future of ebikes on trails- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 328
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,323

    future of ebikes on trails

    I predict ebikes will open up biking to a lot more people. This will allow ebikes to get *more* momentum against the sierra club, audubon and other anti bike outdoor organizations that ban bikes in general.

    It ultimately is about which group has the most noisy stakeholders donating money.

    In 20 years once ebikes are mainstream for commuting and riding around, the lay public will be pushing to open up all trails for bikes.

    the reality is they are environmentally friendly and will let more people enjoy the outdoors. The sierra club, audubon etc are the same NIMBY baby boomers that are blocking density within cities. As they die off a new crop of climate change aware riders will be the ones who run policy.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    This will get moved to advocacy. One would need to change the laws first. In many areas. Climate aware? Nothing greener than a bike run on my breakfast. Donating money to who? Slippery slope mingling bikes and motorized vehicles. Doing more e bike advocacy than banging away at your keyboard? Start with meetings and trail work days, let us know how that goes.

  3. #3
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    From my view here in California the "e-bikes can go anywhere bikes can go" law has played into the Sierra Club's "no bikes on single track" policy quite well.

    The SC was very quiet when the e-bike lobby sneaked through AB-1096; the SC openly promotes e-bikes for transportation; by the same token all the more reason no bikes should be allowed on trails.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    331
    Riding eBikes on singletrack trails is transportation.

    Who is the eBike lobby you speak of? People for Bikes is the only one I have heard of.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    Riding eBikes on singletrack trails is transportation.

    Maybe for a tiny minority, for the rest it's recreation.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  6. #6
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    Riding eBikes on singletrack trails is transportation.
    Perhaps if one is hauling camping gear or tools for trail work. But I reckon 90% of MTB'ing on single track is purely recreational.

    Who is the eBike lobby you speak of? People for Bikes is the only one I have heard of.
    CBC, BPSA, NBDA and let's not forget IMBA.

    IMBA and P4B were co-conspirators in spreading the fake news that AB-1096 only applied to paved bike paths. This dis-information helped the bill getting unanimous approval through the legislative process.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    331
    Transportation is not defined by how pleasurable an activity is.

  8. #8
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,924
    Quote Originally Posted by goodmojo View Post
    I predict ebikes will open up biking to a lot more people. This will allow ebikes to get *more* momentum against the sierra club, audubon and other anti bike outdoor organizations that ban bikes in general.

    It ultimately is about which group has the most noisy stakeholders donating money.

    In 20 years once ebikes are mainstream for commuting and riding around, the lay public will be pushing to open up all trails for bikes.

    the reality is they are environmentally friendly and will let more people enjoy the outdoors. The sierra club, audubon etc are the same NIMBY baby boomers that are blocking density within cities. As they die off a new crop of climate change aware riders will be the ones who run policy.
    Environmentally friendly? How so, with a motor, and a battery and all? Maybe as compared to a gas fired motorcycle, but not when compared to an actual bicycle.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    Environmentally friendly? How so, with a motor, and a battery and all? Maybe as compared to a gas fired motorcycle, but not when compared to an actual bicycle.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    There's a good body of work out there that shows there's a crossover point where electrical energy becomes more "green" than bio-mechanical energy. For starters, many electronics these days are better than 90% efficient; humans are about the same as internal combustion engines; 25% at best.

    When the energy it takes to put food on the table is considered it's likely the e-bike will win the "green" contest. Unless you happen to grow all of your own food in your backyard and cook only with firewood or solar. (Or eat everything raw)
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    There's a good body of work out there that shows there's a crossover point where electrical energy becomes more "green" than bio-mechanical energy. For starters, many electronics these days are better than 90% efficient; humans are about the same as internal combustion engines; 25% at best.

    When the energy it takes to put food on the table is considered it's likely the e-bike will win the "green" contest. Unless you happen to grow all of your own food in your backyard and cook only with firewood or solar. (Or eat everything raw)


    I've seen a few of those studies and I don't buy it, there seem to be a lot of factors omitted to me. For starters I'd like to see a study comparing the difference between the actual calories consumed by sedentary and active people.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    Transportation is not defined by how pleasurable an activity is.
    'Transportation' IMO would entail using the bike to reach a destination, like commuting to work or doing errands, etc. 'Recreation' would be riding simply for the sake of fun or sport, which is what the vast majority of MTB riders do on the vast majority of rides. Simply riding around on trails from your car and then back to your car wouldn't qualify as 'transportation' usage.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  12. #12
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,284
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    'Transportation' IMO would entail using the bike to reach a destination, like commuting to work or doing errands, etc. 'Recreation' would be riding simply for the sake of fun or sport, which is what the vast majority of MTB riders do on the vast majority of rides. Simply riding around on trails from your car and then back to your car wouldn't qualify as 'transportation' usage.
    Agreed, the use of the word transportation is a bit misleading and certainly sounds more like Commuting than recreating to me.

    When I ride my mountain bike to the my local trailhead and around the trails and end back the same place I started at I do not think of it as "transportation" even thought it technically meets that definition.

    When I ride my motorycle to work and back each day I think of that as transportation.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  13. #13
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,855
    Quote Originally Posted by goodmojo View Post
    I predict ebikes will open up biking to a lot more people.
    Yep, absolutely. I already see it here, almost without exception (based on appearances) all of the people I see riding ebikes on bike paths/roads are people who likely wouldn't be riding a bike. They're generally old and/or out of shape hauling around a bunch of extra weight. Most hardly pedaling, some even smoking lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by goodmojo View Post
    This will allow ebikes to get *more* momentum against the sierra club, audubon and other anti bike outdoor organizations that ban bikes in general.
    They can't ban bikes unless they own the land.

    Quote Originally Posted by goodmojo View Post
    It ultimately is about which group has the most noisy stakeholders donating money.
    Sort of? I've been involved in advocacy for 15 years, and it's politics. On the local level at least, where most decisions are made, whoever has the ear of the land manager has weight, which has to do more with an existing relationship than money. On the national level, sure, money buys attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by goodmojo View Post
    In 20 years once ebikes are mainstream for commuting and riding around, the lay public will be pushing to open up all trails for bikes.
    Generally, the lay public isn't inerested in emtbs, just go on an ebike forum and poke around. There are the majority who don't have a bike background who love to ride them bike paths and around town, and the minority who are exisiting mtbrs, who ride emtbs. They are pretty much exclusive groups.

    Quote Originally Posted by goodmojo View Post
    the reality is they are environmentally friendly and will let more people enjoy the outdoors. The sierra club, audubon etc are the same NIMBY baby boomers that are blocking density within cities. As they die off a new crop of climate change aware riders will be the ones who run policy.
    This is true in that sometimes the only way to change policy is to wait for those who are saying no to either retire or die. I agree that to a point, ebikes will be embraced by the public, the majority will ride them around for fun, some will use them to replace car trips, and the very few hardcore will use them to replace cars. We'll never be Europe or Asia since we view bikes as toys, and are a bunch of lazy, fairweather cyclists living in a land almost completely devoid of cycling infrastrucure, which makes using an ebike to it's potential difficult.

    As far as emtbs go, I think we'll start seeing more of these, one which is mostly US legal, one which is not, which will make US emtbs distincitve from the basically EU Pedelecs currently being riden, and make adopting them nationwide less likely than now. If we're arm waving and future casting, if a 4th class specific for emtbs with a clone of the EU regs is pushed for and adopted in all 50 states 10-20 years from now, I could see more locations allowing them.


  14. #14
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    There's a good body of work out there that shows there's a crossover point where electrical energy becomes more "green" than bio-mechanical energy. For starters, many electronics these days are better than 90% efficient; humans are about the same as internal combustion engines; 25% at best.

    When the energy it takes to put food on the table is considered it's likely the e-bike will win the "green" contest. Unless you happen to grow all of your own food in your backyard and cook only with firewood or solar. (Or eat everything raw)
    I’ve seen those studies too and I don’t buy them either. Do people driving internally combusted cars and riding electric motor bikes not eat?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,856
    A good place to start would be to arbitrarily electrocute people riding single track on modified e-bikes.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    A good place to start would be to arbitrarily electrocute people riding single track on modified e-bikes.
    Firm, but fair.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    I've seen a few of those studies and I don't buy it, there seem to be a lot of factors omitted to me. For starters I'd like to see a study comparing the difference between the actual calories consumed by sedentary and active people.
    Depending on level of exertion, quite a bit. I recently started a new work out regimen, trying to lose an extra 3% of body fat, and it is a struggle to eat my daily calorie quota on workout days.

    Everyone has a base calorie burn, and no, not every sedentary individual is continually gaining weight.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Depending on level of exertion, quite a bit. I recently started a new work out regimen, trying to lose an extra 3% of body fat, and it is a struggle to eat my daily calorie quota on workout days.

    Everyone has a base calorie burn, and no, not every sedentary individual is continually gaining weight.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


    Interesting, but not really a scientific study like I was suggesting. How about a comparison of caloric intake between a large pool of people who ride x amount of miles per day, one group on bicycles and the other on electric bikes.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Interesting, but not really a scientific study like I was suggesting. How about a comparison of caloric intake between a large pool of people who ride x amount of miles per day, one group on bicycles and the other on electric bikes.
    I get what you're trying to ask for but I don't know that a truly accurate study could be performed on that. Sample bias will almost undoubtedly occur with the non-ebike riders.

    It's not a reach to assert that for any individual with a semblance of a healthy diet that their caloric intake will share a relationship with their caloric burn.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I get what you're trying to ask for but I don't know that a truly accurate study could be performed on that. Sample bias will almost undoubtedly occur with the non-ebike riders.

    It's not a reach to assert that for any individual with a semblance of a healthy diet that their caloric intake will share a relationship with their caloric burn.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



    I don't know, I rode 40 miles yesterday and none today and had pretty much the exact same meals both days, typical for me. Anyway, I just don't believe that a person who switches from a bicycle to an electric bike will cut back on enough calories to offset the energy costs of a motor.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    A good place to start would be to arbitrarily electrocute people riding single track on modified e-bikes.
    Whether you know it or not, your attitude IS the problem that will get bikes banned in more places.

  22. #22
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    I don't know, I rode 40 miles yesterday and none today and had pretty much the exact same meals both days, typical for me. Anyway, I just don't believe that a person who switches from a bicycle to an electric bike will cut back on enough calories to offset the energy costs of a motor.
    I'm the same way, physical activity just doesn't trigger an appetite change for me. And a lot of the ebikers on here claim they get just as much exercise so if that is true, the math certainly doesn't add up.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    IAnd a lot of the ebikers on here claim they get just as much exercise so if that is true, the math certainly doesn't add up.
    Nice strawman, that's not what any reasonable individual has claimed. Now, is it possible to achieve the same amount exercise, absolutely, but not during a commute. That's too static.


    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    I don't know, I rode 40 miles yesterday and none today and had pretty much the exact same meals both days, typical for me. Anyway, I just don't believe that a person who switches from a bicycle to an electric bike will cut back on enough calories to offset the energy costs of a motor.
    Then you are either over or under eating on certain days. What are there more of, biking or non-biking days?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    Whether you know it or not, your attitude IS the problem that will get bikes banned in more places.
    Bikes don't have motors, start there.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Bikes don't have motors, start there.
    Funnily enough, the area of the country with one of the largest trail explosions, which is not stopping any time soon, is extremely e-bike friendly. Time to find another worn out argument.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Bikes don't have motors, start there.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to leeboh again.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for “I suck at brake control.” Here’s a free tip: get better."

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Then you are either over or under eating on certain days. What are there more of, biking or non-biking days?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



    No doubt, and I'm guessing that's pretty common which is sort of my point. Those studies work on theory which isn't necessarily reality.

    I think there are more holes in their theory too. One of them that seems to be confirmed here is that people tend to ride for a certain amount of time, not miles, so e-bikers just cover a lot more miles in the same time than they would have on a bicycle.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    What are there more of, biking or non-biking days?

    I'm on the bike about 4 days a week.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    No doubt, and I'm guessing that's pretty common which is sort of my point. Those studies work on theory which isn't necessarily reality.

    I think there are more holes in their theory too. One of them that seems to be confirmed here is that people tend to ride for a certain amount of time, not miles, so e-bikers just cover a lot more miles in the same time than they would have on a bicycle.
    It is pretty common. However, if you switched to riding an e-bike for commuting purposes your caloric intake would have to decrease or you would experience weight gain.

    That is true for recreational riding. However, for commuting purposes that's not the case. Mileage is going to be static thus reducing the ability and need to go further to get the same workout in.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  31. #31
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    This is the term paper that opened the door to the controversy many years ago:

    Ebike_Energy

    The writer, Justin Lemire-Elmore, went on to do some very big things in the e-bike world (and continues to do so).

    He wrote it in 2004 and I believe I first read it around 2010; like some of the posters here I poo-poo'd it at first but since then have come to realize the conclusions are valid and probably understated.

    If there's a specific issue with it please do tell.

    Anecdotally, since including regular e-bike usage in my lifestyle, I've gained 10 pounds. (I even cut back to one beer a day to try to offset this!)
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  32. #32
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Funnily enough, the area of the country with one of the largest trail explosions, which is not stopping any time soon, is extremely e-bike friendly. Time to find another worn out argument.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk




    Your example of one area is not representative of the whole picture, it's just so much rhetoric.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Your example of one area is not representative of the whole picture, it's just so much rhetoric.
    Agreed, national land is different but it's not simply rhetoric, it works. In his case land owner resistance is a bit of a red herring. For better or worse their regional org coached the landowners to be resistant. In other areas more opportunities brings more tourism which brings more money which brings more trails so that the cycle can begin anew. That scenario is playing out from New England to California currently.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  34. #34
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Nice strawman, that's not what any reasonable individual has claimed. Now, is it possible to achieve the same amount exercise, absolutely, but not during a commute. That's too static.


    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    I wasn't aware we were only talking about commuting; I post on this site mainly in regards to mountain bike (and in this case, emtb).
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    I wasn't aware we were only talking about commuting; I post on this site mainly in regards to mountain bike (and in this case, emtb).
    The post you responded to was in response to using a bike as transportation.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    It is pretty common. However, if you switched to riding an e-bike for commuting purposes your caloric intake would have to decrease or you would experience weight gain.


    Agreed. Again, kind of my point, although there has to be other weirdos out there like me who can't seem to gain or lose weight no matter what they do.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Agreed. Again, kind of my point, although there has to be other weirdos out there like me who can't seem to gain or lose weight no matter what they do.
    I used to be that way. We're talking 4k calories a day and not putting on a pound when playing basketball. I got hurt at about 23 and was off my feet for several months and that flipped the gain weight switch.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    If there's a specific issue with it please do tell

    I've already mentioned one, two if you consider that most people (definitely most on this site) will probably buy them for recreational purposes.


    In the first paragraph he says that speeds over 20mph won't be considered because that's what e-bikes are limited to and that's what a fit cyclist can average. E-bikes here (US) can go 28 mph on the road (without mods) and IME only a very small percentage of (bicycle) riders can average 20mph so that's not a fair representation.

    I got more issues with the second paragraph (and 3rd) but I doubt anyone really wants to hear them.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I used to be that way. We're talking 4k calories a day and not putting on a pound when playing basketball. I got hurt at about 23 and was off my feet for several months and that flipped the gain weight switch.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


    I was basically off my feet for 20 years, it was my own doing but it barely affected my weight.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    I was basically off my feet for 20 years, it was my own doing but it barely affected my weight.
    I guess it's relative. At my largest I could still wear a pair of jeans I bought in the 9th grade so there is that I suppose.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  41. #41
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    I've already mentioned one, two if you consider that most people (definitely most on this site) will probably buy them for recreational purposes.


    In the first paragraph he says that speeds over 20mph won't be considered because that's what e-bikes are limited to and that's what a fit cyclist can average. E-bikes here (US) can go 28 mph on the road (without mods) and IME only a very small percentage of riders can average 20mph so that's not a fair representation.

    I got more issues with the second paragraph (and 3rd) but I doubt anyone really wants to hear them.
    I, for one, WOULD like to see your whole list.

    Agreed; Justin's paper is focused solely on e-bikes used for (city) transportation.

    The recreational aspect would undoubtedly lessen the benefit, i.e. e-bikers just ride more miles and thus expend the same energy. (In the sense of more trail wear and tear worse for the environment)

    If of course an e-bike allows somebody to ride to an area with recreational trails (as opposed to hauling the bike there via a motor vehicle) then the score flips again.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  42. #42
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    The post you responded to was in response to using a bike as transportation.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Pretty sure JB was not using his bike as transportation when he road 40 miles yesterday.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Pretty sure JB was not using his bike as transportation when he road 40 miles yesterday.
    Um, well, yeah, actually he was.

    His post was an unrelated, anecdotal, illustrative example of not eating more after riding in response to a post about eating more due to increased exertion while commuting. So yes, he was talking about commuting. How do I know? Because it was my post the post you quoted was in response to.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    I, for one, WOULD like to see your whole list.

    The one I mentioned in my last post is important, if you assume 25mph for an ebike and 13mph for a bicycle the calculations would be much different.

    Second paragraph, assume that an electric motor will last indefinitely? Tell that to my chop saw that recently shucked the guts out of it's motor.

    3rd paragraph, "won't consider the environmental costs of recycling batteries". I take issue with that. I also didn't see any mention of the environmental or health costs involved with the mining of lithium, lead copper or whatever either.

    And I still still think that actual, not theoretical calories consumed needs to be determined.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  45. #45
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Um, well, yeah, actually he was.

    His post was an unrelated, anecdotal, illustrative example of not eating more after riding in response to a post about eating more due to increased exertion while commuting. So yes, he was talking about commuting. How do I know? Because it was my post the post you quoted was in response to.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Was he using his bike as transportation? JB? I'm sure you'll come back saying that riding any vehicle for any purpose is "transportation" so don't bother.

    You do realize this thread is "future of ebikes on trails"? So if you are going to claim my posts are unrelated, maybe you need to consider that your posts are off topic.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Bikes don't have motors, start there.

    A thought-terminating cliché is a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to end cognitive dissonance (discomfort experienced when one simultaneously holds two or more conflicting cognitions, e.g. ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions).

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Funnily enough, the area of the country with one of the largest trail explosions, which is not stopping any time soon, is extremely e-bike friendly. Time to find another worn out argument.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    An entire Continent that produces the best mountain bike racers in the world actively equates the two as well. A Continent with much higher population density then the states.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    It is pretty common. However, if you switched to riding an e-bike for commuting purposes your caloric intake would have to decrease or you would experience weight gain.

    That is true for recreational riding. However, for commuting purposes that's not the case. Mileage is going to be static thus reducing the ability and need to go further to get the same workout in.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Unless you switched from driving to ebiking, then it would go up, which I think would be a much larger group. Most bike commuters that I ride with are pretty hard core.
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Was he using his bike as transportation? JB?

    Not by any reasonable definition. I call it recreation but most people would probably consider an out & back with no practical purpose a complete waste of all resources involved
    I brake for stinkbugs

  50. #50
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    An entire Continent that produces the best mountain bike racers in the world actively equates the two as well. A Continent with much higher population density then the states.
    How are your efforts to get the US to adopt the European standards coming along?
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiantsfan View Post
    Unless you switched from driving to ebiking, then it would go up, which I think would be a much larger group. Most bike commuters that I ride with are pretty hard core.
    Not sure what you are trying to say here. Agreed, if you switched from driving to ebiking your caloric intake would go up. However, you'd still be using a much cleaner form of transportation. One that far offsets the caloric intake piece.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Was he using his bike as transportation? JB? I'm sure you'll come back saying that riding any vehicle for any purpose is "transportation" so don't bother.

    You do realize this thread is "future of ebikes on trails"? So if you are going to claim my posts are unrelated, maybe you need to consider that your posts are off topic.
    Ah the old, I misspoke so let me institute damage control ploy. Clever

    I didn't claim your post was off topic. I claimed your post was a strawman by trying to use someone's words in a misrepresented manner.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  53. #53
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Ah the old, I misspoke so let me institute damage control ploy. Clever

    I didn't claim your post was off topic. I claimed your post was a strawman by trying to use someone's words in a misrepresented manner.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    And where did I say that you claimed my post was off topic? Nice damage control yourself there. Maybe you've forgotten that we can all go back and read what was actually written. Go ahead.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    And where did I say that you claimed my post was off topic? Nice damage control yourself there. Maybe you've forgotten that we can all go back and read what was actually written. Go ahead.
    What does the word "unrelated" mean?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  55. #55
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    The one I mentioned in my last post is important, if you assume 25mph for an ebike and 13mph for a bicycle the calculations would be much different.

    Second paragraph, assume that an electric motor will last indefinitely? Tell that to my chop saw that recently shucked the guts out of it's motor.

    3rd paragraph, "won't consider the environmental costs of recycling batteries". I take issue with that. I also didn't see any mention of the environmental or health costs involved with the mining of lithium, lead copper or whatever either.

    And I still still think that actual, not theoretical calories consumed needs to be determined.
    Your points have some validity but it hearkens to the old apples to oranges debate; what assumptions one chooses to compare???

    Ebikes dot ca has a real spiffy trip-simulator calculator with plenty of variables. It defaults to a hub-motor e-bike but if one zeros out the motor it would also give Watt-hour values for pedaling only. Easy to set up comparable scenarios for both vehicles. I suppose doing three comparisons would be where to start; one for equal time, one equal distance and one equal speed.

    RE battery disposal/recycling yes the jury's still out especially in regards to lithium. Plenty of room for environmental damage. But then again farming food for human consumption isn't very good for the environment either.

    We need to get Tungsten over here!
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  56. #56
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    The post you responded to was in response to using a bike as transportation.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Um, well, yeah, actually he was.

    His post was an unrelated, …
    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    What does the word "unrelated" mean?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Ah, context is everything. Unrelated was in context to someone else's post. Off topic is in context to the thread.

    A better question: why I am I wasting my time in stupid arguments with you? I know that's your thing but I prefer to talk about bicycles. Sorry, not playing anymore, go ahead and claim I'm dropping out because "you've won".
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Ah, context is everything. Unrelated was in context to someone else's post. Off topic is in context to the thread.

    A better question: why I am I wasting my time in stupid arguments with you? I know that's your thing but I prefer to talk about bicycles. Sorry, not playing anymore, go ahead and claim I'm dropping out because "you've won".
    No, unrelated was a direct quote from you saying I called your post off topic. That everyone having a history to read thing cuts both ways.

    Cherry picking a snippet of a quote in no way bolsters your argument. Why are you finding it so difficult to state a simple definition? Perhaps you're the only one allowed to use synonyms?


    As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.


    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    Your points have some validity but it hearkens to the old apples to oranges debate; what assumptions one chooses to compare???

    How about realistic ones? Some of the assumptions the author made aren't. Assuming 20mph for both electric bikes and bicycles to calculate energy consumption is major flaw imo, just like assuming that someone who does x amount of work will consume x amount of food.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    How about realistic ones? Some of the assumptions the author made aren't. Assuming 20mph for both electric bikes and bicycles to calculate energy consumption is major flaw imo, just like assuming that someone who does x amount of work will consume x amount of food.
    Agreed, speed as a constant is a flaw. Equating caloric needs, where individual size is a constant, it has to be to draw any form of conclusion, isn't. It's an assumption but not a flaw.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  60. #60
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    How about realistic ones? Some of the assumptions the author made aren't. Assuming 20mph for both electric bikes and bicycles to calculate energy consumption is major flaw imo, just like assuming that someone who does x amount of work will consume x amount of food.
    If you want a discussion then please outline exactly what you want to compare. I'd love to crunch some numbers through that calculator.

    Human metabolism has been studied to death (hah-hah!) and for a given person x amount of work will need the consumption of x amount of food. For a healthy person the input is around 4 or 5 times the output. (Or an efficiency of 20~25%)

    The bigger variable IMO is the energy it takes to put food "on the table" and is what makes a global comparison pointless.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    If you want a discussion then please outline exactly what you want to compare. I'd love to crunch some numbers through that calculator

    .Several assumptions will be made in order to simplify the life-cycle comparison.
    The first is that the electric bike and the conventional bike have similar energy
    consumption per kilometre. This simplification is reasonable because electric
    bikes have the same aerodynamic profiles of regular bicycles, and the additional
    weight of the motor and battery pack is small compared to the gross vehicle
    weight. It fails to be true if an individual travels faster on an electric bike than they
    would under pedal alone, as air resistance adds considerably to the power
    requirements. But since the electric assistance is limited to 32 km/hr, about the
    same average speed of a skilled cyclist, it is fair to ignore this factor in a first
    order approximation
    .

    The author says it would fail to be true if an individual travels faster on an electric bike than they would under pedal power alone and I'm saying they do, therefore it fails to be true.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    The author says it would fail to be true if an individual travels faster on an electric bike than they would under pedal power alone and I'm saying they do, therefore it fails to be true.
    I think that may be poorly worded. At speeds under 20mph I find it hard to believe there is that drastic of change in resistance. Also, most e-bikers are probably not going to be pushing 20mph consistently.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  63. #63
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    The author says it would fail to be true if an individual travels faster on an electric bike than they would under pedal power alone and I'm saying they do, therefore it fails to be true.
    That's prejudiced; some e-bikers will be going faster, other won't. Again, the paper was sited in an "urban transit" setting and only peripherally applies to recreational MTB'ing. We'll probably agree that recreational e-biking is worse for the environment that regular recreational biking. (MTB or road)
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: armii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I used to be that way. We're talking 4k calories a day and not putting on a pound when playing basketball. I got hurt at about 23 and was off my feet for several months and that flipped the gain weight switch.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Me too, popped my knee when I was 26, more than 30 years ago, totally changed my metabolism. I have never been able to burn calories the same since, even even after healing up and back to seriously exercising.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: armii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    That's prejudiced; some e-bikers will be going faster, other won't. Again, the paper was sited in an "urban transit" setting and only peripherally applies to recreational MTB'ing. We'll probably agree that recreational e-biking is worse for the environment that regular recreational biking. (MTB or road)
    And both are less of an impact than the rich MFers, from the SC and their 1000+ lb horses, riding even (in the wet), rutting up trails, and leaving dumps for everyone else to enjoy.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I think that may be poorly worded. At speeds under 20mph I find it hard to believe there is that drastic of change in resistance. Also, most e-bikers are probably not going to be pushing 20mph consistently.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

    It takes about twice as much power to go from 15 to 20mph and almost 4x as much @25mph. I think that's significant, probably why the author mentioned it.

    The article was written in the context of commuting, you don't think people will be going mostly full throttle (so to speak) on their way to work?


    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    That's prejudiced; some e-bikers will be going faster, other won't. Again, the paper was sited in an "urban transit" setting and only peripherally applies to recreational MTB'ing. We'll probably agree that recreational e-biking is worse for the environment that regular recreational biking. (MTB or road)

    Prejudiced? Again, commuting. Yes, people will be going faster on them than they would on their bicycle, seems weird to argue that. Actually it's weird to argue any of this, especially since it has nothing to do with the op. I should have just said that I didn't agree with the article for the reasons I mentioned (and a few that I didn't) and left it at that, if anyone else doesn't agree I'm fine with that. Apologies to everyone.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  67. #67
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,593
    The first is that the electric bike and the conventional bike have similar energy consumption per kilometre. This simplification is reasonable because electric bikes have the same aerodynamic profiles of regular bicycles, and the additional weight of the motor and battery pack is small compared to the gross vehicle weight.

    Looking at Pedego's website (who claim to be "America’s biggest and best brand of electric bikes"), their "commuter" model is listed at 51+ pounds plus about 9 lbs for the battery. Even if you add in the riders weight to the totals, it is more than "small" and should not have been left out of the calculations.

    This treatment is also ignoring all secondary effects. For instance, the health benefits and costs of exercise will not be addressed…

    Granted, this would be complex. But if the bicycle commuter is fulfilling his/her exercise requirements and the ebiker is not and therefore has to perform another exercise to fulfill these requirements, they are going to burn a lot more calories that are not being accounted for. But yes, a lot of different things could go on here.

    But the biggest flaws in this study are that the author appears to have completely left out any calories needed to operate the ebike. Surely an ebiker rider uses some calories. They also assigned cost to the bicyclist that "includes the direct energy consumed by the agricultural industry, the energy used to produce fertilizers, pesticides, farm machinery, and the energy associated with the processing, packaging, transportation, and cooking of food products" and then the production and transportation of the battery, but where did he factor in the cost of production and transportation of the bicycle vs the cost of the electric motored ebike?

    This study is based on the energy requirements during riding but does not include the full picture and I think the author's assumptions make even the energy required for riding questionable.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  68. #68
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    Have you never got behind a Prius going 55 on the freeway? Or 55 in the diamond lane because they can? There's a whole segment out there that will maximize their mileage at any cost. Part "greenwash" and part IDGAF about other drivers.

    Similar physics with e-bikes; go twice as fast and have 1/4 the range. Generally speaking, by my observations (including how I ride), except for uphill, e-bikes are going no faster than pedal bikes.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  69. #69
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,179
    Quote Originally Posted by goodmojo View Post
    It ultimately is about which group has the most noisy stakeholders donating money.

    In 20 years once ebikes are mainstream for commuting and riding around, the lay public will be pushing to open up all trails for bikes.
    Hmmm... bicycles are mainstream for commuting and riding around already, but only about 15% of people in our country ride bicycles and only 3% of those who do ride bikes take them off road. Maybe ebikes will increase those numbers by a few points in 20 years, but cyclists will always be a small, unwanted minority by those who don't pedal.

    But I think in as few as 10 years, eMTB's will generally be accepted by the greater MTB community as well as the USFS and BLM.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    It takes about twice as much power to go from 15 to 20mph and almost 4x as much @25mph. I think that's significant, probably why the author mentioned it.

    The article was written in the context of commuting, you don't think people will be going mostly full throttle (so to speak) on their way to work?

    No, I don't. I know I don't on my pedal bikes. There is also the range issue.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  71. #71
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    Have you never got behind a Prius going 55 on the freeway? Or 55 in the diamond lane because they can? There's a whole segment out there that will maximize their mileage at any cost. Part "greenwash" and part IDGAF about other drivers.

    Similar physics with e-bikes; go twice as fast and have 1/4 the range. Generally speaking, by my observations (including how I ride), except for uphill, e-bikes are going no faster than pedal bikes.
    Then why do class 3 have a cut off at 28mph? Not meaning to argue with you Moe Ped, just pointing that out.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  72. #72
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Then why do class 3 have a cut off at 28mph? Not meaning to argue with you Moe Ped, just pointing that out.
    That number puts US Class 3 on par with Euro S-Pedelecs which are limited to 45 kph. (28 mph = 45 kph) And in most European countries S-Pedalecs can't go on bike paths, they must stay on the roads.

    Pretty sure that number was generated by the manufacturing lobbies.

    Above 28 mph is in the moped range, I should know; right???
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    14,008
    You mean to say that you guys pay $5,000 and up for those electric bikes and then putz around on them @15mph? On the road? I gotta say coming from a non-ebiker like myself that sounds flat out ridiculous but whatever floats your boat I guess. I know several people that either own e-bikes or have ridden a lot of them and they unanimously concur that higher speeds are one of, if not the biggest benefits over a bicycle.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    You mean to say that you guys pay $5,000 and up for those electric bikes and then putz around on them @15mph? On the road? I gotta say coming from a non-ebiker like myself that sounds flat out ridiculous but whatever floats your boat I guess. I know several people that either own e-bikes or have ridden a lot of them and they unanimously concur that higher speeds are one of, if not the biggest benefits over a bicycle.
    Me, no. I don't own one. Also, commuter models are nowhere near as expensive as what is listed here. The two guys who ride them to my office think going 12mph on them is fast because they couldn't maintain that on a "normal", never rode a road bike, think Walmart cruiser, bike.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  75. #75
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,856
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    Whether you know it or not, your attitude IS the problem that will get bikes banned in more places.
    How so?
    Fewer e-bikes on non motorized trails, fewer advocacy issues.
    Fewer modified ebikes, fewer conflicts.
    It’s simple.
    "We LOVE cows! They make trails for us.....

    And then we eat them."

    Thrill Bikers Unite!

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    How so?
    Fewer e-bikes on non motorized trails, fewer advocacy issues.
    Fewer modified ebikes, fewer conflicts.
    It’s simple.
    Look at New England. Not all advocates took this tact but quite a few educated land owners to be anti-ebike. Now there is potential for major issues. A hard and fast, unbending, negative stance will always miss the positive exceptions.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Funnily enough, the area of the country with one of the largest trail explosions, which is not stopping any time soon, is extremely e-bike friendly. Time to find another worn out argument.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    E bikes are something different and need to be treated as such.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    E bikes are something different and need to be treated as such.
    Then why has this area, among others, been so successful in including them with no issues?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Then why has this area, among others, been so successful in including them with no issues?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    He didn't say 'don't include them', he said that they're something different.

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

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    He didn't say 'don't include them', he said that they're something different.

    Which they are.
    You left out the "and treated as such". No such distinctions are made here. All with great success and no conflicts arising from them. If anything they are contributing to the boom.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    You left out the "and treated as such". No such distinctions are made here. All with great success and no conflicts arising from them. If anything they are contributing to the boom.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Maybe people around here don't want a 'boom', whatever that may be.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Maybe people around here don't want a 'boom', whatever that may be.
    Then maybe "people around [there]" should qualify their statements with "around here" rather than making ignorant sounding, absolute statements? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Then why has this area, among others, been so successful in including them with no issues?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    You in AR? MA guy here. Rules and regs vary all over. Really. MA has a mash of state, local, and regional land owners and rules. Mostly a non motor kind of thing on public lands, save for maybe 8 spots in the whole state. Motorized vehicles are highly regulated off road. Guessing a lot more people live here with more population density than in AR. Not going to be any boom here.

  84. #84
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Then why has this area, among others, been so successful in including them with no issues?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Where is "this area" of which you speak?
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    You in AR? MA guy here. Rules and regs vary all over. Really. MA has a mash of state, local, and regional land owners and rules. Mostly a non motor kind of thing on public lands, save for maybe 8 spots in the whole state. Motorized vehicles are highly regulated off road. Guessing a lot more people live here with more population density than in AR. Not going to be any boom here.
    See my above post concerning regional statements. Also, PRKR seems to be making it work. I think NEMBA actually hurt itself at the start of this with the "education" they gave landowners.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    Where is "this area" of which you speak?
    Bentonville

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I think NEMBA actually hurt itself at the start of this with the "education" they gave landowners.
    What 'education' is that?
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    What 'education' is that?
    The same one leeboh has been espousing...

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    The same one leeboh has been espousing...

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    That e-bikes are unique from mountain bikes because they have motors?

    Explain how I'm being 'hurt' by someone stating the obvious.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    That e-bikes are unique from mountain bikes because they have motors?

    Explain how I'm being 'hurt' by someone stating the obvious.
    No, their entire stance on e-bikes. It's no secret that not only is NEMBA aggressively against them but that they went well out of their way to poison the well with landowners. That check will eventually have to be cashed and the results will not be pretty.

    I did not you were the entire organization?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    See my above post concerning regional statements. Also, PRKR seems to be making it work. I think NEMBA actually hurt itself at the start of this with the "education" they gave landowners.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Have you read the document on the Nemba Homepage? And the MA rules and regs concerning motorized vehicles? Familiar with the moto history ( troubled) here? Much of the riding takes places on state forests and parks. Plenty on town conservation land and open space. All have almost no moto access allowed, by law. Huge amount of public space users. Some areas with existing bike/hiker/dog/horse conflicts. And adding a motorized vehicle(s) to the mix will help? Not. E bikes are different and need to do their own advocating, not ride the coat tails of the non moto bike/ hike groups. Ie. human powered. Future of e bikes? I see limited here in MA. So many other areas of the US do have moto access, lots of trails and fewer people. Go North of say Concord NH, lots of options. NH and VT have ATV and snow machine trails that go everywhere, all over.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    No, their entire stance on e-bikes. It's no secret that not only is NEMBA aggressively against them but that they went well out of their way to poison the well with landowners. That check will eventually have to be cashed and the results will not be pretty.

    I did not you were the entire organization?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    I'm not, but I've been a member for decades and I'm on a first name basis with much of the leadership as well as scores local key figures, so I'm figuring I've got a better idea of what our priorities are than you do. So, how are we hurting ourselves by stating we don't want to become the de facto leader of e-bike advocacy in the region, considering none of us are interested in taking up that fight in the least bit?

    Please include details, preferably based in reality.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    I'm not, but I've been a member for decades and I'm on a first name basis with much of the leadership as well as scores local key figures, so I'm figuring I've got a better idea of what our priorities are than you do. So, how are we hurting ourselves by stating we don't want to become the de facto leader of e-bike advocacy in the region, considering none of us are interested in taking up that fight in the least bit?

    Please include details, preferably based in reality.
    Look at your guidance to land managers on e-bikes. It goes well beyond not wanting "to become the de facto leader of e-bike advocacy". It's an aggressive anti-missive telling managers to flat out ban without putting any of their own thought or research into it. So unless you were attempting to soften the statement intentionally I would suggest perusing your organization's literature.

    As parts of the country move forward with well thought out, researched, conflict reducing plans users will expect this to be the norm. At that point NEMBA will have to go back and purify the well that it intentionally poisoned. That is never a fun situation to be in. At the very least it erodes trust.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Have you read the document on the Nemba Homepage? And the MA rules and regs concerning motorized vehicles? Familiar with the moto history ( troubled) here? Much of the riding takes places on state forests and parks. Plenty on town conservation land and open space. All have almost no moto access allowed, by law. Huge amount of public space users. Some areas with existing bike/hiker/dog/horse conflicts. And adding a motorized vehicle(s) to the mix will help? Not. E bikes are different and need to do their own advocating, not ride the coat tails of the non moto bike/ hike groups. Ie. human powered. Future of e bikes? I see limited here in MA. So many other areas of the US do have moto access, lots of trails and fewer people. Go North of say Concord NH, lots of options. NH and VT have ATV and snow machine trails that go everywhere, all over.
    I am and it is a problem of NEMBA's own making that inclusion would be so contentious there.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    I'm not, but I've been a member for decades and I'm on a first name basis with much of the leadership as well as scores local key figures, so I'm figuring I've got a better idea of what our priorities are than you do. So, how are we hurting ourselves by stating we don't want to become the de facto leader of e-bike advocacy in the region, considering none of us are interested in taking up that fight in the least bit?

    Please include details, preferably based in reality.
    On a side note, ADA is extremely favorable to mountain biking all things given at the moment. What will NEMBA do when "intended usage" is not a blanket cover and instead e-bike allowances have to be made for compliance purposes? That is something that is entirely possible and would be easy to make retroactive.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    No, their entire stance on e-bikes. It's no secret that not only is NEMBA aggressively against them but that they went well out of their way to poison the well with landowners. That check will eventually have to be cashed and the results will not be pretty.

    I did not you were the entire organization?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    What would a logical land manager do when mt bike organizations come in to warn of this two wheeled menace that not only look like mt bikes but are manufactured and sold alongside mt bikes? I would kill two birds with one stone and ban them both so to eliminate the whiners and the demon eBikes.

