burnermtb

Tragic. Hopefully: 1) they find the guy; and 2) the CA prosecutors actually take the case seriously. If recent history is any guide, however, 2 is not looking promising.

You have to feel for Kyle (and many professional athletes), because his situation is different than most of us commenting here. He has dedicated his life and career to the sport. So, while he feels the clash many of us are feeling between our love of riding vs. the ever increasing consequences of the risks of riding as we age, get married, and have kids, etc., him "dialing it back" is more existential than it is for most of us. I can dial my riding back, but it doesn't come with having to effectively reorganize my entire life, identity, and livelihood. Kyle doesn't have that luxury.

@HawmStacks: There's no suggestion that Batty's retirement is similar, but Arensmen's choice was only logical and if the trend continues, I would expect to see more and more like it. Competitive sports - especially "niche" sports like MTB - are pretty brutal, with incredibly tight margins for success, both in the sport and financially. If males competing with women is continually normalized, over time, they will occupy most top spots - making the sacrifice for female atheletes increasingly pointless.

@dave119: I think there's something to the idea that "pomo" is at the heart of a lot of this stuff. If I were to "steel man" the trans claim, gender identity, so-called, is, at best, a "meta" belief. It's a kind of pseudo-spiritual belief in the idea that there is a "gender identity" distinct from biological sex, which cannot be empirically shown, but which some people passionately believe in. Meta claims, much like many religious claims, are ultimately unknowable. And it works both ways, in that I cannot say, definitively, that they are untrue, but believers, likewise, cannot say they are definitively true. Meta claims are perfectly fine, provided that they adhere to this basic principle. If someone wants to believe in the meta claim of gender identity, that's OK, but what is not OK is to impose it on me, who does not believe in that meta claim. For the most part, the developed world has settled on this basic principle as applied to formally recognized religion. Strangely, however, it appears that the desire to impose unknowable beliefs did not go away along with the secularization of the developed world. It just manifested itself in different and more obscure ways. I think POMO (or at least a sort of crude, "street" version of POMO) does play a major role in this, by instantiating this concept of subjectively defined truth. This, in turn, is being imposed on everyone else - often in terrible ways. It's a really troubling trend and I think a lot of people seriously underestimate the problem.

Is the issue itself complicated or is it the social/cultural/political dynamics surrounding it that are complicated. Put another way, would it be complicated if someone asked you in 2010 whether men should be allowed to compete in women’s competitive sports? I think most people would say no. Today, when asked the same question, many people seem to think it’s “complicated”. But the question is no different. What’s different surrounding climate. Some people (perhaps you) are feeling great pressures - often times with real consequences (like losing your job) - to answer the question in a certain way.

It's a good (if obvious) development, but, even in the face of "good" news on this topic, the trans issue overall has made me quite concerned about the suggestibility of people, from all walks of life. It's distressing to see that unlike most other absurd claims, the trans claim tends to concentrate in the sectors where we take great pains to filter out absurdities, i.e, at the academic, institutional, etc. level. The number of seemingly mature, autonomous, educated, and "smart" adults - often in positions of the authority - easily manipulated towards irrational ends has been quite astounding to me. That we even got here in the first place is just mind numbingly indicting of our institutions.

@rclugnut: I was focused in my original post on the more popular trail systems, where I think this phenomena is mostly focused - at least for now. You know the drill for Chittenden Co...early season, everyone clogs Saxon because it dries up quickly and is open before most trail systems. And it's super convenient for after-work rides. And it tends to stay open later in the season as well. So Saxon, especially early/late season, has become perhaps the single most popular non-bike park/no fee based trail system in Vermont. So it's a good test case for where "accessibility" trends are going. I don't anticipate they're done with Saxon either nor do I see the trend going away. It will be difficult to really define when a trail is accessible "enough". That said, for now, as things dry out and everyone spreads out, I agree that there's still a lot of advanced stuff like Cochran's, Perry Hill, Bolton, etc. A lot of stuff at Bolton is downright scary and beyond my comfort level. And not all improvements are following the same trend and make more sense to me. Like the work they did to make the initial uphill at Perry Hill much easier makes total sense to me and improves the overall experience. I do worry, however, that as these systems get more popular, the calls for "accessibility" will only increase and spread out to much beloved trail systems. .

@rclugnut: Don't get me wrong, there's still great stuff on the upper trails. But, as an example, there was a fun little rock feature, I believe on the upper flow downhill, where you just had to come with a little speed and pull your front wheel up to clear it. It's been there for years. End of season last year I was riding it and they literally broke up the rock and it's now just a slight bump to ride over. And there was already a B line around it, so totally unnecessary to ruin a long-standing feature like that. Re the bridges, they were never narrow to begin with but, as I keep coming back to, they were narrow enough to where it might slightly challenge some newer riders and it was still fun for more experienced riders. Now, with the adjustments, they're pretty much a highway. And that's my main gripe. Of course, some nerfing is good but the stuff that often gets nerfed is stuff that just takes a bit of practice to dial in - not some like crazy impossible feature. I think the end result of this movement on the more popular trail systems is that trails are going to become more divided by skill level and the standard for "green" trails are going to basically look like fun park rides for kids. Previously, you could expect blue/green trails to have a lot of diversity of features and skill levels - some easier stuff punctuated by more challenging stuff. That, to me, is more "inclusive" of different skill levels.

@reborn10speeder: Yeah, it’s especially bad on the more popular networks that are good for early season riding. Take Saxon Hill…it’s never been known for being gnarly but fun for a good after work ride and with some challenging features. But one by one, features that take just a modest amount of effort/experience to dial in, are being nerfed. Ostensibly, this is to be more “inclusive” or “accessible”. I think it just sucks.

@theliberator: Well, due to the Covid exodus from major cities to VT, VT is not becoming Jersey so much as a playground for the wealthy laptop class. The desire to keep things small and rural has always made VT living a challenge, but still possible if you’re dedicated enough. But recent developments have pushed it over the edge. The old “don’t Jersey Vermont” standby saying will, if not already, become quite dated. Certain realities are catching up to Vermont that are going to force some compromise on its ordinary resistance to growth. And it will come from sectors that are quite unexpected. Namely, young progressives pushing affordable housing.