AHAHAHA coop!
Damn meddling government should worry about something more important.
can't get enough of that sodium benzoate…
AHAHAHA coop!
Damn meddling government should worry about something more important.
can't get enough of that sodium benzoate…
Why do I suspect that this is really a way to provide us with a new tax?
Where is IMBA on this?
ride, build, ride some more….
this sort of meddling is going to destroy the sport. underground for the dedicated, but overall, this is the end of popular MTB riding.
Chirp
Okay, here's the way I summarize the policy:
"We want mountain bikers to have access to trails, however, mountain bikers will have to wade through rivers of red tape and shoulder all the costs and legal hassles".
Is there ANY other trail user group that gets singled out for this kind of treatment? Hikers? Equestrians? Dog walkers? Motos? No, their trails are already part of a system that is recognized and, to some extent, maintained by the taxpayer.
I'm a bit steamed about this policy shift. Or maybe shifty policy.
Kn.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
Okay, here's the way I summarize the policy:
"We want mountain bikers to have access to trails, however, mountain bikers will have to wade through rivers of red tape and shoulder all the costs and legal hassles".
Is there ANY other trail user group that gets singled out for this kind of treatment? Hikers? Equestrians? Dog walkers? Motos? No, their trails are already part of a system that is recognized and, to some extent, maintained by the taxpayer.
I'm a bit steamed about this policy shift. Or maybe shifty policy.
Kn.
you've found the hypocrisy……..we've been saying that exact thing around here…..
what really get's me about the whole thing is that when a McDonalds opens up they aren't required to take out liability insurance to cover all of the heart attacks they are directly contributing to. As far as I'm concerned I'm no longer building trail, it can all far apart. I'm going to sit on my ass, eat cheese burgers gain 700 lbs and let the government take care of my fat lazy quadruple by-pass having self.
Okay, here's the way I summarize the policy:
"We want mountain bikers to have access to trails, however, mountain bikers will have to wade through rivers of red tape and shoulder all the costs and legal hassles".
Is there ANY other trail user group that gets singled out for this kind of treatment? Hikers? Equestrians? Dog walkers? Motos? No, their trails are already part of a system that is recognized and, to some extent, maintained by the taxpayer.
I'm a bit steamed about this policy shift. Or maybe shifty policy.
Kn.
Having been involved in getting a snowmobile area recognized, I can say that any recognized (read:legal) group of trails of any nature have already been through the procedure. When we worked on the sledding areas, this same conversation came up. As MTB goes…it just took longer but we won't be the last. A lot of moto areas and sledding areas are still deemed illegal as the costs involved with getting a mechanized/motored area done are 10 times the costs involved with MTB and that is just the tenure. Take into consideration the much more in depth enviromental impact studies and you can bump that up to 20 times more.
Out here in Maple Ridge the equestrians have gone through it as well but more like 20 years ago or more. Less PC stuff and more relaxed government policies.
Greg
Freeride Dawgs
hol-ee shit but that's a big hole :eek:
Fanatics will always find a way around regulations:
I can live with most of the policy but the insurance thing is bullshit. Are they going to give us tax dollars for this? NO! They build skateparks with tax dollars,Ice rinks,soccerfields etc. But we have to come up with the money for multiuse trails ourselves and insure them ourselves also? Honestly if any of you government people who are involved with this policy are reading this go fuck youselves. The next place i build and ride is city park. Then when it truly becomes a problem then you can address it properly dumbasses.
UPDATE: No response back from my email to MOTSA
I am now told that it will affect the North Shore. I am told that any trails on GVRD land is actually crown land managed by the GVRD. If true, this would mean that almost all Seymour trails would be affected by this proposal.
I haven't verified any of the above
Thinking clearly and objectively about it, I think inthe long run it will work out OK. The biggest problem I see is applying standards. This in itself seems to be a recipe for litigation disaster.
As it stands, the activity is considered fringe, and dangerous. Once a standard is applied, then the door is opened to blame someone for not upholding that standard.
The most objectionable thing is:
1. the distinction between stunts and non-stunted trails. The government is the party with the power to change the Occupiers Liability Act to make themselves litigation-proof against anyone who sues because they were injured on any trail, whether stunted or non-stunted. So why don't they?
2. the disconnect between reality and theory. Does the government really think trail groups can meaningfully comply with the bureaucratic requirements.
3. the multi-user requirement. No trail group is going to be happy about being forced to make their trails multi-use.
Is there ANY other trail user group that gets singled out for this kind of treatment?
I could see painted lines on the Chief - with striped passing lanes, of course.
God doesn't like it when you colour outside the lines.
Forum jump: