Dear Christopher, Thanks for creating the opportunity for me to share my thoughts more fully. I am sorry I don’t have the opportunity to respond as thoroughly as your email calls for. I’ll make just a couple more brief points. 1) Thank you for presenting references that support my claim. I was hoping folks would do their own homework on this. 2) I would endorse any further attempts toward a locally data-driven approach to the the issue. 3) I will double down (with references! ) on my claim re: “first-come first served” as an allocation principle that opens the door to inequity: "First-come, first-served allows morally irrelevant qualities—such as wealth, power, and connections—to decide who receives scarce interventions, and is therefore practically flawed."https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19186274/ <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19186274/>. We saw during the early pandemic how first-come first served created inequities in vaccine distribution (https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-i-got-my-covid-19-vaccine-tales-of-getting-the-shot-11618240904 <https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-i-got-my-covid-19-vaccine-tales-of-getting-the-shot-11618240904>). I’d be happy to discuss over beer/wine/coffee/tea how this may or may not apply to public goods such as the Lincoln trail system, as well as our national educational, economic and financial systems. 4) You or any others are welcome to the last word on this.
Best wishes, Steve > On Jun 27, 2022, at 8:14 AM, Christopher Eliot <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> From: S Brown <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Conservation land trails and bikes >> Date: June 24, 2022 at 2:47:19 AM EDT >> To: MARY ROSENFELD <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> >> Friends, >> >> I am not sure I have seen any stream of studies that has demonstrated >> consistently and convincingly that mtn bikes cause greater adverse impact on >> trails than do horses or even hikers. For any reports that do suggest such >> findings, there are others that indicate that mountain bikes, horses, and >> indeed hikers all adversely impact trails, but in different ways. > > References are helpful. The most scientific ones I found in a quick search > support your claim. > > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479720314791 > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479720314791> > > https://www.americantrails.org/resources/studies-weigh-mountain-biking-hiking-impacts > > <https://www.americantrails.org/resources/studies-weigh-mountain-biking-hiking-impacts> > > >> Any system that privileges a certain set of citizens either because they >> were here first (an argument that has been advanced repeatedly on this >> particular topic in this forum), or because they have greater resources >> (many of us would enjoy the opportunity to house horses on our properties, >> and ride them) represents inequity. > > I think this jumps from A to Z without respecting a lot of nuance in the > middle. First-come-first-served is a widely accepted method of resource > allocation, although certainly not absolute. There is also the principle of > stability which dictates that the proponents of a change have the burden of > proof. There ought to be respect for precedent with room to properly evaluate > proposals for change. It is reasonable for people to request increased > permission for trail use by mountain bikes, but it is entirely proper to have > a thorough discussion of this proposed change. > >> A town that tolerates with good will the sort of scenario depicted in the >> attached photo, taken Sunday at the very foot of our driveway (and not >> uncommon on our street), while denouncing the despoliation caused by bikes, >> and the rudeness of mountain bikers, carries a whiff of (among other >> things), elitism. > > Again, this jumps from A to Z without regard to nuance. Horses are certainly > time consuming and expensive and not a practical means of transportation, > which limits them to a few. But, for whatever cause, they are a small part of > the problem. Limiting ridership will not solve the erosion problem. Increased > use by bikes might increase the soil erosion problem. Driveway decoration is > also a legitimate concern, but separate from soil erosion. > >> As with horse riders on our trails and roads, and hikers as well, mtn bikers >> should exhibit proper decorum and due respect, and not doing so should >> certainly be called out. But that doesn’t mean that reasonable accommodation >> ought not be made to permit equitable access to the trails to all who wish >> to enjoy them in different ways. > > I think most people agree, but these words are vague and ambiguous. This > isn’t an issue that will be resolved by quoting lofty ideals and debating > abstract principles. There are facts to be researched, what are the actual > trail erosion consequences, what are the present and expected numbers of > users in various groups, which connectors are really needed, which trails are > most sensitive and which are most resilient? Reasonable estimates of most of > these factors can be obtained and should be used to guide decision making. > >> Steve Brown >> >> <IMG_9927.jpeg> >> >> > > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected]. > Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
