I have actually stopped riding my scooter on the Multi-Use Rec Trail.
While I actually do have permission to ride it on the Rec Trail from the Parks and Recreation Department because of my inability to ride a bicycle, it is very frustrating to have to listen to the FAB bike snobs and their snarky remarks as they pass by.
I have sat by the Yankton Trails Park entrance into the soccer fields off of 57th street numerous times. There is a STOP sign on the Rec Trail that stops Rec Trail
Users before they cross the street and Colton the Trail.
Does anyone want to guess how many Lance Armstrong wanna bees stopped at that STOP sign? Ya,you are correct……. ZERO.
But, by God we are going to really nail you if you dare to ride a One Wheel on the
Golden Bike Trail.
I have attended an Advanced Transportation Board meeting to try to explain to them that while the Ike retailers in town sell Class 2 bikes every day, and those people freely ride the Rec Trail with impunity, they still insist that they are
“Not Allowed “
Why does Lance Armstrong get to decide that he gets free run on the Rec Trail
utilizing MY tax dollars as much as his, and the have the audacity to try to tell me that I can use it because I don’t PEDDLE ? …..AYFK?
The FAB have hijacked the Rec Trail and believe that it is a bike trail.
IT IS NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN.
Have you driven in Sioux Falls lately?
The FAB screams that the public needs to SHARE THE ROAD !!
But…..They sure don’t want to share the Rec Trail. They want it all for bikes.
No scooters, No Dogs, No E Skate boards, No One Wheels,…..
I find it interesting that there are many micro mobility riders that could decrease
congestion on our morning and evening commutes by utilizing Rec Trail. 90 % of
Vehicles coming into the city every morning are single passenger.
Micro mobility will eliminate congestion on the streets, have ZERO emissions and
are safe.
There are hundreds of class 2 bikes on the Trail every day.
When you arrest me on my scooter, the Litigation will begin.
Slow the longer slides down. Pictures of bikers on trail with recognized background (ie river per bridge). on sides or top of text. Leave map at end posted longer. Different music? Pristine with nature implications? Keywords that bring it up for Google searches.
Good and I couldn’t do it. Free sales tool the city should but never would sponsor.
The E-Bike War, Gaza, or Trump in court, which will be more fun to watch in ’24? Personally, I’m more interested in the E-Bike War because all you got to do is pull their plug, and then they’re finished.
Frankly, Neizert shouldn’t worry about E-Bikes on the bike trail. Oh, I’m sorry, I mean the multi-use conduit that facilitates all 14th Amendment possibilities ( 😉 ).
Rather, Neizert should stick to waxing the fins on his ’57 Plymouth Fury. Because back in ’57 is when cars were cars unlike the quiet wimps that now float our streets with weak names like the Renault Zoe, Hyundai BlueOn, or Nissan Leaf. In fact, who would want to drive a Leaf? Because, you never know where it’s going to end up.
Oh, it was a bike trail and still is, then pedestrians began to show up as well as runners, which is fine. AND, those latter two don’t creep up on you at a greater speed than you are doing, while on the bike trail. I’ve been on the bike trail since its commencement in ’78. Its a bike trail. It was never called a pedestrian trail or a runners trail, just a bike trail…. Oh, and I’m not a member of FAB, but for almost 50 years I have been cycling on the bike trail with a bike.
Yes it is a “bike trail” but it is also used by a large number of pedestrians. The argument for e-bikes loses out when you talk of commuting. If this is truly a recreational trail, let it be recreational. E-bikes CAN commute on roads so they should use those along with the trail? The moment this trail becomes the highway for e-bikes is the moment safety of pedestrians comes back into play. I am not anti-e-bike, I’m not anti-bike, and I’m certainly not anti-outdoor recreation. Bikers, e-bikers, runners, and pedestrians alike could all use a courtesy course prior to using the trail…Not using headphones with loud music, not walking five people wide and therefore blocking other users. Leash your pet respectfully. Announcing your intent to pass a person or group moving slower. Sioux Falls is not alone in this issue. I lived many years in Minneapolis and there are even two separate paths (one pedestrian, one bike) and people still get pissed. Everyone could just use some courtesy and understand it is a MULTI- use trail and to have courtesy for every other user. E-bikes welcome in my opinion, but trail ownership/entitlement not welcome.
Bob, you make my point for me. It is not how you use the trail, it is speed, safety and courtesy. Doesn’t matter if you are crawling or riding a E-Skateboard, as long as you are doing it safe speeds and not encrouching others space, it really doesn’t matter how you use it. Also, I still stick by my constitutional rights to a trail I pay to maintain and own it is called ‘shared use’ for a reason. I would argue that walkers have sidewalks, so maybe they shouldn’t be on the trail? With bike commuting you take the shortest and fastest way, sometimes that means taking the trail, but I would argue that the roads are always faster, and while I take them 90% of the time, I like having the option of using the bike trail.
But, but, the SFPD has already publicly let it be known through testimony by Councilman Neitzert and comments by an officer attending Bicycle Committee meetings, that the police really do not want to bother with enforcing which E-bikes should be allowed to be used on the bike trail. So, if they are unwilling to enforce that current ordinance on the books then where does one find confidence that they will enforce speed limits on the bike trail going forward, or the use of E-bikes beyond class II?
As far as “trail ownership/entitlement”, well, since when is the plain truth and history of the bike trail some kind of “ownership” or “entitlement”? Rather its just plain old intent from day one with the predator, that being the bike, being the first to utilize the bike trail and with pedestrians entering second – and assuming the risk – while the emergence of E-Bikes only elevates the predatory capabilities to a higher level, where the initial intent and the assumption of risk by eventual pedestrians will be further challenged by the emergence of E-bikes of all classes as the SFPD has already demonstrated that it really does not want to regulate the bike trail.
( and Woodstock adds: “Heck, it’s just a fade”…. “In fact, Scheels has fewer E-bikes available this year than last year as they get ready for Spring”…. 🙂 )
I have actually stopped riding my scooter on the Multi-Use Rec Trail.
While I actually do have permission to ride it on the Rec Trail from the Parks and Recreation Department because of my inability to ride a bicycle, it is very frustrating to have to listen to the FAB bike snobs and their snarky remarks as they pass by.
I have sat by the Yankton Trails Park entrance into the soccer fields off of 57th street numerous times. There is a STOP sign on the Rec Trail that stops Rec Trail
Users before they cross the street and Colton the Trail.
Does anyone want to guess how many Lance Armstrong wanna bees stopped at that STOP sign? Ya,you are correct……. ZERO.
But, by God we are going to really nail you if you dare to ride a One Wheel on the
Golden Bike Trail.
I have attended an Advanced Transportation Board meeting to try to explain to them that while the Ike retailers in town sell Class 2 bikes every day, and those people freely ride the Rec Trail with impunity, they still insist that they are
“Not Allowed “
Why does Lance Armstrong get to decide that he gets free run on the Rec Trail
utilizing MY tax dollars as much as his, and the have the audacity to try to tell me that I can use it because I don’t PEDDLE ? …..AYFK?
The FAB have hijacked the Rec Trail and believe that it is a bike trail.
IT IS NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN.
Have you driven in Sioux Falls lately?
The FAB screams that the public needs to SHARE THE ROAD !!
But…..They sure don’t want to share the Rec Trail. They want it all for bikes.
No scooters, No Dogs, No E Skate boards, No One Wheels,…..
I find it interesting that there are many micro mobility riders that could decrease
congestion on our morning and evening commutes by utilizing Rec Trail. 90 % of
Vehicles coming into the city every morning are single passenger.
Micro mobility will eliminate congestion on the streets, have ZERO emissions and
are safe.
There are hundreds of class 2 bikes on the Trail every day.
When you arrest me on my scooter, the Litigation will begin.
Slow the longer slides down. Pictures of bikers on trail with recognized background (ie river per bridge). on sides or top of text. Leave map at end posted longer. Different music? Pristine with nature implications? Keywords that bring it up for Google searches.
Good and I couldn’t do it. Free sales tool the city should but never would sponsor.
Mike, what do you think of this 14th Amendment argument?
( and Woodstock adds: “Wow, I can’t wait for the sequel…. Maybe Dua can have a cameo in it, huh?”…… ) …….:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PtmvMu5wAE
The E-Bike War, Gaza, or Trump in court, which will be more fun to watch in ’24? Personally, I’m more interested in the E-Bike War because all you got to do is pull their plug, and then they’re finished.
Frankly, Neizert shouldn’t worry about E-Bikes on the bike trail. Oh, I’m sorry, I mean the multi-use conduit that facilitates all 14th Amendment possibilities ( 😉 ).
Rather, Neizert should stick to waxing the fins on his ’57 Plymouth Fury. Because back in ’57 is when cars were cars unlike the quiet wimps that now float our streets with weak names like the Renault Zoe, Hyundai BlueOn, or Nissan Leaf. In fact, who would want to drive a Leaf? Because, you never know where it’s going to end up.
Oh, it was a bike trail and still is, then pedestrians began to show up as well as runners, which is fine. AND, those latter two don’t creep up on you at a greater speed than you are doing, while on the bike trail. I’ve been on the bike trail since its commencement in ’78. Its a bike trail. It was never called a pedestrian trail or a runners trail, just a bike trail…. Oh, and I’m not a member of FAB, but for almost 50 years I have been cycling on the bike trail with a bike.
Yes it is a “bike trail” but it is also used by a large number of pedestrians. The argument for e-bikes loses out when you talk of commuting. If this is truly a recreational trail, let it be recreational. E-bikes CAN commute on roads so they should use those along with the trail? The moment this trail becomes the highway for e-bikes is the moment safety of pedestrians comes back into play. I am not anti-e-bike, I’m not anti-bike, and I’m certainly not anti-outdoor recreation. Bikers, e-bikers, runners, and pedestrians alike could all use a courtesy course prior to using the trail…Not using headphones with loud music, not walking five people wide and therefore blocking other users. Leash your pet respectfully. Announcing your intent to pass a person or group moving slower. Sioux Falls is not alone in this issue. I lived many years in Minneapolis and there are even two separate paths (one pedestrian, one bike) and people still get pissed. Everyone could just use some courtesy and understand it is a MULTI- use trail and to have courtesy for every other user. E-bikes welcome in my opinion, but trail ownership/entitlement not welcome.
Bob, you make my point for me. It is not how you use the trail, it is speed, safety and courtesy. Doesn’t matter if you are crawling or riding a E-Skateboard, as long as you are doing it safe speeds and not encrouching others space, it really doesn’t matter how you use it. Also, I still stick by my constitutional rights to a trail I pay to maintain and own it is called ‘shared use’ for a reason. I would argue that walkers have sidewalks, so maybe they shouldn’t be on the trail? With bike commuting you take the shortest and fastest way, sometimes that means taking the trail, but I would argue that the roads are always faster, and while I take them 90% of the time, I like having the option of using the bike trail.
Bob, I would argue furthermore that it is enforcement of speed on the trail that would improve it.
But, but, the SFPD has already publicly let it be known through testimony by Councilman Neitzert and comments by an officer attending Bicycle Committee meetings, that the police really do not want to bother with enforcing which E-bikes should be allowed to be used on the bike trail. So, if they are unwilling to enforce that current ordinance on the books then where does one find confidence that they will enforce speed limits on the bike trail going forward, or the use of E-bikes beyond class II?
As far as “trail ownership/entitlement”, well, since when is the plain truth and history of the bike trail some kind of “ownership” or “entitlement”? Rather its just plain old intent from day one with the predator, that being the bike, being the first to utilize the bike trail and with pedestrians entering second – and assuming the risk – while the emergence of E-Bikes only elevates the predatory capabilities to a higher level, where the initial intent and the assumption of risk by eventual pedestrians will be further challenged by the emergence of E-bikes of all classes as the SFPD has already demonstrated that it really does not want to regulate the bike trail.
( and Woodstock adds: “Heck, it’s just a fade”…. “In fact, Scheels has fewer E-bikes available this year than last year as they get ready for Spring”…. 🙂 )