Why I don’t want an ebike (but I don’t hate them)

Posted by: tashi

This a hobby, one that has certain physical demands. No one’s entitled to it.

this.

A statement like that seems to come pretty close to sounding like discrimination

People shouldn't enjoy mountain biking just because they can't meet certain physical demands.  Perhaps disabled people shouldn't participate in any sport or hobby that requires physical demand.

Well, either you left enough wiggle room in your statement to be able to deny that fairly serious accusation or you’re going to have to back it up a bit more explicitly.

Edit: that was to reference your first post.

Posted by: FLATCH

People shouldn't enjoy mountain biking just because they can't meet certain physical demands.  Perhaps disabled people shouldn't participate in any sport or hobby that requires physical demand.

Jeezuz, who’s suggested that?

And now there are firmware hacks available as well.. no need for hardware:

https://www.eplus.bike/en/pro-shimano/

Posted by: tashi

I fail to see how the commuting to the trail has any relevance - we’re playing with our expensive toys here, the planet won’t notice if we drive or ride to our ride. We in the west are so far beyond sustainable that presenting a bike commute to your playtime as an environmental good deed is laughable.  This is like saying that the Mayans would still be around if only they switched to silver jewelry instead of that evil gold stuff. 

There’s no moral problem with telling people what type of toy that can play with on what trail. That’s just  management and is basically required any time there are enough users. Not allowing mopeds on non-motorized trails isn’t denying moped riders the ability to ride - they just have to do it somewhere else. Kinda like how when we wanted official trails we had to build em ourselves.  

Now that we have official trails, yes, we’re attempting to control access the “same way” that hikers did to us.  They were worried about our impacts so in order to manage those impacts they fought us, and in some places they kept us out.  Fair enough, and it only makes sense that we’d do the same.  Our trail experience and access are on the line.

These things aren’t bicycles, they’ll have some impacts that bicycles don’t have and some impacts that will happen to a larger degree due to their motor. Management means drawing a line somewhere and I for one support drawing the line at the presence/absence of a motor. It’s pretty clear that both the land managers and many of the other trail user groups agree. It’s the industry and folks that feel they’re entitled to ride whatever they want wherever they want that’s not on board.

The commuting to the trail thing seems to be more about convenience that environmentalism as the trip across the bridge can be a night mare at times. That said, what's not to like about saving a few bucks on fuel? And if everyone took your attitude re "environmental good deed is laughable" then nobody would be making any effort to reduce their waste production at all. 

The comparison of "kinda like how when we wanted official trails we had to build em" is waaaaay off. The mtb network in BC, was for the most part, built without any sort of authorization
or permission. Who says our trail access is on the line?

Re your impact statement, there is nothing to support that yet. The only thing that comes close is increased usage and if you're going down that road then you have to start limiting the number of laps any rider can put in as well as the total number of people allowed onto the trail system. 

It's clear that you don't like ebikes but it seems that your bias is clouding your judgement when it comes to the examples you're using. None of them are solid in that they don't have counterarguments that invalidate them. I originally did not like the idea of ebikes either, but then I started to critically question the reasons against them and found that a lot of those reasons didn't stand up to scrutiny. I think that what makes the discussion valuable is that shows which concerns are valid and reasons to ban or restrict ebikes and which ones aren't.

Posted by: grambo

And now we are into slippery slope territory... so because some models of pedal assist ebikes are speed/torque limited then they should be permitted where mountain bikes are because they aren't that dissimilar? This is somewhat equivalent to allowing low power snowmobiles to access non-motorized areas where people ski tour/snowshoe because "Hey these specific sleds can only go 2-4x as fast as an average person can skin! It's fine! Disabled/old/fat people can ski tour now which is good for the sport!" 

Motorized vs non-motorized is simple, easy to understand and somewhat enforceable and that's the reason people point to it as the line in the sand. Asking land managers/park rangers etc. to somehow distinguish if an ebike has a certain top speed, has been chip tuned etc. is just not feasible. There's already essentially no enforcement as it is, at least with snowmobiling they ticket people in no-go zones around Whistler and I believe the Coquihala as well.

Add me as another person to the list who doesn't like how there seems to be no grassroots e-bike advocacy taking place and just industry shilling trying to normalize it to sell more of the things. It's funny because I'm likely their target market: late 30's officer worker dad with very limited time to ride, questionable fitness and high disposable income.

