mmuz - Recent messages

@FSkok: on what basis can you claim that Mr. Rovan did not agree with such conclusions? I overlooked this above-mentioned proof.

And once again for those who might have missed it, what cyclists actually want:

http://www.mtb.si/novice/1979-sklepi-srecanja-predstavnikov-kolesarjev-in-turizma.html

I recommend reading!

@VanSims: one third of PZS members are mountain bikers - did you overlook that? Probably the largest umbrella organization, which cares damn little about those members.

You mention arrogance? I disagree, being argumentative and arrogance are not the same.

Arrogance is when someone without arguments says "it will be like that period". Arrogance is also when someone without arguments says "at first I was even sympathetic to you, but when you started disagreeing with me and even proving it with some facts, then no more - wouldn't you be quiet and not debate with me!"

But you have to admit it's at least a bit funny if you accuse a group that set "regulation and not prohibition" of activity as goal, that it's not willing to make compromises.

@GregorC: don't bother. Maybe you didn't notice that some in this debate smoothly ignore uncomfortable questions and facts unfavorable to their stance.

Leave the hiking trails in peace yourself.

@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."

@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.

@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.

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.

@FSkok - as @tslok1 said

I spent half an hour writing a longer argued response to FSkok and when I wanted to post it, it disappeared? Grrr...

@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?

@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?

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?

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.

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.