, then you need to be willing to accept that it is built to ADA standards which means that there will be no changes in grade greater than 1/4" that don't meet ADA ramp requirements which would be 1:20 slope without landings or 1:12 slopes with landings at every 30" of rise. Additionally all ramps over 6" of height would require handrails. Cross slopes allowed at any locations on the trail would be required to be 1:48 or less. The surface of the trail would be required to be composed of an ADA conforming material. This is just the basic requirements. Additionally the trail would need to be at minimum 32" wide with other requirements at direction changes.

You can't have it both ways. Many National parks provide ADA accessible trails to vistas and they are composed as outlined above as the ADA meeting requirement of providing equal access to an amenity. This is what you are asking for if you want to argue that you have a nondiscrimination guidelines backing you for trail access.

How ever if you want to use the mountain bike trails that don't meet this requirement then you will need to follow the rules on those trails. If the land manager mandates that e-bikes aren't allowed on these trails then that is what they have decided. You can go down the path of lawsuit based on discrimination but it will be a very slippery slope and much harder to prove than just a non conforming parking lot or waterfountain or store.

I'd argue that using the ADA as a means of access to trails could be exactly the opposite of what you would want creating a situation where land managers provide accessible trails for e-bikes to meet this criteria and banning them outright on the non-conforming trails. Be careful what you ask for, you might get what you want but not in the means you want it.


----------



## mizzaboom (Jun 2, 2010)

.......................


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

^^ Wow Crusher!!!!!!!! You laid down the law!


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Synopsis: 

If you want to exploit ADA, stick to ADA approved surfaces, not mountain bike trails. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

DrDon said:


> This scenario may or may not occur. Reacting to what may happen is often not the best course of action.


I hadn't considered that approach, but maybe we can use platitudes to figure this thing out.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> Synopsis:
> 
> If you want to exploit ADA, stick to ADA approved surfaces, not mountain bike trails.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


When it comes to public trails of any sort, this is not how the rules work. Unless land managers go through a specific set of actions, they cannot legally deny access to a disabled person operating an OPMD of their choice. The LM has no legal obligation to modify the trails to accommodate this, but they cannot deny access in most cases.

I've rambled on about more specifics in a number of threads. But really, disabled access is a drop in the bucket numbers-wise, and ya gotta be one miserable SOB if this is something you've got a problem with. Following ADA trail access guidelines is no more an 'exploit' to someone with a disability than using a wheelchair ramp.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> When it comes to public trails of any sort, this is not how the rules work. Unless land managers go through a specific set of actions, they cannot legally deny access to a disabled person operating an OPMD of their choice. The LM has no legal obligation to modify the trails to accommodate this, but they cannot deny access in most cases.
> 
> I've rambled on about more specifics in a number of threads. But really, disabled access is a drop in the bucket numbers-wise, and ya gotta be one miserable SOB if this is something you've got a problem with. Following ADA trail access guidelines is no more an 'exploit' to someone with a disability than using a wheelchair ramp.


My point was that people could use ADA to ride an e-bike into a Wilderness area, a National Park, the Appalachian Trail, etc.

For the sake of safety and health considerations (one is supposed to be "disabled", no?), ADA access should be restricted to ADA approved surfaces, where we can easily monitor their health and provide aid as necessary. What happens to a person with an ADA exemption when their 3000w e-bike breaks down in the middle of the Bob Marshall Wilderness? Grizzly fodder?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

d365 said:


> Jesus. I can't stand reading this forum. It get's pointed out over and over again, that the problem isn't your 750w e-bike. The problem is that if 750w e-bikes are allowed to ride the non-motorized trails, then faster, higher powered e-bikes will follow suite. There are plenty of higher powered e-mtbs available right now (3000w+)... not to mention in another 5-10 yrs. Why is this so hard to grasp?
> 
> Every e-bike enabler just tries to gloss over this fact. Avoid discussing it at all cost. Head in the sand mentality. Redirect the question.
> 
> Maybe if the e-mtb crowd would just help in addressing this most important issue to ALL OF US... then things would move along. But that hasn't been the case at all, so far as I have read... Just ignore the real issues.


 We respond to this the same we respond to folks driving Corvettes and Porsches on highways: we penalize the speeders, we dont ban the cars. The same way MTBers are supposed to deal with their peers who bomb downhill on multi-use trails scaring the children and horses......