    One of the main reasons the bill to allow bikes in Wilderness stalled in the Senate is because there was public infighting among the bike community. The eBike hate from the bike community is just one more stain on our reputation as combative haters who are looking for a fight and nobody is our ally. Strength in numbers is how political battles are won. From the looks of who the average eMTBike purchaser is (older, wealthy, with leisure time, and politically connected in my observation) the politically crippled mt bikers would benefit greatly from having an ally so powerful, and potentially boosting our numbers instead of using eBikes as a wedge issue to fracture the community.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    As parts of the country move forward with well thought out, researched, conflict reducing plans users will expect this to be the norm. At that point NEMBA will have to go back and purify the well that itself poisoned. That is never a fun situation to be in. At the very least it erodes trust.
    Can you try to explain what this scenario actually involves in some sort of even remotely concrete way? Like, what exactly am I going to have to do with regard to my local trails and what exactly is going to force that to happen? You throw around a lot of super-vague figurative BS, but precisely what actual events are you predicting? Will the local rangers come to my house and hassle me? Will out of the blue all the LMs decide that mountain bikes are out and e-bikes are in, based on absolutely nothing at all? Seriously, how does your theoretical Chicken Little scenario play out in the real world? Cuz that's the only world I'm concerned with.

    Also, here is the link to the NEMBA article clarifying it's e-bike stance; I'm assuming this is the one that your talking about. I'll just leave it here so folks can see for themselves how desperately you're trying to twist what's actually said in it.

    https://www.nemba.org/news/dealers-g...mountain-bikes


    " If our mountain bike advocacy efforts need to include eMTBs, our successes will be few and far between. Right now, there isn’t much of a population of eMTB riders but if a user base does develop, this new community of eMTB riders will need to set up their own advocacy organization and make their own case for access."
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    On a side note, ADA is extremely favorable to mountain biking all things given at the moment. What will NEMBA do when "intended usage" is not a blanket cover and instead e-bike allowances have to be made for compliance purposes? That is something that is entirely possible and would be easy to make retroactive.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Tha ADA issue isn't one. Got a HP card? Go for it. Gong to see them doing drops, riding chunk and other tech stuff? Maybe. Or enjoying the mellow singletrack and double track. The State parks actually have a whole areas for ADA stuff, trails and outreach programs.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    What would a logical land manager do when mt bike organizations come in to warn of this two wheeled menace that not only look like mt bikes but are manufactured and sold alongside mt bikes? I would kill two birds with one stone and ban them both so to eliminate the whiners and the demon eBikes.

    One of the main reasons the bill to allow bikes in Wilderness stalled in the Senate is because there was public infighting among the bike community. The eBike hate from the bike community is just one more stain on our reputation as combative haters who are looking for a fight and nobody is our ally. Strength in numbers is how political battles are won. From the looks of who the average eMTBike purchaser is (older, wealthy, with leisure time, and politically connected in my observation) the politically crippled mt bikers would benefit greatly from having an ally so powerful, and potentially boosting our numbers instead of using eBikes as a wedge issue to fracture the community.
    There are tons of parallels here from motor vehicle access battles but "we're not motorized" so no one wants to acknowledge them. Part of the antis' early success was pitting different groups with similar goals, motos vs jeeps, against each other.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by figofspee View Post
    What would a logical land manager do when mt bike organizations come in to warn of this two wheeled menace that not only look like mt bikes but are manufactured and sold alongside mt bikes? I would kill two birds with one stone and ban them both so to eliminate the whiners and the demon eBikes.

    One of the main reasons the bill to allow bikes in Wilderness stalled in the Senate is because there was public infighting among the bike community. The eBike hate from the bike community is just one more stain on our reputation as combative haters who are looking for a fight and nobody is our ally. Strength in numbers is how political battles are won. From the looks of who the average eMTBike purchaser is (older, wealthy, with leisure time, and politically connected in my observation) the politically crippled mt bikers would benefit greatly from having an ally so powerful, and potentially boosting our numbers instead of using eBikes as a wedge issue to fracture the community.
    You're forgetting, there is not a "We"

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    There are tons of parallels here from motor vehicle access battles but "we're not motorized" so no one wants to acknowledge them. Part of the antis' early success was pitting different groups with similar goals, motos vs jeeps, against each other.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    OK, great. E bikes are aligned with motos and jeeps, good luck with your advocacy.

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    You're forgetting, there is not a "We"
    Precisely

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Also, here is the link to the NEMBA article clarifying it's e-bike stance; I'm assuming this is the one that your talking about. I'll just leave it here so folks can see for themselves how desperately you're trying to twist what's actually said in it.

    https://www.nemba.org/news/dealers-g...mountain-bikes

    And just so everyone can see how desperate you are to soften your organization's reactionary hardline stance here is their actual guidance document for land managers, what I have been discussing, not the red herring one issued to dealers (first time that's been mentioned in this debate so not sure where that came from).

    https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance...t-bikes-trails



    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    OK, great. E bikes are aligned with motos and jeeps, good luck with your advocacy.
    Point proven

    Anti orgs are playing Go while you're stuck playing checkers. Sadly, it took the off road community several huge losses to realize this. Too bad we can't learn from it. Same battles, same tactics, same results.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    On a side note, ADA is extremely favorable to mountain biking all things given at the moment. What will NEMBA do when "intended usage" is not a blanket cover and instead e-bike allowances have to be made for compliance purposes? That is something that is entirely possible and would be easy to make retroactive.
    There is no concern about ADA exemptions, and they have zero to do with general trail access. 100% red herring, as well as statistically insignificant.

    FWIW, Lee and I are among a number of NEMBA folks who regularly attend events specifically aimed at increasing wheeled trail access options for disabled users, powered or not. Like I said, it's not a concern whatsoever.

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

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Look at your guidance to land managers on e-bikes. It goes well beyond not wanting "to become the de facto leader of e-bike advocacy". It's an aggressive anti-missive telling managers to flat out ban without putting any of their own thought or research into it. So unless you were attempting to soften the statement intentionally I would suggest perusing your organization's literature.

    As parts of the country move forward with well thought out, researched, conflict reducing plans users will expect this to be the norm. At that point NEMBA will have to go back and purify the well that it intentionally poisoned. That is never a fun situation to be in. At the very least it erodes trust.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Hmmm. Ever pedaled in New England or MA? You might be missing out on the fact that motorized vehicles are not allowed on the trails here. Save for 8 or so places, most in the western part of the state. Nemba advocates for human powered access and mt bike trails. You really don't have a clue of the hard fought battles for bike access here, still being fought. And adding motorized vehicles will help? Not. Conflict reducing? Hmmm. Not. What works in one part of the country will not fly everywhere. NH and VT have moto trails that go the entire length, lots of choices there. Adding motos to one of the most crowded multi trail areas in the East? Not.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    There is no concern about ADA exemptions, and they have zero to do with general trail access. 100% red herring, as well as statistically insignificant.

    FWIW, Lee and I are among a number of NEMBA folks who regularly attend events specifically aimed at increasing wheeled trail access options for disabled users, powered or not. Like I said, it's not a concern whatsoever.

    It absolutely is a concern. Just because mountain biking as a primary activity is currently an exemption does not mean that will hold forever. No, they do not control general trail access. They do control trail design and mobility access.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Hmmm. Ever pedaled in New England or MA? You might be missing out on the fact that motorized vehicles are not allowed on the trails here. Save for 8 or so places, most in the western part of the state. Nemba advocates for human powered access and mt bike trails. You really don't have a clue of the hard fought battles for bike access here, still being fought. And adding motorized vehicles will help? Not. Conflict reducing? Hmmm. Not. What works in one part of the country will not fly everywhere. NH and VT have moto trails that go the entire length, lots of choices there. Adding motos to one of the most crowded multi trail areas in the East? Not.
    I'll explain this again. The resistance to e-bikes in your part of the country is a problem created by your access organization, https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance...t-bikes-trails . Any argument concerning that has to start there. It is a self manufactured issue.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Point proven

    Anti orgs are playing Go while you're stuck playing checkers. Sadly, it took the off road community several huge losses to realize this. Too bad we can't learn from it. Same battles, same tactics, same results.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Playing checkers? Or riding sweet trails that I have helped build for the last 18 years.

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Playing checkers? Or riding sweet trails that I have helped build for the last 18 years.
    Checkers, definitely checkers

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    And just so everyone can see how desperate you are to soften your organization's reactionary hardline stance here is their actual guidance document for land managers, what I have been discussing, not the red herring one issued to dealers (first time that's been mentioned in this debate so not sure where that came from).

    https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance...t-bikes-trails
    Nothing 'hardline' about recognizing that e-bikes have motors and not wanting them to be confused with mountain bikes. As far as having them managed as a class of motorized vehicle, well, they are. I personally don't feel that they can't or shouldn't ever be given a chance access trails that have been traditionally non-motorized, but it's on e-bikers to get themselves to that point with LMs. I also feel it's a good idea to keep the distinction between mountain bikes and e-bikes as clear as possible in LMs and other user groups minds. This is exactly the point we spent years driving home as far as differentiating MTBs for all motorized user groups, and that has been a major reason for our great success in maintaining and expanding trail access here. LMs simply aren't interested in adding motors back into the mix here; they had a lot of bad experiences in the past and consider allowing e-bikes to be like cracking open Pandoras box again. I myself don't see them as that big a deal, but I'm sure as hell not interested in wasting my time trying to fight for them.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    And just so everyone can see how desperate you are to soften your organization's reactionary hardline stance here is their actual guidance document for land managers, what I have been discussing, not the red herring one issued to dealers (first time that's been mentioned in this debate so not sure where that came from).

    https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance...t-bikes-trails



    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Yup, makes sense. E bikes have motors. They need to do their own advocacy. I'm just one of 5,000 plus trail riders and dirt shapers here. And belong to one of 28 chapters. Go advocate for NWA. Were good here. Mt bikers have become the go to resource for trail building and advocacy for MT BIKES. The one without motors. Want to change all the existing rules and laws? Go for it. Hikers and dog walkers out number us in most areas, what do you think their opinion of motos are?

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Yup, makes sense. E bikes have motors. They need to do their own advocacy. I'm just one of 5,000 plus trail riders and dirt shapers here. And belong to one of 28 chapters. Go advocate for NWA. Were good here. Mt bikers have become the go to resource for trail building and advocacy for MT BIKES. The one without motors. Want to change all the existing rules and laws? Go for it. Hikers and dog walkers out number us in most areas, what do you think their opinion of motos are?
    Then why do you never mention "here" when you give out a blanket statement? One has to wonder.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  114. #114
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    From my perspective in California (birthplace of the Sierra Club) the NEMBA position is spot-on:

    A little naive perhaps in regards to what they consider "Class 4" and DIY bikes (no mention of hub motors at all).

    Their "Wanted Poster" (so to speak) made me chuckle:

    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Nothing 'hardline' about recognizing that e-bikes have motors and not wanting them to be confused with mountain bikes. As far as having them managed as a class of motorized vehicle, well, they are. I personally don't feel that they can't or shouldn't ever be given a chance access trails that have been traditionally non-motorized, but it's on e-bikers to get themselves to that point with LMs. I also feel it's a good idea to keep the distinction between mountain bikes and e-bikes as clear as possible in LMs and other user groups minds. This is exactly the point we spent years driving home as far as differentiating MTBs for all motorized user groups, and that has been a major reason for our great success in maintaining and expanding trail access here. LMs simply aren't interested in adding motors back into the mix here; they had a lot of bad experiences in the past and consider allowing e-bikes to be like cracking open Pandoras box again. I myself don't see them as that big a deal, but I'm sure as hell not interested in wasting my time trying to fight for them.
    Read it objectively. That missive is horribly biased and aggressive. It in no way suggests a case by case basis it just uses incindiary language to call for a blanket ban.

    I have issue with the well people are against it here so it won't work cop out when those very people were educated to be against it from the start. A self made problem is not an excuse.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I'll explain this again. The resistance to e-bikes in your part of the country is a problem created by your access organization, https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance...t-bikes-trails . Any argument concerning that has to start there. It is a self manufactured issue.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Talk to the horse folk, the AMC, The Sierra Club, dog walkers and hikers groups too. Add in the " friends" of the forest groups. What are those opinions like with the motos? Yes, you said it " Access Organization" yup. We do our own access, not another user group. We don't see it as a problem, why do you?

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Talk to the horse folk, the AMC, The Sierra Club, dog walkers and hikers groups too. Add in the " friends" of the forest groups. What are those opinions like with the motos? Yes, you said it " Access Organization" yup. We do our own access, not another user group. We don't see it as a problem, why do you?
    I don't see "it" as a problem. I see it when you espouse your organization's destined to fail idiology as a global, blanket statement. You qualify it with the "locally" caveat and it's saddening but no real problem.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    It absolutely is a concern. Just because mountain biking as a primary activity is currently an exemption does not mean that will hold forever. No, they do not control general trail access. They do control trail design and mobility access.
    They do NOT 'control trail design'. I have never heard of a case in 20+ years of building trails where someone from the ADA has inserted themselves into a trail project and started telling anyone what they can and can't do.

    And again, no one of any consequence is concerned with legitimate ADA exemptions. That pool of users is so tiny that it's practically non-existent. The only place it's blown wildly out of proportion is here.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    They do NOT 'control trail design'. I have never heard of a case in 20+ years of building trails where someone from the ADA has inserted themselves into a trail project and started telling anyone what they can and can't do.

    And again, no one of any consequence is concerned with legitimate ADA exemptions. That pool of users is so tiny that it's practically non-existent. The only place it's blown wildly out of proportion is here.
    Correct they do not as long as it has an exemption condition attached. If it does not have one, it absolutely has to follow guidelines, unless it is grandfathered in. All it takes is one NIMBY individual and boom court case.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    A self made problem is not an excuse.
    I'm still having trouble identifying the 'problem'.
    You haven't yet explained exactly what it is that you keep insisting we have to worry about. NEMBA isn't getting behind e-bikes and sees a huge issue with confusing them with mountain bikes. BFD.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Read it objectively. That missive is horribly biased and aggressive. It in no way suggests a case by case basis it just uses incindiary language to call for a blanket ban.

    I have issue with the well people are against it here so it won't work cop out when those very people were educated to be against it from the start. A self made problem is not an excuse.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Not a problem for me. Do you pedal in New England or MA? Lots of great trails to pedal your bike. Cheers. Read the rules, really. And the existing laws currently on the books. Going to change the open space rules and conservation lands we pedal on? Needs to happen at the state house level, not some ranger or conservation land mangers' desk. Again, no clue how stuff works here.

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    I'm still having trouble identifying the 'problem'.
    You haven't yet explained exactly what it is that you keep insisting we have to worry about. NEMBA isn't getting behind e-bikes and sees a huge issue with confusing them with mountain bikes. BFD.
    You have poisoned the well, intentionally. Eventually that stance will change. At this point it's inevitable. May not be in five, ten or fifteen years but it's coming. At that point your organization has lost credibility with land managers due to a reversal on its guidance. That's just one major problem.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  123. #123
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Read it objectively. That missive is horribly biased and aggressive. It in no way suggests a case by case basis it just uses incindiary language to call for a blanket ban.

    I have issue with the well people are against it here so it won't work cop out when those very people were educated to be against it from the start. A self made problem is not an excuse.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    You're not in an area where the majority of trail users are hikers and the majority of those hikers align with Sierra Club policies.

    Classifying e-bikes as bicycles simply drags all 2-wheeled vehicles towards the motorized camp.

    NEMBA is trying to maintain separation; getting in bed with motor vehicles probably wouldn't work in New England; certainly wouldn't work in California.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post

    NEMBA is trying to maintain separation; getting in bed with motor vehicles probably wouldn't work in New England; certainly wouldn't work in California.
    Nope, there hasn't been an allowance to use e-bikes on national land in California. That would never happen...

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Correct they do not as long as it has an exemption condition attached. If it does not have one, it absolutely has to follow guidelines, unless it is grandfathered in. All it takes is one NIMBY individual and boom court case.
    So, you're saying every mountain bike trail that's been built in your area is wheelchair accessible? And all it takes is one court case and 'boom' every trail in the country will all of a sudden...what? Be closed unless volunteers completely rebuild them to sidewalks? Or...what exactly?

    You constantly throw around a whole bunch of theoretical malarkey that simply has no base in reality. How about try a detailed example based in reality?
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Then why do you never mention "here" when you give out a blanket statement? One has to wonder.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Uhhh, Nemba starts with New England? Pretty clear where that is. Northeast US. Yup that corner where lots of the Baseball and Football winners are.

  127. #127
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Nope, there hasn't been an allowance to use e-bikes on national land in California. That would never happen...

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Huh? What are you talking about?
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    So, you're saying every mountain bike trail that's been built in your area is wheelchair accessible? And all it takes is one court case and 'boom' every trail in the country will all of a sudden...what? Be closed unless volunteers completely rebuild them to sidewalks? Or...what exactly?

    You constantly throw around a whole bunch of theoretical malarkey that simply has no base in reality. How about try a detailed example based in reality?
    No, because it has a primary usage exception. All you have to do, currently, is list mountain biking as primary usage and you do not have to comply. There is no guarantee that holds true in perpetuity.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    Huh? What are you talking about?
    Mammoth

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  130. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Uhhh, Nemba starts with New England? Pretty clear where that is. Northeast US. Yup that corner where lots of the Baseball and Football winners are.
    That would work, except the post I responded to originally did not say NEMBA...

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    You have poisoned the well, intentionally. Eventually that stance will change. At this point it's inevitable. May not be in five, ten or fifteen years but it's coming. At that point your organization has lost credibility with land managers due to a reversal on its guidance. That's just one major problem.
    We have more credibility than any other user group with land managers in most of the area. They contract us to teach them trail building and maintenance techniques, and we do huge amounts of volunteer work for them.

    You still can't give any sort of actual clear example what the issues you keep warning of are. There is no well, there is no poison. There are trails, advocacy orgs, user groups, and land managers. Try putting things in terms that actually relate to the subject.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    You have poisoned the well, intentionally. Eventually that stance will change. At this point it's inevitable. May not be in five, ten or fifteen years but it's coming. At that point your organization has lost credibility with land managers due to a reversal on its guidance. That's just one major problem.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Oh. wait. It's inevitable. Hmmm. Time will tell. We ( mt bikers) are the resource that land managers depend on to get stuff done, fund raise for the parks, build bridges and do trail work. For all those parks that are underfunded and under staffed. Hmmm. We show up for park clean days, report issues, and keep an eye on things? That show up for friends meetings, conservation meetings, and discuss trails that need attention? The mt bikers that have had the ear and trust for the last 20 + years with some land managers? That kind of credibility? We're good here.

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    We have more credibility than any other user group with land managers in most of the area. They contract us to teach them trail building and maintenance techniques, and we do huge amounts of volunteer work for them.

    You still can't give any sort of actual clear example what the issues you keep warning of are. There is no well, there is no poison. There are trails, advocacy orgs, user groups, and land managers. Try putting things in terms that actually relate to the subject.
    All of your first paragraph is the well. The poison is the stance you have educated them to take. Poisoning the well is a basic argumentative tactic. One NEMBA has executed to a T. That stance will not be effective long term.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    That would work, except the post I responded to originally did not say NEMBA...

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    OK, yup, every other post I said MA, New England or Nemba. Clearer?

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    No, because it has a primary usage exception. All you have to do, currently, is list mountain biking as primary usage and you do not have to comply. There is no guarantee that holds true in perpetuity.
    I know all about the ADA guidelines.

    Now, how about you explain in detail to yourself why it is that almost every hiking trail in the country hasn't had to be rebuilt, since they don't fall under the MTB exemption.

    And again, the ADA shit is a statistically insignificant rathole. I know you pretty much seem to live for trying to turn molehills into mountains, but allowing e-bikes to be classified as OPDMDs (which they already are in many places outside of federal lands) is such a non-issue, it's laughable.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    I know all about the ADA guidelines.

    Now, how about you explain in detail to yourself why it is that almost every hiking trail in the country hasn't had to be rebuilt, since they don't fall under the MTB exemption.

    And again, the ADA shit is a statistically insignificant rathole. I know you pretty much seem to live for trying to turn molehills into mountains, but allowing e-bikes to be classified as OPDMDs (which they already are in many places outside of federal lands) is such a non-issue, it's laughable.
    The key word there is grandfathered but you already knew that.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    No, because it has a primary usage exception. All you have to do, currently, is list mountain biking as primary usage and you do not have to comply. There is no guarantee that holds true in perpetuity.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Again, no clue here. 99.9 % of the trails I work on are mutli use trails, not mt bike trails.

