Tahoe Changed It's Mind- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,189

    Tahoe Changed It's Mind

    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    248
    The Forest Service was sued over the blanket allowance of eMTBs. They lost that suit.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    9,568
    No change for actual bicycles.

    This seems like a win for cyclists.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    248
    I would argue "mostly yes".

    However, the argument used to get this result was thus:

    1) The Forest Service didn't do the correct procedure via the NEPA (EIS) to show that eMTBs wouldn't be more damaging than regular MTBs.

    2) Even if the Forest Service did #1, the trails were legally designated non-motorized and eMTBs have a motor.

    #1 isn't a big deal, but #2 could be if you are looking at trails that might go from hiking only to shared use.
    Last edited by CycleKrieg; 05-06-2020 at 06:19 PM.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1
    If you are interested in reading the arguments used by the Back Country Horsemen of America, et al, against the USFS allowing Class 1 e-bikes, I have attached their court pleading. The two subsequent filings are non-substantive and point to a settlement with no counter-arguments presented by the USFS.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by mlhcpa5 View Post
    If you are interested in reading the arguments used by the Back Country Horsemen of America, et al, against the USFS allowing Class 1 e-bikes, I have attached their court pleading. The two subsequent filings are non-substantive and point to a settlement with no counter-arguments presented by the USFS.
    Very interesting read. Most of the arguments they make against Ebikes (noise, irresponsible riders, interrupting their peace and tranquillity, scaring horses, etc) sound a lot like arguments that could be made against any bike. For instance, the rear hub on my regular bike makes more noise than anything, including the motor, on my Ebike.

    Even more concerning is this excerpt:

    “Non-motorized bicycles traveling rapidly downhill on trails already pose unnecessary risks to hikers and equestrians. To add an additional risk from wheeled vehicles going rapidly uphill on those trails will add additional challenges. In our experience, it is the hiker that must jump out of the path of the approaching cycle.”

    As a MTB rider, hiker, and off-road vehicle enthusiast, it always concerns me when any one group tries to claim trails as their own. Let’s hope reasonableness prevails.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Wellstercraft View Post
    Very interesting read. Most of the arguments they make against Ebikes (noise, irresponsible riders, interrupting their peace and tranquillity, scaring horses, etc) sound a lot like arguments that could be made against any bike. For instance, the rear hub on my regular bike makes more noise than anything, including the motor, on my Ebike.
    Well... The most important one, and the one they spend the greatest time on doesn't apply to standard mountain bikes: the presence of motor. In fact, that is the first argument they make, starting on pg. 13, L8.

    Which is the problem for a lot of trails managed across the country. Whether through laws of a state, county or municipality they are designated as non-motorized. Additionally, there are funding sources that are non-motorized only that have been or can be used for funding trails.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ruthabagah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by CycleKrieg View Post
    The Forest Service was sued over the blanket allowance of eMTBs. They lost that suit.
    No, the suit was dismissed. No ruling was issued.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by ruthabagah View Post
    No, the suit was dismissed. No ruling was issued.
    Yep. I wrote that before I had a chance to read the documents and that was based on the data available at the time.

    The case was dismissed because the Forest Service removed the access for e-MTBs to non-motorized trails. In legal speak, the case was dismissed because it was no longer a live case, that is the legal dispute in question had been remedied in some way.

Similar Threads

  1. Tahoe Changed It's Mind
    By sfgiantsfan in forum E-Bikes
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-14-2020, 10:16 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-28-2013, 07:38 AM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-03-2012, 12:47 PM
  4. I have changed my mind
    By Senor StrongBad in forum Pivot Cycles
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-30-2012, 07:10 AM

Members who have read this thread: 88

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.