Dales WTF?

Why did the ramp get taken down? Is it being replaced? I hope so, this is getting ridiculous…

Dumbedthefuckdownshore.com

LSCR Contact Info
phone number 778-452-4583
e-mail [email protected]

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/parks_lscr/lscr/Pages/default.aspx

to be fair, we are talking about 10-12 year old rotted structures.

Meh, I never rode it. I saw it sway way too much under dudes ahead of me whenever I rode Dale's. It sketched me out.

IMHO, natural trail [HTML_REMOVED] wooden stunts.

i don't understand why everyone freaks out whenever a 10 year old structure gets taken down…….
like it was going to be there forever

OP asks a question and gives an opinion. Start silliness…..now.

gotta get involved if you dont like the current direction..super easy to armchair it…

True, I should get involved more. I used to do lots of trail maintenance but unfortunately life can take over sometime. Thank god I can commute to work regularly!!! I like most of the work being done but why change the spirit of a trail so much? Ladies is a good example of a trail that changed but is still the "same". Just my opinion, I do realize I should shut up or do something about it…:love:

The Occupier's Liability Act makes the land manager liable for any dangerous conditions they are aware of. In mountain biking, structures are basically top of the list for liability exposure, because they are man-made and inevitably deteriorate.

Metro Vancouver assessed the trails in their jurisdiction and decided they were going to remove all structures that didn't meet their standards – and they are actually following through with that project, including Aftertaste, Neds, Lola and Dales. Everything that has been removed has, in fact, been past or at least close to the end of its lifespan, and much of it was built with hemlock.

On the plus side, Metro works closely with the NSMBA and was instrumental in providing the community with a route from Dales through to Bridle after the decommissioning of the unsustainable sections of Aftertaste.

Metro is one of the few land managers that is OK with new structures being built, but the only way to accomplish this is through the official channels. Have a search for the (very similar) thread about the Neds a-frame.

The Occupier's Liability Act makes the land manager liable for any dangerous conditions they are aware of. In mountain biking, structures are basically top of the list for liability exposure, because they are man-made and inevitably deteriorate.

Metro Vancouver assessed the trails in their jurisdiction and decided they were going to remove all structures that didn't meet their standards – and they are actually following through with that project, including Aftertaste, Neds, Lola and Dales. Everything that has been removed has, in fact, been past or at least close to the end of its lifespan, and much of it was built with hemlock.

On the plus side, Metro works closely with the NSMBA and was instrumental in providing the community with a route from Dales through to Bridle after the decommissioning of the unsustainable sections of Aftertaste.

Metro is one of the few land managers that is OK with new structures being built, but the only way to accomplish this is through the official channels. Have a search for the (very similar) thread about the Neds a-frame.

Thanks for that, seems logical. To bad, I do miss the old Dales, that trail was sweet. I guess I should hit the old stock quickly before it all get taken down!

The Occupier's Liability Act makes the land manager liable for any dangerous conditions they are aware of.

Sort of… But not entirely true. The act makes the user (mountain biker) responsible for all risks when using public land for recreational purposes if no fee is charged to use the land. However, munis and metro, being the super risk averse and bureaucratic types they are, are likely not wanting to test the Act in court so are taking the least risky approach possible. Or at least perceived least risky approach.

There is risk in their approach, however , as it could be argued that by taking out structures, the muni/ metro has deemed that there is a level of risk that is too high. Therefore anything less risky is "safe". In other words if someone gets hurt on a trail that has these features taken out, they could argue that the land owner is at fault because they are the ones now determining what is and is not safe. They determined that ladders are not safe but steep dirt trails are safe. Get hurt on said steep dirt trail, sue the muni…..

The act was designed to ensure that the land owners do not have to "fix or maintain trails" to make them safe and that the user takes on the responsibility by using the trail. The Act was meant to do away with the actions metro is taking in the name of safety and risk, not the other way around.

Why did the ramp get taken down? Is it being replaced? I hope so, this is getting ridiculous…

I think the point/complaint being made is not the taking down of rotten woodwork, but the probability that it won't be replaced.

Thanks Stuminator.

No problems with people constructively correcting my understanding of the political atmosphere; troll accounts aren't part of that solution, period.