Why are bicycles and motorcycles allowed on foot trails in NationalForests??

[Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS]

For obvious reasons of safety, they're not allowed on sidewalks so why
on hiking trails?. As usual in america, it's all about corruption. The
mountain bike and motorcycle industries have a lot of financial clout
and they buy off the forest service officials and that's that.

[Mike Kruger]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> For obvious reasons of safety, they're not allowed on sidewalks so why
> on hiking trails?. As usual in america, it's all about corruption. The
> mountain bike and motorcycle industries have a lot of financial
> clout and they buy off the forest service officials and that's that.

Trails and sidewalks are similar? In my town, they pave the sidewalks.

Why'd you leave out horses?
What about people walking their dogs? They aren't hiking.
Birdwatchers are "hiking" only in the loosest sense of the term. Often, they
come to a complete stop for minutes on end, with their eyes glued to some
stupid tree.
Joggers aren't hiking, either and seldom take in the beauty of the forest.
They would only notice a deer if they ran into it.
And why not attack cross-country teams that clog up the local trails in the
fall with endless training? The massive cross-country coach lobby has
obviously corrupted public officials in every high school district in
America.

Why not troll for everyone while you are at it?

There are very few trails in the US that are exclusively for any one use.
For example, the average "bike trail" is likely to have more non-bikers on
it than bikers (for list of groups, see above -- add skaters if it is a
paved trail). This creates more of a political base for bike trails and
hiking trails -- or, as they might more properly be known, linear parks.

The allowances and restrictions for particular linear park facilities is,
indeed, a complex area and one that's difficult to discuss in general terms
rather than the specific terms of a particular trail in a particular place
with particular soil and drainage conditions (etc.)

[Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
> For obvious reasons of safety, they're not allowed on sidewalks so why
>
Bikes are allowed on sidewalks in many jurisdictions, it depends on
whether or not there are large numbers of pedestrians on those
sidewalks. When a bicycle is on a sidewalk, its rider must follow the
rules of being a pedestrian.



> on hiking trails?. As usual in america, it's all about corruption. The
> mountain bike and motorcycle industries have a lot of financial clout
> and they buy off the forest service officials and that's that.
>
Hikers are allowed on all trails. Why don't you complain about that? It
turns out that bikes are allowed only on some hiking trails and
motorized two wheel and three wheel vehicles on fewer still. There is
signage usually telling you where you aren't allowed to ride.



--
"I hate you and I despise you! Now give me back my tail.", Marilyn
Monroe, "Bus Stop"

[Blackwater]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:36:56 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

>For obvious reasons of safety, they're not allowed on sidewalks so why
>on hiking trails?.

Far less congested than your typical sidewalk. Far less
competing noise & other distractions too - so you'll hear
them coming.

Parks are not JUST for people who prefer to WALK in them.
The cyclists are paying taxes on them too. In certain
parks it may make sense to banish cycles from one or two
of the most-traveled trails, but not a blanket ban.

"Peeves the greenies" is NOT a good enough reason for
a blanket ban anymore than "Peeves the Bible-Thumpers"
is a good enough reason to block the 'Playboy Channel'.

>As usual in america, it's all about corruption. The
>mountain bike and motorcycle industries have a lot of financial clout
>and they buy off the forest service officials and that's that.

I suspect the forest service WISHES someone would "buy them".
Their budgets are miserable, their salaries are miserable.

Sorry, but the REAL issue is one of what "the people"
want to do with the land. They're all paying for it,
so you've got to balance what all the various interests
have in mind. It's called "being fair". Remember "fair" ?

In article <Im3ri.12062$rR.5424@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
xeton2001@yahoo.com says...
> For obvious reasons of safety, they're not allowed on sidewalks

Except in the places that bicycles *are* allowed on sidewalks, of
course. But why let facts get in the way of a good rant?

> so why
> on hiking trails?.

Obviously, if the trails allow bicycles, they aren't "hiking trails,"
they're "trails." Motorcycles and bicycles are hardly the same thing,
so you'll find many trails that are only open to non-motorized
recreation, but that doesn't make them "hiking trails."

By definition, a "hiking trail" would be a trail for the exclusive use
of pedestrians.

Bicycles have been riding on trails since before the creation of the
National Park Service. I'm sure if the Park Service had intended to
create "hiking trails" instead of "trails" they would have posted the
trails off-limits to bicycles generations ago. But they haven't.

Interestingly, motorists have often made the same mistake -- since
they're the predominant user of many roads, they come to think of roads
as being intended only for the use of motorists, when in fact most roads
are open to motorists, bicyclists, horses, and pedestrians.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>