[Closed] E-Livid

A KTM electric dirt bike has 11,000 watts. An e-bike has 250, plus whatever the rider can do. That's not even vaguely comparable in terms of damage.

But we both know there are more powerful e-bikes around that have more than 250w available..

Which was this: "Simple truth is the more power you stick through the rear wheel the more potential you have to create damage.

I think you're taking it all a bit Daily Mail to be honest.

I was being facetious with my comments, but there are plenty of XC racers & other riders who can comfortably put out more watts than Mr Average on their e-bike, even in full beans mode.

Same sort of vein as the quicker rider carving a turn.

[i]there are more powerful e-bikes around that have more than 250w available..[/i]

yes, but they would be illegal to ride on bridleways etc as they aren't legally bicycles - same as the KTM.

clearly enforcement of the > 250w thing is trickier than 'no internal combustion' engines but arguing that an illegal vehicle damaging trails is a reason to ban legal ones is a potentially dangerous move for all wheeled traffic...

I think you're taking it all a bit Daily Mail to be honest.

How?

By caring about the trails I ride, how I leave them & not wanting to mess it up for others?

I call it being considerate.

But we both know there are more powerful e-bikes around that have more than 250w available.

As cha****ng said on the last page, they're illegal to ride on bridleways. Same as a dirt bike. Or a tank. There is already a law in place to prevent people using them. And even so 1,000w ? 16,000w (about 15 horsepower apparently). In fact, it doesn't even equal 1 horsepower. And horses are allowed on bridleways. So, no, they aren't going to trash the trails, even if they were allowed on there. Which they're not.

yes, but they would be illegal to ride on bridleways etc as they aren't legally bicycles - same as the KTM.

clearly enforcement of the > 250w thing is trickier than 'no internal combustion' engines but arguing that an illegal vehicle damaging trails is a reason to ban legal ones is a potentially dangerous move for all wheeled traffic...

Where did I say ban??

All I've said is be considerate!

In case you missed it this is what I said:

By all means ride whatever kind of MTB you like but do please try to do it in a way that isn't going to mess up things up for whoever comes along next..

So, no, they aren't going to trash the trails, even if they were allowed on there. Which they're not.

Things being illegal don't seem to stop some folks..

Where did I say ban??

All I've said is be considerate!

Things being illegal don't seem to stop some folks..

And I don't think anyone is suggesting that riding considerately is a bad idea.

But since it's just as easy to be inconsiderate and damaging to an equal measure on a non-e-bike then it means your issue is with inconsiderate riders, not the type of bike they are riding.

You're (intentionally or otherwise) equating 'ebike' with 'inconsiderate' and that's what is getting people's back up.

There is no evidence to suggest that using an ebike makes considerate people ride inconsiderately. And there's probably none suggesting that inconsiderate people likely to suddenly start to use them, which kind makes the whole argument a bit theoretical and lacking in merit.

Your core point of 'people should ride considerately' is a good one, it's just that that is more a point about people, not ebikes.

mrlebowski - Member

What you have highlighted is the fact that folks:

A. Can't see that.
B. Don't care.
C. Haven't realised.

D- know that wear is part of what we do regardless of what we ride, and think that this isn't so different. And probably others. It's not such a good idea, trying to tell other people what they think.

Northwind - D- know that wear is part of what we do regardless of what we ride, and think that this isn't so different. And probably others. It's not such a good idea, trying to tell other people what they think.

Add to that, they dont understand about how power deilivery works and how its going to be very hard to roost something on an ebike anything like how you roost on a motorbike.

And how a smooth e-assist bike will help stop people losing traction as they have a more constant momentum and reduce spinning their pure pedal powered wheel.

reading the e-bike article in this months mag the e-bike was the only one that delivered the power in a way that didn't cause the back wheel to spin.

That's my point.

You're (intentionally or otherwise) equating 'ebike' with 'inconsiderate' and that's what is getting people's back up

That's a connection you've made, not I.

What I said was:

"Simple truth is the more power you stick through the rear wheel the more potential you have to create damage. If you doubt that have a look at the roost a dirt bike can throw out......& there are without doubt some pretty meaty e-bikes around.."

Certainly in the US there's concern about the impact e-bikes will have on access & I know land managers here in the UK are watching the situation too.

Currently, as I understand, there are no problems (there or here). I hope it stays that way.

