fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (10/06/84)
Wow, what a lot of confusion!
(1) We're talking about bicycles-- not motors, just pedals. If you're
talking about something else I think you're on the wrong net or at
least the wrong subject.
Mountain bikes for those who asked are bicycles specifically designed
for "off-road" use, i.e. the type of use you would not subject your
light tires and rims to. They provide a more comfortable, upright
riding position for bumpy roads and generally have much lower gearing
than usually seen on a 10 or 12 speed road bike. Frames are made
of good double-butted tubing and have shallower angles, again, for
comfort.
(2) The discussion of whether or not these bikes belong on trails is
taking on an absolutist tone-- one side says the "establishment"
will ban anything that's this much fun (right; drugs, sex and
mountain bikes). The other seems to feel that anything that goes
into the back country should be pure and organic (except titanium
pack frames, Primus stoves, Ultradome tents...).
I think the issue that deserves discussion is "mountain bikes are
here to stay so what are we going to do with them?" As I stated
in a previous posting, there are trails where bikes are appropriate
and other trails where they are not. The things that make these
trails inappropriate vary from safety issues to ecological concerns
to questions of what experience the majority of the trail users
are seeking. These are areas I had hoped to spark some discussion
of.
Having said all that, what will probably come of all this is trail
use legislation similar to what already exists, i.e. based not on
safety, ecology or appropriate use but on who owns it. ("You can't
do nothing but walk here because its Federal Wilderness, but two
miles east is Joe Sparkplug's land and he loves four-wheelin' types.")dbb@fluke.UUCP (Dave Bartley) (10/09/84)
> Having said all that, what will probably come of all this is trail > use legislation similar to what already exists, i.e. based not on > safety, ecology or appropriate use but on who owns it. ("You can't > do nothing but walk here because its Federal Wilderness, but two > miles east is Joe Sparkplug's land and he loves four-wheelin' types.") I don't think this is going to change, which is why it's so important to influence Wilderness legislation and National Forest policy. It makes sense, given American notions of land ownership, to do it this way, though it doesn't accurately reflect "optimal" use of the trails. In government-owned lands, we CAN influence the policy through lobbying and involvement in the Forest (and Grassland) planning process. Where mountain bicycles are allowed should be determined on a trail by trail basis. A rocky, boot-beaten, steep trail is clearly off limits; any logging road or trail open to motorbikes (*deep sigh*) is clearly OK. I can only address the issue in Washington state, with whose trails I am familiar, but there are long, flat trails along river valleys in Eastern WA that would be candidates for such transportation. Erosion would be minimal, foot traffic is low since the trails are pretty darn boring compared to those on more mountainous terrain. I'm not sold on the idea but I'd much rather see bikes on this type of trail than those in more mountainous, erosion-prone, crowded areas. -- Dave Bartley UUCP: {decvax,ihnp4}!uw-beaver! John Fluke Mfg Co. {sun,allegra}! fluke!dbb Everett, WA USA {ucbvax,hplabs}!lbl-csam!