Trail Etiquette ?

Hi Scott

> Roger, whilst i’m glad to see you do not support extreme action yourself, your last comment ‘A lower chain might have been better’ is not helpful. How can anything slung across a trail that can cause injury be ‘Better’ ?

I do NOT support such extreme action.
A low slung slack chain might have flipped the bike and dumped the rider, and maybe given him a broken arm or leg. I suggest such an injury would be better than decapitation – yes?

With the added advantage that the cops could then have given him hell by prosecuting him through the courts!

Robert, your fears of injecting undue “sickness” into the Thread seem to be a tad unfounded. Appears, several others, including our fearless leader and an UL cottage industry leader, seem to somewhat enjoy/appreciate/understand (you pick the right word; hey, add a few of your own too) your sense of humor.

>”A low slung slack chain might have flipped the bike and dumped the rider, and maybe given him a broken arm or leg. I suggest such an injury would be better than decapitation – yes?

With the added advantage that the cops could then have given him hell by prosecuting him through the courts!”<
Roger, thank you for your reply, however, I have to question the wisdom of your postings.

Your original post referenced a wire that had been placed across a trail and that had resulted in someones decapitation.

This type of action simply needed condeming by you. Instead, you went on to offer an alternative tactic to anyone who cared to read your post, namely that a lower chain might have been better.

Whilst you have pointed out ‘better’ meant being less likely to get decapitated at the expense of other injuries, I fail to see any value in the comment and it falls short of condemming such behaviour.

The fact that you even considered other possible methods of blocking trails that might result in less injury (but injury all the same) I find alarming. No one should knowingly set out to do another harm or be reckless of harm being done.

Let me give you an example, If I spoke to the mother of a murdered young girl and said, “I don’t support murder but it would have been better if the attacker had broken your daughters legs and hit her around the face a few times with a claw hammer”, it might very well have been preferable to murder but I don’t think the sentiment would be seen that way. The family would instead want to hear condemnation of the murder, not a menu of better grizzly options that the offender could have used instead. Similarly I can not understand your reference to a low chain and the sentiment behind it and nor would I suspect, the family of the unfortunate individual who lost his head.

The above may be an extreme example but one that should illustrate my point.

I can only see three possibilities here, either a) you support extreme action such as wires across trails – however this is unlikely as you have already indicated that you do not, although you have only ruled out what you consider ‘Extreme’ conduct b) You totally oppose the placement of any articles across trails designed to unseat riders of motor cycles – In which case you should have condemed any such action outright and left it at that, or c) you think that placing low chains across trails that might flip a bike, its rider and possibly lead to a broken arm or leg is acceptable (or slightly more acceptable than a wire and not ‘Extreme’)- In which case, shame on you.

Your comment indicating that if the bike had been ‘flipped’ with a low chain, an advantage would have been that the cops could have prosecuted the rider I find deeply offensive.

As a police officer who has dealt with numerous collisions involving motorcyles and witnessing first hand the horrific injuries that riders can suffer, I am appalled at the prospect of you seeing any possible advantage in an attempt to dismount a rider from a motorbike.

People that visit this sight by its very nature are interested in the outdoors and read the postings made here. As a member who is clearly shown in the forums as BPL Staff, I suggest that your words carry more sway with many individuals and therefore your responsibilities are greater.

I can only hope that you will clarify your position and condem outright any improvised tactics by walkers to dismount motorcyclists.

Never mind, wasn’t relevant..

These discussions always, always degrade into an assertion that the vast majority of {insert “bike riders”, “snowmachine riders”, “motorcycle riders”, “horse packers”, “boy scouts”} are law-abiding and that they are offended by what they have read,

I’m way more offended by horse packers who build fences and smokehouses (!) in designated wilderness.

I’m way more offended by snowmachine drivers who are too drunk to drive but not, apparently, too drunk to drive illegally on ski trails at speeds in excess of 100 km per hour.

I’m way more offended by ORV operators who collide with hikers or mountain bikers and bolt from the scene.

Maybe we should remember why hikers are angry, and remember that those intemperate comments come from a pretty deep well of resentment.

>”These discussions always, always degrade into an assertion that the vast majority of {insert “bike riders”, “snowmachine riders”, “motorcycle riders”, “horse packers”, “boy scouts”} are law-abiding and that they are offended by what they have read,”<
David,

Having read Bretts post before he deleted it, I assume that the opening line of your comment related to his reference to the wider bike riding and motorcyling communities and his assertion that they would have been offended by Rogers comments. I agree that we should all try to prevent making sweeping statements, however it is interesting then that you do the very same thing with your reference to hikers, in your comment >

“Maybe we should remember why hikers are angry, and remember that those intemperate comments come from a pretty deep well of resentment.”

References to being ‘Angry’ and a ‘Deep well of resentment’ are pretty strong words to bestow on the hiking community.”

I am a hiker but I am certainly not angry or full of resentment. I agree with all the things that you state offend you, they offend me too. As a police officer, I have prosecuted numerous people for drunk driving, leaving accident scenes or enforced legislation aimned at protecting our environment. As a hiker I too have done my fair share of dodging inconsiderate and in some cases, down right dangerous trail blazers on their scrambling motorcycles. However, I certainly don’t feel anger or resentment. Neither feeling is productive.

You obviously were not as offended by Rogers comments as I was and that is okay. I speak for myself and no one else.

On a side note, I do not own a motor cycle, nor can I ride one. I made my comments simply because I feel that no one deserves to be injured and that inappropriate behaviour such as blocking trails to unseat motorcyclists should be challenged in a clear and unambiguous way.

Maybe we should remember why hikers are angry,

Of course we can feel anger and even resentment when seeing wrongdoing. Nothing wrong with that.

But justified anger does not equate to justifying violence. Never has, never will.

Witness the agony of life in the Balkans or middle east. One wiser than I once said “An eye for and eye makes the whole world blind.”

Wise words Jim.

When I look at the scope of problems in the world, and think 10 minutes ago I was debating if I should get the evernew or BPL Ti Pot, and am healthy and thrifty enough to go hiking at will, I realize I really don’t have any problems, be it here, the Balkans or ME.

Here’s to each of you a happy and safe Tday,
MikeB

You are right on, as we say in the US … I guess you guys say spot on. Happy Day. b.d.

Scott, I am glad at least you read my post since I agree most closely with your opinion on this subject. I deleted it because I realized I was getting too emotionally worked up over a thread that probably belongs on another website. My attempt to blog-whip someone into changing their opinions or behavior is futile.
Thank you for your service to law and order, Scott.

Scott,

I apologize and withdraw my comments about “why hikers” are angry. Perhaps I should have said, “why *some* hikers are angry…” or perhaps “why many hikers are angry…”

I should also emphasize that I don’t advocate violence, and emphatically think that causing someone injury in such a situation is wrong, and also completely self-defeating because it changes the debate from the bad behavior of the victim to the bad behavior of the vigilantes who injure him.

Still, this goes uncomfortably close to an ethical question I’ve wrestled with on other fronts in recent times: obviously, an important obligation of a citizen is to obey the law, but just as obviously that obligation is not absolute. From my well-fed and post-ski perspective, I doubt the issues we are talking about here require extralegal means for their resolution. But I also believe that governments have an obligation to enforce their own laws, and when they willfully blow that off it can only breed lawlessness. By definition.

I wouldn’t put the plight of hikers put upon by bikers or horse-packers up there with people in Tsarist Russia, black folk in segregationist America, or the various groups who opposed the British in colonial India. All of those people had a far, far greater beef with the system than I could ever have, and thank goodness I’m not them.

Am I the only one here who thinks Roger Caffin’s original post was a joke, and those of you waxing eloquent with your protests have been, to put it politely, misled?

David [Bonn], thank you for your last post. You make some good points, particularly the comment:

>”I should also emphasize that I don’t advocate violence, and emphatically think that causing someone injury in such a situation is wrong, and also completely self-defeating because it changes the debate from the bad behavior of the victim to the bad behavior of the vigilantes who injure him.”<
David [Couch],

>”Am I the only one here who thinks Roger Caffin’s original post was a joke, and those of you waxing eloquent with your protests have been, to put it politely, misled?”< I’m not sure I understand your comment in relation to ‘joke’ and ‘misled’. Could you expand a little? Thanks.
Brett

>”Thank you for your service to law and order, Scott.”< You are most welcome. Thank you.

Scott,
“David [Couch],
>”Am I the only one here who thinks Roger Caffin’s original post was a joke, and those of you waxing eloquent with your protests have been, to put it politely, misled?”< I’m not sure I understand your comment in relation to ‘joke’ and ‘misled’. Could you expand a little? Thanks.” Let me expand at the expense of politeness. Had Roger’s post been serious, your replies would have been valid and I would have supported them. If he was joking you have been suckered into wasting your indignation.

> however, I have to question the wisdom of your postings.
Frankly, given the way my comments have been twisted out of context, so do I.

> This type of action simply needed condeming by you. Instead, you went on to offer an alternative tactic to anyone who cared to read your post, namely that a lower chain might have been better.
That is not what I meant. I meant that it would have been better for all concerned if whoever had done the illegal and reprehesible activity had thought a bit more and chosen a less lethal approach. This does NOT mean that I advocated any of these approaches. I had hoped this meaning would be obvious.

As others have pointed out, tempers were getting very heated in the area about the illegal activities of the riders. It would been prudent for the Police to have foreseen the obvious probability and danger of vigilante action and clamped down on the bike problem before it escalated into violence. Sadly, the authorities didn’t bestir themselves soon enough.

> As a police officer who has dealt with numerous collisions involving motorcyles and witnessing first hand the horrific injuries that riders can suffer
I understand your concern. I rode a motor bike for many years, and I am equally aware of the hazards.

To repeat, finally: I was NOT advocating any vigilante action. I was regretting that those who took vigilante action had not thought through the consequences of their actions.

Roger,

To suggest that I have twisted your comments almost implies a malicious act on my part. This is not the case. If your intentions were misunderstood it is because they were unclear.

As indicated in a previous post, I felt that there was absolutely no room for ambiguity when it came to condemming tactics designed at dismounting motorcyclists.

You have indicated that what you meant by your earlier post was, ‘it would have been better for all concerned if whoever had done the illegal and reprehesible activity had thought a bit more and chosen a less lethal approach.’ Less lethal to me would have been for those concerned to have made complaints to the police, local authorities, politicians, petitions etc so your original mention of a ‘chain’ seemed far from a condemnation. If you simply wished to indicate your regret that those responsible had not ‘thought through the consequences of their actions’, you should simply have said so. There was no reason to mention a chain at all.

However, I am pleased that you have now clarified your position concerning wires and chains by stating that you do not advocate either. Thank you.

David [Couch]

I still don’t understand your reference to Rogers words in his original post being a ‘joke’ as that would imply an attempt at humour. However, whilst I don’t think Rogers original words were the most appropriate to use, he has at least now clarified his position.

Thank you both.

Scott…

Until now, it hadn’t sunk in that you are posting from the UK. My mistake…

I’m wondering if we are talking about the same thing, though. I think most of the outrage here is about motorized “trail bikes” used on trails open to hikers. I suspect that isn’t very common, if even very possible, in the UK.

Obviously, hikers and motorized vehicles sharing a trail is a dangerous situation, particularly for the hikers. That doesn’t even address the aesthetic issue — for me, hiking on a trail with motorbikes whizzing by is about as pleasant as hiking through rush-hour traffic in Los Angeles would be.

In nearly all of the U.S., motorbikes and other ORVs (like those four-wheeler things and snowmachines) don’t require any operator licensing or certification at all. In quite a few states laws against operating a vehicle while intoxicated don’t apply either. Imagine how that makes me feel about sharing a trail with someone operating one of these machines. [a correction — most states, it seems, now consider an ORV to be a vehicle for the purpose of a DUI].

Joke or not- I have a story. Mine’s not a joke.

I am an avid backpacker, mountain biker, climber, paddler (canoe), and snowshoer. But I also own a snowmobile and a Husqvarna motorcycle. You see I was raised internal combustion, although I ended up preferring quieter means of enjoying the backcountry.

My father was a serious off road motorcycle rider. He raced enduro, desert, the whole bit. And when I was a kid (I learned to ride a motorcycle at 2- an Indian with training wheels), we used to go camping in the motorhome with a bunch of my dad’s friends. One was Jerry.

Jerry was the only guy who could keep up with my dad. At races, they would always push each other to the limit. Jerry’s son and I would ride together too while our dads went riding- real offroad chums. But while my dad mellowed his racing when he had kids and we stuck to trail riding (which eventually led to my mountain biking) Jerry and his son kept going. They always raced.

Then Jerry went for one of the big ones. Can’t remember which- the Baja 500 or some thing- I think it was in California but I don’t remember. My dad talked about it with stars in his eyes, wishing that he were there. But Jerry never finished. Someone had strung a wire between two trees up a gully somewhere that the course officials missed and Jerry died the same way it was mentioned in this thread.

When I read the posts earlier it made me sick, physically, and brought back thoughts of Jerry from when I was a kid. He was a wonderful guy.

Any vigilante “justice” proposed here is just awful. And a joke to me it is not. Human life is too precious, no matter the form of chosen recreation nor how it done, legal or not.

Doug the Polaris/Husqvarna/Specialized/Karhu/Gossamer Gear/Northern Lites/Cassin/Wenonah using outdoor lover

David [Bonn],

Yep, i’m on this side of the pond here in the UK. It is impossible for me to say how the UK compares to the US regarding the problem of motor cycle or ‘Trail bike’ use on trails as I have never been there. I would love to go, I just haven’t managed it yet.

I was refering to the same thing, i.e. ‘Trailbikes’ although I know I used the terms ‘Motorcycle’ and ‘Motorbike’ instead.

I wouldn’t say it was a HUGE problem here, certainly not in some of our more remote wilderness areas but it does crop up on trails from time to time, particulary on trails within close riding proximity to residential areas. We even have trail bikes on our footpaths and through our parks as well.

Recently the government here introduced powers to enable police officers to seize mechanically propelled vehicles such as trail bikes, if they were being used in an anti social manner. This has helped improve safety here and reduce community anger at the annoyance that trail bikes can cause when used at inappropriate locations or times.

I agree with you, having trailbikes whizzing about is unpleasant.

Many police forces here now have ‘police’ off road trail bikes to enable officers to catch up with these inconsiderate trail users. I am also aware of locally organised police schemes where young people stopped with trail bikes are diverted into police run activities that teach young people how to ride safely and service their bikes etc. Arranegments are also entered into with local landowners to set aside land where the bikes can be used in a safe environment to prevent hikers and trailbike riders coming into contact.

I am sure there are other similar schemes around the world.

Doug,

A terrible story to hear about your fathers friend. I agree with the sentiments that you have expressed.

Regards to you both.

>I wouldn’t say it was a HUGE problem here, certainly not in some of our more remote wilderness areas but it does crop up on trails from time to time

Last winter in Colorado, a dozen snowmobilers high-pointing in a designated wilderness area triggered an avalance. Two died.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/5835636/detail.html

Hi Scott

> ‘malicious act’? No way! Sorry if you thought I meant that!
But you did seem to have missed my intent, which was to highlight what can go wrong when one group is allowed to break the law too long and threaten the safety of others.

> Less lethal to me would have been for those concerned to have made complaints to the police, local authorities, politicians, petitions
I think you missed the point here of what I had been saying – maybe I was not very clear or simply abbreviated too much. Fair enough.

The locals had been complaining very loudly about the serious safety hazard represented by the bikies for a long time, but the Police and other authorities had done nothing. The vigilante action only happened after about a year or more of complete failure to act, when endangered locals finally took the law into their own hands. Yes, I agree this is an undesirable thing, but it DOES happen when people are pushed too far.

I agree that the person(s) who strung the wire bore the primary responsibility, but I also say the local Police and other authorities bore a secondary responsibility for the death by failing to act. What more could the locals have done: taken out a writ of mandamus?

Mind you, I reckon the bikies also bore a responsibility for acting in such a sustained illegal manner. It was their sustained breaking of the law which created the situation in the first place.

Shall we agree that all three parties came out of the incident badly tarnished?

Roger, it’s been my experience and i am of the opinion that the defective mentality of the masses (certain more moral individuals excepting)is that…

when a law is not enforced, [they feel] that a law is not in effect [meaning that it is just as *IF* no such law was passed] and therefore such a law can be ignored.

too many only fear the “sword”, so to speak, (i.e., the potential personal consequences of their actions – if they even think of such) and have a purely selfish and self-centered outlook (or is it an “inlook” in this case of “self”) – BTW, a focus purely on oneself, w/o consideration of other’s needs/benefit is a well known characteristic of a young, immature child and sadly, many youths, and, IMHO, unfortunately, a growing number of adults. I’ve read that some psychologists consider only 25% of the adult population of the USA to meet the most basic definition of behaviorily “mature” – guess, this 25% figure speaks volumes about us adults.

i have law enforcement in my (non-immediate) family (a sister’s husband). they are overworked, underappreciated, criticized by the general public and the Press no matter what decision they make in a difficult situation, and some, and this is no excuse, are just plain worn out from what they have to deal with each and every working day. others (fortunately very rare) find more glory and reputation/career enhancment in NOT preventing a crime, but in apprehending a criminal – sad, but on that very rare occasion true.

you are right about the incident you describe. there is enough blame to go around. even those NOT directly involved might ask themselves, “is there anything i could have done to prevent this?”, or “could i have done more to possibly prevent this?”, or “can i do anything to help prevent it from happening again?”

passing no judgement here on anyone , just expressing questions that i have posed to myself on various occasions over the years.

I have had to camp on a trail once before when my group (after being given incorrect directions from a ranger of all people), ended up off course by several kms and had to make as emergency camp before darkness fell. There brush was literally so thick we had no option but to camp on the trail. Sounds like your situation was completely different though. If you approached them the right way they would have got the message without too much of a 'confrontation'. Some people really do have no idea though…..

when i'm on a trail that is for hikers only and come across a biker or horseback rider, i will stop them, take out my map and act lost. i start off by suggesting that i thought i was here (points at map on nearby multi-use trail). usually the offender will point out the correct trail, use it's name, and then look at me funny.

that's usually when they notice that i work for the park service. i am not law enforcement, so i just "clue" them in and go about my business. i've only summoned an officer once – the same biker passed me a second time. he was ticketed and fined and then arrest for an outstanding warrant.

-Steve