Well the sled analogy for ski tour doesn't really wash as you still need to get the sled down afterwards. Although I know guys that do sled tour and take turns doing laps up/down. There's no doubt that the motorized/non-motorized split is the easiest way to go, just not necessarily the best from my perspective. Re their being no grass roots advocacy it's probably because the activity is too young. It took a number of years of mtb'ing before advocacy groups formed. 

This leads to another point that many people don't like about ebikes; the mtb advocacy groups have already done all the heavy lifting and ebikers are taking advantage of that. Well, who's to say that people who ebike haven't been part of advocacy in the past as mtb'ers? Who's to say the ebikers won't partake in advocacy in the future? If we're going to wag a finger at ebikers who don't perform any sort of advocacy then we also need to wag the same finger at mtb'ers who don't either.

Posted by: tashi

Posted by: FLATCH

People shouldn't enjoy mountain biking just because they can't meet certain physical demands.  Perhaps disabled people shouldn't participate in any sport or hobby that requires physical demand.

Jeezuz, who’s suggested that?

There are definite advantages to having physical ability as a barrier to access in some respects such as fewer people on the trails and fewer people getting themselves into places they shouldn't be and requiring rescue, but the idea of taking away a tool that may allow some people to experience an activity they otherwise couldn't simply because some fear that tool comes across as a bit elitist. I'm all for the earn your turns mantra which is what spurned this thread, but the idea of telling someone to get stuffed simply because you don't like or are afraid of the potential consequences of their chosen mode of recreation is not what sport is all about.

Maybe we should all count our blessings that the sport we are all obviously so passionate about now appears to have a viable option to keep us riding longer than we might have thought. Everyone is worried about abuse, and that's a real thing, but each and every one of our time will come when the demands of riding exceed our fitness. Maybe you will not be forced to stop riding that day? Those of you who say yes, you will stop, should reality check yourself as if that day was tomorrow. I bet you're all young.

When all I think about is the other guy, I end up anti-ebike. When look 15 years into my own future, Im hoping that ebikes are 15lbs lighter with longer battery life. Until then Im going to be pedaling up the Shore in all of its glory. And for those of you who grew up here and don't know anything but, it is GLORIOUS.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: tashi

I fail to see how the commuting to the trail has any relevance - we’re playing with our expensive toys here, the planet won’t notice if we drive or ride to our ride. We in the west are so far beyond sustainable that presenting a bike commute to your playtime as an environmental good deed is laughable.  This is like saying that the Mayans would still be around if only they switched to silver jewelry instead of that evil gold stuff. 

There’s no moral problem with telling people what type of toy that can play with on what trail. That’s just  management and is basically required any time there are enough users. Not allowing mopeds on non-motorized trails isn’t denying moped riders the ability to ride - they just have to do it somewhere else. Kinda like how when we wanted official trails we had to build em ourselves.  

Now that we have official trails, yes, we’re attempting to control access the “same way” that hikers did to us.  They were worried about our impacts so in order to manage those impacts they fought us, and in some places they kept us out.  Fair enough, and it only makes sense that we’d do the same.  Our trail experience and access are on the line.

These things aren’t bicycles, they’ll have some impacts that bicycles don’t have and some impacts that will happen to a larger degree due to their motor. Management means drawing a line somewhere and I for one support drawing the line at the presence/absence of a motor. It’s pretty clear that both the land managers and many of the other trail user groups agree. It’s the industry and folks that feel they’re entitled to ride whatever they want wherever they want that’s not on board.

The commuting to the trail thing seems to be more about convenience that environmentalism as the trip across the bridge can be a night mare at times. That said, what's not to like about saving a few bucks on fuel? And if everyone took your attitude re "environmental good deed is laughable" then nobody would be making any effort to reduce their waste production at all. 

The comparison of "kinda like how when we wanted official trails we had to build em" is waaaaay off. The mtb network in BC, was for the most part, built without any sort of authorization
or permission. Who says our trail access is on the line?

Re your impact statement, there is nothing to support that yet. The only thing that comes close is increased usage and if you're going down that road then you have to start limiting the number of laps any rider can put in as well as the total number of people allowed onto the trail system. 

It's clear that you don't like ebikes but it seems that your bias is clouding your judgement when it comes to the examples you're using. None of them are solid in that they don't have counterarguments that invalidate them. I originally did not like the idea of ebikes either, but then I started to critically question the reasons against them and found that a lot of those reasons didn't stand up to scrutiny. I think that what makes the discussion valuable is that shows which concerns are valid and reasons to ban or restrict ebikes and which ones aren't.

- I haven’t said that “every environmental good deed is laughable” but the future of the planet and what we feel about what to do about it is a far larger topic than be addressed here.  Your points about saving money and time are relevant to why these things are attractive - it just has nothing to do with if they should have access or not.

- I understand the history of mountain bike trails and their legality well. I’ve been doing this long enough that most of my riding time has been on illegal stuff. That we built ourselves. My point is that if a new sport comes along they’re going to have to put in the work to get the facilities they want. Particularly if the want it to be official.

- this is early days so no one knows what the long term effect on access will be. But we’re starting to hear stories and they don’t sound positive so far.  I won’t speculate on why you don’t seem to think they’re credible or will happen here but these reports have me worried. Kinda. 

Only kinda. This is where I get elitist again. If they tank official access, I’ll be okay. I’ve spent most of my trail time “poaching”, I’m willing to do it again. And I don’t like everything that’s come along with things going full golf. There are a lot of folks who will miss official access however and they’re on the beginner/child/disabled side of things. IF what I think will happen if motorbikes start getting ridden on multi-use trails actually happens than the sport will wind up LESS accessible, not more.

Posted by: tashi

Posted by: FLATCH

People shouldn't enjoy mountain biking just because they can't meet certain physical demands.  Perhaps disabled people shouldn't participate in any sport or hobby that requires physical demand.

Jeezuz, who’s suggested that?

You did,re-read your post.

Posted by: tashi

- I haven’t said that “every environmental good deed is laughable” but the future of the planet and what we feel about what to do about it is a far larger topic than be addressed here.  Your points about saving money and time are relevant to why these things are attractive - it just has nothing to do with if they should have access or not.

- I understand the history of mountain bike trails and their legality well. I’ve been doing this long enough that most of my riding time has been on illegal stuff. That we built ourselves. My point is that if a new sport comes along they’re going to have to put in the work to get the facilities they want. Particularly if the want it to be official.

- this is early days so no one knows what the long term effect on access will be. But we’re starting to hear stories and they don’t sound positive so far.  I won’t speculate on why you don’t seem to think they’re credible or will happen here but these reports have me worried. Kinda. 

Only kinda. This is where I get elitist again. If they tank official access, I’ll be okay. I’ve spent most of my trail time “poaching”, I’m willing to do it again. And I don’t like everything that’s come along with things going full golf. There are a lot of folks who will miss official access however and they’re on the beginner/child/disabled side of things. IF what I think will happen if motorbikes start getting ridden on multi-use trails actually happens than the sport will wind up LESS accessible, not more.

hmmm... so, only the small deed from a device that you don't like is laughable but other small deeds are okay? Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical? I agree it's a side point, but it was part of your argument. I do agree with you tho that the time and money saving potential of ebikes while nice, should not factor into whether they gain access or not. 

hmmm...so it was ok that mtb started out illegally, but you guys over there, sorry you're going to have to do it a different way? Or you people over there that don't help at all you suck, but you're part of our tribe so you're ok. Again, that seems a bit hypocritical.

I've also heard stories I don't like about ebikes and acknowledge that there is potential for abuse, but mtb'ers poaching trails is also an issue, so....

I guess the big difference is that I want to have some faith that pedelec users can be integrated into the trail system without so much bother that brings the whole thing crashing down on itself. A lot of hikers had no faith in mtb'ers when they appeared and look at us now - for the most part a responsible group of yahoos who just like to have fun in the forest. You asked the million dollar question though - If the worst case scenario happens.  And like you at this point I am actually somewhat ambivalent when it comes to my own use of the trails and ebikes, they're not a factor for me or my circle so if they get banned it's not a huge impact to me. Also like you, I don't want to see a good thing ruined from unfettered access of ebikes. For me the million dollar question is what can we do to prevent that from happening besides an outright ban? I think the biggest concern right now is the speed at which ebikes are adopted vs the speed at which land managers set out their regulations. 

Great discussion from lots of people here and I bet some of you are getting a bit burnt out, I know I am a bit and am feeling like the conversation is starting to go in circles a bit. I'll throw out a few last ideas tho.

1. If the main concern seems to be over climbing and etiquette, what if ebikes were restricted to paved roads or double track only for climbing access? So the road on Seymour/Cypress and the gravel road up Fromme?

2. If people abuse whatever rules are set out the fines are hefty. A $100 fine to someone on a $6K - $10K bike is nothing. Make the fines steep, like $1000 or more that can get attached to ICBC licensing and insurance; that will make people sit up and take notice of what's going on. 

3. Mandatory education of some sort when people buy, so they're aware of the rules and trail etiquette (something I'd actually like to see for all bikes tbh). It doesn't help with used sales, but it's a start at least.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: tashi

- I haven’t said that “every environmental good deed is laughable” but the future of the planet and what we feel about what to do about it is a far larger topic than be addressed here. Your points about saving money and time are relevant to why these things are attractive - it just has nothing to do with if they should have access or not.

- I understand the history of mountain bike trails and their legality well. I’ve been doing this long enough that most of my riding time has been on illegal stuff. That we built ourselves. My point is that if a new sport comes along they’re going to have to put in the work to get the facilities they want. Particularly if the want it to be official.

- this is early days so no one knows what the long term effect on access will be. But we’re starting to hear stories and they don’t sound positive so far. I won’t speculate on why you don’t seem to think they’re credible or will happen here but these reports have me worried. Kinda.

Only kinda. This is where I get elitist again. If they tank official access, I’ll be okay. I’ve spent most of my trail time “poaching”, I’m willing to do it again. And I don’t like everything that’s come along with things going full golf. There are a lot of folks who will miss official access however and they’re on the beginner/child/disabled side of things. IF what I think will happen if motorbikes start getting ridden on multi-use trails actually happens than the sport will wind up LESS accessible, not more.

hmmm... so, only the small deed from a device that you don't like is laughable but other small deeds are okay? Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical? I agree it's a side point, but it was part of your argument. I do agree with you tho that the time and money saving potential of ebikes while nice, should not factor into whether they gain access or not.

hmmm...so it was ok that mtb started out illegally, but you guys over there, sorry you're going to have to do it a different way? Or you people over there that don't help at all you suck, but you're part of our tribe so you're ok. Again, that seems a bit hypocritical.

I've also heard stories I don't like about ebikes and acknowledge that there is potential for abuse, but mtb'ers poaching trails is also an issue, so....

I guess the big difference is that I want to have some faith that pedelec users can be integrated into the trail system without so much bother that brings the whole thing crashing down on itself. A lot of hikers had no faith in mtb'ers when they appeared and look at us now - for the most part a responsible group of yahoos who just like to have fun in the forest. You asked the million dollar question though - If the worst case scenario happens. And like you at this point I am actually somewhat ambivalent when it comes to my own use of the trails and ebikes, they're not a factor for me or my circle so if they get banned it's not a huge impact to me. Also like you, I don't want to see a good thing ruined from unfettered access of ebikes. For me the million dollar question is what can we do to prevent that from happening besides an outright ban? I think the biggest concern right now is the speed at which ebikes are adopted vs the speed at which land managers set out their regulations.

Great discussion from lots of people here and I bet some of you are getting a bit burnt out, I know I am a bit and am feeling like the conversation is starting to go in circles a bit. I'll throw out a few last ideas tho.

1. If the main concern seems to be over climbing and etiquette, what if ebikes were restricted to paved roads or double track only for climbing access? So the road on Seymour/Cypress and the gravel road up Fromme?

2. If people abuse whatever rules are set out the fines are hefty. A $100 fine to someone on a $6K - $10K bike is nothing. Make the fines steep, like $1000 or more that can get attached to ICBC licensing and insurance; that will make people sit up and take notice of what's going on.

3. Mandatory education of some sort when people buy, so they're aware of the rules and trail etiquette (something I'd actually like to see for all bikes tbh). It doesn't help with used sales, but it's a start at least.

Good points Syncro,

Just to put things in perspective go to the birthplace of Mtb in Marin County. They have the MTB museum which is great, and the worst trail system I have ever rode ( have family there). They had access yanked away years back because things never got sorted with the land managers, so that was the end of that. Kinda like what is going on here, NSMBA is sitting on the fence, to scared to lose sponsor money. I emailed them voicing my concerns and got a generic email back... Pretty weak

We have to look at the long term, the Ebikes will get faster and faster doing upwards of 30km up climbing multi use trails shared by hikers, things will not turn out in our favor. This city is growing by the day, the bridges are jammed on sunny weekends with hikers coming to the shore. Here will be the litmus test on how it all plays out.