Adios Aftertaste

Drew,please note that in my posts that I AM supportive of the TAP initiatives and hope this doesn't negatively affect the work they have done on lscr trails.

It's always been my understanding that Aftertaste was a rogue trail.

Were they not all rogue trails at some point?

Uhhh … why are people talking about Pemberton? The Aftertaste I know is on Mt Seymour. Rode it last a couple of summers ago. Unless things changed a lot, it seemed half-assed and improvised. As KenN said, fall lines, rutted washouts and rotting stunts. You couldn't even ride onto the big 'n tall logride because of the deadfall and the plank entrance was rotten and had broken into pieces.

Uhhh … why are people talking about Pemberton? The Aftertaste I know is on Mt Seymour. Rode it last a couple of summers ago. Unless things changed a lot, it seemed half-assed and improvised. As KenN said, fall lines, rutted washouts and rotting stunts. You couldn't even ride onto the big 'n tall logride because of the deadfall and the plank entrance was rotten and had broken into pieces.

Log ride and entrance was repaired some time ago. But yes, most of the trail was steep ground and rock face, not much in terms of mandatory wood other than the log ride.

Thanks for the update Woodro.

Sadly, this probably isn't the last (knee jerk - or - long term) response we will see come from Pemberton.

Great people warry to become directors due to the risk of personal lawsuits, higher insurance costs for clubs, land managers revisiting their trail programs…

It has happened before. We'll figure it out. It will happen again.

Sadly, it sounds like it is a case of a rider trying to take personal responsibility (carrying personal injury insurance) only to see exactly what is wrong with the private insurance industry (we pay in every month, they pay out, then they sue to recover all their costs, we then have to pay in more every month???)

Drew: Where did this come from? If you are referring to the claim involving the teeter totter in Pemberton where the Whistler Mayor is representing the plaintiff, that is highly highly unlikely to be the plaintiff's insurer attempting to recover. Insurers have lists of lawyers they use and I doubt Race and Co would be on any insurers list.

I edited my post to reflect what I know first hand, although I am confident that my initial understanding will bear close resemblance to the facts as they occurred.

In the time I have been involved with trail associations (never mind working in the sporting goods industry and before that in public facilities) I have seen the same cycle of injury, lawsuit/settlement, knee jerk policy changes, increased insurance rates/decreased coverage, panicked reactions from volunteers and finally a return to (a now more expensive) normal over and over.

Maybe it is just a result of a lack of personal responsibility and maybe it is because people don't see that in suing municipalities they are really suing their friends and family's (the money has to come from somewhere) and maybe (warning : socialism) it is the result of putting a public good (protection of assets and livelihood through insurance) in for-profit hands (yes I realize for-profit insurance goes back to at least the first crusade).

I don't really care. It is sad when great people don't volunteer anymore because they don't want to risk losing their house (I know of at least on ex Fromme builder - no not me, I'm just a lazy grump) and it is sad when trails get destroyed (hopefully temporarily).

Anyways, apologies for the thread derail! Looking forward to reading the NSMBA update.

-D

Uhhh … why are people talking about Pemberton? The Aftertaste I know is on Mt Seymour. Rode it last a couple of summers ago. Unless things changed a lot, it seemed half-assed and improvised. As KenN said, fall lines, rutted washouts and rotting stunts. You couldn't even ride onto the big 'n tall logride because of the deadfall and the plank entrance was rotten and had broken into pieces.

Because of the timing. Any decommissioning by landowners (especially in the weekend) after a lawsuit/major insurance claim is announced raises suspicion.

I'm sure MarkW will address it (and hopefully exciting future plans) in his update.

-D

Were they not all rogue trails at some point?

Yes. But now a number of trails on Seymour are recognized as legitimate trails.

Metro Van has a published map on their website. These would be the recognized and sanctioned trails.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/maps/Maps/LSCRTrailMap.pdf

Trail that are not on that map can be considered rogue.

I don't see Aftertaste on that map, and like I said before it's always been my understanding that it's an illegal trail.

On the topic of insurance, I certainly wouldn't want an insurance company to press charges without my consent. Is there anything one can do to avoid such a situation when getting coverage?

I'm eager to see how this turns out. I only started riding the shore this year but my impression in this short time was that things were in a good state.

This past week, the structures were removed from Aftertaste and the trail closed by Metro Vancouver. After an assessment by LSCR Management, the trail was deemed unsafe/unsustainable for a combination of factors:

1. the steep fall line entrance combined with eroded trail bed
2. the majority of structures were in an advanced state of neglect
3. the steep fall line exit/ advanced erosion
4. the high risk double rock roll at the exit
5. construction of the trail by private parties without permission of the Land Manager, and the trail does not fit within the LSCR Management Plan.

After assessment by the LSCR, it was ordered for immediate decommissioning due to the above combination of factors.

We are assured by Metro Vancouver this is by no means an indicator of the future proceedings for other trails in the area. Ongoing dialogue will continue on the subject between the NSMBA [HTML_REMOVED] Metro Vancouver to ensure open communication and shared solutions are sought for a sustainable trail network.

LSCR has indicated they are open to proposed solutions. The NSMBA will be preparing a proposal for sustainable alignment and engaged maintenance to alleviate risk and neglect.
MW

On the topic of insurance, I certainly wouldn't want an insurance company to press charges without my consent. Is there anything one can do to avoid such a situation when getting coverage?

They don't sue to cover your ass, they sue to cover their own asses.

Yes. But now a number of trails on Seymour are recognized as legitimate trails.

Metro Van has a published map on their website. These would be the recognized and sanctioned trails.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/maps/Maps/LSCRTrailMap.pdf

Trail that are not on that map can be considered rogue.

I don't see Aftertaste on that map, and like I said before it's always been my understanding that it's an illegal trail.

Brian, You Are Right (feel good?).

Of course, whatever Hardtack's-real-name-is is right too…

It is all within Metro Van's discretion; the timing are lack of communication are suspect.

Thanks for the update Mark! I know there were hopes of rebuilding Aftertaste this year anyways so hopefully this is just a case of MetroVan preparing a canvas and saving Tap/builders a lot of work.

Within the current (very positive) relationship with landowners I'm sure you guys will figure it out.

-D

LSCR has indicated they are open to proposed solutions. The NSMBA will be preparing a proposal for sustainable alignment and engaged maintenance to alleviate risk and neglect.

I see a positive here. There is a lot of untouched area to work with, and choosing some more sustainable lines in the same area could result in a pretty kick ass trail with a LOT of length to it. An potentially awesome trail to extend a lap of Dale's.

Open to proposals means good news.

Kn.

They don't sue to cover your ass, they sue to cover their own asses.

Understood. That's something I'd want to avoid if I were getting coverage. Is there any way to ensure that?

In my view, the premiums should be what pays for claims. By then suing, the insurance companies are basically double-dipping. I know we live in a free market, capitalist society but that doesn't make it ethical.

They don't sue to cover your ass, they sue to cover their own asses.

Actually they do cover your ass so you don't have to sue to recover. Lets say you live in a condo. You have contents insurance for your stuff and the strata has a policy for the common property. A water escape occurs from a frozen sprinkler and damages your stuff and the common property too. Those insurers cover the losses and fix and replace everything, but it is discovered that a contractor did a poor job in the initial installation of the sprinkler that caused the loss. Once that insurer has paid you and the strata out, they claim recovery against that contractor. Also, legally, that contractor is responsible for the depreciated value of the damaged property. The strata and you likely have replacement cost so you recover fully and they probably do not, plus they hired an adjuster to investigate and process the claims, and they pay a lawyer to pursue recovery.