Wow, I don't know where to start... First off, 2traker, I didn't miss the point...And I don't want to downplay the work that has been done by the various groups mentioned... It is good stuff, and we recognise the hard work that went into getting it done... But...
I have asked, and continue to ask the simple question.. does this group speak for all enthusiasts or not. Sponsorship of a new trail designed for one type of machine seems to smack of double speak... and lends credability to the opposing argument.

As for trail widths.. a multi use trail system will encourage additional usage that is for sure. Speeds.. well that is up for debate. I am championing them because I say they will be safer.. I guess you will need to study the injury statistics to see who is right or wrong..

However I'll just say that if SPEED is the cause.. that is something that you can do something about. Ride responsibly, create looping trails that go in one direction only...

But if the cause is a low hanging branch or something like that, and the trail is narrow... that is something that is not under your control.. at least on the surface... but the solution to that is to cut back the vegetation and widen the trails again..

When it comes to due dilligence in spending trail building funds, or maintaining them, again, the multi use trail is the most cost effective response.

The biggest compalint I have seen here really isn't about people of perceptions, it comes down to taking a position that serves all groups. And approaching the persons holding the purse strings with that.

I do not buy the scare tactics used concerning speed... that is hype, and just trying to sway opinion... If you talk to the experts, I think yo will find that widening trails will reduce the amount of injuries that are due to the branch deal...

Lastly, y'all need to come to some sort of closure on this.. and get together, not drive each other apart. An argument between two or three persons, wwhich has been personal for some time now.. should not dictate direction taken.

There are a lot of folks on both side of the issue out here that will suffer because of it, and they are all counting on cooler heads prevailing. I also suspect, that in many of those same households, you will find both dirt bikes and quads.. so the issue may be even bigger that you think. Combined trails would let a family use whatever they wish, be it a 2 wheeler, or an ATV... And if this sport is going to survive in your state, it will be because of the family aspect......

 

DB,
im WATCHING these guys [cyclist] REAL close.I too do NOT accept SPEED as an excuse to NOT widen our trail systems to 60 inches,and I made myself PERFECTLY CLEAR about this in last weeks meeting with these guys. Each operator has the responsablilty to operate at a rate of speed that is proper and prudent for exsisiting trail conditions,no matter HOW WIDE or NARROW the trail is.I was VERY clear with this as well and EVERYONE in the room knew it to.Im simply getting extremly pissed off listening to these guys tell me that they dont want to run into a Rhino coming from the other direction. We CANNOT blame the width of the trail if it does happen,period!

Another excuse from the cyclist for NOT widening these trails to 60 inches was cost?They all said it would be far to costly to make a 24 inch trail into 60 inches and to make a 50 inch trail into 60 inches. Once again, I did'nt agree with them. Funny thing here is that not ONE cyclist said a darn thing when the question arose of what we wanted to do with the extra 725 miles of designated trail? One cyclist said he wanted ALL of it to be 725 miles of cycle only trail.And not ONCE did anyone from the cycle group ever QUESTION 'costs' here.

Now I KNOW BB will come back here and have some smart *** remark to say,but believe me,im watching to see WHAT happens with this 725 miles of new trail before I jump the gun and pull the trigger on some new stuff.

 

Who said that? I don't remember hearing it, maybe I was tuned out then for some reason. I indicated I thought we should go for 100% trail and compromise on part Route and part Trail with the assumption the Department would be more inclined to designate existing forest road as Route than actually put anything new on the ground.

Note I said trail and did not specify type or width of trail and have zero expectation of any new 40" trail.

Did you think I said cycle trail?

 

Not yet as MMRC is not an actual organization (yet). There's certainly the chance that they will become a legal entity and then speak for the member organizations. There can be a common voice from the groups when they all do agree on something (HB5343 was one of those). Another item is Proposal Z that will be voted on this year by the Public; we all agree that's a good piece of legislation and want to support it. This prop will prevent the legislation from robbing "restricted" funds, ie dollars paid into a fund such as the ORV fund, to pay for non-ORV related items (ie balance the State's budget).

Even the USFS has stated that directional trails do not make them safer and usually are just the opposite. Basically people no longer use common sense on corners and are unprepared for the rider who got lost or went back looking for a buddy and is now going the wrong way.
Lack of common sense is what causes problems now, with excess speed, taking the inside corner regardless of the direction being ridden (as in not staying to the right). If everyone exhibited the common sense that most of us on this Board promote, we would not have the usage restrictions on ORVs that we do now.

I have no stats, this is just personal experience. At our events and from my own riding, there are no accidents from lack of brushing. All of the major trauma accidents I see are related to speed or equipment failure (which in turn created an unsafe speed condition). Those accidents were combined with an off-trail tree or the ground, not branches or brushing related.
I'm sure if there were "branch related" injuries, that I would agree with the experts that removal of such branches would be a sure fire way to improve safety.

 

Believe me, Bill;...I would've told them the very same thing if given the chance.
The problem here being not that I wasn't..but the fact that these cyclists are very content having you be the only person in that room rattling off the facts of this matter...and not the historically silent leaders of this state's two largest atv clubs.

Remember, I've been making the same argument you just made above for just as long as you have or longer. Yet if the same two atv leaders above keep giving all these cyclists 'the wink' each and every time you get up to speak (or pat you on the back "afterwards" instead of standing up like men one way or the other when the subject is brought forward for discussion)...you just might be more 'dispensble' than you might think.(merely talking from experience and many long years demanding that either one of them take a public position on any one of the exact same topics you brought forward that day.

By the way, we've heard what you had to say about these widening bills that every other person in that room disagrees with for no good reason other than sefishness or kissing up....did you have any "strap-a-set-on" support, or not?

 

Jeramey,
TD stated that he wanted ALL 725 miles to be cycle trail when we first started the meeting,now he may have said that in a joking fashion,but he's the same guy I heard say years ago that if it were left up to him,the entire trail system would be 24 inch.Im just not sure how to take him at times?I KNOW he's a die hard cyclist and im watching him.

I noticed that you said 100% trail but did'nt really indicate which type of trail,24 or 50?So I have my eye on you to.[lol]

BB,
the consenus of the guys did not want a 60 inch trail in our last 'secret' meeting. Now when I say most of them,I also mean that two guys representing ATVs from our OWN club[ATVOFFROAD] did not want 60 inch trails[only 3 club members there].This does not mean that the entire club feels that way. I was NOT the only one to support a wider trail but I left very disappointed in our two club members that did'nt want the trails wider.But you have to remember,these guys have a right to disagree with my beliefs if they choose to.Im going to watch what the DNR do with the next 725 miles of trail and hope we get it ON THE GROUND.Im afraid IF we go asking for wider trails right now and we get it,than we might not get the extra 725 miles of new trail.Best we not bite off more than we can chew right now.

You are wrong about Dick being just a cyclist and therefore having cycle only beliefs. He owns a Bombardier 2-seater 400 that he and his wife enjoy a WHOLE lot. I've talked with Dick over a wider trail and he's not against it,beleive me. But right now,we have to be careful what we ask for until we see if this new 725 miles of trail hits the ground.

Yah,its SLOW motion,but this entire ORV stuff is nothing short of POLITICS!

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: 2TrakR
(answering DB's simple question as to whether the MMRC speaks for enthusiasts today, as promised more than 2 years after they were formed under the same pretense):

"...Not yet as MMRC is not an actual organization (yet)...."

The single most important chance to comment on the rough draft of a 25 year update plan...a widening bill that would have finally opened up the largest system in this country to the vast majority of those machines which actually use it...and 750 miles of legislated new trail that this public is charged with advising the DNR regarding...and we get the following?....

"...There's certainly the chance that they will become a legal entity and then speak for the member organizations...."

Does anybody out there besides DB realize how stupid these people believe us to be?
I'm sitting at Busy Rider's board meeting 2 years ago as he attempts to shame us into forming this council...2 years later...<u>after</u> all of the above has taken place and behind closed doors....there's a "chance"...that these people might just actually speak for somebody...someday!

"...There can be a common voice from the groups when they all do agree on something (HB5343 was one of those)...."

Not one member of the general public outside of these guy's circle jerk knew a darn thing about HB5343... as the representative who introduced it about got his head shot off the second these goofs got wind of same. For Pete's sake, they bragged about killing this bill in less than 28 hours...and the public knew no more about that bill than the one concerning these additional 750 miles nobody seems to have a public position concerning.

"...Another item is Proposal Z that will be voted on this year by the Public; we all agree that's a good piece of legislation and want to support it. This prop will prevent the legislation from robbing "restricted" funds, ie dollars paid into a fund such as the ORV fund, to pay for non-ORV related items (ie balance the State's budget)..."

There isn't an orv enthusiast in this state who doesn't agree with this; yet notice how he "blows off" the controversial bill...then simply directs our attention to the obvious paragraph filler.

"...Even the USFS has stated that directional trails do not make them safer and usually are just the opposite. Basically people no longer use common sense on corners and are unprepared for the rider who got lost or went back looking for a buddy and is now going the wrong way...."

You can't argue with the United States Forest Service DB!
Actually, what this does....is force the impatient motorcyclist every one of us has met on the trail...to stay behind us until there is a safe lane to pass. It also prevents a motorcyclist from going the opposite way on a closed loop when unloading at the same time as a bunch of atvers at the trailhead (allowing them to act like they're Jamie McGrath until they meet up with them going the opposite way).

