Conference noted::bicycle

       	Last week I called NORBA (National Off-Road Bicycle Association)
	to have them send me their packet of information. As far as I
    	know, they're the only national organization committed to the
	future of the sport of mountain biking in regards to racing and
    	*land access*. I saw a little blirb in one of my magazines about
    	a program that NORBA had going in relation to helping with the
    	"crusade" for land access rights, so I called them for the info.
    	I'll post any pertinent information when I receive it. If you
    	want to get your own stuff, here's the address and phone number:
    
    				NORBA
    				P.O. Box 1901
    				Chandler , AZ  85244
    				(602) 961-0635
    
								    Mike
    

    RE: .0
    
    Alan,
    
    which trail did you get kicked off of?
    
    

    Some of the trails that I ride around Colorado Springs are getting
    pretty dangerous, and it's BECAUSE of the horses - they really do
    serious damage to the trails!
    
    When the trail runs along the side of a hill and the horses step
    on the outside edge of the trail, they seem to remove a few inches
    of trail.  This damage sure wasn't done by bicycles!
    
    

    	RE: .3   
    
    	Yeah, the horse damage is right up there with the motorcycle
    damage.    Oh, but by the way, you say "around Colorado Springs"
    and I also am riding here.   The horses really chew up the trail
    after a rain.
    
    	I wrote .0 on this topic, and have been looking into it...
    It seems that the city council has banned riding on all trails
    inside all city parks, unless they are marked "multi-use", and
    none are so marked.   (unless you count 'Captain Jack's' which
    is above city property, on national park land, anyway...)
    
    	The trail I got harrassed on started on Rampart Range road,
    and descended into the Garden of the Gods.   Aparently the
    top of the trail is legal but the bottom is not.
    
	It's a real drag that all these good trails are outlawed.
    Colorado Springs boasts some real large and fine parks with
    fabulous trails;  Garden Of The Gods, Palmer Park (bluffs),
    North Cheyenne Canyon, Bear Creek Canyon nature center...
    The regulations say "no vehicles off roads".   Oh, I suppose
    I *can* ride on the dirt road in Monument Valley park, but that 
    gets old pretty quick.

	Since then I have tried to stay legal, but this means if
    I want a good ride I have to put the bike on the car and drive
    several miles to a legal trailhead, since all the local trails
    are in these city parks.   It's weird that I need a car to
    pursue mountian biking as a sport during the summer...

    	In practice, I noticed that *nobody* uses these trails in
    the winter.   In cold weather I can go out on them and be
    practically alone out there.   I don't think I'm bothering
    anyone.   For the summer I've decided to stick to the higher
    altitude trails, where there are less people to deal with 
    anyway.   Another option is to ride at night, with headlights, and 
    simply avoid the rule enforcers.   I fully intend to go back to
    riding in the Garden of the Gods this winter, after the tourists
    and park police have gone back inside.   For now they can have it.

        	Alan.

    Same here - we ride early in the morning to avoid the heat and the
    people, and when the tourist season dies down, we ride early in
    Garden of the Gods to avoid the park police.
    
    Didn't realize Bear Creek Nature Center was off-limits - we just
    rode through there a couple of weeks ago.  I can believe it, though.
    It's probably reserved for horses.  (I don't think anyone could
    accuse bicycle of leaving the "odorific" deposits that horses do on
    trails!)
                                          - Diane
    

    The rangers in GoG (the ones walking around with bullhorns, yelling
    at people to get off the rock) go off duty at 6:00 PM.  If you ride
    later than that, you only have to worry about about the cops, and
    I've never seen them get out of their patrol cars.  trails out of
    sight from the road should be safe.
    
    Steve
    

    re -1.,.2,.3
        
    It's amazing how everywhere you go in this country, things are
    the same. In Atlanta, we have the same problem. Trails are marked
    no bicycles, but we ride them anyway. We dont get in trouble for
    one reason: NOBODY ELSE USES THEM!!. When people do use them, we
    steer clear. But during the week or during the winter, we never
    see anyone (the trails i refer to are in Red Top mountain state
    park). The only time something has been said to us is when a park
    ranger sees us from his car. If we ever get in , we're in. I think
    that it is easier for rangers' to post a trail off limits than to
    deal with someone legitimately using the park. After all, if we
    were not using the park, nobody else would be....then they would
    collect a salary for doing nothing. I have also noticed that bicycles
    do not leave marks in the trail unless horses also use the trail
    or unless there have been very heavy rains. Horses tear up the trail
    sufficiently for a bicycle to leave grooves. After riding on trails
    with and without horses ,before and after rains, I have reached
    the conclusion that bicycles leave virtually no marks except under
    the aforementioned conditions. 

The bikes themselves don't really do much damage.  A 200 lb. rider and bike
are nothing compared to a horse and rider (how much does a horse weigh?).

However the two things which bother people are:
        1) The speed.  Horses usually go slow, hikers do too, but bikers
           can go much faster.  It just shatters people's idea of peace
           and quite to have a bike go zooming by.  So just be cools when
           you pass the hikers, say hello to them.  Also around the horse,
           don't spook them.

        2) People confuse mountains bikes with dirt bike motercycles.  They
           think that we rip up the trails.  But for the most part we don't.
           A dirt bike rider can zoom up a hill, gun the throttle and watch
           the dirt fly.  I think of this every time I'm climbing up a dusty
           trail in a 26X32 gear going about 2 miles per hour.  I wish I
           had an engine.  How many horsepower can a bike rider generate
           anyway?
           

> I think of this every time I'm climbing up a dusty trail in a 26X32 gear 
> going about 2 miles per hour.  I wish I had an engine.  How many horsepower 
> can a bike rider generate anyway?

	I think the figure is about 0.2 horsepower if you are in
	good shape.  Or is it 0.02?  Chris Paulhus would know since
	he works on human powered vehicles.

    The figure I've heard is about 1/6 a horsepower, which is in the
    same ballpark as 0.2.  

	I seem to remember reading (in an article about human
	powered helicopters) that a top rider could put out 1 hp
	for a sprint and 0.5 hp basically forever.  They were
	designing for something like 0.7 hp.  Of course they
	haven't flown yet either!

	chris

    In that case, I wonder how many "horsepower" a horse puts 
    out...3? 4?  "Horsepower" seems to be a misnomer if humans
    can produce one horsepower.
    
    MATT

I believe 1 horsepower is how much work an above average
horse can do when it merely walks (runs?) forward.
There are probably more efficient ways to get power from
horses (e.g. recumbent bicycles for horses), so a horse
could theoretically produce 3 or 4 horsepower.

Using one of the most efficient setups available to humans
(e.g. recumbent bicycles for humans) I wouldn't be surprised
if a top sprinter could produce 1 horsepower.

    High School physics students learn 1HP=550ft-lb/sec.
    
    That is the amount of WORK it takes to move 1lb over 1ft in 1sec.
    Also expressed as 33,000foot-pounds per minute and 745.7watts.
    \VA
    

>    That is the amount of WORK it takes to move 1lb over 1ft in 1sec.
>    Also expressed as 33,000foot-pounds per minute and 745.7watts.

	No,

	foot-lbs, and newton-meters are units of WORK.

	foot-lbs/sec, hp, and watts are units of POWER.

    -Jeff

    The previous reply mentions that one horsepower = 745 watts.
    
    Well, a human at rest gives out about 100 watts continuously. This
    sticks in my mind because I saw a programme once in which the energy
    balance of a typical house was being investigated: the energy input
    from each human inhabitant was represented by a 100 watt bulb!
    
    I also seem to remember that an athlete can put out about 300 watts
    for a sustained period. Don't know what peak output would be: double
    that perhaps? Which would be getting towards one horsepower.
    
    Rod

> Well, a human at rest gives out about 100 watts continuously.

	Unfortunately this is just waste heat.  I doubt that it is much
	related to the power output capacity of the human.

    re: .15
    
     Correct, POWER=WORK/TIME .  1HP is 1ft-lb of WORK in 1sec ... etc.
    
    \VA
    

    OK, here's some data.  All you folks with calculators that convert
    from miles per hour to furlongs per fortnight can figure this out...
    
    The Mount Washington hill climb starts from the bottom of the Auto
    Road to the summit.  First problem:  what is the elevation of these
    two points?  (If no one else knows, I'll eventually look it up).
    
    It takes the fastest riders a little over an hour to do this.  When
    I did it, I did it in a little under 1 and a half hours.  Me and
    my bike (yes, my Raliegh Grand Prix) probably weighed a total of
    about 205 pounds at the time.
    
    From this, I at one time computed how many watts I was putting out
    and I recall it was around one horsepower.  But the real answer
    is left as an exercise for the reader...
                       --tom

    The base of the auto road (Mount Washington Carriage Road) is 1563,
    the summit is 6288.  The distance is about 7 1/2 miles.
    
    Rich

	Completely neglecting any friction in the bike, rolling
	resistance of the wheels on the road, and air resistance
	(because I don't know how to factor these in:

	Mt Washington in one hour:

	( 4752 feet * 205 lbs / 1 hour ) * 5.05E-7 hp - hour / ft lb = 0.49 hp

	In 1.5 hours  = 0.33 hp


	Anybody's guess on the other factors.

    I agree with .21.
    
    The potential energy gained by climbing the mountain = 
    	mass x gravity x height gain
    
    Putting it into metric gives 205 (kg) x 9.81 (m/s�) x 1440 (m) =
    	1.31 Megajoules
    
    Doing this in 5400 seconds (90 minutes) equates to a continuous
    power output of 243 Watts, which is 1/3 of a horsepower.
    
    The other factors probably round it up to about 300 Watts... told
    you so...
    
    
    Rod

    UPDATE FROM MY LAST NOTE:
        Well, we rode illegally all summer in our favorite spot. Not
    only did we pass less than 12 pedestrians all summer long, but we
    were repeatedly told not to ride in the park. Now, at the end of
    summer, they have started bulldozing a huge section of the park
    that we ride in. WHY?....to build a golf course,lodge, and
    restaurant!!! What was the reason they wanted us out?....to protect
    the environment!!!  Some things just dont make sense.....
    
    

    Yooz guys be careful out there.  I read in my current issue of
    Runners World about a distance runner on the U.S. National Team
    who will miss the World's because of an injury sustained in a
    collision with a mountain biker; that's pretty bad press.
    
    It was an article about the runner, not mountain bikers, but
    you get the message...  I don't ride on trails, but I do run
    on them.  When cyclists are touring on trails, I'm okay with
    that.  When they engage in tests of speed on them, I get 
    hacked-off.  My experience has been that cyclists will try to
    slip around you, rather than yield, about 1/4th of the time.
    I've hit a pedestrian _hard_ while on my bike and I know what
    can happen.
    
    Please, have fun, but share the trails; we aren't alone out there.
    
    
    r�

    Off road trails are one thing, but I have no remourse about mowing down
    roller bladers or joggers on designated "bike trails"; sorry.  KB

    re: .25
    
    KB,
    
    When I said "bike trails", _off road_ is what I meant.  I guess I
    should be more careful of my terminology.  Sorry if I caused
    confusion.  I usually call paved "bike trails" a bike _path_.
    
    r�

    
    Start NOW to avoid trail closures in the future!!
    
    Here in Ottawa, I'm on the executive of CORBA (Capital Off Road Bicycle
    Association).  Our sole purpose is to gain (and re-gain) trail access
    in Gatineau Park, a huge park in the area.
    
    The folks who run the park have been systematically closing down trails
    to mountain bikers, leaving us only the wide fire roads which they say
    are sufficient.  The reason? Twofold: 1) Environmental impact and 2)
    User conflict.
    
    According to their own study, bikers have the same impact on the trails
    as hikers (so much for the environmental impact excuse).  And by
    relegating us bikers away from the narrow technical trails (condusive
    to slow speeds), towards wide open dirt roads (condusive to high
    speeds), they are only increasing the chances of user conflict.
    
    My point?  Mountain bikers are a silent type.  We need to be heard and
    seen as LEGITIMATE users of the trails.  CORBA has an uphill battle
    because we are mostly trying for trail RE-OPENING.  I would advise
    anyone out there to organize now to try to keep their existing trail
    network open.
    
    My 2 cents worth.
         
    Steve

    As a runner, I'd like to give you some feedback that might
    help you in your goal of reopening trails.  I suspect that
    user conflict is THE main issue and yes I agree that cyclists
    are legitimate users of the trails.
    
    Runners/hikers have two main annoyances when it comes to off
    road running.  1) dog owners who don't keep their pets on a tight
    leash 2) cyclist who ride like there won't be anyone coming around
    the next blind corner.
    
    When it comes to the user conflict issue, your own worst enemies
    are not the runners/hikers (IMHO), they are some of the cyclists
    among you.  In many cases, runners go off road in order to escape
    the stress of running around traffic.  In most cases, cyclists are
    the newcomers to the trails and are seen as the traffic coming into
    the woods to invade them--again.
    
    As a cyclist, I sometimes have difficulty convincing someone of my
    equal right to the street as any other vehicle.  The status of the
    bicycle on a hiking trail is as hazy as the status of a bike on a
    street or sidewalk.  An off road trail, in my admittedly biased 
    opinion, is primarily for those who are on foot.  I don't ride off
    road, but I would think that your level of enjoyment would not 
    diminish substantially if you followed some common sense safety
    rules and used consideration.
    
    r�   

    
    I quite agree with your points.  Our biggest battle is making cyclists
    behave responsibly.
    
    Given the flat, wide trails left for us, this will be very very
    difficult.  What we're hoping for is the re-opening of the narrow,
    technical trails where hikers are almost FASTER that the cyclists. 
    THIS is our biggest objective to cut down user conflict. (Besides, most
    hikers prefer the wider trails).
    
    You are quite right however, in suggesting that we should work on the
    education aspect....but just how can I get through to the thousands of
    cyclists who have that selfish attitude?
    

    Boy, I'd have thought that in a note on bicycling, that cyclists would
    get a little more support.... so I will be the one to speak for (mostly)
    responsible cyclists. I have not read the article, so I make absolutely
    no judgement on this particular case. I do, however, have LOTS (thousands 
    of miles) of experience of encounters with runners on trails. IMHO..... 
    there is rarely a case with an accident on trails in the woods that the 
    cyclistor runner is solely at fault. I can think of only a couple of 
    situations where the cyclist would be completely at fault.... going too 
    fast around a blind curve, for one. And going way too fast downhill on a 
    trail with known heavy runner/hiker is a typical thing for a lot of biker 
    bone-heads to do. Some cyclists, will go way too fast around pine thickets 
    and "walls" of vegatation.  Just as often than not, though, it is the 
    erratic habits of runners being approached from the back that causes 
    problems. My observations:
    
     * Runners are oblivious to bicycles. They never look back before
       moving across a trail,and they erroneously assume that they are the
       fastest thing moving in their direction. At one time, they were
       the fastest thing on the trail, now they are not.
    
     * Runners always run to the inside of a curve. I couldn't count the
       number of times a runner will cross right in front of me.... towards
       the inside of the curve... and NEVER look back.
    
     * In almost all cases, if a runner or hiker will just hold their line
       in a predictable manner, a cyclist will go around. By this I mean
       that the cyclist will take it upon himself to avoid collision.
    
     * Runners will run abreast to fill the trail. I refuse to yield the right
       of way if there is room enough for two. I always yield the right of way
       to uphill traffic.
    
     * More runners than bikers will wear head phones. I could not tell you
       how many times I've shouted "ON YOUR LEFT/RIGHT" and the runner
       never heard me.
    
     * Runners will run with their dogs on 25ft leashes. Real nice for
       Mr. runner and his loyal canine companion to take up the entire
       trail.
    
     * Even with warning , groups of runners will often scatter like rats.
       I have come closer to hitting people that I have warned than people
       that never knew I was there. I say "on your left", and half the
       group will jump in front of me.  While there are certainly some
       runners who listen and appreciate and react correctly to warnings,
       many can't tell their left from their right on the spur of the
       moment.
    
     * Runners and cyclists share the award for getting into the workout
       and spacing out and being a danger on the trail.
    
     * In the area that I ride, a majority of ALL trail maintenence for the
       benefit of ALL users of quite a few trails in our area is done by SORBA,
       a bike club. I have built quite a few water bars. How many runners
       or track clubs have done the same?
    
    I should qualify all of this by saying that I have NEVER hit anyone, and
    have only come close to runner/biker accident two or three times. In
    each case, I was not 100% at-fault or fault-free. I have beeed the safe
    speed of a place that you have been riding (safely) all year. It's a mistake
    and people make mistakes. Cyclists who abuse the trail system ought
    to be punished (Simply sit in the curve and take the frame serial#
    of the offender. After several warnings, confiscate bike. ).
    In most other cases, though, the line-of-sight distance, the noise a
    bike makes, the noise the bikers make, and the fact that bike can keep
    moving in less than ideal circumstances almost always means that
    the bicycle can go around a runner/hiker with a real degree of safety
    (given that the cyclist has a certain amount of skill.). The widest part
    of a bike is about as wide as the shoulders of the rider. While the bike
    may be long, it only takes up the width of a single person. There is
    rarely a need for a cyclist to completely stop to yield the right of way.
    Since 90% of the trails in my area are banned to bikes, I won't hesitate
    to remind runners/hikers that I am a legitimate trail user and if they
    don't like it then there are PLENTY of trails that they can go to get away
    from bikes, get through to the thousands of
    >    cyclists who have that selfish attitude?
    
    Ha! The only difference between biker boneheads and runner boneheads is
    their speed (and therefore, their impact). The runners are just as
    selfish (one has already admitted in a previous reply that he believes
    trails are for running/hiking).  Your're correct about education,
    though...all runners should be educated to look both ways before crossing
    a trail, to lift their eyes and see things more than 10 ft. out, and take
    off the headphones and hear what's going on. The should keep their dogs
    on 6 ft. (or less) leashes. They should run/hike single file when
    bicycles or horses are passing.
    
    There are two sides to every story. Runners can make choices on which
    trails they would use. Cyclists are usually limited to some subset of
    those trails. For the trails where cyclists are allowed, though runners
    should adjust their attitudes and behaviour towards the fact that
    cyclists are legitimate trail users. Runners and hikers should EXPECT to
    interact with cyclists. Until this basic awareness and acceptance takes
    place, there will be friction between the two groups.
    
    
    
    
    doug
    
    
    p.s. This is not really an emotional issue. It's kind of like
         traffic.... it's just always going to be there. There are always
         going to be cyclists who go to fast, and there will always be
         unyielding runners running two abreast.
    
    

I'm not much into mountain biking but I do love the road.  Just to make a point that I no
longer feel it is the cyclist that are to blame but the runners/hikers are really being
ignorant.   

Just a few weeks ago I was out riding, pulling a trailer with my 9 month old son.  The road
has a bike/jogger lane painted on it that is very wide.  Enough room for a cyclist to pass
single file runners with out venturing out on to the road and car traffic.  Well as you 
may expect, many of the runner felt that they could run two and three accross and push the
bikers out into traffic.  NO WAY.  I'm not going into car traffic just so someone can run 
next to his best friend.  So after several close calls and many runners yelling at me to 
move over I packed it in.  I don't want to take any chances with my son in the trailer but
if he wasn't there I would have plowed the runners over and wouldn't have felt the least bit
guilty.  

Time out and think about before you turn the flames on.

Don't jump all over me until it happens to you.  

I want to share the road and don't want any problems but if runners want to rule the 
trails and now the roads they have another thing coming from this rider.  Also my wife 
runs in this same area many times while I am towing the trailer so I do have a personal 
interest in keeping both cyclist and runners sharing the road.

And as noted before education is the key but if that was easy then civil rights wouldn't
be a problem either.

My 2 cents worth

Tom

BTW: the road is Columns Dr at the bottom of Johnson Ferry Rd.

from -.2
    
>     * In almost all cases, if a runner or hiker will just hold their line
>       in a predictable manner, a cyclist will go around. By this I mean
>       that the cyclist will take it upon himself to avoid collision.
    
    Here Here! The cyclist is always the one who will manage things and
    take the appropriate measures.  If runners wouldn't get "spooked" and
    scurry all over the trail, there would be no close call.  I'd like to
    think of myself as a conscientous rider, I stop for horses and warn
    runners, and I don't think cyclist should get the majority of the blame
    on the trails today. Maybe I'm ignorant to just how stupid some trail
    cyclists can be, but that's just my $.02
    
    	Mike 

    re: .30
    
    Whoa Doug!
    
    If you're going to quote me (.28), quote me completely.  I said
    that off road trails were _primarily_ for runners/hikers.  You
    just have to examine the design of these trails to understand
    my point.  It is not a question of who should get priority or
    consideration.  The advent of all-terrain bikes could not have
    been forseeable in the 1950's when many of these trails were
    designed and opened.
    
    No doubt, runners and cyclist could contribute ideas that would
    alter the design of current and future trails to make them safer
    for both.  My knowledge of trails is limited to Kennesaw, Cheatham
    Hill, and Vickery Creek.  I think that of those, Vickery is
    still open to cyclists.
    
    Speaking of design, I don't accept what you suggest about a bike 
    width being about as wide as a runner.  Sorry for being "the heavy"
    here, but runners customarily "twist" their shoulders when passing
    at close quarters; a bicycle can't do that.
    
    Vickery Creek is pretty rugged, in places.  There aren't many hard
    core cyclists there, because I've never been _passed_ by one.  It
    is so unfriendly to bikes (moisture, roots, stumps, slate) that I
    usually overtake _them_.  Kennesaw, on the other hand has some
    long stretches where a lone cyclist could safely reach 30-35 MPH.
    The thing is, the cyclist is never alone; a troop of Cub Scouts
    could be crouched over picking up trash at the end of the hill.  
    
    My input is NOT an opposing point of view.  Most of you guys don't
    get into trail running.  I am offering a voice from someone who 
    does.  If what I have to offer is seen as an obstacle, that is part
    of the problem...
    
    r�      

    Oh! Something else that may be helpful when overtaking a runner.
    They don't speak our language.  I've run with company before, in
    situations where crossing the street meant running a few feet with
    traffic to our backs until it was clear to cross.  I've looked
    back and said, "Car back!" only to get a confused expression from
    my running partner.
    
    "On your left!" Hmmm... to a runner that can mean "get on your left!"
    or "I'm coming on your left!".  Maybe that's why they, "scatter like
    rats?"  As a cyclist I would know what you meant because I hear it
    or say it a dozen times when I time trial and no one is positive where
    anybody else is.  Maybe try, "Keep right!".
    
    If you went jogging at the local high school track and someone yelled,
    "track!" what would you do?  Turn around? Move left? Move right?
    
    That is an example of "runner-speak" for "I am running for _TIME_ 
    and would you please vacate the inside lane for faster traffic NOW!".

    I suspect y'all aren't missing the point, but...
    
    I'm not defending runners - goodness knows there are some astro-
    nomically stupid people running on the paved bike paths here.  They
    seem incapable of reading signs that say 'ONE-WAY', observing large
    painted arrows on the ground that POINT in the proper direction, and
    generally appear to be totally self-absorbed.  But having some
    post-pubescent, swearing, jerk pass as closely as possible with no
    warning probably ISN'T the way to increase tolerance.
    
    I don't ride off-road, but I do occasionally saunter down a trail on
    foot.  One problem I see is that the out-of-control biker is MUCH more
    obvious, and causes MUCH more havoc than the oblivious runner, walker
    with their dog, or other example of stupid human.  You can be out on a
    trail for hours, and pass a hundred other people.  The ONE you'll
    remember is the stupid *&^%$#@ on a bike that came blasting down (or
    up) the trail yelling for you to get out of the way and scattering
    people right and left, skidding, throwing dirt, yelling and being
    obnoxious.  
    
    Regardless of total numbers, this is the one memory you'll have when
    you talk to the ranger/DNR/conservation officer an hour later and
    loudly recommend that those ^&*(%^&$%% bikes be taken off the trail. 
    It has VERY little to do with reality - there may have been a thousand
    other polite, quiet, well-mannered riders out there that day.  But, the
    one that is remembered, and causes a dozen complaints is the only one
    that matters.  It gets especially easy to lose the use of a trail if
    one of the people annoyed is ANYONE with influence (judge, city council
    member, bureacrat, family member of any of the above, etc).  

    
    
    re: last,   
    
      All true!
     
    re: rr
    
        >                    -< Do you want dialog, or not? >-
    
        Absolutely! The problem is , there is no dialog. Park
        Superintendents and Forest Managers (generally) have the discretion
        to do what they please. An example is Kennesaw/Cheathem Hill.
        There was NO discussion or warning when it closed. This has happened
        several times on several trails. The assumption is that when
        complaints about cyclists increase, the cyclist is at fault. The
        easiest way to handle the situation is to ban bikes. There was no
        effort made to educate anybody. 
    
    
    >    If you're going to quote me (.28), quote me completely.  I said
    >    that off road trails were _primarily_ for runners/hikers.  You
    
        Okay... I misquoted you. I would say, though, that you have a very
        lenient view of bicycles on (what once were primarily
        running/hiking) trails. There are throngs of runners, though, who
        would just as soon see all bicycles banned from all public lands.
        There are throngs of hikers who feel the same way as the runners.
        They value their activity and their experience to be higher
        priority/more valid than the cyclists'.
                                                                   
    >    my point.  It is not a question of who should get priority or
    >    consideration.  
    
    
         I think that it is. Cyclists want EQUAL consideration. We are a
         small minority that is (mostly) subject to the will of runners/hikers
         who feel that we should be given NO consideration. There is no
         coordinated effort (on the part of the Park Service, the DNR,
         or any other gov't agency) to see that there are adequate mix-use
         trails available in many areas. Each Park/Forest is like a little
         kingdom. Each becomes a little battle. Each little battle lost
         means a bigger, more intense battle elsewhere.... because the very
         people that you ban go somewhere else. The Park Managers need to
         get together with some running and biking organizations and come
         to some compromise. Make sure that enough mixed-use trails are 
         available so that one trail is not overburdened. Make sure that
         hikers/runners have enough choices so that they aren't FORCED to
         deal with MTBs. Make sure that hikers/runners who DO mix with the
         cyclists are aware of a likely encounter, and severely punish
         cyclists who break the rules.
    
    
    >    Speaking of design, I don't accept what you suggest about a bike
    >    width being about as wide as a runner.  Sorry for being "the heavy"
    >    here, but runners customarily "twist" their shoulders when passing
    >    at close quarters; a bicycle can't do that.
    
         I can accept that. My point, though, is that most runners/hikers
         perceive bicycles as being much bigger and wider than they really
         are.
    
    >    Vickery Creek is pretty rugged, in places.  There aren't many hard
    >    core cyclists there, because I've never been _passed_ by one.  It
    >    is so unfriendly to bikes (moisture, roots, stumps, slate) that I
    
         Vickery Creek isn't well used because it offers no long loops.
         The ruggedness of it is of less concern than the length of it.
         If I could get in a 10-12 mile loop, I would do it regularly.
    
    
    >    usually overtake _them_.  Kennesaw, on the other hand has some
    >    long stretches where a lone cyclist could safely reach 30-35 MPH.
    >    The thing is, the cyclist is never alone; a troop of Cub Scouts
    >    could be crouched over picking up trash at the end of the hill.
    
         On the other hand, my wife and I used to ride Kennesaw a lot. It
         was an easy ride that she could do... almost never exceeding 10mph.
         So what do they do? They ban her (and me) instead of holding
         the guy who does 30-35 MPH responsible for his actions. This does
         nothing to endear me to the people who now run over the water bars
         that I built. The battle/fight/situation simply moves on to 
         the next park that this obnoxious cyclist wants to bike in.  
    
    
    
         Doug
    

    
     <set/soapbox=on>
    
     I feel that we all must act as an emissary and talk/educate not
    only fellow bikers but also converse with hikers and runners in a
    polite mannner to not only send out our message but to also learn their
    points of view....sure there is always going to be some SOB that give
    their or our sport bad PR..but if, WE the good guys, work on working
    with others, perhaps a runner might be eaiser to pass next time or a
    birder might be a bit more likely to understand the interuption next
    time if we take a moment and talk to them. I have only had one
    semi-negative experiance with a hiker...he was sort of miffed that I
    was riding my bike where he was and said as much...my first reaction
    was "who do you think you are" but my riding buddy started some small
    talk and after a bit we were exchanging information about the things we
    saw and where we have been...we checked out our maps with him etc. the
    hiker walked off with a different 'tude than when we first encountered
    him...I know that this won't happen every time but it was a lesson to
    me that a positive approach has merit...I will also apply this to
    anyone I enounter mtbiking in a rude and iresponsible manner...I won't
    chew them out for trying to have a good time...but try to point out
    that what they are doing may have a large negative impact on the entire
    sport..etc..
    
     I don't know what I would do if the powers that be close down some of
    my favorite trails but I will and do take ever opportunity to talk to
    the authority figures that I do encounter and have always been treated
    with the same courtesy that I extend and I belive that this person
    walks away with a bit better feeling about bikers than they did
    before...
    
     Perhaps it is true that "one aweshit wipes out a 100 attaboys" then
    the majority of us bikers that are responsible, need to reach out and
    earn a couple of "attaboys" to make up for the un-elightened biker that
    is ignorantly ruining it for the rest of us...  
    
 <set/soap_box=off>
    
    There... I feel better now.