#!markdown
I don't deny any of that. Nor did I intend to imply equal culpability in the
eyes of law. What I am suggesting is that our public effort to determine
responsibility, which generally follows party lines, does nothing to promote
our relationship with other trail users. If you have a look, the vast majority
of non-riders see the rider's behaviour as more inappropriate than the
hiker's, while most mountain bikers see it the other way There are some
exceptions - but they are rare. This exposes a self-interested bias that
reflects badly on us.
And it has been discussed to death already, on this and other outlets. It
descends into non-productive cat fights that further divides trail users.
So what I am suggesting, if our goal is to put this behind us, is that there
is no benefit to pointing out 'who started it.' It's blindingly clear that the
pole poke was a bad idea and that it crossed the line. What utility is there,
based on my goal stated above, to point out the obvious? On the hiker's side,
it is the equivalent of stating that adults biting each other is a bad idea.
If our goal is to prove the mountain biker is right, and the hiker is wrong,
publicly and forcefully, then by all means, keep proving it. Maybe I'm missing
what that accomplishes. If our goal is to have peaceful relationships on the
trails, then I stand by my contention that beating this long-dead horse sets
us back.
Feb. 3, 2015, 10:17 a.m. - Cam McRae
#!markdown I don't deny any of that. Nor did I intend to imply equal culpability in the eyes of law. What I am suggesting is that our public effort to determine responsibility, which generally follows party lines, does nothing to promote our relationship with other trail users. If you have a look, the vast majority of non-riders see the rider's behaviour as more inappropriate than the hiker's, while most mountain bikers see it the other way There are some exceptions - but they are rare. This exposes a self-interested bias that reflects badly on us. And it has been discussed to death already, on this and other outlets. It descends into non-productive cat fights that further divides trail users. So what I am suggesting, if our goal is to put this behind us, is that there is no benefit to pointing out 'who started it.' It's blindingly clear that the pole poke was a bad idea and that it crossed the line. What utility is there, based on my goal stated above, to point out the obvious? On the hiker's side, it is the equivalent of stating that adults biting each other is a bad idea. If our goal is to prove the mountain biker is right, and the hiker is wrong, publicly and forcefully, then by all means, keep proving it. Maybe I'm missing what that accomplishes. If our goal is to have peaceful relationships on the trails, then I stand by my contention that beating this long-dead horse sets us back.