Caretaker

Well said onbike. Ebikes are obviously motor-bikes and arguing otherwise is meaningless, silly and petty.

While out on my pedal cycle today I even thought up a new word for them....Emotos.

NeilGunton

Ok, so let's play a little mind experiment... someone invents a powered exoskeleton that is lightweight enough to be unobtrusive, and powerful enough to make a difference in terms of how far you can walk or run in a day (this actually isn't fantasy, they exist already in various basic forms). People obviously start using them, and they start showing up on running and hiking forums talking about the gear. How do you think this would be received by runners, when someone says "well it's still running, if I don't move my body then I don't go anywhere - it's just an assist". Some runners start asking whether or not this really belongs in the running forum, and then someone inevitably pops up with sob stories about how they had some medical ailment or other and this contraption allowed them to keep running with their kids or club buddies. And so the naysayers are effectively silenced by the "have some empathy" card, so nobody feels that they can say anything, for fear of being labeled an insensitive jerk. And the machines get better and better, and people have to put less and less effort in, and eventually you have people who are basically putting in no effort at all overtaking thru-hikers on mountains with cheerful "hey, how's it going?" as they power up the trail leaving a cloud of dust. As the first wave of "worthy purpose" early adopters gives way to the masses of people who just like to do stuff without putting a lot of effort in. Runners who don't choose to "assist" are left in the dust of history by the "enhanced" humans who are evidently "the future" of running. Why not do it? I mean, you can't argue with someone who had a heart attack and can't run any more and just wants to still participate with their buddies in their weekly run. Who can argue with that? Who can argue with letting people who can't run by themselves get out there and run? Who can argue with letting a totally disabled person participate in the "running experience", even though this means that the "assist" is now effectively doing ALL the work? Who can argue with this same technology then being adopted by the greater population, because who doesn't like easier? Who can argue? I mean, you can't have anyone being excluded, that would be mean.

I guess if you think that would all be just fine, then e-assist bikes are fine too. Because this is where we're going. What we have here, basically, are arguments based on "have some empathy, you total jerk" and "I have had a heart attack and this lets me still cycle". I am being called a dick head and a jerk for suggesting that one of the fundamental distinctions of "cycling" is "not using a motor". Oh well.

Technology is reaching a point where we have to start having these discussions, about what "enhanced" means exactly. In the past, we had no choice, really - cycling was cycling, and motorcycling was so obviously different that there was really no problem distinguishing the two. But now we have this new thing that really starts to blur the lines. It's not really a bicycle, but it doesn't really seem like a motorcycle either... it's going to cause more headaches as it gets better down the line, trust me. The question for the community is going to be, where do we draw the lines in terms of definitions? People who say it doesn't matter are ignoring the fact that we came together here in this forum under certain assumptions about what "bicycle touring" means. I'm sure people would have rallied and rejected anyone who started coming here to discuss motorcycle touring. So there is definitely a certain assumption being made by everybody in this group that some aspect unifies us - the reason why we are here at all as a "group". I always thought that one of those unifying aspects was that bicycle touring is a fundamentally self-powered activity. You do all the work yourself. I thought that was just so self-evident and obvious that it didn't even need to be explicitly stated, but now here we are with a disruptive technology that is making us look at what we do, and questioning what it means. It's going to be interesting to see where this goes. I'm sure that as the technology improves to the point where it is adopted by the lazy masses, and not just by the guy who had the heart attack or the guy with a congenital disability, then people will start to question. There will start to be splinter groups who are more militantly "retro". It will happen eventually, inevitably, people will start to say "Hang on, this isn't really cycling any more". Yes, right now you have to put in 70% of the effort, but it'll be like boiling the frog - the motors will get better (they are already at a point where they would look like science fiction to anyone from the 1970's). Soon you'll only have to put in 20% of the effort. Then 10%. Then the pedals will still be there, but only as a totally optional activity. The batteries will get better. As they get better, more people will use them, and the early, obvious "it's a disability, have some empathy" cases will be replaced by the overweight and lazy people who just can't be bothered (and that's human). And then the fun will really begin.

