Forest Service Issues ‘E-Bike’ Guidance

[Sytes]

Same with excess gun laws... it's the ethics, morality that play a factor. if the punishment does not deter the criminal... wtf good is the law? Problem with US. punishment does not fit the crime.

 

[Straight Arrow]

There's nothing scarier than gun nuts riding E-bikes in the wilderness, shooting grouse and exploding fireworks in July!

 

[Hammsolo]

I race dirt bikes, have a specialized e-bike (mtn) and a full pedal only mtn bike.

Throw roost? Don’t have to pedal on e-bike? Dirt bikers won’t even tackle what e-bike will?

C’mon.

You’re wrong on many things in your post. Just sayin’

Let me clarify. I am an enduro mountain bike racer (2021 YT Capra Pro), used to race dirt bikes too. Generally, discussions should be driven by facts.

Yes, throw roost. My buddy has a Santa Cruz Heckler that you can spin the tire easily for a good 10 feet in boost mode if you try. Yes, the type of bike makes a difference. Big tired e-bikes may not… I don’t have experience.

Yes, there are ebikes that you don’t have to pedal constantly. Didn’t you read about the beaver trapping post above. My 75 year old neighbor cruises the neighborhood constantly while pedaling downhill and then not pedaling up the hills.

I should have been more clear and not spoken in absolutes. Feel free to hit YouTube. There’s loads of crazy videos of climbs on e-bikes. They especially have an advantage in rocky terrain due to their size. The slabs people are climbing are insane. E-bike climbs dam

When considering legislation you need to consider all the possibilities. You can go out on the internet and finds hacks e-bikes too. Is a ranger going to check software? Monitor what mode you’re in? If you let one motor, aren’t you letting all of them in.

C’mon… I’m just sayin’

 

[TheTone]

If they weren’t an advantage why would anyone want or sell one? Bike shop employees have told me how much further they can go, steeper hills they can climb and new trails they have been able to clear out and start because of the advantage. The last Trek bike catalog I got had an article about how the author was able to get further back on trails than they ever had in the past. With the huge marketing push they have towards hunters it doesn’t take much to see that they can “shrink” the backcountry and lead to more competition for those that want to get away from the crowd

 

[Hammsolo]

Welcome to the forum. You say that like its a good thing. All that land is already open to hunting, if you are willing to work to get there. I see ebikes as more invasive than atvs and motorcycles, if they are allowed on nonmotorized trails.


We absolutely can, and have:

Wilderness Act​

The Wilderness Act of 1964 was written by Howard Zahniser of The Wilderness Society. It created the legal definition of wilderness in the United States, and protected 9.1 million acres of federal land. The result of a long effort to protect federal wilderness and to create a formal mechanism for designating wilderness, the Wilderness Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 3, 1964 after over sixty drafts and eight years of work.

• Wikipedia

Legislation is the only thing we have that can stop the electric wheel from occupying nonmotorized trails on public land.

Is that stopping the wheel, or managing it?

 

[Hammsolo]

Same with excess gun laws... it's the ethics, morality that play a factor. if the punishment does not deter the criminal... wtf good is the law? Problem with US. punishment does not fit the crime.

About to open a can of worms maybe…. I agree, because how do you effectively regulate a rapidly changing technology that quickly evolves with input? I think we need to look at the whole system. Firearms can’t function alone. They need a human. Humans can function separately. Humans need to be regulated. Take one drive through downtown Spokane and you’ll see a large population of mentally ill addicts that shouldn’t be eligible to own firearms. My abusive ex-father-in-law that held a pistol to my ex-in-laws head shouldn’t own a firearm. The charges were dropped by my ex-mother-in-law due to her insanity. Manage the human, and the weapon will be managed.

 

[Hammsolo]

I don’t see the issue with it, honestly. I have an e bike that tops out at 20mph, and I’ve been passed by non-motorized cyclists in the bike lane. Are they trying harder? Yes. Is it “fair”? I don’t know, but we’re talking about recreation not competition. You don’t need to earn the outdoors.

If your on a bike trail, watch for all kinds of pedal bikes, simple as that.

Go on YouTube and look up hacks for e-bikes. You can even hack the system using just a magnet to boost your top speed.

 

[Sawtooth]

A former head of Fish and game law enforcement I know often quotes Abraham Lincoln:

“Laws without enforcement are just good advice.”

Sounds like all wheeled purchases should have a tax placed on them that helps to pay for the enforcement of their use in the outdoors.

 

[mtmuley]

Go on YouTube and look up hacks for e-bikes. You can even hack the system using just a magnet to boost your top speed.

Total and complete ban. Problem solved. mtmuley

 

[mxracer317]

Total and complete ban. Problem solved. mtmuley

I’m sure that’s what everyone thought back in the day shooting bows and arrows, and then the first rifle came out.

Probably a “cheating” tool.

 

[elkduds]

I see ebikes as more invasive than atvs and motorcycles, if they are allowed on nonmotorized trails.

I simply don't have time to spend 2 days hiking 20 miles like Brian Call or Ryan Lampers but I can ride a bike for an hour and go the same distance. This for me is a game changer, as for the e-bikes invasiveness how is it worse?

Its simple. Atvs and motorcycles aren't allowed on nonmotorized trails. Allowing motorized (faster travel over longer distance w less effort by more users, including ebikes) access to those trails is invasive. Take any formerly nonmotorized trail, change it to allow motorized travel such as ebikes, and a whole new user group shows up.

Allowing motorized ebike travel on nonmotorized trails is more invasive because it is a complete change of target user group, allowing a class of vehicle that was not previously permitted. Why do you think USFS distinguishes between motorized and nonmotorized trails? Could it be because the natures of those 2 types of use are so different? Americans are buying ebikes as fast as Chinese build them. Anything that allows people to do in an hour what takes others 2 days will greatly increase traffic and reduce the quality of the experience for hikers and equestrians. Even bicyclists will notice increased traffic from ebikes.

Consider a nonmotorized trail where most hikers travel @ a similar pace. Some may encounter each other, but all are traveling @ walking pace. Runners will encounter more hikers because they travel faster. Bicyclists travel faster than runners, so they increase the sense of traffic even more. Ebikes, which you wrote allow less fit users to go farther on harder terrain, will put even more users in the "fast lane" on that trail. Invasive. Bicyclists and moreso motorized users displace hikers and equestrians on crowded trails.

 

[mtmuley]

I’m sure that’s what everyone thought back in the day shooting bows and arrows, and then the first rifle came out.

Probably a “cheating” tool.

Not even the same. Non-motorized means just that. mtmuley

 

[grizzly_]

People seem to be confused by the classes of E-Bikes. Class 1 do NOT have throttles and DO have power/speed limitations; to me that's a clear differentiation between a Class 1 E-Bike and a motorcycle.

The false equivalency of saying it's motorized and is therefore a motorcycle is just that, a false equivalency. That argument would be akin to saying that my daughter's pink PowerWheel is the same as a Rzr or full-size pickup. Guess which one has more range, power, noise, and ability to damage resources? Hint: It ain't the PowerWheel.

E-Bikes are clearly an advantage over my mom's old Schwinn, but clearly not the same advantage as my dad's KTM; they're a new technology that didn't exist commonly a decade ago and regulations need to be updated accordingly.

One thing I'd caution against is managing based on the premise of accessibility, both psychical and quantitative, instead of focusing management on the impact to the resource.

The trail itself won't feel a difference between a bicycle tire and an E-Bike tire (they're literally the same tire), no additional ruts are formed and no additional erosion is caused. This varies dramatically from the effects of a dirt bike tire, especially when muddy.

If the discussion then becomes one of, "But more people will be able to access further down the trail," then we've ceased to manage our trail systems based on impact to the trail and are instead managing with the purpose of limiting use. Using that same logic, we'd try and avoid having foot bridges, switchbacks, horse trails, deadfall removal, and overall trail maintenance with the end goal of limiting access to public lands to only those in the peak of physical condition; I don't think that should be our goal. If it was, why not have a lottery to hike/bike down a trail so we don't get too many people in one area?

The goal of public land should be to balance use, accessibility, and enjoyment with protecting the resource.

Somebody riding an E-Bike on a 10 mile bicycle-only trail loop causes no more impact to the resource than somebody riding a traditional bicycle on the same loop. They're silent and cause no additional resources damage, to me the increased availability of public lands is something public land advocates should be promoting, not disparaging.

 

[mxracer317]

Not even the same. Non-motorized means just that. mtmuley

The issue you all seem to have with it is 1) it’s unfair 2) it’s hard on the environment.

Its neither unfair or destructive. If you can afford it, then buy it. If you can’t, then don’t piss on my shoulders and try to tell me it’s raining.

Out of curiosity, is there some reason for signing your name to each post? It’s actually pretty clear by your avatar less than a 1/4” above your post.

 

[mxracer317]

People seem to be confused by the classes of E-Bikes. Class 1 do NOT have throttles and DO have power/speed limitations; to me that's a clear differentiation between a Class 1 E-Bike and a motorcycle.

The false equivalency of saying it's motorized and is therefore a motorcycle is just that, a false equivalency. That argument would be akin to saying that my daughter's pink PowerWheel is the same as a Rzr or full-size pickup. Guess which one has more range, power, noise, and ability to damage resources? Hint: It ain't the PowerWheel.

E-Bikes are clearly an advantage over my mom's old Schwinn, but clearly not the same advantage as my dad's KTM; they're a new technology that didn't exist commonly a decade ago and regulations need to be updated accordingly.

One thing I'd caution against is managing based on the premise of accessibility, both psychical and quantitative, instead of focusing management on the impact to the resource.

The trail itself won't feel a difference between a bicycle tire and an E-Bike tire (they're literally the same tire), no additional ruts are formed and no additional erosion is caused. This varies dramatically from the effects of a dirt bike tire, especially when muddy.

If the discussion then becomes one of, "But more people will be able to access further down the trail," then we've ceased to manage our trail systems based on impact to the trail and are instead managing with the purpose of limiting use. Using that same logic, we'd try and avoid having foot bridges, switchbacks, horse trails, deadfall removal, and overall trail maintenance with the end goal of limiting access to public lands to only those in the peak of physical condition; I don't think that should be our goal. If it was, why not have a lottery to hike/bike down a trail so we don't get too many people in one area?

The goal of public land should be to balance use, accessibility, and enjoyment with protecting the resource.

Somebody riding an E-Bike on a 10 mile bicycle-only trail loop causes no more impact to the resource than somebody riding a traditional bicycle on the same loop. They're silent and cause no additional resources damage, to me the increased availability of public lands is something public land advocates should be promoting, not disparaging.

Not to mention horses tearing up muddy terrain with their hooves in the “non-motorized” trails, but hey, that’s cool right?

 

[Straight Arrow]

People seem to be confused by the classes of E-Bikes. Class 1 do NOT have throttles and DO have power/speed limitations; to me that's a clear differentiation between a Class 1 E-Bike and a motorcycle.

The false equivalency of saying it's motorized and is therefore a motorcycle is just that, a false equivalency. That argument would be akin to saying that my daughter's pink PowerWheel is the same as a Rzr or full-size pickup. Guess which one has more range, power, noise, and ability to damage resources? Hint: It ain't the PowerWheel.

E-Bikes are clearly an advantage over my mom's old Schwinn, but clearly not the same advantage as my dad's KTM; they're a new technology that didn't exist commonly a decade ago and regulations need to be updated accordingly.

One thing I'd caution against is managing based on the premise of accessibility, both psychical and quantitative, instead of focusing management on the impact to the resource.

The trail itself won't feel a difference between a bicycle tire and an E-Bike tire (they're literally the same tire), no additional ruts are formed and no additional erosion is caused. This varies dramatically from the effects of a dirt bike tire, especially when muddy.

If the discussion then becomes one of, "But more people will be able to access further down the trail," then we've ceased to manage our trail systems based on impact to the trail and are instead managing with the purpose of limiting use. Why not have as lottery to bike down a trail so we don't get too many people? Using that same logic, we'd try and avoid foot bridges, switchbacks, horse trails, deadfall removal, and overall trail maintenance with the end goal of limiting access to public lands to only those in the peak of physical condition; I don't think that should be our goal.

The goal of public land should be to balance use, accessibility, and enjoyment with protecting the resource.

Somebody riding an E-Bike on a 10 mile bicycle-only trail loop causes no more impact to the resource than somebody riding a traditional bicycle on the same loop. They're silent and cause no additional resources damage, to me the increased availability of public lands is something public land advocates should be promoting, not disparaging.

You missed the point. Simply read MTMULEY's post #72.

It's not about ranges or distinctions of power or even ease of travel. It's all about preserving and protecting some areas as NONMOTORIZED!
If you cannot understand the rationale for restrictions in wilderness and in other nonmotorized wild lands, then you will just have to continue to be frustrated.

 

[mtmuley]

Out of curiosity, is there some reason for signing your name to each post? It’s actually pretty clear by your avatar less than a 1/4” above your post.

Been signing my username here for a long time. E-bikes are motorized. Period. What part of motorized vehicles prohibited do you not understand? MTMULEY

 

[mtmuley]

You missed the point. Simply read MTMULEY's post #72.

It's not about ranges or distinctions of power or even ease of travel. It's all about preserving and protecting some areas as NONMOTORIZED!
If you cannot understand the rationale for restrictions in wilderness and in other nonmotorized wild lands, then you will just have to continue to be frustrated.

Me and SA don't always agree, but we do on this issue. mtmuley

 

[mxracer317]

Been signing my username here for a long time. E-bikes are motorized. Period. What part of motorized vehicles prohibited do you not understand? MTMULEY

Oh I understand motorized just fine. I just disagree with you on e-bikes being environmentally destructive. I assume you’ve never ridden on one, but have an opinion on it with no factual basis.

What I still don’t understand is why you’re signing your name for a long time? A subliminal assertion of dominance perhaps?

 

[mtmuley]

What I still don’t understand is why you’re signing your name for a long time? A subliminal assertion of dominance perhaps?

Shit. You got me 12 years here and nobody else ever figured it out. Genius. mtmuley