Downhill Exposure

[Trevor_S]

As for land access, I like the fact that MTB'ing is a secluded sort of sport. I cherish my solitude. So riding the few tracks that I do suits me just fine.

and when you* lose them ? as you invariably will because no one could get together a group to form a body to represent you because there where not enough MTB riders ?

* I say you in the ubiquitous sense, it might not happen to your tracks but it has happed to ours in several occasions and I am sure to other riders in other areas.. they have never paved over a footy field for housing development etc that I can remember but sure as hell have lost lots of MTB tracks to them

but amen to the solitude... but that is easy, I am there at 5:30am and again at 7pm, no one about except my ride buddies

It would be nice to have a vast array of track at my finger tips,

I personally am not even after a vast array, I am after 1. more tracks, 2. security of land tenure and 3. using Govt. sporting dollars to pay people to build them under the auspices of a (local) MTB governing body.

but at the expense of my solitude and serenity? No way.

See my argument above, the only way you will not lose "your" tracks in that instance (i.e small # of riders) is if someone else (or you) has gone to bat for you on public land to secure tenure OR you own the land. You have a MUCH greater chance of security of tenure over public land IF you have the numbers behind you.

Im not "against" greater exposure per sé, but Id hate to see it get to the point that we've lost our little niche.

shrug.. I was just answering your question in regards "why" greater exposure and a more "critical mass" of riders. It's ALWAYS a numbers game.

 

[Kingswood]

But we are not guaranteed that councils will build a bike park in every town.

The way I see it, more people buy mountain bikes so more people ride illegal trails cause there are no legal trails. More illegal trails get shut down, and no legal trails are built to replace them.

As I have said before in another thread, I dont see a moto park in every town, it could well be that the local recreational moto rider is no better off for all the exposure in recent years.

Someone please prove me wrong.

 

[Cruz]

But we are not guaranteed that councils will build a bike park in every town.

The way I see it, more people buy mountain bikes so more people ride illegal trails cause there are no legal trails. More illegal trails get shut down, and no legal trails are built to replace them.

As I have said before in another thread, I dont see a moto park in every town, it could well be that the local recreational moto rider is no better off for all the exposure in recent years.

Someone please prove me wrong.

Kingswood, you are correct in your assumption.

You can build any bicycle course other than downhill in possibly every town in Oz if you had the money. Every town does not have a hill big enough or even not covered in houses or agriculture or forest where a d/h track can be built. For the amount of land required for a number of tracks and a shuttle road you are looking at a lot of land. To do what on? Ride d/h bikes on for a couple of minutes at a time and then get driven to the top again?

This is how other people and Govt and organisations view the sport and it is a reallity that with the ever growing urban spread that d/h will be put under more and more pressure and less areas will be available. There are a lot more sports and past times out there that are also looking for land and money and they have a lot more participants than downhilling ever will.

 

[ajay]

and when you* lose them ? as you invariably will because no one could get together a group to form a body to represent you because there where not enough MTB riders ?

* I say you in the ubiquitous sense, it might not happen to your tracks but it has happed to ours in several occasions and I am sure to other riders in other areas.. they have never paved over a footy field for housing development etc that I can remember but sure as hell have lost lots of MTB tracks to them

but amen to the solitude... but that is easy, I am there at 5:30am and again at 7pm, no one about except my ride buddies



I personally am not even after a vast array, I am after 1. more tracks, 2. security of land tenure and 3. using Govt. sporting dollars to pay people to build them under the auspices of a (local) MTB governing body.



See my argument above, the only way you will not lose "your" tracks in that instance (i.e small # of riders) is if someone else (or you) has gone to bat for you on public land to secure tenure OR you own the land. You have a MUCH greater chance of security of tenure over public land IF you have the numbers behind you.



shrug.. I was just answering your question in regards "why" greater exposure and a more "critical mass" of riders. It's ALWAYS a numbers game.

I'm sure you could take my post further out of context if you spliced up the phrasing a little more...

 

[Trevor_S]

I'm sure you could take my post further out of context if you spliced up the phrasing a little more...

Perhaps with more elucidating, confusion would not be the winner.