Now that at least one state (California) has declared that ebikes are legally the same as pushbikes on all state roads, trails and bikepaths, it is going to be hard to argue that the law does not apply statewide.


----------



## armii (Jan 9, 2016)

DrDon said:


> Outdoor recreation access is a privilege not a right.


On Federal land, per Theodore Roosevelt just before he passed Federal law limiting state access fees to Federal lands within a state:

" The 190 million acres of national forest and 258 million acres of BLM are the _*birthright*_ of all Americans. The notion that they are viewed as the domain of state legislatures runs against the principle of public usage of federal property."


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> My point was that people could use ADA to ride an e-bike into a Wilderness area, a National Park, the Appalachian Trail, etc.
> 
> For the sake of safety and health considerations (one is supposed to be "disabled", no?), ADA access should be restricted to ADA approved surfaces, where we can easily monitor their health and provide aid as necessary. What happens to a person with an ADA exemption when their 3000w e-bike breaks down in the middle of the Bob Marshall Wilderness? Grizzly fodder?


Yup, same as the rest of us. 
Allowing access does not equal providing a babysitter.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

JACKL said:


> I hadn't considered that approach, but maybe we can use platitudes to figure this thing out.


Or fear


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

DrDon said:


> Or fear


I guess you don't believe in preventative medicine either....

I don't think it's very hard to connect the dots between allowing 750w e-mtbs access, then having 3000+w e-mtbs become a problem. But then again I don't own an e-mtb, so I don't have a vested interest in ignoring the obvious.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Fuken babysitter indeed lol we got a room full of lawyers I have stopped trying to be reasonable you all are experts you think just be cause you have a opinion its the law , I am going to keep riding and push come to fight you will see who needs a baby sitter . Your pig headed actions will put a black eye on all MTB and bring shame to this form .


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

d365 said:


> I guess you don't believe in preventative medicine either....
> 
> I don't think it's very hard to connect the dots between allowing 750w e-mtbs access, then having 3000+w e-mtbs become a problem. But then again I don't own an e-mtb, so I don't have a vested interest in ignoring the obvious.


My job is not to come to conclusions based on assumptions or gross generalizations. I haven't seen the data proving your assertions. Can you provide it?


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Yes I can and I have tried but no matter how slow I type the e bike haters can not understand that there is a worlds diff between a 750w bike and a 3000w , there not in the same ball park !! I am not nor will I support anything near that for use on a reg mtb trail.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> ebikes are legally the same as pushbikes on all state roads, trails and bikepaths,


You love repeating this line of BS don't you?
Even when you know it's not true.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Wow what a bunch of self righters who know everything and since you say it it must be law , and the hell with the embarrassment and bad PR your MT bike club will receive. And lets not forget the money your club will have to put out to defend against a ADA suit brought free of charge by the ADA advocate. Oh likely to join said possible suit is every Mfg that plans on releasing a e bike but keep your head in the sand it will bankrupt your club that built the trails and put them in jeopardy for any of us to use .


----------



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

rider95 said:


> there is a worlds diff between a 750w bike and a 3000w


2,250 watts.

there is 400 watts difference between a 750w and a 350w bike.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

rider95 said:


> Wow what a bunch of self righters who know everything and since you say it it must be law , and the hell with the embarrassment and bad PR your MT bike club will receive. And lets not forget the money your club will have to put out to defend against a ADA suit brought free of charge by the ADA advocate. Oh likely to join said possible suit is every Mfg that plans on releasing a e bike but keep your head in the sand it will bankrupt your club that built the trails and put them in jeopardy for any of us to use .


Assuming we're talking about trails on public land, the entity getting sued would be the Forest Service, BLM, State, or other public entity.

Are you that dumb that you don't get this, or just incredibly ignorant?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



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

also 750 watts is about 650 more than the average cyclist can produce.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

rider95 said:


> View attachment 1064669
> Look at the back of my bike see that placard ??? my e bike does not go faster then you can peddle nor does it spin the tires it makes no more of a impact on OUR trails than a reg MT bike . It does allow a handicap rider who would not be able to ride do so with out making any unreasonable changes or any changes except one and that is all ready there and that is there is a handicap parking spot already there . The only changes I am asking is to change your opinion .


