Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
21 - 40 of 84 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
stripes said:
I don't like being called "part of the solution or part of the problem." That type of attitude will keep mountain bikers and anyone else from seeing Your Point of View.
Everyone IS either part of the solution or part of the problem. It doesn't matter if you like it this way or not, you might as well try to change the rules of gravity for all the good it will do to complain about it.

I see a lot of mountain bikers who bring problems on themselves (and the biking community) who refuse to recognize this basic truth. I'm trying hard to be part of the solution. I'm trying to foster civil discussion, no personal attacks, looking for common ground, looking for win/win.

We don't find win/win by saying "we should have everything we want, and those other groups should give up what they want so we can have what we want". That simply doesn't work. The way to get what we (bikers) want is to recognize the valid issues others have, and find a balance between everyone's needs and issues, and that ALWAYS means we must compromise and agree to follow rules we probably don't like following. When others see the biking group as unwilling to compromise and unwilling to follow the rules, then their response is to try to keep bikes out entirely.

The horse community AND the hiking community both see the biking community in this way. They see bikers as a group of people who are eager to break rules and ride illegally and/or unsafely, so why should they grant more access to the trails for this group?

If the biking community wants others to treat us with trust and respect and grant access to more parks, more trails, then we have to be trustworthy (follow the rules) and respectful (ride safely) at all times. We have to self-police and not applaud when we see others breaking the rules. Breaking the rules will NOT lead to more access, as we have seen at UCSC. Which brings me right back to my point - you are either part of the problem or part of the solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
stripes said:
This thread started on the Mere Mortals discussion list, and was killed there because it was bringing up a lot of emotions and making people very angry.

Because that wasn't enough, JC brought this topic here.
This is very unfair characterization of what happened. You and one other person were upset about the topic. Everyone else was in support of the topic and enjoyed the information I had to share and felt that I raised some good points. They were all mystified as to why you and the other person were upset. Despite the topic not breaking any of your list rules, you said you didn't want it discussed on that list anymore. OK, I'm not going to fight you on that. So with Chuck's permission (to quote his part of the conversation) I brought the discussion here so we could continue it in a different forum, with out further upsetting you.

So why do you jump in on this thread, bring in all your issues (bringing up a lot of emotions and making people very angry) if the discussion was bothering you so much? I moved the discussion out of your way, and now you just run over here to continue to participate and be upset about it. For the most part this has been a civil discussion, and I would really appreciate it if you could keep your personal issues out of it.
 

·
It's about showing up.
Joined
·
12,738 Posts
jcdill you still don't see it

Your disposition presumes that you are the only one one offering solutions and that your understanding represents "the greater society." My response to you elucidates your limited view of the problem, gives the reasons for it, and suggests a different understanding of the problem, than yours, which is gaining traction at a State level. It presents a different, and perfectly valid, premise for discussion. That IS being part of creating solutions.

We just got rid of a national administration which had a flawed view of "the problem" which executed their "solution" predicated upon that understanding. What was needed was a new understanding and a new premise. New blood is being pumped into Park Boards as older and entrenched traditionalist "move on." The popular view of mtb IS changing as the sport mainstreams and training becomes a part of the experience.

In the 16 years I have lived next to Wildcat Canyon 2 Horse Boarding businesses have gone belly-up, the Western store has gone out of business in Richmond and Oakland, and the Pony facility in Tilden has ceased to operate. The predominant area for horses is in the less populated areas of East Contra Costa with a few surviving in the Briones area. The recession of the equestrian sport is fact which leads to a growing challenge to the presumption that horse can dictate things. It is becoming an anachronism. If it wants to survive here with it's political support decaying, it is going to have to make concessions from a pie it has hoarded for so long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Perhaps you should take your own advice: Be aware of your surroundings and take responsibility for treading where it might be dangerous. Bringing a horsie discusion here and telling cyclists that they are not so bright for riding roads that you consider dangerous kinda falls into that category in my mind.

I have had a horse encounter on a multi use trail and I ended up helping the guy pull his horse back up onto the trail when it spooked and threw him. The situation was actually an eye opener for me as I had stopped well in advance of any danger to the horse. The rider was VERY civil and we had a discusion about the incident as I drove him back to retrive his trailer to pick up his injured horse.

However, I do NOT believe that horses and bikes can share trails. I would prefer to see horse only parks and bike only parks. One small problem, I have yet to see a bike only park in the Bay Area. Maybe I am wrong, but it just ain't hapnin'. The only multi use trails that would be necessary are the ones that would link one park to another. Something that would allow bikes to ride from Canada Del Oro thru CALERO to get to Quicksilver comes to mind, although Quicksilver is a shard use environment that is a heavily used horse park and probably not a good example after all. Every other day the user groups is a way to resolve this as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
stripes said:
That you saw, yes. There were several others who emailed me privately.
The old lurkers support me in private email argument.

stripes said:
I was talking about the topic at hand here, bicycles vs. horses. Or would you prefer that I just go away even though you brought the topic up here?
I'm really surprised that you want to continue to participate in a discussion that brought out so much emotion and anger in you on the list. I'm surprised and baffled that you felt that it was appropriate to give your version of why it was no longer being discussed on the list. Are you trying to provoke me to rebut your version with my version of what happened on the list, to share it with others here in this public forum? Do you really think this will do anything productive for you, for Mere Mortals, or for the issue of equestrian/mountain bike relationships on the trails?

stripes said:
This is a public forum. People can reply to you however they like, whether or not you like it.
Of course they can. If you want to rehash the meta issue of what went wrong on the list in this public forum, you can do so. I just don't see much point in it - it's not going to help with the discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Nine said:
Perhaps you should take your own advice: Be aware of your surroundings and take responsibility for treading where it might be dangerous. Bringing a horsie discusion here and telling cyclists that they are not so bright for riding roads that you consider dangerous kinda falls into that category in my mind.
I'm saying that what all bikers (road and mountain) do reflects on all bikers in the non-biking community. Bikers can't say "we have always been allowed to ride on the roads, you can't take those rights away just because bike/car situations are dangerous for bikes, cars need to be more careful" on one hand, and then turn around and say "just because horses have always had rights to ride in the parks, that should change because horse/bike interactions are dangerous for horse riders so they shouldn't be allowed and bikes don't need to be more careful" on the other hand. This doesn't work. It's hypocritical and the non-biking public doesn't buy it.

Nine said:
One small problem, I have yet to see a bike only park in the Bay Area. Maybe I am wrong, but it just ain't hapnin'.
There are many bike only parks in the Bay Area:

Waterdog, in Belmont. Waterdog has bike/pedestrian openings at all entrances, and no gates for horses. There's a horse stable in Belmont only about 1/2 mile away, but they aren't allowed to ride in Waterdog. The Lake Trail, John Brooks Trail, Elevator, etc are all perfectly suitable for horses but are reserved for bikes and hikers only. (I'm not saying this should change, just pointing out the proximity to horses to these horse-suitable trails.)

Many of the parks along the bay, such as Alviso, Shoreline, Baylands, Bayfront, Bair Island, Coyote Point, etc. allow bikes but not horses. If horses aren't actually banned, there are no stables nearby, no parking for horse trailers. Bikers can ride without fear of startling a horse at all these parks.

There are also numerous hiking/biking paths that are not open to horses, with hiker/biker gates at all trail entrances. For instance the Los Gatos Creek Trail, and the Stevens Creek Trail. I'm sure there are many more parks and paths that I'm not aware of - I only know of trails in the vicinity of silicon valley.

When you look at all the places where bikes can ride and horses can't ride, you might start to see why horse people are fairly protective of the few parks they have that are for horses and not bikes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
stripes said:
If you want, I can send you the emails. Do you want copies of the phone calls too?

Wow, you really have to be absolutely right about everything, don't you? :rolleyes:

I'm done. If you feel this is a win, it's not. Your attitude is also a part of the reason I'm no longer part of Mere Mortals.

Enjoy riding on your "high horse." It's a lonely place.
I could send copies of emails too, what's the point of that?

I don't feel this is a win. It was never about winning. It was about trying to have a polite conversation about this issue. I've never attacked you Anne, and I don't appreciate being followed and then attacked by you in this forum. You asked me to stop posting on this topic on Mere Mortals and I complied and took the conversation elsewhere (with Chuck's permission and blessing), without mentioning where or why I moved the topic. I have done nothing wrong and I don't deserve this.

