A short follow-up

A little while ago I got up on my soapbox and ranted about some of the cases I'd seen where advocacy had gotten a little out of control. The particular thing that set me off was an article I'd read about a proposed rule change that would allow MTB use in some national parks (which I agree with). The article included some comments from a few hiker groups who were opposed to the idea, and I found it a little depressing that two pro-environment, pro-outdoors groups like MTB riders and hikers were fighting when there really should be enough space for all of us.

A few days ago a post on BicycleSpokesmen.com brought the issue back to mind. This article pointed out the oddity that new park rules had been proposed to allow concealed-carry weapons in national parks (in states where concealed-carry is already legal) and that one seemed more likely to go through than did the rule change to allow bikes in parks.

The way I see it both groups mentioned above (cyclists, gun owners) are the victims of the public image of their membership but we don't have the benefit of being included in the Bill of Rights. As long as the public image of cyclists comes mainly from news footage of fights between cops and Critical Mass riders we're going to have an uphill battle.

Unfortunately, the hill we have to climb isn't one in a national park.