Fight for your trails
The time is now! If you want continue to enjoy trails like flightline we have to organize and let the County know that we the community value the perservation of places like flightline.
I am a flightline rookie who was turned onto the trails by other friends. While everyone wants to keep little secret spots for themselves, the time to make this public is now. Unfortunately it will become more crowded, but better crowded with people enjoying the beauty of the outdoors than closed down. If you’ve been riding for years, we need your voice!
-Quinn
Posted: October 19th, 2006 under FlightLine Trails.
Comments: 7
Comments
Comment from Steven Sur
Time: October 19, 2006, 8:13 pm
Bio:
Male, age 45.
Married w/3 kids. Ages 4, 6 & 11.
Resident of Oceanside.
I’m a flightline veteran of 9 years. I’ve been biking the past 18 years. Being from Hawaii, I didn’t think there could be an area this close together in So. Ca. where I could mountain bike or surf at lunch. The city of Carlsbad has a gem like no other coastal city has: a skatepark, baseball field and wilderness trail walking distance to the Police and Fire Department. Saving the trails at Flightline would greatly enhanced the city of Carlsbad. The trails at Flightline is the reason why I continue to ride. I look forward going to work knowing that I will be riding/running with my comrades at this incredible wilderness area. Saving the trails at Flightline will benefit everyone.
Comment from iJordy
Time: October 20, 2006, 9:56 am
Please engage SDMBA and IMBA as they have the experience and expertise needed to fight and win these battles. Look forward to hearing how I can help the cause!
Comment from Dan W. Plummer
Time: October 20, 2006, 11:24 am
Please, live us the Flightline trail to ride. So many of our nice trails keep gettting lost to what people consider “development”. I used to live at the entrance to Penasquitos Canyon, and the same thing happend there many years ago. Let’s not let this happen again.
Comment from Ryan Dynes
Time: October 20, 2006, 5:22 pm
Here is an article that can be used to inform the county that they are indeed indemnified from liability resulting from hazardous actions on public lands. If the County is made aware that they face very minimal liability risk resulting from the trails, there may be a greater likliehood of saving the existing trails from destruction and removal.
Limiting government liability for “hazardous recreational activities”
California law provides very effective protection against lawsuits for public agencies that allow hazardous activities on public land.
By Patty Ciesla
Executive Director, Northern California Mountain Bicycling Association
Below is the text of the California Government Code which limits the government’s liability in high-risk sports (including bicycle racing and jumping, and animal riding and equestrian competition). Basically, this law provides very effective protection against lawsuits for public agencies that allow hazardous activities on public land which is owned and operated by the agency, where they do not charge a fee to use the facility.
Note that the protection applies only to public entities (e.g., cities, counties, school districts, etc) and that liability is NOT limited for private entities that operate concessions on public lands (last clause), or when a fee is charged to participate. Skateboarding is not specifically named the list of hazardous activities, although it falls under the general description in 831.7.(b). You might contact the legal department of a city near you where there is a city-operated skate park, what their exposure to risk is and how they minimize their liability.
The City of San Jose recently had to deal with a lawsuit brought by the parent of a minor who was injured while jumping his bike at Calabazas park. The park was closed for a while following the injury for reconfiguration of the dirt jumping area, but it is due to be reopened soon (once the rain stops they can complete their work, I guess). I don’t know the details or the outcome of the suit, but you should be able to get information from the city by contacting their Parks and Rec department. Their website is http://www.sjparks.org/
From the California Government Code:
831.7. (a) Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable to any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity, including any person who assists the participant, or to any spectator who knew or reasonably should have known that the hazardous recreational activity created a substantial risk of injury to himself or herself and was voluntarily in the place of risk, or having the ability to do so failed to leave, for any damage or injury to property or persons arising out of that hazardous recreational activity.
(b) As used in this section, “hazardous recreational activity” means a recreational activity conducted on property of a public entity which creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury to a participant or a spectator.
“Hazardous recreational activity” also means:
(1) Water contact activities, except diving, in places where or at a time when lifeguards are not provided and reasonable warning thereof has been given or the injured party should reasonably have known that there was no lifeguard provided at the time.
(2) Any form of diving into water from other than a diving board or diving platform, or at any place or from any structure where diving is prohibited and reasonable warning thereof has been given.
(3) Animal riding, including equestrian competition, archery, bicycle racing or jumping, mountain bicycling, boating, cross-country and downhill skiing, hang gliding, kayaking, motorized vehicle racing, off-road motorcycling or four-wheel driving of any kind, orienteering, pistol and rifle shooting, rock climbing, rocketeering, rodeo, spelunking, sky diving, sport parachuting, paragliding, body contact sports (i.e., sports in which it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be rough bodily contact with one or more participants), surfing, trampolining, tree climbing, tree rope swinging, waterskiing, white water rafting, and windsurfing. For the purposes of this subdivision, “mountain bicycling” does not include riding a bicycle on paved pathways, roadways, or sidewalks
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a), this section does not limit liability which would otherwise exist for any of the following:
(1) Failure of the public entity or employee to guard or warn of a known dangerous condition or of another hazardous recreational activity known to the public entity or employee that is not reasonably assumed by the participant as inherently a part of the hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose.
(2) Damage or injury suffered in any case where permission to participate in the hazardous recreational activity was granted for a specific fee. For the purpose of this paragraph, a “specific fee” does not include a fee or consideration charged for a general purpose such as a general park admission charge, a vehicle entry or parking fee, or an administrative or group use application or permit fee, as distinguished from a specific fee charged for participation in the specific hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose.
(3) Injury suffered to the extent proximately caused by the negligent failure of the public entity or public employee to properly construct or maintain in good repair any structure, recreational equipment or machinery, or substantial work of improvement utilized in the hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose.
(4) Damage or injury suffered in any case where the public entity or employee recklessly or with gross negligence promoted the participation in or observance of a hazardous recreational activity.
For purposes of this paragraph, promotional literature or a public announcement or advertisement which merely describes the available facilities and services on the property does not in itself constitute a reckless or grossly negligent promotion.
(5) An act of gross negligence by a public entity or a public employee which is the proximate cause of the injury.
Nothing in this subdivision creates a duty of care or basis of liability for personal injury or for damage to personal property.
(d) Nothing in this section shall limit the liability of an independent concessionaire, or any person or organization other than the public entity, whether or not the person or organization has a contractual relationship with the public entity to use the public property, for injuries or damages suffered in any case as a result of the operation of a hazardous recreational activity on public property by the concessionaire, person, or organization.
Patty Ciesla
Executive Director
Northern California Mountain Bicycling Association
PO Box 785, Los Altos, CA 94023-0785
650-917-1741
patty.ciesla@norcamba.org
www.norcamba.org
Comment from richard julien
Time: October 20, 2006, 8:39 pm
Yes we need as many faces as possible. the petition is going strong and once more Petition forms are available it can keep it’s momentum. I am not looking forward to have to go back to riding Daley and Penasquitos. Traveling is not an option most of the time. I kind of got away from surfing along with it’s crowds and attitudes. But might have to pick it up again. Flightline was and could continue to be a great outlet. Riding on those boring trails of the other local rides is so unappealing. LETS put as much energy into flightline as possible. A public access between calaveras and flightline is an idea that needs to be examined.
Comment from Joe Reylek
Time: November 7, 2006, 9:32 am
Got this e-mail from a co-worker this morning:
Demo of the ridge trail is officially underway. The trailheads for both trails are now blocked with piles of debris. Postholes have been dug at the culvert, presumably in advance of a gate. Work crews are working their way down the ridge pulling out bridges, posts, etc… It appears as though they have marked trails to be worked with small irrigation marker flags. Creek crossing bridges are still intact, although I would expect them to be gone by the end of the week.
Fork officially stuck in!
So much for diplomacy….
Comment from richard julien
Time: November 7, 2006, 3:51 pm
Biggest loss here is for the credibility of cnlm. Can you image noble existing when you have small minded moves like the one at flightline. The forest service has to be credited with being one hell of alot more progressive than cnlm. They have allowed noble to remain riddable in all it’s technical glory. They frown on anyone manipulting the trails to try and sanitize them down. I am going up there this weekend to pay homage to Noble. Flightline man made technicals pale in comparison to the difficulty thrown at you by Noble. Bummer is it a drive away and not an after work ride. From what I heard we might ‘ve had the ranger from there speak to the county concerning the issues at flightline but we hardly had the time to get that together. But cnlm must have better expertise on their staff. I’ve been a know it all before and the landing can get pretty hard.
Write a comment