Utah -- Bill allowing cyclists to roll through stop signs clears first hurdle

[Keith A]

Interesting possible changes for the cyclists in Utah...
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46260621

[nickl]

Good for Utah. Unfortunately the state legislature has passed or endorsed some extremely anti-environmental bills including removal of protections for Bears Ears National Monument. The majority of Utah residents were against these actions and outdoor industry groups reacted. The Outdoor Retailer show was moved out of Salt Lake City and Interbike removed the state as a possible venue. So it appears many cyclists that would have visited from out of state will not enjoy the new stop sign rule.

[p nut]

Good for Utah. Unfortunately the state legislature has passed or endorsed some extremely anti-environmental bills including removal of protections for Bears Ears National Monument. The majority of Utah residents were against these actions and outdoor industry groups reacted. The Outdoor Retailer show was moved out of Salt Lake City and Interbike removed the state as a possible venue. So it appears many cyclists that would have visited from out of state will not enjoy the new stop sign rule.

Yep, I was one of them. OR moving out of UT only hurt those backing the opposition. Too bad.

Regarding the new law---guess we'll now fit right in with all the cars on the road!

[Seramount]

not waiting for legislation here, just roll them if it's safe to do so.

[ultraman6970]

Looks like utah want to be #1 in killing riders that do dumb stuff.

[jamesdak]

Good for Utah. Unfortunately the state legislature has passed or endorsed some extremely anti-environmental bills including removal of protections for Bears Ears National Monument. The majority of Utah residents were against these actions and outdoor industry groups reacted. The Outdoor Retailer show was moved out of Salt Lake City and Interbike removed the state as a possible venue. So it appears many cyclists that would have visited from out of state will not enjoy the new stop sign rule.

Hmmm.....being a Utah resident I'd say you've got this extremely wrong from everyone I've talked to. Most residents are tired of the federal goverment owning or managing the majority of the state. 64% of Utah is federally owned. More than any other state except Nevada. Bear Ears was just another land grab plain and simple. Same for the Outdoor Retailer show, that by the way, a normal resident couldn't attend it. The money-grubbers tried to hold the state hostage and instead got told to pound sand. I've yet to hear ANYONE upset that they left. I mean come on, think about it. Those retailers are in business to make money getting you outdoors to play. Do you really thing they made their decisions based on the environment or on there desire to sell product, honestly! The whole cyclist not visiting because the show left makes no sense to me. If you weren't a retailer you couldn't go to the show anyway. It's not like bikers came here for the show and then to ride, please! Cycling is active here for a lot other reasons and I'm willing to bet none of that will change.

So much B.S. being spun by people that don't live here or have a stake in the state. How many of you have the majority of your state owned by the federal government. What about our state rights?

[jamesdak]

Yep, a move in the right direction. My 25 mile route on rural roads has 7 stops signs on it where right now I stop because it's the law. But they also have clear lines of sight in both directions and I'd say 95% of the time there is never any cars in sight. Most fellow bikers already just roll through them. There really is 0 risk if you just look. If you fail to make sure it's safe then quite frankly you should get run over. If you don't bike out in the countryside this law may not make any sense to you. To me it's perfectly logical.

[taz-t]

Hmmm.....being a Utah resident I'd say you've got this extremely wrong from everyone I've talked to. Most residents are tired of the federal goverment owning or managing the majority of the state. 64% of Utah is federally owned. More than any other state except Nevada. Bear Ears was just another land grab plain and simple. Same for the Outdoor Retailer show, that by the way, a normal resident couldn't attend it. The money-grubbers tried to hold the state hostage and instead got told to pound sand. I've yet to hear ANYONE upset that they left. I mean come on, think about it. Those retailers are in business to make money getting you outdoors to play. Do you really thing they made their decisions based on the environment or on there desire to sell product, honestly! The whole cyclist not visiting because the show left makes no sense to me. If you weren't a retailer you couldn't go to the show anyway. It's not like bikers came here for the show and then to ride, please! Cycling is active here for a lot other reasons and I'm willing to bet none of that will change.

So much B.S. being spun by people that don't live here or have a stake in the state. How many of you have the majority of your state owned by the federal government. What about our state rights?

Talk about B.S. The land was already Federal land so there was NO land grab.
Plus any land acquisition by the Federal Govt requires fair compensation to the owner (something about the Constitution or something...). There was no eminent domain issue with creating the Monument. Maybe cyclists don't attend O.R. show but industry people do and that's revenue that's not going to local businesses any longer.

When did this 64% Fed acquisition occur? Was it before Utah was made a state?
Seems to me that it was a pre-condition and complaining about it now is just whining. How does the Fed ownership (which means it belongs to me *AND* you) harm you? I don't have a stake in the state but I DO have a stake in the country and the Bears Ears monument is part of my country.

[CunegoFan]

Hmmm.....being a Utah resident I'd say you've got this extremely wrong from everyone I've talked to. Most residents are tired of the federal goverment owning or managing the majority of the state. 64% of Utah is federally owned. More than any other state except Nevada. Bear Ears was just another land grab plain and simple. Same for the Outdoor Retailer show, that by the way, a normal resident couldn't attend it. The money-grubbers tried to hold the state hostage and instead got told to pound sand. I've yet to hear ANYONE upset that they left. I mean come on, think about it. Those retailers are in business to make money getting you outdoors to play. Do you really thing they made their decisions based on the environment or on there desire to sell product, honestly! The whole cyclist not visiting because the show left makes no sense to me. If you weren't a retailer you couldn't go to the show anyway. It's not like bikers came here for the show and then to ride, please! Cycling is active here for a lot other reasons and I'm willing to bet none of that will change.

So much B.S. being spun by people that don't live here or have a stake in the state. How many of you have the majority of your state owned by the federal government. What about our state rights?

Oh, come one. A dude from Delaware, who might visit the state once a decade for a short vacation, surely knows how Utahns feel and how their state should be run.

Cyclists should be glad the Bears Ears land grab has been rolled back so the area will not have mountain bikes banned. Of course, the east coasters probably don't support the STC.

[jamesdak]

Talk about B.S. The land was already Federal land so there was NO land grab.
Plus any land acquisition by the Federal Govt requires fair compensation to the owner (something about the Constitution or something...). There was no eminent domain issue with creating the Monument. Maybe cyclists don't attend O.R. show but industry people do and that's revenue that's not going to local businesses any longer.

When did this 64% Fed acquisition occur? Was it before Utah was made a state?
Seems to me that it was a pre-condition and complaining about it now is just whining. How does the Fed ownership (which means it belongs to me *AND* you) harm you? I don't have a stake in the state but I DO have a stake in the country and the Bears Ears monument is part of my country.

Georgia....4% federal land. Yeah, you can relate. :rolleyes:

[Heisenberg]

Hmmm.....being a Utah resident I'd say you've got this extremely wrong from everyone I've talked to. Most residents are tired of the federal goverment owning or managing the majority of the state. 64% of Utah is federally owned. More than any other state except Nevada. Bear Ears was just another land grab plain and simple. Same for the Outdoor Retailer show, that by the way, a normal resident couldn't attend it. The money-grubbers tried to hold the state hostage and instead got told to pound sand. I've yet to hear ANYONE upset that they left. I mean come on, think about it. Those retailers are in business to make money getting you outdoors to play. Do you really thing they made their decisions based on the environment or on there desire to sell product, honestly! The whole cyclist not visiting because the show left makes no sense to me. If you weren't a retailer you couldn't go to the show anyway. It's not like bikers came here for the show and then to ride, please! Cycling is active here for a lot other reasons and I'm willing to bet none of that will change.

So much B.S. being spun by people that don't live here or have a stake in the state. How many of you have the majority of your state owned by the federal government. What about our state rights?

Hi, I'm from Utah. I would suggest reading some Abbey and Stegner, then get back to the thread. The private land grab in progress will result in devastation of some of our most treasured places. Dot period. Believing otherwise is buying into some alternative reality where mining, coal, and gas entities are not driven solely by the interests of their shareholders, eg revenue/growth. In the long run, it will result in reduced cycling opportunities. But hey...back to the topic at hand.

Highly unlikely the stop sign bill passes in the dysfunctional state legislature. It'd be nice, but for all its saber-rattling, Utah is a nanny state at heart.

[beeatnik]

Utah is so weird.

[Peter P.]

Yep, a move in the right direction. My 25 mile route on rural roads has 7 stops signs on it where right now I stop because it's the law. But they also have clear lines of sight in both directions and I'd say 95% of the time there is never any cars in sight. Most fellow bikers already just roll through them. There really is 0 risk if you just look. If you fail to make sure it's safe then quite frankly you should get run over. If you don't bike out in the countryside this law may not make any sense to you. To me it's perfectly logical.

Sounds like cars should be able to do the same thing. They're operating under the same conditions, no?

I mean, after all, we are inconvenienced by stop signs while we're out trying to have fun, and our fun is a fundamental right. :confused:

[jamesdak]

Sounds like cars should be able to do the same thing. They're operating under the same conditions, no?

I mean, after all, we are inconvenienced by stop signs while we're out trying to have fun, and our fun is a fundamental right. :confused:

I'm all for that too! :hello::hello::hello:

[jamesdak]

Hi, I'm from Utah. I would suggest reading some Abbey and Stegner, then get back to the thread. The private land grab in progress will result in devastation of some of our most treasured places. Dot period. Believing otherwise is buying into some alternative reality where mining, coal, and gas entities are not driven solely by the interests of their shareholders, eg revenue/growth. In the long run, it will result in reduced cycling opportunities. But hey...back to the topic at hand.

Highly unlikely the stop sign bill passes in the dysfunctional state legislature. It'd be nice, but for all its saber-rattling, Utah is a nanny state at heart.

LOL, the same old unfounded arguements when one does actual research. It really all comes down to States Rights. Do you really believe the federal government can manage OUR STATE better than the people we elect to manage it for us? If our politicians can't manage it properly than that should be on us, the voters. Should it not? Stop the usual blame game and accept responsibility. And before anyone thinks I don't care about environment and protect nature I'll just point out that I returned to Utah to enjoy off the vast outdoor opportunities as a nature and wildlife photography. But the feds should not be controlling out state. Plain and simple!

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865693641/Gary-Herbert-5-myths-about-Bears-Ears.html

Now as the the nanny state, yep I do agree there. ;)

[jamesdak]

Here's an example of our roads. From where the picture was shot is another road entering this "highway". There is a stop sign there. Yet as you can see, a rider has clear vision both ways to see if anything is coming for close to a mile in the direction the picture is showing and over 1/2 mile in the other directions. No homes, no trees, nothing at all obstructing your view. Easy to decide if it's safe not to stop. I hit the intersection at least once each ride and probably see a car coming 1% of the times.

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/166443079.jpg

[CDM]

Utah is so weird.

Is sort of wierd

[nickl]

Oh, come one. A dude from Delaware, who might visit the state once a decade for a short vacation, surely knows how Utahns feel and how their state should be run.

Cyclists should be glad the Bears Ears land grab has been rolled back so the area will not have mountain bikes banned. Of course, the east coasters probably don't support the STC.

Right. As a regular Interbike and Outdoor Retailer attendee, you are correct. I probably won't be visiting Utah any time soon but would have if not for the anti-environmental stance of the Utah politicians ignore the wishes of their own state's constituents, not to mention those of the majority of Americans.

[taz-t]

LOL, the same old unfounded arguements when one does actual research. It really all comes down to States Rights.

Yeah, "states rights"... Now we get to the bottom of it.

And you didn't address any of my points. What "land grab" occurred?

Personally, I like the giant pit outside of SLC that you can see from space. Good example of local responsibility.

But again, "states rights". I might as well be talking into that pit.

[gdw]

The polls I've seen show that the residents of Utah are divided over Bear Ears with a slight majority favoring trimming the monument. Do you have a link to one that supports you post?

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/10/24/majority-of-utahns-favor-trimming-bears-ears-but-most-oppose-breaking-up-grand-staircase-poll-says/

Here a balanced article on the issue for those of you who aren't familiar with the debate over the monument's future.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865677405/Analysis-touts-landscape-night-skies-at-Bears-Ears-National-Monument.html

[Mark McM]

Yeah, "states rights"... Now we get to the bottom of it.

And you didn't address any of my points. What "land grab" occurred?

Personally, I like the giant pit outside of SLC that you can see from space. Good example of local responsibility.

But again, "states rights". I might as well be talking into that pit.

As I understand it, Utah was part of the Louisiana Purchase, and therefore bought by the Federal Government to begin with. The Federal Government then allowed individuals to claim rights to the land, if they demonstrated that they resided on the land and made improvements to it (for example, through the Homestead Act). Residents in Utah then petitioned to be granted statehood, which included the rights for self government (within the limits that states may govern themselves). But being granted statehood doesn't carry with it the ownership of all the lands within the state boundaries, so federal lands remained federal lands. It sounds like if there is any land grabbing being attempted, it is by the residents of Utah.

[jamesdak]

Yeah, "states rights"... Now we get to the bottom of it.

And you didn't address any of my points. What "land grab" occurred?

Personally, I like the giant pit outside of SLC that you can see from space. Good example of local responsibility.

But again, "states rights". I might as well be talking into that pit.


LOL, thanks for making my point. The mine was originally claimed from FEDERAL property. Even to this day EPA has authority over it. Utah's enviormental agency has to work through the Federal EPA to accomplish anything in regards to the mine. Utah had to sue for groundwater contaimination years ago to get it stopped. Thanks for making my point for states being able to manage better. :cool:

[oldpotatoe]

Interesting possible changes for the cyclists in Utah...
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46260621

Will this morph into the 'treat stop signs as yield, stop lights like stop signs?

[jamesdak]

As I understand it, Utah was part of the Louisiana Purchase, and therefore bought by the Federal Government to begin with. The Federal Government then allowed individuals to claim rights to the land, if they demonstrated that they resided on the land and made improvements to it (for example, through the Homestead Act). Residents in Utah then petitioned to be granted statehood, which included the rights for self government (within the limits that states may govern themselves). But being granted statehood doesn't carry with it the ownership of all the lands within the state boundaries, so federal lands remained federal lands. It sounds like if there is any land grabbing being attempted, it is by the residents of Utah.

Very well put and yes actually to the point. The arguement is always whether the federal government can manage the lands better than the states. So many say Utah is wrong to want more control but how is it wrong to want to be like the vast majority of the other states when it comes to controlling the lands within it's borders. Are we to believe that Georgia's (as an example) state government is somehow magically more capable to control the land within it's borders so it get 96% control. But then another state just isn't worthy so we better make sure they only control half of the land within thier borders? Heck this is a age old debate that's been going on forever. To the point we actually had a little war over it called The Civil War. States rights, plain and simple. I live in a valley surrround on all 4 side by Federally managed National Forests. You'd think it's safe, it's protected but no way! Any entity with enough political pull or money get's to do what they want. See it time and again and it's happening right now with two of the large resorts leasing federal land. Gobbling up the valuable real estate and destroying it while "trading off" sage wasteland.

[Keith A]

Will this morph into the 'treat stop signs as yield, stop lights like stop signs?Haha, great question :rolleyes:

[DarkStar]

Interesting possible changes for the cyclists in Utah...
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46260621

Same debate is going on here in Montreal, not much point as most cyclist blow past stop signs and red lights.

https://cyclingmagazine.ca/advocacy/montreal-proposes-allowing-cyclists-to-treat-stop-signs-as-yields-turn-right-at-red-lights/

[benb]

I'm not sure what it has to do with the bike law but some of those articles are kind of funny.

I love the quotes from locals around the monument about how monument status is going to ruin their quiet area due to tourists.

Then in the next paragraph they talk bout a Uranium mine as something that could expand if the monument status goes away. Tourists must be really bad. :rolleyes: It'd suck if there were some bicyclists to get in the way out on the roads!

[drewellison]

I just love how we refrain from injecting any politics into a cycling topic!
:bike:

[Mark McM]

To the point we actually had a little war over it called The Civil War. States rights, plain and simple.

Wow, you really want to go there? You want to compare yourself with those states that believed they had the "right" to enslave 1/3 of their populations?

You've just shot your argument in the foot, by using an example of why the parochial interests of the locals aren't always right.

[jamesdak]

Wow, you really want to go there? You want to compare yourself with those states that believed they had the "right" to enslave 1/3 of their populations?

You've just shot your argument in the foot, by using an example of why the parochial interests of the locals aren't always right.

If you think the civil was was about nothing but slavery then that's your issue, not mine.

[jamesdak]

I just love how we refrain from injecting any politics into a cycling topic!
:bike:

I can't believe it's still running. I've been doing my part to stir up the politics to shut it down. :p

[cmbicycles]

If you think the civil was was about nothing but slavery then that's your issue, not mine.

States rights were the "means" to secession, not the primary motive... that is generally accepted by most historians.

Interesting book out there called "The Apostles of Disunion" you may want to check it out some day. The book talks about and shares letters from some generally unrecognized men who went as around as official "ambassadors" to southern states telling them that "Northern Republican rule" would cost southerners first, "our property,"[ie. slaves] "then our liberties,"[ie. to own slaves] and finally "the sacred purity of our daughters". These were the "states rights" that were trying to be protected in that era... I don't think the issues in Utah bear any resemblance to that train wreck ideology.


But back on topic, I think giving cyclists the choice to make a judgement call is questionable as far as value, but at least they are thinking about cyclists on the roads so that is a plus

[taz-t]

Very well put and yes actually to the point. The arguement is always whether the federal government can manage the lands better than the states. So many say Utah is wrong to want more control but how is it wrong to want to be like the vast majority of the other states when it comes to controlling the lands within it's borders. Are we to believe that Georgia's (as an example) state government is somehow magically more capable to control the land within it's borders so it get 96% control. But then another state just isn't worthy so we better make sure they only control half of the land within thier borders? Heck this is a age old debate that's been going on forever. To the point we actually had a little war over it called The Civil War. States rights, plain and simple. I live in a valley surrround on all 4 side by Federally managed National Forests. You'd think it's safe, it's protected but no way! Any entity with enough political pull or money get's to do what they want. See it time and again and it's happening right now with two of the large resorts leasing federal land. Gobbling up the valuable real estate and destroying it while "trading off" sage wasteland.

I really appreciate how a Utah resident that asserts a Georgia resident knows nothing about Federal impositions is going to explain to the Georgia resident why the Civil War occurred. Would you like to educate yourself by reading the Declaration of Causes of Secession for Georgia (and South Carolina, et al)? http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html#Georgia
Maybe then you'd be interested in demographics of Utah? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Utah

Tell me again the true causes of the Civil War...

[josephr]

not waiting for legislation here, just roll them if it's safe to do so.

as someone who got a ticket for this last fall...I make a point to stop! Don't even think about the courts providing an avenue for a voice either cuz the attorneys just want your money and the judge still won't care about any traffic ticket.

of the many suburbs around here, we have one locality with a city council member who has a beef with cyclists...they're notorious for citing cyclists and consider Idaho stops insufficient....when I asked the cop about trackstands while he was writing me a ticket last fall, he even said trackstands would be insufficient and that he wants to see a "foot down." A few years ago, the city councilman with the 'beef' even tried to ban cycling down a particularly curvy road b/c he once came around a blind curve and had to swerve into the oncoming lane. The speed limit in that section is 25mph. :confused:

[jamesdak]

I really appreciate how a Utah resident that asserts a Georgia resident knows nothing about Federal impositions is going to explain to the Georgia resident why the Civil War occurred. Would you like to educate yourself by reading the Declaration of Causes of Secession for Georgia (and South Carolina, et al)? http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html#Georgia
Maybe then you'd be interested in demographics of Utah? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Utah

Tell me again the true causes of the Civil War...

VA native, and actually the original family homestead (land grant from Lord Fairfax) is a civil war battlefield. Lifelong scholars more knowledgeable than me (and I bet you) can't even agree to the true cause of the civil war. So are we really ever going to agree here, LOL!!!! That like saying CNN is wrong (which it is) and Fox is right (which it is). We'll never all agree.

....I'm sitting here thinking what other tact can I take this down.....hmmmm...... what will they bite on next?? Pretty humorous how easy it's been to take a thread on stop signs down a silly road. :banana:

It's all Hillary's fault! :p

[jamesdak]

But back on topic, I think giving cyclists the choice to make a judgement call is questionable as far as value, but at least they are thinking about cyclists on the roads so that is a plus

Yeah, in all seriousness this is a good sign. The other part of this is how the sensors for the lights don't get triggered by a bike. So a rider can sit forever waiting for a car or something else to come up and trigger the light. They are debating what to do about that also. I guess it's all good. I honestly ride all country roads so I don't have a perspective of riding in the cities. For sure it seems to be cyclist need to follow the same laws in those environments or at least I think they do. I haven't ridden in cities since the years I live and rode in Europe and there's just no comparison to their bike culture and ours in my opinion.

Now back to our regular bear ears is about slavery world of fantasy! :banana:

[jlwdm]

Right. As a regular Interbike and Outdoor Retailer attendee, you are correct. I probably won't be visiting Utah any time soon but would have if not for the anti-environmental stance of the Utah politicians ignore the wishes of their own state's constituents, not to mention those of the majority of Americans.

I think it is kind of ridiculous to pick on a state that provides such great mountain biking and has long been a supporter of road races.

Jeff

[jamesdak]

I think it is kind of ridiculous to pick on a state that provides such great mountain biking and has long been a supporter of road races.

Jeff

Funny thing is that the outdoor show was already leaving before they decided to go all political and blame it on the state government. People are just so easily fooled sometimes.

And yep, ton of support for cycling in the state. This will be first time in years the Tour of Utah doesn't go literally past my house. We have all the Xterrra stuff, and year before last even the college road nationals. We don't really care if so body out to make a buck on outdoor rec has their feelings hurt or not. I guarantee that over 90% of the comments on all the local stories about the show leaving were from folks saying, "Oh, well". Even surprisingly my buddy who owns a cycling parts manufacturing company right here. He's like, it's no big deal.

[Peter P.]

Yeah, in all seriousness this is a good sign. The other part of this is how the sensors for the lights don't get triggered by a bike. So a rider can sit forever waiting for a car or something else to come up and trigger the light. They are debating what to do about that also.
...

This should be a non-issue.

If the sensor fails to detect the cyclist after a reasonable period of time, the light can be deemed defective, and the cyclist can pass through the light.

I encourage you to read Bob Mionske's book, Bicycling and the Law, as it explains the legal justification behind it. In case you don't know, Bob is a former national road champion, and is currently a lawyer.

[jamesdak]

This should be a non-issue.

If the sensor fails to detect the cyclist after a reasonable period of time, the light can be deemed defective, and the cyclist can pass through the light.

I encourage you to read Bob Mionske's book, Bicycling and the Law, as it explains the legal justification behind it. In case you don't know, Bob is a former national road champion, and is currently a lawyer.

I think this part is a tougher nut to crack. Motorcyclist say the same thing happens to them. And I can honestly say that two lights I pass through driving early each morning will not trip about once a week for my car. From what I've read there's better tech to solve this issue but I really don't know.

[nickl]

The actions of outdoor industry are just a reflection of owners and customers. Not sure of the impact but it’s likely cost Utah in lost business to some degree. The companies involved also publicize their reasons for withdrawing support. Bad publicity for a state that promotes itself as a sportsman and outdoor destination.

[Seramount]

...when I asked the cop about trackstands while he was writing me a ticket last fall, he even said trackstands would be insufficient and that he wants to see a "foot down."

it's a crapshoot...I recently talked with an officer who confided that residents were complaining about cyclists not stopping at signs and that the PD was going to be conducting a 'crackdown'...

when asked what they wanted us to do, foot down or slow and check, the officer said he didn't need a foot down, but wanted a 'major' reduction in speed (i.e., 1-3 mph or whatever wouldn't register on a radar gun).

but, that's just one guy's take, who knows what the next cop requires...

if there's traffic, I stop...if not, I roll.

[jamesdak]

The actions of outdoor industry are just a reflection of owners and customers. Not sure of the impact but it’s likely cost Utah in lost business to some degree. The companies involved also publicize their reasons for withdrawing support. Bad publicity for a state that promotes itself as a sportsman and outdoor destination.

Well personally I hope so. It's way to crowded out here now. The same mountains I could enjoy in solitude in the early 90's are now overrun with people on a normal day.

[taz-t]

VA native, and actually the original family homestead (land grant from Lord Fairfax) is a civil war battlefield. Lifelong scholars more knowledgeable than me (and I bet you) can't even agree to the true cause of the civil war. So are we really ever going to agree here, LOL!!!! That like saying CNN is wrong (which it is) and Fox is right (which it is). We'll never all agree.

....I'm sitting here thinking what other tact can I take this down.....hmmmm...... what will they bite on next?? Pretty humorous how easy it's been to take a thread on stop signs down a silly road. :banana:

It's all Hillary's fault! :p

Probably won't agree here... I'll just take the Confederate founders at their own word, as documented in their secession documents and other published records.
No land grant heritage for me. Just 4 generations (at least) of Scots-Irish poor farmers and sharecroppers in Georgia/Tennessee/Alabama. These 'southern heritage' arguments still occur daily here so I'm well versed in both sides.

As for the stop sign law, treating them as yields for bicyclists seems reasonable (as that's how most cyclists treat them anyway). The police still have the power to enforce when appropriate but not to use the law to harass.

WRT the outdoor recreation convention, I'd suggest talking to the businesses that cater to the convention industry - not the outdoor related businesses - to determine if any boycott or move is affecting the local economy. The conventions are to conduct business, not to provide the service itself. If the two overlap, that's a happy coincidence.

Anyway - having said all that, I'll relinquish the soap box.

[jamesdak]

WRT the outdoor recreation convention, I'd suggest talking to the businesses that cater to the convention industry - not the outdoor related businesses - to determine if any boycott or move is affecting the local economy. The conventions are to conduct business, not to provide the service itself. If the two overlap, that's a happy coincidence.

Anyway - having said all that, I'll relinquish the soap box.

Funny thing is, I didn't even know I was a "rebel" until I joined the Army and everyone told me. VA sure didn't seem like the south when I grew up there, LOL!

This is valid. They actually are predicting something like 28 million that Salt Lake City will lose. The rest of the state won't see any measurable affect. Now by pure coincidence Salt Lake City is the only real liberal area in this otherwise conservative state so....

SLC just needs to land another large convention and I'll bet before long it'll happen. Then all of this will be forgotten.

[nickl]

Well personally I hope so. It's way to crowded out here now. The same mountains I could enjoy in solitude in the early 90's are now overrun with people on a normal day.

So cool! And soon you may be allow to blast through all the stop signs. Bonus!

[jamesdak]

So cool! And soon you may be allow to blast through all the stop signs. Bonus!

Right!!!!! :banana:

Now if we can just get approval to shoot the SOB's that think it's fun to throw bottles at us from moving vehicles. :p

[CunegoFan]

The private land grab in progress will result in devastation of some of our most treasured places. Dot period. Believing otherwise is buying into some alternative reality where mining, coal, and gas entities are not driven solely by the interests of their shareholders, eg revenue/growth. In the long run, it will result in reduced cycling opportunities.

What results in reduction of cycling opportunities is liberal presidents trying to score brownie points with their base by declaring monument or wilderness status to vast areas of land controlled by eco nuts who believe in a one policy fits all. So vacationing liberals can damage trails with their rented horses while the everyman who lives nearby cannot use his mountain bike.

Escalante is huge area. There is no reason there could not be a lot of singletrack there. It doesn't have to be allowed everywhere, but hundreds of miles trails would be easily possible with minimal impact, less than what is caused by horses. Instead you are restricted to pre-existing dirt roads.

[akelman]

Lifelong scholars more knowledgeable than me (and I bet you) can't even agree to the true cause of the civil war.

This is absolutely wrong. There's scholarly consensus about the cause of the Civil War: the future of slavery. That consensus has been in place for at least thirty years now. That's not to say there aren't outliers, but those outliers aren't taken seriously by the scholarly community.

[jamesdak]

This is absolutely wrong. There's scholarly consensus about the cause of the Civil War: the future of slavery. That consensus has been in place for at least thirty years now. That's not to say there aren't outliers, but those outliers aren't taken seriously by the scholarly community.

No this is absolutely wrong. Cause I'm some dude on the internet and I say so! LOL! I love this thread of experts! :banana::banana::banana:

[akelman]

No this is absolutely wrong. Cause I'm some dude on the internet and I say so! LOL! I love this thread of experts! :banana::banana::banana:

If someone has actual expertise, you'll stop trolling? If so, my name is Ari Kelman. Look me up.

[akelman]

Just fyi, there are two Ari Kelmans (https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/meet-two-ari-kelmans/). I'm this one (https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/books-on-the-new-deal-and-an-indian-massacre-win-bancroft-prize/). And this one (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/05/the-civil-war-in-comic-relief/391706/). Oh wait, also this one (https://journalofthecivilwarera.org/awards/tom-watson-brown-book-award/). I can keep going if you want, but maybe you'd prefer to keep telling me about Civil War historiography.

[jamesdak]

If someone has actual expertise, you'll stop trolling? If so, my name is Ari Kelman. Look me up.

Actually to be totally honest your original comment carried more weight until you pointed out that you are a professor at Stanford. A college known for it's liberal teachings that mean a whole lot of nothing to me.

Now if you want to talk biking I'm with you. ;)


Wait so not the liberal college teach??

[nickl]

Right!!!!! :banana:

Now if we can just get approval to shoot the SOB's that think it's fun to throw bottles at us from moving vehicles. :p

Must be a better alternative. Perhaps you should take license numbers and report them the authorities.

[akelman]

I don't teach at Stanford. You didn't even click the links. Sigh.

[jamesdak]

Must be a better alternative. Perhaps you should take license numbers and report them the authorities.

Dang voice of reason!

Actually to be honest the local government had to outlaw drinking on the beaches of the local lake I ride around. They just could not keep up with all the stupid drunks that couldn't behave. Once that happened I had the most peaceful summer ever for riding. It really is a shame that it took such an extreme step to get grown adults to behave. The local police had pushed for it because it had become too unsafe even for there officers.

I was at the point of starting to ride with a camera. That could be a pain though because I rotate through over 20 bikes and would need something easy to move from bike to bike.

My other problem is that every since I was purposely wrecked in 2012 and knocked out my brain doesn't work well. Now days I'd probably forget the license plate before I could even get stopped and get my phone out.

[jamesdak]

I don't teach at Stanford. You didn't even click the links. Sigh.

Actually I googled and replied before you got in your other comments. So I guess that makes me faster than you.

And I'll keep trolling this thread on Utah biking law just as longs as everyone else like you do.

And in all honesty, you've researched, wrote some stuff, made your own opinion. Does that mean no one else can see things differently than you? No one else can draw different conclusions? For every book you've written I'm sure I could find disputing thoughts. Wouldn't mean you or I or the others are correct now does it?

Wanna talk stop signs now? ;)

[nickl]

Dang voice of reason!

Actually to be honest the local government had to outlaw drinking on the beaches of the local lake I ride around. They just could not keep up with all the stupid drunks that couldn't behave. Once that happened I had the most peaceful summer ever for riding. It really is a shame that it took such an extreme step to get grown adults to behave. The local police had pushed for it because it had become too unsafe even for there officers.

I was at the point of starting to ride with a camera. That could be a pain though because I rotate through over 20 bikes and would need something easy to move from bike to bike.

My other problem is that every since I was purposely wrecked in 2012 and knocked out my brain doesn't work well. Now days I'd probably forget the license plate before I could even get stopped and get my phone out.


Understood. As a consolation Utah has fantastic geography making it a great place to ride both on and off road.

[akelman]

Does that mean no one else can see things differently than you? No one else can draw different conclusions? For every book you've written I'm sure I could find disputing thoughts. Wouldn't mean you or I or the others are correct now does it?


I made a pretty narrow statement about scholarly consensus. You challenged that by suggesting that I didn't have the expertise to back up what I said. You were wrong about that.

Still, that doesn't mean you're not entitled to your opinion! You're allowed to believe whatever nonsense you want! You can claim that Sacha White caused the Civil War by overcharging for lugged, steel bikes for all I care.

But if you're going to keep claiming that the Civil War was fought over states' rights, I've got just one question for you: the rights of states to do what exactly? You don't need to answer, because I will: the right to own human beings.

It's actually not very complicated, which is why there's consensus among scholars. Seriously, we don't usually agree about much, because we get paid to disagree with one another, but this is one of those rare cases where almost everyone is on the same page.

Have a good night. And ride safely.

[jamesdak]

Understood. As a consolation Utah has fantastic geography making it a great place to ride both on and off road.

So true! I keep telling myself I should downsize my house and move farther north. Then I come home and ride my beautiful daily route and say, "No Way"!

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/146372158.jpg

[jamesdak]

I made a pretty narrow statement about scholarly consensus. You challenged that by suggesting that I didn't have the expertise to back up what I said. You were wrong about that.

Still, that doesn't mean you're not entitled to your opinion! You're allowed to believe whatever nonsense you want! You can claim that Sacha White caused the Civil War by overcharging for lugged, steel bikes for all I care.

But if you're going to keep claiming that the Civil War was fought over states' rights, I've got just one question for you: the rights of states to do what exactly? You don't need to answer, because I will: the right to own human beings.

It's actually not very complicated, which is why there's consensus among scholars. Seriously, we don't usually agree about much, because we get paid to disagree with one another, but this is one of those rare cases where almost everyone is on the same page.

Have a good night. And ride safely.

To be honest I stand by my statements and you can call them nonsense all you want. I can give you reference after reference to the still ongoing debate over the civil war. The debate has not ended just because you say it has. In fact, in today's age of rewriting the ugliness of history to be politically correct we are getting even farther from a true understanding and the truth.

[jamesdak]

Holy smokes! And it's made it to 5 pages! :eek:

Gotta love the internet! :banana:

[cetuximab]

Making an area a National monument took away some phenomenal mtb biking

My brother lives in Grand Junction. The locals there talk about how phenomenal the lost trails were. These trails were lost with the stroke of a pen in the last days of Clinton’s presidency. With no permission for the local residents or the rest of the people here in Colorado. Yet horseback riders can rototill the trails. When our trails are muddy, the vast majority of the Mtb biker’s stay off the trails, but the horseback riders go out and make great big post holes in the trails. Have you seen the damage that horses do on the climbs?

Now, before you judge me, I grew up horseback riding, I love horses. I just think it’s silly that you can’t mountain bike in national parks and national monuments. And I want to preserve these resources for my children and grandchildren. I am just saying that they were preserved just fine as BLM.

I wish we could all understand each other instead of dehumanizing and dividing into us versus them.

We all love the same shared resources.

As far as the Idaho cycling laws. If there are no cars, I roll through stop signs. When I come up to a stoplight and it is clear, I proceed across the intersection.

[beeatnik]

I made a pretty narrow statement about scholarly consensus. You challenged that by suggesting that I didn't have the expertise to back up what I said. You were wrong about that.

Still, that doesn't mean you're not entitled to your opinion! You're allowed to believe whatever nonsense you want! You can claim that Sacha White caused the Civil War by overcharging for lugged, steel bikes for all I care.

But if you're going to keep claiming that the Civil War was fought over states' rights, I've got just one question for you: the rights of states to do what exactly? You don't need to answer, because I will: the right to own human beings.

It's actually not very complicated, which is why there's consensus among scholars. Seriously, we don't usually agree about much, because we get paid to disagree with one another, but this is one of those rare cases where almost everyone is on the same page.

Have a good night. And ride safely.

Ari, I like your An Impressionable Kid May Stumble Upon This Thread in 15 Years After Reading Online Articles on Square Bike Wheels and Lunar Landing Conspiracies So You Felt An Ethical Obligation Though You Knew You Were Dealing With Ya Know Style

[jamesdak]

Ari, I like your An Impressionable Kid May Stumble Upon This Thread in 15 Years After Reading Online Articles on Square Bike Wheels and Lunar Landing Conspiracies So You Felt An Ethical Obligation Though You Knew You Were Dealing With Ya Know Style

At the rate we are rewriting history 15 years from now the civil war will be nothing but a Captain America movie. :rolleyes:

[beeatnik]

^As a historian, the methodology isn't "rewriting"; it's writing.

To keep the troll going, are we rewriting chemistry and engineering as well?

[josephr]

^As a historian, the methodology isn't "rewriting"; it's writing.

To keep the troll going, are we rewriting chemistry and engineering as well?

I sure as hell hope not....these two lovebirds need to take their squabble to the bedroom!

I applaud Utah for even taking the time to get something like this onto their legislative floor. As someone that lives in very much a red state, our representatives are more interested in affluent constituents' problems rather than taking a few minutes with an item of such a practical nature....sigh.

[jamesdak]

^As a historian, the methodology isn't "rewriting"; it's writing.

To keep the troll going, are we rewriting chemistry and engineering as well?

That's fair enough. So if we are still "writing" history does that mean we still don't have it right and that maybe, just maybe, the debate isn't over regarding the causes of the civil war?

How can someone in 2018 even have the same view and mindset of the historians in say 1880-1890's who recorded the facts of the civil war? Who is more accurate and why?

Not even trolling right now. Well sorta because it has nothing to do with the OP. But, by example I own and have read two volumes of a vast history of early america just last year. They're are part of a set that I found at various times antiquing and were published in the 1890's. The tone of the books even in regards to the initial colonies is so different from any modern history I have read. Where they wrong or is that reflection of their first hand knowledge vs a view convoluted over generations? How do you, as a historian, keep your objectivity when you cannot possibly have the same mindset as someone born and raised in a different "era"?

I want to hear something more than, "we learn from history" because we also lose a lot of history just as time goes by....

[jamesdak]

I sure as hell hope not....these two lovebirds need to take their squabble to the bedroom!

I applaud Utah for even taking the time to get something like this onto their legislative floor. As someone that lives in very much a red state, our representatives are more interested in affluent constituents' problems rather than taking a few minutes with an item of such a practical nature....sigh.

You know what's really funny? The first responder took it off line by trolling political crap that had nothing to do with the OP's comments. I just responded to it. And then poster after poster keep continuing the silliness and all I've had to do is just respond. We'll be at 10 pages before you know it. If folks stayed on topic so would I but otherwise the fun continues! ;)

Now on your second point I totally agree. There actually does seem to be a good movement by state entities to support cyclist. The biggest enemy to progress for us is usually the cyclist themselves. The critical mass jerks were being a problem for awhile but seem to have fortunately gone away.

[josephr]

You know what's really funny? The first responder took it off line by trolling political crap that had nothing to do with the OP's comments. I just responded to it. And then poster after poster keep continuing the silliness and all I've had to do is just respond. We'll be at 10 pages before you know it. If folks stayed on topic so would I but otherwise the fun continues! ;)

Now on your second point I totally agree. There actually does seem to be a good movement by state entities to support cyclist. The biggest enemy to progress for us is usually the cyclist themselves. The critical mass jerks were being a problem for awhile but seem to have fortunately gone away.

27+(lost count) out of 70 responses on this thread have your name on it....just sayin'....:rolleyes:


I wrote the mayor a letter letting him know that, as a cyclist, whenever I ride through Irondale, I will be sure to put my foot down (a lot of popular routes go through there), but as a consumer, I will choose to spend my retail dollars elsewhere. Most cities around here aren't going to pull over a cyclist who's riding responsibly, even if its technically a violation of the law. Thinking globally, acting locally. ;)

[chiasticon]

Now, before you judge me, I grew up horseback riding, I love horses. I just think it’s silly that you can’t mountain bike in national parks and national monuments.fwiw I live near a national park and there's both horseback riding and mountain biking within it (plus a crushed limestone multi-use trail, hiking trails, etc).

https://www.nps.gov/cuva/index.htm

[PQJ]

As a general rule, it is better not to feed the trolls. They thrive on attention. Ergo, starve them of the attention they seek and, generally speaking, they crawl back under their rocks.

[jamesdak]

As a general rule, it is better not to feed the trolls. They thrive on attention. Ergo, starve them of the attention they seek and, generally speaking, they crawl back under their rocks.

LOL, and yet poster after poster, like you, keep chiming in with nothing that has to do with the OP's subject. Who's the real "trollers"? :banana: Munch, munch, munch.....

[jamesdak]

fwiw I live near a national park and there's both horseback riding and mountain biking within it (plus a crushed limestone multi-use trail, hiking trails, etc).

https://www.nps.gov/cuva/index.htm

Hmmm, I saw one reference that says 40 NP's allow mountain biking. I think there's only 59 total, right. But I wonder how many restrict it to on road or dirt roads only. How many can you truly trail ride I wonder?

[benb]

Hmmm, I saw one reference that says 40 NP's allow mountain biking. I think there's only 59 total, right. But I wonder how many restrict it to on road or dirt roads only. How many can you truly trail ride I wonder?

The ones I've been in it's groomed trails and such, fine gravel or cinder and stuff. Not true MTB, they certainly didn't want anyone going and cutting their own new "sweet singletrack."

I think if this passed here I'm still stopping at the stop signs. But I get it in these super rural areas. Though the # of stop signs out in those rural areas is probably small enough that they don't really impact how long it takes you to ride from point A to point B in a meaningful way. Out there it's probably all about cheating the wind right?

Man the political aside is crazy. I mentioned something before and deleted it. The Civil War has nothing to do with which states have a large % of land owned by the Feds. It's all about how the state came into the Union. If you came into the Union via the Revolutionary War (your citizens bled & suffered for independence), you're likely in a state with < 10% ownership by the Federal Government. If the rest of the country bought the land your state was formed on, or the US Army fought to capture the land you're on (Utah), the Federal Government still owns most of the land. The rest of the country paid for the land and the residents of the state have mostly been given the land.

[Mark McM]

To be honest I stand by my statements and you can call them nonsense all you want. I can give you reference after reference to the still ongoing debate over the civil war. The debate has not ended just because you say it has. In fact, in today's age of rewriting the ugliness of history to be politically correct we are getting even farther from a true understanding and the truth.

Likewise, there's a lot of lively debate about whether the earth is round or flat over at the Flat Earth Society:

https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/



Just because some people want to debate a topic, doesn't mean that there isn't a consensus. And just because there are other opinions, it doesn't mean those opinions aren't nonsense.

[jamesdak]

Likewise, there's a lot of lively debate about whether the earth is round or flat over at the Flat Earth Society:

https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/



Just because some people want to debate a topic, doesn't mean that there isn't a consensus. And just because there are other opinions, it doesn't mean those opinions aren't nonsense.

Seems like no one here can stay on topic. Yet I'm the "troll". Love this place! :p

6 pages! :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

[cmbicycles]

My other problem is that ... my brain doesn't work well.

You said it, not me ;)

Seems like no one here can stay on topic. Yet I'm the "troll". Love this place! :p

6 pages!

You do realize that anyone can set the number of responses per page so there is no standard number of pages for a topic, but congratulations on YOUR milestone of taking this to however many pages you have your feed set to go all by yourself. You can make it more or less pages to suit your internet troll's ego.

For me, it doesn't make sense that anyone would feel proud of how long they can ramble without supporting their nonsensical statements. Or whether they are faster at using google to come to wrong conclusions. When an actual expert speaks why would someone so proud of their extraneous superfluous discourse hide behind, "well its the internet, nothing is right, and everyone else is wrong for thinking different than me. Now look what I can do over here."?

Of course you are welcome to your opinion, just don't expect people to value it if you can't support it. I've yet to see anything to support your position besides rehashing the same opinion, your right to have one, and that it COULD be valid. I COULD be a multi-billionaire philanthropist, but that doesn't make it true... might be fun to try one day though.

I guess some internet handles become like the proposed stop signs for cyclists in Utah, you make a judgement call and then don't have to listen to what they say.

[jamesdak]

You said it, not me ;)



You do realize that anyone can set the number of responses per page so there is no standard number of pages for a topic, but congratulations on YOUR milestone of taking this to however many pages you have your feed set to go all by yourself. You can make it more or less pages to suit your internet troll's ego.

For me, it doesn't make sense that anyone would feel proud of how long they can ramble without supporting their nonsensical statements. Or whether they are faster at using google to come to wrong conclusions. When an actual expert speaks why would someone so proud of their extraneous superfluous discourse hide behind, "well its the internet, nothing is right, and everyone else is wrong for thinking different than me. Now look what I can do over here."?

Of course you are welcome to your opinion, just don't expect people to value it if you can't support it. I've yet to see anything to support your position besides rehashing the same opinion, your right to have one, and that it COULD be valid. I COULD be a multi-billionaire philanthropist, but that doesn't make it true... might be fun to try one day though.

I guess some internet handles become like the proposed stop signs for cyclists in Utah, you make a judgement call and then don't have to listen to what they say.


Proud???!!! I just think it's totally funny that people keep chiming in with more of topic munchies . Is anyone really taking this serious? :rolleyes:

And the milestone belongs to all of you chiming in off topic. I haven't started any of it. And I've certainly been serious and on topic with responders that have also. I mean come on, can't ya'll see the hypocritical irony behind your own off topic comments? ;)

[jamesdak]

You said it, not me ;)

You do realize that anyone can set the number of responses per page so there is no standard number of pages for a topic,

I honestly didn't know you can do that. Where's that function? Is is only by the thread starter or part of an individual's display? I did a quick look around and didn't see how to set that. There are times it could seriously be useful. Thanks!

[Keith A]

Will this morph into the 'treat stop signs as yield, stop lights like stop signs?Doesn't look like it will...and all I did was post about a possible change in the laws related to cyclists in Utah :eek:

[jamesdak]

Doesn't look like it will...and all I did was post about a possible change in the laws related to cyclists in Utah :eek:

And shamefully I just "tested" the proposal while out on a little 26 mile jaunt. Temps dropped and cold winds were cutting though me late in the ride. Came up to one stop sign with no one there but the deputy turning in. I rolled though turning right onto the shoulder as I waved to him. I was freezing and still had 7 miles to go in the head winds to get home. And I could see snow coming down across the valley by the house. So wrong of me...

The cop just waved back. ;)

[cloudguy]

The cop just waved back. ;)

He's prolly afraid of trolls just as much as the next guy. Glad you made it back to your cave.

[jamesdak]

He's prolly afraid of trolls just as much as the next guy. Glad you made it back to your cave.

See, this is just so hilarious. I'm the one being called the troll but poster after poster just can't stop making comments to stir up the "troll". Who's really wrong? :no:

Oh but in all seriousness I do call where I keep all my bikes the "bike cave"! :p

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/166846457.jpg