Going for Speed
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, I don't exactly expect land managers to start reading my website. Nonetheless, there is plenty of potential for controversy here. When I speak of trail closures, I'm not talking about weather-related closures, like some of the bay area trails that close for the winter due to mud. That seems like a sensible thing to me, given the high traffic some of those trails probably get. I'm talking about the specific exclusion of cyclists from good trails that are open to hikers and/or horses. This really pisses me off.
The reasons cited for trail closures usually involve either trail damage or user conflict, sometimes both. I think most reasonable people would agree that any time horses are allowed the trail-damage argument is pretty transparent. Obviously, if you think horses do less damage than bikes, you're a stupid person. From my experience horses are worse than motorcycles unless the motors engage in gratuitous roosting. Even if a trail is closed to horses also, I think the trail damage argument is weak. The problem isn't that bikes hurt trails more than feet, the problem is that bike riders use trails more frequently and for greater duration than hikers. Trail damage, whether by bikes or feet, is purely the result of high traffic.
So what happens when too many people walk on a trail and it gets jacked up? Land managers figure the trails are popular, so they arrange more maintenance, and perhaps consider building more trails to handle the number of users, who after all are taxpaying citizens. What happens if too many people ride and walk on a trail? Often enough the trail gets closed to bikes, which concentrates the bike traffic on a smaller quantity of trails. This sucks, for the bikers and for the trails.
What about user conflicts? I don't deny that these problems exist. Fortunately they're not too big an issue where I live, but they certainly contribute to the problems in the bay area. The logical solution is to build more trails, and make arrangements to share the ones we have. There's no shortage of land or manpower for trail building in northern california. I can't imagine why the idea of time-sharing (bikes only at certain times of the day or on certain days) hasn't gotten anywhere. I can only assume that some people who don't ride have enough political power to maliciously discriminate against me.The discrimination against cyclists marginalizes a group which is very motivated about open space protection. Once you feel the system is dissing you, you no longer feel obligated to play by the system's rules. I, for one, am tired of paying taxes which support people trying to kick me off of public land in favor of horse owners.
There are those that argue that we as cyclists must never ride on closed trails, that we must rely on working within the system to open trails to bikes. That sounds pretty much like bullshit to me. If the civil rights movement had that kind of defeatist attitude, it wouldn't be a movement. I don't feel like I can entirely recognize the legitimacy of authorities that arbitrarily favor horses over bikes, despite the greater number of cyclists. As a result, I choose to be somewhat selective about my acquiescence to some trail closures. In a word, I choose (occasionally, and under specific circumstances) to poach illegal trails. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating everyone riding every trail all the time, but sometimes I think it's ok. Besides, it's the only reasonable alternative to direct terrorist action. Now that the Red Army Faction disbanded there should be a space open.
By far the most benign (and probably the funnest) way to ride forbidden trails is to ride them at night. It's highly unlikely that you'll meet hikers or horses or other bikes at night, so user conflict is pretty much a non-issue. It's also pretty unlikely that you'll meet rangers, although some trails may expose your lights to long-distance observation by the long arm of the law. If you do meet rangers, try to have an evasive action plan in place. Don't wear reflective clothing. Be ready to navigate without lights. Know alternative exit points from the trail. Keep in mind that rangers aren't too interested in getting out of their trucks at night. In hundreds of night rides, i've met more bears (2) than rangers (1). We still ride the bear trail, but we judged the ranger trail to be too exposed to observation.
Some trails get enough hiker traffic that it almost makes sense to close them to bikes during peak periods. Very occasionally I will ride such trails. Weekday mornings, or right before dusk can sometimes be good times. I've also had success on rainy or drizzly days in winter (this only works for trails that stay rideable and firm in the wet). I figure if I meet one or maybe two parties of hikers, that's probably ok. Any more than that means it's a bad time to ride. I also make a point of getting off my bike if meet hikers, and greeting them, even chatting for a minute. I personally have never had a bad experience doing this, or had anyone yell at me, but I generally take precautions to meet as few other people as possible. The times I've poached in daylight, it's usually been a spur-of-the-moment decision to ride a particular trail to close a loop or some such, not to go out and bandito every closed trail in the county. This method is far inferior to the night riding method. It might not even work at all in heavily trafficked areas.
Don't sue me if you get busted. Poaching trails is only ok if you don't annoy people and don't get caught. This whole article is a joke.
Back to Rants