One More eBike Debate

Mikie said:
Well...
I’m actually not kidding. I’m sure you have experienced the same sensationalization, the blaming of certain political figure(s) that I have. As I have sifted through the pandemic media blast, I have tried to find the facts...
As always, I turn to my imtbtrails fact checker @littlewave who certainly will emotionally kick me in the groin if I’m wrong...:whistling:
Here is two that shares some common sense for example:
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/03/06/dr-drew-coronavirus-interview/
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/03/06/dr-drew-coronavirus-interview/
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-hea...facts-about-coronavirus-disease-covid-19.html
I found these to be common facts and perspectives about Covid-19. Even CNN has stated the same in their health section.

Yes if you are in poor health the threat increases. They are currently discovering that very small number of children are being infected. The common flu continues to provide the bigger threat. Naturally I am not down playing any tragedies or threats it may impose related to the virus. But the eBika Virus has proven to make me much more sick than even the common cold. :coffee:
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/03/06/dr-drew-coronavirus-interview/
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I checked out both links and I am underwhelmed. For instance, first article is basically an opinion piece by a doctor who practices addiction medicine. He may be a smart guy but he may know Jack about epidemiology of infectious disease or mutation and transmission rates of a virus. In any case, I don’t want to start an internet argument( as you know, no one ever wins one of those). Do me a favor and check out this link when you get a chance.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020...rk-warning-from-italys-coronavirus-epicentre/

I sincerely wish good health and safety for all you good peeps on the board and your loved ones.
 
And the BNP Pro Tennis Tournament In Indian Wells is cancelled. Next week my wife and I were to go to Palm Springs for her annual Cue convention (teacher thing) and I ride, conditions will be awesome, but now that I know this is air born and can be had by just breathing, we won’t be going. This is scary, my wife has 8 auto immune diseases.
 
hill^billy said:
Stay true to form, and just know that you know what it feels like to pedal a purely human powered bike, be thankful you have the health to do it and will reap all the benefits it has to offer mentally and physically, and know this is bigger than you (us), then spend your ridding time with like minded people because you need the therapy as much as I do! Let’s hook up soon! ;)
Click to expand...
Well said sir!
 
OK Ladies and Gents. This is your time to comment on ebike regulations. Well at least on BLM land. I was going to post this on ebike news, but that thread got shut down.

https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-seeks-public-comment-proposed-e-bike-regulations

BLM SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED E-BIKE REGULATIONS
WASHINGTON – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) today announced a 60-day public comment period on proposed electric bike, or e-bike, regulations, intended to make it easier for more Americans to recreate on and experience their public lands. This effort is in line with Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt’s call for the BLM and other Interior bureaus to expand access on public lands to e-bikes. E-bikes have small electric motors that help with pedaling, make bicycle travel easier for people with disabilities, younger children and people who aren’t experienced mountain bikers.

“We want all Americans to have a chance to create life-long memories exploring and enjoying the great outdoors,” said BLM Deputy Director for Policy and Programs William Perry Pendley. “The BLM is working hard to implement Secretary Bernhardt’s directive wherever it can because our agency believes these public lands are managed in trust for all citizens, and that people of every ability should be able to explore them to the greatest extent possible.”

Given their use of a small (1 horsepower or less) electric motor, the BLM currently manages e-bikes as off-highway vehicles. As a result, there is some uncertainty among e-bike users as to where they may ride their bikes on BLM-managed public land.

As a remedy, the proposed rule would amend the BLM’s current off-road vehicle regulations to add a definition for e-bikes, compatible with Secretarial Order 3376, Increasing Recreational Opportunities through the use of Electric Bikes. This proposed change would then give local BLM land managers the authority to use that definition to conduct their own lawful decisions on whether e-bikes may be operated on public lands in their jurisdictions.

In addition, the proposed rule would direct the entire BLM to specifically address e-bike usage in future land-use or implementation-level decisions.

Public lands designated by Congress as “wilderness areas” will remain off-limits to both traditional bicycles and e-bikes. Also, e-bikes would not be given special access beyond what traditional, non-motorized bicycles are allowed.

While the BLM has already empowered its local land managers to permit the use of e-bikes wherever they have the statutory authority to do so, the comment period provides an opportunity for the public to offer feedback on the proposed rule. The BLM will consider informative and unique feedback as part of crafting its final rule.