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    All of your first paragraph is the well. The poison is the stance you have educated them to take. Poisoning the well is a basic argumentative tactic. One NEMBA has executed to a T. That stance will not be effective long term.
    And what exactly will happen? A plague of metaphors? Scary...
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  139. #139
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Mammoth

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Closed for the season.

    Leased, privately owned.

    Not very applicable to e-bike trail access. Or maybe it is; it took "only" 65 years to develop a relationship with the USFS to get to where they are today.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Again, no clue here. 99.9 % of the trails I work on are mutli use trails, not mt bike trails.
    Yes, but what is their primary usage designation?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    Closed for the season.

    Leased, privately owned.

    Not very applicable to e-bike trail access. Or maybe it is; it took "only" 65 years to develop a relationship with the USFS to get to where they are today.
    They convinced the USFS to allow e-bikes on their land, in CA. So based on your comments it is relevant.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    The key word there is grandfathered but you already knew that.
    So you saying that you actually believe that some point in the future, it will be illegal to build any trail anywhere that isn't fully wheelchair accessible?

    You're wacky.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    And what exactly will happen? A plague of metaphors? Scary...
    It will cause an erosion of trust. All those things you listed that your great relationship makes easy cease to be as easy.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Yes, but what is their primary usage designation?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Hiking
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    So you saying that you actually believe that some point in the future, it will be illegal to build any trail anywhere that isn't fully wheelchair accessible?

    You're wacky.
    Nice strawman, time to make it an effigy. No, however I do see allowing e-bikes as a requirement for mobility impaired individuals as a possibility.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    It will cause an erosion of trust. All those things you listed that your great relationship makes easy cease to be as easy.
    Fantasy land.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Hiking
    Uh huh

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Fantasy land.
    Exactly, glad you finally realized where NEMBA is living.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Nice strawman, time to make it an effigy. No, however I do see allowing e-bikes as a requirement for mobility impaired individuals as a possibility.
    They already are in the majority of non-federal lands. BFD. Most riders I know support the idea. And again, why the big hang-up on a tiny fraction of a fraction of percentage point of riders? Always looking for some way to try to play lawyer on the internet...
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    They already are in the majority of non-federal lands. BFD. Most riders I know support the idea. And again, why the big hang-up on a tiny fraction of a fraction of percentage point of riders? Always looking for some way to try to play lawyer on the internet...
    Because your organization has told land managers that they are the devil. Now, at some point in the future, you go back and say well if we want to keep our trails you have to allow the devil in. How is that conversation going to go?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Uh huh

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    100% true. I honestly don't know of a single designated MTB trail on public property in the region. I'm sure there must be a couple here and there, but the overwhelming majority of the trails we build do not have a official primary designation of mountain biking.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    100% true. I honestly don't know of a single designated MTB trail on public property in the region. I'm sure there must be a couple here and there, but the overwhelming majority of the trails we build do not have a official primary designation of mountain biking.
    I would hazard a guess all your new construction is listed as something other than hiking. Otherwise you are wide open to an ADA compliance suit. There are other mitigating factors as well but a non-ped designation is by far the most concrete.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Because your organization has told land managers that they are the devil. Now, at some point in the future, you go back and say well if we want to keep our trails you have to allow the devil in. How is that conversation going to go?
    The conversation doesn't need to take place, because that's already how things are, and no one cares.
    Much like the feral dog gang problem the rest of the country seems to be dealing with, people making a stink about a few handicapped folks using e-bikes to get out on the trails isn't something that's a big issue to us here.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    The conversation doesn't need to take place, because that's already how things are, and no one cares.
    Much like the feral dog gang problem the rest of the country seems to be dealing with, people making a stink about a few handicapped folks using e-bikes to get out on the trails isn't something that's a big issue to us here.
    Perhaps currently, as an informal policy I can see how it works. However, when you have to go to the land manager and explain he has to make an explicit policy allowing something he has been conditioned to be terrified of do you actually see that conversation going well?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I would hazard a guess all your new construction is listed as something other than hiking. Otherwise you are wide open to an ADA compliance suit. There are other mitigating factors as well but a non-ped designation is by far the most concrete.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Do what I did - call the National ADA Trails Coordinator directly and talk with him for a few hours and exchange a few follow-up emails getting your ducks in a row on this.
    You are definitely wildly off-base as far as requirements for trail construction.
    Try back when you're educated.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Perhaps currently, as an informal policy I can see how it works. However, when you have to go to the land manager and explain he has to make an explicit policy allowing something he has been conditioned to be terrified of do you actually see that conversation going well?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    They don't have to. They have to go through explicit steps if they want to DENY ADA access for certain vehicle classes, not to allow them.

    I thought you were pretending to understand how this stuff works?

    And why in the world would I or any other random rider be the one that you think gets called up to explain policy to an LM? I don't care how that conversation goes, because I won't be there; it'll be the LMs and their bosses. Again, reality. Try it.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Do what I did - call the National ADA Trails Coordinator directly and talk with him for a few hours and exchange a few follow-up emails getting your ducks in a row on this.
    You are definitely wildly off-base as far as requirements for trail construction.
    Try back when you're educated.
    I would be interested in viewing your documentation on those trails. I'd prefer to be 100% solid, as per the law, rather than utilize a person's, once it goes to court that's all the director is, a person, opinion as my cover.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    They don't have to. They have to go through explicit steps if they want to DENY ADA access for certain vehicle classes, not to allow them.

    I thought you were pretending to understand how this stuff works?
    Back to fantasy land. We both know if a rule is written explicitly banning said object then there will have to be a change if it suddenly becomes an approved exception. Even if it is just to stave off mis-informed enforcement issues.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Back to fantasy land. We both know if a rule is written explicitly banning said object then there will have to be a change if it suddenly becomes an approved exception. Even if it is just to stave off mis-informed enforcement issues.
    Wrong. Educate yourself on trail guidelines regarding OPDMDs per the ADA.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  160. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Wrong. Educate yourself on trail guidelines regarding OPDMDs per the ADA.
    I did not say the rule had to be there for ADA compliance. If you wouldn't rush to strawman as often as possible this conversation would go much smoother.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I did not say the rule had to be there for ADA compliance. If you wouldn't rush to strawman as often as possible this conversation would go much smoother.
    True to form, now that it's obvious you can't make any legitimate points, you want to start endlessly arguing pointless semantics.

    Sorry, you're on your own now (unless you can find another internet wannabe lawyer to play with).
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Back to fantasy land. We both know if a rule is written explicitly banning said object then there will have to be a change if it suddenly becomes an approved exception. Even if it is just to stave off mis-informed enforcement issues.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Wrong. Educate yourself on trail guidelines regarding OPDMDs per the ADA.


    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I did not say the rule had to be there for ADA compliance. If you wouldn't rush to strawman as often as possible this conversation would go much smoother.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    True to form, now that it's obvious you can't make any legitimate points, you want to start endlessly arguing pointless semantics.

    Sorry, you're on your own now (unless you can find another internet wannabe lawyer to play with).
    I'm sorry you failed to read the last sentence of the post you quoted. There I've apologized, feel better?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I would hazard a guess all your new construction is listed as something other than hiking. Otherwise you are wide open to an ADA compliance suit. There are other mitigating factors as well but a non-ped designation is by far the most concrete.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    You would guess wrong.

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    You would guess wrong.
    Wicked shocka!
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    You have poisoned the well, intentionally. Eventually that stance will change. At this point it's inevitable. May not be in five, ten or fifteen years but it's coming. At that point your organization has lost credibility with land managers due to a reversal on its guidance. That's just one major problem.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Problem? Not for me. Again, " it's inevitable" ? That there is funny. So now you worry about our org? The poison one. Hmmm. If the laws change, whatever. So be it. So your e bike advocacy group has how many members? Where are the chapters located? States involved?

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Problem? Not for me. Again, " it's inevitable" ? That there is funny.
    Almost as funny as rambling on about someone suing YOU personally for volunteering to help build trails for the state precisely the way they asked for them to be built.

    'But...but...LAWSUIT!!!! STRAWMAN!!!'

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

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    Problem? Not for me. Again, " it's inevitable" ? That there is funny. So now you worry about our org? The poison one. Hmmm. If the laws change, whatever. So be it. So your e bike advocacy group has how many members? Where are the chapters located? States involved?
    IMBA is a pretty big eBike organization.

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by slapheadmofo View Post
    Almost as funny as rambling on about someone suing YOU personally for volunteering to help build trails for the state precisely the way they asked for them to be built.

    'But...but...LAWSUIT!!!! STRAWMAN!!!'

    LOL!
    Exactly, strawman it's all you appear to know how to do.

    Also, it does not have to be, and most likely would not be, the state or land manager suing for ADA , but you're the self proclaimed ADA expert here so I'm sure you knew that.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    They convinced the USFS to allow e-bikes on their land, in CA. So based on your comments it is relevant.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    They are allowed only on the ski resort, all trails off the private land are closed to mopeds. You could ride on the road, take some lifts then beat it back down the road. Not allowed on FS land.
    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
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiantsfan View Post
    They are allowed only on the ski resort, all trails off the private land are closed to mopeds. You could ride on the road, take some lifts then beat it back down the road. Not allowed on FS land.
    I would suggest getting your facts straight. Mammoth is on USFS land. So yes, ebikes are allowed on Forest Service land as long as the Forest Service land is within the boundaries of the bike park.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  171. #171
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I would suggest getting your facts straight. Mammoth is on USFS land. So yes, ebikes are allowed on Forest Service land as long as the Forest Service land is within the boundaries of the bike park.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



    Mammoth is a lease, you know that and you know the intent of the post.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Mammoth is a lease, you know that and you know the intent of the post.
    STRAWMAN!!!

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

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    331
    How many Federal land managers have a look the other way approach to eBikes? How many Federal Agencies are actively ticketing eBikes? It seems that many local communities allow them on trails surrounding Federal lands, so you can imagine that Law Enforcement puts them pretty low on the hit list, especially so considering the government shutdown.