I don't mind your participation in this discussion - I'm sure you have many interesting insights that could be helpful in the discussion (as was the case with your first post in this thread). I just ask that you keep the personal attacks out of it. It was one of your two simple rules for discussion on Mere Mortals and I expect you to live by your own rules.
 

·
Paper or plastic?
Joined
·
10,193 Posts
The whole thing is a self fulfilling prophecy. Bikers are unfairly discriminated against and have very little access to any trail (at least in the bay area). Getting more access to bikers (we can't have any less) will require the other trail users to give up some of the monopoly that they currently enjoy on these trails, so it's bound to be a big fight that no park district want to start. Therefore bikers are stuck with limited access and no avenue to getting more access. The obvious answer for most is to ride non compliantly.

If we ride non compliantly, then the other user groups use it against us (irrational reasoning, but whatever).

If we comply with the absurd rules, then the other user groups will also use it against us by saying that everything is fine and therefore there is no need for greater access. Either way, we lose.

Bottom line, this will go on for a while until we have turnover at the park district director level with new blood that understands the need for more access. Where we ride is pretty much irrelevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
beaverbiker said:
If equestrians really did want mountain bikes off their trails, they'd be advocating for a lot of mountain bike only trails. Yet they don't. Personally, I think horses should be banned from all public lands. My mountain bike isn't going to kill me or anyone else; I'd be killing me or anyone else. I'm the pilot and I'm controllable and play well with others..
There are many parks where equestrians are allowed but rarely ride (anymore) because of all the bikes. These parks have effectively become mountain-bike-only parks. This is why equestrians are all the more unwilling to open up new parks and trails to bikes - they cherish the few parks they can still ride in without fear of encountering bikes.

The first serious bike accident I had was caused by another (much more skilled) rider who rode carelessly, braked and swerved into me on a wide road.
 

·
Paper or plastic?
Joined
·
10,193 Posts
jcdill said:
There are many parks where equestrians are allowed but rarely ride (anymore) because of all the bikes. These parks have effectively become mountain-bike-only parks.

Many? Which ones?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
jcdill said:
Bikers can't say "we have always been allowed to ride on the roads, you can't take those rights away just because bike/car situations are dangerous for bikes, cars need to be more careful" on one hand, and then turn around and say "just because horses have always had rights to ride in the parks, that should change because horse/bike interactions are dangerous for horse riders so they shouldn't be allowed and bikes don't need to be more careful" on the other hand. This doesn't work. It's hypocritical and the non-biking public doesn't buy it.
QUOTE]

Wow, did I say all of that? Thanks for putting words in my mouth and creating an argument about it. You really do need to think you are right all of the time.

My point is that you have started a discusion and seem to have issues when others have a different opinion.

It was YOU that said that the times have changed and that narrow country roads are no longer acceptable for bikes due to the changing times and public opinion. If you are going in that direction then that should hold true for trail use as well, wouldn't you agree? I have no objective proof, but I see more bikes on trails than I do horses. The times ARE changing and I have to believe that if bikers were as organized as the horse lobby, you would be walking your ride around a corral on your own private land.

Horses and bikes just don't work out well on trails. And by the way, a bike path is not exactly what most on this list would consider a thrilling experience. It would be somewhat like restricting your rides to that private corral. While there are horse parks all over the Bay Area, the one destination in Belmont is hardly parity.

My solution, every other day the trail use, create dedicated bikes only areas, and provide wide open corridors for park to park access for all users.

BTW- there is a very large contingent of bikers building and maintaining trails all through the state. I work on trail crews and see it all of the time. So where are these hiker/horse
folk that you speak of? Is this fact? I know they are out there, but where are you getting this detail?

I don't have a problem with the horses, really. It's the owners that piss me off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,126 Posts
jcdill said:
There are many parks where equestrians are allowed but rarely ride (anymore) because of all the bikes. These parks have effectively become mountain-bike-only parks. This is why equestrians are all the more unwilling to open up new parks and trails to bikes - they cherish the few parks they can still ride in without fear of encountering bikes.
You know, I've heard this one before. I've read through this thread, and I have to say, for someone who professed wanting a polite discussion, you strike me as someone who is here to stir things up and grind your personal axe.
 

