Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Bill's Trail will have to wait...

As I had previously written about different user groups sharing the trail, it seems that there are some groups who still just don't want to share. Bill's Trail, a 4 mile single-track that climbs up to Mt. Barnabe was slated to be open on every other day to bikes. However, at the threat of a lawsuit by groups opposed to bikes on any trail, the State has shelved plans to open the trail to bikes. Read the article in the Marin IJ here - if you have the stomach, read the comments too. I could only get through about 20 comments before I wanted to vomit.

With the State's funds unavailable to defend your silly lawsuit, you have the State by the virtual balls by filing your lawsuit. Citing environmental concerns because of the myth of bike tire's damage to the trail next to a sensitive creek is horse shit. If the concern was truly about the environment, that group would be pushing to kick horses off the trail as well. What about the horse crap left on the trail from doped up horses injected with all sorts of vaccinations and "vitamins?" What happens to those trail apples when rain washes the detrius into the stream? How does that affect the salmon?

I just wish those groups would come out and say the real reason why they don't want bikes on the trails - because they just don't want bikes on the trails. Did the people from these groups get the box next to "Does not play well with others" checked when they were in second grade? Personally, I think the concept of opening Bill's Trail to bikes for uphill only travel could be a good initiation to opening the trail to bikes.

I was thinking about this yesterday. There are two groups who are at an impasse. The situation is very volatile. On one hand you have a group who would do any thing to keep the other group out. The group that wants in just wants to be able to enjoy what the other group has. The group that has feels that they are superior in their position of keeping the other group out citing all sorts of false reasons. The group that wants in find it mind-boggling that the other group resorts to incredible tactics to keep them out. The two groups could just as easily be the two sides that are involved in the issue of gay marriage or they could be bicyclists who want legal access to single-track trails and the non-bicyclists who want access denied to the trails.

Food for thought. But you won't be thinking about it if you are on a bike on single-track in Marin County.

5 comments:

Ben said...

Really sorry to hear about that. Stupid people annoy the hell out of me.

Anonymous said...

Not so fast there my two-wheeled brethren. State Parks didn't shelve anything! They have merely postponed their decision until after they've had a chance to hear the concerns of MCL. There is no evidence that they plan to shelve the proposal to open Bill's to bikes.

blackmountaincycles said...

Well, the IJ used the term "rescind" which in my book tells me it's been shelved, canceled, taken back, voided, repealed... If I was an optimist on this topic, I would like to think that it is merely, yet another, bump in the road. However, there is no way the anti-bike groups will ever give up their fight, just like the religious right won't ever agree on the concept of same-sex marriage.

But I would like to think all humans have the ability to be more compassionate.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the IJ reporter used the term "rescind", but Danita Rodriguez, Marin District superintendent for state parks, said in the same article "We need to talk to the MCL and evaluate the information they have given us and go from there,"

That doesn't say to me that they plan to abandon a proposal they've been working on for 3 years. I am hopeful this is just another bump in the road.
Patient and optimistic

Anonymous said...

The "religious right" (most of them), and others, have no problem whatsoever with same sex unions. It's not about compassion.

It's about not changing a definition. That is all it is. Is a skateboard a bike? Is a gondola a go cart? Whether gay or not, we all have the exact same rights.

Why change definitions??? If a pilot becomes a quadrapalegic and can no longer pilot a plane, should we call his wheelchair an aircraft so he can feel better? Would that be the compassionate thing to do?

Now, let's get those trails opened.