"...Lack of common sense is what causes problems now, with excess speed, taking the inside corner regardless of the direction being ridden (as in not staying to the right). If everyone exhibited the common sense that most of us on this Board promote, we would not have the usage restrictions on ORVs that we do now..."

I'm sorry, but 75% of the excessive speed problems "I" witness on our trails... involve bikes.
I don't for the life of me see what kind of "usage" restrictions he's talking about here that are so darn restrictive here in Michigan.
I've got cyclists promoting the crappy grading of trails to keep "speeds" down...simply so that they can blow by me and my reasonably travelling group...so that the trail ahead of them is not polluted by poky atvers.


"....I have no stats, this is just personal experience. At our events and from my own riding, there are no accidents from lack of brushing. All of the major trauma accidents I see are related to speed or equipment failure (which in turn created an unsafe speed condition). Those accidents were combined with an off-trail tree or the ground, not branches or brushing related.I'm sure if there were "branch related" injuries, that I would agree with the experts that removal of such branches would be a sure fire way to improve safety...."

Come on up here to Michigan, DB... and I'll take you down portions of the Cedar Creek or Little "O" 50' trails laid out like a lumber obstacle course. We'll even introduce you to a few parents who got so sick and tired of their kids getting their handlebars shoved up their gut trying to navigate between same....that they packed up their money and now ride out of state. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

 

So it looks like after long asking, I got my answer. The group is not a legal entity, and therefor does not have the basis for comment.. although it appears they still have some form of influence on local politicians and DNR actions. I too am a little disapointed about the so called ATV reps not having much to say about trail width.

As for the speed issue, I have one answer. Each and every person who operates a motorized vehicle, whether that is a cycle or quad, has a responsibility to operate that machine in a responsible manner, and have it in complete control at all times. This means a reasonable person will slow down while coming to a corner until they can see what is around the next bend. This premace is true whether the trail is 12 inches, 40 inches, 60 inches, or a full scale road. Take out the irresponsible behavior/argument, and the issue is moot. And a wider trail provides passing room, so that a person will not go off trail to get around... so we eliminate the environmentalists complaints. Come one guys, that argument is really nuts when you think about it..

As for trail building.. I can damn sure punch a wider trail out at a cheaper cost, and maintain the same with larger equipment rather than doing so by hand. That is a very questionable argument...we are not talking rocket science here, and anyone who says that is blowing smoke and acting the fool.

I think given the current status of the group, and that maybe in theory they say they represent all discipllines, their actions do not indicate a sincere desire to consider all members as equal partners in thier activities or goals. That is sad, and can only be considered a failure of the leadership in directing the groups actions.

I hope the ATV enthusiasts see this for what it is worth, and I recommend a letter writing campaign to let your elected representatives know that you support the tabled bill, and want to see it reinstated with the wider path requirements. It makes fiscal sense.. and that is something that the legislature can get behind, AND pressure the DNR into supporting.

My second proposal is for those persons who do not have a sincere desire to further the causes of safety and access for ATV's to please bow out.. and let us discuss strategy in a manner that furthers our sport... and we will let you exist in your own world in peace. Understand that we didn't say go away.. as I think it a given that the majority of ATV enthusiasts see your group as partners, and kindred spirits on the trails... It is a shame that we do not get the same feeling of comraderie from your membership.

Lastly, BB my friend, let this lie... The arguments have been presented. Only you, me, muddy and 2 tracker are even the least bit interested in this now.. and we are all manuvering for the last word... This has gone long enough. I think your message has been heard.... right or wrong, we all have to admit this is all a matter of perception.. and aparently, we are not going to heal the 2 wheel versus 4 wheel animosity. I think the ATV crowd is holding out their hand in friendship, and it will be up to the rest of them to either accept it or not.... Their actions will speak for themselves...

 

DB-I disagree that there are only a few people interested in this topic. I have two street legal dirt bikes and a ATV and have been trail riding for 42 years. I have talked to quite a few of my friends about this and there are many interested observers my age who are not represented by these organizations.

 

Everyone within the MMRC does belong to a legal ORV club,whether it be ATV,Cycle,or truck club. Some of us support ALL three. So actually we do have a legal voice in matters. I personally would like to leave the MMRC as a silent entity, because IF we decided to make ourselves a legal ORV entity within Michigan,than folks like BB would have direct access to everything we discuss in these meetings, and God knows we dont want someone with his attitude sending us backwards anymore.

Many ATV organizations are advised to watch and see what happens with this extra 725 miles of trail here in Michigan before we start fluffing the powers that be for more trail width.