Page 1 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 554
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,180

    USFS proposed rule to revamp eMTB access (Sept. 2020)

    USFS is floating a new set of rules on eMTB access.

    Bike Mag has a nice write-up. https://www.bikemag.com/news/forest-...orized-trails/

    Here's the Federal Register notice if you want to really dork out: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2020-21128.pdf
    sproing!

    FS: Scarpa Maestrale RS 2, size 29. Cheep! https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...RS-2-0-size-29

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    11,793
    So we all have to upgrade to paramedic?

    Stay out the forest you basic bitches

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    9,912
    Seems rational.

    -Define e-bikes for what they are (which is different from either mountain bikes or dirt bikes).

    -Allow local land managers to decide where and how to allow ebike use.


    The real fights will be at the local level. These sort of upper level management changes seem both necessary and inevitable. I'd imagine there will be significant variability in how ebikes are treated from one forest to the next. Which, at least in the short term, is probably a good thing - let places that are more pro-ebike sort out the inevitable issues. Places that are less excited about ebikes can then roll out changes with those learned lessons in mind.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Sonoma
    Posts
    12,138
    If an e-bike rolls through the forest on an illegal trail, and no one is around to enforce the ban, was it even there?

    Kidding, but not kidding.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeJ View Post
    If an e-bike rolls through the forest on an illegal trail, and no one is around to enforce the ban, was it even there?

    Kidding, but not kidding.
    Yeah, Grinch will get online and tell everyone about how awesome it was.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    1,595
    Hahaha hilarious


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    50 miles E of Paradise
    Posts
    10,192
    I personally think leaving things up to local land managers will cause more problems than just letting class 1 ebikes go anywhere a pedal (or strider) bike can go.

    I see people riding ebikes illegally on our local (USFS) trail system about once a week. Invariably tourists who don’t know whether a trail system is BLM, USFS, private, state or whatever land. Most that I’ve talked with at trailheads have no clue about existing ebike access rules. Most appear to qualify for handicapped parking permits as it is so likely qualify under some ADA exemption on the trail.

    And I don’t see pedal assist ebikes tearing up singletrack any more than an MTB. But I will admit to limited observations
    Check Out Ullr's Mobile Avalanche Safety Tools for iOS and Android
    www.ullrlabs.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    15,021
    Best thing IMHO is,

    1. Clearly define the 3(?) classes and why each type belongs in its respective class.

    2. Clearly define what types of trails those classes are allowed on.

    3. Urge local trail system managers to develop plans for their trails and how E-bikes will/will not fit and begin to develop signage appropriate for trail heads that is visible and clearly states what (if any) class of E-bikes are allowed.

    4. Appropriate the funding for education and outreach so that all the user groups are informed of the changes to their system trails, many of these user groups may not be aware of E-bikes.

    5. Stand back and deal with the fallout. In many cases there will be none, in other cases it will be ugly.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tahoe-ish
    Posts
    1,076
    I'm skeptical that more mopeds anywhere will improve the experience of any trail users, but the status quo is a mess and needs to be updated.

    I guess what I hope is that this results in more awareness and some enforcement. Currently there is zero, so only conscience and public shaming keeps people from riding motorized vehicles on non-motorized trails, and plenty of people have none of the former and are not vulnerable to the latter.
    ride bikes, climb, ski, travel, cook, work to fund former, repeat.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    11,722
    We need more people with no clue to tell everybody what they can and can't do!!
    Saw 2 people. Nice young local couple.hiking into the cabin for the night. Told me their brother is hooking them up with a couple eebs. They were psyched to get on them and in this trail.The youth will decide and theyll all have them. #moped4lifeClick image for larger version. 

Name:	20201001_164221.jpeg 
Views:	114 
Size:	199.1 KB 
ID:	342086Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20201001_151623.jpeg 
Views:	119 
Size:	162.0 KB 
ID:	342087

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunion 2020 View Post
    Best thing IMHO is,

    1. Clearly define the 3(?) classes and why each type belongs in its respective class.

    2. Clearly define what types of trails those classes are allowed on.

    3. Urge local trail system managers to develop plans for their trails and how E-bikes will/will not fit and begin to develop signage appropriate for trail heads that is visible and clearly states what (if any) class of E-bikes are allowed.

    4. Appropriate the funding for education and outreach so that all the user groups are informed of the changes to their system trails, many of these user groups may not be aware of E-bikes.

    5. Stand back and deal with the fallout. In many cases there will be none, in other cases it will be ugly.
    My experience with local land managers, mostly FS, is that the last thing they want is to have to make a decision. Essentially they'll try to decide who is most likely to sue them, and rule in their favor.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    8,937
    Allowed or not, that down tube looks fucking dumb. I don’t have a strong opinion on e-bikes, just can’t get used to their looks.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,053
    Man I love bitchin' about shit.

    Sent from Tapatalk on my eBike from Hell.

