Originally Posted by
Kapusta
...a. I gave a reason why I think it is dangerous and counterproductive to MTB access to be claiming what you are claiming. It explains WHY I am bothering to take the time to argue the point that a motor IS a fundamental distinction ...b. collapsing the distinction between motorized and non-montorized bikes is going to make Wilderness access harder. If you want to argue that is not true, then do so ... c. Or don't argue it, if you don't want to. It is not essential to the point that was initially being debated (is a motor a fundamental distinction).
d. As far as your point about trucks and roads....If you want to share your thoughts on the "truck vs e-bike on a dirt road" thing, fine. But I am not obligated to follow you down that off-ramp. e. You made what I consider an illogical comparison, f. and I have been using logical arguments to counter. Then part way through you start demanding that I engage you on a completely unrelated topic. I don't even necessarily disagree with the point... I just don't have much of an opinion on it... g. or find it all that relevant to what we were debating.
I have removed the stuff that doesn't matter so the topics can more easily be determined in a way that can be discussed. Bolding is mine
a. This is a discussion forum. Discussing a topic is not "dangerous", it is the raison d'etre for being here and civil discussion merely illuminates the issues at hand.
b. The difference is already collapsed, as manufacturers have now created e-mtbs that closely resemble manual mtbs. I didn't do that - I am only acknowledging it exists. Using terms like "motorcycle" only acts to diminish ones own POV as archaic, hyperbolic, prejudiced and insincere; especially when combined with sentences like this:
"I'm all for some sort of handicapped tag for people who "need" assist." Do you really believe you will have any influence over the dialog with e-mtb users when you approach the subject like that? They will dismiss it as curmudgeonly.
c. I have steadily been making the case that e-mtbs are a growing part of the mtb landscape and will need to be considered in the future. Trying to pretend they can be ignored as iligitimate only alienates one from being part of that discussion. I prefer to be part of it.
d. The truck/chairlift/e-mtb comparison is a real life, concrete example of how motors of various sorts are used by a large segment of mountain bike riders in my region. Anyone who does that sort of riding knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's not a "thing" or "off ramp". But by all means, list your own region and how bikes are used but don't complain that I am providing context to the discussion so we aren't talking in vague, generalized or idealized terms.
e. You only call it illogical because you cannot easily refute it. A poor attempt to dismiss in order to avoid that reality.
f. Please explain those logical arguments. I'm all for reasoned debate if there is something to discuss.
g. Of course it's relative to the discussion. In this region, this is how e-mtbs are used. Considering them as a subset of how mtbs seeking access to wilderness areas will be used is what will need to be considered going forward. You can't turn back the clock.
If I were going to create a new mtb area I would envision a mixed usage access route and several trail systems specifically designed to handle mixed usage along with other more fragile manual only trails. This gets the whole user group on board and creates a stronger unified advocacy voice instead of creating factions and infighting. Because it is comprehensive in design it also would be better seen as understanding and addressing the new and emerging paradigm of modern mtb use in wilderness areas and its potential pitfalls. Those pitfalls IMHO, aren't e in nature but rather user population pressure from increasing overall popularity ie. how to create systems that can handle the ever increasing numbers of riders that a popular activity attracts.