Cyclists in the mountains
|
| mmuz8. 02. 2014 10:07:04 |
@VanSims: I cited the regulations (i.e. rights and also restrictions) in the regions Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Veneto, Trentino and the autonomous province of Bolzano. These are closest to us, have a similar natural environment (Alps) and are most relevant from the perspective of mountain biking. I admit I didn't look into how it's regulated e.g. in Sicily, because I don't care. If in some South Italian flat region cycling off asphalt is maybe not allowed, realistically it's not relevant for Slovenian conditions.
You know where the problem is? Someone presents the situation and issue accurately and correctly. The other side doesn't want or can't understand it or just skims it. Then that someone simplifies and simplifies so that the basic idea finally gets through. At some point the other side says "hey, it's definitely not as simple as you say - so you're lying!"
No reasonable person expects cycling to be allowed absolutely everywhere without exceptions. For every activity, even hiking, there are restrictions and local bans, everywhere. And yes, in Italy mountain bikers have "everything open" except exceptions where cycling (hiking, paragliding, touring skiing) is not allowed, which is maybe one percent of all trails.
I hope you distinguish between "everything open except the following exceptions" (cyclists allowed say 95% of trails) and "everything closed except the following exception" (cyclists allowed 20km out of 9000km trails, which is two per mille).
For a comprehensive overview of legislation in other countries, whose correctness as far as I know no one disputes, I'll attach the link to PZS pages again: http://ktk.pzs.si/vsebina.php?pid=131.
VanSims, I haven't noticed you being so objective as to admit your proven mistakes. Tell yourself once that according to current legislation the possibility for cyclists to do anything is so theoretical and unfeasible that it's almost impossible to implement. With such statements you offend those who invested years and years of effort to open one single dual-purpose trail in Slovenia - that's those "honorable" two per mille, on which all Slovenian cyclists from the whole country should ride. Will you ignore this fact this time too?
| (+5) |  | |
|
|
|
|
| FSkok8. 02. 2014 10:22:28 |
@mmuz; since you're mentioning KTK, tell us what their stance on the matter is !
Because given that as one of the few they know the issues of both interest sides, their commission's opinion should carry quite a bit of weight, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
| tslok18. 02. 2014 10:37:42 |
The official opinion of KTK is quite limited by the opinion of PZS. Since KTK is part of PZS, it cannot oppose the decisions and opinions of PZS
|
|
|
|
| FSkok8. 02. 2014 10:41:46 |
Yeah, who then represents the interests of mountain or touring cyclists?
|
|
|
|
| mmuz8. 02. 2014 10:54:09 |
I spent half an hour writing a longer argued response to FSkok and when I wanted to post it, it disappeared? Grrr...
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| cebelca8. 02. 2014 10:57:23 |
Mmuz, very well written.
And one more thing. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but what bothers me is the writing of certain individuals who participate in the debate and behave as if they have answers to all questions, although they don't even have basic concepts clarified and don't take even that much time to read something additional about this issue, which is much more complex than they try to portray it.
Instead of the topic moving forward and us jointly seeking constructive solutions, we non-stop repeat the same thing to the same people.
p.s. I had your above posts in mind, with this last one you overtook me.
|
|
|
|
| FSkok8. 02. 2014 11:13:12 |
@cebelca; I have my opinions, most often argued, but everyone has the right not to agree with me and to express that, that's why the topic is also under general discussions, so your attack on those who think differently, especially in this pressing topic, is really out of place. It's not true that I only have answers, I also have questions to which I haven't received a satisfactory answer yet.
|
|
|
|
| mmuz8. 02. 2014 11:21:14 |
Well, I'll briefly summarize from memory what I lost (grrr again).
FSkok - why among all users of mountain infrastructure do you single out mountain cyclists again? Why should they commit to obligations? What obligations have touring skiers, paragliders, dog handlers, cavers, tourist agencies and mountain guides (foreign) committed to? All these groups also carry out market activities in the mountain environment.
I'm sure that the Slovenian Cycling Federation is ready to cooperate with PZS at least as much as the mentioned organizations and interest groups. Of course, PZS must recognize KZS as a legitimate interlocutor and co-user of the mountaineering space. At the operational level, there are known examples of exemplary cooperation between path markers and cyclists in trail maintenance, ultimately it was the same with the arrangement of the only dual-purpose trail in the country. In one of the previous posts you mentioned the legal-formal aspect of help at work actions (liability for injuries of non-markacists at the action) - with the cooperation of parent organizations, this problem can also be solved.
But I hope that with your question you weren't aiming at KZS having to establish a "cycling markacists" department, take formal responsibility for a certain number of kilometers of mountaineering trails or even that mountain cyclists should pay a contribution for the maintenance of mountaineering trails or something similar. Mountaineering trails in Slovenia are maintained by PZS by law for all legal trail users, regardless of their gender, skin color, religious beliefs or sports equipment used. To be honest, in my opinion, PZS should rather rejoice at the proposed legislative changes, as it represents an opportunity and argument to negotiate a larger piece of the pie from the state for trail maintenance. After all, more than 7 million euros are collected annually in Slovenia from tourist taxes, from which something could also be covered, be it compensation for landowners or costs of equipping trails with information boards and markings.
| (+2) | | |
|
|
|
|
| VanSims8. 02. 2014 11:29:06 |
@mmuz: Veneto: not allowed on mountaineering trails
Trentino: limitation regarding width and gradient.
If these aren't restrictions... I don't know...
Admittedly, I don't know what all the bureaucratic obstacles are for making a cycling trail on a mountaineering one or as a standalone, but we don't need new legislation but that these conditions (which must of course be realistic) are agreed, written down somewhere,... in some sub-law or something else and remove unnecessary bureaucracy. The basis is the current law cited by FSkok which allows this possibility.
But to open everything except exceptions... I don't advocate that and I have the right to my opinion.
|
|
|
|
| BorisM8. 02. 2014 11:30:44 |
Yes, that's really the problem, who represents us. KZS should represent us, but there's little from them. So we from various clubs and associations united in the Slovenian Cycling Initiative (SKP).
Here are our proposals and conclusions, below are also written who was there:
| (+2) | | |
|
|
|
|
| FSkok8. 02. 2014 11:45:23 |
Mountain cyclists have exposed themselves by wanting to change the law. I agree, in some parts it is really unworkable, but they went too far in their demands, those are the parts that differ from the PZS position.
The interest groups you mention above do not violate ZPlanP in any way, because they appear there as legitimate hikers. The exception are touring skiers, because at the time they are on the terrain of mountaineering trails, there usually aren't any.
Is it fair that cyclists demand from the legislator to give them general use of all mountaineering trails, and push the costs for maintenance and possible requalification of a trail closed to cyclists onto the PDs, which are usually financed predominantly from membership fees?
|
|
|
|
| mmuz8. 02. 2014 11:46:43 |
@VanSims: nobody claimed there is no restriction. But they are in the minority and rational, they don't stem from some irrational fears. By the way, the restriction in Veneto comes from a law from 1985 and is so awkwardly formulated that it is not enforceable in practice, which the Italian legislator also admits. Veneto has its own definition in that law of what a mountaineering trail even is (on which cycling is not allowed) - most of what we call mountaineering trails actually doesn't fall into it, because according to their regional law that's not a mountaineering trail. Crazy, right? That restriction suddenly puts it in a completely different light.
Nobody disputes your right to have your own opinion, that's one of the basic rights of democracy - if everyone had the same opinion, that would worry me greatly. Wrong is when you convince others that you are right with ignorance or distortion of facts.
| (+3) | | |
|
|
|
|
| BorisM8. 02. 2014 12:03:30 |
FSkok, check why PZS doesn't like all paths being opened, then the overburdened or unsuitable ones get closed. Because if they close paths for us, owners will want to do the same for hikers, but no one wants to say that out loud. PZS pressures us with owners when it suits them, saying they don't allow it. Basically, they are spitting in their own bowl.
Let's look already once, it's not far, across the western border these things work perfectly. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
| (+3) | | |
|
|
|
|
| mmuz8. 02. 2014 12:09:32 |
@FSkok: mountain bikers want to be excluded from the proposed Zon amendment, about which enough has been said. But this Zon amendment has triggered an initiative to finally regulate the state of mountain biking - taking into account all interested parties. Personally, I agree that this would formally violate ZPlanP - there are unfortunately many cases of contradictory legislation in Slovenia. If the legislator wants this, the conflict can be elegantly resolved with a minor change to ZPlanP and adding cyclists among users of hiking trails.
There's probably newer statistics, but on the website of the Statistical Office of RS I found data that in 2004 there were 75 thousand overnights in Slovenian mountains, of which 22 thousand foreign guests, so every third. PZS data is that Slovenian mountains are visited annually by over 1.5 million visitors. Combine both data and we get a rough estimate that there are about half a million foreign mountain visitors every year. And no, it's not fair that the maintenance of paths used by half a million foreign visitors, who are usually not PD members, not even Slovenian taxpayers, falls on PDs.
Regarding costs, I've already described above - here not only costs of closing paths that you mention, but also info signs, markings, signposts - all that is infrastructure that needs to be financed at the systemic level. But that doesn't mean selling MTB vignettes, but state contribution from the budget, as it already happens. The same budget that mountain biking as a tourist branch fills.
| (+3) | | |
|
|
|
|
| GregorC8. 02. 2014 14:51:26 |
PZS is most concerned that cyclists will destroy paths, and their markacists will maintain them. What about roads that are closed to traffic but hill visitors use them to drive to the highest possible starting point (Jermanca, Zadnjica, Suhadolnik...)? That's not a problem that they are destroyed by personal vehicles, although they are maintained by other institutions for their own needs (e.g. foresters and landowners).
Doesn't it seem logical to you that cyclists also prefer maintained paths, which means they would gladly maintain them too, not just ride on them. But I got the feeling that you simply shy away from this help, just because of bureaucracy, because cyclists haven't paid and attended markacist course at PZS. And I'm sure there are quite a few mountain bikers among markacists.
As for KTK, it's as tslok1 said. They support efforts of other cycling initiatives, but can't give official opinion themselves. That's because they are part of PZS and the official opinion of PZS top is different from KTK's. But Mr. Rovan is one of the most active in initiatives for legalization of mountain biking.
| (+2) | | |
|
|
|
|
| BorisM8. 02. 2014 14:54:25 |
And the main markacist! 
| (+1) | | |
|
|
|
|
| GregorC8. 02. 2014 15:17:42 |
And one more thing. Has any of the responsible opponents of cycling in nature (also on hiking trails) thought about what the economic damage would be. Or put differently, what share of revenue from this they would forgo. I mainly think here of tourism, which is still a neglected economic sector in Slovenia, although we have by far the greatest potential in this direction. Then there are e.g. sellers of sports equipment (in Slovenia most sold are mountain bikes). And more could be listed. In our country we treat mountain biking as the worst evil, while abroad mountain bike tourism is considered the fastest growing form of sustainable tourism. Not to mention that MTB guides are among the best-selling, but here absurdly high fines are threatened to their publishers. How much money is collected just from VAT. And PZS gets quite a bit of that too.
With prohibition we get the worst possible solution. Cycling will continue, conflicts will continue, but no one will benefit from it except a bunch of bad moods.
The funniest to me is that our views actually don't differ that much at all.
| (+3) | | |
|
|
|
|
| mmuz8. 02. 2014 15:33:33 |
@FSkok: sorry, but again I see that distinction I mentioned - is it fair if "cyclists" demand something that burdens "hikers"?
Mountain bikers are not someone else, didn't fall from Mars. Mountain bikers are among all of us. They are hikers and PD members - not all, just like not all hikers are PD members. Statistically, one third of people you see at your PD assembly, one third who pay PZS membership and donate, one third markacists maintaining paths, one third mountain rescuers and other volunteers. Also one third of people who elected PZS presidency are mountain bikers! When PZS leadership talks about MTB issues, it should realize it's also talking about a large part of its membership.
Is it fair that part of PZS members demands from legislator use of paths, but costs for maintaining those paths fall on PDs, whose members are they?
(for nitpickers: I have no name lists with numbers for above claims - I extrapolate from data on share of cyclists among PZS members to subgroups for better illustration. I allow that with such small sample statistics can mislead.)
And a quote I just found that nicely complements my above thought.
Jože Rovan, head of touring cycling commission: "In Slovenia there are around 290,000 hikers and 120,000 mountain bikers, one third of PZS members listed touring cycling among their mountaineering activities. Many hikers act in both roles. We are obliged to find common language, establish mutual trust and coexistence."
| (+5) | | |
|
|
|
|
| VanSims9. 02. 2014 11:06:03 |
I myself was for properly regulating this issue by designating and arranging paths, but after all this on this forum I'm increasingly of that opinion too.
|
|
|
You must log in to post a comment:
If you do not yet have a username, you must first
register.