    All things considered though, the e-bikes are coming. Just like climate change and the downfall of democracy.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    15,021
    Quote Originally Posted by panchosdad View Post
    My experience with local land managers, mostly FS, is that the last thing they want is to have to make a decision. Essentially they'll try to decide who is most likely to sue them, and rule in their favor.
    And that will be the hiking groups, the equestrians and the wilderness groups.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Magically whisked away to...Delaware
    Posts
    2,919
    Quote Originally Posted by TBS View Post
    I personally think leaving things up to local land managers will cause more problems than just letting class 1 ebikes go anywhere a pedal (or strider) bike can go.
    This. Why not just make it simple: Class 1 goes anywhere MTBs are allowed. Class 2 & 3 are same as motorcycles and allowed wherever motorcycles are allowed.

    I don't own an ebike and don't plan on one in the immediate future...but this eliminates much of the confusion.

    I get that this will cause some equestrian and hikers to cry foul...but maybe the mtbrs and Class 1 users (who are much of the same user group anyways) can form a unified block when addressing access. (Prolly not...but a boy can dream).
    Last edited by smartyiak; 10-02-2020 at 09:23 AM.
    It makes perfect sense...until you think about it.

    I suspect there's logic behind the madness, but I'm too dumb to see it.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Central VT
    Posts
    4,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Conundrum View Post
    Allowed or not, that down tube looks fucking dumb. I don’t have a strong opinion on e-bikes, just can’t get used to their looks.
    Give it 2 more years and you won't be able to tell the difference at a glance. Specialized has an e-roadie bike out that is almost undistinguishable from an regular bike.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Fresh Lake City
    Posts
    3,631
    "we propose a rule change to a rule that we don't enforce to begin with." -FS

    I see ebikes all over these days. No one is out there actively enforcing ebikes bans on certain trails, I've heard of no one getting issued a ticket for riding an ebike on a trail.

    This is a nothing burger and just illustrates how slow our government is to react.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    15,021
    Quote Originally Posted by smartyiak View Post
    This. Why not just make it simple: Class 1 goes anywhere MTBs are allowed. Class 2 & 3 are same as motorcycles and allowed wherever motorcycles are allowed.

    I don't own an ebike and don't plan on one in the immediate future...but this eliminates much of the confusion.

    I get that this will cause some equestrian and hikers to cry foul...but maybe the mtbrs and Class 1 users (who are much of the same user group anyways) can form a unified block when addressing access. (Prolly not...but a boy can dream).
    This probably makes the most sense and will lead to the least confusion. How can you tell 1 class from another?

    The user groups that hate mtn bikers will just have a larger group to channel their hate.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    11,793
    Who is funding enforcement?

    Should probably be a 100% tax, regitration, etc on these things to fund an actual way of enforcing the extra rules they necessitate.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Sonoma
    Posts
    12,138
    Quote Originally Posted by brutah View Post
    "we propose a rule change to a rule that we don't enforce to begin with." -FS

    I see ebikes all over these days. No one is out there actively enforcing ebikes bans on certain trails, I've heard of no one getting issued a ticket for riding an ebike on a trail.

    This is a nothing burger and just illustrates how slow our government is to react.
    This was kind of my point upthread. It doesn't really matter if there's zero enforcement.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    730
    I support the revised classification and this is really the only dog I have in this fight:

    "For no reason shall access be permitted to any class 1 ebike that will or could result in reduced access or reduced access opportunities for (solely) human powered bicycles."

    If this gets too complicated they WILL "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Maybe not on every trail but when it gets touchy and you get into wilderness negotiations this will be fodder and leverage that doesn't work well on our side of the argument.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunion 2020 View Post
    This probably makes the most sense and will lead to the least confusion. How can you tell 1 class from another?

    The user groups that hate mtn bikers will just have a larger group to channel their hate.
    Even simpler to say no e-bikes on non-motorized trails rather than trying to distinguish between them.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    11,722
    Ya im sure that will work/smh

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    15,021
    Hi Gimp.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    11,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunion 2020 View Post
    Hi Gimp.
    You think that would work?
    Talk about entitlement. Do you think the anti mtb pulled their punches when they tried to ban mtb? Like they were saving some fight for the future when emtb was invented? Do you think the anti mtb forces have any more ammo now? Do you think theyre not doing as much as they can atm? Answer: mtb voice is stronger and increased numbers have created increased access and an increase in trails. You can't find any facts to suggest increased numbers of riders, by including class 1 emtb, would decrease access. Quite the opposite. The only "reasonable" forecast is that the added emtb riders will add to advocacy. Cranky old fucks are so entitled they will offer up anything to fire under the bus . Like their rights are the only that matter. A plain and simple exercise in cowardice and entitlement all rolled into a turd soup

    Sent from my SM-G950W using TGR Forums mobile app

Posting Permissions

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