| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2007/11/27-12/3 [Recreation/Activities, Transportation/Bicycle] UID:48700 Activity:high |
11/27 So how do you keep the stupid RIDE BIKE people off of the trails? Is
it legal for them to ride on hiking trails? I've almost been killed
a few times now by bikers barreling down quiet mountain trails that
they thought they owned. I hate them.
\_ So you support bike-only trails? Great! -tom
\_ I do. Why not? What's happening now doesn't work. I don't
think I support as many of those as bikers would hope,
though, but why not have some small percentage devoted to bikes?
\_ There are plenty of trail-sharing plans out there (such as
odd-even days); the problem is that the anti-bike crowd
doesn't want to share trails or give any access to bikes.
In most places it works just fine, it's only in California
that it's still a big problem, and that's due to the actions
of a small handful of NIMBY, "we were here first" types. -tom
\_ I think it's because of the actions of a lot of
reckless riders, many of which I have encountered.
\_ Bikers don't want to run into hikers any more
than hikers want to get run into. In most
cases, conflicts can be reduced by improving
the trail design. But the political issue is
that a small handful of hikers simply want no
bikes on any trails. Right now, I'm being
stalked by a long-time anti-bike nut, who came
\_ I recommend giving him a
soda account.
by my office twice, sent mail to my boss and to
the chief of staff of the chancellor's office.
My crime? Riding a unicycle on a trail. I
didn't even ride past him; I dismounted and
walked past. There's nothing that can be done
to reduce complaints from someone like that. -tom
\_ Many of those trails were originally created by RIDE BIKE people,
then later used by hikers. Why do you think *you* own them? -emarkp
\_ damn, emarkp is sort of my motd ron paul. There's a ton
of stuff ron paul stands for that should be poison to all
good liberals everywhere, but he speaks his mind and doesn't
say anything too delusional so lots of grassroots progressives
think he is awesome.
\_ The trails are maintained by the government and I don't
think I own them, but I am not killing anyone by using them.
Maybe motorcycles should be allowed on them, too. It's a free
country, right?
\_ Actually, the trails are mostly maintained by volunteers, and
by far the largest volunteer group is mountain bikers. -tom
\_ Neither are all the bicyclists killing people. Rude people
are rude people, on bike or on foot. -emarkp
\_ Point is that bikes don't belong on walking trails
just like people shouldn't walk in the bike lane. You
must be one of the bike fuckers, huh?
\_ Nope, never ridden a bike on a trail in my life. I do
bike to work however. You may have seen my comments in
the past calling Critical Mass, "Thugs on Wheels".
Where are the trails defined as "walking trails"?
-emarkp
\_ Well, they weren't built for bikes originally.
Here is a site that attempts to be fair to both
sides of the issue, but it is true that the
hiking trails are becoming unsafe for hikers and
I would be in favor of keeping bikes off of them
given my close calls with bikers. I don't even
think I could safely bike many trails in a
leisurely manner what with the people screaming
down the hillside at 30mph. At least as a walker
I can jump out of the way. If I was on a bike
I'd be screwed. BTW, people who take their dogs
on trails without leashes should be banned, too.
http://tinyurl.com/3avlzz
In Palo Alto:
http://tinyurl.com/2tavm7
\_ I wasn't aware of so-called "gravity bikers".
That *does* sound scary. -emarkp
\_ Downhill bicycle racers should stick on trails far, far
away from everyone else. Actually if you just let them
race for a while, they eventually die, that sport is the
most dangerous I've ever witnessed.
\_ Bring a spike strip with you next time you hike. USE FEET!
\_ some trails are marked to disallow bikes. If you don't like sharing
trails with bikes, stick to those. Unless othewise marked,
the bikers have just as much right to be there as the hikers.
\_ some trails are marked to disallow bikes. If you don't like
sharing trails with bikes, stick to those. Unless othewise
marked, the bikers have just as much right to be there as the
hikers.
\_ Maybe bikers should behave the same as horse back riders. You
could potentially ride pretty fast on a horse, but that would
be dangerous. Could be almost as dangerous as fast bikes.
\_ horses, at any speed, are more dangerous than bikes, at any
speed.
\_ That's clearly false and you are stupid for suggesting it.
\_ You clearly don't know anything about horses.
\_ I find it amusing that the bikers complain about how rudely cars
treat them (Critical Mass) but when someone slower than themselves
is put at risk by their actions, it's "stay off the trails!" and
"who said you hikers own them?!".
\_ nice straw man.
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/k3c (flickr)
\_ Not at all. I honestly find it amusing. There's no strawman
here. If you're a hypocritical biker, wear it with pride.
