I'm intrigued by the recent flap over e-bikes and allowing them access to trails previously open to "analog" bikes.
NOTE: This thread is not a troll—I'm NEUTRAL on this issue, mainly because after doing a lot of reading and listening, I've determined there are a lot of opinions out there on all sides unsupported by peer-reviewed, fact-based science and data (and driven primarily by emotion and preference). So I'm still in search of more fact-based science and data.
I feel pretty sure that a perception (or misperception?) that exists over e-bikes is that they are more like "electric motorcycles" than bikes—meaning they're much faster and will be ridden much farther (in any given area) than analog bikes.
So a big question I'm trying to get to the bottom of is...to what extent is this true? I've read in many places that this is BS...and that e-bikes are *barely* different from analog bikes.
Regarding speed, I keep hearing about the 750W limit. That's a hard number which makes sense...but where things get a lot slipperier is when it comes to top speed. I've heard some say e-MTB's would struggle to reach 20mph on trails. Is this supported by facts? At the same time, I keep reading about certain types of e-bikes (not specified whether street or MTBs) topping out at 28mph.
Either way, I'm certain of one thing: for the most part, e-bikes are perceived by the hiking community as "insanely fast, and too fast for trails." And without supporting science, it's perfectly logical for hikers to think "If I'm almost run off the trail by regular bikes, then electric bikes will be even worse." (And as an aside, I'd say that the e-MTB advocates would benefit from eliminating this perception that e-bikes are ridiculously fast. Something like a video, taken from a stationary position along a trail, with the camera being passed by an analog biker...then an e-biker, could really help!)
So that's one issue—speed and safety.
The other issue that has clearly risen to the top of debates over MTB access to trails is impact.
And when we talk about impact, it's REALLY important to focus not on "impact to the trail tread" (that's been beaten to death, and too many MTBers obsess over this red herring), but on the overall impact of human presence in natural environments (e.g. impact to wildlife, plant species, the wilderness experience, etc.).
It stands to reason that *if* everyone agrees one can go farther (in the same amount of time) on an e-bike than an analog bike, then trail use *could* increase in any given area ("use" defined as "the total number and frequency of users on a given trail in a given period of time").
I think many in the hiking community are actually not concerned about impacts to the trail tread (which is why I called this a red herring), but overall impacts on the wilderness experience (which doesn't include lots of people screaming around on bikes).
I should also add, importantly, that I'm not necessarily talking about Wilderness (with an uppercase W, as in "federally designated"), though there are certainly some MTBers advocating for allowing bikes in Wilderness. I'm mainly talking about wilderness with a lowercase w (as in any reasonably remote natural area away from civilization).
So generally speaking, could the argument to allow E-bikes on existing trails open to biking (as well as possible trails NOT currently open to biking) potentially lead to even stronger limits on bikes generally?
Scott
NOTE: This thread is not a troll—I'm NEUTRAL on this issue, mainly because after doing a lot of reading and listening, I've determined there are a lot of opinions out there on all sides unsupported by peer-reviewed, fact-based science and data (and driven primarily by emotion and preference). So I'm still in search of more fact-based science and data.
I feel pretty sure that a perception (or misperception?) that exists over e-bikes is that they are more like "electric motorcycles" than bikes—meaning they're much faster and will be ridden much farther (in any given area) than analog bikes.
So a big question I'm trying to get to the bottom of is...to what extent is this true? I've read in many places that this is BS...and that e-bikes are *barely* different from analog bikes.
Regarding speed, I keep hearing about the 750W limit. That's a hard number which makes sense...but where things get a lot slipperier is when it comes to top speed. I've heard some say e-MTB's would struggle to reach 20mph on trails. Is this supported by facts? At the same time, I keep reading about certain types of e-bikes (not specified whether street or MTBs) topping out at 28mph.
Either way, I'm certain of one thing: for the most part, e-bikes are perceived by the hiking community as "insanely fast, and too fast for trails." And without supporting science, it's perfectly logical for hikers to think "If I'm almost run off the trail by regular bikes, then electric bikes will be even worse." (And as an aside, I'd say that the e-MTB advocates would benefit from eliminating this perception that e-bikes are ridiculously fast. Something like a video, taken from a stationary position along a trail, with the camera being passed by an analog biker...then an e-biker, could really help!)
So that's one issue—speed and safety.
The other issue that has clearly risen to the top of debates over MTB access to trails is impact.
And when we talk about impact, it's REALLY important to focus not on "impact to the trail tread" (that's been beaten to death, and too many MTBers obsess over this red herring), but on the overall impact of human presence in natural environments (e.g. impact to wildlife, plant species, the wilderness experience, etc.).
It stands to reason that *if* everyone agrees one can go farther (in the same amount of time) on an e-bike than an analog bike, then trail use *could* increase in any given area ("use" defined as "the total number and frequency of users on a given trail in a given period of time").
I think many in the hiking community are actually not concerned about impacts to the trail tread (which is why I called this a red herring), but overall impacts on the wilderness experience (which doesn't include lots of people screaming around on bikes).
I should also add, importantly, that I'm not necessarily talking about Wilderness (with an uppercase W, as in "federally designated"), though there are certainly some MTBers advocating for allowing bikes in Wilderness. I'm mainly talking about wilderness with a lowercase w (as in any reasonably remote natural area away from civilization).
So generally speaking, could the argument to allow E-bikes on existing trails open to biking (as well as possible trails NOT currently open to biking) potentially lead to even stronger limits on bikes generally?
Scott