The 60-day public comment period has commenced and the proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register. The public comment period will end on June 9. You can find the proposed rule at this link here. Interested parties may submit comments on the proposed regulation, identified by the number RIN 1004-AE72, by any of the following methods:

  • Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior, Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, Mail Stop 2134 LM, 1849 C St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240, Attention: RIN 1004-AE72.
  • Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Searchbox, enter “RIN 1004-AE72” and click the “Search” button. Follow the instruction at this website.
For more information about the proposed rule, please contact Britta Nelson at bknelson@blm.gov or 303-236-0539.
 
Thanks for posting this.

Before all of us who prefer that e-mt bikes were never invented take to the keyboards to write why motor-cycles shouldn't be allowed, but pedal bicycles should be allowed, we might want to think about the reasoning and rationale we offer. Here are a few of the anti e-mt bike arguments I have heard. I do not ascribe to all of them, and many can be applied to regular mt. bikers as well:
  • E-mt. bikes allow the under-prepared and undedicated to get themselves into trouble much farther away from services
  • E-mt. bikes will be ridden by riders who are less dedicated to the outdoors in general and are just out for a thrill
  • E-mt. bikes travel at higher rates of speed and thus pose a danger to other trail users.
  • E-mt. bikes increase the numbers of riders who do not understand basic trail etiquette and the diplomacy required on the trails
  • E--mt. bikes allow for 3-4 times the amount of wear and tear on trails because the rider may access many loops in the time it takes a non-motorized bike to make just one pass.
  • E-mt. bikes will create X times the amount of wear and tear on trails because there will be that many more people out riding who never would have been out there without a motor.
  • E-mt. bike riders haven't earned it (whatever it is). They are just lazy and out of shape.
  • The backcountry experience does not have to be accessible to everyone. It should be earned under one's own power. If you can't get there under your own power without accommodations, you should do something else.
  • E-mt. bike riders ignore the law and break the rules
Again - before the e-mt. bike riders here get their charging cords in a wad, I will re-iterate that I am listing arguments I have heard, not ones I necessarily believe to be true. Frankly, I have seen more trail access threats from groups of asshats on Enduro-bro bikes (like my own) than I have on e-bikes - so far.

Some of these will make better arguments to the BLM than others. Choose wisely, and don't shoot yourself in the foot.
 
Last edited:
herzalot said:
Thanks for posting this.

Before all of us who prefer that e-mt bikes were never invented take to the keyboards to write why motor-cycles shouldn't be allowed, but pedal bicycles should be allowed, we might want to think about the reasoning and rationale we offer. Here are a few of the anti e-mt bike arguments I have heard. I do not ascribe to all of them, and many can be applied to regular mt. bikers as well:
  • E-mt. bikes allow the under-prepared and undedicated to get themselves into trouble much farther away from services
  • E-mt. bikes will be ridden by riders who are less dedicated to the outdoors in general and are just out for a thrill
  • E-mt. bikes travel at higher rates of speed and thus pose a danger to other trail users.
  • E-mt. bikes increase the numbers of riders who do not understand basic trail etiquette and the diplomacy required on the trails
  • E--mt. bikes allow for 3-4 times the amount of wear and tear on trails because the rider may access many loops in the time it takes a non-motorized bike to make just one pass.
  • E-mt. bikes will create 3-4 times the amount of wear and tear on trails because there will be that many more people out riding who never would have been out there without a motor.
  • E-mt. bike riders haven't earned it (whatever it is). They are just lazy and out of shape.
  • The backcountry experience does not have to be accessible to everyone. It should be earned under one's own power. If you can't get there under your own power without accommodations, you should do something else.
  • E-mt. bike riders ignore the law and break the rules
Again - before the e-mt. bike riders here get their charging cords in a wad, I will re-iterate that I am listing arguments I have heard, not ones I necessarily believe to be true. Frankly, I have seen more trail access threats from groups of asshats on Enduro-bro bikes (like my own) than I have on e-bikes - so far.

Some of these will make better arguments to the BLM than others. Choose wisely, and don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Click to expand...
Should we create a form letter and have folks check the boxes of the arguments they personally endorse?

I’m at a loss to determine if I’ve ever ridden a BLM-managed trail where my primary objection (the crowding/3-4x multiplier) would be a factor. They are welcome to ride Vernal, UT without objection from me.

Now stop climbing Lizards...:coffee:
 
A question to augment Tick’s post: could opposing access for Ebikes in less utilized areas lead to increased Ebike usage in more crowded areas like OC Parks? Analogous situation: bike parks to decrease/decompress (not eliminate, of course) “illegal” DH trail building and usage....

A consequentialist argument for sure, so might not be palatable to those more deontologically inclined....
 
Sassyquatch said:
A question to augment Tick’s post: could opposing access for Ebikes in less utilized areas lead to increased Ebike usage in more crowded areas like OC Parks? Analogous situation: bike parks to decrease/decompress (not eliminate, of course) “illegal” DH trail building and usage....

A consequentialist argument for sure, so might not be palatable to those more deontologically inclined....
Click to expand...
Dayummm dude. Goin' all ethical philosophy on us! Consequential vs deontological ethics - I actually had to look up the latter.

Oh - and good point. More crudely put, NIMBY! (Wherein "my back yard" = my local trails).
 
I wrote:

Including motorized "bicycles" (a form of motorcycle) in your plan with other motorized vehicles is a positive thing which I support. However, this part of your proposed rule I find extremely troubling:

"...where certain criteria are met and an authorized officer expressly determines through a formal decision that e-bikes should be treated the same as non-motorized bicycles, expressly exempt those e-bikes from the definition of off-road vehicles."

"E-bikes" should not be treated the same as real bicycles because they are fundamentally different. Bicycles, like hikers and equestians, do not use supplemental motors of any kind.

More reasons that so-called e-bikes should not be allowed on trails where human-powered and equestrian users are present. They:

• Travel at higher rates of speed and thus pose a danger to other trail users
• Allow for 3-4 times the amount of wear on trails compared to real bicycles because of increased power and mileage
• Allow the under-prepared to get themselves into trouble much farther away from services

BLM's push to get more Americans on public lands is, at its core, a positive initiative. But, by attempting to create an experience for one group, you are destroying the experience for others. If that sounds like hyperbole to you, I posit that you have not had any number of interactions with "e-bike" riders on open space singletrack trails.

Have you been nearly hit or hit by an "e-bike" traveling too fast to easily stop (exacerbated by its weight, which will inevitably make collisions more serious)? Been startled by said contraption traveling uphill at a high rate of speed even where sight lines exist and the vehicle is approching from the front? Seen inexperienced "e-bike" users crash miles from any possible aid due to inability to control the motorized device? Seen "e-bike" riders en mass ride where they are prohibited and signage exists indicating that? I've experienced them all, some more than once. And as a rider who avoids peak usage times and areas, I have had far fewer "e-bike" encounters than many of my peers. Their experiences are reflective of my own.

More people taking recreation is good. Treating "e-bikes" as though they are bicycles might sound good in theory. If your policy folks spent more time in the actual trenches of the issue and less pondering philosophical ideals, it would be a whole lot clearer that randomly including "e-bike" riders with cyclists, hikers and equestrians is a bad idea. Please reconsider your plan.
 
herzalot said:
Dayummm dude. Goin' all ethical philosophy on us! Consequential vs deontological ethics - I actually had to look up the latter.

Oh - and good point. More crudely put, NIMBY! (Wherein "my back yard" = my local trails).
Click to expand...


I have a very rudimentary grasp of philosophy in general, but my guess is that many of the religious/political/Ebike/(insert tribal marker here) debates and lack of ability to come to consensus boil down to the involved parties having different proportions of one or the other of these two different ways of thinking/ethical frameworks....
 
Sassyquatch said:
I have a very rudimentary grasp of philosophy in general, but my guess is that many of the religious/political/Ebike/(insert tribal marker here) debates and lack of ability to come to consensus boil down to the involved parties having different proportions of one or the other of these two different ways of thinking/ethical frameworks....
Click to expand...
So those who equate morality with obeying laws are coming from the deontological frame? Or just making a false connection that laws are moral directives?
 
herzalot said:
So those who equate morality with obeying laws are coming from the deontological frame? Or just making a false connection that laws are moral directives?
Click to expand...


Good question...I’m thinking in the broader sense that differences of opinion in law/policymaking could be attributed to (at least in part) to different ethical frameworks. I wasn’t addressing the adherence to already established laws, which I would view as people’s flawed attempts to pragmatize morality. Also, definitely not taking a position about the superiority of one framework relative to the other, although I personally greatly lean toward the consequentialist side....
 
What's funny is I taught Philosophy in high school. When we dove into ethics, we looked at Universal Ethics vs Situational Ethics. Not quite a perfect match for Deontological vs Consequential, but easier for high school students to digest (and evidently, easier for me to digest). Is it always wrong to steal bread?

I tend towards universal ethics, which probably puts me more in the deontological camp. I rarely find that the ends justifies the means.
 
herzalot said:
What's funny is I taught Philosophy in high school. When we dove into ethics, we looked at Universal Ethics vs Situational Ethics. Not quite a perfect match for Deontological vs Consequential, but easier for high school students to digest (and evidently, easier for me to digest). Is it always wrong to steal bread?

I tend towards universal ethics, which probably puts me more in the deontological camp. I rarely find that the ends justifies the means.
Click to expand...


Nice! I wonder if a healthy society needs a good mix of both of our “types?” Analogous thing...healthy politics requires healthy liberal and conservative parties....
 
I rode with an e-biker today and it didn't suck. We crossed paths near home as I was headed out to climb some hills and work the cabin kinks out of my old bones. He asked if he could tag along. Me being the pleasant, amiable sort (cough, cough) said sure why not? As far as I could tell he kept in pedal mode most of the time. A longer story involved as this wasn't my first interaction with the gentleman. Glad I wasn't a dick earlier. Turns out to be a sort of neighbor and a nice guy.
 
Oh great! Another eBike debate in the making! ........yay. :gotnothing:
I think that @Sassyquatch and @herzalot should get a room. Anytime I have to break out a dictionary to figure out what the hell people are saying is more than debate banter and more like I know big words. So if either of you can share what the outcome of all that was, that would be great. :)

I will try and put together a logistical declaration for why I firmly believe that eBikes do not belong on BLM land.
But emotionally...
I am extremely jaded by the rise of eBikes. I have yet to have a positive experience around eBikes. I am so sick and tired of eBikers telling me I need to try one. I really don’t. Or, how they get the same work out, blah, blah f@cking blah. Liars. Bullshit. All their lame ass excuses that justify owning them are just that, a lame ass excuse. Now I‘M talking MAJORITY of lame ass excuses.

I don’t want to be on the same trail as them. I am a FIRM believer that ALL motorized vehicles do not belong on non motorized trails. Firm believer. Take your eBike to Hungry Valley if you want to ride off-road trails so you can be with like trail users.

Call me a hater? Fine, I’m a hater. I don’t care, still America where I get to have my opinion.

eBikes definitely have their place, but not on BLM land, and definitely not on human powered trails.
 
Mikie said:
Oh great! Another eBike debate in the making! ........yay. :gotnothing:
I think that @Sassyquatch and @herzalot should get a room. Anytime I have to break out a dictionary to figure out what the hell people are saying is more than debate banter and more like I know big words. So if either of you can share what the outcome of all that was, that would be great. :)

I will try and put together a logistical declaration for why I firmly believe that eBikes do not belong on BLM land.
But emotionally...
I am extremely jaded by the rise of eBikes. I have yet to have a positive experience around eBikes. I am so sick and tired of eBikers telling me I need to try one. I really don’t. Or, how they get the same work out, blah, blah f@cking blah. Liars. Bullshit. All their lame ass excuses that justify owning them are just that, a lame ass excuse. Now I‘M talking MAJORITY of lame ass excuses.

I don’t want to be on the same trail as them. I am a FIRM believer that ALL motorized vehicles do not belong on non motorized trails. Firm believer. Take your eBike to Hungry Valley if you want to ride off-road trails so you can be with like trail users.

Call me a hater? Fine, I’m a hater. I don’t care, still America where I get to have my opinion.

eBikes definitely have their place, but not on BLM land, and definitely not on human powered trails.
Click to expand...
No problem with your strong opinion, but when you write to the BLM, you are going to have to explain why. Which reason do you think will be most effective? Which reason is complete bullshit and can be thrown right back in our faces?
 
