The issue of the MORE thread was quite interesting... [Archive]

BikeGeek

03-23-2006, 11:59 AM

There was some good discussion going on in the FR thread that's been deleted. It's a shame it was lost, but understandable considering that spots were named and there's always some nervousness about giving too much info about some of the places you ride. I'd like to see the discussion continue.

To do that, a couple guidelines:
Don't name anything. If you want to refer to a particular locale, be vague. (ie. "that place NW of DC," etc)
Be respectful. These types of discussions tend to spiral into XC vs. DH/FR pissing matches. That gets us nowhere. I'm an XC rider and have learned a lot about the issues you guys face by simply biting my tongue and looking at it from your perspective.

The FR community has grown by leaps and bounds in the past couple of years and looking at what's available for you to ride, I feel you have legitimate issues and concerns. Seeing what MORE has gone through to get access to XC riding in the area, I know it's not always an easy thing to do. It's going to be even harder given the perceived risk in your style of riding.

What's in it for me, an admitted XC rider? My fun comes from challenging myself on each ride. I love roots and rocks. I'm currently building up a rigid bike, not everyone's cup o' tea, I know, but I find it to be more of a challenge. I like riding over logs and, lately, on logs. Someday I'll be looking for something more challenging. Not sure what that will be, but if it takes me to a big bike and armor it sure would be nice to have a place to ride.

So, what's the next step? I think MORE has a lot of politcal connections to offer, but I'm out of touch with them these days. Is current leadership likely to be interested in pursuing FR TTFs beyond the occasional log?

peter6061

03-23-2006, 12:01 PM

Why'd the old thread get deleted? It had some good debating going on. Couldn't individual posts have been removed?

edit: or is that what you're talking about?

edit2: my bad. I just saw the link.

edit3: After reading you're bit, it's just one more reason I don't ride the normal locations often and keep the trails I do ride to myself and a small contingent of friends. And yes, they are permissable to ride on.

BikeGeek

03-23-2006, 12:05 PM

There was some general uneasiness about certain places being named considering the nature of the TTFs there. It would have been a lot of work for Ralph to go through and moderate a word here and there in the thread.

Brunettes

03-23-2006, 12:15 PM

What sense does it make, most can't handle it.

urbaindk

03-23-2006, 12:49 PM

Thanks sk6 and bikegeek.

Again MORE claims to be a club of the members and for the members. They are admittedly xc oriented by tradition but they do appear ready to be open to new ideas and directions but only if people seem interested. They have given freeriders a forum on which freeriders can voice there views. (here's the link again: http://www.more-mtb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=53) I think it could be very constuctive to partake in a dialog with them.

I decided to put my money where my mouth is yesterday and I payed for a MORE membership. What the hell right?

spacemanspiff06

03-23-2006, 12:58 PM

BikeGeek

03-23-2006, 01:18 PM

Wow, I'm out of it. what was the big issue here? i've never witnesed a freerider and a XC rider getting pissed at each other because of somthing that happened on 2 wheels. what have yall got going on?
In a nutshell, the local club, whose membership is primarily XC riders, speaks out against unauthorized trails and TTFs (as does IMBA). Add to that, TTFs being removed from a local park in the past by the club at the request of land managers. Stir in some TTFs being removed at a place near DC by God knows who, and you end up with a general animosity toward the club and XC riders in general.

The fight usually goes along the lines of one accusing the other of tearing stuff down, the other complaining that the TTFs jeopardize access for all, etc. Essentially everyone really just wants to ride their way. Recently, the local club has added a FR forum to their website. Hopefully, things can be ironed out.

denjen

03-23-2006, 01:47 PM

I am an idiot what is a TTF

urbaindk

03-23-2006, 01:51 PM

I am an idiot what is a TTF

Technical trail feature. ie. stunt. ladder bridge, log ride, interesting thing to ride.

BikeGeek

03-23-2006, 02:06 PM

I am an idiot what is a TTF
It's IMBA's nice way of saying stunt, which sounds way too dangerous. ;)

urbaindk

03-23-2006, 02:10 PM

So to summarize again: Some Technical Trail Features (TTF) went Ta Ta for now (TTFN). :)

denjen

03-23-2006, 02:13 PM

Hmm isnt that wha moutainbiking is all about? Those little features on the trail that make it a little more interesting. If it werent for TTF's we would be riding the road

BikeGeek

03-23-2006, 02:22 PM

Hmm isnt that wha moutainbiking is all about? Those little features on the trail that make it a little more interesting. If it werent for TTF's we would be riding the road
Exactly. But a lot of folks have forgotten that and are only interested in getting from points A to B as fast as possible. All that interesting stuff just slows them down. Someone mentioned Schaeffer the other day. That place used to have all sorts of interesting things to ride. Go there now and you'll see that the ride-arounds have become the primary line and logs have been chainsawed through.

HotButterToppin

03-23-2006, 02:22 PM

So to summarize, we should talk in general terms about very specific problems in very specific areas, but not talk about them in a way that anyone outside the issue could find remotely understandable unless they already know what we're talking about. Real helpful.

How can you start at the grassroots level working to keep specific areas open using agreements tailored to that area, unless you can speak directly about the area? Speaking in generalities when each problem trail system is unique is a waste of time. Theory without application is worthless.

What a waste of time.

What a waste of everyone's time who contributed to that previous thread.

SK6

03-23-2006, 02:25 PM

urbaindk

03-23-2006, 02:27 PM

Hmm isnt that wha moutainbiking is all about? Those little features on the trail that make it a little more interesting. If it werent for TTF's we would be riding the road

Yeah, well. I think we are refering to larger features, drops, etc.

That said, let's consider your average fallen tree, not some 6' high skinny bridge for a moment. It seems that in my estimation (this is speculation based on my own personal observations now and conversations with other riders and trail managers) that anything over 6-12" around is frequently removed to make trails safer for all users, hikers, horseback riders. This leads to the misconception that MORE is dumbing down trails. I don't fault MORE for this, they are only doing what the land managers dictate.

There are alternatives though. IMBA guidelines clearly state that features are allowable if there are alternative lines availible. What I don't see often enough are such lines (ride arounds). It's easier to cut the tree out of the way then to either do the extra trail work or to work with and educate the land manager about the alternatives. It is here that I fault MORE.

BikeGeek

03-23-2006, 02:34 PM

There are alternatives though. IMBA guidelines clearly state that features are allowable if there are alternative lines availible.
IMBA advocates ride-arounds now? I didn't know that. I thought they were against it based on the whole "redundant line" thing.

Personally, I'm against it (for the most part). I understand what Ralph is saying regarding liability, and it makes sense in areas of heavy newb use (Wakefield), but coming across a cut-out in some of the harder, more distant areas makes me mad. When I started riding, I was taught you either walk it or learn to ride it.

peter6061

03-23-2006, 02:47 PM

I'm in agreement. If you can't ride a trail the way it is, maybe you're riding the wrong trail. As I stated in the previous thread, I'm so proud of my wife when she makes it over a log for the first time. What sucks is when we show up the next time and 'someone' has removed the log as it interupted their 'flow'. C'mon, we're talking about a small 8"-10" log.

I know of many trails in this area that have TTFs that I cannot ride. Most of these are natural (ie big drops or similar). Maybe 10 years ago, I would have done some of these, but now I know my limitations and only attempt things I know I can handle (or I fly off fast enough because I was riding too close the the guy in front of me.)

These trails could be easily 'dumbed down' but they would entirely lose all they have to offer the people who appreciate them the way they are. Even the very easy to ride locations around town 'used' to have a few spots that the average rider could not ride. They have all since been removed to make the trails into 'dirt sidewalks'.

Don't get me wrong, I've got a SS bike that I love to rail around on, but I also have a big FR/DH bike that likes to ride the steeps and drops. Sorry, but I don't think every trail needs to be rideable by every rider. Some of us would appreciate it if you left our damn trails alone.

BikeGeek

03-23-2006, 02:59 PM

So to summarize, we should talk in general terms about very specific problems in very specific areas, but not talk about them in a way that anyone outside the issue could find remotely understandable unless they already know what we're talking about. Real helpful.
I didn't complain about it, nor did I delete it, and I tend to agree that it does need to be talked about. It seems that a core part of the problem is the unwillingness to jeopardize what exists in the hope of getting more. It's definitely a gamble. That's why I asked what the next step is. Is there a sacrificial lamb, one spot to try to make legitimate, knowing that it could be lost? It's a baby step, but it's a start.

BikeGeek

03-23-2006, 03:06 PM

Maybe take up MORE on the Conway Robinson stuff? It may not be what you had in mind, but it could be a foot in the door. Supporting it would also keep the other places out of sight for now. Whatever happens, it definitely needs support from the riders. The unfortunate side of advocacy is that it takes time (I've heard MORE say that Schaeffer took 3 years to negotiate). Yes you already have places to ride now, but we're going to have to get behind something if we want to be taken seriously.

VDfree

03-23-2006, 03:24 PM

urbaindk

03-23-2006, 03:33 PM

IMBA advocates ride-arounds now? I didn't know that. I thought they were against it based on the whole "redundant line" thing.

.

They sure do! Here's one reference. There are others.

On beginner trails, place the ladder bridge to the side for an optional, more challenging route. On advanced trails, the feature may be located in the main line. However, a clearly visible option around the ladder bridge should always be incorporated into the design.

Link: http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_building/ladder_bridge.html

I too am from the old school where if you can't ride it, dismount and walk. Great idea but it doesn't work. There are way too many numb skulls / newbs that will ride around on an undefined reroute and quickly braid out what was once nice single track. Just ride at Patapsco and you'll see what I mean. If there is a well defined alternative people will tend to use it rather than make their own!

peter6061

03-23-2006, 03:37 PM

This comment is not directed at MORE at all. I hope that someday we can all fight on the same side for the things that will benefit us all.

But, here's a recent example: I usually get in a spin at Wakefield once a week or so after work. I've got a loop I spin around on and hammer into the night. Let me just say, I KNOW this trail as I usually ride this loop 5+ times on a given outing. Well, after the 'whoops' you rush through two berms and into the woods for one more berm. If you carry your speed, you're launched into a set of three logs across the trail. The first one is built up almost into a jump. The second is just a small ~6" log you just hop. And the third,..... uh,.....um,.....someone removed the third because a ~4-6" log is too big to be in the trail. WTF?

It's been there for the last year or so. It's not like someone put this 4-6" 'TTF' out there as a new challenge.

*edit: I'm really close to joining MORE, but really don't want to. Isn't there some kind of alternative group? Is MAMBO still around?

peter6061

03-23-2006, 03:42 PM

They sure do! Here's one reference.
I 've already got a spot picked out for this once a certain area gets approved...
http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_building/images/ladder_bridge_2.jpg
assuming it's permissable

BikeGeek

03-23-2006, 03:52 PM

Schaffer should not get bashed either...if we don't want our trails to be for every level, than their trails shouldn't have to be either. (Meaning, you're too good). For most of us, there was a time that schaffer was the best place for us. Maybe we think it is too easy because we are better riders now, not because they made it that way.
I'm not bashing Schaeffer, I'll be the first to tell you that MORE isn't always calling the shots when it comes to "dumbing" the trail. Riders get a lot of the blame too. As more and more people choose the easy line, the old line disappears.

BikeGeek

03-23-2006, 03:54 PM

I 've already got a spot picked out for this once a certain area gets approved...assuming it's permissable
:thumb:
One of the houses in my neighborhood just took down a huge oak. It's laying in their yard in 2 to 3 foot sections. I wonder if we should lay it up somewhere for seasoning in case milled lumber isn't permitted. :)

urbaindk

03-23-2006, 05:46 PM

Food for thought:

http://www.more-mtb.org/forum/showthread.php?p=23523#post23523

Step up people.

VDfree

03-23-2006, 07:17 PM

I'm not bashing Schaeffer, I'll be the first to tell you that MORE isn't always calling the shots when it comes to "dumbing" the trail. Riders get a lot of the blame too. As more and more people choose the easy line, the old line disappears.
I was told by the the guy who is responsible for cutting logs that are unridable at schaffer, that the logs he leaves in the trail are cut by the parks people. MORE has actually been stretching what they have done there lately and are trying to ease into building more things out there, but are afraid of being stopped by the parks people. I think that says alot for the new blood (and some old) in the MORE group. They also said they have not done more, because admittingly, they don't know what, or how to do it. Take JDS's advise and post on their forum.

Brunettes

03-23-2006, 07:24 PM

You get my PM Phil?

VDfree

03-23-2006, 07:25 PM

You get my PM Phil?
no...here or dcstreet?

Brunettes

03-23-2006, 07:30 PM

Here... I'm still in search of pedals! :-P

Stiff

03-24-2006, 04:40 PM

Exactly. But a lot of folks have forgotten that and are only interested in getting from points A to B as fast as possible. All that interesting stuff just slows them down. Someone mentioned Schaeffer the other day. That place used to have all sorts of interesting things to ride. Go there now and you'll see that the ride-arounds have become the primary line and logs have been chainsawed through.

Exactly. This is the problem with the DC area's mtb scene. :nopity:

XC, trials, FR, DH, DJ, street = all good as long as there's obstacles to try to get through with skill. Besides two wheels and a love of beer, that's the one thing all MTBers *should* have in common.

my two drachmas

Dartman

03-24-2006, 04:49 PM

Well, I helped start and am a board member of the MORE chapter in Richmond.

I also "Freeride" as well as ride trails (XC). For me the more tech the better. I have been preaching this as much as possible to keep the tech and also provide ride arounds for beginners.

All I can say is if you can't beat 'em join 'em. Get involved and let your opinions be heard. It only costs $20 a year and 20 hours labor.

Mike

Stiff

03-24-2006, 04:51 PM

I am glad the old thread got deleted. If someone from MORE read the thread, they would feel threatend by us, and we need them to continue to be allies. I think the new mentallity at MORE is very possitive for us. Schaffer should not get bashed either...if we don't want our trails to be for every level, than their trails shouldn't have to be either. (Meaning, you're too good). For most of us, there was a time that schaffer was the best place for us. Maybe we think it is too easy because we are better riders now, not because they made it that way.

I agree with VD. Schaefer (both the park and the beer) is great for some, but I want advanced terrain for advanced riders. MORE supports this perspective to some degree, and up to a limit, but honestly, not enough advanced FR/DH riders support MORE. All we have to do is sign up, go to the meetings and start getting stuff done. You know, all that democrazy stuff. I joined MORE, and I tried to do what I sid above, but have since run into a serious time deficit. MORE are generally very amenable folks when it comes to what we (FR/DHers) would like to do - and are quite open to seeing what the whole gravity thing is about.

SK6

03-24-2006, 07:56 PM

Dude, don't capitalize "tort." What are you, a first-year paralegal or something?
Besides, characterizing property liability as "inherent duty to public safety" is misleading. That's just too broad. Where are you getting this stuff, some unaccredited internet course? Pheonix online? :weee:

ahh...yes it is...and .....well ahh.....your wrong.

Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad Company, 248 N.Y. 339; 162 N.E. 99; 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 1269; 59 A.L.R. 1253

Have a nice day. :)

:p :rofl:

mud'n'sweat

03-24-2006, 08:01 PM

Get a room legal geeks! ;) ;) ;)

SK6

03-24-2006, 08:11 PM

Get a room legal geeks! ;) ;) ;)

Dude, that case was an absolute trip, and set one HELL of a precedent!

SK6

03-24-2006, 08:36 PM

Consent or not, whether the landowner knew or not, does not relieve the landowner of the liability. There is the Cardozo rule, so it defines the extent and to how far. The landowner may have granted permission for the cyclist to ride on their property, but in doing so assumes ALL liability, regardless of the assumption of risk. Rush v. Commercial Realty Co., 145 A. 476 (N.J. 1929) and Turcotte v. Fell, 502 N.E.2nd. 964(N.Y. 1986), respectively.

Palsgraf just set the precedent as to how far, meaning knowledge of riders or not, landowner assumes responsibility.

The liability is with the landowner. (Note the owner, NOT the individuals who hold interest in same)

SK6

03-24-2006, 08:36 PM

Great reply. Apparently you've had a class on torts, but not property. Besides, we're not even talking about unforeseeable plaintiffs here - you were referring to situations where the landowner grants use of his land to a cyclist. How can the cyclist be unforeseeable? Have you even read Palsgraf? The issue wasn't that the plaintiff was on the property, but that she was injured because of the actions of the RR's employees. That case had nothing to do with property.

By the way, it's "you're," not "your." It's not possessive. :D

BTW, LOVE the discussion and debate!!! :thumb:

SK6

03-24-2006, 08:42 PM

SK6

03-24-2006, 08:44 PM

Oh snap! Ralphie got owned! That'll teach you to not be such a wanna-be paralegal.:D

Woody, getting owned by someone who calls themselves dh_dirt_diva is like, WAY COOL!!!! :thumb:

:love: :love: :love: :love:

mud'n'sweat

03-24-2006, 08:57 PM

Woody, getting owned by someone who calls themselves dh_dirt_diva is like, WAY COOL!!!! :thumb:

Can't say I'd complain about getting owned by a DH Dirt Diva either! :cool:

KD1569

03-24-2006, 09:03 PM

Couldn't the defense of contributory negligence be applied to such a case?? In terms of the owner of the property that has the TFTs built on it??

Not a lawyer.....

But a cyclist

KD1569

HotButterToppin

03-24-2006, 09:37 PM

rediculous - ridiculous http://www.chocolatefoot.co.uk/forum/html/emoticons/disgusted.gif

I'd like to refer you to Glass Houses v. Rocks

KD1569

03-24-2006, 10:03 PM

With regard to tort law: In MD there is the law of contributory negligence, which means that if the "victim" (cyclist) is 1% at fault they can collect nothing. I.e. if the cyclist decides to "freeride" the log in the park and looses his balance due to his own lack of skill and falls and injures himself, he can collect nothing if he is 1% at fault (decided to ride the dangerous log in the first place). In VA I believe there is the law of comparative negligence which means that if the cyclist's lack of skill is 20% the reason that he fell, and the organization is responsible for 80% due to negligently placed "TTF" and the amount of damages are $100 then the organization may be liable for up to $80 of the "victim/cyclist's" damages. That is of course is assuming that the "victim/cyclist" can break through sovereign immunity! Any questions?

In either jurisdiction, lawyer can draft around most instances of liability. My personal opinion is that this a case of politics, but who knows....

Zilla

03-24-2006, 10:07 PM

Sorry, the last post was by me not KD1569 who was last logged in on my computer!!!

corey_rideDC

03-27-2006, 07:48 AM

mmmmm... torte:drool:

http://lupo2.eb-zuerich.ch/lehrgangb06/teilnehmende/k_uschi/assessment/www/torte.jpg

wait, what?

Matt H

03-27-2006, 10:35 AM

To interject a little bit, I know for a fact that much of the issue in regard to trails and TTF's falls under the issue of liability. Basic Tort law states that all landowners, private or otherwise have an inherent duty to public safety as a whole. This also involves quite a bit a liability.

if a land owner says you can build stunts and someone gets hurt, the landowner, regardless of permission and even a waiver, is responsible to the injured party. Yes we are all aware of the fact that there are inherent risks, and and assumption of risk is a term used, it still does not protect the landowner from being liable.

it's a long legal discussion, but that's about it in a a nutshell.

I'm having a very difficult time understanding this....
-Ski resorts have been open for decades, and to the best of my knowledge they are not liable for injuries or deaths occurring on the slopes (if they were I think the ski industry would be dead by now...ACL surgeries alone would add up to billions).

-Skate parks have been open for decades, how do they limit their liability?

-There are tennis courts everywhere, on municipal or state property, open to the public. When we were kids, there was one across the street from our school, and we would ride our bikes, rollerblade, skateboard all the time. I could write a small novel just consisting of the trips to the ER from that tennis court by me and a few others. I don't recall any liability on the town's behalf or any lawsuit taking place.

-Winter hikers (particularly up north, out west), hike trails, set up camp and die in the night due to hypothermia. I don't recall any mention of state or federal reimbursement to those hiker's families.

-Equestrians are anything but safe, mounted atop an animal that has a mind of it's own despite it's percieved level of obedience, that weighs 1/2 ton. They ride the same trails we do.

Seems to me the only time the landowner gets antsy about what happens on his/her property is if it has anything to do with two wheels and a seat...unless I'm missing something here. I can post all day about the crazy stuff I do on a snowboard, skis, skateboard, rollerblades, or on foot, as long as I wasn't trespassing....once I mention a bike, it becomes taboo.

Help me out here.

spacemanspiff06

03-27-2006, 11:48 AM

In a nutshell, the local club, whose membership is primarily XC riders, speaks out against unauthorized trails and TTFs (as does IMBA). Add to that, TTFs being removed from a local park in the past by the club at the request of land managers. Stir in some TTFs being removed at a place near DC by God knows who, and you end up with a general animosity toward the club and XC riders in general.

The fight usually goes along the lines of one accusing the other of tearing stuff down, the other complaining that the TTFs jeopardize access for all, etc. Essentially everyone really just wants to ride their way. Recently, the local club has added a FR forum to their website. Hopefully, things can be ironed out.
so you build the TTF with a puss-out line around it. or have the TTF be slightly off the trail...
we've been droping some in just off the trail on some of the trails at carvins cove. just little foot tall shallow kickers in spots that don't make much erosion. the main line of the trail goes stright and you dodge to the side to hit it. they have been up for 2+ months now with 0 complants.
heck there are ladders over logs that have been up for over a year, they're built up well enough that horses can go over.

Tattooo

03-27-2006, 02:03 PM

I'm having a very difficult time understanding this....
-Ski resorts have been open for decades, and to the best of my knowledge they are not liable for injuries or deaths occurring on the slopes (if they were I think the ski industry would be dead by now...ACL surgeries alone would add up to billions).

Ski resorts have a limited amount of protection under the "Skier's responsibility code," but in truth it isn't very much. The protect themselves via things like ski patrol, which more then anything else is a good will gesture. However, if you look at the history of places like Lake Tahoe, many resorts have been forced to either shut down their terrain parks or to limit the challenge of them to the point that any kook from the Bay Area can come up in their scotchguard jeans and ski. Many resorts have been sued, and have lost. They have much better insurance then is commercially obtainable for most of us due to a higher operational budget. Simply, money talks and BS walks.

-Skate parks have been open for decades, how do they limit their liability?

Helmet requirements for one thing. Try to get mandatory helmet and pad rules on a fed maintained/owed/authorized trail. It just won't happen.

-There are tennis courts everywhere, on municipal or state property, open to the public. When we were kids, there was one across the street from our school, and we would ride our bikes, rollerblade, skateboard all the time. I could write a small novel just consisting of the trips to the ER from that tennis court by me and a few others. I don't recall any liability on the town's behalf or any lawsuit taking place.

Look up "intentional misuse" statutes. You're so far out of what is considered acceptable use that it would be a hard suit to bring. Also, most municipalities now have caps protecting them under the law from massive suits. A smart lawyer isn't going to take a PI case that will cap out at under $1m. Just too expensive to bring to bear.

-Winter hikers (particularly up north, out west), hike trails, set up camp and die in the night due to hypothermia. I don't recall any mention of state or federal reimbursement to those hiker's families.

Again, see caps and misuse.

-Equestrians are anything but safe, mounted atop an animal that has a mind of it's own despite it's percieved level of obedience, that weighs 1/2 ton. They ride the same trails we do.

Contributory fault is my best guess.

Seems to me the only time the landowner gets antsy about what happens on his/her property is if it has anything to do with two wheels and a seat...unless I'm missing something here. I can post all day about the crazy stuff I do on a snowboard, skis, skateboard, rollerblades, or on foot, as long as I wasn't trespassing....once I mention a bike, it becomes taboo.

More then anything I think your issue here is perception. Also, you are constructing on their property something that if the court was to take a look at and then apply to the landowner the "known or should have known" standard.

Long story short, god, landowners and the law hate you, your bike, and your bad attitude. Now get in line young man!

Help me out here.

Tattooo

03-27-2006, 02:07 PM

so you build the TTF with a puss-out line around it. or have the TTF be slightly off the trail...
we've been droping some in just off the trail on some of the trails at carvins cove. just little foot tall shallow kickers in spots that don't make much erosion. the main line of the trail goes stright and you dodge to the side to hit it. they have been up for 2+ months now with 0 complants.
heck there are ladders over logs that have been up for over a year, they're built up well enough that horses can go over.

This is what we were forced to do for a long time in New Orleans. Then we took it to the Army Corps of Engineers (where our trail was) and took soild designs for things like bigger, off the trail line drops, or big teeters with puss out lines to keep those who ain't got the skill off of them.

MORE is a lot like who I rode with in New Orleans. What happened to get things of a more Freeride nature going was guys talking about it, heckling the guys who were weight weenie XC guys as pussies, and then ever so occasionally going over the line and just doing things. However, it is worth noting that what helped more then anything was getting the Kona/IMBA freeride grant. If that horrid bitch Katrina wouldn't have hit there would now be a full new DJ park, along with four wooden trail elements going up on the trial. It will happen in the future due to dedicated dumbasses like me, but the timeline has been pushed.

Keep forcing your agenda, call people out for being pansy asses, and you'll be amazed by how far you can get by just being a bit of a persistant asshole...