Mtbikers and emtbikers-tribes divided but with much in common

You'd think that there would be a lot in common between groups of people who share:

• a love of being outdoors, exploring open spaces, across a variety of terrain ranging from easy to wickedly hard;
  
• a belief in the value of human powered transport using pedals, 2 wheels
• a need for heart-rate boosting activity whilst getting out and about.

Sadly, it's just not the case. 

It's interesting to observe the comment threads for articles like the following:

• http://reviews.mtbr.com/the-angry-singlespeeder-electric-mountain-bikes-friend-or-foe
  
• http://www.vitalmtb.com/videos/member/Ronnie-Renners-Stealth-Electric-DH-Bike,19679

---

It seems from reading through the comments that people fit into roughly three camps: Deniers, Integrators and Challengers

- Deniers take the line that anything with a motor is definitely not a bicycle - human effort alone is what counts, getting to the top of a hill can only be done by the applied use of personal sweat and determination (never mind if you've got a health condition that might compromise your ability to do so); 

- Integrators take a more open view, noting that there is merit in giving some level of assistance to riders who need it or desire it, who might be happy to share a trail with an assisted rider, but it's not quite their cup of tea;

- Challengers are open advocates for mixed trail use and wanting to question why they might not be allowed to share trails, seeking well supported evidence to demonstrate why they should be excluded.

The thing is, they also have a lot in common: 

• they all have hearts that need to be exercised, lungs that need to puff, muscles that need to move;
• they all have families and loved ones;
• they all need to be able to play safely in their chosen recreation;
• they share a population health burden characterised by rising levels of obesity, inactivity;
• they all have a health-future that is determined in a significant part by how much they remain active;
• they all share a planet that is deeply challenged by global warming and which needs people to be making modal switches from emissions generating vehicles.

Granted, building effective trails takes time, volunteer effort and sweat-equity. But it can be done. 
Getting those trails endorsed and supported by land managers takes advocacy effort, time, clearly expressed positions and goodwill between the groups. But it can be done. 
Using a multi-use trail in a way that endangers any other user risks the viability of that resource for continued use by anyone on two wheels. That too, can be done. It's a shared problem.

IMBA have made their position clear at the present moment, through:
http://www.imba.com/blog/mike-van-abel/electric-mountain-bikes-coming-trail-near-you
http://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/motorized%20position-IMBA%202010.pdf

Here's an extract from the first IMBA link

Will IMBA eventually need to retool our approach to sustainable trail design and construction to accommodate these bikes? We recognize the benefits of e-bikes, yet also recognize that this type bike creates many added challenges for land managers and for IMBA's approach to mitigating the impacts of bicycling in natural environments.

We vetted our draft position through many other mountain bike advocacy leaders and groups from throughout the world. Most agreed, as did IMBA's board, that mountain biking should remain a nonmotorized activity. Therefore, we conclude that riding e-bikes on natural-surface trails is not mountain biking. Further, we state that e-bike regulation for off-road travel should fall under motorized land management policies and rules.

IMBA doesn't think responsible motorized recreation is a bad thing — not at all. But it's not mountain biking, and human-powered activity should not be regulated in the same way power sports are managed. 

I wonder if advice like this would be given if the writer had bothered to actually try an eBike. Once you do, you very quickly realise that they're a long way off being a motorcycle. Especially at the lower end 200W output bikes. 

Whilst the two tribes are recognised, their ability to play together nicely is not supported. It seems a little sanctimonious and elitist given the scale of the challenges our planet faces and the extent of population health issues. Which would you prefer: seeing an overweight relative die an early death, or making the modal switch from car-use with a bike that makes the transition easier to going completely unpowered?

I'd ask you to consider, when we have so much in common, why this should continue to be the case when the world needs a combined, urgent and relentless focus on getting onto a lower emissions trajectory - two wheeled transport is a big part of the solution opportunity for doing that. Especially when bikes such as these are fully capable of being charged in offgrid setups.