Topic
Become a member to post in the forums.
.
Reading the text of the actual rule change, any controversy which was engendered seems like a case of overreaction brought on by not reading the primary source. All it did was remove an archaic special regulation from any hypothetical opening of existing trails to bikes. Any such change still requires the full spectrum of review and comment, including NEPA.
" All it did was remove an archaic special regulation from any hypothetical opening of existing trails to bikes. Any such change still requires the full spectrum of review and comment, including NEPA."
I confess that my eyes tend to glaze over when reading regulations, especially special regulations, and all the more so when they are archaic. It's not so much a matter of not reading as trying to figure out what the devious little weasels are actually saying. I commend you on your focus and persistence, and for performing a community service by serving as interpreter of the arcane and archaic for the less legally inclined among us. That being said, I suspect that, in the end, the matter will be resolved in the usual manner, by lobbyists and lawyers pleading their cases before a parade of courts and administrations, with the original intent of the W.A. of 1964 being paid lip service at best.
….expect these (or worse) to be right around the corner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_wLn2apOVg#t=111
Yikes–'Billy Bob' (with large beer belly and a 12 pack) will be able to join us soon.
PS
I have to admit though it might be fun on the beach or a sandy forest service road.
Anxiously awaiting the release of a film titled Danny Macaskill does the JMT (or perhaps the SHR?)
This could easily be the trailer
Note that the word “anxious” in intentionally ambiguous in the above statement.
"We treat our wild places as if the are a playground for spoiled children, which many people who travel to the backcountry are. Time to remove trails, trail maintenance, trail signs, backcountry campsites, backcountry buildings, bridges, wood platforms, trailhead parking, roads to wilderness areas, etc. We need to make access harder, not easier. We need to stop looking at our wild areas in terms of its economic value."
Maybe I'm missing the sarcasm here but this strikes me as a terrible idea if your goal is to secure preservation.
In doing this you completely disassociate any inherent vale that conservation may have to an average person. So the next time an election cycle rolls through the candidate that is offering to offset a tax hike by developing all that "unused land" it will sound that much more appealing to the average voter.
Removing any emotional connection that an average voter will have with wilderness by making it *harder* to access means that the only connection the public has with preserved wilderness *will* be economic. Unfortunately, I can't think of any other way to convince millions of people at large to set aside large parcels of land than to show it to them and get them to fall in love with it and care for it. And that means a certain amount of access.
"Maybe I'm missing the sarcasm here but this strikes me as a terrible idea if your goal is to secure preservation.
In doing this you completely disassociate any inherent vale that conservation may have to an average person. So the next time an election cycle rolls through the candidate that is offering to offset a tax hike by developing all that "unused land" it will sound that much more appealing to the average voter."
No sarcasm intended. I am 100% serious. Conservation is multiple use… logging, grazing, ORV, etc.
Heck, we can't get 50% of the population to turn out for a presidential election, so we need to bypass the few who are willing to even show up to vote on these issues… besides, the Pork Barrel Congress is the real enemy. So the answer is to work on this as an individuals.
A good read is California Desert Miracle by Frank Wheat. It shows what can be done.
…and if you legalize MTBs, it's just a question of time and you get the electric MTBs on the trail. Do you really think this is ok?
"Do you really think this is ok?"
No.
Oh Baby Jesus no!!!
Of course, I have a similar reaction to thru-hikers with hiking poles.
All kiding aside, this gives me hope: http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/mariposagrove.htm. We can't ever have pure wilderness back, but we can strive for it and teach average Americans to value the "almost-wilderness" we do have.
A 64-year-old woman will appear in court next month after an RCMP investigation into a rash of vandalism and booby traps being set on a number of mountain bike trails in North Vancouver.
The woman was arrested at the head of Quarry Trail this past Sunday at 5 a.m.
From Aug. 1 to Dec. 29, 2014, logs, branches and rocks were strewn on the Quarry and Lower Skull trails, located close to the 1200-block Dempsey Road in North Vancouver.
This is whats happens these days …
More at link
;)
The should give her an award…
billy
Booby traps set for mountain bikes are real and no joke.
In 2004 I was fortunate to be riding slowly UP a steep section of the CDT in NM (it's a section that local riders regularly ride in the opposite direction as a flowing descent), when I encountered both a single wire at 4' height across the trail and logs stacked in blind corners of the southbound flow of the trail.
I dismantled them immediately and called the Sheriff when I got to Silver City.
well, I didn't say what KIND of award she should get… now did I????
er, maybe a prison jump suit would work ????
billy
Nice bit of backpedalling there Billy.
Ooh, a pun.
Before I get off on the wrong foot, let me say that I am not in favor of setting booby traps for mountain bikers anywhere, and especially on trails where using a mountain bike is legal. Setting such traps is dangerous, wrong, and illegal.
That said, the idea of "logs stacked in blind corners" caught my eye. Why would a mountain biker be riding too fast to avoid the logs? What if the logs had been a hiker? Would the mountain biker be coming too fast to avoid the hiker? That does not sound safe to me.
I understand the appeal of speed to at least some mountain bikers, but traveling too fast to avoid an obstacle — possibly a hiker on a multi-use trail — sounds dangerous and irresponsible to me. Much like driving a highway vehicle too fast for the prevailing conditions.
Am I missing something here?
–MV
Robert Blean wrote:
I understand the appeal of speed to at least some mountain bikers, but traveling too fast to avoid an obstacle — possibly a hiker on a multi-use trail — sounds dangerous and irresponsible to me. Much like driving a highway vehicle too fast for the prevailing conditions.
Am I missing something here?
–MV
Not really.
Unfortunately, most of the trails that have hills nearby to me are multi-use and have at least semi-blind corners. I've had to bail into the bushes on trail runs more than once when mountain bikers took those corners too fast for visibility conditions. If it weren't for the fact that FL doesn't really have any cliffs worth writing home about, those bails could've been bad.
Heck, I've been on paved multi-use trails with good visibility and had bicyclists attempt to run me over since I had the temerity to be running on a multi-use trail. Had a longboard user literally run into me once; fortunately, years of football and wrestling reflexes helped with taking the hit and keeping him from eating it hard. He still wanted a confrontation, but didn't have the wind left to really make anything of it.
On the other hand, I do a lot of (road) biking in addition to my running and hiking. I've had cars attempt to kill me on the road by running stop signs and red lights; I've had abuse yelled at me from folks in vehicles who seem to think that sharing the road–even when I'm using a designated bike lane and not in the travel lane–isn't what bicyclists should be doing; I've had pedestrians suddenly step off of the sidewalk in front of me with no warning and not at a crosswalk; and I've seen folks texting swerve nearly off the road or sidewalk in vehicles, on bikes, and on foot.
Manipulation of force, be it by vehicle or bike or even unassisted body movement, needs to be controlled during straightened circumstances in order to not harm folks around one's self. Unfortunately, too many people don't think this through–or don't care. I'm willing to assume idiocy rather than malice most of the time, though.
The vancouver area is very bike friendly
Some of these trails may be bike trails built and maintained by bikers for such purposes
Any other users are secondary at best, or find them unsafe to use … This is often done with the understanding of the land owners
There are plenty of trails here that bikes arent allowed
;)
Robert,
Yes, it is exactly like driving too fast for the prevailing conditions. Generally all of us are required to drive at a speed that is safe for conditions. But, I would argue that most of us don't really do this in our cars. On narrow roads with short sight distances, similar to the example you refer to, people routinely drive the speed limit assuming that the road will be clear in front of them. Generally this works out because the road is in fact clear. If there happens to be a bicycle rider, runner, hiker, deer, tree branch, or something else just around the corner we will read about the terrible 'accident' in the newspaper. It gets explained away as something that couldn't be avoided and the rest of us continue to drive faster than is safe for conditions assuming that it was just random and unavoidable. The runner, bicycle rider, or hiker may have just as much legal right to be on the road as the driver. In fact one could make a good argument that is is the fault of the driver for driving faster than the road is designed for and no 'accident' at all. But, generally we don't make that argument.
As was mentioned a few times earlier in the thread one of the real difficulties with shared use is the difference in speed. If you don't have a lot of hikers, or bicycle riders things work themselves out. If the area is popular you have lots of conflicts.
Not injury causing booby traps, but bike slowing water bars?
Water bars can unintentionally act as speed bumps, flipping a bicyclist if distracted. Actually saw this happen hiking Pt Reyes last summer up the Bear Valley trail (a multi-use fire road with bike racks at the wilderness boundary). I am hiking a gradual uphill as a bike rider passes me going downhill fairly fast (but not excessively so), then a couple seconds later .."crash" … and turn to see the rider completely flip in a mix of limbs and bike. He starts yelling help and after some assist, he started limping while I ran ahead to the ranger station. He thought he dislocated some hip ligaments … never did find out. Knowing the area, his eyes likely wandered off the trail and didn't slightly pull up, hitting the water bar edge too fast with just enough catching to flip completely head over handlebars.
Roots work just as well, trust me. Source: I flipped on a MTB head over handlebars after not seeing roots lurking in the shadows – no permanent damage done physically or mentally (… really).
Robert, good questions.
That section of CDT, is known locally as CD South and was largely built and maintainEd by riders. It's a very swoopy secton of trail and all trail users must be vigilant to avoid crashing into each other. Conflict between users resulted in the traps I found. True, the logs were poorly conceived as a trap and yes, probably avoidable, but the bailing wire was not. A similar wire trap on the same trail a couple years before did catch a rider who was minimally hurt.
Turns out these traps were within a half-mile of where Balls water cache was stolen.
Just opening walking trails to bikes is bound to be fraught. Trails for vehicles should be designed for such. Some of the designed mtn bike trails I have seen have gentle corners which are hardened with pavers, no blind corners etc. One can't really expect a walking trail to suddenly become a race track or trials course and have it suit all purposes. It will take money, time and design to make trails safe and eco for bikes.
Who's responsibility is it when a biker crashes two days hike in and has to leave the ruined bike in a pristine wilderness area? Rangers fine people for just leaving cairns. How will retrieval be enforced?
How about a hiker/biker collision that far back in? Who pays the rescue bill?
Do the people who are against bikes in wilderness areas equate bike packing to "mountain biking"? If not, where do you draw the line on acceptable bike travel?
In any case, I think adding mountain biking in the traditional sense to a mostly foot travel trail would be tricky. While living in Colorado, I thoroughly enjoyed both biking and hiking sections of the Colorado Trail. The trail is pretty vigorously maintained for multi use though.
Nowadays, I could care less what trails are open for biking in wilderness areas. I'd much prefer cross country areas to be opened up for bikepacking, even if it requires a permitting process. Bike your own bike.
This thread is worth reading all over again. The cell phone in the wilderness thread reminded me of it so here it is again.
Resurrecting this one, again ;)
Become a member to post in the forums.
Ultralight folding polesCarbon fiber, adjustable, 15" collapsed length.
© Beartooth Media Group Inc.
Loading...
