Federal Rules Regarding E-mtb- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 463
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323

    Federal Rules Regarding E-mtb

    Meanwhile, following a quarterly e-MTB roundtable with federal agencies on March 14, the BPSA said they expect the National Park Service (NPS) to reissue in the next few months revised guidance on electric bikes that will allow greater leniency in the interpretation of Class 1 and 3 e-bikes as bicycles. In a memo, Pizzi, the chair of the e-bike committee at BPSA, said the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering following suit and the National Forest Service is apparently under pressure from the National Ski Areas Association to create a new definition of e-bikes separate from motorized vehicles. These policy shifts could be the first moves toward e-MTBs gaining access not only at bike parks, but on a wide swath of public lands.

    “It’s unfolding as we speak,” said Pizzi.

    https://www.rei.com/blog/cycle/mammo...mountain-bikes

  2. #2
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    You are very selective about what you choose to quote.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    I would love to quote the entire article, but that would be unfair to Mr. Gully who did a fantastic job of reporting. Here is another snippet though:
    "There is a lot of misinformation,” said Janelle Walker, the U.S. Forest Service representative who oversaw the approval process at Mammoth. “Generally life behind bars is not aware of the different classes of e-bikes and that leads to the assumption that they are more similar to motorcycles [than bicycles].”

  4. #4
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    It would make a ton of sense to let local districts control things as they see fit. Got a crowded trail system with bad sight lines and a ton of users? Don't allow e-bikes. Got a wide-open system (Moab) or a ski area with directional trails (ie Mammoth)? Let them ride it all.

    Ski areas are really a no-brainer. Nobody rides up the singletrack (in most cases it's not even allowed with a few exceptions) and it's already a lift-served bike park. Nobody is causing anybody a problem with their e-bike on a deforested slope served by giant electric chairlifts. You could really probably allow dirtbikes with no real impact on users or the environment in most of the ski area bikeparks, though you'd have to make an effort to keep the mouth-breathing ones from climbing up DH trails.

    -Walt

  5. #5
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    I would love to quote the entire article, but that would be unfair to Mr. Gully who did a fantastic job of reporting. Here is another snippet though:
    "There is a lot of misinformation,” said Janelle Walker, the U.S. Forest Service representative who oversaw the approval process at Mammoth. “Generally life behind bars is not aware of the different classes of e-bikes and that leads to the assumption that they are more similar to motorcycles [than bicycles].”



    False quotes will get you nothing but banned. If you wish to have honest discussions about the subject you should expect to have slight of hand pointed out.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    False quotes will get you nothing but banned. If you wish to have honest discussions about the subject you should expect to have slight of hand pointed out.
    You are very selective in your quotes...If Janelle knew how important a person you are she would have put you front and center in the quote.

  7. #7
    YOUREGO ISNOT YOURAMIGO
    Reputation: GoGoGordo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    You are very selective about what you choose to quote.

    Name:  who-invited-buzz-killington.jpg
Views: 781
Size:  102.3 KB

  8. #8
    Single(Pivot)and Happy
    Reputation: Boulder Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,774
    In my opinion, it makes sense to allow electric motorized bikes in mountain bike parks.

    I would hope the electric motorized bike riders have learned some lessons and absorbed the wisdom shared by the many mountain biking advocates that frequent this website and forum. One thing that concerns me, I'm speaking from a local perspective, is the lack of any organized electric motorized bike rider advocacy group.

    If legislation is passed that grants individual land managers the power to make local decisions as far as electric motorized bike access on the trails they manage, I personally see many missed opportunities that electric motorized bike riders have cost themselves by simply not representing themselves.
    The suspension of your bike sucks if it's different than mine. Really. It sucks. Big time.

  9. #9
    E-Moderator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    715
    Very good and positive article about ebikes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boulder Pilot View Post
    In my opinion, it makes sense to allow electric motorized bikes in mountain bike parks.

    I would hope the electric motorized bike riders have learned some lessons and absorbed the wisdom shared by the many mountain biking advocates that frequent this website and forum. One thing that concerns me, I'm speaking from a local perspective, is the lack of any organized electric motorized bike rider advocacy group.

    If legislation is passed that grants individual land managers the power to make local decisions as far as electric motorized bike access on the trails they manage, I personally see many missed opportunities that electric motorized bike riders have cost themselves by simply not representing themselves.
    I can tell your stance on ebikes simply by this quote “electric motorized bike riders”. Why can’t you simply call it an ebike or emtb? Yes, we all know it has a motor, please don’t point out the obvious.

    Ebikes sales are growing each year and I see more ebikes on the trails every month. I’m sure most ebike riders sees themselves as simply just another mountain biker. Why fracture our group? Ban together, unit and make the MTB community bigger and stronger! This is just my opinion as a long time mountain bike rider!

  10. #10
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbbiker View Post
    Very good and positive article about ebikes.



    I can tell your stance on ebikes simply by this quote “electric motorized bike riders”. Why can’t you simply call it an ebike or emtb? Yes, we all know it has a motor, please don’t point out the obvious.

    Ebikes sales are growing each year and I see more ebikes on the trails every month. I’m sure most ebike riders sees themselves as simply just another mountain biker. Why fracture our group? Ban together, unit and make the MTB community bigger and stronger! This is just my opinion as a long time mountain bike rider!
    We do it due to the large number of ebikers and the industry who push for them to be referred as bicycles. As soon as that stops, we'll refer to them as ebikes or emtbs. And "ebike" does stand for electric motor bike btw, so it is reality, not sure why that would bother you.

    There is a difference between "regulated as bicycles" and actually being a bicycle, no matter how it is worded.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  11. #11
    E-Moderator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    We do it due to the large number of ebikers and the industry who push for them to be referred as bicycles. As soon as that stops, we'll refer to them as ebikes or emtbs. And "ebike" does stand for electric motor bike btw, so it is reality, not sure why that would bother you.

    There is a difference between "regulated as bicycles" and actually being a bicycle, no matter how it is worded.
    When you say “we” I strongly don’t believe all mountain bike riders feel like the vocal few on this website. I’ve only been on an ebike for several months and I don’t see the negativity in the real world as I see here.

    A class 1 emtb is an electric bicycle. The word electric implies there is a motor. Saying twice seems ignorant.

    The article states class 1 ebikes have similar land impact as a mountain bike. Areas that allow ebikes are not reporting anymore trail user conflicts or trail damage. As ebikes gain more access, these facts will be proven more.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Emtbr’s rejoice!
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  13. #13
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbbiker View Post
    When you say “we” I strongly don’t believe all mountain bike riders feel like the vocal few on this website. I’ve only been on an ebike for several months and I don’t see the negativity in the real world as I see here.

    A class 1 emtb is an electric bicycle. The word electric implies there is a motor. Saying twice seems ignorant.

    The article states class 1 ebikes have similar land impact as a mountain bike. Areas that allow ebikes are not reporting anymore trail user conflicts or trail damage. As ebikes gain more access, these facts will be proven more.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You seem to be uncomfortable with the fact that ebikes have motors. And nowhere in my post was I negative about ebikes, just staying facts. I didn't say anything about trail damage and never have.

    Delve deeper into what cyclist really think about ebikes beyond people you briefly meet and you may find things are different than your current perception. Most I've talked to aren't really negative toward them, they just realize that they are different than bicycles and don't appreciate people wanting to modify the very definition of our sport to accommodate people who want to say "ebikes are bicycles; bicycles now have motors". I wouldn't play miniature golf and then tell people I played golf; I wouldn't play table tennis and tell people I played tennis. I'm not meaning to demean ebiking here, just saying they are not cycling/mountain biking; they are something different. I really don't understand why so many ebikers want to insist they are bicycles; I can only think of two possible reasons, they aren't really comfortable with admitting they're no longer bicycling or they want them lumped together to gain more access. What's wrong with just saying that you are ebiking? If someone was telling everyone that they rode a bicycle across the whole US and you later found out it was an ebike, do you really think they were being 100% honest?

    Trails are a lot different here on the east coast than they are where you are. As Walt said above, where it is a lot wider and more open space without a lot of users, I think ebikes are ok. I really think ebikes will cause a lot more user conflict in areas similar to where I am. We'll see.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hikerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbbiker View Post
    When you say “we” I strongly don’t believe all mountain bike riders feel like the vocal few on this website. I’ve only been on an ebike for several months and I don’t see the negativity in the real world as I see here.

    A class 1 emtb is an electric bicycle. The word electric implies there is a motor. Saying twice seems ignorant.

    The article states class 1 ebikes have similar land impact as a mountain bike. Areas that allow ebikes are not reporting anymore trail user conflicts or trail damage. As ebikes gain more access, these facts will be proven more.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The most usual ride-by comment I get is “I need to get one of those”; said to me yeaterday by a 20-something rider.
    "Thank you, God, for letting me have another day"
    The Milagro Beanfield War

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by hikerdave View Post
    The most usual ride-by comment I get is “I need to get one of those”; said to me yeaterday by a 20-something rider.
    As a fit thirty year old, I want one, it's way down the list of bikes to buy, but they are legal in my area. The training benefits they can provide are above and beyond any other bike when it comes to heart rate zone training.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    But saying a cycle with a motor that assists in moving it is a bicycle when the definition of a bicycle is that it is purely human powered is not a "typical word game"; got it. Again, why can't someone riding an ebike be "ebiking"? What's so dirty about being accurate? Why the desire to confuse people?
    I’ll be your huckleberry! I’ve repeatedly said throughout years of posts, that ebiking is different and have no confusion stating it’s the funnest form of cycling I’ve done in my life.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  17. #17
    E-Moderator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    You seem to be uncomfortable with the fact that ebikes have motors. And nowhere in my post was I negative about ebikes, just staying facts. I didn't say anything about trail damage and never have.

    Delve deeper into what cyclist really think about ebikes beyond people you briefly meet and you may find things are different than your current perception. Most I've talked to aren't really negative toward them, they just realize that they are different than bicycles and don't appreciate people wanting to modify the very definition of our sport to accommodate people who want to say "ebikes are bicycles; bicycles now have motors". I wouldn't play miniature golf and then tell people I played golf; I wouldn't play table tennis and tell people I played tennis. I'm not meaning to demean ebiking here, just saying they are not cycling/mountain biking; they are something different. I really don't understand why so many ebikers want to insist they are bicycles; I can only think of two possible reasons, they aren't really comfortable with admitting they're no longer bicycling or they want them lumped together to gain more access. What's wrong with just saying that you are ebiking? If someone was telling everyone that they rode a bicycle across the whole US and you later found out it was an ebike, do you really think they were being 100% honest?

    Trails are a lot different here on the east coast than they are where you are. As Walt said above, where it is a lot wider and more open space without a lot of users, I think ebikes are ok. I really think ebikes will cause a lot more user conflict in areas similar to where I am. We'll see.
    I would of thought the “E” before emtb or ebike would be enough for most people to understand that’s its electric and different than a bike.

    This is a positive article about ebikes and trail access. Let’s not making this into a battle!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #18
    E-Moderator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    I’ll be your huckleberry! I’ve repeatedly said throughout years of posts, that ebiking is different and have no confusion stating it’s the funnest form of cycling I’ve done in my life.
    +1


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hikerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Boulder Pilot View Post
    You obviously are not an advocate, or if you are you are a very poor and ineffective advocate. It's people like you that that are doing a great disservice to electric motorized bikers. Spouting off with your so-called psychic ability of an opinion to state "my stance" on electric motorized bikes on trails. Let me tell you about opinions. Pay attention here.

    When I'm sitting "at the table", land managers and politicians don't give a fk about opinions. When agencies such as CDFW and USFWS are involved with trail plans, they use SCIENCE to present their case. FACTS. When one uses fallacies to argue their position people will not take you seriously.

    Had you simply taken 120 seconds of your time to check any of my responses in ANY thread in this forum, there is no way any reasonable human being could come to the same conclusion as you about WTF ever "my stance" is.

    I have been consistent on my position of the lack of organization and representation of the electric motorized bike riders in my County. In my County, which has a population larger than 20 of the United States, you would be laughed at if you were present in a meeting and said,"Why can’t you simply call it an ebike or emtb? Yes, we all know it has a motor, please don’t point out the obvious."

    Before you tell me to calm down and take a chill pill, I respectfully request your undivided attention.

    There's a reason the manufacturers bypassed the advocacy element of the equation. They knew it would take a lot of effort and time. Their strategy was to get product to market and force land managers to deal with the situation. Let me tell you something, the land managers in my part of the planet do not like for-profit businesses to create a new trail user group and unleash them onto the local, State or Federal properties that they are mandated, by law, to protect and manage. Listen,I'm not being nasty, but no land manager cares that you see electric motorized bikes as being the same as mountain bikes. Which is one of the reasons I, along with my fellow advocate brothers and sisters, view attitudes as yours as being detrimental to your user group. WE have EARNED our right to be at the table and if you cannot understand how some people may be a little perturbed with the audacity of some to suggest you can walk into an advocacy meeting and "sit on our laps", you have a problem much bigger than you could ever know.

    I'm feeling very charitable, so here's some free advice: If the electric motorized bike riders are going to forgo the effort and time to advocate LOCALLY and sit back and hope for State and Federal regulations that authorize land managers to make trail access decisions for electric motorized bikes at the LOCAL level, I strongly suggest the electric motorized bike riders immediately begin to advocate for trail access so if or when the land managers are instructed to make decisions about your trail user group's access on their properties, you will have already begun to earn a partnership based upon respect, honor and integrity, not only with the land managers, but all of the existing trail user groups that have earned their seat at the table.
    Many of the local authorities here in the Phoenix area now allow eBike access but the Tonto National forest is constrained by Federal policy, which was the subject of the article cited by the OP. Are you in favor of regional Forest Service and BLM recreational managers being empowered to designate trail access for eBikes?

    Until recently there’s been no distinction between an electric motorized bicycle like the Turbo Levo and a full-on off-road racing motorcycle like a KTM 450 XC-F.
    "Thank you, God, for letting me have another day"
    The Milagro Beanfield War

  20. #20
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    I’ll be your huckleberry! I’ve repeatedly said throughout years of posts, that ebiking is different and have no confusion stating it’s the funnest form of cycling I’ve done in my life.
    Yes you are and I have not forgotten your years of posts and I appreciate that. I also find HikerDave to be an ebiker I can have a discussion with.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hikerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,267
    Thanks for the suggestion. I have talked with my local land manager and requested a policy change from the National Forest Service but have refrained from bothering the local Tonto National Forest; I might start with a simple statement expressing my desire that they designate additional access for eBikes; that’s asking the impossible right now because they don’t have defined power limitationd that apply to trails; possibly I’ll take a tact that they adapt the Federal rules to follow state designation.

    You may be angry at a deleted post and being misidentified as a troll. Please realize that what we e-bikers have previously put up with here on this forum are deleted and locked threads when my fellow e-bikers “take the bait” and respond to unhelpful posts. At one point this got so bad that I considered the self-immolation of having my account deleted.

    After performing days of trail work and introducing people to mountain biking and spending countless hours helping to develop and promote the GPX file format, in service to other mountain bikers, I felt pretty abandoned by the mountain bike community now that untreatable joint pain makes riding my regular mountain bike both painful and damaging. Some people here seem to think that people in my position should just gracefully age out and go away, but when their time comes they will feel differently.
    "Thank you, God, for letting me have another day"
    The Milagro Beanfield War

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Boulder Pilot is correct in that we need to get out and represent eBikes, so hit the trail everyone, be nice and smile.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hikerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Yes you are and I have not forgotten your years of posts and I appreciate that. I also find HikerDave to be an ebiker I can have a discussion with.
    Thanks. Mostly I try to be respectful but once in a while I’ll cross the line just like anyone else.
    "Thank you, God, for letting me have another day"
    The Milagro Beanfield War

  24. #24
    Single(Pivot)and Happy
    Reputation: Boulder Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,774
    Hey mtbbiker, you want to play games, fine. I've been around awhile and have never heard of a moderator getting away with the bullshit that you are. Censorship due to the fact that you do not have the ability to explain yourself using language is a piss poor excuse.
    The suspension of your bike sucks if it's different than mine. Really. It sucks. Big time.

  25. #25
    E-Moderator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Boulder Pilot View Post
    Hey mtbbiker, want to play games, fine. I've been around awhile and have never heard of a moderator getting away with the bullshit that you are. Censorship due to the fact that you do not have the ability to explain yourself using language is a piss poor excuse.
    When you come into the ebike forum and say “electric motorized bike riders”. I can’t take you seriously as this comes across as a troll. Please be respectful and hopefully you’ll understand how in the past this ebike forum was more like an anti-ebiking forum.

  26. #26
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    It is the moment you realize that is not, and has never been, the definition of a bicycle. This claim is merely one of convenience for you.
    Try entering your ebike in a serious bicycle race and see how that works out.

    Again, what's wrong with "ebike" and "ebiking"?
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  27. #27
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Changing the subject now? Now it's the rules of a bicycle race and not the "definition of a bicycle"?

    As for what's wrong with "ebike", no advocate has ever objected to that term. You, on the other hand, are the one justifying the deliberate avoidance of the term, the justification being as punishment for others claiming that an e-bike is a type of bike, no less. What's wrong with ebike, chazpat? Oh yeah, it doesn't have the word "motorized" in it.

    Seriously, aren't these types of trolls out of bounds? This forum is for the discussion of e-bikes, not your distaste for them.
    Please try actually reading my posts. Go ahead. You'll find I used the term "ebike" and I have not avoided it at all, I used it repeatedly and requested that ebikers do so as well. All I'm asking is that you likewise show respect to cyclist and mountain bikers by not referring to an ebike as a bicycle. Seems like a very simple request to me.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Changing the subject now? Now it's the rules of a bicycle race and not the "definition of a bicycle"?

    As for what's wrong with "ebike", no advocate has ever objected to that term. You, on the other hand, are the one justifying the deliberate avoidance of the term, the justification being as punishment for others claiming that an e-bike is a type of bike, no less. What's wrong with ebike, chazpat? Oh yeah, it doesn't have the word "motorized" in it.

    Seriously, aren't these types of trolls out of bounds? This forum is for the discussion of e-bikes, not your distaste for them.
    People got this type of behavior ingrained when the moderator was one of the biggest anti-ebike advocates and trolls on the site. It was so bad he would threaten to ban individuals if they proved him wrong or engaging in double standards. Thankfully that is no longer the case.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  29. #29
    E-Moderator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Changing the subject now? Now it's the rules of a bicycle race and not the "definition of a bicycle"?

    As for what's wrong with "ebike", no advocate has ever objected to that term. You, on the other hand, are the one justifying the deliberate avoidance of the term, the justification being as punishment for others claiming that an e-bike is a type of bike, no less. What's wrong with ebike, chazpat? Oh yeah, it doesn't have the word "motorized" in it.

    Seriously, aren't these types of trolls out of bounds? This forum is for the discussion of e-bikes, not your distaste for them.
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Please try actually reading my posts. Go ahead. You'll find I used the term "ebike" and I have not avoided it at all, I used it repeatedly and requested that ebikers do so as well. All I'm asking is that you likewise show respect to cyclist and mountain bikers by not referring to an ebike as a bicycle. Seems like a very simple request to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    e-bikes are bikes, eMTBs are MTBs, e-bikers are cyclists and mountain bikers. If you don't understand that, it's you that has the problem.
    Please take this argument to PMs.

  30. #30
    Single(Pivot)and Happy
    Reputation: Boulder Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,774
    mtbbiker,

    I understand where you are coming from now, and I could have handled this with a little more couth. I'm far from a troll, and I'm not a "hater." As you are aware, there are a lot of people that cannot understand or accept certain arguments and I admit my threshold for ignorance has gotten lower.

    I use the term "electric motorized bike" because this is the term that is used by Cal. State and US Federal agencies that I deal with. The agencies differentiate mountain bikes from motorized bikes. All of the people on this forum are wasting their time trying to convince anyone on this forum otherwise. These proponents for electric motorized bikes should, in my opinion, be trying to build and earn partnerships with all trail user groups.

    mtbbiker, I realize it can be tough moderating this forum. I'm not here to cause you problems. I believe I jumped your ass earlier as a result of reading numerous posts by others, which is not cool on my behalf. So, please accept my apology and here's to respectful debate. Cheers,

    Jason
    The suspension of your bike sucks if it's different than mine. Really. It sucks. Big time.

  31. #31
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Actually, I'm just going to bail. Oddly enough, it's trolls like craigsj (see post #34, he's just begging me to come back with "motorized" but I'm not going to give him that; it's what he does continuously on this site and why he has been banned in the past) that push me toward thinking ebikes should just go away. It's people like Walt and the reasonable ebikers around who make me think they should be allowed on some trails.

    mtbbiker, really wish you would ban the trolls even if they are ebikers. Seems you are all ready to delete any post that you don't deem all 100% rosy about ebikes but you're fine with ebikers abusing non-ebikers.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  32. #32
    E-Moderator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Actually, I'm just going to bail. Oddly enough, it's trolls like craigsj (see post #34, he's just begging me to come back with "motorized" but I'm not going to give him that; it's what he does continuously on this site and why he has been banned in the past) that push me toward thinking ebikes should just go away. It's people like Walt and the reasonable ebikers around who make me think they should be allowed on some trails.

    mtbbiker, really wish you would ban the trolls even if they are ebikers. Seems you are all ready to delete any post that you don't deem all 100% rosy about ebikes but you're fine with ebikers abusing non-ebikers.
    Chazpat, you won the argument. I don’t understand why you continue on. Yes, ebikes have a motor. Yes, when I tell people about my bikes, I tell them I have an ebike and an MTB. When I ride my ebike and I talk to friends I tell them I was on my ebike. I’m sure most of the people on this forum do.

    I asked both of you to take your personal arguments to PMs. This thread was about an article on ebikes and as usually is getting out of control.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bigwheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,400
    Larry Pizzi, who is quoted in the article as the chair of the chair of the ebike committee at the BPSA, also is the top employee in charge of the IBD channel and marketing for Accell that took over his company Currie Technology years ago that company being an early ebike producer here in the US. Over the years he has been instrumental in advocating for ebikes at the upper levels of gov't most notably the Class laws that were first adopted by CA..

    This article is discussing national policy for the NPS, Forest Service and BLM and it is only if passed going to make ebike access optional for the respective districts to either say yay or nay and give the agencies some room to maneuver with a clear legislation to guide them. I am sure that there will still be room for public comment at the local level as usually for any type of change to become effect there is a comment period.

    People getting riled up on forums about trail access isn't doing anything to either abate or aid the process and advocating for local access depends on the user group with the most to gain or lose depending on if they are hikers, horsers, mtb's or emtb's. At some point after the comment period and with letters written and meetings attended it usually seems to come to everybody more or less tolerating each other or just an outright ban on certain use. Pretty much where the state of motorized access has come to today however ebikes blur that distinction enough to create another round of discussions.

    But without the BPSA and PFB with their industry backing lobbying the upper levels for ebike acceptance, due to their interest in staying funded by the industry profits from ebike sales, it would certainly be a much longer process in regards to getting some clarity to the access issues at hand nationwide. So I guess in the end it is good for both the pro and con sides as it won't take as long as say the argument over what wheel size is the best to sort out. Yeah right.
    A bike by any other name is still a bike.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,523
    Yesterday i used my ebike to go work 4 hours on the trails.
    I was welcomed. A woman there is a hiker who brings groups in that network of trails wich is great on fat and appreciated by dog walkers, joggers...
    I see smiles, no police.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    89
    Why should all the world be concerned with how california deals with theyr land access problems? I have done a lot of travels to pedal my bikes there and this discussion brings one very important point: One should choose another place to visit if riding ebikes.
    I suggest europe, south america, africa, having also tried all of those, I can tell there are awesome places to ride anywhere else.

  36. #36
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,733
    If you don't want discussions about ebike access, bin the entire thread, since it is from post one, all about access.

    Boulder Pilot has more years in the mtb access trenches than I do, and I have a lot. His deleted post is dead on regarding the reality of mtb access and emtb access. It might not have been what you wanted to hear, but it's true.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    89
    Back to the original subject, from my perspective after only a year with an EMTB, things are definitely changing. Land managers aren't as interested in enforcing rules for rules sake. Common sense seems more common, and especially for parks that charge an entrance fee, the attitudes are more accommodating now. An experience i had recently is a good example.

    The East Bay park district in the Bay Area is currently examining their E-bike policy and had a program to allow them on certain heavily used paths, which has expired. I contacted the manager of the program and didn't receive any response, so I headed out to my local park to see what was up.

    I unloaded my bike and had it leaned up against the truck between me and a parked car, so was surprised when literally 3 minutes after unloading, a ranger pulls up in a truck and gets out to talk to me. I'm thinking "Oh damn, here it comes...".

    Turns out the ranger wanted to check my bike out because he was interested in getting an EMTB. We both came from a BMX/Motocross background and took a long break from mountain biking but were attracted back by E-Bikes. I offered to let him take a spin, but he didn't want to do it while in the uniform. As a parting comment he told me that the policy is under review but most of the rangers are cool about E-Bikes and to go have fun.

    The "trails" in the Bay Area are often nothing more than steep fire roads, which unassisted mountain bikers and hikers are not much interested in, but which are pretty fun on an E-bike. I rode 19 miles with over 4,000 vert on a Sunday and saw exactly zero other bikes and about 10 hikers. Just a wild theory but I think land managers could possibly see this as an opportunity to get more use on underused roads/trails and get some more $ in the budget.

    Federal lands could benefit in similar ways, especially since they are seeing their budgets cut more and more:
    - No need to enforce rules that don't exist, freeing up resources
    - Increased use of underused remote trails and roads
    - Increased fees of various types (entrance, camping, permit parking, vendors).
    - Decreased conflict between adjoining lands managed under a different authority that allows E-Bikes
    - Increased access for people with mild physical limitations (not disabled)

    Yes, I know we've rehashed these issues over and over on here and will never agree, but I think in the real world things are changing.

  38. #38
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Boulder Pilot View Post
    Hey mtbbiker, you want to play games, fine. I've been around awhile and have never heard of a moderator getting away with the bullshit that you are. Censorship due to the fact that you do not have the ability to explain yourself using language is a piss poor excuse.
    Temporarily locked while investigated.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  39. #39
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,023
    Re-opening for discussion regarding access and advocacy. Please keep the personal attack out of the thread.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,027
    I'd like to see access problems get resolved. I live near Yellowstone National Park. The Park has Fall and Spring bike seasons on the roads after the cars are restricted for the winter season. Administrative traffic is often on the road, such as maintenance crews, law enforcement, and employees moving in/out for the season. Electric assist bikes aren't allowed during this time period. I view this rule as ignorant. I'm frustrated.
    I don't know what trail we're on, but at least it's getting dark

  41. #41
    Single(Pivot)and Happy
    Reputation: Boulder Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by GregB406 View Post
    I'd like to see access problems get resolved. I live near Yellowstone National Park. The Park has Fall and Spring bike seasons on the roads after the cars are restricted for the winter season. Administrative traffic is often on the road, such as maintenance crews, law enforcement, and employees moving in/out for the season. Electric assist bikes aren't allowed during this time period. I view this rule as ignorant. I'm frustrated.
    Approach the land managers, introduce yourself and explain how you feel. Nothing can change unless you try. Good luck.
    The suspension of your bike sucks if it's different than mine. Really. It sucks. Big time.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by GregB406 View Post
    I'd like to see access problems get resolved. I live near Yellowstone National Park. The Park has Fall and Spring bike seasons on the roads after the cars are restricted for the winter season. Administrative traffic is often on the road, such as maintenance crews, law enforcement, and employees moving in/out for the season. Electric assist bikes aren't allowed during this time period. I view this rule as ignorant. I'm frustrated.
    Across the country, regulators are sorting out how to classify the two-wheelers, which are something more than a bicycle, something less than a motorcycle. The National Park Service, for its part, may soon loosen its restrictions.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.9bd0f953831f

  43. #43
    Single(Pivot)and Happy
    Reputation: Boulder Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    Across the country, regulators are sorting out how to classify the two-wheelers, which are something more than a bicycle, something less than a motorcycle. The National Park Service, for its part, may soon loosen its restrictions.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.9bd0f953831f
    Now if craigsj will accept this widely held point of view we should be able to have some productive dialog.
    The suspension of your bike sucks if it's different than mine. Really. It sucks. Big time.

  44. #44
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Boulder Pilot View Post
    Now if craigsj will accept this widely held point of view we should be able to have some productive dialog.
    FWIW that user has left MTBR so discussion should not be as derailed.
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by Boulder Pilot View Post
    Now if craigsj will accept this widely held point of view we should be able to have some productive dialog.
    The loosening of restrictions usually means treating an eBike like a bicycle, but it might take a series of laws for that to reach totality. The logic of enforcing an eBike ban is a waste of enforcement resources that typically are stretched thin to begin with.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hikerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    The loosening of restrictions usually means treating an eBike like a bicycle, but it might take a series of laws for that to reach totality. The logic of enforcing an eBike ban is a waste of enforcement resources that typically are stretched thin to begin with.
    The bureaucrats have to follow the law, and the law as written requires a special vehicle classification as a type of motorized vehicle; then they have to go through the NEPA review process and public comments. Fortunately there are people in the BLM and Forest Service whose entire job is managing recreation so we’re likely to see improvements in access, as long as they get the necessary resources.

    That fire that I have seen burning in the distance for the last two weeks is likely to have eaten up some of those resources. For years the Feds have had to deal with firefighting eating in to their discretionary funds; once the fire money is used up recreation money gets tapped. Don’t expect change to come quickly but it will come.
    "Thank you, God, for letting me have another day"
    The Milagro Beanfield War

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ruthabagah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by hikerdave View Post
    The bureaucrats have to follow the law, and the law as written requires a special vehicle classification as a type of motorized vehicle; then they have to go through the NEPA review process and public comments. Fortunately there are people in the BLM and Forest Service whose entire job is managing recreation so we’re likely to see improvements in access, as long as they get the necessary resources.

    That fire that I have seen burning in the distance for the last two weeks is likely to have eaten up some of those resources. For years the Feds have had to deal with firefighting eating in to their discretionary funds; once the fire money is used up recreation money gets tapped. Don’t expect change to come quickly but it will come.
    I would agree on NEPA, yet it seems that the USFS has decided at least in one case to not go through the review.

    "Public Affairs Officer Joe Flannery elaborated on the “non-change in policy.”

    “There really was no decision, and I’m saying decision with a capital D,” says Flannery. For official policy changes within the National Forest, the Forest Service must follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and conduct environmental impact statements or assessments.

    “We didn’t trigger NEPA and NEPA didn’t need to be triggered.”

    Source: https://www.singletracks.com/blog/mt...arifies-rules/

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    145
    God if I had to deal with all of this crap I’d give my bike away.
    Glad I can ride away from people.
    Amusing how people seek out others, then bitch and whine about them.
    My whole life riding bikes I never had to contend with “Federal Rules”.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790

    eMTB is now allowed in Federal National Parks...

    Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed the order without fanfare Thursday, classifying e-bikes as non-motorized bikes and giving agencies 14 days to adjust their rules.

    https://www.apnews.com/d22c8bb8a83c4...ZJa56mxjab%20Y

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed the order without fanfare Thursday, classifying e-bikes as non-motorized bikes and giving agencies 14 days to adjust their rules.

    https://www.apnews.com/d22c8bb8a83c48c0b421dc0da81efd0b?fbclid=IwAR3WDhad E33ygVEXNMKypU1r0zT_qOzq9miOXvc9hPT1OlPcZJa56mxjab Y


    Holy.

    Crap.

    It is not "The Onion" and not April Fool's Day.

    This is *huge*.

    People in the east have *no* idea what this means. There are tons of trails on Federal land in the west that allow MTB but until now were off limits to ebikes.

    - Ski areas on Federal land (most in the west are leases of Federal land) are now free to allow eMTBs. I was at Crested Butte for Outerbike a few weeks ago and the trail guy there said as soon as the Feds officially classified ebikes as bicycles, they would open their trails to ebikes. He said "just wait a few weeks", so he must have known this was going to happen.

    - Canyonlands and Arches have had *ridiculous* policies whereby you could drive a Jeep or motorcycle on NP roads, but not ebikes. Now, White Rim, Elephant Hill, The Maze, Turret Arch Road, and all of the rest where Jeeps/motorcycles can go will be open to ebikes, as well as the pavement.

    I am *very* curious to see what his means for the Moab singletrack that has been built on Federal land. Currently, most of it is off limits to ebikes. The local trail org, Trail Mix, *hates* ebikes, but there is a precedent for their policies being overridden. The trails at Dead Horse Point State Park were built by them and originally ebikes were banned, but Utah passed a law legalizing ebikes on state land everywhere that a bicycle could go, so ebikes have been allowed at Dead Horse since then.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ruthabagah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    205
    Link to the actual order.

    https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/fi...kes_-508_0.pdf

    The order is effective immediately.

  52. #52
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,651
    hold on, children. signed by the secretary of the INTERIOR, so only applies to agencies under the purview of the dept of the INTERIOR (BLM and NPS). This does not apply to USFS land (Dept of AGRICULTURE). There are very few legal mtb trails on NPS land, relatively speaking. Most of the ones I know are in the east, fwiw. The article references paved trails mostly.

    Sure, it would also apply to trails on BLM land, which we don't have in the east

    but this doesn't apply to ALL federal land. Not by a long shot.

    and I expect lawsuits due to the lack of a public comment period, so I wouldn't expect access to be open anytime within the 30 day time period mentioned in the article as the deadline for managers to come up with an implementation strategy. I do expect delays to be announced.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    BLM, NPS, and BOR.

    And probably other agencies will follow unless Trump loses the next election.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    What is weird is that it is allowing Class 1, 2, and 3. More than I would have expected.

  55. #55
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    BLM, NPS, and BOR.

    And probably other agencies will follow unless Trump loses the next election.




    Purely speculative.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    hold on, children. signed by the secretary of the INTERIOR, so only applies to agencies under the purview of the dept of the INTERIOR (BLM and NPS). This does not apply to USFS land (Dept of AGRICULTURE). There are very few legal mtb trails on NPS land, relatively speaking. Most of the ones I know are in the east, fwiw. The article references paved trails mostly.

    Sure, it would also apply to trails on BLM land, which we don't have in the east

    but this doesn't apply to ALL federal land. Not by a long shot.

    and I expect lawsuits due to the lack of a public comment period, so I wouldn't expect access to be open anytime within the 30 day time period mentioned in the article as the deadline for managers to come up with an implementation strategy. I do expect delays to be announced.
    Thanks for that clarification.

    I'm going to predict we will see the Dept. of Ag issuing a parallel order soon. The trail manager at Crested Butte a few weeks ago told me a change was imminent, and they are on Forest Service.

  57. #57
    bipedal
    Reputation: levity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post

    this is *huge*
    huge!

  58. #58
    Meatbomb
    Reputation: Phillbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,667
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    [COLOR=#2C2C2C][FONT=FreightText]Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed the order without fanfare Thursday, classifying e-bikes as non-motorized bikes ]
    Don't e-bikes have an e-motor on them? Does not make sense to me....

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    Yes but in the early 1970s, the law was designed to ban gasoline engines (motocross bikes).

    These new class of bikes have electric motors that are 1 HP max, and are silent and non-polluting. They are no faster than human riders except they have more endurance.

  60. #60
    E-Moderator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    715
    I bet Lake Tahoe knew this was coming! Bike makers aren’t stupid and there’s a reason why they all have been dumping tons of R&D into ebikes. Rumor has it Santa Cruz and Yeti will be coming out of the closet soon.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  61. #61
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,986
    The number of trails that bikes are allowed on in NPs is so small that this is irrelevant.

    Seriously. As an example, there are zero miles of off-road bike accessible trail in the closest NP to me, Rocky Mountain National Park. This order will result in zero miles of RMNP off-road trails being accessible by eBikes.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ruthabagah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    The number of trails that bikes are allowed on in NPs is so small that this is irrelevant.

    Seriously. As an example, there are zero miles of off-road bike accessible trail in the closest NP to me, Rocky Mountain National Park. This order will result in zero miles of RMNP off-road trails being accessible by eBikes.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Agree, but BLM access is big in the west. It will be interesting to see what will happen to some of Moab's trail built on BLM land.

  63. #63
    Meatbomb
    Reputation: Phillbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,667
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    These new class of bikes have electric motors that are 1 HP max, and are silent and non-polluting. They are no faster than human riders except they have more endurance.
    "order allows motorized bikes that can go up to 28 mph to be classified as regular bikes."

    I can't remember the last time I pedaled my bike 28mph on a trail.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,535
    Couple things. Yes BLM land, but no to national forest. At least now.

    Also these bikes are NOT legal yet. The order alone does not make them legal. It directs the affected agencies to change their rules to make them legal. They have 30 days to create these new rules and open for public comment. At which time there could be changes/revisions or maybe stopping it entirely.

    So change is coming, but e-bike are not legal everywhere so don't go hitting up BLM land right now. You might be ok in a couple months however.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", 19' Vassago Optimus Ti SS 29", '19 Ibis Ripmo, XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  65. #65
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    The number of trails that bikes are allowed on in NPs is so small that this is irrelevant.

    Seriously. As an example, there are zero miles of off-road bike accessible trail in the closest NP to me, Rocky Mountain National Park. This order will result in zero miles of RMNP off-road trails being accessible by eBikes.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Unless you live near and ride on trails that do allow mtbs. Not a NP but a NPS NRA. Trails can be pretty crowded with hikers and dog walkers, we'll see how this goes, though ebikes aren't that big of a thing around here yet. I'm going by my local NPS office to renew my parking pass next week, I'll see what the rangers think.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  66. #66
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,683
    OTOH, this could be the beginning of the end for MTB access, as it might be easier for land managers to prohibit access to all bikes now than selectively just for ebikes.
    Careful what you wish for, and all of that.
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

    Thrill Bikers Unite!

  67. #67
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    OTOH, this could be the beginning of the end for MTB access, as it might be easier for land managers to prohibit access to all bikes now than selectively just for ebikes.
    Careful what you wish for, and all of that.
    Ebikers I've talked to seem to think that's an illegitimate concern.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    The number of trails that bikes are allowed on in NPs is so small that this is irrelevant.

    Seriously. As an example, there are zero miles of off-road bike accessible trail in the closest NP to me, Rocky Mountain National Park. This order will result in zero miles of RMNP off-road trails being accessible by eBikes.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    True, there are no trails in RMNP *at all* that can be ridden on a regular MTB.

    However, RMNP already allows ebikes on Fall River Road, which is a dirt road entirely inside park boundaries where motor vehicles are allowed. But Canyonlands and Arches ban ebikes even on pavement, at least until this order is implemented. Arcadia National Park has trails that will be opened by this order. Capitol Reef as well. I'm sure there are others. The order was needed to get the National Parks and BLM to pull their heads out of their asses over ebikes. Let's hope NFS follows.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    OTOH, this could be the beginning of the end for MTB access, as it might be easier for land managers to prohibit access to all bikes now than selectively just for ebikes.
    Careful what you wish for, and all of that.
    Name one trail that has been restricted or closed because of ebikes.

  70. #70
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,986
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    There are no trails in RMNP *at all* that can be ridden on a regular MTB.

    RMNP already allows ebikes on Fall River Road, which is a dirt road entirely inside park boundaries where motor vehicles are allowed. However, Canyonlands and Arches ban ebikes even on pavement, at least until this order is implemented. Arcadia National Park has trails that will be opened by this order. Capitol Reef as well. I'm sure there are others. The order was needed to get the National Parks and BLM to pull their heads out of their asses over ebikes. Let's hope NFS follows.
    Well aware. I wrote what I did for a reason.

    My point was that unless you are concerned about riding an eBike on a road, this doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t open up trail mileage in the NPs.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  71. #71
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,683
    Not the point looking forwards.
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

    Thrill Bikers Unite!

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Well aware. I wrote what I did for a reason.

    My point was that unless you are concerned about riding an eBike on a road, this doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t open up trail mileage in the NPs.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I can name hundreds of miles of trails on BLM in Colorado and Utah that could be opened to ebikes by this order, and thousands that could be opened if NFS follows suit.

    All of these are BLM:

    - Most of Kokopelli Trail (part is already open to ebikes)
    - All of the trails in Fruita
    - Lunch Loops
    - Most of the trails in Moab
    - Phil's World
    - Canyon of the Ancients
    - Hartman Rocks
    - Some areas around Pueblo Reservoir (some already allow ebikes)

    That is just off the top of my head.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    213
    What? The Feds doing something that makes sense?! I don't feel like we've been "given" anything, they just came to their senses and made it right. The part of the ski areas being on federal land...so Grand Fogee rideable now (that's for you rideit, if I'm reading your thing about the Tetons correctly)?

  74. #74
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,683
    It’s up to Targhee management as per their usage contract, it’s not up to the feds. Just like uphill skiing access.
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

    Thrill Bikers Unite!

  75. #75
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,986
    Quote Originally Posted by ruthabagah View Post
    Agree, but BLM access is big in the west. It will be interesting to see what will happen to some of Moab's trail built on BLM land.
    I would be willing to bet that the organization that built many of those trails (under the agreement that they would not allow eBikes) will no longer maintain them. Quite a slap on the face.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  76. #76
    Not a role model
    Reputation: ninjichor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,311
    Didn't the USFS base their emtb rules on BLM rules in order to be consistent?

    Maybe it was the other way around...

    Re-reading USFS policy, how things have changed since it was written: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE...eprd563344.pdf

    IMBA changed policy in late 2017 to support class 1 emtb on non-motorized trails, so I guess them calling them a "motorized device" according to USFS was short lived. Not exactly a motorized vehicle, but "motor" was in the name, so...

    Not so sure about the validity of the claims that the other countries see them as motor vehicles. Basic fact checking suggests otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...le_laws#Canada

    The claim that ebikes are self-propelled because they have a motor, so they match our definition of motor vehicles being self-propelled vehicles, was quite a stretch anyways.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    I can name hundreds of miles of trails on BLM in Colorado and Utah that could be opened to ebikes by this order, and thousands that could be opened if NFS follows suit.

    All of these are BLM:

    - Most of Kokopelli Trail (part is already open to ebikes)
    - All of the trails in Fruita
    - Lunch Loops
    - Most of the trails in Moab
    - Phil's World
    - Canyon of the Ancients
    - Hartman Rocks
    - Some areas around Pueblo Reservoir (some already allow ebikes)

    That is just off the top of my head.
    Does this mean trail systems like Klonzo, Mag 7 and Bar M will be open to e-bikes too? I'm assuming yes.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed the order without fanfare Thursday, classifying e-bikes as non-motorized bikes and giving agencies 14 days to adjust their rules.

    https://www.apnews.com/d22c8bb8a83c4...ZJa56mxjab%20Y



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  79. #79
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    From the Sustainable Trails Coalition failbook page.


    "Third update: the NPS is telling park superintendents not to allow Class II e-bikes except on routes used by traditional motor vehicles. Unless, that is, the rider happens to be pedaling the Class II bike. (Question: how in the heck would the NPS enforce that? The rider can say, "I was pedaling but I'm briefly coasting.")"
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  80. #80
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,023
    The letter specifically calls out National Parks. Where did I miss that is also calls out BLM land?

    Today, August 30, 2019, the National Park Service has released a revised policy on electric pedal-assist mountain bikes.

    The new policy allows electric pedal-assist bicycles to be used wherever muscle-powered bicycles are allowed. The policy requires each National Park unit to update their park compendium within 30 days. The policy allows Park Superintendents the flexibility to close or open trails to pedal-assist bicycles as deemed appropriate for park management, resource protection, or other reasons.
    So when I go to Yosemite in October and want to take my bicycle on all the trails that allow bicycles, eBikes are allowed now too. Great, no both Bicycles and eBikers are allowed on ZERO hiking trails in the Yosemite Valley...... I think what is happening here is they want to clarify that it is okay for a eBike to ride on the paved Bike paths in the Parks.

    Zion also does not allow bicycles on the best trails in the Valley.

    The article also allows the individual park units to decide on their own if they will or will not allow them.

    While this is great for the people who want to ride eBikes on Bike Paths, it is in no way a major change for the USFS. Most of the trails in the California Mountains are USFS, they are NOT National Parks.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    The letter specifically calls out National Parks. Where did I miss that is also calls out BLM land?
    Read the actual order. It applies to all lands managed by the Department of the Interior. That includes BLM and is mentioned directly in the order.
    https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/fi...kes_-508_0.pdf

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Honestly, it's been pretty easy to see this coming as more and more federal lands relaxed their rules on e-bikes. This is will follow the same pattern. If this works with minimal conflict other agencies will follow suit.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  83. #83
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,023
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    Read the actual order. It applies to all lands managed by the Department of the Interior. That includes BLM and is mentioned directly in the order.
    https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/fi...kes_-508_0.pdf
    welcome to the site. interesting first post.

    I was reading this one:

    https://corbamtb.com/news/wp-content...y-PM_19-01.pdf
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    welcome to the site. interesting first post.

    I was reading this one:

    https://corbamtb.com/news/wp-content...y-PM_19-01.pdf
    Long time lurker. Thought I had posted before, but apparently not.

    In any case my link is the original order from DOI. Yours is the NPS superintendent interpretation of the order as it relates to NPS (which I hadn't seen yet, so appreciate the link). As spelled out in the the original order, the BLM superintendent needs to create a similar policy document.

  85. #85
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    And after the rules are created the matter will be open for public comment. There will most assuredly be litigation abut this as well.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,037
    holy crap - 4 new threads on this topic today.

    Good grief. LOL

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by hikerdave View Post
    Thanks for the suggestion. I have talked with my local land manager and requested a policy change from the National Forest Service but have refrained from bothering the local Tonto National Forest; I might start with a simple statement expressing my desire that they designate additional access for eBikes; that’s asking the impossible right now because they don’t have defined power limitationd that apply to trails; possibly I’ll take a tact that they adapt the Federal rules to follow state designation.

    You may be angry at a deleted post and being misidentified as a troll. Please realize that what we e-bikers have previously put up with here on this forum are deleted and locked threads when my fellow e-bikers “take the bait” and respond to unhelpful posts. At one point this got so bad that I considered the self-immolation of having my account deleted.

    After performing days of trail work and introducing people to mountain biking and spending countless hours helping to develop and promote the GPX file format, in service to other mountain bikers, I felt pretty abandoned by the mountain bike community now that untreatable joint pain makes riding my regular mountain bike both painful and damaging. Some people here seem to think that people in my position should just gracefully age out and go away, but when their time comes they will feel differently.
    Great post.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    The National Park Service rules are out:https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/PM_19-01.pdf

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hikerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    And after the rules are created the matter will be open for public comment. There will most assuredly be litigation abut this as well.
    I doubt that either IMBA or the Sierra Club would waste their money on such a lawsuit. Besides, the NPS and BLM bureaucrats wouldn’t be so unprofessional that they create legal grounds for a lawsuit. They’ll cross their t’s and dot their i’s and in six months or so eBikes will be ridden in a few more places.
    "Thank you, God, for letting me have another day"
    The Milagro Beanfield War

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hikerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by str8line View Post
    Great post.
    I did contact the Tonto National Forest with the suggestion that the lightly-used Carr Lakes trail system be opened to eBikes and will make a similar request to Apache-Sitgreaves for a few trails in that forest. I word these requests in a mild way to indicate that I don’t expect a response; I know that they’re busy people.
    "Thank you, God, for letting me have another day"
    The Milagro Beanfield War

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    219
    Actually my guess is there will be a few places that currently allow bicycles or were studying expansion of bicycle access that will actually reduce access for all since there do not seem to be any exceptions for wildlife or other concerns.

    I realize that i may live in an area that is not representative of the country in general but i would be very surprised if Glacier National park did not reduce the limited access currently allowed. The biggest concerns some parks have are protecting the wildlife and ecosystem and this often trumps(hah) factors such as visitor convenience and access. The likely result of merely allowing ebikes on all existing permitted roads and trails is greater numbers of users and higher average speeds. The issue with those factors is that we have both vulnerable species and potentially dangerous ones. When the impact of bicycle (both e and non-e ) access is studied they will have to consider the result of increased numbers of users, speed and possibly that the users may be less experienced in the type of environment or less aware. Glacier was studying increased bike access but wildlife concerns already really limited any possible additions to allowed trails/roads.

    So it may be a win in some regions but without the ability to generate exceptions I believe there will be some collateral losses.


    I based the above comments on my reading the Aug 30 letter from the Sec of Interior
    please feel free to point out if i am wrong on my interpretation.




    Quote Originally Posted by hikerdave View Post
    I doubt that either IMBA or the Sierra Club would waste their money on such a lawsuit. Besides, the NPS and BLM bureaucrats wouldn’t be so unprofessional that they create legal grounds for a lawsuit. They’ll cross their t’s and dot their i’s and in six months or so eBikes will be ridden in a few more places.

  92. #92
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by hikerdave View Post
    I doubt that either IMBA or the Sierra Club would waste their money on such a lawsuit. Besides, the NPS and BLM bureaucrats wouldn’t be so unprofessional that they create legal grounds for a lawsuit. They’ll cross their t’s and dot their i’s and in six months or so eBikes will be ridden in a few more places.




    The IMBA is pro e-motorized so that points to you not really understanding the issue.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  93. #93
    Meatbomb
    Reputation: Phillbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,667
    And soon I will be able to ride my moto on the same trails.... It's begun.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    5,521
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    Yes but in the early 1970s, the law was designed to ban gasoline engines (motocross bikes).

    These new class of bikes have electric motors that are 1 HP max, and are silent and non-polluting. They are no faster than human riders except they have more endurance.
    They are slower than human riders..........once you hit 20 mph on a flatish fire road, a reasonably fit rider can drop them by just going 22mph

    I'm just splitting hairs here, but I'm happy they allow this. I have an injury, that has no prognosis of allowing me to return to normal, but I'm not disabled. So, this ruling is a great thing for me. It allows me to ride "normal" again on BLM trails that allows bikes.....................LIKE FORT ORD near Monterey!!!
    Lead by my Lefty............... right down the trail, no brakes.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    5,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillbo View Post
    And soon I will be able to ride my moto on the same trails.... It's begun.
    I'm surprised they are allowing class 2 and class 3. To me, class 2 is really a moped. It has a throttle. While you have to pedal, a class 3 28 mph bike is fast on a single track.
    Lead by my Lefty............... right down the trail, no brakes.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by ziscwg View Post
    I'm surprised they are allowing class 2 and class 3. To me, class 2 is really a moped. It has a throttle. While you have to pedal, a class 3 28 mph bike is fast on a single track.
    That is fast but in most places power is not what keeps me under it.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Naolin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    166
    Here in Vegas most of the trails are on BLM land, however even though ebikes were not allowed on the trails, no one followed the rules, and nobody enforced them. The majority of the riders that I know here don't really care either, I think that may be in part because many of the trails here take you to remote areas were there are usually zero people other then mountain bikers anyways, so running into 1 guy on an ebike during a 2 hour trail ride is more of a pleasant thing then an problem.

    As far as I see it nothing will really change, for everyone that I know riding an ebike here it was never about it not being allowed, it was always a cost thing, non of my friends are going to drop 4k on an ebike to have as a second bike.

    Every time I see an ebike post on these boards I feel that people forget that we don't all live in the same place.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by ziscwg View Post
    I'm surprised they are allowing class 2 and class 3. To me, class 2 is really a moped. It has a throttle. While you have to pedal, a class 3 28 mph bike is fast on a single track.
    The original order seems to allow all three, but the NPS rules say you must pedal. So I guess each area can pick which classes are allowed. All are limited to 750 watts so class-3 makes the most sense since a MTB is drag limited to around 23 mph anyway.

  99. #99
    slow
    Reputation: sgltrak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,397
    Quote Originally Posted by threepin View Post
    Actually my guess is there will be a few places that currently allow bicycles or were studying expansion of bicycle access that will actually reduce access for all since there do not seem to be any exceptions for wildlife or other concerns.

    I realize that i may live in an area that is not representative of the country in general but i would be very surprised if Glacier National park did not reduce the limited access currently allowed. The biggest concerns some parks have are protecting the wildlife and ecosystem and this often trumps(hah) factors such as visitor convenience and access. The likely result of merely allowing ebikes on all existing permitted roads and trails is greater numbers of users and higher average speeds. The issue with those factors is that we have both vulnerable species and potentially dangerous ones. When the impact of bicycle (both e and non-e ) access is studied they will have to consider the result of increased numbers of users, speed and possibly that the users may be less experienced in the type of environment or less aware. Glacier was studying increased bike access but wildlife concerns already really limited any possible additions to allowed trails/roads.

    So it may be a win in some regions but without the ability to generate exceptions I believe there will be some collateral losses.
    This is my biggest concern with the new ruling. Around here many of the land agencies have a higher priority on conservation than on recreation. If these rules become the norm and filter down to state, county, and local land agencies we may have fewer new trails added or there may be some current trails closed as a result of a management plan update that indicates higher usage numbers due to motorized use.

    One other thought / question: If the USFS adopts the same rules that ebikes are allowed everywhere that non-ebikes are allowed, does this effectively negate all of the recent work that has gone into getting bikes allowed in wilderness areas under the definition of "human-powered" and effectively eliminate any possibility that bikes will ever be allowed in any wilderness area? Or, would local jurisdictions still be allowed to make rules for specific trails or areas? If the latter is the case, would land managers have the time or make the effort to make case-by-case recommendations, or would it be easier to just make a blanket rule?

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by sgltrak View Post
    One other thought / question: If the USFS adopts the same rules that ebikes are allowed everywhere that non-ebikes are allowed, does this effectively negate all of the recent work that has gone into getting bikes allowed in wilderness areas under the definition of "human-powered" and effectively eliminate any possibility that bikes will ever be allowed in any wilderness area? Or, would local jurisdictions still be allowed to make rules for specific trails or areas? If the latter is the case, would land managers have the time or make the effort to make case-by-case recommendations, or would it be easier to just make a blanket rule?
    I assume there is a Trump appointee who is about to sign an order to allow all bikes into Wilderness. In 1973 someone who rode horses snuck in a change from "motorized" to "mechanized" for the ban. Now it is is time to undo that. The stronger and more unified the bike industry is, the easier it is to make the case to change that. The only growth in the bike industry is due to eBikes - 6% per year. So having eBikes join in makes for more lobbying power, not less.

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    We do it due to the large number of ebikers and the industry who push for them to be referred as bicycles. As soon as that stops, we'll refer to them as ebikes or emtbs.

    There is a difference between "regulated as bicycles" and actually being a bicycle, no matter how it is worded.
    What defines a bicycle is that you have to pedal it for motion. Class-1 eMTB is a bicycle.

    If it has a throttle, then it is arguably a moped.

  102. #102
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    What defines a bicycle is that you have to pedal it for motion. Class-1 eMTB is a bicycle.

    If it has a throttle, then it is arguably a moped.
    lol, you may want to look up the definition of "throttle". And the history of mopeds.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    I am well aware of what a moped is since I grew up with a Motobecane in the family. I rode it since I was 13.

    In the early to mid 1970s, 30 US states got classifications for mopeds. They have ended up as 25 mph vehicles with capped engine displacement (50cc in my state) and twist throttles. Also in my state, they must have an automatic transmission.

    They had superficial pedals that you would never consider using, even if the motor broke down. They were close to impossible to pedal and the pedals were only to escape a motorcycle classification. Because they did not require pedaling, they were not bicycles.

    Class-1 eBikes are bicycles because they won't move if you don't pedal them. If you disagree, you could go edit Wikipedia to change the definition of bicycle to not include a motor:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle

  104. #104
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,986

    eMTB is now allowed in Federal National Parks...

    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    I assume there is a Trump appointee who is about to sign an order to allow all bikes into Wilderness. In 1973 someone who rode horses snuck in a change from "motorized" to "mechanized" for the ban. Now it is is time to undo that. The stronger and more unified the bike industry is, the easier it is to make the case to change that. The only growth in the bike industry is due to eBikes - 6% per year. So having eBikes join in makes for more lobbying power, not less.
    Any order that allows eBikes in Wilderness will be promptly challenged and almost certainly struck down. It’s not grandfathered in, unlike some other user groups, and won’t pass muster. Regardless of how the federal government now defines a bicycle, a motor is a motor.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  105. #105
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    I assume there is a Trump appointee who is about to sign an order to allow all bikes into Wilderness. In 1973 someone who rode horses snuck in a change from "motorized" to "mechanized" for the ban. Now it is is time to undo that. The stronger and more unified the bike industry is, the easier it is to make the case to change that. The only growth in the bike industry is due to eBikes - 6% per year. So having eBikes join in makes for more lobbying power, not less.



    No. Motors have been and always be the line of demarcation and you're delusional if you think that distinction won't continue to be made.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    There are legal definitions that differ from actual terms. For example, the ATF defined a silencer as a firearm so they can regulate it as such, even though it is not.

    A tomato is defined as a vegetable for tax purposes even though it is a fruit.

    BLM has defined a bicycle with a motor of under 1 HP to not be a motorized vehicle, and there is a long-standing precedent for the CPSC to say that under 1 HP is not a motor vehicle.

  107. #107
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    There are legal definitions that differ from actual terms. For example, the ATF defined a silencer as a firearm so they can regulate it as such, even though it is not.

    A tomato is defined as a vegetable for tax purposes even though it is a fruit.

    BLM has defined a bicycle with a motor of under 1 HP to not be a motorized vehicle, and there is a long-standing precedent for the CPSC to say that under 1 HP is not a motor vehicle.




    The CPSC has dick to do with regulations regarding the use of trails. Again, when it comes to Wilderness the motor is and will continue to be the line of demarcation. Carry on with your unicorn hunt.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    The CPSC has dick to do with regulations regarding the use of trails. Again, when it comes to Wilderness the motor is and will continue to be the line of demarcation. Carry on with your unicorn hunt.
    If motor is the line of demarcation why are bicycles banned?

  109. #109
    Single(Pivot)and Happy
    Reputation: Boulder Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,774
    The article that the OP linked in the first post contains factual errors, specifically and importantly the last line of the articles first paragraph, "that will allow e-bikes on every federal trail where a regular bike can go."

    This order has the potential to grant trail and roadway access for electric motorized bikes on property managed by the National Park Service (NPS), US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).

    Furthermore, the actual NPS memorandum requires Title 36-Part 4 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 4.30, specifically paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) to also govern electric motorized bikes. These Federal codes provide each park Superintendent the authority to limit or restrict trail access and impose conditions to trail access. Otherwise meaning all trails, no trails or some trails may be opened for electric motorized bike access.

    The Conservation groups, hiking groups and equestrian groups that do not want bikes, electric motorized or human powered, will submit public comments that will require responses, such as: What is the estimated number of electric motorized bike riders that will visit the Park? Where is the funding for staff and resources to accommodate this increase in visitors?

    This Order from the Secretary of the Interior is a positive step forward for electric motorized bike access. This order also has the real possibility to test relationships and create situations where one will have to look hard at the bike industry, conservation and recreational land management policies, and fellow trail user groups. Cheers.
    The suspension of your bike sucks if it's different than mine. Really. It sucks. Big time.

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillbo View Post
    "order allows motorized bikes that can go up to 28 mph to be classified as regular bikes."

    I can't remember the last time I pedaled my bike 28mph on a trail.

    28 mph is not that fast.

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Policy Memorandum 19-01
    To: Regional Directors
    Associate and Assistant Directors
    Superintendents
    Chief, United States Park Police
    From: Deputy Director
    Exercising the Authority of the Director
    Subject: Electric Bicycles
    Purpose
    Electric bicycles (e-bikes) are appearing in national parks with greater frequency. This Policy
    Memorandum (Memorandum) addresses this emerging form of recreation so that the National
    Park Service (NPS) can exercise clear management authority over the use of e-bikes within the
    National Park System.
    This Memorandum defines “e-bikes” consistent with Federal law and a majority of State laws
    and provides for their use and regulation on the same basis as bicycles without power assist
    capabilities (“traditional bicycles”).
    Background
    Definition of E-bikes
    An e-bike is a two- or three-wheeled cycle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of
    less than 750 watts (1 h.p.) that provides propulsion assistance.
    A Federal definition of “low speed electric bicycle” is included in the Consumer Product Safety
    Act.
    1
    Many States have adopted policies for regulating e-bikes consistent with this Federal
    definition, including in some cases a labeling requirement identifying an e-bike’s compliance
    with the following classifications:
    1 15 U.S.C. 2085 states: “For purposes of this section, the term ‘low-speed electric bicycle’ means a two- or three-
    wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum
    speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170
    pounds, is less than 20 mph.”2
    “Class 1 electric bicycle” shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides
    assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle
    reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
    “Class 2 electric bicycle” shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used
    exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle
    reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
    “Class 3 electric bicycle” shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides
    assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle
    reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour.
    Devices with electric motors of 750 watts (1 h.p.) or more of power and not included as Class 1,
    Class 2 or Class 3 in the classification system above should be managed as motor vehicles under
    36 CFR part 4. Under 36 CFR 4.10, motor vehicles are allowed on park roads and on routes and
    areas designated for off-road motor vehicle use.
    Benefits of E-bikes
    E-bikes advance Healthy Parks Healthy People goals to promote parks as a health resource by
    supporting a healthy park experience that is accessible, desirable, and relatable to people of all
    abilities, and by minimizing human impact through the expansion of active transportation
    options in parks. Specifically, e-bikes can:
    • Increase bicycle access to and within parks. E-bikes make bicycle travel easier and more
    efficient, because they allow bicyclists to travel farther with less effort.
    • Expand the option of bicycling to more people. E-bikes provide a new option for people
    who want to ride a bicycle but might not otherwise do so because of physical fitness, age,
    or convenience, especially at high altitude or in hilly or strenuous terrain.
    • Mitigate environmental impacts. When used as an alternative to gasoline- or diesel-
    powered modes of transportation, e-bikes can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fossil
    fuel consumption, improve air quality, and support active modes of transportation for
    park staff and visitors. Similar to traditional bicycles, e-bikes can decrease traffic
    congestion, reduce the demand for vehicle parking spaces, and increase the number and
    visibility of cyclists on the road.
    Policy
    E-bikes are allowed where traditional bicycles are allowed. E-bikes are not allowed where
    traditional bicycles are prohibited, including wilderness areas. Except on park roads2 and other
    2 Park road means the main-traveled surface of a roadway open to motor vehicles that is owned, controlled or
    otherwise administered by the NPS. 36 CFR 1.4. Roads include bicycle infrastructure that is part of a road such as
    bike lanes and shoulders.3
    locations where use of motor vehicles by the public is allowed, operators may only use the power
    provided by the electric motor to assist pedal propulsion of an e-bike. The intent of this policy is
    to allow e-bikes to be used for transportation and recreation in a similar manner to traditional
    bicycles.
    Regulations for traditional bicycles in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of 36 CFR 4.30 relate to
    closures and other use restrictions, other requirements, and prohibited acts.
    • Paragraph (f) allows superintendents to limit or restrict or impose conditions on bicycle
    use or close any park road, trail, or portion thereof to bicycle use after taking into
    consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, and other
    management activities and objectives.
    • Paragraph (g) states that bicycle use is subject to (1) certain NPS regulations that apply to
    motor vehicles;3 and (2) State laws regarding bicycles that are not otherwise addressed by
    NPS regulations.
    4

    • Paragraph (h) prohibits possessing a bicycle in wilderness and contains NPS safety
    regulations for the use of bicycles.
    5
    This Memorandum requires that these provisions also govern the use of e-bikes so that the use of
    e-bikes and traditional bicycles are generally regulated in the same manner. Superintendents
    may limit or restrict or impose conditions on bicycle use, including specific limitations on e-bike
    use, or may close any park road, parking area, administrative road, trail, or portion thereof to
    such bicycle use and/or e-bike use, or terminate such condition, closure, limit or restriction after:
    (1) Taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection,
    and other management activities and objectives; and
    (2) Notifying the public through one or more methods listed in 36 CFR 1.7.
    Any such bicycle or e-bike closures and restrictions should be included in the park compendium.
    Superintendents should understand State and local rules addressing e-bikes so that the use of e-
    bikes within a park area is not restricted more than in adjacent jurisdictions, to the extent
    possible.
    NPS staff should gather and maintain information about the use of e-bikes within the park area,
    including information about impacts and visitor use patterns. This information may inform
    future decision making about the use of e-bikes within the National Park System.
    3 Specifically, sections 4.12 (Traffic control devices), 4.13 (Obstructing traffic), 4.20 (Right of way), 4.21 (Speed
    limits), 4.22 (Unsafe operation), 4.23 (Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs), and 4.30(f) (Closures and
    other use restrictions).
    4 State laws concerning the definition, safety operation, and licensing of e-bikes vary from State to State. A growing
    number of States use the three-class system to differentiate between the models and speeds of e-bikes.
    5 Specifically, paragraphs (h)(2)-(5) (relating to designated wilderness and operation during periods of low visibility,
    abreast of another bicycle, and with an open container of alcohol).4
    Required Actions
    Superintendents are directed to manage e-bikes consistent with this Memorandum under the
    authority in 36 CFR 1.5(a)(2). This authority allows superintendents to designate areas for a
    specific use or activity, or impose conditions or restrictions on a use or activity.
    Superintendents must take the following actions as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days
    after the issuance of this Memorandum or the introduction of e-bikes in the park area, whichever
    is later:
    1. Insert the following language in the park compendium:
    The term “e-bike” means a two- or three-wheeled cycle with fully operable pedals
    and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.).
    E-bikes are allowed in [insert name of park] where traditional bicycles are allowed.
    E-bikes are prohibited where traditional bicycles are prohibited. Except where use of
    motor vehicles by the public is allowed, using the electric motor to move an e-bike
    without pedaling is prohibited.
    A person operating an e-bike is subject to the following sections of 36 CFR part 4 that
    apply to the use of traditional bicycles: sections 4.12, 4.13, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, and
    4.30(h)(2)-(5).
    Except as specified in this Compendium, the use of an e-bike within [insert name of
    park] is governed by State law, which is adopted and made a part of this
    Compendium. Any violation of State law adopted by this paragraph is prohibited.
    2. Comply with the requirements in 36 CFR 1.5, including the requirement to provide
    adequate public notice in accordance with 36 CFR 1.7.
    3. Comply with all applicable laws implicated by the compendium action, including the
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The compendium action will
    ordinarily fall within the categorical exclusion specified in section 3.3.D.3 of the
    National Park Service NEPA Handbook for which documentation is required.6
    No Third Party Enforceability
    This Memorandum is intended only to improve internal management of the NPS, and is not
    intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
    law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities
    or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
    -------End of Policy Memorandum-------
    6 “Minor changes in programs and regulations pertaining to visitor activities.” National Park Service NEPA
    Handbook (2015), section 3.3.D.3 (p. 36).

  112. #112
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    If motor is the line of demarcation why are bicycles banned?




    Google it, it was not in the original Wilderness bill.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  113. #113
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by str8line View Post
    28 mph is not that fast.


    It's relative. 28 mph to a pedestrian is pretty damned fast.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Google it, it was not in the original Wilderness bill.
    How do you explain your statement "the line of demarcation is, was and will be a motor" when bicycles are banned?

  115. #115
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    How do you explain your statement "the line of demarcation is, was and will be a motor" when bicycles are banned?




    As I posted earlier, bicycles were not banned in the original Wilderness bill, Google it for the details of how the ban came to be. Educate yourself before making any more uniformed comments so you don't look more the fool.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    The original Wilderness Bill is irrelevant if it can be changed at any point, to anything, for any reason. The line of demarcation cannot be a motor if bicycles are banned. Bicycles were banned in 1984 because a powerful lobbying group, Sierra Club, wanted them banned. Now, a powerful lobbying group, EBikers, is increasingly interested in aquiring access and Wilderness is a new frontline in the battle.

  117. #117
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    I am well aware of what a moped is since I grew up with a Motobecane in the family. I rode it since I was 13.

    In the early to mid 1970s, 30 US states got classifications for mopeds. They have ended up as 25 mph vehicles with capped engine displacement (50cc in my state) and twist throttles. Also in my state, they must have an automatic transmission.

    They had superficial pedals that you would never consider using, even if the motor broke down. They were close to impossible to pedal and the pedals were only to escape a motorcycle classification. Because they did not require pedaling, they were not bicycles.

    Class-1 eBikes are bicycles because they won't move if you don't pedal them. If you disagree, you could go edit Wikipedia to change the definition of bicycle to not include a motor:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    There are legal definitions that differ from actual terms. For example, the ATF defined a silencer as a firearm so they can regulate it as such, even though it is not.

    A tomato is defined as a vegetable for tax purposes even though it is a fruit.

    BLM has defined a bicycle with a motor of under 1 HP to not be a motorized vehicle, and there is a long-standing precedent for the CPSC to say that under 1 HP is not a motor vehicle.
    Exactly. Hopefully someone will fix the wikipedia entry. The government can say vehicles that use an electric motor under 750 watts will be regulated as bicycles but that does not magically make the motor go away and make it a bicycle. As I've asked repeatedly, why are many ebikers so desperate to be thought of as riding a bicycle? You're not riding under your own power, there is a motor assisting you, or even completely powering you in some cases. Just enjoy it for what it is without trying to latch onto an existing sport, it's ok.

    And here is the definition of "moped", from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moped

    Definition of moped
    : a lightweight low-powered motorbike that can be pedaled

    Ok, you guys don't want your ebikes to be referred to as mopeds (even though they meet that definition); we don't want your electric motor bikes to be referred to as bicycles. Why can't we do that?
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  118. #118
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,683
    Ebike lobbying is nothing compared to SC and equestrian lobbies.
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

    Thrill Bikers Unite!

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Ebike lobbying is nothing compared to SC and equestrian lobbies.
    You mean the lobbying groups that EBikers just trounced on a federal level?

  120. #120
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Who is “we” that you speak of? Pretty bold to speak on behalf of ALL mtbrs, considering some are now riding ebikes. Can you foresee ebikes being the majority in the future? I can. I mean Harley Davidson is sponsoring the X games! New generations coming.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  121. #121
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    I define an Ebike in my dictionary as FUN. I define a mtb or road bike as FUN. I really don’t get the major fear factor over allowing ex mtbrs to ride some trails, BFD. I’m not personally attacking you Chazpat. The ebike definition has been beaten to death 80 times over!
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,523
    I know a few that prefer to be called big bones.
    No reason to fight.
    The wise man never fights, he never loose.
    It is all about ego.
    Silent motor.
    Hidden battery.
    Just like the ones saying not as long as my knees are good but they ride cars.
    Ebikes are great but they will not eliminate parking problems.
    They will not diminish pollution.
    They will not eliminate car traffic
    as long as we see 90% of the time 1 ass / car.
    If you have a 1 ass car changing might help.
    If you have a 1 ass SUV ...

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    As I posted earlier, bicycles were not banned in the original Wilderness bill, Google it for the details of how the ban came to be. Educate yourself before making any more uniformed comments so you don't look more the fool.
    Why are you so caustic? I've been reading your posts and nearly every one is antagonistic.

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    I don't get MTB people being anti eMTB. I mean I totally understand not wanting one for a list of reasons (harder to set and reach typical cycling goals, and heavy). But how they get angry when others want them is just so weird to me.

    It's like people who have a manual transmission car getting angry at an automatic. Yes, it's lame to get an automatic in certain cars - like a Miata or Honda S2000. And yes, certain eBikes are certainly lame, like the step-through commuter ones. But a DCT automatic in a McLaren is not lame, and a Pivot Shuttle is not lame.

  125. #125
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,986

    eMTB is now allowed in Federal National Parks...

    I have no problem with eBikes riding trails where they are permitted. I simply don’t want access for regular bikes compromised because of them. The Wilderness access issue is certainly going to be hurt with the new federal guidelines. Being codified as bicycles doesn’t change the fact that they have motors, which an organization like the SC will rightly try to use to deny access to all “bicycles”, as the Feds have no defined them. Motorized and human powered.

    Additionally, I’m worried about new, very unfit and inexperienced people getting in way over their heads. One of the things about non-shuttle/lift based riding that keeps safety incidents low is the fact that people generally understand their limits and act accordingly. Fitness gained through long rides builds experience and knowledge; an eBike completely circumvents that. This past weekend, I gave a water bottle to a woman on an eBike at 9500ft in CO. I also had to provide directions to another guy on an eBike. Both of them were way over their heads and an eBike put them way outside the radius of what their fitness alone would allow. Simply put, I expect a lot more use of SAR in areas where those resources are already stretched quite thin.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    "I simply don’t want access for regular bikes compromised because of them"

    True. While I don't share that concern, it is the only argument that I cannot refute as it is something some people will try to do.

    On the other hand, eBikes are the only category of bikes growing in sales. So it will make the bike lobby stronger to fight Sierra Club. Think about it like this - Porsche owners hated when they came out with SUVs. But, Porsche was in financial trouble back then. Now they have so much money from SUV sales that they have used it to come out with more and better 911 models.

    So bike companies can use this extra money for more lobbying for bikes.

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    360
    The order includes all three classes of ebikes and is an order with no room for local jurisdictions to impose restrictions on different classes of bikes. What that means is if BLM wants to regulate ebikes, they will have to regulate regular bikes along with them.
    For you unfamiliar with BLM, that would include most trails in southern Utah, such as Moab, Hurricane, and St George, Las Vegas, NV, Sandy Ridge OR, and Boise ID, just to name a few. Bureau of Reclamation also falls under the Dept of Interior, which usually includes land around some large reservoirs that have trail networks around them. Regular mountain bikes are now officially one and the same as class 1,2, and 3 ebikes on all lands administered by Dept of Interior.

  128. #128
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,683
    That is my only argument as well. As a matter of fact, I will get a mt. Ebike myself in the next few years to ride the 400 plus moto legal trails in the Big Holes (Idaho), but I don’t want them on the human powered only trails. Or, more importantly, having my mtb access that we worked so fVcking hard for compromised.
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

    Thrill Bikers Unite!

  129. #129
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    Who is “we” that you speak of? Pretty bold to speak on behalf of ALL mtbrs, considering some are now riding ebikes. Can you foresee ebikes being the majority in the future? I can. I mean Harley Davidson is sponsoring the X games! New generations coming.
    I never said "All mtbrs", just like I said "many ebikers", but I think many mtbrs feel like I do. It's hard to foresee the future.

    New generation? Yep:

    According to a report from Newzoo, a market analytics company, 380 million people worldwide will watch eSports this year, including 165 million eSports enthusiasts (a term that describes frequent viewers, as opposed to occasional viewers).
    ------
    Electronic sports also known as eSports goes all the way back to the late nineties. ESports is now becoming accepted as a sport and competitive gamers are now being identified as athletes within society. ESports has even been introduced in colleges in the form of an intercollegiate athletic sport.

    ------
    Esports will be a medal event at the 2022 Asian Games - a traditional sporting event - while the Premier League, Uefa and Formula 1 are among the sporting organisations who have launched their own esports leagues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    I define an Ebike in my dictionary as FUN. I define a mtb or road bike as FUN. I really don’t get the major fear factor over allowing ex mtbrs to ride some trails, BFD. I’m not personally attacking you Chazpat. The ebike definition has been beaten to death 80 times over!
    I'm with you on allowing them on some trails, just not on all trails. If there is anything we all have learned on this site, it is that trails and situations vary greatly.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  130. #130
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I have no problem with eBikes riding trails where they are permitted. I simply don’t want access for regular bikes compromised because of them. The Wilderness access issue is certainly going to be hurt with the new federal guidelines. Being codified as bicycles doesn’t change the fact that they have motors, which an organization like the SC will rightly try to use to deny access to all “bicycles”, as the Feds have no defined them. Motorized and human powered.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    +One
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  131. #131
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by str8line View Post
    Why are you so caustic? I've been reading your posts and nearly every one is antagonistic.



    Look at the drivel I'm replying to for a clue.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post

    I'm with you on allowing them on some trails, just not on all trails. If there is anything we all have learned on this site, it is that trails and situations vary greatly.
    Trails and situations vary greatly with any type of bikes/riders. Some inexperienced riders ride trails they are not ready for. Should we ban beginners/intermediates on certain trails? How about we ban bikes over 20 years old? Bikes with 1.9 tire size? Fully rigid bikes?

    I'm just not comfortable with someone on a 30 year old bike with ancient geometry and 1.9 tires on a fully rigid chassis coming downhill towards me. They are a hazard. They skid. They wobble. All their weight on the front wheel. Those cantilever brakes.

    And people running too much pressure in their tires... they just have no traction. It's dangerous! We should mandate pressure checks.

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,136

    eMTB is now allowed in Federal National Parks...

    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    OTOH, this could be the beginning of the end for MTB access, as it might be easier for land managers to prohibit access to all bikes now than selectively just for ebikes.
    Careful what you wish for, and all of that.
    Yeah, the second part of that edict could possibly be construed to ban mountain bikes.

    E-bikes shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed; and
    c) E-bikes shall not be allowed where other types of bicycles are prohibited.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth...
    Isaiah 58:14

    www.stuckinthespokes.com

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I have no problem with eBikes riding trails where they are permitted. I simply don’t want access for regular bikes compromised because of them. The Wilderness access issue is certainly going to be hurt with the new federal guidelines. Being codified as bicycles doesn’t change the fact that they have motors, which an organization like the SC will rightly try to use to deny access to all “bicycles”, as the Feds have no defined them. Motorized and human powered.

    Additionally, I’m worried about new, very unfit and inexperienced people getting in way over their heads. One of the things about non-shuttle/lift based riding that keeps safety incidents low is the fact that people generally understand their limits and act accordingly. Fitness gained through long rides builds experience and knowledge; an eBike completely circumvents that. This past weekend, I gave a water bottle to a woman on an eBike at 9500ft in CO. I also had to provide directions to another guy on an eBike. Both of them were way over their heads and an eBike put them way outside the radius of what their fitness alone would allow. Simply put, I expect a lot more use of SAR in areas where those resources are already stretched quite thin.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I agree that some people could get in over their head. But you can walk into a motorcycle dealer and buy a bullet bike and have never ridden a motorcycle in your life.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  135. #135
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Quote Originally Posted by str8line View Post
    Trails and situations vary greatly with any type of bikes/riders. Some inexperienced riders ride trails they are not ready for. Should we ban beginners/intermediates on certain trails? How about we ban bikes over 20 years old? Bikes with 1.9 tire size? Fully rigid bikes?

    I'm just not comfortable with someone on a 30 year old bike with ancient geometry and 1.9 tires on a fully rigid chassis coming downhill towards me. They are a hazard. They skid. They wobble. All their weight on the front wheel. Those cantilever brakes.

    And people running too much pressure in their tires... they just have no traction. It's dangerous! We should mandate pressure checks.
    As the people you are describing fall under mountain biking, we'll own them. But we don't want to tied to the group with motors when someone shows up with a 1500W "bicycle", since there is no way to easily distinguish what is under 750W and what is over, and no one to check anyway. So it's a "bicycle" causing issues and the mountain bikers fall into the group being blamed. As I've said over and over, I think they are fine on some trails. On the heavily used NPS NRA trails around me, I think they very well may be an issue. If they are, it will probably be difficult to separate bicycles from ebikes at that point, as has been pointed out, the average hiker can't really tell them apart, they'll just complain about "bicycles".

    Hey, I hope I am wrong. But just a quick google and you can easily find ebikers talking about riding overpowered ebikes, with suggestions of "just slow down when you pass a ranger" and similar. Even on this site, someone posted about a 1000W motor and got responses like "it's ok, the case is stamped 750W" and "it's just a little over". A guy on my Nextdoor website advertised a Mongoose he added a motor to, said it cut out at 22mph and had a throttle and that it was trail legal. I asked him politely to correct his ad (he also advertised that he does ebike conversions) but he didn't.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    As the people you are describing fall under mountain biking, we'll own them. But we don't want to tied to the group with motors when someone shows up with a 1500W "bicycle", since there is no way to easily distinguish what is under 750W and what is over, and no one to check anyway. So it's a "bicycle" causing issues and the mountain bikers fall into the group being blamed. As I've said over and over, I think they are fine on some trails. On the heavily used NPS NRA trails around me, I think they very well may be an issue. If they are, it will probably be difficult to separate bicycles from ebikes at that point, as has been pointed out, the average hiker can't really tell them apart, they'll just complain about "bicycles".

    Hey, I hope I am wrong. But just a quick google and you can easily find ebikers talking about riding overpowered ebikes, with suggestions of "just slow down when you pass a ranger" and similar. Even on this site, someone posted about a 1000W motor and got responses like "it's ok, the case is stamped 750W" and "it's just a little over". A guy on my Nextdoor website advertised a Mongoose he added a motor to, said it cut out at 22mph and had a throttle and that it was trail legal. I asked him politely to correct his ad (he also advertised that he does ebike conversions) but he didn't.
    There's always douchebags no matter what activity it is. Whether it's cheating on the motor or going down hill like a wild man scaring the shizz out of hikers.
    The vast majority of the people are going to buy an E bike ride it enjoy it and you're not even gonna know they're riding one. I've been riding 1 for 6 months put 1100 miles on it and it never had one person say O that's an E bike. Used to be an absolute die hard mountain biker, rode an ebike because my neighbor had it went and bought one and will never go back. At this point the government has changed the game and I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out.......

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    583
    WOOT!! A bigs thanks to emtbassocation this is great news for all of us !

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    But we don't want to tied to the group with motors when someone shows up with a 1500W "bicycle", since there is no way to easily distinguish what is under 750W and what is over, and no one to check anyway. So it's a "bicycle" causing issues and the mountain bikers fall into the group being blamed. As I've said over and over, I think they are fine on some trails. On the heavily used NPS NRA trails around me, I think they very well may be an issue. If they are, it will probably be difficult to separate bicycles from ebikes at that point, as has been pointed out, the average hiker can't really tell them apart, they'll just complain about "bicycles".

    Hey, I hope I am wrong. But just a quick google and you can easily find ebikers talking about riding overpowered ebikes, with suggestions of "just slow down when you pass a ranger" and similar. Even on this site, someone posted about a 1000W motor and got responses like "it's ok, the case is stamped 750W" and "it's just a little over". A guy on my Nextdoor website advertised a Mongoose he added a motor to, said it cut out at 22mph and had a throttle and that it was trail legal. I asked him politely to correct his ad (he also advertised that he does ebike conversions) but he didn't.
    I don't know what to say to that. It is like saying that if leashed dogs are allowed on a trail, then some people will walk them unleashed and give all dog owners a bad name. Yeah. That happens. It will happen to eBikes 1/10000 times less because bike conversions almost always suck and they end up on the street only as electric mopeds. The good bikes are the brands like Specialized, Trek, Pivot, Focus, Giant, etc. They are all Class-1.

  139. #139
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Chazpat is a fellow mtbr and has concerns, just like I do. No worries. In time we’ll find out if ebikes are compatible with the surroundings. I’m sure we’ll see a few asshats, but that’s the norm. I’m a little upset that BLM is up to class 3. IMO not cool on singletrack. Maybe they’ll reduce to class 1 as all the manufacturers are producing and downplay?
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    Chazpat is a fellow mtbr and has concerns, just like I do. No worries. In time we’ll find out if ebikes are compatible with the surroundings. I’m sure we’ll see a few asshats, but that’s the norm. I’m a little upset that BLM is up to class 3. IMO not cool on singletrack. Maybe they’ll reduce to class 1 as all the manufacturers are producing and downplay?
    ? Does anybody build a class 3 at this point that is singletrack rideable?

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  141. #141
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Not that I’m aware of, thank god. I think the industry knows more than we think. $ talks and we will produce. Class 1 will look pretty clean imo.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    22
    Sweet singletrack ride.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    22
    Now were talking.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    That is what I have coming on Wednesday. A 2020 Turbo Levo Comp in black.

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by moabmark View Post
    ? Does anybody build a class 3 at this point that is singletrack rideable?

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
    Keep in mine even Class-3 is limited to 750 watts. So a Turbo Levo with the speed limit removed will become a Class-3 and have a max speed limited by air drag to about 23 mph.

    The only way to hit 28 is with a road bike design that has taller gears and with you holding the bar drops.

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    I’m a little upset that BLM is up to class 3. IMO not cool on singletrack. Maybe they’ll reduce to class 1 as all the manufacturers are producing and downplay?
    There is no meaningful difference between Class-1 and Class-3 for singletrack because they are both 750 watts. Speed is limited by drag for a MTB riding position. I know this because I removed the speed limiter on a Turbo Levo and it could not go over 23mph on level ground and not over 13 mph on a 9.5% grade with a 64kg rider.

    The 28 mph is for road bikes with low-rolling resistance tires and less drag.

    Class-3 being allowed is great because it means you can remove the limiter on a Class-1 and not have that surgey feel as it cuts off at 20.

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by moabmark View Post
    ? Does anybody build a class 3 at this point that is singletrack rideable?

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
    Bulls E-Stream Evo 45 AM - Bulls makes great bikes.


    https://www.bullsbikesusa.com/e-stream-evo-45-am.html

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    656
    Go back to the first three months of this forum: every prediction that was made by pro ebikers is coming true. All the anti’s pissed and moaned then laughed at predictions of increased and near universal access. Who is laughing now? Ha! Ha!

    I knew there was a reason I kept lurking here....... I’m really enjoying seeing some of the loudest voices here against ebikes eat crow! LOL! I can’t keep the grin off of my face.......

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    Go back to the first three months of this forum: every prediction that was made by pro ebikers is coming true. All the anti’s pissed and moaned then laughed at predictions of increased and near universal access. Who is laughing now? Ha! Ha!

    I knew there was a reason I kept lurking here....... I’m really enjoying seeing some of the loudest voices here against ebikes eat crow! LOL! I can’t keep the grin off of my face.......
    Right on! The name calling by even the Mods on MTBR was uncalled for we have proven our point and facts won out over BS and e hate

  150. #150
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,023
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    Go back to the first three months of this forum: every prediction that was made by pro ebikers is coming true. All the anti’s pissed and moaned then laughed at predictions of increased and near universal access. Who is laughing now? Ha! Ha!

    I knew there was a reason I kept lurking here....... I’m really enjoying seeing some of the loudest voices here against ebikes eat crow! LOL! I can’t keep the grin off of my face.......
    Did you read the order? It still allows for individual park units and other land managers to ban eBikes at their discretion, very similar to how the State Laws in California work.

    But it is nice to see how some people are still jumping to conclusions.

    This new order is great for allowing eBikes on the paved paths in the National Parks where they had been banned due to the motor. I don't know of many national parks where Mechanized Bicycles are currently allowed on "trails" since most of those trails are hiking only.

    I see this as a major win for BLM land where the rules made no sense considering most BLM land has motorcycle trails on it as well.

    This order still has no bearing on the USFS rules.

    Who exactly is eating crow?
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  151. #151
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Jeezus.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    656
    I’m not sure how much larger the writing on the wall needs to be for some people to see it. Is there any way to spin this so it looks like a win for the anti’s? If so, I’m sure we will hear it soon, LOL.

    Sorry, but I can’t stop laughing.........

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    348
    These elitist type of thoughts, should have a caveat; meaning, I've see one local pro XC chick-who wins events, giving 'skills' clinics, and she is one of the sketchiest riders i've seen. So-experience doesn't mean you won't get in over your head, i've seen pros still suck...I've seen people get on an eMTB after being moto riders for years, and they are quite good at MTB. Don't assume everyone on a eMTB is a squirrel or will be unprepared.

    I guess the point is, much like "etiquette", there has always been asshole MOUNTAIN BIKERS on the trail, making a bad name for us all, and there has been ill-prepared MTBers, or riders 'unexperienced', this is an issue of MTB, its not an "eMTB" vs "MTB" argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    ......
    Additionally, I’m worried about new, very unfit and inexperienced people getting in way over their heads. One of the things about non-shuttle/lift based riding that keeps safety incidents low is the fact that people generally understand their limits and act accordingly.
    .....
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  154. #154
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    I’m not sure how much larger the writing on the wall needs to be for some people to see it. Is there any way to spin this so it looks like a win for the anti’s? If so, I’m sure we will hear it soon, LOL.

    Sorry, but I can’t stop laughing.........




    Yet you try to spin it as a win for motorized bicycles when it is clearly inconsequential in the "whole". I wouldn't laugh quite yet as to not look more so the fool.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Yet you try to spin it as a win for motorized bicycles when it is clearly inconsequential in the "whole". I wouldn't laugh quite yet as to not look more so the fool.
    Please expound......

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    "I simply don’t want access for regular bikes compromised because of them"

    True. While I don't share that concern, it is the only argument that I cannot refute as it is something some people will try to do.

    On the other hand, eBikes are the only category of bikes growing in sales. So it will make the bike lobby stronger to fight Sierra Club. Think about it like this - Porsche owners hated when they came out with SUVs. But, Porsche was in financial trouble back then. Now they have so much money from SUV sales that they have used it to come out with more and better 911 models.

    So bike companies can use this extra money for more lobbying for bikes.
    Good post.

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Yet you try to spin it as a win for motorized bicycles when it is clearly inconsequential in the "whole". I wouldn't laugh quite yet as to not look more so the fool.
    How many times a day do you call people fools on here? I don't know who runs this place but you should have your moderator privileges revoked. Even your signature is calling people backstabbing assholes.

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PurpleMtnSlayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,112
    Quote Originally Posted by moabmark View Post
    Please expound......

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
    Please dont

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by PurpleMtnSlayer View Post
    Please dont
    Oh come on, I've never seen someone so full of.......

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  160. #160
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,427
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    We should ban all bikes. They are dangerous! They go too fast and even children can ride them. Just a hazard.

  162. #162
    E-bike excersizer
    Reputation: ULEWZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by str8line View Post
    How many times a day do you call people fools on here? I don't know who runs this place but you should have your moderator privileges revoked. Even your signature is calling people backstabbing assholes.
    I second that motion. Please revoke his privileges as a Moderator as he clearly brings hate and discontent with every post. His negativity is unbefitting a moderator.
    Bicycle: A vehicle with two wheels tandem, handlebars for steering, a saddle seat, and pedals by which it is propelled.

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hikerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Looks like bikes are already a problem at the Estero trail in Point Reyes. From the NPS website

    “The maximum number of bicyclists in any one group is 10. Larger groups of cyclists will have to divide into groups no larger than 10. This size restriction is necessary for the safety of cyclists using public roadways and authorized trails within the Park. These roadways and trails are narrow and winding and will not safely accommodate large numbers of bicyclists.”

    One guy who makes his living chronicling hiking trails calling out one particularly popular scenic trail where hikers get annoyed by bicyclists does not justify your fear.
    "Thank you, God, for letting me have another day"
    The Milagro Beanfield War

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    790
    Is the eMTB section really for people who are anti-eMTB?

    This was my objection to the new BLM rules postings being moved to the trail advocacy area. When I posted that thread, I wanted to share the good news with pro eMTB people, not the trail builders who are bitter about eMTBs existing.

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ruthabagah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    This is just an opinion, not a fact or call to arms. And for the record, Marin County bike riders (MTB or Roadies) have been jerks for a long time and probably need a ban.... I used to ride there between 2000-2010 and user conflicts between roadies, MTB and hikers were a daily occurrence often requiring the cops to be called upon.

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    348
    For what it's worth...
    I've been to a few eMTB meet ups, summits, etc.....one that I went to in March of this year, was attended by the calif state park represenatives. After a day spent talking about the good of eMTB, how they are NOT motorcycles, they are not throttle bikes (educating them on different classes, which they had no idea there were different types), they even went outside and rode some, was a great day. BUT, we got into these break out groups, I sat at a table with Bosch sales guy, trek sales guy, a local dealer, myself, and the cal state parks people. Their head guy chimed in "Listen, we've sat here all day and learned some good stuff about these bikes, but-we didn't ask for this, we are not asking for more people in the parks, we are understaffed, under budgeted and under resourced, we can't even clean garbage let alone cover more people in the park riding bikes".....I did feel a bit for him and his team he went on to say "My job is to let the citizens of calif. enjoy our open spaces, but, it gets harder and harder when we are not given the tools we need to maintain the parks".

    That being said, I live in OC, ride all of our parks (I ride acoustic bike 80% of the time) and it's never, or rarely THAT crowded. There are times, often that I dont see anyone riding, so I am not so sure the MTB 'overcrowding' is a real thing.

    Anyway, just a little anecdote from a real chat with a parks person.

  167. #167
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,023
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    From the Article:
    At sites where eBikes would be legal, the biggest potential for showdowns is on the walkway in Yosemite Valley. It gets heavy use from visitors on walks with cameras or using the low-speed rental bicycles. Mix an eBike into the crowd and you’ve got the potential for conflict.

    But not everywhere. At Yosemite, I traced my 50 favorite hikes, including those out of Yosemite Valley, Tuolumne Meadows and along Glacier Point Road. Turns out eBikes wouldn’t be permitted at any of them. Same thing at Sequoia & Kings Canyon, 52 out of 52. At Point Reyes, they would be allowed for stretches of roughly 3 miles or less — not worthy of the ease and speed of an eBike — on a few trails, including the popular Bear Valley Trail.

    Of bigger concern is the Estero Trail, a personal favorite, where present rules would permit them out to the ridge that overlooks Drakes Estero. Rangers could solve this by banning mountain bikes here, a worthy sacrifice that would take care of the eBike issue in a single maneuver.

    Tom Stienstra is The San Francisco Chronicle’s outdoors writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @StienstraTom
    While it is just a comment from a Journalist, it does show that it will now become easier for Mountain Bikes to be banned from trails where they already had access due to the definition change by this order.

    I don't think anyone can predict the future and say for certain that will happen for all the trails effected by this order, but no one can honestly say it will not cross the minds of those opposed to this ruling.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,341
    Meanwhile in the northeast, nothing has changed.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,162
    Quote Originally Posted by ruthabagah View Post
    This is just an opinion, not a fact or call to arms. And for the record, Marin County bike riders (MTB or Roadies) have been jerks for a long time and probably need a ban.... I used to ride there between 2000-2010 and user conflicts between roadies, MTB and hikers were a daily occurrence often requiring the cops to be called upon.
    That is just an opinion, and a stupid one at that
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    From the Article:


    While it is just a comment from a Journalist, it does show that it will now become easier for Mountain Bikes to be banned from trails where they already had access due to the definition change by this order.

    I don't think anyone can predict the future and say for certain that will happen for all the trails effected by this order, but no one can honestly say it will not cross the minds of those opposed to this ruling.
    How does it show that?


    Yeah it sucks when your city is booming and traffic jams get horrible and your trails aren't empty like they used to be. But arguing for the exclusion of a user is like arguing for the exclusion of all users. Again, it's a slippery slope and we've already been there done that getting bikes onto hiking trails.

    Where I live trails are being built. Overuse could become a concern as population grows but let's not blame specific user groups.

  171. #171
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,023
    Quote Originally Posted by str8line View Post
    How does it show that?
    My reasoning is that before the order went into effect Mountain Bikes were allowed on some trails in NPS and BLM land and eBikes were not allowed.

    Now that the DOI Order has gone out, eBikes and Pedal Bikes share the same definition. So by default anywhere a Pedal Bike is allowed, an eBike (as defined in the order) is allowed.

    So if a land manager decides to continue to ban eBikes, they will also by default be banning pedal bikes since the ban would have to be on Bicycles to also remove the eBikes. I did not see language in there to continue to define bicycles and eBikes are different modes of transport. That was the point that Journalist was making, the only way to ban eBikes now is to also ban bicycles since they are by definition the same thing as far as the Federal order is concerned.

    The big question that no one has the answer to at this point is; Will a NPS unit or BLM land manager decide to continue the ban on eBikes for specific trails? We just don't know how this will shake out yet, lots of speculation so far on these boards. But it is a wait and see right now.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    the point that Journalist was making, the only way to ban eBikes now is to also ban bicycles since they are by definition the same thing as far as the Federal order is concerned.
    Good thing none of us ever brought up that possibility as a concern in the past...

    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    My reasoning is that before the order went into effect Mountain Bikes were allowed on some trails in NPS and BLM land and eBikes were not allowed.

    Now that the DOI Order has gone out, eBikes and Pedal Bikes share the same definition. So by default anywhere a Pedal Bike is allowed, an eBike (as defined in the order) is allowed.

    So if a land manager decides to continue to ban eBikes, they will also by default be banning pedal bikes since the ban would have to be on Bicycles to also remove the eBikes. I did not see language in there to continue to define bicycles and eBikes are different modes of transport. That was the point that Journalist was making, the only way to ban eBikes now is to also ban bicycles since they are by definition the same thing as far as the Federal order is concerned.

    The big question that no one has the answer to at this point is; Will a NPS unit or BLM land manager decide to continue the ban on eBikes for specific trails? We just don't know how this will shake out yet, lots of speculation so far on these boards. But it is a wait and see right now.
    Section 5 b ii allows for some wiggle room so it's not an absolute.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbbiker View Post
    Very good and positive article about ebikes.



    I can tell your stance on ebikes simply by this quote “electric motorized bike riders”. Why can’t you simply call it an ebike or emtb? Yes, we all know it has a motor, please don’t point out the obvious.

    Ebikes sales are growing each year and I see more ebikes on the trails every month. I’m sure most ebike riders sees themselves as simply just another mountain biker. Why fracture our group? Ban together, unit and make the MTB community bigger and stronger! This is just my opinion as a long time mountain bike rider!
    Well said.

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by stiksandstones View Post
    Their head guy chimed in "Listen, we've sat here all day and learned some good stuff about these bikes, but-we didn't ask for this, we are not asking for more people in the parks, we are understaffed, under budgeted and under resourced, we can't even clean garbage let alone cover more people in the park riding bikes".....I did feel a bit for him and his team he went on to say "My job is to let the citizens of calif. enjoy our open spaces, but, it gets harder and harder when we are not given the tools we need to maintain the parks".

    That being said, I live in OC, ride all of our parks (I ride acoustic bike 80% of the time) and it's never, or rarely THAT crowded. There are times, often that I dont see anyone riding, so I am not so sure the MTB 'overcrowding' is a real thing.

    Anyway, just a little anecdote from a real chat with a parks person.
    Who is "their head guy"? The CA State Parks Director is a woman.

    And CA State Parks gets help from MTB groups. Except when they reject them. Which in some (but not all) districts they do, even after years of partnerships. Perhaps this was a district rep, in a district which supports these partnerships? If they were at an MTB summit I bet they are.

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by str8line View Post
    How many times a day do you call people fools on here? I don't know who runs this place but you should have your moderator privileges revoked. Even your signature is calling people backstabbing assholes.
    Right on !!!

  177. #177
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,751
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95 View Post
    Right on !!!
    Quote Originally Posted by ULEWZ View Post
    I second that motion. Please revoke his privileges as a Moderator as he clearly brings hate and discontent with every post. His negativity is unbefitting a moderator.
    Quote Originally Posted by str8line View Post
    How many times a day do you call people fools on here? I don't know who runs this place but you should have your moderator privileges revoked. Even your signature is calling people backstabbing assholes.
    There are no rules that moderators shouldn't have any opinions and who are you tell moderators that they shouldn't have opinions? If you want impartial moderators then you will be willing to ante up cash to use this site because the moderators are unpaid volunteers who clean up their assigned forums and then play here with the rest of you by the same rules you run by. If you feel you the moderator has broken the terms of use here then report the post but many, many users call out other users based on their beliefs and we don't remove them from the forum.

    As I stated this is volunteer. If you want moderators that are just moderators you better be willing to pay for that privilege as having someone hang out here with no opinion but spend time reviewing the posts and making sure things go right cost money. If you think this a forum that would be better with a paid subscription I suggest you post a thread in the Site Feedback forum for ownership to consider.

    Otherwise you are stuck with volunteers who float through the forums based on their interests. If you are interested in what forum a moderator has powers in here is a link to review: https://forums.mtbr.com/showgroups.php if they aren't posting in the forum they volunteer in then they are pretty much at the same level as any other user and even if they are in their forum they are allowed to have opinions and express them. They have no powers and no ability to do anything but provide input, on which ever side of an issue they see fit. Moderators are not judges required to be able to see both sides and adjudicate independently without bias, they are just volunteers on a forum about our expensive toys. Relax a bit.

    If you have issues I suggest you send FC a PM and state your case to him. He could revoke the status of the moderator but that'd be up to him or the owners of the forum.
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  178. #178
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,095
    Electric Bicycles (e-bikes) in National Parks

    May superintendents restrict the use of e-bikes or close areas to e-bikes under certain circumstances?

    Yes. Superintendents may restrict or impose conditions upon the use of e-bikes, or close locations to the use of e-bikes, after taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, and other management activities and objectives. If warranted by these criteria, superintendents may manage e-bikes, or particular classes of e-bikes, differently than traditional bicycles in particular locations. For example, a superintendent could determine that a trail open to traditional bicycles should not be open to e-bikes, or should be open to class-1 e-bikes only.

    https://www.nps.gov/subjects/biking/e-bikes.htm


    I'll go ahead and take this opportunity to encourage ebikers to please police your own. I imagine most of you are responsible riders. I'm not worried about the elderly ebikers or those with disabilities. But as I mentioned before, a little googling turns up ebike enthusiasts who are not. These people could easily cause problems for your sport as well as mine. I've gotten on to mountain bikers who were not representing the sport well to other trail users. Let's all be good trail users.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  179. #179
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    From the Article:


    While it is just a comment from a Journalist, it does show that it will now become easier for Mountain Bikes to be banned from trails where they already had access due to the definition change by this order.

    I don't think anyone can predict the future and say for certain that will happen for all the trails effected by this order, but no one can honestly say it will not cross the minds of those opposed to this ruling.
    Dude- your a great guy I’m sure, but man you are always poking at a shroud of evidence that proves ebikers to be the anti-Christ. WTH, as mtbr.com welcomes ebike forums, why are you against the beliefs of your piers?
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  180. #180
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Y’all act like we are a bunch of newbs and never ridden a mtb. Why so much hate? If you guys would support your fellow cyclists it’d be cool. I understand the risk of trail access, but that’s way blown out of proportion with theories etc.. Just ride and be polite to anyone sharing the love of 2 wheels, I mean wtf? We all pay taxes and nobody owns the damn land. And another thing, what’s wrong with motors? Are y’all a bunch of pansies that can’t handle power? Shits getting old, I’m out.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ruthabagah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiantsfan View Post
    That is just an opinion, and a stupid one at that
    no fact. I rode every single trails in Marin time and time again. Keep on trolling bro

    Federal Rules Regarding E-mtb-reputation.jpg

  182. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by ruthabagah View Post
    no fact. I rode every single trails in Marin time and time again. Keep on trolling bro

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	reputation.jpg 
Views:	36 
Size:	43.4 KB 
ID:	1276461
    I mean that's a pretty blatant violation of the no personal attacks rule. I won't hold my breath to see if he is publicly admonished.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I mean that's a pretty blatant violation of the no personal attacks rule. I won't hold my breath to see if he is publicly admonished.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    So why is it ok for A Mod to personally call me names in my case a super Mod ?? is the rules you spout for everyone???

  184. #184
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,751
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I mean that's a pretty blatant violation of the no personal attacks rule. I won't hold my breath to see if he is publicly admonished.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Reputation falls outside of the spectre of moderation. That is strictly up to you to control.

    Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  185. #185
    bipedal
    Reputation: levity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    ... Shits getting old, I’m out.
    ^ +1

  186. #186
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,751
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95 View Post
    So why is it ok for A Mod to personally call me names in my case a super Mod ?? is the rules you spout for everyone???
    Use the report post button. That is what it is there for. If you feel like you have been attacked for whatever reason you can also always send a link to FC. Complaining into the ether isn't going to get you anything.
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    Reputation falls outside of the spectre of moderation. That is strictly up to you to control.

    Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk
    Oh, this just got good...

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ruthabagah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Oh, this just got good...

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    yep... the bias of the moderation team on this site is getting old...

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by ruthabagah View Post
    yep... the bias of the moderation team on this site is getting old...
    I need a ruling from fc because I've got some stuff I'd love to bomb into some individuals' rep comments. However, I'm 99.9% certain that he's patently incorrect. If abusive PMs are against the rules I think it follows that abusive rep comments are as well.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  190. #190
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    IMO the “Rep” function serves zero purpose and creates more damage than good.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    IMO the “Rep” function serves zero purpose and creates more damage than good.
    I mean it did get people talking about ghosts so...

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,454
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Meanwhile in the northeast, nothing has changed.
    Not so. Seems that e bikes can now be used on all the carriage roads in Acadia NP. Think 20' wide dirt roads. Wheeee.

  193. #193
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    Dude- your a great guy I’m sure, but man you are always poking at a shroud of evidence that proves ebikers to be the anti-Christ. WTH, as mtbr.com welcomes ebike forums, why are you against the beliefs of your piers?
    You are going to have to clarify your statement here. I have said nothing to make claims that eBikers are the anti-christ, even the place you quoted me was not negative towards eBikers. My point was that there is already a ton of backlash on the order that is defining eBikes as Bicycles and giving them access to the same trails bicycles are allowed on. One of the first articles written about it plainly states that the author is willing to sacrifice bicycle access if it means keeping eBikes off the trails. I did not write that article and I did not say I agree that sacrificing bicycle access was a worthy cause. In fact I believe the opposite. I am personally fine with this new order and would be fine with it moving to the USFS lands as well, but I understand that many hiking and equestrian groups are going to fight it tooth and nail, and that some trails that currently allow bicycles might not in the future if the powerful hiking and equestrian groups push hard enough and get what they want.



    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    IMO the “Rep” function serves zero purpose and creates more damage than good.
    I agree with you there. I prefer the sites that allow users to +/- specific posts. One website I frequent even has the ability to automatically hide a post if it has a threshold of enough - votes on it.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  194. #194
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I mean it did get people talking about ghosts so...

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Gonna be in Bentonville Sunday for a week of riding. I’m assuming it’s all Ebike friendly? I know you live around there. Any advice on trails besides the obvious? The backwoods, gnarly techy stuff, you know the pucker kind?
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  195. #195
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Fair enough, I now know your stance on Ebike access and I agree with you that the USFS should adopt the same policy. 👍
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  196. #196
    poser Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,751
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Oh, this just got good...

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Yeah, but no. Unlike pm or posts I have no ability to modify or change reputation. As I said previously you need to reach out to ownership if you feel slighted by your bad reputation, it is a function most moderators would welcome disappearing from the forums.

    I don't have the time, nor do any of the other volunteers here, to run down and vet everyone's complaints about reputation. As much as you think moderation is wily nily I usually am forced to read through an entire thread to understand the context, sides, and arguments to determine which user crossed what line and if it was a violation of the site guidelines, which have now disappeared in the site turn over.

    So as I said you control your reputation. Stop complainting about so much stuff and just participate and maybe you will receive much less vitriole and bad rep.

    Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk
    MTBR Posting Guidelines
    calories>electrons

  197. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    Gonna be in Bentonville Sunday for a week of riding. I’m assuming it’s all Ebike friendly? I know you live around there. Any advice on trails besides the obvious? The backwoods, gnarly techy stuff, you know the pucker kind?
    It's all e-bike friendly except for Hobbs which is kind of murky on the technicality of it being legal. For gnarly stuff you're going to want to hit Fitzgerald, Coler, and the two trail systems in Eureka Springs. Back 40 is a great burn out the miles ride and Slaughter Pen is the OG and definitely worth hitting.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    Yeah, but no. Unlike pm or posts I have no ability to modify or change reputation. As I said previously you need to reach out to ownership if you feel slighted by your bad reputation, it is a function most moderators would welcome disappearing from the forums.

    I don't have the time, nor do any of the other volunteers here, to run down and vet everyone's complaints about reputation. As much as you think moderation is wily nily I usually am forced to read through an entire thread to understand the context, sides, and arguments to determine which user crossed what line and if it was a violation of the site guidelines, which have no

    disappeared in the air turn over.

    So as I said you control your reputation. Stop complainting about so much stuff and just participate and maybe you will receive much less vitriole and bad rep.

    Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk
    I never said I care about reputation and no one asked you to control reputation. However, abusive messages are against the TOS. Now if you are saying I can go write whatever I like about you in your reputation comments with zero repercussions just say so and we can be done.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

  199. #199
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,023
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I never said I care about reputation and no one asked you to control reputation. However, abusive messages are against the TOS. Now if you are saying I can go write whatever I like about you in your reputation comments with zero repercussions just say so and we can be done.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
    Sounds like you are looking for permission to be abusive to other members of this site.

    Returning hate for hate is not a great policy to have.

    PM's can be reported if you have someone sending you personal attacks via PM.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    Sounds like you are looking for permission to be abusive to other members of this site.

    Returning hate for hate is not a great policy to have.

    PM's can be reported if you have someone sending you personal attacks via PM.
    The original ask didn't get through so trying another approach. Someone reported an abusive reputation comment in this thread and the response from moderation was rep is the wild west and you can say whatever you like and it will not be policed. I even commented that I did not think that that was correct. There was confusion that A. I was complaining about my rep, not even my post. B. That the rep score was being asked to be changed, content was what was solely being discussed.

    Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. State Rules regarding ebikes on Trails
    By Lemonaid in forum E-Bikes
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 06-18-2019, 09:50 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 11:18 AM
  3. Rules? Rules? Who needs rules?
    By teamdicky in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-25-2013, 12:53 PM
  4. Federal Trail Funding May Be Eliminated...
    By PscyclePath in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-18-2011, 11:26 AM
  5. Federal Law About Dating Beer
    By getagrip in forum Beer Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-31-2011, 08:31 AM

Members who have read this thread: 297

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.