·
It's about showing up.
Joined
·
12,738 Posts
Sharing means tolerating things we might not want to.

People will give you all kinds of reason why they need not share and reinforce it with finger pointing, hyperbole, political muscle and self-righteousness. The days of that kind of sway are numbered as that has become all too transparent. Your take on why equestrians are so "protective" (I would call it hoarding) and mine are very different. I suggest the desperation of a diminishing power-base in the face of a population which has been unfairly discriminated against and fast gaining momentum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 ·
Nine said:
jcdill said:
Bikers can't say "we have always been allowed to ride on the roads, you can't take those rights away just because bike/car situations are dangerous for bikes, cars need to be more careful" on one hand, and then turn around and say "just because horses have always had rights to ride in the parks, that should change because horse/bike interactions are dangerous for horse riders so they shouldn't be allowed and bikes don't need to be more careful" on the other hand. This doesn't work. It's hypocritical and the non-biking public doesn't buy it.
QUOTE]

Wow, did I say all of that?
No, you didn't say that, and I didn't SAY you said that. This is the impression non-bikers have when these two arguments are made by "bikers". When bikers want to change how non-bikers feel on this topic, we need to be aware of the issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
jcdill said:
Nine said:
No, you didn't say that, and I didn't SAY you said that. This is the impression non-bikers have when these two arguments are made by "bikers". When bikers want to change how non-bikers feel on this topic, we need to be aware of the issue.

Interesting...you quote me, then put down your one sided argument in response as if the two were related. The most casual observer would agree that you are trying to put words in my mouth. Go away...and the horse you rode in on.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
23 Posts
jcdill, you have proven via your posts that you are particularly uninformed about the topics that you are attempting to discuss.

Here's a suggestion that I hope you take.

Print out the threads that you have recently participated in. Take those pages down to Passion Trail bikes and have your your brother-in-law, who is the owner, read them.

Hopefully he will be able to talk some sense into you.
 

·
sunnyside up
Joined
·
1,193 Posts
trail surgeon said:
Print out the threads that you have recently participated in. Take those pages down to Passion Trail bikes and have your your brother-in-law, who is the owner, read them.

Hopefully he will be able to talk some sense into you.
Please, NO. I'm certain nobody at PTB is interested in moderating this discussion.

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
stripes said:
None I can think of, except Skeggs. Everything else still has horses on it pretty regularly. I see horse patrollers at Long Ridge all the time.
Horse riders used to ride in the MidPen parks much more frequently than they do today. There used to be many more horses riding in Fremont Older (from Garrods and surrounding stables) and while bike riders probably still think there are "a lot" of horses on those trails, it is far fewer than it was a few years ago as many of the horse riders at the nearby stables consider the bikes "too dangerous" and fear riding on the trails now.

If you were to go to any large stable in the peninsula and ask about riding in the trails and parks nearby, I'm sure it wouldn't take but a few minutes for someone to say "oh, we never ride at X anymore, too many bikes, too dangerous".

stripes said:
The other trails JC named are pretty flat trails and good for beginners, but not much in the way of fun.
Yes, you are correct for most of the trails around the bay. But you haven't ridden at Waterdog yet, have you Anne? Most of the trails at Waterdog are fairly steep, narrow, and technical compared with, say, China Camp or Fort Ord, and are a lot of fun for more advanced riders. Also, Bayfront has hills - there's not a lot of trails (it's a small park) but it's not just flat biking like at Baylands.

I'm not saying there's a plethora of bike-only parks and trails, but there are some. There also isn't a plethora of horse-only parks. Unfortunately (for horse riders), the horse-only parks and trails don't stay that way because of poachers. I never see signs of horses (hoofprints, manure) in the bike-only parks, but horse riders regularly see bike tire marks in horse-only parks. So even if the poacher didn't encounter anyone while poaching on non-bike trails, there was a sign that a bike was there, breaking the rules.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
23 Posts
21 - 40 of 84 Posts
Top