BLM Proposed E-Bike Rule

[frorider]

. Maybe just ban them from climbing single tracks or rolling trails, wouldn't that pretty much solve the problem in a lot of cases?

Part of the fun of ebikes is climbing techy singletrack. Hard to prevent that. Hell the Germans and Austrians were talking about an uphill race series last I heard.

There are so many misleading points getting thrown around in these discussions on both sides on whatever forum you read.

‘Tears up the trails more’— yeah I really haven’t seen or read any evidence of that, at least with an unmodified class 1 Ebike. But yeah more trail mileage.

‘It’s totally open to ebikes in Europe’ — that’s an oversimplification in my experience, and I spend a lot of time in FR and CH. In Cham valley the VTT trail map tries to limit singletrack trail use by any MTB depending on time of year and trail location, and tries to further limit ebikes to gravel roads and trails that reduce interaction issues with other users.

‘They all get hacked to allow faster max speed or power upgrades’ — yes that was common 3 yrs ago but it seems mfgers are making it harder to do this without revealing to them that you’ve violated warranty. Since ebikes seem to rely heavily on warranty support due to shit reliability, this may be someth8ng that sticks?

‘They’re just bikes, so why is there any trail access issue?’ The fact that they have motors complicates things. Fact. Trail building grants often specify ‘for non motorized use’. US MTB associations are already battling the trend in which an area being just considered for Wilderness designation becomes off limits to bikes—how can advocacy orgs argue for alternative designations that accomplish the capital W ‘Wilderness’ protection goals while allowing for non motorized use incl bikes if we can’t guarantee ebikes will generally respect those limits?

‘If you just tried an Ebike you’d change your mind’ — this idiotic cliche pops up in every forum. News flash: by now most everyone has tried an Ebike. Just drop this argument.

So What’s the middle ground solution?

[smmokan]

So What’s the middle ground solution?

I think the middle ground solution is what they're currently proposing... let each land manager decide what's right for their area and/or specific trails. I lean towards the "against" side, but I also realize there's too much industry money behind the push and they're not going away. So hopefully each land manager will make an educated decision and allow them on a case by case basis.

[toast2266]

I think the middle ground solution is what they're currently proposing... let each land manager decide what's right for their area and/or specific trails. I lean towards the "against" side, but I also realize there's too much industry money behind the push and they're not going away. So hopefully each land manager will make an educated decision and allow them on a case by case basis.

Agreed. The middle ground is to keep decision making local. Some places will be more pro-ebike than others, and those places can serve as the petri dish to see how things play out.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Middle ground solution is the status quo, e bikes should be allowed on trails that currently are open to motorized use and prohibited on non motorized trails. It’s not that complicated.

Just because the industry is pushing these e bikes and people are excited about their new toys isn’t a reason to change trail designation.

Trying to argue that e bikes aren’t really motorized makes people look stupid. It does nothing to help access issues, it only complicates things.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[climberevan]

Middle ground solution is the status quo, e bikes should be allowed on trails that currently are open to motorized use and prohibited on non motorized trails. It’s not that complicated.

Just because the industry is pushing these e bikes and people are excited about their new toys isn’t a reason to change trail designation.

Trying to argue that e bikes aren’t really motorized makes people look stupid. It does nothing to help access issues, it only complicates things.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I agree with this 100%.


The separate discussion over how much damage they do etc is a necessary one, and could result in a rule change that allows them on currently non motorized trails, but moped advocates need to go though the process to get the rules changed, not just ignore them.

Grinch, do you think US riders should just ignore the non-motorized designations on most trails and ride electric mopeds on them anyway? If you agree that people should follow the current rules while advocating for change, there's really not much clash in this thread.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using TGR Forums mobile app

[toast2266]

Middle ground solution is the status quo, e bikes should be allowed on trails that currently are open to motorized use and prohibited on non motorized trails. It’s not that complicated.

Just because the industry is pushing these e bikes and people are excited about their new toys isn’t a reason to change trail designation.

Trying to argue that e bikes aren’t really motorized makes people look stupid. It does nothing to help access issues, it only complicates things.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

While personally I'm fine with that solution, it's pretty clearly not the middle ground. It gives ebikers none of what that want. You're acting like allowing them to continue to do what they can already do is some sort of compromise.

What you're proposing reminds me a lot of the arguments anti bike Wilderness people use. "Here's a middle ground compromise: you can keep using trails X,Y,Z. But we're closing trails A, B, and C to bikes. That's the compromise."

An agreement where one side gives nothing and the other side gains nothing isn't the middle ground.

[powpig]

What you're proposing reminds me a lot of the arguments anti bike Wilderness people use. "Here's a middle ground compromise: you can keep using trails X,Y,Z. But we're closing trails A, B, and C to bikes. That's the compromise."

An agreement where one side gives nothing and the other side gains nothing isn't the middle ground.

Yup!
The hypocsrisy from the anti eBike crowd is overwhelming!
Their arguments for why eBikes should be banned read almost exactly like the arguments the horse & wilderness folks have been using to ban all bikes for years. Change just a couple words around and it's identical.
Just another example of how mt bikers are outflanked. We're still too busy fighting amongst ourselves and can't even all get on the same page to present a united front to push for fair advocacy. We're our own worst enemy. Sad!

