cerealkilla_'s posts

Yup, they could all do more. Agreed.

I do see ongoing communication around trail etiquette from rider clubs, and from riders themselves.

However, whenever the topic of etiquette specific to ebikes comes up, it is seldom if ever ebike riders leading the conversation, and zero input from the influencers (we know who they are). Instead it is just argue this and argue that when anyone suggests there are problematic issues to deal with.

The shralp and shred aesthetic is going nowhere - nor do the vast majority of riders ever reach a level to actually shralp and shred. But all riders use trails and interact with others. That's where the biggest problems are likely to occur.

Posted by: Hepcat

It seems the E-bike manufacturers would advertise for more responsible riding practices to avoid bad PR?

In THIS I find the most fault.....and with the influencers and reps. Not a single peep from them on how to responsibly integrate the new technology with existing patterns of trail use. Nope. No contributions to help with etiquette, reduce risk, or make nice. Nope. Just yahoo! with a big dumb smile and thumbs sticking up, and lots of videos posted of ripping upward on the descents. 

Even when some of them have been very clearly challenged to provide a voice of responsibility (as so many do in Mountain biking), no response is given.  And THAT is probably the biggest threat to ebike use there is - the reluctance to demonstrate responsible leadership in one's own sport.  They would rather take the chance on dragging down all riding, than step up to the plate and say, "Yeah, etiquette is important. Risk mitigation is important. Here's our ideas of how to achieve that."

Sad.

Posted by: knnn

Some interesting perspectives, thanks for the input.

There are three main reasons I'm considering an eMTB; specifically my age (now 61), two ACL's in poor condition and too many competing interests to allow me to become mountain fit.   I used to ride Fromme a fair bit and know how much effort is involved, particularly if wanting to hit up 7th and then do another trail.  Although I'm not yet fully decided,  I suspect that an eMTB will provide me with the easiest route back into the sport and the ability to keep biking for longer.  I'm also considering getting back into trail maintenance, however, that is a very slippery slope which I am not sure I want to get sucked back into quite yet.

Considering I would do most of my riding on Fromme and Seymour, I have been wondering as to the likelihood that these trails could be closed to eMTB's in the future? 

I'm also not really clear as to the arguments or perceptions why eMTB's need to be banned from trails, as long as they are assisted rather than throttle based?

Is it due to the perception that they do more  damage to the trails because of the heavier weight and increased numbers of laps? 

Do eMTB riders tend to exhibit a relatively higher degree of poor trail etiquette ?

Your questions - my humble contribution.

1. I would guess unlikely to see future restrictions, given the increase of ALL types of riding. Really this probably depends on good conduct of ebike riders. It only takes a few of any group to make the rest look bad. Ebikes are still a smaller group without a well organized lobby or representative group advocating for them, or speaking out about proper riding etiquette. That potentially makes them vulnerable. However, the 2018 provincial position paper on ebikes on public land currently protects them quite well. Now, Ministry said clearly the policy would be reviewed, but I doubt that has happened yet, due to other distractions. However, decision-makers and the public won't waste time if there was a sudden increase of problems with ebikes....they would just bring in restrictions. Still, if any restrictions were to come into play, they would likely only affect certain areas such as certain busy multi-use areas, park areas, or so forth. In my humble opinion, unlikely. 
2. Reasons vary. Some are off-the-wall (i.e. waaaahhh they're cheating) - others are based on issues that in fact are not well understood, such as (potential) trail impacts, speed of uphill traffic, questions of insurance based on those with liability for the trails (see Kootenay Columbia Trails Society). You could probably spend a week reading the arguments back and forth, and still not cover it all. The main thing is they introduce additional energy and propulsion and weight, and they let novice riders get into situations and areas they may otherwise not reach. These are not stand along problems that means ebike = bad, but the consequences of these factors is not yet understood fully, so arguments continue.
3. For some, yes. Many people will point to the old IMBA study that showed no difference between emtb and mtb UNDER a very limited set of conditions. Not proof. Just one small study. However, there are other questions, such as whether or not people reach of the ebike more often when the weather sucks because they can sport fenders and rain gear and still ride. THere are also issues about people modifying ebikes to have higher output, throttles instead of pedal assist, and the emergence of other technologies that may push them close to moto and farther from bikes. For the current moment, however, it's not just the technology, it is how it is used.  Others argue that the (approx) extra 20 pounds of ebike is no different than an extra 20 pounds of person (ignoring the fact, that when a person chooses a bike, their weight does not change). Anyways, blah blah blah, it goes on and on.
4. That's hard to say. Very vague. There is minority in EVERY user group that is a total and utter dipsh*t. EVERY group. Except maybe Waldorf teachers - they seem like a good lot. Anyway, the only difference with that minority of ebikers in the dipsh*t category, is that they are a dipsh*t with an ebike instead of a dipsh*t with a MTB. Either one can do harm. Arguably, the one with the ebike can go a little faster up a hill, can climb trails everyone else is descending, and packs an extra 20lbs of bike....but really the flaw is in the person, not the bike.

Posted by: mammal

100% agreed with what cerealkilla_ wrote... 

But I'll add: Aside from ebikes attracting the "jerks" perhaps more than a regular bike would, they are also attracting complete beginners. And although they may not intend to act in a "jerk manner" the natural progressive nature of traditional mountain biking (beginning on lower/shorter trails, not having the fitness to blow past others) tended to keep those people somewhat in check until they have gained more knowledge of the nuances and etiquette of the sport. The popularity of Ebikes has "short-circuited" that natural process in many cases.

Ha! This reminds me of something I saw last week....some kid on an ebike, stranded at the end of a (rather easy) trail. He was receiving assistance from 3 other people, and was good natured about his predicament, if not a bit sheepish.

His problem you may ask?

His pants were tangled in his drive mechanism, rendering him immobile. He could neither dismount nor extract his leg from his pants without 3 other people assisting him. I asked them if they needed help, and resisted the urge to take a picture. 

Is it really such a great idea that any rider can get themselves into pretty much any situation? 

Super tech climb to reach that gnarly trail? No problem!  Total beginner with minimal fitness and zero handling skills? No need to stick to the easy accessible trails until you build your skill - just motor right up to the top and let er rip!

Pants stuck in drivetrain. That is all.

The thread was originally about Squamish, but then devolved into another ebike debate. What is the connection? Is there one?

Certainly....whenever any area goes through a rapid peak in popularity, it will attract the crowds...the masses...the herd....that will include those that are out for maximum thrills, and have zero regard for others...whatever they may ride.

When you add a motor to a bike, it enables a few behaviors that one cannot reasonably manage on a mountain bike. That includes blasting uphill into traffic, and passing at high speed without warning. Both of these things have happened numerous times in the past month, both involving ebikes on a regular basis. 

Did the technology make them do it? - No

Are ebikes bad? - No

Is it just a matter of a few bad apples like we have in every group? Yes...but kind of....

Again, adding a motor lets people do douche-bag things they wouldn't get away with on a mountain bike..,...such as boosting up the left side of the Mashiter and crashing into people coming down, or pinning it past people labouring on a climb and nearly running them off the trail. The motor simply enables more selfish behavior among people that already care little for others. Go figure.

Meanwhile, the ebike-pushers and marketers remain totally silent with respect to any discussion of courtesy. There has not been a peep from our resident walking-commercial about the extra responsibility that comes with adding a motor to the mix. No suggestion of riding in the direction of existing traffic. No discussion of giving people extra warning in advance as you scream up behind them.

Instead, I see ebike buddy posting videos of himself climbing up the downhill trails, whining about how he feels victimized when people call them mopeds, and then hypocritically ridiculing people on mountain bikes. 

