Well I guess this is the right time to get the pitchforks out? Oh, too late..
I'm looking forwards to seeing what can be created from the North Shore Gnar playbook...mutate and survive I suppose
The world is getting too soft.
I finally had a response from DNV but it was not definitive. This completely contradicts what the District has told other stakeholders - and this is firsthand. We'll see if I get a reply after I pointed that out. I don't think District employees are authorized to lie to the public or 'journalists.'
Thanks Cam for getting into this again - disinformation/obfuscation at any level of govt isn't acceptable
Everyone else? Make sure you all still get stuck into emailing the DNV council about this. Hell got raised, so to speak, over the Grannies closure, so go and register your indignation and rabble rabble rabble via the email tubes
Just found one last month in Kelowna. So fun, a part of mountain bike history in North Vancouver. That should be saved for the next generation to enjoy. Big props to the builder.
I heard the rumor as well so I came looking here. This is a real shame. These structure are a part of our history and the history of biking here. The long teeter on Pipeline and the short one on Ladies are more than just pieces of wood. These belong to all of us, not to the DNV.
The district continues to take difficult lines out, but they aren't replaced by anything equally challenging. "Trails for all" seems to be a good slogan, but not the reality.
As I'm sure everyone in this discussion knows, teeters might look hard to ride to people who are not riders, but they actually aren't. As stated in posts above, teeter-totters on playgrounds are all gone, so these need to go. No real thought about how these are used so differently from those on a playground. Just get rid of them.
Silk, I feel for you. To have to destroy something so iconic that you were a part of must hurt. That long pipeline teeter is one beautiful piece of work.
The trails and features here are slowly being reworked and removed. We lose stuff every season, and the way the climate is here now, every time something is taken out, its gone for good. If you keep taking out challenging features, trails and lines, what do you have left? I think what you eventually have left is exactly what the district is moving us toward. Bubble wrapped mountain biking. And they are moving us there nice and slowly so we hardly even notice...
I talked to Digger today and he confirmed that it is definitely happening. Apparently there was a law suit in Ontario after someone broke their neck on a poorly designed teeter and it has spooked land owners (or at least their lawyers). Still a good idea to email the district though.
Digger is hoping to hold a wake for the teeter on Ladies before he has to remove it.
Posted by: skooks
I talked to Digger today and he confirmed that it is definitely happening. Apparently there was a law suit in Ontario after someone broke their neck on a poorly designed teeter and it has spooked land owners (or at least their lawyers). Still a good idea to email the district though.
Digger is hoping to hold a wake for the teeter on Ladies before he has to remove it.
They need better lawyers then. I handled sports liability claims for some time as an adjuster before I retired. There were far more lawsuits involving softball where players broke their ankles sliding into bases that were totally fine. All sports are inherently dangerous. As long as the TTF’s are well maintained and signed a defence of a claim is dead easy. The district I think is protected by the OLA and by the fact that the NSMBA does maintain the trails very well.
Another option if the NSMBA has to negotiate a compromise to keep the features, is to offer to build marked ride arounds on these.
Posted by: andy-eunson
Posted by: skooks
I talked to Digger today and he confirmed that it is definitely happening. Apparently there was a law suit in Ontario after someone broke their neck on a poorly designed teeter and it has spooked land owners (or at least their lawyers). Still a good idea to email the district though.
Digger is hoping to hold a wake for the teeter on Ladies before he has to remove it.
They need better lawyers then. I handled sports liability claims for some time as an adjuster before I retired. There were far more lawsuits involving softball where players broke their ankles sliding into bases that were totally fine. All sports are inherently dangerous. As long as the TTF’s are well maintained and signed a defence of a claim is dead easy. The district I think is protected by the OLA and by the fact that the NSMBA does maintain the trails very well.
Another option if the NSMBA has to negotiate a compromise to keep the features, is to offer to build marked ride arounds on these.
The NSMBA is not responsible for all of the trails that this effects. Salvation, Boundary and Pipeline are among these non NSMBA trails which each has its own volunteer crew that takes direction from the DNV.
all of the above trails has alternate routes to all of the TTF's which have a Teeter and this makes no difference in the insurance underwriters eyes.
This not the fault of the DNV they have very little input on this.
Imagine going into ICBC and demanding concessions to your insurance. Good luck!
It’s really difficult for the ebikes to get Out There™️ With all those pesky teeter totters in the way.
Sad conclusion to this. Still worth sending emails, you never know. Still unclear how the fuck someone rode a bicycle over a teeter totter in a bike park without reasonably knowing the crashing could result in serious injury in a freak accident (ie 99.9% of crashes on that feature would not result in paralysis).
I don't like this. I don't support removing the structures. However, at the same time I feel really privileged to have access to these trails that are built on land I don't own and ultimately have to share with others. I understand that this type of action could set a bad precedent for trails, but at the same time, I'm certainly not "furious" as the headline states. I prefer black trails, but also realize that the majority of riders (including those that travel here) tend away from teeter-totters and others such things. Stunts ARE a big part of BC riding history, and the Shore, and what made riding here great but they do cater to a somewhat elite level of riding when you look at the broader ridership. It's interesting that they're targeting such a select number of features. Perhaps there IS a specific standard that needs to exist for known public trails to preserve this great free access we all ride, particularly when it involves human-made structures. Maybe eliminating obvious sources of liability protects more than just those that don't know their own limits....maybe having a clear line of what is acceptable on public trails also helps protect our greater riding opportunities. There are LOTS of other places one can mess themselves up or get their pulse jacked (um slabs or roots anyone?). That perceived slippery slope can be viewed both ways....We say it's leading to a bubble-wrapped nanny state ---- critics may say that if the teeter-totters stay, the next thing will be rickety ramps over punjie-sticks and 40-ft dorp-to-falts. Maybe there's a middle ground and a few standards may help us move toward it. Just throwing it out there. When it comes to the public discussion and negotiation with land-managers, we need to pick and chose our words, and our battles carefully. Again, I would prefer the features stay. I have fond memories of some of those stunts, and some scars to remember them by.
Here's an article from a law company back east that talks about the Campbell v. Bruce County case that seems to have spurred this decision:
https://www.mccarthy.ca/fr/node/20601
The reasons for the court's decision came down to four points, of which only two seem to apply to the trails on the Shore. Those would be a lack of signage and a lack of a qualifier for the stunt. I remember when I first got into doing trail work something that Dave Diplock and others mentioned in respect to building stunts was having a qualifier at the start of the stunt. The start of the stunt should be the most difficult part or at least as difficult as the most difficult parts of the stunt. I'm not a lawyer, but in reading that summary it appears that if signage and qualifiers are things are being addressed then there's no real reason why teeters shouldn't be allowed.
"The trial of this matter proceeded on the issue of liability only. The main issue before the Court was whether the Municipality had met its duty under the OLA by taking sufficient care to ensure the safety of Bike Park users. The trial judge held that the Municipality did not satisfy its duty, causing Mr. Campbell’s injury, in the following ways: (1) its failure to post proper warning signs; (2) its negligent promotion of the Bike Park as a “family park”; (3) its failure to monitor risks and injuries at the Bike Park; and (4) failure to provide an “adequate progression of qualifiers”. The Municipality was held to be 100% at fault."
I understand the need to mitigate liability...but this seems like a knee jerk reaction to perceived liability, without looking for other solutions.
It also comes down to communication. People generally tend to be pretty forgiving, if you let them know what you are doing and why...the district should/could communicate how they plan to add to the trail network, it might feel less like they are constantly taking things away.
Forum jump:
