Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Sugary Exoskeleton
Joined
·
4,657 Posts
SMT- Before I lived somewhere that had odd/even bike days, I would have signed in a second. But after moving to Salt Lake, I have found it's a great way to reduce user group pressure on trails.

Yes, it sucks to have to avoid trails on certain days. But on the other hand, it's a free pass on the other days. Nobody has ever given me the stink-eye when I blow by on a bike day. If they don't like sharing, they can hike or ride horses on non-bike days. If you don't go odd/even, every rider, hiker, equestrian thinks he owns the trail and will act like it.

It also cuts down on non-bike traffic for the same reason. If half the hikers on a Saturday give it a pass because they know it's a bike day, then you meet half as many hikers.

Think about it. I am not advocating this system for EVERY trail, but if you have hotspots (and SB is DEFINITELY a hotspot) it seems to work really well.

My 2 cents.

JMH

SHIVER ME TIMBERS said:
 

·
Equal opportunity meanie
Joined
·
2,781 Posts
JMH - The only problem with that is that we all know what the next move of the rabid hikers is which is removing us from the trails altogether. This is just an intermediate step that we can't allow to happen. Reducing the number of hikers on one of our trails by half still equals a lot of hikers. With the sense of entitlement they have, they won't go odd/even. If you read the fine print, the odd/even ONLY APPLIES TO BIKERS - NOBODY ELSE.
 

·
Bored Carp
Joined
·
1,596 Posts
DHidiot said:
If you read the fine print, the odd/even ONLY APPLIES TO BIKERS - NOBODY ELSE.
So then, this is what you have to change.

On one busy trail in SLC, bikes get odd days, dogs get even days. By setting up designated times, you aren't necessarily moving one step closer to total removal - I think that you are instead creating a document that outlines your right to exist, whereas in your current format, you are still open to total removal.

Giving the dogs/hikers a bike free day means that when they complain, the officials in charge can tell them to show up on a non-bike day.

Cheers,
C
 

·
Sugary Exoskeleton
Joined
·
4,657 Posts
DHidiot said:
This is just an intermediate step that we can't allow to happen.
I don't know about that. If it relieves the pressure of trail user conflict, it could guarantee that the trails will stay open.

You could be right, though. Everybody knows that SB has a powerful lobby of selfish user groups that would love to see bikes go away forever. Maybe this is just an intermediate step. But I am just saying that I have seen this type of system work here. Will it work there? I don't know.

If a majority on all sides are behind the solution even if it means bikes have to compromise, it could put a lot of people in your camp that would ordinarily fight to get bikes off the trails.

JMH
 

·
Equal opportunity meanie
Joined
·
2,781 Posts
dusthuffer said:
right ... like a gateway drug
Very much so. Once they realize they have any leverage on the situation whatsoever they will take it as far as they can. Ask anyone in SB who is familiar with the situation.

You have to remember that we are dealing with people who actually take a significant amount of time to try and prevent people from riding bicycles when there is gang activity, drug trafficking, homelessness/disease/starvation, organized crime, large scale environmental hazards, etc. in Santa Barbara closer to these peoples homes than bike trails. Case in point - examine www.safetrails.net and imagine how much time and energy that ONE PERSON had to invest to complete that website. If you're familiar at all with programming or web design, it's no small task. This is how irrational and senseless the people are who are opposing us. Basically, don't put anything past them.
 

·
Its only 1" on the map!
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
chuky said:
So then, this is what you have to change.

On one busy trail in SLC, bikes get odd days, dogs get even days. By setting up designated times, you aren't necessarily moving one step closer to total removal - I think that you are instead creating a document that outlines your right to exist, whereas in your current format, you are still open to total removal.

Giving the dogs/hikers a bike free day means that when they complain, the officials in charge can tell them to show up on a non-bike day.

Cheers,
C
I think the rub comes from the fact that everyday is a hiker day. The policy places us as less of a trail user than the hikers. Why should bikers only get access 50% of the time while hikers have 100%. If the policy excluded hikers on the biker day then it would keep us on the same level as hikers. DHidiot's concern does not set off the slippery slope fallacy alarm in my book.
 

·
Equal opportunity meanie
Joined
·
2,781 Posts
mtbbill said:
I think the rub comes from the fact that everyday is a hiker day. The policy places us as less of a trail user than the hikers. Why should bikers only get access 50% of the time while hikers have 100%. If the policy excluded hikers on the biker day then it would keep us on the same level as hikers. DHidiot's concern does not set off the slippery slope fallacy alarm in my book.
You obviously underestimate the insanity of the SB hiker extremists. It's not a fallacy of any kind. This is a lot like a spoiled little kid trying to test the limits of what he can get away with. If he's given a chance to get away with one thing he'll take it to an extreme. If you're in California, come ride SB on a weekend and you'll see what we mean. Also take a gander at www.safetrails.net if you haven't already to see the peak of hiker insanity and irrationality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,931 Posts
mtbbill said:
I think the rub comes from the fact that everyday is a hiker day. The policy places us as less of a trail user than the hikers. Why should bikers only get access 50% of the time while hikers have 100%. If the policy excluded hikers on the biker day then it would keep us on the same level as hikers. DHidiot's concern does not set off the slippery slope fallacy alarm in my book.
But there are hikers who hate/fear dogs. When would they hike?
 

·
Its only 1" on the map!
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
DHidiot said:
You obviously underestimate the insanity of the SB hiker extremists. It's not a fallacy of any kind. This is a lot like a spoiled little kid trying to test the limits of what he can get away with. If he's given a chance to get away with one thing he'll take it to an extreme. If you're in California, come ride SB on a weekend and you'll see what we mean. Also take a gander at www.safetrails.net if you haven't already to see the peak of hiker insanity and irrationality.
What I meant when I said
mtbbill said:
DHidiot's concern does not set off the slippery slope fallacy alarm in my book..
is that I think your concerns are fully warranted and in this case, and that givng ground here could easily lead to bikers getting the boot. The safetrails group goals are clear, they want bikes off the trails. If they support the even/odd comprimise then they intend to use it as a stepping stone to booting bikers. If they were willing to exclude themselves on the bike days then it would be a different story.
 

·
Equal opportunity meanie
Joined
·
2,781 Posts
mtbbill said:
What I meant when I said

is that I think your concerns are fully warranted and in this case, and that givng ground here could easily lead to bikers getting the boot. The safetrails group goals are clear, they want bikes off the trails. If they support the even/odd comprimise then they intend to use it as a stepping stone to booting bikers. If they were willing to exclude themselves on the bike days then it would be a different story.
Gotcha, thanks.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top