Originally Posted by
prj71
They are not motorcycle, but should not be in the same category as non-motorized mountain bike either. That little thingy on the bike that generates power using electricity is called a motor.
Almost all trails in the U.S. are on lands that have been designated for "recreation" in some way. Often times (especially with state or local lands) the lands are designated as "non-motorized" recreation. For recreational purposes, a motor is a motor is a motor when talking about e-bikes There is no amount of newspeak that changes that. On top of that, in places where the local MTBers or cycling club applies for grants to build/maintain those trails, there might be additional legal reasons e-MTBs could not be allowed on existing trails...For instance, if the club raises money with a grant that is for "non-motorized activities".
I agree that in many places there has been a distinction between motorized and non motorized use because the alternatives were very stark in comparison ie. a bicycle vs a dirt bike or jeep/4x4. The comparison was could be measured as quiet non motorized vs noisy internal combustion engine and relatively slow bicycle speeds vs 60mph plus and again as relatively light bicycle vs heavy motorized vehicles. Anyone who rides in a mixed use area gets what a difference there is between the two extremes.
I think e-mtbs, on the other hand, are so closely related to bicycles in terms of noise, relative speeds and weight that the line between non motorized and e motor equipped will create a far closer comparison. This already plays itself out in my area. we have e-mtbs riding the same areas as manual mtbs and the only way you can tell them apart is that they seem to go uphill with relatively less effort. We have a non regulated mixed use right now.
I also think that the advocacy for mtb trail access traditionally has been for the non motorized variety because there was no alternative mode. It was bicycle or gas powered dirt bike (that had no pedals). Now it is bicycle or very similar bicycle (often a version of the same product line) with e assist and the user groups are closely aligned. It gets a lot harder to defend allowing access to one but not the other.
Now, that is not to say there can't be issues, and I'm not arguing an unrestricted free for all approach, but if I were looking to create new areas for mtb expansion in wilderness areas, as the OP article discusses, I would be proactive and include a plan to create some trails for mixed use to manage what is sure to be increasing pressure from those users for access. At the rates that e-bikes are becoming popular within the cycling umbrella those users will soon become a major advocacy group to be reckoned with.