Mikie said:
Oh great! Another eBike debate in the making! ........yay. :gotnothing:
I think that @Sassyquatch and @herzalot should get a room. Anytime I have to break out a dictionary to figure out what the hell people are saying is more than debate banter and more like I know big words. So if either of you can share what the outcome of all that was, that would be great. :)

I will try and put together a logistical declaration for why I firmly believe that eBikes do not belong on BLM land.
But emotionally...
I am extremely jaded by the rise of eBikes. I have yet to have a positive experience around eBikes. I am so sick and tired of eBikers telling me I need to try one. I really don’t. Or, how they get the same work out, blah, blah f@cking blah. Liars. Bullshit. All their lame ass excuses that justify owning them are just that, a lame ass excuse. Now I‘M talking MAJORITY of lame ass excuses.

I don’t want to be on the same trail as them. I am a FIRM believer that ALL motorized vehicles do not belong on non motorized trails. Firm believer. Take your eBike to Hungry Valley if you want to ride off-road trails so you can be with like trail users.

Call me a hater? Fine, I’m a hater. I don’t care, still America where I get to have my opinion.

eBikes definitely have their place, but not on BLM land, and definitely not on human powered trails.
Click to expand...
We passed a p-bike today going the opposite direction and considering where we were I was totally fine with it. Perfect ride for him even though he turned around early and dang sure didn’t start from where we did...:Roflmao
 
mike said:
I wrote:
...Have you been nearly hit or hit by an "e-bike" traveling too fast to easily stop (exacerbated by its weight, which will inevitably make collisions more serious)?
Click to expand...

Love your letter! However, this ^^^part is what hikers say about us. Same arguments that are used to keep actual mt bikes off of trails. That's why I am asking everybody to be careful and not use arguments that hikers or equestrians can EASILY apply to less-courteous mt. bikers. We startle the Sh!t out of hikers and spook horses all the time. Not you and me, but the collective we - mt. bikers.

Thanks Mike! I will share my draft once I send it.
 
herzalot said:
Love your letter! However, this ^^^part is what hikers say about us. Same arguments that are used to keep actual mt bikes off of trails. That's why I am asking everybody to be careful and not use arguments that hikers or equestrians can EASILY apply to less-courteous mt. bikers. We startle the Sh!t out of hikers and spook horses all the time. Not you and me, but the collective we - mt. bikers.

Thanks Mike! I will share my draft once I send it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the critique and good words, Chris. I agree with your sensitivities, and as you can see I tried to keep to that line of thinking.

To all: You're free use my comment in part or whole. I think it may be more effective to edit rather than straight copy and paste, but don't let the details keep you from commenting. Thanks.
 
herzalot said:
No problem with your strong opinion, but when you write to the BLM, you are going to have to explain why. Which reason do you think will be most effective? Which reason is complete bullshit and can be thrown right back in our faces?
Click to expand...
Agreed. Safety studies always puts government is a tizzy and I think I would go with concerned safety issues. Unsafe for compatible trail usage would be my strong point. I don’t think they will be moved by inflated STRAVA times. ;)
 
Mikie said:
Agreed. Safety studies always puts government is a tizzy and I think I would go with concerned safety issues. Unsafe for compatible trail usage would be my strong point. I don’t think they will be moved by inflated STRAVA times. ;)
Click to expand...
Be careful with the safety reasoning for reasons I mention above. Make sure you emphasize speed differentials uphill and on flat or undulating terrain. Hikers and equestrians use the "safety" argument all the time about us. Perhaps the impact on trails (massive increase in usage/wear and tear, impact on wildlife) and danger to the e-mtb rider himself (in deep and unprepared) might be angles that help.
 
herzalot said:
Be careful with the safety reasoning for reasons I mention above. Make sure you emphasize speed differentials uphill and on flat or undulating terrain. Hikers and equestrians use the "safety" argument all the time about us. Perhaps the impact on trails (massive increase in usage/wear and tear, impact on wildlife) and danger to the e-mtb rider himself (in deep and unprepared) might be angles that help.
Click to expand...

Just emphasize the fact that they're motorized. It may finally sink in that non-motorized bicycles really shouldn't be banned from all wilderness. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top