the switchbacks on uphill trails are going to get blown out by short-cutting ebikes
ebikes on the Shore
No they won’t
You’ll start seeing braids between the switchbacks straight up the slope so ebikers can get up there even faster.
I've been seeing this on certain climbing trails. I happily dismount, and drag all manners of debris, rocks, and logs to block the switchback cuts. From what I can tell, it's simply trail vandalism done by people without authorization to modify or reroute the trails. You encounter a certain amount of logs and debris, and people tend to give up with the stupid shortcuts.
I was piling debris into an obvious braid (think 25’+ of grade reversal)
Every time I went back up the trail the debris was removed. ¯\(ツ)/¯
what about flat-ish multiuse. Does anyone want 500W of pedal assisted braaap coming at them out of a blind corner? When did biking become all about mass consumption of trails rather than just enjoying the time outside? Why can't people wait for their slower partners? What if we get 20km/hr speed limits on multi-use pathways because old people (who drove to the trails) panic when they get passed?
People feel entitled to go fast.
Posted by: mtbman99
I think this is the crux of the issue for most and it’s how do you stop non CAT 1 ebikes. If you say no motors that’s relatively easy to deal with but once there is a motor how is it dealt with. Or in a few years if industry creeps the speeds up a notch.
They want to sell these and will be looking for an advantage over the competition be that in distance or speed or both.
Again more what ifs.
How do you stop people from skidding corners? Building rogue trails?Riding hiking trails? Tossing garbage out the window? Educate them and continue to do so.
Kinda like the IMBA, they have pounded it into so many people heads you need 100 switchbacks per km of trail that it is a standard.
Argue all you want, stick your head in the sand name call etc but the bikes are here to stay. Trail organizations will need to get on board with signage at trailheads to help inform ebike riders on proper etiquette.
Argue all you want, stick your head in the sand name call etc but the bikes are here to stay. Trail organizations will need to get on board with signage at trailheads to help inform ebike riders on proper etiquette.
Hard to argue that when the industry is pushing ebikes so hard. My understanding is it's been monitored, so a bit premature to say they're here to stay. Certain trail system have banned them and other have the legal right to implement bans as well.
If you don't think that ebikes will become more powerful/faster eventually...... that's very naive! Precedence has been set......
Last edited by: Ouch on May 24, 2019, 7:17 a.m., edited 2 times in total.
Posted by: Ouch
My understanding is it's been monitored, so a bit premature to say they're here to stay. Certain trail system have banned them and other have the legal right to implement bans as well.
That is correct. And I'll add that the worst justification, from my perspective, is the "Too bad, deal with it" line. That's been the company line all the way from the manufacturers, down to the dealers/renters, and trickled right down to many of the riders.
Which land owners have banned e bikes specifically? ( not trail orgs) What precedence has been set?
Provincial government has given the green light for now. Call me naive but I don’t really see the mainstream manufacturers waisting their efforts mass producing products that have been regulated here and in Europe. The later being miles ahead of us in terms restriction and acceptance.
Trail Orgs, who act on the basis of their agreements with the Land Owners/Manager, have made bans. The closest examples are KCTS and UROC. Sure, KCTS is a bit handcuffed by the government regs, as some of their routes are partially on gov land and partially on private land, so it's sticky but ebikes are still currently banned from their system. UROC is a part owner of their land, and co-manage with the forestry company, who agreed to non-motorized use. You could also throw in WORCA and the Sproatt area.
Again, if you're expecting Land Owners to ban ebikes, it's not going to come in that form. If they can't manage this issue through the acting trail orgs (with whom they already have non-motorized agreements), they'll just ban all forms of bike access.
Posted by: mammal
Trail Orgs, who act on the basis of their agreements with the Land Owners/Manager, have made bans. The closest examples are KCTS and UROC. Sure, KCTS is a bit handcuffed by the government regs, as some of their routes are partially on gov land and partially on private land, so it's sticky but ebikes are still currently banned from their system. UROC is a part owner of their land, and co-manage with the forestry company, who agreed to non-motorized use. You could also throw in WORCA and the Sproatt area.
Again, if you're expecting Land Owners to ban ebikes, it's not going to come in that form. If they can't manage this issue through the acting trail orgs (with whom they already have non-motorized agreements), they'll just ban all forms of bike access.
By your own statement trail organizations don’t seem to have much say as most areas are crown land.
What they wish and what is reality are two different things. I don’t see any grey areas.
Posted by: D-man
Posted by: mtbman99
Argue all you want, stick your head in the sand name call etc but the bikes are here to stay. Trail organizations will need to get on board with signage at trailheads to help inform ebike riders on proper etiquette.
Hopefully just like on BLM MTB trails in the USA the signs say no ebikes, they foresee the issues at hand.
Last edited by: Brocklanders on May 24, 2019, 3:26 p.m., edited 3 times in total.
Posted by: FLATCH
By your own statement trail organizations don’t seem to have much say as most areas are crown land.
What they wish and what is reality are two different things. I don’t see any grey areas.
You misunderstood me then, and saying most areas are on crown land is just another broad statement that doesn't capture the scope of the issue. Allowing the Orgs to act in accordance to their organization's best interests, and in accordance to agreements with Land Owner/Managers is the basis of what's allowed the amazing trail centers we now have, to grow and flourish. To me these relationships have been absolutely key in allowing growth in areas where there riding zones are in private land or mixed (private and crown, like KCTS).
If you're ( the royal You're) keen on short-circiuting this relationship by pointing to a preliminary legislation (which will be adjusted after the trial period), then that's "your" prerogative. I think it's harmful to the sport to turn a blind eye to the details of current legislation or down-play the established system of advocacy and maintenance. Assuming that "since they've sold 1000's of the things, it's reality" doesn't do justice to the issue, or give proper respect to the the Orgs that are only trying to manage their resources and agreements.
Last edited by: mammal on May 24, 2019, 12:30 p.m., edited 2 times in total.
Is the "but they have been accepted in Europe" argument even valid? You can't really compare riding doubletrack and alpine bike park through farmer's fields that are already serviced by paved roads and chairlifts where the wildlife have been scared away to what we have going on here. Look how sparse Austria is on Trailforks! They probably aren't even allowed to ride singletrack outside of a bike park there! Why did Rocky Mountain have to spec flat bars and semi slick Continentals in order to sell bikes in Germany? Because mountain biking is different over there.
Forum jump:
