"E mtn bikes r us" (rock n road) boycott?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have yet to spot a "no electric bicycles" sign and 90% of my riding is in Irvine. I am curious where this sign is.
 
wheezy said:
Serious post time. Geesh, I like posting memes way more but I'm feeling soapboxy today.

I don't mean this to get all argumentative as I have no intention of following up after this post and will take my flaming like a man. LOL. This is just my thought and opinion as I put more thought into this issue of ebikes and "Trail Access". Really, I have put a lot of thought into this and I kind of got stuck on the following train of thought (sorry to those of you with bigger brains that think this is dumb).

It seems that the Sierra Club Type Hiker Person (SCTHP) are used in nearly every argument against ebikes and trail access at least once as they seemingly represent our biggest enemy. I can't help but wonder if the SCTHP knows or could even really perceive the difference between an ebike and regular bike? Let me expand that thought, please hang with me here for a minute. Do you think ANYBODY on an ebike other than maybe Aaron Gwin is going to go down RockIt or Rattlesnake FASTER than me on my Uzzi? (ya, ya, there's probably a few but you get the point) Do you think that the SCTHP will view bikes and their speed (read safety, ect) any differently depending on which way they are going on the trail, up vs down? Does it make any sense that all of a sudden someone doing 15mph uphill is more "offensive" than a 260lb wheezing gorilla doing 30mph dowhnill? To the anti ebike guys, do you really believe an older outta shape grey haired dude on a little whizzy ebike going uphill is what's going to bring riding as we know it to a halt? If I'm candid, and not to be offensive, but I find that argument and thought completely absurd. A bike is a bike as a bike is a bike.

All arguments of the whos, hows and whys aside, and since it's been brought up numerous times as well. I do believe THIS WILL END UP IN COURT because it is a matter of law. I'm no lawyer, heck, I'm not even all that smart but I can read, and I have read AB1096 several times over and looked at the other propaganda that was created for end users and government agencies from it. Any court of law, there is no debate that the rules have been changed. An e-bike IS NOT a "motorized bike" PERIOD. That's a fact jack, deal with it. I understand that's not logical, but we're not talking about logic, we're talking about LAWS. (insert government and/or lawyer joke here)

I think I understand AB1096 rather well, and I understand it's intent regarding "bike pathways" and that it's actually about insurance, licensing and traffic enforcement, but it was left a little vague and does include language that includes "state park system" and "county park". It could easily be argued that any trail where bikes are allowed wether on street or state or county park, is a "bike pathway" and that Type 1 and Type 2 "electric bicycles" are legal unless specifically outlawed by state or local agencies with proper signage. Again, "no motorized vehicles" does not apply to "electric bicycles". This is the grey area, I've yet to see a sign that says "no e-bicycles" anywhere.

AB1096 - Read it here - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1096

The guidelines for "Agencies" document created by peopleforbikes.org - notice page 2 paragraph 1 and the language "path or TRAIL" Again, I think this issue will end up in court, and I think bikes will win the undisputable right to be anwyehre a traditional bicycle is - http://b.3cdn.net/bikes/59ea4b73c415907426_uxm6iyv9u.pdf
Click to expand...

(Here are my thoughts and if I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.)

I don't think the writer's of the current law fully understood the implications. It's one thing to support a device that gets people out their of cars and commuting to work and running errands on devices that reduces air pollution. But it's a different situation when the Ebike industry takes that heartfelt support from legislators (trying to reduce greenhouse gases), and then forces its way into environmentally protected areas that were created for non-motorized recreation and to preserve nature.

Because "bicycles" have historically been defined as human-powered, I think Park regulations were open to including them. But batteries don't grow on trees, factories create pollution, old batteries need to be disposed of, and bicycle riders have been doing just fine without them for over a hundred years. Since including Ebike riders as legal park users actually creates more (offsite) pollution, I'm guessing the law will be tweaked to be more specific. After all, it's environmentalists who pushed for Ebikes (for commuting), and its environmentalists who set aside certain areas for preservation and non-motorized use.

Either way it plays out, E-bikes or E-wheelchairs can and should be allowed for use by people with disabilities on trails that would otherwise exclude them.
 
shutterstock_112698982.jpg
 
wheezy said:
I have yet to spot a "no electric bicycles" sign and 90% of my riding is in Irvine. I am curious where this sign is.
Click to expand...

The San Diego Creek Trail at Alton behind the police station according to my friend (I haven't seen it, but she has pretty good eyesight); admittedly not the best representation of a "trail", but maybe a harbinger. Not trying to discredit your statement, just point out that someone is printing those signs.
 
kioti said:
But it's a different situation when the Ebike industry takes that heartfelt support from legislators (trying to reduce greenhouse gases), and then forces its way into environmentally protected areas that were created for non-motorized recreation and to preserve nature.

But batteries don't grow on trees, factories create pollution, old batteries need to be disposed of, and bicycle riders have been doing just fine without them for over a hundred years. Since including Ebike riders as legal park users actually creates more (offsite) pollution, I'm guessing the law will be tweaked to be more specific. After all, it's environmentalists who pushed for Ebikes (for commuting), and its environmentalists who set aside certain areas for preservation and non-motorized use.

Either way it plays out, E-bikes or E-wheelchairs can and should be allowed for use by people with disabilities on trails that would otherwise exclude them.
Click to expand...

Interesting talking point. Lithium batteries are pretty bad, for sure. That said, carbon fiber from China is one of the "dirtiest" products on the planet if ya didn't know. It has toxic byproducts, lots of wasted materials, is nearly impossible to "recycle" and it doesn't biodegrade. The stuff is just nasty. The bicycle industry as a whole is far from being environmentally friendly if that was a consideration in trail access.
 
herzalot said:
Again - this is not the point. It's not about trail damage, or purists vs lazies or lifestyle or any of these other intangible matters of taste. It's trail conflict, collision and danger. Period. More bikes going faster with less experienced riders on board. Hikers, trailrunners and equestrians will not care weather it's electric or not - it's a bike, and it startled the bejeezus out of them and forced them to dive into the bushes. Close the trails to bikes!

I don't need to try one to know that this is true. I am sure they are fun. I will stipulate that argument. So are (other) motorcycles. But it's hard enough to convince committed mt. bikers to be considerate, now double their speed and decrease their commitment - and add a whole bunch more people to the trails who never would have done so. It's ONLY about conflict and perceived safety of others.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your thoughtful discussion, Wheezy. I think you're an inspiration and look forward to meeting and riding with you one of these days.

I agree that many oversees manufacturing processes could be cleaned up. I've also read that cargo ship emissions are one of So Cal's biggest polluters. All kinds of problems out there, which make our wilderness parks that much more precious.

Since this thread's still going, here's something I wrote in a private message but was encouraged to share (based on my personal experience on trails, preserves and parks in Orange County, local mountains and the Sierra Nevada).

"I see trail use restrictions as a progression:

Nature preserves such as Audubon--no human recreation allowed.

Wilderness-- human and horse "power" only; no machines (although mechanical advantage with ski bindings allowed).

Non-motorized-- human and horse power; machines (bikes) allowed. But operative factor-- natural power. And not compatible (to @herzalot's point) because of horse unpredictability and bike speed, but still allowed (with right-of-way and speed limit guidelines).

Motorized trails--OHV + all of the above in many cases. Even less compatible.

Motorized (graded) dirt roads like Trabuco Wash--even more incompatible to the point where hiking and horseback riding are not generally enjoyable, and cycling is marginal due to dangerous driving activity on busy days.

From my perspective, the point isn't safety and compatibility, it's simple to complex. Foot, horseback and snowshoe/ski ='s simple, or basic. Adding human-powered bikes introduces machinery and obvious mechanical advantage. Adding motors is another step. If you start with the basic trail use theory of wilderness and then gradually allow more technology, you'll follow my logic concerning area guidelines and restrictions."
 
Last edited:
kioti said:
Thanks for your thoughtful discussion, Wheezy. I think you're an inspiration and look forward to meeting and riding with you one of these days.

I agree that many oversees manufacturing processes could be cleaned up. I've also read that cargo ship emissions are one of So Cal's biggest polluters. All kinds of problems out there, which make our wilderness parks that much more precious.

Since this thread's still going, here's something I wrote in a private message but was encouraged to share (based on my personal experience on trails, preserves and parks in Orange County, local mountains and the Sierra Nevada).

"I see trail use restrictions as a progression:

Nature preserves such as Audubon--no human recreation allowed.

Wilderness-- human and horse "power" only; no machines (although mechanical advantage with ski bindings allowed).

Non-motorized-- human and horse power; machines (bikes) allowed. But operative factor-- natural power. And not compatible (to @herzalot's point) because of horse unpredictability and bike speed, but still allowed (with right-of-way and speed limit guidelines).

Motorized trails--OHV + all of the above in many cases. Even less compatible.

Motorized (graded) dirt roads like Trabuco Wash--even more incompatible to the point where hiking and horseback riding are not generally enjoyable, and cycling is marginal due to dangerous driving activity on busy days.

From my perspective, the point isn't safety and compatibility, it's simple to complex. Foot, horseback and snowshoe/ski ='s simple, or basic. Adding human-powered bikes introduces machinery and obvious mechanical advantage. Adding motors is another step. If you start with the basic trail use theory of wilderness and then gradually allow more technology, you'll follow my logic concerning area guidelines and restrictions."
Click to expand...
When we all start living like the Amish then I won't have a problem switching sides. :p

Luv ya Jim!! When we gonna go ride??
 
kioti said:
"I see trail use restrictions as a progression:

Nature preserves such as Audubon--no human recreation allowed.

Wilderness-- human and horse "power" only; no machines (although mechanical advantage with ski bindings allowed).

Non-motorized-- human and horse power; machines (bikes) allowed. But operative factor-- natural power. And not compatible (to @herzalot's point) because of horse unpredictability and bike speed, but still allowed (with right-of-way and speed limit guidelines).

Motorized trails--OHV + all of the above in many cases. Even less compatible.

Motorized (graded) dirt roads like Trabuco Wash--even more incompatible to the point where hiking and horseback riding are not generally enjoyable, and cycling is marginal due to dangerous driving activity on busy days.

From my perspective, the point isn't safety and compatibility, it's simple to complex. Foot, horseback and snowshoe/ski ='s simple, or basic. Adding human-powered bikes introduces machinery and obvious mechanical advantage. Adding motors is another step. If you start with the basic trail use theory of wilderness and then gradually allow more technology, you'll follow my logic concerning area guidelines and restrictions."
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I don't really subscribe to such 'logic'. IMHO, riding a horse provides an obvious mechanical advantage, just that it is an organically grown mechanical advantage. I can't even really call a horse simple if you break it down into all of it's parts.

Those that ride horses in the wilderness are not doing it for the benefit of the horse, nor are there restrictions on bringing 'technology' (such as electronic devices like a Kindle or a 2-way radio) into wilderness areas.

I would simply ask that e-bikes (or any bike that has a motor of any kind) be placed in it's own separate category, and not be lumped in with purely human powered bicycles . . . . EVER . . . . . whenever it comes to writing any legislation regarding access to trails. This way, each can be included, excluded, added or removed from being allowed (wherever such things are either allowed or disallowed) on a case by case basis, based on each of their own individual merits (good, bad, or otherwise).
 
Daddy Dirtbag said:
I would simply ask that e-bikes (or any bike that has a motor of any kind) be placed in it's own separate category, and not be lumped in with purely human powered bicycles . . . . EVER . . . . . whenever it comes to writing any legislation regarding access to trails. This way, each can be included, excluded, added or removed from being allowed (wherever such things are either allowed or disallowed) on a case by case basis, based on each of their own individual merits (good, bad, or otherwise).
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the way the federal law is written, and most state laws, e-bikes (sub 750W pedalic) default into the same group as regular bikes. As stated from previous posts, it would just be easier to specifically name e-bikes as a prohibited vehicle when crafting any access rules for any wilderness area. Supposedly Moab has done it, but it doesn't seem to stop folks from riding e-bikes out there.

I've stated in many of my posts in the past across various forums: The people who'd really benefit from e-mtb in the US won't buy them, and the people who actually do buy them will likely not be able to peel themselves off the couch to ride them.

Now... when they make this an e-bike:
couchrental.jpg

...then we have a real problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Daddy Dirtbag said:
With all due respect, I don't really subscribe to such 'logic'. IMHO, riding a horse provides an obvious mechanical advantage, just that it is an organically grown mechanical advantage. I can't even really call a horse simple if you break it down into all of it's parts.

Those that ride horses in the wilderness are not doing it for the benefit of the horse, nor are there restrictions on bringing 'technology' (such as electronic devices like a Kindle or a 2-way radio) into wilderness areas.

I would simply ask that e-bikes (or any bike that has a motor of any kind) be placed in it's own separate category, and not be lumped in with purely human powered bicycles . . . . EVER . . . . . whenever it comes to writing any legislation regarding access to trails. This way, each can be included, excluded, added or removed from being allowed (wherever such things are either allowed or disallowed) on a case by case basis, based on each of their own individual merits (good, bad, or otherwise).
Click to expand...

Good points, Jeff. I didn't write the rules, I'm just trying to put trail designations in some kind of context so we can see how motorized bicycles fit in.

Like you say, riding on horseback is benefitting from the mechanical advantage supplied by the use of a natural organism, and has been used as a basic form of transportation by humans for millennia. Horses are the original, natural version of an e-bike, moto, or truck.

Bicycles are in a sense a man-made substitute, and mine can certainly be as stubborn as an ass and as crazed as a bucking bronc.

Limits on technology in designated wilderness seem to be focused on mode of travel, primarily "foot." In my experience, much is gained by leaving as much technology behind as possible, or at least having areas where limits are in place. Just as there are benefits and disadvantages in each of the current trail use types, like non-motorized. Rules are fluid and often frustrating. Arriving at the top of Mt. Whitney and finding everyone on their phones is probably not what the original writers of the wilderness act had in mind, but that's the current situation.

I agree that e-bikes should be placed in their own category and not lumped together with human-powered bikes when talking about trail use. Legislation will catch up, but then have to be updated again when Louis starts riding his hovercraft down Car Wreck. :whistling:
 
Last edited:
When I was immobile from knee surgery, the best part of my day besides when the OxyContin kicked in was when I got to go to Costco or Target or Hobby Lobby and use the E-motorized shopping carts. It was an opportunity to get out of the house and be mobile, so I understand the value of E-bikes for old or injured or fat people. With that said, E-bikes can have the fire roads, settings which are commensurate with the abilities of their users. If an E-bike is found on a single track, the E-bike should be confiscated and donated to inner city jurisdictions.
 
wheezy said:
Interesting talking point. Lithium batteries are pretty bad, for sure. That said, carbon fiber from China is one of the "dirtiest" products on the planet if ya didn't know. It has toxic byproducts, lots of wasted materials, is nearly impossible to "recycle" and it doesn't biodegrade. The stuff is just nasty. The bicycle industry as a whole is far from being environmentally friendly if that was a consideration in trail access.
Click to expand...

Thats one of the reasons i dont do carbon. Aluminum isnt too environmentally friendly either but its the lesser of two evils. Also cant justify the price.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't sure about legal E-bike use in the National Forest so I checked with the Trabuco Ranger District. According to my source, the federal government (at least the USFS) currently considers E-bikes to be motorized vehicles and only allows their use on motorized roads. For the Trabuco, that'd be the North Main Divide and other roads such as Maple Springs (currently closed), when allowed.

That viewpoint could obviously change, but so far it's been consistent with local agencies I've asked concerning Orange County based trails (County, State and Federal). I'm simply sharing what I've been told and there may be other opinions out there. I'd suggest contacting the local Ranger or agency if in doubt about an area's rules, and sharing that information on this site. One place to check with is El Moro (CCSP), because I didn't speak with them directly and would like to know their position.

I'm also curious whether local bike shops selling mountain E-bikes have a different understanding of legal E-bike trail access, and have heard differing opinions by local Rangers.

In contrast with the thread title, I'm not in favor of boycotting Rock 'n Road, and I'm not an E-bike lover or hater. My love is for the outdoors and the trails we ride, and the best way to find balance that protects both while allowing as much recreation and enjoyment as possible. That balance gets more difficult as our population grows and development shuts down open space. I'm saddened by the lack of local roads and trails for motorcycle and 4WD users, and scarcity of new trails for hiking, mountain biking and equestrian use, as well as additional usage from a potential new user group aka E-bikers.

So for now, as far as E-bikes are concerned, I hope to be informed on the issue, discuss the perceived pros and cons, and look for solutions that will benefit all of us lover's of trails and dirt roads.
 
Last edited:
I rode through Whiting around 7:30 AM Sunday. I saw a group of six guys with these bikes https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/mountain/turbolevofsrcomp6fattie/113963

At first I didnt realize it was that e-bike until I saw the big battery on the downtube. They look like regular AM bikes at first glance. I asked about the bikes at first thinking they were just a bunch of 27 plus bikes. I asked how do you like the larger tires. His response was that the bike climbs easier than anything he ever rode. I was confused by that comment but as I rode away I realized they were e-bikes!
 
ScottV said:
I rode through Whiting around 7:30 AM Sunday. I saw a group of six guys with these bikes https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/mountain/turbolevofsrcomp6fattie/113963

At first I didnt realize it was that e-bike until I saw the big battery on the downtube. They look like regular AM bikes at first glance. I asked about the bikes at first thinking they were just a bunch of 27 plus bikes. I asked how do you like the larger tires. His response was that the bike climbs easier than anything he ever rode. I was confused by that comment but as I rode away I realized they were e-bikes!
Click to expand...
You gotta be kidding?????
 
ScottV said:
I rode through Whiting around 7:30 AM Sunday. I saw a group of six guys with these bikes https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/mountain/turbolevofsrcomp6fattie/113963

At first I didnt realize it was that e-bike until I saw the big battery on the downtube. They look like regular AM bikes at first glance. I asked about the bikes at first thinking they were just a bunch of 27 plus bikes. I asked how do you like the larger tires. His response was that the bike climbs easier than anything he ever rode. I was confused by that comment but as I rode away I realized they were e-bikes!
Click to expand...
I would think it is safe to say that Specialized does NOT care about whether their Motorized Vehicle is used on non motorized trails...
(Based on their description below)

The Turbo Levo FSR Comp 6Fattie has the perfect blend of trail performance, proper handling, technology, and durability. This means that you get a roomy top tube for an easy fit, ultra-short chainstays for nimble handling, and a low bottom bracket that makes the bike feel glued to the trail. Then comes the efficient and powerful Turbo technology, mating the battery and motor into the M5 frame in a new way. The exclusive, custom-tuned motor smoothly and quietly puts out up to 530 watts of additional power to the pedals to make climbing nearly effortless, and the output is fully adjustable to conserve energy. At the battery, you'll find that it's fully integrated with the down tube and easily removable for quick charging or swaps. It has a lengthy lifespan for hitting long, out of the way trails and, along with the motor, is strategically placed for optimal weight distribution on the frame. This version also has a durable build kit, with a 140mm RockShox Yari RC up front, SRAM Guide R brakes, and a SRAM one-by groupset controlling shift and drivetrain duties. It also features our revolutionary new 6Fattie wheel system that decreases deflection and dramatically increases traction, floatation, and fun over the trail. Add to this our powerful Mission Control App for full control of the Turbo technology and an integrated Trail Display with all of the ride metrics you need, and you're looking at the future of trail bikes.
2016-specialized-turbo-levo-fsr-comp-6fattie-electric-full-suspension-mountain-bike.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top