Cyclists in the mountains
|
| cebelca7. 02. 2014 12:41:50 |
Ah, no no. Now we'll hear about conspiracy theories again. 
| (+3) |  | |
|
|
|
|
| GregorC7. 02. 2014 13:41:56 |
The fact that no one has done anything in this direction to change something is one of the biggest absurdities among all that VanSims has thrown into this topic. I could add the one that cyclists want to force to be able to ride everywhere without restrictions. I don't know where he picks up such nonsense, except that he reads only what suits him. And still a mountain biker can ride only and solely on roads.
The law was written when mountain biking wasn't yet so widespread, but it started spreading uncontrollably. Since then it's only in steep growth and because of that a need arose for a new one that would regulate this better and above all finally separate mountain bikers from motorized traffic.
The biggest problem arises because the lobby of opponents is obviously too strong (hikers, hunters, fishermen,...) and simply doesn't consider any comments or proposals. Proof is the latest draft. When it looked like things were getting better, when various talks were also running, the mentioned draft hit like a bolt from the blue, tightening things even more. Sure, then it started turning for the better, but until it's black on white I won't believe anything.
The hypocrisy of hikers isn't shown only in that they don't respect traffic bans and drive as far as they can, despite all traffic signage. I also find it hypocritical that they chase mountain bikers off trails, while not shunning paid memberships in local PDs and the money we leave in their mountain huts when we treat ourselves to refreshments. I'm convinced that if the matter were arranged for mutual benefit, membership in PDs would also increase at the expense of cyclists. With that they would gain more much-needed funds (and also staff) including for trail maintenance.
But I still think that nature is destroyed more by walking off-trail than by cycling. But that's another (taboo) topic.
P.S. I'm a PD member
| (+8) | | |
|
|
|
|
| VanSims7. 02. 2014 14:46:25 |
Ok I won't say that nothing has been done in this direction to open some mountain trail. But the result is that still none (or maybe rare ones, don't pull me up on words) is open for cyclists yet. Work is usually seen by results.
.
And I don't oppose that they open. But let those that can, that can be properly arranged, marked,... just need to have some system, some rules, that's all! I can repeat this ten times and some will still bark their own.
@Gregorc: BorisM himself said that they advocate for everything to be open, except certain trails that would be closed. He said that a few pages back and even cited Italy, which supposedly has everything open but user mmuz immediately exposed him as lying. Just because it's like that in FJK, where Slovenes go to the mountains the most, doesn't mean it's like that in the whole country. FJK is an autonomous region and has many things arranged its own way, different from the rest of Italy, for example I know at least one more: open shops on Sunday unlike the rest of the country
|
|
|
|
| GregorC7. 02. 2014 15:07:12 |
As I mentioned. You twist things and explain them as they suit you and act all-knowing and the only one who knows everything and is right.
| (+3) | | |
|
|
|
|
| FSkok7. 02. 2014 15:15:01 |
@GregorC
I see you're commenting quite reasonably, so tell me the following: why are cyclists advocating or on which mt. paths would cycling be allowed under the new law?
|
|
|
|
| BorisM7. 02. 2014 16:32:40 |
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| GregorC7. 02. 2014 16:45:31 |
First thing they advocate for is not treating us together with motorized traffic.
For mountain paths that should be opened for cycling, certain criteria should be considered. So paths in the narrower area of TNP and other protected areas (e.g. Natura 2000), on the most frequented paths (especially in high season), paths through various wetlands, bogs and similar ecosystems, off-trail paths, unstable (loose) terrain should remain closed to cyclists (easier to write). Also, path width could be narrower than the proposed 1.5 m.
Given that many paths are suitable for riding even above the forest line and in high mountains, we do not agree with a complete ban on riding in these areas. Especially here, various mule tracks that are overgrown and forgotten could be made usable again. Riding should also be allowed on various tractor paths, tracks, cart tracks,... The steepest slope on individual paths should also be considered. In short.
Above all, I emphasize that we in NO WAY advocate for being able to ride everywhere without restrictions. Of course, all in collaboration or agreement with landowners.
Also due to bureaucracy itself, it would be easier to close paths than the other way around.
Edit: I see BorisM already beat me to it
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| BorisM7. 02. 2014 16:50:45 |
| (+3) | | |
|
|
|
|
| skuta67. 02. 2014 18:38:12 |
There's nothing wrong with these cyclists at all, it's just a general lack of tolerance! We're in the mountains practically every weekend - as hikers (if weather allows) and I have to admit that no cyclist we've met on the path has spoiled our enjoyment of nature. As for the impact on nature, I'm convinced that cyclists' impact is no greater than that of us hikers.
In short, everyone should behave respectfully towards nature, tolerant towards each other and we'll all enjoy!
| (+6) | | |
|
|
|
|
| viharnik7. 02. 2014 18:53:44 |
As for damage to the natural environment, probably one spilled tanker does immeasurably more harm to the natural ecosystem than all mountain bikes on earth combined.
Peršolja's article on Gore-ljudje about the downsides of mountain biking is completely unfounded, although he himself has wonderful views on nature itself and the spirit of mountaineering. Everything moves without gasoline one way or another in modern society, everyone has a common or at least similar goal in nature, to strengthen body and spirit through sports activity and climb some scenic peak. Regarding our markacists under the pretext that they have no money for maintaining mountain paths, that's quite a twisted excuse. On paths I've often noticed faded markings on otherwise frequently visited paths, overgrown bushes over paths as much as you want, broken signposts, destroyed winter pole markings. I think everyone could easily contribute from their own pocket for a few liters of paint, some hand saw or chainsaw from home and those few stainless steel tubes from Merkur and some personal goodwill for path maintenance. There are way too many excuses in our society that usually have no real basis for justification.
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| tol7. 02. 2014 19:34:55 |
Maybe in the coming months it's time to join together.
Many paths are damaged, destroyed, impassable/unpassable for vehicles  and even dangerous due to the flood...
Let's wait for PZS via PDs to report on the condition of paths...
|
|
|
|
| mmuz7. 02. 2014 22:11:52 |
VanSims: where do you see that with my contribution I put anyone on the spot? Except you of course - with your stories about bans that you supposedly see everywhere, and misleading approximate translations?
Italy provenly has "everything open" except concrete exceptions where cycling is banned for real and argued reasons. And that's exactly the stance of Slovenian mountain bikers. Of course we're talking about paths, cart tracks, tracks and other established surfaces marked in the cadastre as "unproductive land"!
Riding off-trail and in "untouched nature" doesn't interest cyclists. Off-trail riding is dangerous, unpleasant and therefore completely uninteresting for cyclists.
| (+2) | | |
|
|
|
|
| FSkok7. 02. 2014 22:18:22 |
The conclusions adopted by representatives of cycling organizations and tourism sector speak only about what rights they advocate for, nothing about duties.
Because if the purpose of mt. paths is generally changed to dual, then what for such paths, double maintenance? On one side PZS, on the other who?
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| mmuz7. 02. 2014 22:40:19 |
FSkok: from your otherwise calm and thoughtful contributions, I sense a strong division into "ours" and "yours". You wonder who will take care of (generally) dual-purpose mountain trails if they are also open to "others" - will only "ours" have to take care?
Try looking at the issue from another perspective, just for fun - there is and cannot be a clean division into ours and yours here. The fact has been mentioned several times that about a third of PZS members are also cyclists. So will PZS take care of the trails and repair the damage caused by two-thirds of its members, and for the third third, someone else? And who will be the maintenance partner for all those trails that foreigners who are not PZS members like to visit? Who will be the maintenance partner for trails used by horseback riders?
Mountain bikers are not "the others", but are (or would like to be) part of all mountain visitors. In this, they do not differ from hikers, people (both mountaineers and cyclists) are all sorts. Some are members of PD/PZS, others are not; some are willing to help with maintenance, others are not; most behave responsibly, a minority does not. This applies to all mountain visitors, regardless of whether they use poles, bikes or touring skis for it.
| (+3) | | |
|
|
|
|
| mmuz7. 02. 2014 22:55:31 |
Since I'm mentioning touring skis, maybe one more thought experiment. Try in this debate for and against mountain biking replacing the phrase "mountain biking" with "touring skiing" and think about how it sounds.
A few completely made-up and heavily caricatured examples:
- "Touring skiers are destroying mountain trails."
- "The touring skiers lobby demands touring skiing everywhere."
- "I saved my life with a jump when a mad touring skier came towards me."
- "The existing law already allows certain mountain trails to be opened for touring skiers too. Let the touring skiers association get involved and finally achieve that some trail is open for them too."
- "If we generally allow touring skiing on all mountain trails, will there be double maintenance? On one side PZS, on the other who?"
- "If some trail still needs to be closed for touring skiers, who will cover the costs of the procedure?"
- "Touring ski gear is also quite expensive and only some can afford it."
- "Touring skiers belong on groomed ski slopes, not in the mountains at all."
etc.
In this way it sounds absurd, doesn't it?
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| FSkok7. 02. 2014 23:33:50 |
@mmuz, you're wrong about the division, because I speak and think as a trail maintainer, hiker, and occasionally also a touring cyclist, so I'm not entirely either "ours" or "yours", that's why I try to look at the issue a bit broader.
But I'm convinced that the positions of PZS that the president presented a few days ago are the only correct and possible ones.
Because to tell the truth, most mountain bikers violate the existing law anyway and therefore no one is sanctioned. As long as an individual does it, it's not such a problem, but the problem arises when some organized group does it and also markets such actions. Here the control is stricter, so I think that's the reason for such pressure from certain associations to change the law. That's my personal opinion...
|
|
|
|
| mmuz8. 02. 2014 00:42:58 |
@FSkok: I think no one is happy about breaking the law, just that they turn a blind eye or never catch him. I go to the mountains to relax, enjoy nature and recharge - and if I'm pondering how "someone" can formally catch me in a violation, my day is ruined.
My observation is that the pressure to change the law comes from a broader group of mountain bikers who think like me, and it doesn't just come from "certain associations" that would have financial interests in it. It is true that representatives of certain interest groups and associations act as interlocutors to the government -probably where your perception comes from-, purely because a few representatives have to represent the cycling population, a few thousand or ten thousand cyclists can't sit down at the negotiating table with the government. Believe me, these representatives have the mandate and general support from the broader mountain biking community, otherwise someone would have already raised hell.
And since you mentioned a broader view, let's bite into this sour apple that bothers many - so what if someone markets mountain biking and has a financial interest in it? VAT on the service provided, income tax on the guide, tourist tax, annual guide license, insurance - all that flows directly or indirectly into the state budget, from which come the funds that the state allocates to PZS and trail maintainers, as well as subsidies for forest owners, funding for GRS, helicopter unit of SV and Police etc. A new job opens up and one less person at the employment office. Of course, only if this guiding can be done legally and all the above contributions are actually paid to the budget. A qualified and professional guide who organizes a tour at most positively contributes to raising awareness of clients - cyclists about coexistence with other mountain visitors, attitude to nature, mountain ethics, safety and above all makes the tour pleasant.
On the other hand - when a foreign mountain guide organizes and conducts a tour in Slovenian mountains, is that not controversial? Where does his earnings end up? And who maintains the trails along which he led the group of hikers?
| (+6) | | |
|
|
|
|
| BorisM8. 02. 2014 06:13:42 |
"VanSims: where do you see that with my contribution I exposed anyone as lying? Except you of course - with your stories about bans that I supposedly saw everywhere, and misleading approximate translations?"
Mmuz, thanks for this, I myself don't even bother proving anymore, no point.
| (+2) | | |
|
|
|
|
| VanSims8. 02. 2014 08:29:33 |
@mmuz: in your contribution you mentioned restrictions that apply in some Italian alpine regions specifically Veneto and Trentino. So there are certain restrictions, bans and not everything is open. We don't know about the other regions (except FJK and South Tyrol where everything is really open). Now you're changing your words too and after all the link you attached confirms it.
No point arguing with other MTB enthusiasts anymore. Anyway, when you run out of arguments you resort to insinuations, word twisting, discrediting,... As I said: I don't care, for me if everything remains closed even though according to the current law on mountain trails you have all possibilities to do something.
|
|
|
|
| FSkok8. 02. 2014 08:46:01 |
@mmuz; you're thinking correctly when you note that some funds from the levies you mentioned would flow into the budget (if receipts are issued), but the fact is also that in (turbo)capitalism into which we are pushed, no one will just give you some infrastructure for commercial activity without some obligations, that's how it is unfortunately. I still haven't seen anywhere what obligations the representatives of cyclists commit to, alongside the desired rights, and besides, who are the official representatives of cyclists anyway?
|
|
|
You must log in to post a comment:
If you do not yet have a username, you must first
register.