 If one has an ADA medical hp issue, no problems. The ADA has a broad and sweeping regulations to allow and grant access, on just about everything. That is not what we are discussing here. The issue is that people think that fat, old and lazy is an actual handicap.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Assuming we're talking about trails on public land, the entity getting sued would be the Forest Service, BLM, State, or other public entity.
> 
> Are you that dumb that you don't get this, or just incredibly ignorant?
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Correct. Mountain bikers may oppose you through proper channels but suing them is not an option.

I've seen handicapped deer hunters parked and I guess they are able shoot out of or close to their vehicle. Correct me if I'm wrong. But if it is true, how do they drag the deer out or track it if it is wounded?

I'm on a high protein diet and stupid me decided to ride Michaux with out trail knowledge. Someone please give me a ebike.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

rider95 said:


> Wow what a bunch of self righters who know everything and since you say it it must be law , and the hell with the embarrassment and bad PR your MT bike club will receive. And lets not forget the money your club will have to put out to defend against a ADA suit brought free of charge by the ADA advocate. Oh likely to join said possible suit is every Mfg that plans on releasing a e bike but keep your head in the sand it will bankrupt your club that built the trails and put them in jeopardy for any of us to use .


You won't beat up a cycling club or a bike company or anything with ada. If you are being excluded from trails it will be government policy regarding use of motorized vehicles on public lands. if you are riding on private lands then you will have to follow their requirements. Or you can sue. Good luck with your class action suit, and better get a flame suit for when your actions get other cyclists kicked off public and private trails because of it.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

rider95 said:


> Yes I can and I have tried but no matter how slow I type the e bike haters can not understand that there is a worlds diff between a 750w bike and a 3000w , there not in the same ball park !! I am not nor will I support anything near that for use on a reg mtb trail.


The issue is the slippery slope started. By looking, how do you tell a 250, 500 and 750 watt bike apart? 750 vs 1500 watts? They now have motors in the seat tubes of road bikes, the experts can't tell. Joe smoe? Nope. The hate comes form the possibility of losing all our hard fought bike access. Indy? Check out some the hard fought battles here in New England, still going on. Then get back to us.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

If pros can ride ebikes undiscovered in professional races, the average rider will be able to ride ebikes on any trail. That is assuming there isn't an X-ray bike check at the trail head the day one shows up. 

Sorry, I think this whole ebike discussion is a joke. All bikes are powered by human or batteries. There is a huge range in speed already. Regulations evolve with the times. Just think, 40 years ago nobody had even heard of a mountain bike.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

It's interesting that some think that the CA ebike legislation or any state wide legislation will resolve access issues now or in the future. Access is ultimately granted by individual land managers, if they can justify to their bosses why they want to ban ebikes, bikes or horses from all or part of their domain, they will. 

Based on my experience, I expect there will be backlash once there enough of a density of ebikes for them to be identifiable as a new user group. In my local park system, bikes were originally technicaly legal everywhere, since before mtb's there was no reason for them to be excluded from trails. You could legally ride any trail you liked in the eighties and no one apparently cared (sound familiar?) until they did. It took a few years for the animosity to build among the vocal minority and mtb's ended up being banned in one of the major parks, a ban that still stands even though we pushed for and gained access on almost all other trails in the region. A struggle that has been 30 years in the making.

We could see a similar scenario if ebikes play out as I suspect, with more power, lower prices and a greater ability to go fast coming soon to a store near you. If they end up being low powered bikes, mainly ridden sensibly by the old and infirm as the proponents often suggest, it likely won't be an issue. I wouldn't bet on it, there's not much money in that.

I think those who favor them ought to consider who will fight their fight though on the local level. If regular bike access is threatened here, I'll happily throw ebikes under the bus to keep it and don't see the point of pushing for them for new trails either. If you want them, you do it. The ebike industry won't do anything for you except grease the politicos on the state level.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Harryman said:


> It's interesting that some think that the CA ebike legislation or any state wide legislation will resolve access issues now or in the future. Access is ultimately granted by individual land managers, if they can justify to their bosses why they want to ban ebikes, bikes or horses from all or part of their domain, they will.
> 
> Based on my experience, I expect there will be backlash once there enough of a density of ebikes for them to be identifiable as a new user group. In my local park system, bikes were originally technicaly legal everywhere, since before mtb's there was no reason for them to be excluded from trails. You could legally ride any trail you liked in the eighties and no one apparently cared (sound familiar?) until they did. It took a few years for the animosity to build among the vocal minority and mtb's ended up being banned in one of the major parks, a ban that still stands even though we pushed for and gained access on almost all other trails in the region. A struggle that has been 30 years in the making.
> 
> ...


