My wife and I are avid mountain bikers, and I must take issue and
umbrage at the way we are portrayed as a lot by Mrs. Jo Barrett in the
January issue of the Skylines newsletter.
Ms. Barrett correctly states that the mountain biking community
advocates "'multi-user' trails; which means that anybody is able to use
them for any purpose..." -- and what could be wrong with that? But she
then adds the unfortunate generalization that we want this "without
regard for safety or trail conditions." That is as ridiculous as it is
false. There are many, many mountain bike clubs who spend thousands of
hours of volunteer time maintaining trails, contributing to the upkeep
and litter removal of parks, and otherwise improving the experience for
everyone. Overall, I would say that trails that are exclusively used
by mountain bikes (such as those in the Wilder ranch park in Santa
Cruz) are in much better shape than those I've seen in exclusive use by
equestrians (such as those in Woodside).
And imagine saying that all hikers and equestrians appreciate the
beauty of trails, whereas all cyclists "care for none of the things we
care about." Speak for yourself; please do not speak for others. There
are plenty of us mountain bikers who are also hikers, who are also great
appreciaters of beauty and respectful of trails and those who are
sharing them.
It is unfair to portray an entire group of people as having "little
regard for other users" or any of the other generalizations in Mrs.
Barrett's article. To me, totally restricting a trail from a valid
group of people is much greater disregard for other users than simply
trying to find a good way to share the trails.
Where is it written that equestrians should have access to trails
and not mountain bikes? Even more to the point, if there are indeed
thousands of mountains bikers who would like to use the trails and only
a small number of equestrians, is it right that the equestrians should
have exclusive access to the trails? If there are conflicts between
mountain bikers and equestrians, perhaps it is the equestrians who
should be banned from the trails?
I don't advocate this, of course. But I do think that Mrs.
Barrett's article is quite one-sided. Yes, there are irresponsible
mountain bikers, as there are irresponsible hikers, equestrians,
automobile drivers, and handgun owners. A lot more people are killed
on bicycles by poor drivers of cars than are killed on horses by poor
drivers of bicycles, yet automobiles are, for some strange reason, not
banned from our roadways.
You don't solve those problems by restricting a public park from
access. You solve those problems by education, cooperation, and finding
ways to live alongside each other. For example, trails could be open
on alternate days to equestrians and mountain bikes. That is a lot
more fair than excluding one group or the other, and would eliminate
unfortunate accidents such as the one described by Mrs. Barrett in her
article.
In my view, if equestrians continue their efforts to "own" the
trails without sharing them intelligently with mountain bikes, they
will eventually be banned from the very same trails, by sheer force of
numbers. This is not a good thing, and is certainly not my preference.
But in a democracy where people vote on things, consider carefully.
Please, let's all work together to make our parks work for everybody,
not fight for exclusive use.
I, for one, will do everything I can to see trails opened to
mountain bike use, and everything I can to help keep the trails safe
for everyone.