If we can point a finger of blame for the broader pattern of (albeit rare) douche-bag behavior, it can point at those people that only seek to sell....selling out our sport, without a spare second to talk about courtesy. Solely focused on instant gratification, while offering every excuse in the book about helping disabled riders, getting a superior workout (while also making it effortless)....and so forth. 

There simply has been zero leadership from those that brought ebikes to the riding community, so it is little surprise that the minority of jerk-offs that do buy them, proceed to use them in such a manner. They are the same crowd that strip on front lawns, toss their empties, and blast loamers in the rain. Most people will use these rides responsibly. However, a motorized mtb provides a special attraction to those that really only care about themselves...minimal effort, maximum yahoo. 

If I ever get an ebike, and I won't rule it out, I sure as hell won't ride up Rupert and LOA, and will sure as sh*t slow down and give an extra friendly hello in advance as I seek to pass, and definitely won't use it to slap on fenders and pants so I can rip trails in the rain....but I guess that it's too much to ask that this is suggested to others. Wouldn't want to suggest that this extra fast toy comes with a bit of extra responsibility. Heaven forbid we infringe on that personal individual freedom.

1989 Atlas 1000 with Deore components and under-stay U-brake.

Best thing about this bike is I sold it to my friend's dad when I bought a RckyMtn Hammer. Buddy's dad still has the bike, and keeps it in prime condition, cleaned, greased, and tuned. 

One day, I may try to buy it back from him.

Posted by: LoamtoHome

Posted by: RAHrider

Posted by: LoamtoHome

Posted by: FLATCH

Posted by: LoamtoHome

Revelstoke and Nelson.... better than the Sea to Sky overall imo and less attitude.

This. And don’t forget Rossland.

Castlegar > Rossland for 1 day.

What trail you like that much in Castlegar? Last time I was there they didn't have much. Grandiflorum?

It's pretty hard to beat whiskey on the rocks, crown point and a bunch others. Also, 7 summits is a pretty legendary way to spend a day.

Grandiflorum and The Awakener are amazing trails.  I like the terrain and overall flow better than Rossland.

Merry Creek has some awesome riding, with Captain Kangaroo, Blood Merry, Crazy Merry.....you just need to love your climb.

As for Koots vs Coast, I've ridden both and I think it comes down to the weather at the time, and how you relate to people. Lots of great folks and douche-bags in both places. Come for a visit to either place with an attitude to make friends and have fun, and you can't go wrong.

I will say this though. Last time I rode in Nelson, I left my wallet on my bumper in the parking lot with all my cards, ID, and a wad of cash. Still there when I got back <3

Posted by: MaxRockatansky

That study is so flawed I don't even know where to begin...

The riders achieved the same intensity but on average the duration was 12 minutes shorter. So they did not get the same workout at all....

They should have compared the same duration of effort. Both 2 hour rides, similar wattage; how much further do you need to go to achieve the same amount of exercise...

That's only half of the problem here. The main thing is that these are two entirely different forms of technology, and they will be used in very different ways.

To suggest they provide similar workouts means under controlled circumstances they CAN provide similar workouts. However, in practice, things may be entirely different.

Personally, I don't think it matters. I don't really care how hard someone is working. The whole "cheater" argument is a dead horse, and quite honestly it never held value in meaningful discussions IMHO. There are far more important things to consider, such as recent lawsuits by hikers and horseback riders for permitting Ebike access to trail networks.

However, if we must go down this road I ask this.....will the expanded sale of ebikes for off-road use (in their current formats) lead to riders working harder or less hard on their rides? 

1) For certain, there will be some who will now get a better workout (than none at all) because they will get out and ride when injuries or limits may otherwise keep them home.  Awesome. This is great.

2) There will also be some that will legitimately push ebikes in a manner that they get as good (and sometimes even better) of a workout than on a MTB.  Okay.  

3) Then there are those that will stop pedaling very hard at all, because now they have an engine doing the work for them. Okay.  

Overall, I would suggest that the main marketing thrust of ebikes is focused at people that will likely end up in category #3, and in sum this will not in any way enhance the average (across all riders) fitness of the ridership. It will just give an easy way out for those that don't really like pedaling. 

Fine, who cares? I don't. Some will get fitter and some will get fatter.

It's not a matter of whether not not an ebike gives a comparable workout.....it's how they are used by different people.  And as goes for fitness so will go for trail access and trail impacts. If ebikes are brought forward responsibly with proactive engagement by those that promote them, and with a clear effort to contribute to harmonious trail management systems, all should be fine. However, if they are just pushed pushed pushed, with no consideration or efforts to understand potential impacts on existing trail traffic patterns, we will have more needless messes like we are seeing in Tahoe.

Not the shore, but just another indication of where this is leading: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/us-forest-service-sued-over-ebikes-in-tahoe-national-forest.html 

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: cerealkilla_

They don't even want to consider any limitation

It's not just a simple thing where it's all great (ebike marketers) or all evil (ebike haters).......it's actually an issue that deserves a bit of thought.....something many are reluctant to do.

How did you get not considering any limitations? I only saw them supporting class 1 ebikes. That point kind of contradicts your last one which I entirely agree with.

I was referring to the writer of the article, and their endorsement of ebikes.. (abeit one particular classification). I think we're splitting hairs here Syncro.

Call it what it is. The article was a straight-up Ebike promo. You take a place that is dying for rec-economy rebooting, and they'll praise anything that provides a glimmer of hope. They don't even want to consider any limitation, when their main focus is expanding economic activity. Of course the trail society there is supporting them....it means economic benefit. Just the same way that the majority of Albertans deny climate changes is real or that humans cause it. People will always favor technologies that put money in their pocket, and avoid engaging in any real discussion of meaningful issues when their bank accounts are involved.

That being said, the article is not without merit. There are some legitimate points about enabling greater access. However, there were also several entirely unsupported points of speculation such as reducing traffic to trailheads. Um no. There will actually be more traffic, just traffic with ebikes. If you expand the rec-economy, you increase the traffic. No magic solution there, and we all see it day to day with people pulling their ebikes off their trucks at our local trails. As for low-impacts?...compared to what? Any study that compares ebikes to MTBs is flawed if it is assumes they will be ridden in the same manner. You can't just run  over the same piece of ground a few time, and say "look! no difference!". You actually have to look at the application of the tool over time, and we just are not there yet. 

However, when it comes to impacts, what of ebikes compared to mining or forestry? That may seem like a stretch, but the fact is that people are more likely to take steps to preserve and protect the environment if they spend time in it.  Expanding the range of recreation tourism even a small amount, can expose people to views of areas that they may otherwise never see.

It's not just a simple thing where it's all great (ebike marketers) or all evil (ebike haters).......it's actually an issue that deserves a bit of thought.....something many are reluctant to do.

Posted by: Vikb

I've been riding 30+ years and it's always been downhill bikers yield to uphill bikers. Unless the trail is marked as directional. In that case the rider going in the signed direction has the right of way.

https://www.singletracks.com/blog/trail-advocacy/mountain-biking-basics-trail-etiquette/

If the trail is not signed at all entrances as directional it's a two way trail and you can't assume someone new to the trail network knows what direction the trail is usually ridden in. So there needs to be one universal set of right if way rules because the decision needs to be made to slow/stop very fast.

If the right of way rules are not universal than they are pretty much useless.

Doesn't matter if you invented the MTB. That "rule" is not written anywhere in regulation, policy, or law that matters. It is a convention (as you note clearly, etiquette). It is also a convention that people do not ride up descent trails as mentioned before. If you want to take the position that these unwritten rules matter, you can't pick and choose which ones suit your fancy. Take them all or take none. It is also convention  that nobody with half a salad goes up a descent and expects people to dodge them. I will also note again that Section 57 applications (official documents that trump some random american website) usually include directional orientations. Leave of Absence for example, downhill primary. In a document. Registered with the government. 

Hardly any trails are currently signed for directions, and as mentioned that requires a significant investment in capital. 

So yeah, there is no "rule". There is common sense that some seem to choose to ignore. 

What we clearly need is an actual rule.

Posted by: Vikb

Right of Way Rules exist. Bikes going downhill give way to bikes climbing. That's easy to figure out and universal. 

Um no. Please feel free to show us where that "rule" is formally stated. It is a general convention among bikes, and it has been followed by pedal-powered bikers over the last 30 years, with the application of this idea being limited pretty much to those trails that are two-way traffic. 

Having an ebike does not automatically grant a special privilege to turn what everyone has always descended into a special climb. As I mentioned before, most Section 57 applications have a directional orientation stated. It may not be clearly signed, but it only takes a teaspoon of common sense to separate descents from two-ways. Credit Line? Descent..... Bobsled? Descent..... Espresso? Descent......Nicoles? descent......Word of Mouth? 2-way....Wonderland.? 2-way.....Bridal Path? 2-way.

As for special ebike rules, when mountain bikes came along way back when, we did indeed have special rules for them and restrictions on where they may go. Same thing should apply to ebikes (I.e. Lord of the Squirrels). Again, we don't need to place strict limits or unreasonable and unfair boundaries around their use. Just reinforce the common sense that has helped keep the trail traffic running smooth for the past 3 decades. 

However, we do not need a special rule for Ebikes when it comes to this issue. Any one (regardless of bike type) that wants to go up a trail that is primarily used for descents, should yield to the descending traffic. It is totally unreasonable, and potentially dangerous to expect downhill traffic on steep trails to be yield to those going against the flow. I see people making all sorts of inappropriate comparisons (Oh ebikes are like snowboards, oh ebikes are like paddle boards, everyone is just hating on us wah wah wah).....Okay, lets use those examples. Would you paddle your paddle board straight out through the break just because you can and expect people to bail off their wave? Would you boot-pack your snowboard straight up under the rollers just because you can? No. ......That is using ebikers OWN logic, and it seems to clearly indicate that riding up against the flow of downhill traffic and expecting others  to yield is non-sensical.

Signage is likely coming, but it takes time and it costs money. In the meantime, it would be nice if common sense prevailed.

Posted by: Vikb

Posted by: cerealkilla_

Most trails are built with a directional orientation, and this is usually listed in the Section 57 approval (i.e. downhill primary). I would suggest that the person riding the trail in the primary direction holds the right of way, regardless of their propulsion system.

Unless a trail is clearly marked [at every entry point] as being one-way or that right of way is based on a specific direction of travel than a rider has to assume it's a standard two-way trail and the climber has right of way. You can't have right of way be determined by local knowledge and not have that info on clear signage or it's just not workable. Whole purpose of the current right of way rules is that you know instantly who needs to stop or move over.

That would suggest that Ebikes get special privilege and special right of way over all other bikes, because they can climb up what everyone else descends. I would suggest that generally unwritten and informal standard needs to be revisited with the advent of Ebikes. 

I don't think you actually need local knowledge to know what is a descent and what is a climb. Signage would be helpful for sure, and that signage should be based on the current normal flow of traffic.  However, in absence of signage, what should be the norm?

Seeing that Ebikes (Class 1) have their own distinct category, they perhaps should have some distinct limits---nothing extreme or particularly oppressive or unfair--- but sensible limits to ensure safe and harmonious integration. If you're adding a motor (i.e. power)  to something, adding weight (20 lbs on average), then the rider needs to exercise responsible control over that power.  Yielding to other trail users following the primary flow of traffic makes sense, whether those users are MTBs or other Ebikes, and that "primary flow" may need to be defined a little more clearly and in some cases that may mean signage. 

I think this is an important area that should be hammered out. Everyone would probably be better off, and they could get on riding whatever they have between their legs, with one of the significant sticking points out of the way.