This is an interesting process, we are hashing it out and trying to figure out what it means to be a "bicycle tourist". I hope we can all stay polite and try to keep a broad vision and perspective. I regard myself as a fairly empathic person, but I am not ruled by "think of the children" type arguments, sorry. Step back a bit and see where this is inevitably going, and see if it's a place where you want to be. I guess either way we can't stop it, but it can't hurt to try to hash it out in the meantime. Good luck to us all.

Neil

Happy Feet

Actually, the main definition regarding bi-cycles that I have found is: two wheels, handlebars, pedals and a saddle; which leaves recumbents and trikes out. Funny how your definition misses some inconvenient points as far as these forums go. E bikes have two wheels, handlebars, pedals and a saddle. Oops, haven't found a dictionary definition that excludes E assist yet.

But, I guess, if you believe bike touring is a contest as you do, then E bikes may pose some sort of threat. Most people I talk to don't think it's a contest at all (in fact it's almost anti competitive) so what people tour on isn't a big deal. It's the tour that counts.

"and then someone inevitably pops up with sob stories about how they had some medical ailment or other and this contraption allowed them to keep..."

First you are brow beaten by peoples disabilities and now you have to suffer through their sob stories - but yeah, take the high road and keep it polite eh

I'll give you a little tip. When you talk like that around most decent people who know someone with lives with a disability you're the one who sounds like they have a sob story.


But the funniest thing of all is how you lament the fact that you think some are not allowed to express their views fully in this thread while, if someone wanted to discuss E bike touring on your website you would not allow it at all. Wow, You just can't win can you.

You are trying to sound reasonable but it's pretty easy to see how you really just want to keep your little club the way it is and not let anyone else play. You even set up your own playground so you could control the game. Maybe this site will be a little more inclusive than yours.

Caretaker

Missed that bit, where did he say that?

NeilGunton

It's not a race or contest with others. It is just something that is supposed to be self-powered, that's all. Pretty simple.

I was trying to make a point about how it starts with the "think of the children" arguments, but the inevitable adoption by the lazy masses leads to something else. Reductio ad absurdum and all that.

Well, it's my opinion that bicycle touring doesn't involve motors, so isn't it reasonable that I would make "no motors" a rule on my own website? Sorry, but I'm not in the "anything goes" camp. There are lines, and this is one of them, at least as far as I'm concerned. No motors on bicycles, it's pretty simple. Much simpler than trying to draw arbitrary fuzzy lines like "no more than 70% assist" or whatever, which will inevitably become ever more complex and arbitrary as time goes on and the technology gets better.

Yes, your position is coming from the classic "think of the children" logical fallacy, otherwise known as an appeal to emotion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

It attempts to disable reasoned debate by making opponents look like heartless jerks. I have tried to lay out my reasoning for why I think this is a slippery slope. Not that I am trying to get into yet another endless internet debate. I have had enough of that stuff, it never ends and people just get more entrenched in their positions. I have had my say and made my points, if you didn't understand the words I have already written, then I doubt you would understand any further words I might write, so I'll leave it there.

Neil

Happy Feet

In bold

onbike 1939

Forgive me for truncating your post but given the length I think I can be forgiven. I'm not sure why you should feel my post was aimed at yourself as what you allow or disallow on your website is of absolutely no concern to me. What did concern me was the disregard if not contempt, expressed by some posters for others who may not be as young or as healthy as themselves, yet who may still want to continue to cycle even though this may have to be assisted.

Personally I too think that "cycling" is defined as being without a motor and only wish I could still do it but why you should think that my "sob story" is aimed at diminishing you in some way is beyond me.

Even self-absorption should have its limits.

Happy Feet

Neil, You are in luck - it has already happened.

Here's the story of Dick Hoyt, who pushes and pulls his son through triathlons. The only difference between their community and yours is that the people in this story support their efforts and don't feel threatened by what he's done.

In the video Dick says Rick said, and I quote: "Dad, when I 'm running it feels like my disability disappears"

No one tries to tell Rick he isn't really running.

Team Hoyt | Home Page

Caretaker

^^Heart warming story but fail to see its relevance to the point Neil was making.

Happy Feet

Too bad. I think most others would.

In this life you decide what you are going to put effort into, what you will champion, what you will work for. If creating a closed society of able bodied cyclists who talk about lazy fat people is where it's at then that's what you do.

If enabling people, even those with disabilities or impairments, to achieve goals they might not otherwise be able to achieve is it, then that's what you do.

My goal in this forum is to do the latter by offering my experience and, of course, to discuss my own enjoyment. But I don't believe my enjoyment should come at the cost of excluding someone from doing the same. Maybe I have bigger shoulders but I think both can exist side by side.

In Neils world, Rick Hoyt would not be allowed to post about his experiences triathloning because he did not do so on his own power. In fact, he would be seen as the thin edge of the wedge, sob story brow beating excuse that would lead to fat lazy people running in triathlons (all his words and his arguments). Fortunately, the running world feels different and Rick and Dick are accepted for who they are. No one is confused or threatened by what they do.


I just got back this afternoon from scuba diving. Did you know that, while most people use fins to propel themselves, there are these devices called scooters which are basically battery powered propellers or "E assist technology". Tech divers use them but recreational divers do as well, sometimes just to cover long distances without using too much air or getting tired (pretty lazy eh). I tried one once but it was too noisy for me. On scuba forums scooters are discussed all the time - there is no concern that they diminish the definition of diving because diving is a pastime, just like bicycle touring, and not a competition. You use one, or you don't. No big deal.

Caretaker

Dick is using some sort of 'powered exoskeleton'.........must have missed that bit.

Happy Feet

Don't be obtuse. Rick is. His dad is doing all the work while he just sits there. He is claiming to do something, traditionally defined in one way, via an assisted route. The comparison is glaring and you are just playing coy if you claim you don't see it

350htrr

I still don't see anyone explaining, why? Me saying the wife and I E-Biked on our tour in any way changes bike touring, hinders bike touring, reduces the feeling of satisfaction in any way one gets after bike touring, because it is not in any way in competition with bike touring, as soon as you say E-Bike touring it's different, yes, but close enough to be allowed to be posted here on the bike touring forum, and everyone knows it... I hope. It's like drag racing IMO You take your everyday sports car to the drag strip and do 11.9sec in the quarter, and some purpose built hot rod does it in 6.9sec... WhoTF cares? My 11.9 sec will only be compared to other street legal cars...

EDIT; Oh, and if someone climbs Mount Everest with and exoskeleton suit, would it diminish the accomplishment's of others who did it all by "themselves"..? Wich they didn't... The [Answer is no],[/B]just in case someone is wondering/thinking it does... That person still did it, and so did the other people who did it without or with an exoskeleton, but they are just in a different "class"

Caretaker

So you're saying that 'in Neil's world' if some guy carried his disabled son on the back of a tandem and that son wrote a journal about the experience he had on the tour that it wouldn't be published in CGOAB because he'd been a passenger.

If that's what you're saying then I believe you're wrong.

This thread is becoming personalised can we please get back to rational discourse.

Happy Feet

People don't because they can't, other than to present bike touring as a comparative contest and then it falls apart because it isn't.

Saying it challenges your traditional definition in an evolving pastime is like trying to describe a river with a snapshot and trying to stop that evolution by putting a stick in the stream. Bike packers challenge the definition of panniers and ride. Ultralight tourers challenge the definition of loaded and survive. Endurance racers challenge the definition of distance and arrive. E assist challenges the definition of input power. Big todo about little. Next week we will argue the challenge that trekking bars make to North American handlebar perceptions... what, no drops!

