Losing Access even at MTB Resorts?

[EBasil]

Team Big Bear, the operators of the popular NORBA venue and scene for many, many riders over a long riding season each year, have announced that "DH" bikes are banned for 2005 at Snow Summit! Don't underestimate the financial impact this will have on them, and on the town. This is a weighty decision.

Here's a summary excerpt:
Along with the liability issue, the US Forest Service has been pressuring Snow Summit and Team Big Bear to address the substantial amount of illegal downhill trails that have developed adjacent to Snow Summit’s permit area, primarily as a result of its Sky Chair operation. Various methods have been used to inhibit the development and use of these trails including, signage, fencing, and ticket revocation. These attempts have proved futile. The combination of liability exposure and environmental concerns have led to this decision.


And here's the link to Team Big Bear's full text announcement (http://www.teambigbear.com/)

Whether or not this edict gets revised over the snowy season or not, this is going to have a ripple effect throughout the sport and the industry. How many other ski/mtb resorts are using Forest Service land on a Permit?

[RandomAssSOB]

I loved the fact that they can't figure out how to enforce it tho, since they are leaving the mountain open for x-c riding. The spokesperson said they would probably do it by bike weight - no more than 30 lbs or so on the lifts.

Yeah, that's gonna work . . .

Chalk another one up to our litigious society at work! Another tribute to the death of personal responsibility. Interestingly it does highlight just how USELESS those little disclaimers we all sign are. You can sign away knowing your right to frivolously sue the pants off the mothers is fully intact!

[Scott G.]

I don't get it either, a lawsuit??????

I just read an interesting CO study that showed the major causes of recreational deaths were Hiking/Climbing, Skiing, and Cycling in that order. :eek:

Considering how many ski injuries occur throughout the year that require medical attention, I have a feeling the wrongful death lawsuit is just a smoke screen, and that the illegal trails are the main culprit. :confused:

[tryandgetme]

I know a guy that does all his xc riding on a rocky mountain switch...mostly cause he's huge and he breaks lighter bikes. are they gonna deny him access to the park too, cause his bike is somewhat freerider? I really dont know how they're gonna enforce this, other than patrolling and catching people in the act.

[EBasil]

3 little factoids:

--the lawsuit in question isn't for wrongful death, but for injuries. A racer in a NORBA DH race is now in an electric wheelchair, and claims the course-markers were unreasonably dangerous in placement or design (I don't know) and therefore not "covered" under the liability waivers since Team Big Bear PUT them there.

--the racer suing Snow Summit has a website, showing photos of him before, listing thanks to folks that have been helping him since the crash and paralysis, and etc...but took it down yesterday. Word is that he received a lot of hate mail after this story hit the netwaves.

--Snow Summit hasn't said they'll patrol the hills (much of the riding and most of the illegal trails are outside their boundaries), just that they won't let "DH bikes" on the lifts or related events at the NORBA races. Check out that link, above, for their updated text.

[onespeedesq]

Two comments and a question:

1) The message here is that the restriction arises out to the actions of cyclists themselves. One who refuses to acknowledge that he accepted the risk when he decided to ride (much less race DH) and others that are building illegal trails despite signage, fencing, etc. That having been said, I'm not in a wheel chair and don't know how that feels. (Can you hear me knocking wood?)

2) I think there must be stunts built on the pirate trails. A new trail is just a trail until someone builds a stunt on it, then it becomes a bicycle/freeride/downhill trail. This is silly too because, from the press release, it looks like XC folk can still get to those trails. Maybe the community fended off a total ban by claiming evil downhillers do more damage, much in the way the horsey people demonize cyclists to "preserve" trails. The message here is wear your manties instead of baggies and everyone will think you're OK.

Finally, I'm surprised because I would think California would have statutory protection for ski ares. In Colorado, the legislature, recognizing that skiing is a huge industry in our state, passed a statute protecting ski areas by limiting their liability. (There are cracks in this, but as they say: "no rule of law is complete without its exception.") I would have thought that California would have similar legislation. They have a huge ski industry, but then again it must be a lesser percentage of their overall economy.