[Bunion 2020]

An agreement where one side gives nothing and the other side gains nothing isn't the middle ground.

Exactly. Any Mountain Bikers who have had that same shit flung at them time and again will recognize the truth in that.

It seems to me the bike industries entire thrust is to change the definition of what Motorized/Non-motorized actually means and create a blanket set of rules when, as has been said so well above, it should be up to the local land managers to determine what usage works best for their area.

And once that determination has been made then ALL users must live with and follow those rules.

[mmmm...pow!]

I thought the same exact thing about those same two rides in particular. Why should EBikes be banned, especially when their motor would only be used on the uphill, which is an already heavily traveled road?

Will you still feel the same way when people start riding up the trail against the normal flow of traffic instead of the road? Or when there are a whole bunch of people with no bike skills who just bought an electric motor cycle clogging up the trail because they don't have the skills to descend faster than 5 mph? Those are the main issues I have with those things. I think the trail damage argument is BS, and the loss of mtb access argument might have some validity that still remains to be seen and probably varies quite a bit in different areas, but to me there is no question that new users using new toys in new ways changes the experience of other users.

[SB]

So you are saying Mooab is full of meth cookers?

[mmmm...pow!]

Yup!
The hypocsrisy from the anti eBike crowd is overwhelming!
Their arguments for why eBikes should be banned read almost exactly like the arguments the horse & wilderness folks have been using to ban all bikes for years. Change just a couple words around and it's identical.
Just another example of how mt bikers are outflanked. We're still too busy fighting amongst ourselves and can't even all get on the same page to present a united front to push for fair advocacy. We're our own worst enemy. Sad!

What? We are not fighting amongst ourselves. We are just disagreeing with electric motor cyclists. They are not us. No more than dirt bikers are us. Having two wheels in common does not make us the same thing. Yes, you can make the case that the arguments we are making are similar to what has been used against us in the past. But some (not all) of those arguments are valid. I (and many others) agree that some trails should be off limits to bikes. And some should be off limits to motors. Pretty simple. Fortunately it's not a big issue for us in Tahoe, as the majority of trails see pretty light use, even though people are clearly not giving any fucks about rules (and yes, I ride trails that are not on any official maps, but no, I don't ride legit trails that are clearly off limits to bikes). The only exception I've really seen around here is jackass area, where there are definitely some clueless people on those things that seriously fuck up the flow for the people who want to ride those trails as they were intended to be ridden instead of as a stroll through the woods.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

While personally I'm fine with that solution, it's pretty clearly not the middle ground. It gives ebikers none of what that want. You're acting like allowing them to continue to do what they can already do is some sort of compromise.

What you're proposing reminds me a lot of the arguments anti bike Wilderness people use. "Here's a middle ground compromise: you can keep using trails X,Y,Z. But we're closing trails A, B, and C to bikes. That's the compromise."

An agreement where one side gives nothing and the other side gains nothing isn't the middle ground.

E bikers should do their own work if they want access to non motorized trails, it’s not my responsibility to give them anything. Nobody is taking anything away from them either. Plenty of motorized trails around.

While I don’t agree with the closure of all Wilderness to bikes a large percentage of the trails are inappropriate for bike use.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[toast2266]

E bikers should do their own work if they want access to non motorized trails, it’s not my responsibility to give them anything. Nobody is taking anything away from them either. Plenty of motorized trails around.

While I don’t agree with the closure of all Wilderness to bikes a large percentage of the trails are inappropriate for bike use.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

They did do their own work. They wanted a rule change, and they succeeded in getting new rules proposed, which is what this thread is about. You, apparently, are opposed to that rule change.

You said that there should be a middle ground solution. But your middle ground solution is that you get what you want, and they get nothing. You are the new Sierra Club.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

They did do their own work. They wanted a rule change, and they succeeded in getting new rules proposed, which is what this thread is about. You, apparently, are opposed to that rule change.

You said that there should be a middle ground solution. But your middle ground solution is that you get what you want, and they get nothing. You are the new Sierra Club.

Oh, where’s the new rule saying that they can use non motorized trails? Do you mean the decision to allow local blm offices to decide? I’m fine with that. If you’re talking about some new change in FS policy allowing e bikes on non motorized trails, that’s news to me.

I have no use for the Sierra Club, keep trolling boy.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[donutlynx]

do you think US riders should just ignore the non-motorized designations on most trails and ride electric mopeds on them anyway? If you agree that people should follow the current rules while advocating for change, there's really not much clash in this thread.

This. Happening in our local trail system. So many mopeds in a USFS and city-owned non-motorized designated watershed (source of our municipal water supply). The next trail system over the ridge allows moped access.

Why not just go to the area where mopeds are allowed? Most moped users around here drive to the trailhead anyway. If you try to talk with them about it, the moped users get very K---- very quickly. Hard for me to see past that self-entitlement.

Ignorance is one thing, but the majority of moped users around here know the regs and just don't care. That's where we start to clash.

[toast2266]

Oh, where’s the new rule saying that they can use non motorized trails? Do you mean the decision to allow local blm offices to decide? I’m fine with that. If you’re talking about some new change in FS policy allowing e bikes on non motorized trails, that’s news to me.

I have no use for the Sierra Club, keep trolling boy.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

You're sending mixed messages. You said:

Middle ground solution is the status quo, e bikes should be allowed on trails that currently are open to motorized use and prohibited on non motorized trails. It’s not that complicated.

The new rule will result in ebike use on trails that were previously non motorized. At this point, I honestly have no idea if you're for or against that. And now you're bringing up the forest service, even though they're not a part of this discussion at all.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

You're sending mixed messages. You said:



The new rule will result in ebike use on trails that were previously non motorized. At this point, I honestly have no idea if you're for or against that. And now you're bringing up the forest service, even though they're not a part of this discussion at all.

What I said was that if the rule says no e bikes on non motorized trails then they shouldn’t use them. If the rules change and e bikes are allowed on non motorized trails then okay.

On current non motorized trails e bikes shouldn’t be allowed, if there is a change in policy due to public comments and lobbying then that’s fine.

Bringing up the FS is relevant because there could be changes to their recreation plans in regards to e bikes and non motorized trails.

I think the status quo is fine too. Why does a new motorized special interest group need to use non motorized trails?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MagnificentUnicorn]

This. Happening in our local trail system. So many mopeds in a USFS and city-owned non-motorized designated watershed (source of our municipal water supply). The next trail system over the ridge allows moped access.

Why not just go to the area where mopeds are allowed? Most moped users around here drive to the trailhead anyway. If you try to talk with them about it, the moped users get very K---- very quickly. Hard for me to see past that self-entitlement.

Ignorance is one thing, but the majority of moped users around here know the regs and just don't care. That's where we start to clash.

The grinch assures us that all e bikers and good citizens and trail stewards. You’re weak and can’t flex anymore, so your opinion doesn’t matter.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[toast2266]

What I said was that if the rule says no e bikes on non motorized trails then they shouldn’t use them. If the rules change and e bikes are allowed on non motorized trails then okay.

The rules are changing. That's exactly what this thread is about, and it's what everyone else in here is talking about.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

The rules are changing. That's exactly what this thread is about, and it's what everyone else in here is talking about.

The rule change allows local jurisdictions to consider allowing e bikes on non motorized trails by declassifying e bikes as ohvs. The change doesn’t mandate access for e bikes on non motorized trails. You stated that in the second post in this thread.

I imagine that some non motorized blm trails will be opened up to e bikes and others won’t . I’ve stated that I’m okay with that. I posted that my opinion is that if a trail is non motorized and there is no special consideration for e bikes they shouldn’t be allowed. Do you lack reading comprehension?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[livefreerdie]

It gives the land manager discretion but says they should be generally allowed in the same places as bicycles. So it's not great as far as procedure because they make it sound like they are pre determining the outcome of the next process. For those who like this proposed rule:
Why do you think class 2 bikes with throttles should be allowed? What should happen to someone who is suspected of having a bike that puts out more than 750 watts?

[rideit]

My curmudgeonly position:
There should be more Trails closed to motors of any kind.
And

There should be more trails open to ebikes.

In other words, there should be more trails.

[powpig]

What? We are not fighting amongst ourselves. We are just disagreeing with electric motor cyclists. They are not us.

I think you just proved my point.
They're mt bikers & we're mt bikers.
We all need to be on the same page, and that page is greater access for all mt bikes.
Instead we're divided and guys like you are leading the charge of creating division.
It's like a bunch of Giants & Dodger fans (or Yankees & RedSox fans) pointing fingers at each other saying, "they're nothing like us", while most folks just see us all as baseball fans.

[Redsmurfer]

Just to give you a check in from Marin County. The ebike onslaught is in full force. Out riding in some lesser visited areas of western marin over the weekend i would say 50% were of ebikes. Most of those were clearly new riders (over 40) with minimal skill sets and not blazing around the trails, generally well mannered. Both Marin Open Space and MMWD seem to be ignoring any kind of enforcement and the bikes are selling well in the local stores. They are coming, in five years over 60% mtb sales will be electric. Trails will be more crowded. The sport will be fundamentally changed, no more control of crowds because of fitness levels. I had an older lady cruise by me on a steep, sustained, physical climb barely breathing hard, she looked like she was having fun. I think we are heading back into times where access issues are going to be bitterly fought over.

[Canada1]

I am a pretty fit guy. A little fat, but ride every week between 70 and 120 miles. I have been passed by e bikes like I was standing still while pushing hard on a carbon fiber hard tail we call the rocket in our house. E bikes do make middle aged moms who never rode into elite cross country riders. That will present conflicts. But heck, I’ve only had to dive off the trail twice this year, and both times it was young male NICA dudes in black and pink uniforms. I’m more in favor of ban on trail use to that high school than the even older and fatter than me on e bikes.