\_ Right because all cyclists are exactly the same and in
fact all the same people, whether they are black clad
bicycle messengers in Critical Mass or gortex clad
Marin yuppies mountain biking. They even switch to
khaki's and button down shirts when they impersonate
mild-mannered commuters. Those dastardly villians!
\_ not to mention, no one is saying "stay off the trails"
\_ not to mention, no biker is saying "stay off the trails"
\_ That would take a lot of audacity as mountain
biking has only been popular for 30 years. Give
them more time, though, and they'll become brave
enough to get there. They're already touting
numerical superiority as they drive everyone
else away.
\_ keep beating that straw man.
\_ I love the motd. You replied to my "this isn't a
strawman" by strawmanning me again. I'm your biggest
fan, Strawman Debate Guy. Please strawman me again.
\_ Do you honestly think that "bikers" are a unified
group who think and act in unison? Are you really
that simple minded? If not, give me even one example
of your hypocritical biker, or admit that you just
made it all up. |
| 5/25 |
|
| tinyurl.com/3avlzz -> www.scbeacon.com/beacon_issues/03_03_13/faceoff.html Mountain bikers bring more to trail than ruts By JONATHAN MAUS There's a good chance you know a mountain biker. They're a diverse group that make up a large portion of our trail user community. I know riders who are real estate agents, professors, hikers, graduate students, teachers, architects, hair-dressers and auto mechanics, just to name a few. maybe that's why they're courteous and respectful when they come across hikers on the trail. Come to think of it, bad apples exist in every user group. However, irresponsible trail use by a few bad apples, does not justify throwing away the entire bunch. But this is precisely what a few hikers calling themselves "SafeTrails" hope to do. Their goal is to try to convince you that all mountain bikers are hell-bent, adrenaline-crazed, downhill racers that are out to run over anything that gets in their way. If you've been out on the trails recently, you've seen that mountain bikers have actually done more to make our trails safe than any other group. Who posts signs at trailheads reminding users about proper right of way techniques? Who implores trail users to not use the trails when they're muddy? Who passes out bells to cyclists to help make their presence known on the trail? Who spends their weekends on the trails talking with hikers and bikers about their concerns? Who organizes community-wide events to repair, rebuild and maintain our trails for the benefit of everyone? Who works with the US Forest Service, equestrian groups and lawmakers to find rational solutions to trail issues? As you can see, our mountain bike community, led by the nonprofit Santa Barbara Mountain Bike Trail Volunteers, or SBMTV, is essential to ensuring a safe and sustainable future for all trail users. The SafeTrails group is more concerned with pushing its anti-mountain-bike agenda than actually doing something to help make our trails safe. If it really cared about our trails, why have its members completely removed themselves from the political process aimed at finding sensible solutions? Despite the catchy name, its goal is not to make our trails safe but to eradicate mountain bikes from them. Like any group desperate for support, it'll try just about anything to make it happen. One way it attempts to promote its agenda is to say our trails are not geologically sustainable for mountain bikes. The truth is, according to sustainable trail guidelines, our trails are not even appropriate for hikers! Technically, they need to be redesigned before anyone uses them. This fact was made frighteningly clear when a woman nearly fell to her death recently on a precarious section of Jesusita trail. Perhaps SafeTrails should spend more time helping us fix dangerous trails instead of wasting time with its anti-bike agenda. Imagine if its logic was applied to the issue of un-leashed dogs (The following is only to illustrate a point and doesn't represent my true feelings): Some people don't leash their dogs while hiking. These dogs run out-of-control and the potential for biting poses a serious safety risk, not to mention their barking is loud and detracts from my experience of nature. The trails are just too narrow for dogs and humans to happily co-exist without some degree of interaction and discomfort. This irrational hypothetical scenario is actually quite similar to SafeTrails' case against mountain bikes. So, if you'd like to help keep our trails safe and beautiful, I hope you don't stoop to pointing fingers and divisiveness. Instead, contact the SBMTV, and help out with its Trail Education Program, or sign up for its upcoming trail maintenance event and see what it feels like to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Jonathan Maus is a concerned hiker, mountain biker and new father. Trail segre-gation may be the best for all users By JIM CHILDRESS We believe mountain bikes are not compatible with hikers and equestrians on Santa Barbara County's front country trails. This is because of the combination of the character of the trails, their high level of usage, mountain bike technology and fundamental differences in the activities. These trails are steep, narrow and very rocky with road access at the top. Manufacturers have developed specialized bicycles with elaborate suspensions and rugged frames for riding down such trails at speeds in excess of 30 mph. These bikes are essentially motorcycles without engines, are heavy and have only limited gearing so they cannot be ridden to the top of the trails. The very appearance of these riders and their bikes on a narrow trail is intimidating to a hiker. To have one coming at you at 25 mph from 10 feet away, as recently happened to me, is terrifying. Such bikers account for about 80 percent of the riders on Tunnel Trail on weekends, according to my own survey over 15 weekend days last fall. This is a gravity-driven thrill sport like downhill skiing. The front country trails have an international reputation thanks to the Internet and commercial videos that draw riders from near and far. There is nothing wrong with such sports and their participants can be good people. However, this sport is incompatible with hikers seeking solitude and exercise. There is a safety issue as documented by several reports of collisions in the last year and numerous reports of near misses avoided only by hikers jumping off the trail. Equestrians were driven off long ago by the danger of speeding bikes scaring horses. Hikers, too, are increasingly avoiding these trails out of fear for their own safety. Mountain bikers know they are taking considerable risk as indicated by the covering of armor they wear. Hikers, on the other hand, expect little risk in their activities and wear no protective gear. The bikes also effectively destroy the solitude of the trail when they come racing by, rattling loudly with their bells ringing. Although the cyclists who stop to talk can be friendly and are likely well-intentioned, this, too, is destructive of the solitude. Hikers rarely do more than greet each other when they meet on the trail. To control their speed they skid the cleated tires to brake, displacing rocks and loosening the trail surface. The erosive effects of water are greatly accelerated by this damage. Bikers also often ride up on the sides of trails, widening them and destroying vegetation. One might think only fast riders should be excluded, but given the harrowing character of our trails they are not very good for most mountain bikers. The riders are predominantly of the gravity-driven, thrill-sport variety. We believe separate trails would be appropriate as is done for other thrill sports like downhill skiing and skateboarding. And some responsible elements within the mountain biking community agree. Referring to gravity cycling (downhill and free-ride bikes), Richard Cunningham, editor at large of Mountain Bike Action magazine, says, "... neither represents passive use of natural resources, nor can they be considered remotely compatible with other nonmotorized user groups like hikers, equestrians, or even your average mountain bikers." Mountain bike advocates have long contended the problem could be dealt with through education. This method can no more work on our trails than it would work on our highways for dangerous drivers. We have had years of education on our trails and we're still having many serious incidents. Closure of these trails would greatly improve the experience and safety of the majority of users. |
| tinyurl.com/2tavm7 -> www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/cover/2000_Jun_28.BIKERCOV.html Publication Date: Wednesday Jun 28, 2000 Trail tension Battle brews between bikers and hikers in the foothills by Marc Igler It's a warm June morning in the foothills high above Palo Alto. Sandy Lowery and her friend, Marla Cruz, have just started hiking along the Franciscan Loop Trail in the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve. Wildflowers such as trillium and false Solomon's seal bloom at trailside. The two women are headed for a vista point about a half-mile away, where a panoramic view takes in much of the Bay Area. On a clear day, they say, you can see the skyscrapers in San Francisco to the north and Mt Diablo across the bay to the east. As the two crest a low rise in the trail, voices pierce the silence. Both women have to move quickly off the trail to let the bikers by. Lowery and Cruz are clearly rattled by the bikers' sudden arrival and departure. "It's like they bark out orders, 'We're here, we're here. "I know these trails are for everyone, but stuff like that just bothers you. As confrontations go, it wasn't much, but Lowery and other hikers say such run-ins with mountain bikers are increasingly common on the latticework of trails that wind through the Peninsula hills and along the Skyline Ridge. Critics--including hikers, equestrians, and bird watchers--complain that mountain bikers act as if they own the trails. Their brazen, loud behavior turns what could be a peaceful retreat in the wilderness into yet another urban struggle. Nowhere has the tension been as severe as it has on the trails maintained by the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), a sprawling network of preserves extending from San Carlos to Los Gatos. The district, long considered one of the most biker-friendly venues in the Bay Area, has become the latest battleground in the long-simmering skirmish over trail rights. At a heavily attended public meeting on May 22, the district's seven-member board of directors did what it had been threatening to do for more than three years: It banned mountain biking in seven of its 24 preserves, including the popular Los Trancos preserve near the top of Page Mill Road. The district has more than 219 miles of trails in its system. "It's regrettable that it's come to this," district board member Deann Little told a loud and angry audience at the meeting. Mountain bikers have reacted bitterly to the closure, arguing that complaints against them are highly exaggerated and that the vast majority of cyclists go to great lengths to respect the concerns of other trail users. They admit some bikers continue to act irresponsibly--ignoring trail etiquette and treating others on the trail rudely--yet leaders say the sport as a whole shouldn't be punished. "I don't deny there are conflicts," said Rod Brown, president of the mountain advocacy group Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers. "But in doing this, the district is listening to a tiny percentage of trail users. Everyone speaks to the need for restoring such an experience to the 12 million people who each year visit the forests, meadows and grasslands that make up the district's preserves. With the explosion of mountain biking's popularity in recent years, many naturalists say that experience has become harder and harder to find." "It's not easy watching birds when you've got bikes barreling down on you," said Craig Breon, environmental advocate for the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. "You find a lot of special birds up in the preserves that you don't find elsewhere--coveys of quail, Lazuli buntings--and when you constantly have to negotiate trail space with bikers, it really disturbs the experience." Breon's comments address the crux of the dilemma facing the MROSD in deciding to ban mountain biking in some preserves: Whose nature experience do you preserve? Many recreational groups use the preserves for their activities. Besides the main ones--hikers, horse riders, bird watchers, and bikers--district property is also a magnet for hang gliders, rock climbers, dog walkers, school groups, even skateboarders. Berry Stevens, a former member of bicycle advisory committees for San Mateo County and the MROSD, said he understands the need to balance the interests of all recreational users. Yet he believes the recent crackdown on cycling is a reflection of a longtime bias against bikers, one that stems from a philosophical difference about on the board about how nature should be used. "They have this attitude that there's only one way to appreciate nature, and that's in this Thoreau-like trance of blissful awe," Stevens said. "They talk about their 'tranquil nature experience' as if that's the only thing the outdoors are for. They think mountain bikers don't appreciate the beauty because we're riding too fast. The dilemma for the MROSD is that it can't please everyone. Trail users who are on foot simply have different needs, different expectations than their wheeled counterparts. While most trail users have no quarrel with mountain bikers, critics speak in a loud voice. They say cyclists treat the environment with disrespect--skidding along trails, taking shortcuts, and riding their bikes as one would an off-road vehicle. "My wife and I were up on the ridge trail just a few weeks ago," said Bruce Rosenthal, a Los Gatos resident who regularly rides his horse in the district's preserves. "A biker came roaring at us around a blind turn, never tried to take evasive action. From 1996 to 1999, the district recorded only 15 accidents where bikers caused injury to others. Yet many hikers, equestrians and other trail users say most incidents never get reported. "I've stopped riding horses in the district's preserves," said Susan Dorsey of Woodside. Most cyclists are courteous, but it only takes one to ruin my day--or my life." District officials say they can't recall if a hiker or other trail user was ever seriously injured by a mountain biker since the district was formed in 1972. Most mountain bike critics, however, say injuries are not their main complaint. It's the aggressive riding and "in-your-face" attitude that many bikers adopt on the trails. "The greatest negative issue I experience as a hiker is some cyclists' seemingly utter disdain for the rules," said Jane Littell, president of Bay Area Hiker. "The attitude I encounter with renegade cyclists is one of entitlement, that they should be allowed to ride wherever they want." Most critics, including Littell, say only a small percentage of bikers-- commonly called "the yahoos"--continue to give the sport a bad name, turning many organized groups against them. While many trail users support bikers on an individual basis, the groups they belong to almost uniformly support the district's recent riding ban. They say the ban is fair because it sets aside a small portion of district property where they know they won't be disturbed by the commotion of bike riding. The district's decision to ban biking in seven preserves represents the harshest--but hardly the first--action it has ever taken against mountain bikers. Since the late-1980s, the district has tried several strategies. Hundreds of signs have been posted throughout the district's 24 preserves, warning bikers about the rules of the trail as well as common sense etiquette. The rules include speed limits--15 mph when riding on trails, 5 mph when passing hikers or equestrians. To enforce the rules, the preserves are patrolled by a 20-member ranger team, including two, two-person units on bikes. Members of the trail patrol use radar guns to check speed and hand out an estimated 50 to 100 tickets a year for violations, which carry fines ranging up to $100. Rangers say that's a small volume of tickets compared to the number of mountain bikers who use the trails on an annual basis. Not only do most bikers follow the rules, but the mountain biking community in recent years has also taken the lead in trying to educate their ranks. Biking groups such as ROMP and Team Wrong Way regularly set up booths at trail mouths where they pass out educational materials to other bikers, informing them about the do's and dont's of riding the district's trails. Bikers have also reached out to o... |
| www.csua.org/u/k3c -> www.flickr.com/photos/reichardt/1865233690/in/pool-grammargirl/ Everyone knows that bicycle's don't read English, so they need a good pictogram. |