Caretaker

Well it's not a river if it's a canal.

Happy Feet

Hey. He said he believed bicycling was something done under your own power, without assistance. That is how he defined it. Rick claims he runs triathlons, not that he was just a passenger. As such I think the example fits. In reality Rick did not run one single race without assistance but he would probably be welcome in any running forum. Is it the source of the assistance that is in question or that, when presented in another light, the argument seems foolish?

If that seems unreasonable, what about not allowing people to post how they enjoyed a bicycle tour simply because they used some E assistance. Petty? Who's hurt or mislead or corrupted and wouldn't those same arguments be applied to Dick and Ricks case. I'll answer - because they are wrong spirited.

I can't help it if Neils policy implies what it does. I could make it non personal I suppose but I was responding to his policy so...

Do you think calling someone's post about a tour a sob story was not personal? No outcry from you there?

Caretaker

The 'sob story' reference was in relation to a hypothetical 'powered exoskeleton' and the type of arguments that would be used.

No, no outcry from me because he wasn't 'calling someone's post about a tour' a sob story. Try reading what people actually post.

Happy Feet

Try seeing that what someone writes has meaning. I believe someone else also recognized the insult contained in the comment

Onbike, post 157 for reference

The problem is this is not a hypothetical discussion and it actually affects real people. It's different when you experience the fallout of the words being bandied about.

One day an aunt of ours was talking in the kitchen and said something about "those dirty indians". She then looked at my wife, who is half Cree, and said "of course I don't mean you dear".

People say stuff, and sometimes those words sound wrong when they are applied. Just like excluding someone because they did not do something under their own power sounds ok until you apply it to the Hoyt's example. In that case, all the potential worry about what if and could be's didn't materialize because people saw that no harm would come from being inclusive. Just as the Cathy Rogers story didn't make bicycle touring fall apart either.

Let me ask you a question: Who is this imaginary person who has a hypothetical story about a disability? Wouldn't any potential "sob" story be based on an actual real persons story and thus, wouldn't one actually be calling a disabled persons story "a sob story"?

And don't get me started on hypothetical exoskeletons. You do know they are developing them right now for people who have had spine cord injuries right? When they do work out the kinks will they be excluded if they want to post in the walking forums? Who's the champion and defender of self powered walking that will suggest that?
Today's hypothetical and tomorrows actual are only separated by a fold in time.

NeilGunton

I want to try to clarify something. My argument is not against the very idea of some disabled person getting motorized assistance and being able to get out in the world. What we are quibbling about here is whether motorized bicycles belong in the "bicycle touring" forums. I think the water gets muddied by some people conflating "it doesn't belong here" with "I'm against the whole idea". As I said before, I'm not against the idea of e-assist or e-bikes or whatever people end up calling these contraptions. All I say is that I object to just lumping it in with cycling, because it's not cycling, it's a kind of motorized transportation. The world of motorized (assisted, whatever you want to call it) transportation is exciting and vibrant, and fantastic for all those people out there who might otherwise drive a car, or even a moped. If they can get on an e-bike instead, then that's certainly a step in the right direction. All I'm saying is that if you have a motor on there, then it's not cycling, because cycling is fundamentally a self-powered activity. It's really a very deep part of the whole idea in many people's minds, I think. To try to pretend that putting a motor on there doesn't change anything is ludicrous. I don't care if people ride these things, I just don't want them calling it "bicycle touring" as if it's the very same as what self-powered cyclists are doing. It's not.

Look at this thread, we have perfectly able people talking about using e-bikes for their next tour. They aren't talking about it because they are disabled, they are talking about it because it sounds cool and maybe it'll make their tour a little easier. This is what's going to happen, count on it - people are going to use these things not because they have to, but because it makes it easier.