My only hope is that, like when ever anything new is introduced to a working system, is that it's done responsibly.

I'm sure one day my ass will be sat on an e-bike!
(But hopefully that day is a long way off...............)

[i]That's my point. [/i]

sorry, your post appeared after I started typing - we were making the same point.

mrlebowski - the 'potential' to cause trail damage is not a result of the type of bicycle being ridden but about the way it's being ridden. Also, your apparent reluctance to see that not all e-bikes are 'e-bikes in law' seems to be making this unnecessarily complicated.

he 'potential' to cause trail damage is not a result of the type of bicycle being ridden but about the way it's being ridden. Also, your apparent reluctance to see that not all e-bikes are 'e-bikes in law' seems to be making this unnecessarily complicated.

I'm not reluctant to see it, because legal & illegal e-bikes get ridden in the same places ergo it makes sense to lump them together sadly... denying that fact could be construed in the same way you suggest I am ignoring your position.

which takes us back to the point that it might end up being just considered easier to ban all two wheeled vehicles - 'they're all the same'

Lumping people together is not a fair comparison.

By that logic mtbing should be banned due to riders using footpaths and building illegal trails.

which takes us back to the point that it might end up being just considered easier to ban all two wheeled vehicles - 'they're all the same'

It's not easy is it.

Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against e-bikes & some of the stories you can read about mates who can now ride together & old boys getting out again are heart warming..

I'm just concerned that we might be adding fuel to the fire of user conflict & I'd ask everyone to be aware of that. I'm not saying that's so but it does concern me a little..

banned

Nobody has mentioned banning anyone - have a read!

Nobody has mentioned banning anyone - have a read!

The post above mine.

The post above mine.

I think you've missed the context it was posted in..

Nobody has opined that e-bikes should be banned - certainly not I nor the poster of that comment..

What i'm saying is that we can't just lump all e-bikers into one category. If we do, we are no better than the red socks brigade that want us mtbers out of "their" countryside.

There will always be a small majority that don't have respect, and others shouldn't suffer for it.

"No healthy person is getting an e-bike because they've reached the limit of how far & fast they can go on their un-assisted bike!"

Except ME

but then you seem to know what everyone's thoughts and decisions are

I'm waiting for a carbon-fibre, 6" travel full-sus e-bike with a gearbox, with space for a 200mm dropper so my wife can fit on it for family rides. I'll be able to fit so many more descents in with the motor to assist me back up the hills and along the joining XC bits. And unless everyone else has bought one I'll use my unpowered bike for the group rides - and have fresher legs and more strength from manhandling the e-bike downhill.

The only issue is cost and space!

but then you seem to know what everyone's thoughts and decisions are

Well I'm about the same age and lost
Some mojo and incentive. I bought a high end ebike.

Interesting to note that 4th and 5th on that segment (times done yesterday) were both on ebikes according to their rides.

Well there were 11 of us out on them 🙂

Just watch how badly this set of A-holes are cutting up the trails 🙄

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/not2bad-free-online-premiere-2016.html

Oh, hai guys!

I see the haters have come up with new and interesting arguments against ebikes?

Oh wait, no they haven't.

It's your opinion that all e bikes are mopeds? It's my opinion I should be able to do a five knuckle shuffle on the bus but, like it does with you, the law disagrees with me. So we are both equally wrong.

Roosting/damage to trails. I've tried to do a 'burnout/roost' on my levo, front brake on and put as much power through the pedals as I can muster, plus the full 250w fury from the motor. Nothing, even on loose gravel

In power terms, comparing a legal ebike to a 5-16Kw electric motorbike is like comparing a nerf gun to a .44 Magnum with people representing the trail and the effect the respective items have on them

Legal ebikes can be matched in power by people so if these unfit people were actually fit people, they'd be putting the same output out anyway.

Legal ebikes can go over 15.5mph. But the rider or gravity have to provide the power. Just like those pesky push irons....

Not cycling? You turn the pedals and the bike goes forward, just like those pesk.... You get the idea

I'm all for banning illegal ebikes, ban them all.... Oh, hang on, they already are banned.

What have I missed?

That everyone riding an ebike is apparently lazy, much lazier than they would be if they weren't cycling, and the fact that they're are lazy impacts on EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US.

Oh, wait...

Oh, and apparently they crash into ramblers. All the time.

Ban gazelles!!!

And as a different opinion as a young fit guy who can hold his own in races on many disaplines I bought an e cargo biketo arrive places not sweaty to arrive with the ability to carry a serious load to not climb hills at 4mph .......to f a serious alternative o using my van for trivial journeys .

As recovery rides after races where I need to arrive at work at a specified time and be some use.

Its just another form of cycling . I have no doubt in my mind I can travel faster on my other bikes which I do for about 80% of my cycle journeys but the ability to ride in non bike clothes or shoes and not need a shower at the other end far outstrips the arriving 10minutes earlier effect of riding my road bike.

But blinkers on - e bikes are bad mmmmkay

What have I missed?

That they're not bicycles?

We all like different things though so thats fine.

That they're not bicycles?

The law disagrees.

vehicle with two wheels in tandem, usually propelled by pedals connected to the rear wheel by a chain, and having handlebars for steering and a saddlelike seat. verb (used without object), bicycled, bicycling. ... to ship or transport directly by bicycle or other means

Dictionary.com disagrees Wilburt.

legally they are bicycles at 250w and 16 mph cutoff.

Furthermore, they can only assist when the wheels are moving and the rider is pedalling

The law is like that to encourage less than fit types out of their cars and on to two wheels for short jouneys which is fine. You're manipulating that law to allow use powered bikes for another purpose.

I think the concern is that countryside access for bicycles is tenious enough already, using powered bikes and hiding a legal loophole strengthens the case against access for anyone.

Using them to record Strava times is just bad form, that stuff is important to lots of people, it motivates them to get fit. Your denying them that service.

I can see an argument for exception to give people with a disability access to the countryside but scanning this thread that doesnt seem to be how theyre predominantly used.

Using them to record Strava times is just bad form, that stuff is important to lots of people, it motivates them to get fit. Your denying them that service.

My strava times are irrelevant apart from my own times to beat, plus some of my friends. To get to the stage where you can get top 10's on segements (with a reasonable number of people who've tried it anyway) you're likely to be going faster than 15-16mph anyway.

Strava - if you are that upset that someone is using an ebike to get better times my only suggestion is "get a life"

Its not a loophole in the law - the law is perfectly clear.

I think the concern is that countryside access for bicycles is tenious enough already,

We've been through this at least twice on this thread alone. How does a bicycle going at a speed most bicycles are perfectly capable of meeting pose a problem for countryside access?

Also, if you weren't so lazy that you didn't read the whole thread (and apparently it's the ebikers that're lazy...), you'll note that simondbarnes set his ride to private so his KOM doesn't show and he's not had any impact on anyone else's fun.

But I can see how your argument fits into Theresa May's Britain. Make all the disabled people wear arm bands so they won't get prosecuted for harmlessly using a wealthy landowner's estate, scan the teeth of any child refugees who look a bit rough, make firms announce whether they employ nasty forins or not...

I would heartily recommend that anyone that starts reading the thread here, doesn't bother with a recap, unless you are in for the troll, a haterz or whatever the opposite of that is. I also have failed to climb Jacobs ladder, but I haven't tried it on an e-bike. I also recall a dim and distant MBR where Nick Craig made it, but the key then seemed to be letting most of his air out of the tyres. Seems things move on.

Nice responses fella's, well done.

"you're manipulating that law to allow use powered bikes for another purpose."

Yes manipulating it to fetch my shopping on a bicycle.

It seems to me that the ebike likerz are the ones who get a bit frothy and overwrought with their protestations that all is fine and dandy. Just telling others to shut up and stop whining isn't going to make our legitimate reservations evaporate.

I totally get that they're good for shifting loads, commuting, aiding those with mobility or fitness issues, etc. However, it'll take a lot to convince me that for everyday riders/MTBers they're anything other than rather pointless and expensive N+1 toys. Bit like normal bikes, but a bit sh***er.

I'm against the mass adoption of E-bikes for the following reasons (although i support there use by people with genuine physical disabilities who otherwise couldn't ride a mountain bike)

1) ANYONE can be a dick on a bike, but chances are, an E-bike allows them to be a bigger dick. Once you start to augment pure human power, people who would never ride a bike because they are too lazy will start to ride in places they shouldn't be, and as we know, in modern society, it only takes one bad penny to tar every legitimate and considerate rider with the same brush.

Which leads to next point, namely:

2) It'll only take one incident, no doubt blown out of proportion, and almost certainly mis-reported, invoving an E-bike in something like a National Park to give the more militant NIMBYS who seek to limit access to our countryside, enough ammunition to blow the doors clean off any "we'd like to ride anywhere" plee from the mountain bike community. It won't matter what the actual truth behind that spark of an incident actually was or wasn't, for powerful and numerically large groups like the Ramblers and Land Owners Associations, the groups that actually wield the true power in our countryside, to claim "All mountain bikers are a menace" or something equally Daily Mail, and for lots of generally pretty stupid or ill-informed people to support those views.

Pedantry, about if E-bikes are PedalBikes or Motorbikes, or if power/speed limited ones are ok or not, or if so-and-so much power is legal or not will, all become the irrelevances they actually are, and lead to a one way path to more restrictions on our hobby. We, as well informed and expert enthusiasts can argue till we are blue in the face about the ins and outs of E-bikes, but it won;t matter. The die will be set by the majority and the majority is ill informed, biased often rather stupid, and critically, in ignorance of the real truth.

I've seen it happen before btw. In the early 1990s i watched my chosen hobby of off-roading being systematically regulated out of existence by that aforementioned majority. The truth of the matter was easily pushed aside by catchy headlines and memorable soundbites like "Off roaders are DESTROYING our countryside", when what they really meant is "some tracks could be slightly muddy in winter after having been driven over, mostly by large farm machinery with 6 foot tall tyres" By the mid 1990's popular opinion had decimated our age old system of byways, and resulted in the loss of thousands of miles of byways, most of which are now lost due to underuse / overgrowth.

Meanwhile in Scotland maxtorque.

A fellow off roader and also mtber I'm perfectly happy that en mass 4x4s are banned from the country side

Private muddy tracks only 🙂

^^ proving my point brilliantly about people not seeing the full , truthful picture, but cherry picking the exciting / salacious bits of the story....

The 1990s English green lane restrictions were not about "blanket banning of en-mass, access all areas usage" because that was never the situation. It was about a small majority of, often it has to be said Ramblers, not wanting to share ANY of THEIR access with others. The fact that they already had sole rights to around 98% of English permissive access didn't stop them for a minute....

Despite being probably more popular than ever, us MTBer are a minority. We are massively out-numbered by walkers, horse riders and critically, carry little sway with the still omnipotent power that is the established land owners. Although the situation has improved over the last few years, thanks to tireless work by a few ambassadors of our sport, and the realisation that MTBs can be a good source of income, the damage done by a single "yobs on electric motorcyles destroy beauty spot" type headline could take years to mitigate.

Sorry how does my Scottish experience back up your English experience

You lot had it. The minority ****ed it up and you lost it

We never had it and our land access rights are intact for non combustion engines vehicles .....

This would all be valid if electric bikes were powerful enough to damage trails, which they aren't, or went faster than normal bikes downhill, which they don't. So, your arguments aren't valid.

Did you not actually read anything he wrote?

As I said before luke and you know it
I'll outperform my e bike on any point to point any day of the week.

It's the ability to use street clothes and not arrive sweaty that draws me. I have no interest in spreading the gnar on mine. It spans 3 post codes for a start 🙂

Almost no legal green lanes ever in Scotland. However bikes have been used by the mountaineers to get into the remote areas for many a year - so here we would have the MCofS on the same side as the MTBers.

Have any of the nay sayers actually ridden and e bike? I have - a reasonably competent mtb. If you ride hard uphill on it using a lot of boost you will use your battery in a few miles. The weight makes them rubbish for jumping and so on.Its impossible to chew up the trails on one any more than you would on a non ebike. I see far more trail damage done by mtbers riding on wet trails, skidding round corners, building jumps etc.

You are simply inventing an issue that does not exist.

This would all be valid if electric bikes were powerful enough to damage trails, which they aren't, or went faster than normal bikes downhill, which they don't. So, your arguments aren't valid.

In your opinion.

There are those whose job it is to look after land access who aren't so sure, so stop trying to shut down the discussion.

Also you are still trying to ignore the fact that it's hard to tell a legal bike from an illegal is & that is wilfully doing an ostrich.

However, it'll take a lot to convince me that for everyday riders/MTBers they're anything other than rather pointless and expensive N+1 toys. Bit like normal bikes, but a bit sh***er.

Even if you 100% right about that Tom, that would mean they pose little threat to anything other than the bank balance of the buyer 😉

The truth is they are coming (well...already here) and you cant stop it, you don't have to like it, you don't have to embrace it, you don't even have to change any of your opinions, but we will have to deal with it, so the more educated about their [i]actual[/i] operation and impact we are the better.

I don't doubt that people will be watching very carefully the impact they have on local trails, and relationships with other users, but the optimistic part of me thinks that the doom mongering is blown out of all proportion, mostly because the physical/damage side of it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but the [i]perception[/i] side of it and the impact on how bikers are viewed by others is real though. Hopefully in the long run all it will actually lead to is more people riding bikes, and sadly a small percentage of people are nobbers, so we will have to deal with them too, but overall I think it'll be OK.

I'm prepared to be wrong, I've been wrong before but only time will tell.

Also you are still trying to ignore the fact that it's hard to tell a legal bike from an illegal

That [i]is[/i] a genuine concern, and I think the only way you could possibly tackle that is at source, by (somehow) making it either very difficult or impossible to do the modification, but that would need co-op from the entire supply chain, which won't be easy when for some of them it would impact their profits. The horse may have bolted on this one already...

[url= https://www.imba.com/news/eMTB-early-study-results ]IMBA E BIKES DATA[/url]

"Field Study Hypotheses and Initial Results

IMBA developed these hypotheses for this small initial field study, conducted at one site, with one set of environmental conditions:

Physical impacts to trails from eMTBs will likely fall somewhere between those caused by mountain bikes and motorcycles.
We expect that eMTBs may lead to more soil displacement under certain conditions, such as through turns, including bermed turns; on ascents and descents; and where there are abrupt changes in trail conditions.
Initial observations suggest good support for the field study hypotheses. We saw some differences between the impacts of eMTBs and mountain bikes, particularly at turns and grade changes. However, for the most part, the soil impacts observed in this study were not greatly different from those of mountain bikes, and were much less than those associated with motorcycle use.

The results of the land manager survey and social impacts analysis are still being compiled; full study results will be released in early 2016."

I'm fully aware that the US has different issues with access to us but their studies & input should not be disregarded.

As I've said more than once on this thread:

I'VE NOTHING AGAINST E-BIKES, but to wilfully disregard their potential for trail conflict & damage is IMHO a rather one-sided take on things..

All they've posted there is 'we think it'll be more than a normal bike but less than a motorbike'. No shit Sherlock...

They also say that the expect type 1 bikes (legal ebikes here, but restricted to 20mph, rather than 15.5 we have here) to be similar to normal bikes.

Hardly damning...

All they've posted there is 'we think it'll be more than a normal bike but less than a motorbike'. No shit Sherlock...

So we agree they do have the potential to be more damaging.

Hardly damning

I wasn't trying to be.

Erosion per mile ridden, no.
Erosion per ride, possibly, if you ride more because of the assistance. Which would happen if someone got fitter anyway

Not because of plumes of dirt flying out the back, because they simply don't happen, and I've really tried.

I've tried to do a 'burnout/roost' on my levo, front brake on and put as much power through the pedals as I can muster, plus the full 250w fury from the motor. Nothing, even on loose gravel

How unmanly.

Erosion per mile ridden, no.
Erosion per ride, possibly, if you ride more because of the assistance. Which would happen if someone got fitter anyway

The IMBA report says this though:

"We saw some differences between the impacts of eMTBs and mountain bikes, particularly at turns and grade changes"

& that's regardless of how far you've ridden or how fit you are. It's all about what the bike itself actually DOES.

People keep saying they can go twice the distance on their laZebikes - that's twice the erosion.

I've ordered one, despite being pretty sure that I qualify as disabled (who decides what level of disability is OK?) enough can I expect looks of disgust on the trails?

Dullards.

futon river crossing - Member
People keep saying they can go twice the distance on their laZebikes - that's twice the erosion

Best argument EVER.

Topic of the OP : Messner's 'Murder of the impossible'? Maybe.

That's the only thing I think might be a shame. But in the end, to carry on that link, bolted climbs have got to a technical level that trad routes may not match and trad has other difficulties. Both have followers that are respected. Trails and climbs might develop in a similar way.

It's all good, ride what you like.

Maxtorque

Your thoughts & warning about the bigger picture were spot on.

Linking this to real life experience from the world of motorcross bikes and land access is what people should be taking from this thread

On the basis that seasoned bikers cannot agree whether the trail may be subject to more damage from additional grip/torque in certain more fragile conditions which way do you think the Peak District guys who destroyed Rushup Edge will go?

Perception becomes reality

pop larkin - On the basis that seasoned bikers cannot agree whether the trail may be subject to more damage from additional grip/torque in certain more fragile conditions which way do you think the Peak District guys who destroyed Rushup Edge will go?

Perception becomes reality

They already don't know their arse from their elbow so I don't thing adding a forearm into the equation will make much difference.

pop larkin - Member
On the basis that seasoned bikers cannot agree whether the trail may be subject to more damage from additional grip/torque in certain more fragile conditions which way do you think the Peak District guys who destroyed Rushup Edge will go?

Perception becomes reality

Except that's a totally different law, different application and different matter... loveing the hate in this thread.

@mrlebowski - what you quoted below is misleading, particularly for this discussion about the UK.

IMBA E BIKES DATA

"Field Study Hypotheses and Initial Results

IMBA developed these hypotheses for this small initial field study, conducted at one site, with one set of environmental conditions:

[b]Physical impacts to trails from eMTBs will likely fall somewhere between those caused by mountain bikes and motorcycles.[/b]
We expect that eMTBs may lead to more soil displacement under certain conditions, such as through turns, including bermed turns; on ascents and descents; and where there are abrupt changes in trail conditions.
Initial observations suggest good support for the field study hypotheses. We saw some differences between the impacts of eMTBs and mountain bikes, particularly at turns and grade changes. However, for the most part, the soil impacts observed in this study were not greatly different from those of mountain bikes, and were much less than those associated with motorcycle use.

The results of the land manager survey and social impacts analysis are still being compiled; full study results will be released in early 2016."

The UK has a limit on legal e-bike power. Reading this bit of the same IMBA report, mainly the 3rd point -

[img] [/img]

that says pedal-assist bikes with a 20mph max are similar to normal bikes, suggests there's nothing to be concerned about. UK/EU limit is 15.5mph.

Gravity and brake use or being a bit roost-happy present more potential threat to natural trails and could cause more erosion than simply adding a 250W motor and 6kg to a bike.

I fear, jameso, your reasonable representation of facts will be wasted here.

So, back to the same points- no more erosion than a normal bike. So why will there be conflict over legal e-bikes?

I really dont see how rorting around in a barely silenced v8 landrover can be compared to riding a bicycle with a light pedal assist.
Yes in the 90's that was me & my mates,we were dicks, and I can see why 4x4 in the countryside is not a good idea in our small overcrowded island.
The ramblers are always going to hate when they see a group of bikes regardless of whether they are powered or not, they wont make a distinction.

munrobiker - Member
I fear, jameso, your reasonable representation of facts will be wasted here.

So, back to the same points- no more erosion than a normal bike. So why will there be conflict over legal e-bikes?

I'm not saying people who ride ebikes are idiots, or bad people or fat and should be banned but they are all fat bad idiotic people and should be banned, just look at motorbikes.

The above is FACT and your opinion counts for nothing. case closed

oldtalent - The ramblers are always going to hate when they see a group of bikes regardless of whether they are powered or not, they wont make a distinction.

I genuinely think walkers hate bikes far less than cyclists hate bikes right now. The venom on this thread far out strips anything I've come across in person from any other usergroup.

I'm pretty neutral really with some reservations tbh but its the attitude of the ebike advocates thats puts me off most, you really do come across as unpleasant lot.

I dipped my toe into the darkside the other night - just to see what our lycra clad brethren are making of the whole E-Bike onslaught

Much the same as us - but without the land access or trail erosion arguments

Their forums are full of people arguing whether they are bicycles or mopeds and whether it is still cycling or not

I find it really interesting to see such a defined & angry line between the pro and anti e-bike people in our chosen disciplines

The Podge- I'm not seeing where I said I hated e-bikes my point is that the perception issue of additional erosion may just add fuel to the trail access debate

@podge you say theres venom in this thread but most of seems to come from
you, "case closed" etc.

What makes you think you decide when a discusion is closed?

its the attitude of the ebike advocates thats puts me off most, you really do come across as unpleasant lot

I'm similarly neutral on the whole subject and yet I feel exactly the opposite way.

If you are not racist, sexist, have problems with religion etc,. then you may be missing out and feel you need to have a thing you can hate and fear

eBikes seem to be providing that.