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    So your solution is poaching? That should go over well.

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    So your solution is poaching? That should go over well.
    Sometimes ignoring a law can have consequences, but like everything in life you need to balance risk and reward.

  176. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,499
    So, " The future of e bikes" thread, you advocate poaching. Got it.

  177. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    So, " The future of e bikes" thread, you advocate poaching. Got it.
    I am strongly against poaching, especially when they leave the carcass to rot.

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Mammoth is a lease, you know that and you know the intent of the post.
    No, the fact that Mammoth is USFS land was the entire point of bringing it up. It's a changing of attitudes. Up until this year they had been banned by the USFS, even on the resort. Now they are allowed due to the USFS changing its position.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  179. #179
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    No, the fact that Mammoth is USFS land was the entire point of bringing it up. It's a changing of attitudes. Up until this year they had been banned by the USFS, even on the resort. Now they are allowed due to the USFS changing its position.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


    Yes, changing it's position on land within the resort boundaries. The FACT remains, outside of those boundaries e-bikes are still prohibited. You may feel like your winning, arguing about some point of minutia but that's like winning the Special Olympics.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  180. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Yes, changing it's position on land within the resort boundaries. The FACT remains, outside of those boundaries e-bikes are still prohibited. You may feel like your winning, arguing about some point of minutia but that's like winning the Special Olympics.
    You and giantsfan are the ones adding the incorrect details. There was a point made about it being difficult to improve ebike access in CA. Mammoth is a pretty infamous example of improving it. The fact that it is USFS owned and regulated land makes it an even stronger advancement. It's not private land, not even a normal lease technically, as was asserted. It is USFS land and regulations were changed for it.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Total strawman argument, and I'd say they're very likely to be sued about it the near (or far) future.
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  182. #182
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,658
    This is the most activity this forum has seen in a long time. I wonder if this thread will get to 200 before it gets locked?

    Anyway RE Mammoth it's a bad example; the original owner had a relationship with the USFS going back 50~60 years (did somebody say grandfathered?) and when sold it brought $300 million plus. Likely worth much more now.

    Some Podunk bike club (or e-bike club) has neither those kinds of resources nor the decades of business exposure that Dave McCoy had. (It looks like he's still kicking at 103!)

    Money talks bull$hit walks.

    Dream on.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe Ped View Post
    This is the most activity this forum has seen in a long time. I wonder if this thread will get to 200 before it gets locked?

    Anyway RE Mammoth it's a bad example; the original owner had a relationship with the USFS going back 50~60 years (did somebody say grandfathered?) and when sold it brought $300 million plus. Likely worth much more now.

    Some Podunk bike club (or e-bike club) has neither those kinds of resources nor the decades of business exposure that Dave McCoy had. (It looks like he's still kicking at 103!)

    Money talks bull$hit walks.

    Dream on.
    So when did he sell it?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    No, the fact that Mammoth is USFS land was the entire point of bringing it up. It's a changing of attitudes. Up until this year they had been banned by the USFS, even on the resort. Now they are allowed due to the USFS changing its position.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

    Do you think that if the resort wasn't there, that this small section of FS land would be open to e-bikes? I feel it would be just like the land that currently surrounds it.
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiantsfan View Post
    Do you think that if the resort wasn't there, that this small section of FS land would be open to e-bikes? I feel it would be just like the land that currently surrounds it.
    Why would you assume I did? It's like any other access battle it's a foot in the door. I can understand why, with your self admitted bias, you are doing everything you can to minimize and obfuscate this but the matter of the fact is that ebikes now have a foot in the door on USFS land. If the trial is successful and brings in extra revenue the footprint will grow.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  186. #186
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Why would you assume I did? It's like any other access battle it's a foot in the door. I can understand why, with your self admitted bias, you are doing everything you can to minimize and obfuscate this but the matter of the fact is that ebikes now have a foot in the door on USFS land. If the trial is successful and brings in extra revenue the footprint will grow.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


    What sketchy logic you use. The fact that the lease holder is responsible for the approval of e-bike usage and has little to nothing to do with USFS policy is lost on you. Keep dreaming of wide spread adoption, that's as close as it's likely to get in the foreseeable future, a dream.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    What sketchy logic you use. The fact that the lease holder is responsible for the approval of e-bike usage and has little to nothing to do with USFS policy is lost on you. Keep dreaming of wide spread adoption, that's as close as it's likely to get in the foreseeable future, a dream.
    No, the lease holder cannot unilaterally make that decision. It is a decision that has to be made by the USFS. A lease to operate a resort on USFS land is not a license to do what one wants. In this case the USFS had to grant an exemption. I agree someone is missing quite a bit but in this instance it is not me.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    8,801
    Again, why the focus on attempting to assign undue significance to minor and isolated exceptions? Making mountains out of molehills again...
    Sinister Bikes
    Wraith Bicycles
    Sunday River Mtn Bike Park
    NEMBA
    Wachusett Brewing Co.

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    936
    Bike parks are a really lly bad example. They have all sorts of unique traits that do not make them relevant to a discussion about ebikes on multi-use singletrack trails.

    Like and this is probably the biggest one "No hikers allowed" and mostly directional trails. (mammoth has one that isn't and would probably be fun to climb on an ebike).

    Also dedicated trail crews, rescue, etc etc.

    Almost all the concerns about eMTBs are for general use trails that are multi-directional.

    But I don't understand why none of your arguments point to studies / opinions / etc from across the ocean where eMTBs are more accepted.

    I also don't understand why you would expect an mtb organization to advocate for your ebike. Go do that yourself. Get off the forum and start your own group. Fight your own battles.

    I just read the NEMBA statement to trail managers. While I agree with most of it - I think they sort of shot themselves in the foot with the inclusion of the average speed data. My average speed going up a hill might be 5 to 7mph. But, it's significantly faster going downhill and it's easy to use the speed arguments to deny MTBs access.

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by cassieno View Post
    Bike parks are a really lly bad example. They have all sorts of unique traits that do not make them relevant to a discussion about ebikes on multi-use singletrack trails.

    Like and this is probably the biggest one "No hikers allowed" and mostly directional trails. (mammoth has one that isn't and would probably be fun to climb on an ebike).

    Also dedicated trail crews, rescue, etc etc.

    Almost all the concerns about eMTBs are for general use trails that are multi-directional.

    But I don't understand why none of your arguments point to studies / opinions / etc from across the ocean where eMTBs are more accepted.

    I also don't understand why you would expect an mtb organization to advocate for your ebike. Go do that yourself. Get off the forum and start your own group. Fight your own battles.

    I just read the NEMBA statement to trail managers. While I agree with most of it - I think they sort of shot themselves in the foot with the inclusion of the average speed data. My average speed going up a hill might be 5 to 7mph. But, it's significantly faster going downhill and it's easy to use the speed arguments to deny MTBs access.
    Mammoth is just one example. Bentonville would be an example of what you are looking for, and no, outside of Coler maintenance really isn't performed by trail crews.


    Agreed on the NEMBA foot shooting, on multiple levels.
    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  191. #191
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Mammoth is just one example. Bentonville would be an example of what you are looking for, and no, outside of Coler maintenance really isn't performed by trail crews.


    Agreed on the NEMBA foot shooting, on multiple levels.
    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk





    Are the trails in Bentonville built on Nation Forest land? If not then it's not a good example.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Are the trails in Bentonville built on Nation Forest land? If not then it's not a good example.
    Did the post I responded to ask for NFS land examples specifically?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  193. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    936
    I didn't ask for any examples. I said choosing a bike park with a land lease that happens to be on USFS land is not a good case for your argument. Pretty sure Northstar has allowed ebikes before. Still not a good example.

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by cassieno View Post
    I didn't ask for any examples. I said choosing a bike park with a land lease that happens to be on USFS land is not a good case for your argument. Pretty sure Northstar has allowed ebikes before. Still not a good example.
    Which was I mentioned Bentonville for an example.

    Mammoth is still a good example ignoring the bike park aspects. It highlights a softening in the USFS attitudes.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Which was I mentioned Bentonville for an example.

    Mammoth is still a good example ignoring the bike park aspects. It highlights a softening in the USFS attitudes.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Do you think they would be allowed there if no private lease holder/ski resort/mountain bike park was there?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  196. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by sfgiantsfan View Post
    Do you think they would be allowed there if no private lease holder/ski resort/mountain bike park was there?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Would they be allowed there if the USFS had not instituted a policy change? That's a more pertinent question.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  197. #197
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Would they be allowed there if the USFS had not instituted a policy change? That's a more pertinent question.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



    It isn't a tidal change in USFS culture, I don't know why you insist that it is changing everything. Or even opening the door to wholesale change.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    It isn't a tidal change in USFS culture, I don't know why you insist that it is changing everything. Or even opening the door to wholesale change.
    I'm not insisting it's "changing everything". However, to put it frankly, if you don't think it is a potential inflection point for a change in policy you're deluding yourself.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  199. #199
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I'm not insisting it's "changing everything". However, to put it frankly, if you don't think it is a potential inflection point for a change in policy you're deluding yourself.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



    If you think it changes anything outside the confines of the lease hold I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. The USFS has long made exemptions for facilities and infrastructure to lease holders without instituting any change to the national forests, it's just a normal part of doing business. But, good luck on your unicorn hunt.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    If you think it changes anything outside the confines of the lease hold I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. The USFS has long made exemptions for facilities and infrastructure to lease holders without instituting any change to the national forests, it's just a normal part of doing business. But, good luck on your unicorn hunt.
    Like I said, you're deluding yourself. Of course you keep trying to read so much into my words I'm not surprised. Did I say it has changed anything yet? I understand with your bias why you are doing your best to impersonate an ostrich but it really doesn't change anything.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why are ebikes banned in Moab on mountain bike trails?
    By Giant Warp in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 215
    Last Post: 09-26-2018, 10:33 AM
  2. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 05-07-2017, 11:04 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-05-2016, 12:23 PM
  4. eBikes on MTB trails
    By Mr Pig in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-30-2015, 02:55 PM

Members who have read this thread: 1

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.