cerealkilla_ profile

This is sooooo awesome. When you hear about "a whole community being behind someone," it's because that person is a gem.

This guy is INCAPABLE of telling the truth. Lies about lies. The police deal with rats like this all the time, and they know one when they meet one. His new explanations are fooling nobody. I expect they'll push for charges if they think they have a chance of it sticking.

.....

Rest assured, there is no TT. This is pathological lying. Chances are he can't distinguish between reality and the things he makes up. I'm not sympathizing with him, even if he has a profound personality disorder, but this guy probably has no clue how to live an honest normal life.

Best article I have ever read in any bike magazine ever. Perfection.

Hilarious, because everyone is laughing at you, shit-for-brains.

HA, says Lucien la loser, about 3 months too late. Guess you can blame your delayed response on your primitive mind.

Never seen a more clear example of natural selection at work 🙂
But what a bunch of good sports. I'd love to have a pint with these guys.

I'm on the fence for the painkillers. What about ANTIHISTAMINES!!!….We're talking about something that most definitely can save a life. I used to tuck them into my handlebars when racing. Ended up giving them to a fellow racer one year when we hit a wasp nest (I went first, he got stung). Hard tablet forms in tinfoil last for a long time.

Luce - It's really hard to make sense of your ramblings. You have clearly missed the point of this article, along with most of the thread of conversation.

I'll try to explain it in grunts clicks and whistles for you. Men and women are more than just sexual identities or objects, and have purposes beyond pleasing each other and selling goods. This is not simply a matter of what offends people, but a matter of understanding how endorsing or supporting certain products serves to perpetuate patterns of inequality, objectification, and exploitation. Not just in "some countries", but "here" as well.

You seem really upset that this calendar and your love thereof is being questioned. It must really stir up some powerful feelings for you when your ideals of male and female are challenged. It seems to have completely short- circuited your ability to communicate with any degree of clarity. Why not spell it out, or make an actual point?

I don't like this. I don't support removing the structures. However, at the same time I feel really privileged to have access to these trails that are built on land I don't own and ultimately have to share with others. I understand that this type of action could set a bad precedent for trails, but at the same time, I'm certainly not "furious" as the headline states. I prefer black trails, but also realize that the majority of riders (including those that travel here) tend away from teeter-totters and others such things. Stunts ARE a big part of BC riding history, and the Shore, and what made riding here great but they do cater to a somewhat elite level of riding when you look at the broader ridership. It's interesting that they're targeting such a select number of features. Perhaps there IS a specific standard that needs to exist for known public trails to preserve this great free access we all ride, particularly when it involves human-made structures. Maybe eliminating obvious sources of liability protects more than just those that don't know their own limits....maybe having a clear line of what is acceptable on public trails also helps protect our greater riding opportunities. There are LOTS of other places one can mess themselves up or get their pulse jacked (um slabs or roots anyone?). That perceived slippery slope can be viewed both ways....We say it's leading to a bubble-wrapped nanny state ---- critics may say that if the teeter-totters stay, the next thing will be rickety ramps over punjie-sticks and 40-ft dorp-to-falts. Maybe there's a middle ground and a few standards may help us move toward it. Just throwing it out there. When it comes to the public discussion and negotiation with land-managers, we need to pick and chose our words, and our battles carefully.  Again, I would prefer the features stay. I have fond memories of some of those stunts, and some scars to remember them by.

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.

If people are really serious about this, my suggestion is to find a way to express their concerns in a concise manner, and identify specific points of concern that may be relevant to and considered by the province when the policy on ebikes is reconsidered  in 2 years. For reference, take note of the following excerpt from the policy:

"RSTBC will test the effectiveness of this policy throughout the province from 2018-2021. The intent is to enable learning through experience prior to policy adjustment. Adjustments to the policy will be based on the following considerations: 

• Implementation costs (for both RSTBC and partner organizations);

• Quantifiable increased trail maintenance burden resulting from e-bike use;

• The level and nature of use on trails authorized for e-biking;

• The incidence and nature of safety issues and responses;

• Partnership agreement holder compliance with safety-related requirements / standards;

• The incidence and nature of trail use conflicts and responses;

• The incidence and nature of undesirable environmental impacts from e-bike trail use; and 

• Other observations about the effectiveness of the policy and suggestions for policy improvement."

