New posts

2020 Seymour Trail Conditions Thread

Sept. 4, 2021, 6:33 p.m.
Posts: 1551
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: samroberts

Posted by: syncro

It’s like a 10 minute pedal on flat ground to convenient places to park. If that’s a big concern it might be time to take up something less strenuous like knitting.

The local residents don't want anyone _riding or walking_ on Indian River Drive, either, its not just about cars. There are some rock climbing areas that got developed down there, and lots of stories of climbers getting hassled as they walk into or out from the crags.

Its difficult to understand how we got here. On the one hand, its a private road on public land, that seems wrong. On the other, I've heard claims that there have been accidents, and the local residents have had to pay legal costs, and were not happy. The road owners legally have the right to kick people off their road, and there is no benefit to them to allowing access, so they do kick people off (or at least some do, others might not care and drive quietly by). This is probably made worse by lawyers and insurance corps, which see zero benefit in trying to accomodate other uses, and of course, whatever level of government which was so short-sighted as to allow private roads to be built on public land without an understanding that the public could at least benefit from the use of the road!

Private residents do not have the legal right to kick people off of a public road. I have no idea where you got that from or how you came to that conclusion. If people are crossing private property, well that's trespassing and an entirely different matter. As to residents having to pay legal costs for accidents - without knowing the details commenting one way or the other is purely speculation.

Re legitimate complaints about road use in one's neighbourhood, I am all for supporting residents in measures to make their neighbourhood safer or enjoyable in a manner that fits within established norms and municipal bylaws. This could include lower signed speeds or speed control decvices such as speed bumps (which have negative consequences as well) and parking restrictions. People that think a public road that provides access to their home is for their exclusive use can get stuffed as that attitude reeks of elitism and ignorance.

Can the district do more to improve traffic flow in that area? I think so, even though it's difficult and may inconvenience residents as much as visitors. Can the the district do things to limit public access to these areas? They have done that with seasonal parking restrictions.  Can the residents do things to help the situation? I think so, as there are numerous spots where shrubbery that homeowners are responsible for are growing into the sidewalk area and can push people off the sidewalk and into the roadway, especially if cars are parked close to the curb further narrowing the sidewalk area. Unfortunately for the homeowners here, living in this area is a choice that has consequences. If a homeowner doesn't want to deal with extra traffic of all types - pedestrian, cyclist, and vehicle - then they should consider not buying a property that exists in close proximity to a public recreation site. They can also consider the road design/access and how it affects traffic flow. Riverside is a dead end at far north end that is quite narrow, so more difficult access should be expected. Residents can also take more care driving that zone of Riverside. I would estimate that the majority (>50%) of people I see driving too fast in that area are residents.

Does that sound like a bit of an f-u attitude on my part? Yup, but I think people who can afford to live in that area probably have the smarts to figure out how traffic and other types of public use are going to affect the neighbourhood they live in. As to how we got here I think it's easier to figure out. Mix in some people who don't care about how their actions affects others with home owners who think their neighbourhood is for their exclusive use with a whole bunch of people who have opinions on either side of the fence and you'll end up with a shouting match that shouldn't even exist in the first place.

Sept. 4, 2021, 8:34 p.m.
Posts: 1178
Joined: May 4, 2006

@syncro

You are talking about Riverside but others are discussing Indian River Dr....not sure that's intentional

AFAIK, Riverside is public with no NIMBY signs up but parking restrictions along most of its length. The trails off this are sanctioned (BP and Fisherman's)

Indian River Dr is public but leads to some private roads (Sunshine Falls and Sasamat Lanes). Certain trails do drop out onto the private road as well as some more obvious (non-sanctioned) trails in IRD...


 Last edited by: SixZeroSixOne on Sept. 4, 2021, 8:38 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Sept. 4, 2021, 9:05 p.m.
Posts: 1551
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

Posted by: SixZeroSixOne

@syncro

You are talking about Riverside but others are discussing Indian River Dr....not sure that's intentional

AFAIK, Riverside is public with no NIMBY signs up but parking restrictions along most of its length. The trails off this are sanctioned (BP and Fisherman's)

Indian River Dr is public but leads to some private roads (Sunshine Falls and Sasamat Lanes). Certain trails do drop out onto the private road as well as some more obvious (non-sanctioned) trails in IRD...

ahaaaaaa, shit whoops. I know my previous reply was about Riverside so I was following that same train of thought. 

Either way though, the same arguments as above apply. For the private roads, the public shouldn't be there no matter how they are moving. For the public roads people have to share. I guess the question I have is, just how "private" are those private roads? Who paid for them? Are the roads serviced by the district? If the construction and maintenance of those roads is from public funds then can they really be labeled as private?

Sept. 4, 2021, 11:22 p.m.
Posts: 1551
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

So out of curiosity I did a virtual drive all the way to the end of IR DR. It's a public road all the way to the wharf. Of course Sunshine Falls Ln is all private, but the other "fire" lanes all look public as there are no signs on them saying private road. It's been ages since I've been down to the really dark side of the Cove, but IR is public and the wharf is public so residents don't get to yell at people for using IR Dr. The local traffic only sign doesn't mean locals only. It seems to me the grey area is access to the public land, which we all have a right to, that's off of SF Ln. So if someone is walking to a crag or to a hike, I would guess that as long as they are just off the road and not crossing private property, then even in the vicinity of the private road of Sunshine Falls they would have a right to cross that land. If they're driving a car down that road then yeah they're SOL. If they're pedaling a bike up that road then again SOL. Considering how that side of Seymour is closed to biking anyway, it makes it look even worse if someone is pedaling up SF Ln. I don't know if my interpretation is correct, but it seems so based on the signage and other factors such as the public wharf. If someone knows better and has a reason why, feel free to post it up or send me a pm if you don't want to state so publicly.

Sept. 5, 2021, 9:03 a.m.
Posts: 279
Joined: Feb. 24, 2017

Ya woodlands is a funny place. They are super NIMBY and grouchy there. I think it's because in the dead of summer the sun disappears by 2 pm. It is a public road all the way to the wharf as stated by Synco..they like to pretend it's not. A few years back we pulled up on the beach there in a friend's boat and some asswipe was shouting at us it was a private beach. Informed him sure it is, starting at the high tide line. Everything below that is federal and belongs to the people.

Sept. 7, 2021, 10:18 a.m.
Posts: 1178
Joined: May 4, 2006

Posted by: syncro

So out of curiosity I did a virtual drive all the way to the end of IR DR. It's a public road all the way to the wharf. Of course Sunshine Falls Ln is all private, but the other "fire" lanes all look public as there are no signs on them saying private road. It's been ages since I've been down to the really dark side of the Cove, but IR is public and the wharf is public so residents don't get to yell at people for using IR Dr. The local traffic only sign doesn't mean locals only. It seems to me the grey area is access to the public land, which we all have a right to, that's off of SF Ln. So if someone is walking to a crag or to a hike, I would guess that as long as they are just off the road and not crossing private property, then even in the vicinity of the private road of Sunshine Falls they would have a right to cross that land. If they're driving a car down that road then yeah they're SOL. If they're pedaling a bike up that road then again SOL. Considering how that side of Seymour is closed to biking anyway, it makes it look even worse if someone is pedaling up SF Ln. I don't know if my interpretation is correct, but it seems so based on the signage and other factors such as the public wharf. If someone knows better and has a reason why, feel free to post it up or send me a pm if you don't want to state so publicly.

For balance, I've ridden my road bike and walked my dog along both the private roads several times, and even (shock horror) rode and hiked dark side trails which exited onto the private roads, and no one has complained to me... 

I made sure my car was parked further up IR Dr though (ignoring the Local Traffic Only sign).

(I don't recommend riding to the wharf on IR Dr though, cos it's a crazy steep climb back up the hill 😉)

Forum jump: