Through lots of hard work and a significant amount of good luck, I've had some success at advocacy over the past five or so years. Founded a nonprofit dedicated to a specific piece of public property, did a lot of political maneuvering to gain control, and led the effort to raise a couple million private dollars.
As Lu Kz joked, the vast majority of people that can pull off something like that have the income to afford an ebike, and if they don't own one now, they probably will soon. And if the people that can give those dollars and pull those strings get interested in riding, there's a good chance an ebike will part of the equation.
But beyond that, a big part of the way you accomplish things like this is with arguments based on economic development (attract and retain desirable businesses and workers + tourism dollars) and the overall wellness benefits to the community. Everybody pretty much knows that.
But most people don't carry that idea further. People that lend you their political capital and give you their dollars for trails that are designed and built with bikes in mind care about a lot of things, including utilization, and specifically accessibility to people new to the outdoors, and mountain biking in particular - for example, true green trails you didn't crap out as an afterthought, clear signage, etc.
You know what they absolutely don't give a flying f*ck about: pearl clutching over ebikes and the purity of our sport. That's not at all to say I don't worry about the effect of ebikes on user conflict, etc. I like to think that if I had a magic wand, I'd be unselfishness enough to make ebikes disappear (cause damn they sure are fun).
But ebikes are here to stay. We've got to start focusing on the fact that a significant percentage of trail users, and maybe particularly mountain bikers, are selfish dicks rather than the fact a much smaller percentage ride ebikes.
Sept. 13, 2023, 6:03 p.m. - DancingWithMyself
Through lots of hard work and a significant amount of good luck, I've had some success at advocacy over the past five or so years. Founded a nonprofit dedicated to a specific piece of public property, did a lot of political maneuvering to gain control, and led the effort to raise a couple million private dollars. As Lu Kz joked, the vast majority of people that can pull off something like that have the income to afford an ebike, and if they don't own one now, they probably will soon. And if the people that can give those dollars and pull those strings get interested in riding, there's a good chance an ebike will part of the equation. But beyond that, a big part of the way you accomplish things like this is with arguments based on economic development (attract and retain desirable businesses and workers + tourism dollars) and the overall wellness benefits to the community. Everybody pretty much knows that. But most people don't carry that idea further. People that lend you their political capital and give you their dollars for trails that are designed and built with bikes in mind care about a lot of things, including utilization, and specifically accessibility to people new to the outdoors, and mountain biking in particular - for example, true green trails you didn't crap out as an afterthought, clear signage, etc. You know what they absolutely don't give a flying f*ck about: pearl clutching over ebikes and the purity of our sport. That's not at all to say I don't worry about the effect of ebikes on user conflict, etc. I like to think that if I had a magic wand, I'd be unselfishness enough to make ebikes disappear (cause damn they sure are fun). But ebikes are here to stay. We've got to start focusing on the fact that a significant percentage of trail users, and maybe particularly mountain bikers, are selfish dicks rather than the fact a much smaller percentage ride ebikes.