And why should I care? Because it affects the level of discourse and what is being talked about. I come to a bicycle touring forum because I know that we're all on the same page about what we're doing at least on some basic level. I no longer feel that we're on the same page, if some are happy with motors being included "just because, why not, who cares, etc". I know I for one would kind of resent a "bicycle touring" forum getting inundated with people who are discussing what are effectively motorcycles (even if they have pedals... they have a motor, that's a motorcycle). I don't go to a motorbike forum to talk about bicycle touring, why on earth would we want to bring motorbikes into this place? It's a different activity, it should have its own forum (and it does already, doesn't it?). If the regular e-bike forum isn't enough for the touring aspect, then someone should start an e-bike touring forum. I think it's distinct enough from regular bicycle touring to deserve its own space. As for the common areas between them - yes, of course there are common areas, like camping etc, but that is true of hiking as well. But we don't try to cram hiking and bicycle touring all together, do we. They have their own forums. Same should be true of e-bike activities.

Disabled people can get out there and do whatever they want, if they have the adaptive equipment to get it done then all power to them. But to try to call motorized transport "cycling" is a bit of a stretch even now, in the industry's infancy. If we start just accepting that "it's all cycling, no distinction at all, because think of the children and have some empathy, end of discussion", then where does that leave people who feel like they've woken up in an insane asylum? Because that's kind of how I'm feeling right now. I never thought we'd be having a passionate debate about whether or not tours on motorbikes should be included in forums like this one.

By all means ride e-assist, e-bikes, whatever, but it belongs in some other forum, not this one. Just my opinion, like I said earlier it's up to the mods and owners of the site what they do here. I'm just throwing my opinion into the ring.

Now back to you, social justice warrior brigade.

Neil

350htrr

Nobody is calling it bicycle touring... That is a strawman argument... It's called E-Bike touring... Similar enough in most people's mind, but understandably different enough to not take away from bicycle touring itself, but similar enough to actually add to bicycle touring. Thus it should be here in the bicycle touring section, I hope.

Happy Feet

Awesome! Expressing your opinion in such an understanding way and then trying to dismiss the other side with that. It's good to know that caring about disabled people being able to participate on a forum can be boiled down to a simple derogatory label from your POV.

It's also so good to know that when I am discussing a loaded converted mtb and someone else is discussing a trike recumbent with a fairing that we are still talking about the same thing. I love the give and take about saddles and how front and rear loads effect balance and what we both do to alleviate pain in the hands and butt. Way more similar than someone who is also riding a converted mtb with E assist that is facing the same sort of issues I just described. As long as it all revolves around how much effort we put into pedaling it's all good. Oops, I forgot about the disparity between my touring with 21 speeds and someone else touring with a single speed and that guy touring on a Penny Farthing. Same up and down movement of the legs at least. Darn, that's similar to E assist too. Wait wait... I know there's a disparity there somewhere.

Problems with my canti's that a guy with hydraulic discs can solve...

Rohloff solutions for my derailer...

saddlesores

spoiler alert: i'm a big ole meanie.

yes, words have meanings, and definitions by
definition should define something. otherwise
conversation and debate become empty phrases.

the disable kid that gets pushed/pulled while dad
runs a race? no. you can be as caring and
sensative as you want, celebrate his "accomplishment",
but he's not running. what if i push/pull my fat and
lazy buddy using the same equipment on the same
race? are we going to celebrate his accomplishment,
too? if not, why not? will there be rules and standards
and goals for some and not for others?

how 'bout forget cycling for a moment, since we're all too
connected and emotional? let's consider hunting.

what is hunting? i mean "real" hunting. i suppose
some would argue that harvesting critters for food
in other than bare-handed traditional tarzan style,
it's assisted. some would argue no knives, but
rocks are ok, if they haven't been chipped and
sharpened. and then the slippery slope beckons...

so is hunting with a bow-n-arrow hunting? sure,
because it doesn't use explosive powders. others
will argue for the use of a rifle, but only up to
a certain caliber, and only single shot.

but what about single shot pistols that take a
rifle cartridge. oh so confusing. i guess that's
why different styles of hunting have their own
magazines (remember magazines!) and
specific forums.

then i suppose it's okay for the editor of an
archery hunting magazine to limit articles to
those discussing bow-n-arrow hunting.
what about hunters that want to "push the
envelopoe" on archery forums? using arrows
with explosive heads is still archery hunting
if shot with a bow, right? is shooting a standard
arrow from a modified shotgun allowed? let the
12-page flame-war begin!

what about the disabled guy that wants to go
hunting? it is now possible....(more than possible....
it's actually been done)......to go "hunting" from
the comfort of your lazyboy recliner!

there are folks in texas (unless the law has shut
'em done) who set up automatic deer feeders
on their property. the feeder stands are set up
with cameras, streaming live to a "hunting"
website. register and pay a fee to be a "hunter"
log on and wait for bambi, then press the red
button on your gameboy controller, and the
shotgun installed on the deer feeder go boom!
next use the remote control on the coffee table,
(next to the six-pack of milwaukee's best) to
turn up the AC....gosh, you're sweating from
all the excitement. after the shot, an alarm
will ring at the ranchhouse, the site owner
will drive out to the feeder, pick up your kill,
cut up some steaks, and deliver the head to
the taxidermist so you can hang your "hunting"
trophy over the fireplace.

is this hunting? technically....yes. one could
argue the "hunter" personally pushed the
button that pulled the trigger that shot the
gun that killed the critter. maybe it's not
traditional hunting. let's call it "assisted"
hunting.

who the hell do these luggites think they are!
technology advances.....hunting advances as
well. can't force the world to stick a fork
in the canal.

next up: skeet shooting with drones.

so back to cycling....

it's gonna come down to your definition
of what a bicycle is, and then further
refined by what you mean by touring.
each specific site owner will need to
sometime, somewhere make clear
what the rules and definitions are.

neil limits the articles to non-motorized,
non-assisted bikes. bicycle is this case
can be a trike or recumbent, or unicycle,
or pull a trailer. as long as the "bike"
is 100% human powered. seems clear
enough. maybe in the future neil will
make a mirror site called "crazy-guy-
on-an-E-bike" specifically for motor
assist touring.

and this forum? moderators don't seem
to have taken a stand yet. or perhaps
they have....by not restricting e-bikes
to a separate subforum they consider
them to be bicycles? they say you can
tour on anything.....right? there are
forums for race bikes and carbon bikes
and hybrid bikes and folding bikes,
all welcome on the touring forum.

ebikes? personally, i'd vote them NOT
a true bicycle, but would still welcome
them on a touring forum.....assuming
they are using the (euro) legal definition,
rather than anything goes as long as
it's got pedals bolted on somewheres.
on long, dreary winter days i might want
to argue if the rider doesn't label it an e-tour,
but will be too busy in the summer touring to
worry about it.


****sorry about the misteaks.....using
an outdated laptop with spanish windows
and thai spell-czech.****

Happy Feet

I think I understand that

I'm ok with Neil doing what he wants on his site. Cool. I do what I want on my site too. But this is sort of the free market of forums so I feel it should be inclusive.

I don't know how to define a "true" bike in any regard and really don't care what one is. As you say, race bikes, carbon bikes,
hybrid bikes and folding bikes... all welcome on the touring forum.

I like that. I like new ideas and different stories and seeing what other people are doing. Sometimes I learn something, sometimes not. I'm quite keen about frame bags from reading about them here (never saw one on a tour yet nor are they sold in stores in my town). I've never ridden a recumbent but feel I know a little bit more about them from reading here too. It's all good and I don't see how some people, sometimes, talking about E bike touring would be any different. That by design, some of those people may be disabled or physically impaired and by siding on their right to participate, I am designated with a label is something I will have to deal with for now

Caretaker

What can Ebikes bring.......?

People who couldn't otherwise tour which is a positive and people who just love motors which is a negative.