Again, just my two bits, but if you want to make an impact, reconsider your positions, and what aspect of them fits into the above points. Maybe also seek to avoid unproductive angles that (even if you feel strongly about them) don't help the conversation, and  may just reflect self-interest.

I realize this sounds condescending. People can do and say whatever the fk they want. But whatevs.

Posted by: FLATCH

and 'killa, if you want to call norona out for name calling, for fuck sakes man, go back and read the whole thread. i think the scoreboard is pretty lopsided to the nays.

That's not the point I was seeking Flatch. Norona is one of best positioned people to contribute to a proper discussion of ebike use from THAT user group. I have indeed suggested he not engage in name-calling. I try to avoid stooping to that too. I honestly think that some of the nay arguments are just as garbage as some of the yay arguments. 

If I'm calling him out on anything, it's to engage in serious conversation about the specific issues that I find troublesome (stated earlier). I give zero fks about what people ride and how they get to the top. However, when I see things that either have potential to cause conflict or that imperil trail access, I (very seriously and genuinely) want all hands on board in the conversation, including Norona.  I remain interested in hearing anything he has to say about the 3 questions I posed. Filter out the nonsense and trolling, and there is occasional value in the information he provides. 

I have no interest in a public pillory for any individual here. I humbly suggest that people stick to issues that matter, and challenge others to answer. Those that want to troll will have little influence on outcomes when the province revisits their policy in 2-3 years. If anyone thinks that an online war between two polarized viewpoints is going to produce better outcomes, I think they're misguided. However, the stakes (and expectations) are higher for a person that represents brands. Nobody at Devinci or other makers would be impressed if they thought one of their rep's marketing strategies was to dismiss (and at times insult) people with genuine concerns about how to properly integrate their products into trail-use frameworks.  

Indeed, this is a 28-page thread, that has a lot of wasted words and thoughts......for what end. There is ZERO to gain in a discussion of "earning turns", who is cheating who, who is fat, who is a noob, and so forth. The discussion of ebikes needs to evolve, hopefully to a more civil conversation, and one that gets to the point. That stands for all of us, not just Norona.   Just my two bits.

Posted by: norona

Posted by: Ouch

I think it's critical that a decision be made either way, sooner than later. I don't think it's fair to everyone involved to let this linger on.

Already been made class 1 e-mtb are classified as mtb. 🤙

Not entirely correct. Class 1 e-mtb are classified as Class 1 e-mtb, and are thus prohibited from a limited set of riding areas such as Lord of the Squirrels, and certain private land trails managed by the Kootenay Columbia Trail Society/ KCTS (due to issues with insurance liabilities). There may be other areas added to this list as land-owners, insurance bodies, and wildlife managers take stock of emtbs and what they entail. Important to consider that it doesn't matter if these groups are correct in any assumptions they make regarding emtb, only that they have the power to influence restrictions. So I would think how you present yourself matters more than ever.

The recent decision on provincial recreation trails is a progression and really did help clarify some important issues, but there is still lots to figure out.....especially for clubs that have insurance and liability at stake. Of course, I would expect that people interested in promotion of emtbs would be very active in helping sort these things out.

As for riding UP tech trails, that sound great....assuming they are uphill tech trails. Of course, riding up downhill trails (designated as downhill primary on Section 56 permits) seems like a questionable idea, given the potential for conflict or collision with downhill riders. It is one thing for a downhill rider to see and avoid a hiker, but quite another to prepare for and avoid riders coming uphill toward them. Who gets the right of way?...the uphill emtb rider with his or her thumb on the boost button, or the downhill rider committed to their line? Surely ensuring safety and harmonious trail interactions takes precedence over espousing the virtues of a technology without consideration of the implications of its use. This (uphill downhill on the same trail) is an example. I have heard repeatedly that "emtbs are mtbs" yet at the same time they can be used in very different ways, have very different capabilities, and are assigned a distinct classification by the province that "acoustic" mtbs do not share. There is an established flow of traffic that has thus far served our trails and users well, and if that is to be upended by introduction of a new classification of vehicle, it should be discussed.

I will note that neither of the mentioned points aim to belittle emtbs or those that ride them, and are not calling for restrictions. Instead, they are simply what myself, and apparently some others see as legitimate concerns that should be addressed in order to maintain harmonious trails and access. I am really interested in hearing some good ideas and input on these, and less interested in more marketing of all that is great and rad.

I would think that the most vocal of the emtb promoters would have some thoughtful ideas for these matters, and would want to avoid stooping to engage others in name-calling. I mean, it is only going to be harder to win over either customers or allies by dismissing concerns as "the same fruit loops on here wasting time at work making up the dumbest shit imaginable" while not contributing to a thoughtful conversation about legitimate concerns. So I pose it to you Norona, three questions:

1) How do you think we should we manage the intersection of uphill emtb traffic and downhill (emtb and mtb) traffic on downhill primary trails. By this, I mean trails that ordinarily, the vast majority of people would not ride up, but which become suddenly climbable with the addition of a battery and motor?

2) Are you, or any sellers or makers of emtbs making progress with or contributing to the discussions with the insurance companies and private landowners who have concerns about emtbs? Clearly we don't want such liabilities hanging over the heads of our clubs or the security of our trail access, and clarification would likely lead to more successful integration and ensured access. For example, KCTS is in a real pickle with the recent provincial decision, and want to take steps to integrate ebikes for all their positives, but remain hamstrung by insurance and liability impasses. Do you have thoughts on this?

3) What is your analysis of the recent provincial decision on recreation trails? Specifically, do you have any thoughts on challenges associated with enforcement of appropriate types of equipment and trail access (pg 10 on the policy)... What do you think needs to happen (and what needs to be avoided) during the stated "test period" of 2018 to 2021 (pg 11) for this policy to roll into an enduring state of trail access that works for everyone?

Personally, I like the policy, but I note it remains wide open for significant policy adjustment depending on how things roll for the next few years. I also think it misses a few things (such as point #1).

Doesn't really change much - just affirms what was already implied. 

It is helpful in that it recognizes the definitions that Govt will go with, and it also identifies the discretion of Rec Offices to place restrictions if there are problem areas. It somewhat slams the door on the use of non-pedal assist bikes on rec trails. This also clearly implies that any Class 2 or Class 3 ebike must have a license plate, just like an ATV or dirt bike. 

Most interesting to me is that Section 12 part about Monitoring and Policy update. I see this as a mostly rational and well-though approach, that will provide opportunities to adjust things if issues arise. I would hope that those that promote ebikes would see this as a good reason to promote responsibility among their users, and advocate against the kind of things that will create problems (i.e. Riding uphill on downhill trails, blasting through high-traffic areas). 

This follows the course of past Ministry work....they really don't want to pass restrictions, they want user groups to figure it out for themselves. If there is a mess, they will wade in and use the discretion identified in the policy, but they would rather see the public work out any wrinkles on their own.

And don't think the bespectacled protectors of the frogs who hate all bikes aren't just rubbing their grubby little hands together with glee as bikers quarrel among themselves over the respective virtues (or lack thereof) of emtb and mtb.

Make no mistake, the anti-all-bike rabble will seek to make the most of the ebike issue, and use it to forward their own petty claims to the trails. They won't even bother with booby traps this time.

And THAT is why it is so important that the people that are pushing and marketing ebikes need to step up and address the valid issues regarding their responsible integration into trails. Instead of just sticking their thumbs up and saying "just ride" or "be rad" and marketing blah blah blah, they need to actually acknowledge there are some legitimate issues, and articulate a strategy for dealing with them.... Insurance, directional trails, responsible use of (now motorized) machines when mixing with other trail users, and potential trail impact issues (still subject to debate).  We should be looking to get past the baseless issues (i.e. how people feel or what they think they've earned), and focus on the concrete issues that matter when it comes to trail access and actual impacts on trails and other users.

We need a sober and evidence-based discussion of these issues, with direct participation from those that want ebikes on the trails....not just more internet speculation, squabbling, and marketing excuses....and no more of this silence from the profiteers. Until that happens, it is reasonable to expect continued reluctance to embrace ebikes within the riding community. I think we've reached a point where the majority of riders really don't care or judge what other people ride. It's more that what we have achieved as a sport in terms of trails and trails access is extremely precious, and we should be extremely cautious (and responsible) about how we integrate new technology into the mix. And no, ebikes are not like disc brakes and suspension in the 90s, not like DH bikes, not like paddle boards in the breaks, and not like snowboards on the hills. They involve the addition of energy via a motor that increases power and speed. This is a unique direction change in technology, and it deserves a thoughtful analysis.

Posted by: craw

A phenomena that just started happening around me is people who've been off their bike for a while (either due to injury or switching focus to some other activity) justify an ebike because they're out of biking shape. These same people just a few years ago would have gotten back on the bike, toughed out the suck and been better for the struggle back to fitness and competence. Adding a motor definitely gets you back in the game faster but is the result really better? A part of me would feel like an imposter, like yeah, I'm on my bike but I didn't have the sac to get here without a moped. The other part of me is like, this might be better.

That's an interesting point. I've heard every type of marketing spam from "ebikes make it waaaaaayyyy easier" to "ebikes give you a way harder workout"....both coming from the same marketer (go figure). However, it is undeniable that ebikes make it easier because a motor is doing up to 80% of the work.

To your point....that's not a great thing at all for the soft rider breaking back in. Riding your way into shape means you have to build yourself up before doing multiple epic laps and hitting the far-out and high elevation stuff. Shoot, might even want to hit the gym a bit, do some spinning, or balance out your training a bit. When you're in shape, your body endures all manner of impacts and physical demands more effectively. If you tackle a big move, or have to take a staunch tumble, or make your way back from a long way out after a big bail, it really helps to be toughened up a little. If you can just waltz up to top of anything, dad-bod-a-flopping (I can't judge:) there's a good chance you're more at risk for a crappy experience. I don't care much about how it may look or how a person thinks of their self, but I really hope none of those welcome-back-soft-bods don't get themselves into a big mess.

I started off pretty much dead against ebikes until a I learned more about them. Still not for me, and probably never will be. However, I pretty much don't care what other people ride, as long as they're not jerks about it. A jerk on a mountain bike is little different than a jerk on an ebike. I have many friends that are all aboard for an ebike, and I couldn't care less.

What I really don't get though, is the idea that some ebike-riders have that it's perfectly okay to go whizzing uphill on trails that other people descend. When I'm descending, I'm always looking for hikers, but there's just no way you can descend and be prepared to someone on a motorized bike zipping uphill toward you. Who gets priority there? The uphill rider (with a motor) or the downhill rider? Obviously directional signage would help, but using ebikes in this manner (as is already happening) is creating conflict where none existed, and it seems it's up to everyone else to figure it out. Not cool, and not cool for ebikes to be marketed by promoting uphill riding on steep singletracks clearly intended (and sometimes officially recognized on Section 57 trail applications) as downhill primary.  < and yes, many applications include a statement of direction.

Another thing I'll be curious to track is WHEN ebikes are preferred. It makes sense that a motor will help you power through the mud and light snow a bit easier. Thus, the technology makes it much easier to go out and rip it up when the trails are most sensitive. Admittedly, you don't need a motor to do that, but it sure makes it a lot easier, especially if you want to lug a few extra pounds of fenders and goretex. The IMBA study from 2015 did not show any differences between MTB and eMTB, but was based on limited observations in set conditions, and explicitly stated that more research is needed. This may need to consider not just what the comparable impacts are, but what the impacts are based on the way the technology is used. Trail abuse is an issue for MTB and eMTB alike, and I would like to think that people that reach for an ebike will care about the trails as much as everyone else, but that may remain subject to debate. It is undeniable that ebikes facilitate riding in poor conditions...the only question is how the riders choose to behave. 

Now that some groups are taking steps to recognize ebikes (like in Whistler) and recognize class-1 (limit 20mph/32kph) as acceptable on most trails, how will that be managed (i.e. enforced)? There are lots of examples of people hacking ebikes for more speed and output, and certainly the manufacturers will try to push the most gratifying product they can market. The manufacturers are clearly taking steps to make eMTBs as stealthy as possible to disguise their product. It will be interesting to see how that works out, as higher-powered bikes are inevitably cranked out, and those that ride them decide they want to ride them everywhere.  It may be simple enough to identify the people on throttle driven bikes, but what about Class 3 ebikes (pedal-assist) with a max speed of 28mph (over 45kmh)?  This will be a challenge again based on how people choose to use the tech.

So yeah, there's an abundance of trails, and room for everyone. But addressing potential issues (speculative or not) is not "hating"....it's just responsible. I don't care what people ride (within the rules) so long as they proceed responsibly.

What we really haven't seen (at any point) is any statement from manufacturers or those that market ebikes about responsible use. Every time I read an ebike fluff piece, they only want to address the pathetic arguments (...oh people think we're cheating, ....oh everyone else is so elitist, ....oh people think we're destroying the trails and we're just like dirt bikes)......basically [they] focus only on the weakest straw-man critiques without contributing ANYTHING remotely thoughtful to how to integrate this technology in a manner that is good for all riders and good for the trails. Just for once, I'd like to hear someone that sells or promotes ebikes to contribute to discussions about trail directions, technology creep, and some of the other considerations that will need to be ironed out (um, insurance anyone?).  In fact, this is exactly what I see as the critical weakness of the ebike marketing campaign. Their future on the trails relies greatly on lobbying to establish and preserve access to the trails they want to ride (clearly, nobody is about to go and build a dedicated ebike trail network). But that lobbying represents a lot of work......ugh, work, you know, like pedaling is work. Ugh. All that hard work. I've read a dozen fluff pieces from people that went on about not having enough time to ride and how ebikes allow them to get out....yada yada yada......it's hard to believe THAT person will have time for advocacy and lobbying for access......Really, the industry (and their little regional reps) seem to be playing this all wrong by ignoring the issues, instead of tackling them and establishing a constructive dialogue about responsible integration. Ebikes are not "against" regular mountain bikes, but they are different in some sense...and because of that those that prefer ebikes can hardly expect that the non-motorized crowd is going to take up the fight for access on their behalf. The current mtb community is well-established and has extensive ranks of volunteers (of which only a tiny portion ride ebikes).  Right now ebikes are moving forward due to lack of clear policies; access by default. That will undoubtedly change (i.e. Lord of the Squirrels now officially off limits to ebikes along with everything above the flank). I'm really curious where the hard-working and responsiblity-pushing ebike lobby will come from.  Not exactly holding my breath though. It's important to consider there are those that resist ALL bikes for certain....the you-know-whos and protectors-of-toads. It's not other bikers that may be the biggest opponents to ebikes, but other influential groups, and I really can't see bikers as a whole battling against those groups to preserve ebike access. 

There's no hate here. Just wondering if and when meaningful discussions will happen around the technology...as in discussions not just on the internet, including those that actually want these bikes.

Makes it really hard to get your bike back, because the parts are stripped and switched. If you're lucky enough to ID it by the frame, you just roll the dice and hope they put on better parts than they took off.

Cockroaches. Should all be wiped out.