I think the issue here is that there aren't that many e-bikers out there that are also mountain bikers. The few that do use their bikes on the trails use them to compensate for physical shortcomings so that they can continue to enjoy mountain biking and since there are so few of them they don't see the issue of letting just a few on the trails.

As you have identified, and I think many of the e-bike attackers have as well, is that this goes beyond just those few. This is a long term view that as this technology reaches more and cheaper, it will be come a noticeable presence on trails and Land managers will have to make a decision. The direction that mountain bikers seem to present to e-bikers is do the footwork for advocacy now, learn from our mistakes in the past, be an advocate for trails and access before it becomes an issue and E-bike proponents seem to view it as ask for forgiveness later because no one has explicitly addressed it now.

I agree that when push comes to shove, if e-bikes are the difference between my being able to use my trails on a bike or not being able to use them I will join on the side of human powered bikes consequences to e-bikes or manufacturers be damned. When you consider it took our government decades to decide that it shouldn't mandate who marries who, I can imagine them spending an inordinate amount of time deciding if e-bikes belong on trails or not and the answer will seem unfair to one of the groups.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Here is an incredibly apt article to this conversation: News from The Associated Press

Please note that the lawyers at Alta argued that "the resort is allowed to discriminate against equipment, not the people using it."

Also note that this is publicly leased land by a private company. The private company won over the public right to the land, I assume specifically with the above statement.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

DrDon said:


> Outdoor recreation access is a privilege not a right.


Actually the land and access to it belongs to everyone.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Shark said:


> Actually the land and access to it belongs to everyone.


See my link below. It might belong to everyone but they can deny access to their equipment.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> I think the issue here is that there aren't that many e-bikers out there that are also mountain bikers.


Maybe at the moment, but I disagree and think that like Europe, the majority will be people that ride conventional mountain bikes now. Guys you know will add them to their stable because they're a different experience, so their SO can keep up, because they've blown their knee or the new job cuts into their riding time or they want to ride with the boys. There are legit reasons for wanting them, but that doesn't mean that motors come without far reaching consequences. Pretending that they are the same doesn't mean that they are.

Unless you're talking resort areas with rental fleets, those will be awash with ebikes.

I've ridden a few places in the alps and dolomites, and have no problem with ebikes on multiuse there, but they have very different land use issues than we do here. The proponents never adress it outside of pointing to CA regs.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Shark said:


> Actually the land and access to it belongs to everyone.


Sorry. I'm meant access to the land is a right but having society providing provide access without conditions is not..I stumbled upon trails off limits to bicycles today


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

d365 said:


> Jesus. I can't stand reading this forum. It get's pointed out over and over again, that the problem isn't your 750w e-bike. The problem is that if 750w e-bikes are allowed to ride the non-motorized trails, then faster, higher powered e-bikes will follow suite. There are plenty of higher powered e-mtbs available right now (3000w+)... not to mention in another 5-10 yrs. Why is this so hard to grasp?
> 
> Every e-bike enabler just tries to gloss over this fact. Avoid discussing it at all cost. Head in the sand mentality. Redirect the question.
> 
> Maybe if the e-mtb crowd would just help in addressing this most important issue to ALL OF US... then things would move along. But that hasn't been the case at all, so far as I have read... Just ignore the real issues.


 You handle the problem the same way we handle people on the freeway in Corvettes and Vipers: we ticket the speeders, we do not ban cars with big motors. Why is this so hard to grasp?


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Or mabey the parks Dept and I just just reached a agreement with Lucas Oil stadium after the supercross you have a lot to learn my friend .


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Its park land for the pubic it has a handicap parking all of you who think its your trail are wrong , Its the pubic land for the pubic to use and handicap ppl with reasonable access may also . I will put my money were my mouth is and bet a judge will rule in my favor over you getting your feelings hurt , try me .


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2016)

Aren't they technically, E-Motorcycles?


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

WoodlandHills said:


> You handle the problem the same way we handle people on the freeway in Corvettes and Vipers: we ticket the speeders, we do not ban cars with big motors. Why is this so hard to grasp?


This is kinda different. Currently a lot of trails say no motors, e-bikes have motors for the sake of argument. Roads allow all kinds of licensed vehicles, including vipers and such. A better analogy would be driving your F1 car on the road. While still technically a car, it is not allowed by the rules that say race cars are not licensed and therefore not allowed in the roads, safety, sound, etc.

You could try it, yes, and perhaps get by for awhile but eventually someone would get tired of the wail of the v10 engine and your car would get seized.

This is much closer to what we are talking about and a more apples to apples analogy. Now if e-bikes were to be allowed on trails carte blanche then it would be up to legislators to define limits that the government would need to enforce, similar to Marin speed limits currently.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Technically by law under so many watts they are bicycles and will have no impact on the trails much to do about nothing . It will only give Mtb a bad name by all this hate


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

rider95 said:


> Its park land for the pubic it has a handicap parking all of you who think its your trail are wrong , Its the pubic land for the pubic to use and handicap ppl with reasonable access may also . I will put my money were my mouth is and bet a judge will rule in my favor over you getting your feelings hurt , try me .


I'll agree that trails have accessible parking, that restrooms at the trail head are accessible, however, as I showed above, your access to trails is guaranteed, just not your device. The article I posted shows a precedent that a place, either public or private can ban a device on the merits that banning a device is not discrimination, especially if they provide other locations to use said device.

While that may not apply to legitimate accessible needs, and you'd have no problem getting a waiver, and being American as ****, as you sue everyone for access, it's not going to stop the other users being banned.

I can tell you are of the older generation because you don't give a **** about anyone but yourself. I run into your type every day on the bike path, tearing along on your e-bike at way too fast speeds for conditions, on the assertion that it's legal on these paths so f off. I had a guy like you run me off the trail because he couldn't share a 8' wide paved path with another user.

Maybe it's being raised by the so called "greatest generation" but you people are so damn selfish. Everyone on here, this thread and numerous others, had just tried to point out to you that this isn't a "it's my right" thing but something that has taken decades of goodwill and advocacy to get, trails just aren't given to us and disobeying the rules gets us kicked off then for good. Not just e-bikes, all bikes, but you say screw all of you, screw your efforts and years of bridge building, I need this bike and I'm going to break the rules, or stretch the rules because I'm stubborn.

Good luck with this attitude, it obviously has gotten you this far in life, why start caring about others now?


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

You have a lot of nerve to say I have a attitude I have been called a drunk a stoner lazy need a babysitter should be beaten up have a stick stuck in by spokes have my battery stolen all because I am handicap and ride a low power e bike to enjoy the same trails you do . Screw you


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I'm pretty sure you took my babysitter comment wrong.

My point was that you're free to assume the same risks as the anyone else, not that you require a nanny. Quite the opposite actually.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

rider95 said:


> You have a lot of nerve to say I have a attitude I have been called a drunk a stoner lazy need a babysitter should be beaten up have a stick stuck in by spokes have my battery stolen all because I am handicap and ride a low power e bike to enjoy the same trails you do . Screw you


Ok, enjoy your bike.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

rockcrusher said:


> This is kinda different. Currently a lot of trails say no motors, e-bikes have motors for the sake of argument. Roads allow all kinds of licensed vehicles, including vipers and such. A better analogy would be driving your F1 car on the road. While still technically a car, it is not allowed by the rules that say race cars are not licensed and therefore not allowed in the roads, safety, sound, etc.
> 
> You could try it, yes, and perhaps get by for awhile but eventually someone would get tired of the wail of the v10 engine and your car would get seized.
> 
> This is much closer to what we are talking about and a more apples to apples analogy. Now if e-bikes were to be allowed on trails carte blanche then it would be up to legislators to define limits that the government would need to enforce, similar to Marin speed limits currently.


 I would have to disagree with the F1 analogy since ebikes are fully street legal if they comply with CA state law. If you want to keep 3000w F1 style ebikes off of the trails, I have no problem with that. You just do that the same way we keep F1 cars off of the freeway: going after the individual violator, not banning all cars from the road.

I did not know how big a problem the MTB world was having with self-policing until I began reading some other forums here. After reading posters bragging about their illegal and offensive behavior to approbation not condemnation I now understand how worried responsible MTB riders are about the introduction of ebikes. Especially if they end up in the hands of some of the folks I read here......

So far most ebikers are older riders with the money or time to build or buy a decent ebike and thus are usually more responsible/courteous riders by nature. Things won't stay that way for ever and there is nothing anyone can do about that: technology marches on and over anything in its way. All you and I can do is adapt to the change.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

WoodlandHills said:


> I would have to disagree with the F1 analogy since ebikes are fully street legal if they comply with CA state law. If you want to keep 3000w F1 style ebikes off of the trails, I have no problem with that. You just do that the same way we keep F1 cars off of the freeway: going after the individual violator, not banning all cars from the road.
> 
> I did not know how big a problem the MTB world was having with self-policing until I began reading some other forums here. After reading posters bragging about their illegal and offensive behavior to approbation not condemnation I now understand how worried responsible MTB riders are about the introduction of ebikes. Especially if they end up in the hands of some of the folks I read here......
> 
> So far most ebikers are older riders with the money or time to build or buy a decent ebike and thus are usually more responsible/courteous riders by nature. Things won't stay that way for ever and there is nothing anyone can do about that: technology marches on and over anything in its way. All you and I can do is adapt to the change.


I guess that's the point. Once a governing body puts legislation in place, then it is just policing. However legislation on these bikes only exists on the books in a few places. The rest are awaiting a stance and that is most e-bike protagonist's objection, the waiting until word on high is laid down and until that point we stick to the "no motorized vehicles" we've embraced since early on.

Arguing that one belongs because is tough because we've spent so much time and effort arguing we belong and we don't want to jeopardize that. If Washington state legalized e-bikes in trail here, I will literally stop caring about them, but until that happens I will be very suspect of them and the potential for conflict on trails we have now.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Here's how are weekend went Friday night me and the GF went to a new bike shop found out Aaron who works there tells me the shop is E bike friendly cool!!! , we buy a $180 bike rack and a pair of gloves drop $200 . Sunday its to the ST park to ride first ride of the year! we buy a annual st park pass $50 and I buy the new MT bike pass $20. I get back from my 2 loops about 10mi I am surprised I feel good I tell the GF us going to Fl to ride this spring has paid off I am sharp and cleared everything in fact my muscles seem more toned and I am in better shape than the yrs before I guess the 2yr I have spent riding my ebike has paid off I am fast on the trail if it wasn't for my Cheap zoom forks I could be faster I am late for my turns yep its them dam forks . Monday Moring I buy a set of fox 36 I just have to have them . Am I so diff from you???


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rider95 said:


> Here's how are weekend went Friday night me and the GF went to a new bike shop found out Aaron who works there tells me the shop is E bike friendly cool!!! , we buy a $180 bike rack and a pair of gloves drop $200 . Sunday its to the ST park to ride first ride of the year! we buy a annual st park pass $50 and I buy the new MT bike pass $20. I get back from my 2 loops about 10mi I am surprised I feel good I tell the GF us going to Fl to ride this spring has paid off I am sharp and cleared everything in fact my muscles seem more toned and I am in better shape than the yrs before I guess the 2yr I have spent riding my ebike has paid off I am fast on the trail if it wasn't for my Cheap zoom forks I could be faster I am late for my turns yep its them dam forks . Monday Moring I buy a set of fox 36 I just have to have them . Am I so diff from you???


If your'e finding you're in such good shape now, why not ditch the crutch?

Then when you say things like "I am fast on the trail", nobody snickers and reminds you that duhh... you have a motor.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Well people smarter than you will get it we I spend money lots of it we travel we buy things , and you saying why not ditch the crutch is more hurtful and insulating than you and the other haters could understand I hope you never have to walk in my shoes . I find this form and its members to be very hostile against people with handicaps trying to use the same public lands that you enjoy , frankly I am stunned by the attitude of this form it seems to encourage hate toward me and my e bike . The encouraging of members to beat me up steal my property to put a stick either wood or steel in my spokes to public imply I should just ditch my crutch as if I could I feel like this form thinks I am faking my disability . I am hurt embarrassed feel I have been called a Liar a cheat and because of my handicap should not be allowed to use the same public land that you use and this form and you are encouraging the hate toward handicap people


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> You handle the problem the same way we handle people on the freeway in Corvettes and Vipers: we ticket the speeders, we do not ban cars with big motors. Why is this so hard to grasp?


You're referring to regulating behavior, which unless your are in NorCal, I've never heard of. The issue is regulating equipment.

If you want to use a car analogy, it'd be more accurate to say that you are expecting LEOs to ticket those with horsepower above a certain level, say 200hp which most family sedan type cars fall way under. A corvette, mustang, porsche, all easy to spot as over the limit. But what about a Ford Focus? It could be anywhere from 125 - 350.

Same as with Ebikes. Currently, Class 1/2's look EXACTLY like Class 3 which can look EXACTLY like a kit bike. Stock bikes look EXACTLY like illegal stock bikes with the limiter modified. Do you really expect a ranger to be able to tell the difference between what is legal on a class 1/2 trail and which is not? Should they stop everyone and ask?

It may be different where you live, but there is zero enforcement here of anything because rangers at every level are under funded. We have non motorized multiuse as well as motorized multi use. The community self polices because it's easy, if a moto guy rides on a non mototrail, he'll be told so many times he's on the wrong trail that it's annoying enough to not do again. They're not a$$holes, they stick to where they should ride. It's the same with hiking only trails and bikers, for the most part, there's few transgressions here. A big part of that is anyone can tell the difference between a motorcycle, a bicycle and a hiker. Throw ebikes in with almost impossible to distinguish power levels and it's unrealistic to expect that system to still work. If one class of ebike is allowed, all classes will be present. Someone with a class 3 isn't going to sit at home because his buddies with class 1s are going for a ride. Anyone who bypasses their limiter would ignore any class restrictions.

The on the ground policy regarding ebikes will be if any class is legal, rangers will shrug their shoulders and ignore the class distinctions since they can't enforce them. If issues arise that get blamed on ebikes or ebikers, they'll get banned. If ebikes are lumped in with bikes and not treated as a seperate user group, regular bikers could get banned as well. According to the pro ebikers, we're all the same right?


----------



## armii (Jan 9, 2016)

Harryman said:


> You're referring to regulating behavior, which unless your are in NorCal, I've never heard of. The issue is regulating equipment.
> 
> If you want to use a car analogy, it'd be more accurate to say that you are expecting LEOs to ticket those with horsepower above a certain level, say 200hp which most family sedan type cars fall way under. A corvette, mustang, porsche, all easy to spot as over the limit. But what about a Ford Focus? It could be anywhere from 125 - 350.
> 
> ...


To use the car analogy properly, we expect officers of the law to ticket and stop hot rodders from driving cars with illegal power equipment, exhausts systems, and suspension systems even though just by looking they cannot be told from a legal stock car.

If it becomes part of the ranger's job and they refuse to do it, what can I say?


----------



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

WoodlandHills said:


> You handle the problem the same way we handle people on the freeway in Corvettes and Vipers: we ticket the speeders, we do not ban cars with big motors.





rockcrusher said:


> A better analogy would be driving your F1 car on the road.........





Harryman said:


> If you want to use a car analogy..............





armii said:


> To use the car analogy properly.............


The problem with car analogies is that the majority of people who visit wild lands go there specifically to escape from roads and cars (and cos). I think if e-bike enthusiasts would only acknowledge that fact there would be a lot more understanding.



WoodlandHills said:


> technology marches on and over anything in its way. All you and I can do is adapt to the change.


Maybe true, but frightening none the less. That is the very reason why wilderness is so valuable, and worth preserving.


----------



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

rider95 said:


> I am hurt embarrassed feel I have been called a Liar a cheat and because of my handicap should not be allowed to use the same public land that you use and this form and you are encouraging the hate toward handicap people


Good lord, enough with the melodrama. The hate exists only in your head, pretty much every poster here is fine with you or anyone else riding your electric bike wherever they are legally allowed. Being adamantly opposed to changing current laws or redefining what "motorized" means in order to open up trails that currently prohibit them does not constitute hate.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rider95 said:


> Well people smarter than you will get it we I spend money lots of it we travel we buy things , and you saying why not ditch the crutch is more hurtful and insulating than you and the other haters could understand I hope you never have to walk in my shoes . I find this form and its members to be very hostile against people with handicaps trying to use the same public lands that you enjoy , frankly I am stunned by the attitude of this form it seems to encourage hate toward me and my e bike . The encouraging of members to beat me up steal my property to put a stick either wood or steel in my spokes to public imply I should just ditch my crutch as if I could I feel like this form thinks I am faking my disability . I am hurt embarrassed feel I have been called a Liar a cheat and because of my handicap should not be allowed to use the same public land that you use and this form and you are encouraging the hate toward handicap people


So you can do 20 miles on an e-bike, but it's impossible for you to pedal a regular bike whatsoever? Seems odd.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Ok I think this horse has been beat to death enough times.


----------

