I'm seeing ton of guys in this thread who personally build and ride trails that are not sanctioned. They don't obey the rules but others should
I get the issues but the hipocracy is pretty blatant.
so if one utilizes an unsanctioned trail they are precluded from having an opinion about motorbikes being on non-motorized trails?
cause motos only use sanctioned trails.
Just a speculative fiction. No cause for alarm.
Why does an electric motor now open up the debate to use motorized vehicles on lands designated non-motorized?
No idea. Do you know?
All I am saying is you guys are calling for more regulation but you're not prepared to be regulated
It seems some (Cam, Synchro, apologies if I'm paraphrasing or have missunderstood here) are suggesting that the default should be that e-bikes are allowed on all biking trails until we know better about their impact.
for the time being there aren't enough of these demon bikes out there for it to matter so i don't see a need to make an immediate decision. both price and availability are going to preclude us from going out this weekend and seeing hordes of ebikers ripping up the trails. however, it is important that the discussion takes place and that people who have a vested interest are allowed to make their case. i'm sure glad that mtn bikers had the opportunity with the ARSS that simply being told we're no longer welcome.
i said it on Lee's FB thread and repeat it here that i am more inclined to say no at this point than yes, but i still feel it's important to have the discussion as i can see a number of circumstances where ebikes can be used without prejudice.
and to me the argument that if you're not fit enough to pedal up then you don't get the reward is pure hogwash. suspension? disc brakes? adjustable seat posts? i sure don't see a lot of people complaining about these technologies that help make their riding easier or more enjoyable or saying that these things are going to destroy the trails because people can now ride down faster and brake harder.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
All I am saying is you guys are calling for more regulation but you're not prepared to be regulated
advocating for non-motorized use on non-motorized trails is not 'calling for more regulation'.
Why does an electric motor now open up the debate to use motorized vehicles on lands designated non-motorized?
i think b/c a small electric motor is not nearly as objectionable as a noisy, loud, stinky 2-stroke. nor is an ebike going to have the same potential to impact the trails as a trials or moto bike.
but within the ebike realm of pedal assist and throttled bikes, pedal assist is definitely the lesser of two evils.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
i think b/c a small electric motor is not nearly as objectionable as a noisy, loud, stinky 2-stroke. nor is an ebike going to have the same potential to impact the trails as a trials or moto bike.
but within the ebike realm of pedal assist and throttled bikes, pedal assist is definitely the lesser of two evils.
and it's still motorized with more power than your legs.
advocating for non-motorized use on non-motorized trails is not 'calling for more regulation'.
what is it then?
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
what is it then?
it's maintaining the status quo non-motorized designation.
Wow is that what I missed at the AGM last night… just read up on Cam's comments and the whole thing… I was out of town.
Cam did ask the FB group at MTB Cypress their thoughts and there was a bit of discussion there on shuttling, somewhat I guess like he called out for conversation in the AGM. I did point out in the FB group at MTB Cypress this point:
"But I will respond to Stuart Loewen 's comment about shuttling is for weaklings. It is not. It is access. I just got back from pedalling to 7th, Pipeline, and Lower Skull, where I cleared more trail debris. Mtn Hwy provides pedal access to trails. FSR's and the local mountain roads, Seymour, Cypress, provide access. Being able to hit 5 laps in three hours on some of the technically challenging trails at Cypress has one result- getting better. Without the seat time coming down, and the shuttling up, I would not be the rider I am today. It provided me the access efficiently to get better. Whether shuttling, pedalling, eBiking- we all require access. Managing the access, which ever mode, is the conversation. Saying one mode is better than another is not helpful. I may need a hip replacement in my future. I love being outside… would I consider and eBike to at least get me outside and allow me the access to the top? This is the market for the bike IMHO. When I am old and broken, I will report back."
So, I have the position that this is a conversation about Access, and not necessarily ebikes. Riders need access. Remember, everyone, mostly, that rides Fromme… SHUTTLES to mountain hwy… so, be careful on that argument! : ), Most everyone shuttles to lower Seymour… so… I think Cam's "Shuttle prompt for discussion"… is a bit moot overall.
Talk less, Say More.
it's maintaining the status quo non-motorized designation.
ok, so then what is all the noise about? getting the land managers to enforce this designation?
does anyone actually know where this designation is listed by the DNV or metro?
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
It seems some (Cam, Synchro, apologies if I'm paraphrasing or have missunderstood here) are suggesting that the default should be that e-bikes are allowed on all biking trails until we know better about their impact.
Thank you for apologizing in advance - because I have never said that. Nor suggested it. And that is not my position.
This is perhaps another example of our perspective being clouded by our passion. I have said things like; perhaps it doesn't make sense to sling the same arrows that hikers and other opponents use against us.
And - if we expect a rational response from land managers and other user groups shouldn't we try to be rational and, perhaps even courteous, towards other user groups, regardless of what we decide to advocate about their acceptance and use?
I also think ebikes have less footprint, hassle and take less time than shuttling. You can also likely do fewer laps because batteries won't last as long as a tank of gas as far as I know. But again that DOESN'T MEAN I SUPPORT EBIKES OR BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED EVERYWHERE BY DEFAULT (YES I'M YELLING - BUT NOT AT YOU TED).
It means I'm able to compare the two without being clouded by some elitist hatred of these things and weigh the pros and cons.
ok here's a couple links:
http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/bylaws/Bylaws/GVRD_Bylaw_1177.pdf
http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/96318_05
with the key points being:
metro - motor assisted cycle has the same meaning as in the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act and
regulations under that Act, and includes electric motor assisted cycles
BCMVA "cycle" means a device having any number of wheels that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride and includes a motor assisted cycle, but does not include a skate board, roller skates or in-line roller skates;
metro - 10.2 No person shall use or operate a motor assisted cycle or motor vehicle except on and
within a roadway or parking lot.
so after a cursory read it would appear that on metro land ebikes are not allowed on the trails.
and for the dnv it's a bit more succint in "Motorized Vehicles Are Not Permitted on Parks Trails"
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
re. the Shuttle comparison….most people who are passionate about this issue probably aren't that concerned about impact on shuttle trails. Personally I tend to either avoid them, or understand that they're likely highly impacted do to the fact they're shuttle trails and alter my expectations accordingly.
Many people, like myself, seek out the harder to get to trail, because, generally speaking, they are in better condition and typically way less impacted. This technology allows more people to get to these places, way easier. Remember when everyone smarmily told people to not build on shuttle roads if they didn't want as impacted trails? Well, this technology basically spits in the face of that and turns EVERY trail into a shuttle trail, and I don't think that's desirable. And again, we can't be thinking about the limitations of the technology now, because we can look at history and see how fast technology is changing to not take that into consideration in how this will look in 5 years.
Listen, I really hope I, and others, are making a big adieu about nothing, I really do. But after fighting for years to differentiate ourselves so strongly from motos, and winning the battle, and doing really amazing things on the trail front over the past 5 years or so, it's really scary to think about the potential of losing everything many people have worked really hard to achieve. I'm not against them on trails sanctioned for their use, however I am concerned about granting unfettered access without clearly understanding the long term effects and implications related to non-moto trail advocacy.
Forum jump:
