Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 81
  1. #51
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,902
    Again I will say. BMA wants to see a variety of trail styles and skill levels available for everyone to ride. It's going to take a lot of work to convince those that have the control to allow this to happen.
    You think the best thing to do is continually bash the only people making a cogent effort to make this change?
    Brilliant strategy!

    green level trail
    You know BMA typically doesn't do the trail design, right? This has been pointed out before but I guess once you've already sharpened up your pitchfork your aren't in a mood to listen any more.
    After all, what are you going to do with this nice sharp pitchfork?

    How do we get changes made to the current dominant trail design philosophy? Please refer to first paragraph.

    This appears to have become some sort of personal crusade for you and I'm really sorry about that. BMA is much more than the current leadership. It has been around for over 20 years and still be here for many more. Please consider that.

  2. #52
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Moustache rider View Post
    Again I will say. BMA wants to see a variety of trail styles and skill levels available for everyone to ride. It's going to take a lot of work to convince those that have the control to allow this to happen.
    You think the best thing to do is continually bash the only people making a cogent effort to make this change?
    Brilliant strategy!


    You know BMA typically doesn't do the trail design, right? This has been pointed out before but I guess once you've already sharpened up your pitchfork your aren't in a mood to listen any more.
    After all, what are you going to do with this nice sharp pitchfork?

    How do we get changes made to the current dominant trail design philosophy? Please refer to first paragraph.

    This appears to have become some sort of personal crusade for you and I'm really sorry about that.
    And... still can't debate the issue without trying to discredit the source.

    Many of us have tried to "get involved" again with BMA. Leadership told us to shut up and help dig. We got the message and got involved in our own way... and yes, we're going to get significantly better results up this way by not rolling over. The fun part is we'll still have to fight to keep BMA from trying to roll over on our behalf.

    You're entirely correct that it does take a lot of convincing those in power to make this happen... but as most every other user advocacy group has learned, convincing government agencies to change often doesn't happen by playing nice and rolling over. It often involves having some teeth and backbone. History repeatedly shows the user group willing to be a significant governmental PITA on occasion almost always trumps the "play nice" folks. We want to stand up for BMA, but we're asking BMA to stand up for us, not to keep scrubbing trail after trail and tell us "Not our fault, we'll get 'em next time fellas."
    Last edited by thump; 12-11-2012 at 11:56 AM.

  3. #53
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,902
    You are projecting. Your comments are full of straw men and ad hominem attacks.

    What I would really like to get across is this. If you think you can do better please have at it. If you can improve the state of mountain biking in Boulder county I think everyone would love to see that.

    That doesn't mean you need to tear down other people that are trying to accomplish the same thing just because you have different visions of how to achieve it.

  4. #54
    contains quinine
    Reputation: Debaser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,589
    Take the long cut, we'll get there eventually.

  5. #55
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
    But... If I watch that I will have less time for e-arguments.

  6. #56
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Moustache rider View Post
    You are projecting. Your comments are full of straw men and ad hominem attacks.

    What I would really like to get across is this. If you think you can do better please have at it. If you can improve the state of mountain biking in Boulder county I think everyone would love to see that.

    That doesn't mean you need to tear down other people that are trying to accomplish the same thing just because you have different visions of how to achieve it.
    Your comments are full of spaghetti monsters and rabid squirrels.

    No need to substantiate, right?

    We continue doing our part in our own little world up this way.. both on the trail, and off. Personally, I'd like contribute again to BMA, both financially and with trail time, because I don't believe it does any favors to have disjointed factions.

    I still hold out some hope that BMA may actually want to represent the greater user group.. but it would mean actually providing the user group some ability to provide input _prior_ to unilaterally putting out position statements like "The South Boulder Creek trail, while not exactly a road, is too steep for multiple use..." and then asking everyone to sign up and support their position after the fact. Maybe if they had surveyed the BMA mailing list prior to making that statement they'd find that a significant number of their users strongly disagree? or maybe they'd find out that 90% strongly agree. I couldn't tell you, because unlike current BMA leadership, I'm not pretending to represent everyone without collecting input and having discussion first.

    I think you'd find that guys like Williford in this thread, or the Don't Sanitize Walker Ranch guy, or the multitudes of others aren't really against BMA, they're just trying to tell BMA they disagree with some of the statements and are asking BMA to listen - instead they get told they're "part of the problem".

    Try giving the rest of your fellow mountainbikers a place to have input aside from just bar meetings in Boulder, and then actually valuing and responding to that input. Utilize these folks and their resources - their energy, their ideas, their connections - instead of telling them their only option to contribute is to dig within the flags. I think you'll see the "bashing" stop, and these same folks willing to work together for some real progress.

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    Your comments are full of spaghetti monsters and rabid squirrels.

    No need to substantiate, right?

    We continue doing our part in our own little world up this way.. both on the trail, and off. Personally, I'd like contribute again to BMA, both financially and with trail time, because I don't believe it does any favors to have disjointed factions.

    I still hold out some hope that BMA may actually want to represent the greater user group.. but it would mean actually providing the user group some ability to provide input _prior_ to unilaterally putting out position statements like "The South Boulder Creek trail, while not exactly a road, is too steep for multiple use..." and then asking everyone to sign up and support their position after the fact. Maybe if they had surveyed the BMA mailing list prior to making that statement they'd find that a significant number of their users strongly disagree? or maybe they'd find out that 90% strongly agree. I couldn't tell you, because unlike current BMA leadership, I'm not pretending to represent everyone without collecting input and having discussion first.

    I think you'd find that guys like Williford in this thread, or the Don't Sanitize Walker Ranch guy, or the multitudes of others aren't really against BMA, they're just trying to tell BMA they disagree with some of the statements and are asking BMA to listen - instead they get told they're "part of the problem".

    Try giving the rest of your fellow mountainbikers a place to have input aside from just bar meetings in Boulder, and then actually valuing and responding to that input. Utilize these folks and their resources - their energy, their ideas, their connections - instead of telling them their only option to contribute is to dig within the flags. I think you'll see the "bashing" stop, and these same folks willing to work together for some real progress.
    Well Said

  8. #58
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,553
    OK - so here's the deal. We are *allowed* access to hiking trails in the County trail inventory. New trails will not be built with bikers in mind. They WON'T. They just won't.

    We can work with the Cities, Forest Service, and BLM (well not much BLM 'round here) and have BIKES actually considered when trail is created/modified/etc. But NOT THE COUNTIES.

    Until we get mountain bikers in the bureaucracy. And to be honest - that's gonna take a long time from what I can see... 'cause bikers kinda just want to ride. At least most of the bikers I know.

    So quit pi$$ing and moaning. There ain't DICK we can do about it. Move on. Ride your bikes. Enjoy your ride... whether it's gnarlicious SSV or smoothy BC. Tell Boulder County to f**k off.

  9. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    'cause bikers kinda just want to ride. At least most of the bikers I know.

    So quit pi$$ing and moaning. There ain't DICK we can do about it. Move on. Ride your bikes. Enjoy your ride... whether it's gnarlicious SSV or smoothy BC. Tell Boulder County to f**k off.
    Bacon FTW

    /thread

  10. #60
    kgm
    kgm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    63
    I think you'd find that guys like Williford in this thread, or the Don't Sanitize Walker Ranch guy, or the multitudes of others aren't really against BMA, they're just trying to tell BMA they disagree with some of the statements and are asking BMA to listen - instead they get told they're "part of the problem".

    Try giving the rest of your fellow mountainbikers a place to have input aside from just bar meetings in Boulder, and then actually valuing and responding to that input. Utilize these folks and their resources - their energy, their ideas, their connections - instead of telling them their only option to contribute is to dig within the flags. I think you'll see the "bashing" stop, and these same folks willing to work together for some real progress.
    This^^^^

    That part of Hall is boring. But the rocks later are fun. If it dries quicker that's always good. Some people don't know what its like to live with wet trails constantly....

    On another angle: Since when did anyone need beginner trails? It's called riding it slower. This isn't KEYSTONE, no need for green paths. It's (somewhat) nature.
    Last edited by kgm; 12-11-2012 at 04:47 PM. Reason: clarifying

  11. #61
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,553
    Quote Originally Posted by kgm View Post
    This^^^^

    That part of Hall is boring. But the rocks later are fun. If it dries quicker that's always good. Some people don't know what its like to live with wet trails constantly....

    On another angle: Since when did anyone need beginner trails? It's called riding it slower. This isn't KEYSTONE, no need for green paths. It's (somewhat) nature.
    THESE AREN'T BIKE TRAILS. They are trails for little old ladies. And moms with 2 year olds. They are HIKING trails.

    WHY ARE THERE SO MANY PEOPLE THAT DON'T GET THIS?!?

  12. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,124
    meh

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,826
    Man, I was just over in the Ohio forum and they're b!tchin' about the same things. Times are tough all over.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  14. #64
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by jugdish View Post
    Man, I was just over in the Ohio forum and they're b!tchin' about the same things. Times are tough all over.
    Rough dealin' with all these first world problems.

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,466
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    OK - so here's the deal. We are *allowed* access to hiking trails in the County trail inventory. New trails will not be built with bikers in mind. They WON'T. They just won't.
    When's the last time you saw ANY trail built like that new section at Hall? You can't tell me someone built that with hikers in mind...

    That was my point when I bumped the month-old thread; the new section of trail is just piss-poor trail design in general. It's a good thing the rest of Hall absolutely rocks.

  16. #66
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,553
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    When's the last time you saw ANY trail built like that new section at Hall? You can't tell me someone built that with hikers in mind...

    That was my point when I bumped the month-old thread; the new section of trail is just piss-poor trail design in general. It's a good thing the rest of Hall absolutely rocks.
    Have you talked to the trail designer? Because he/she obviously had *something* in mind. And I'm serious - go talk to him/her.

    You think they just designed the trail with nothing in mind and simply hoped to pi$$ people off? I guess it's not outside the realm of possibility, but...

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    39
    yep, Finally got to ride Hall again, (actually hit it twice this weekend). The new section of trail is a joke. The troad they used to build it goes right down the middle of the maze of switchbacks. Looks as though that has become the line a lot of people are choosing.

  18. #68
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,819
    I think that Boulder County's plan on the reroute worked. It's been dry so far this winter!
    Redstone Cyclery
    turner*intense*transition*REEB*Rocky Mt
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  19. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thebig1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by ignazjr View Post
    I think that Boulder County's plan on the reroute worked. It's been dry so far this winter!
    A dusting of snow isn't enough to say it has worked.... just saying.


    I have a idea for all the whiners....... Don't ride it, there will be alot less traffic for me that way

  20. #70
    Monkey Wrench
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    351
    I rode up this new section a few weeks ago and I witnessed 12 different hikers walking straight down the fall line, skipping all of the new switchbacks. The funny thing is, the fall line is probably no more than 6-8%...

    If only they had grossly banked every switchback (for DH fun) and made a doubletrack gravel road for the hikers and uphill riders I think everyone would have been happy. As it is, BoCo can now claim a few hundred extra feet of multi-use trail than nobody's very excited about.
    Let me fix your bike @ ordinarybicycle.net in Louisville, CO

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by vwvoodoo View Post
    I rode up this new section a few weeks ago and I witnessed 12 different hikers walking straight down the fall line, skipping all of the new switchbacks. The funny thing is, the fall line is probably no more than 6-8%...

    If only they had grossly banked every switchback (for DH fun) and made a doubletrack gravel road for the hikers and uphill riders I think everyone would have been happy. As it is, BoCo can now claim a few hundred extra feet of multi-use trail than nobody's very excited about.
    I wonder what would happen if mtbers started riding the new "social" trail straight down the fall line?

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,826
    This thread continues to bring the lulz... where's the Chicken?
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  23. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by jugdish View Post
    This thread continues to bring the lulz... where's the Chicken?
    god forbid

  24. #74
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by williford View Post
    I wonder what would happen if mtbers started riding the new "social" trail straight down the fall line?
    Then the hiker and horsey set will be able to say "See, the mountainbikers are bad users.. they won't stay on trail, even ones they built themselves" and we get a double bad rap.

  25. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,466
    I just rode Hall a couple hours ago... guess which section was in the worst shape? I can safely say it's going to turn into a mess with more snow and softer dirt.

    I saw three hikers out today on that section- and every single one of them took the old "trail" that cuts right up the middle of the switchbacks. I passed one guy at the top near the bench and he was laughing at me for riding the trail. Good thing it's multi-use.

    Hey Boulder County, if you're reading... how about you just admit you screwed up, close this monstrosity of trail before it gets worse, and just fix up the old section? We'll all be better off.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •