Mountain Biking - Legally ride on private property.

(ouch)

Call me a wuss. But I wouldn't even begin to even try to argue with Hank. Somehow he always wins.


I don't consider being so insulting to the point of boredom equals winning!

In my book, the first person to get so emotionally involved that they resort to hurling insults is the loser!

Make your point, defend it, but stay civil about it. Namecalling reveals your immaturity!

Do you read what you post, Hank?

Oh, the irony. Again, where did I insult a caustic soccer mommy?

Hint: Describing her as a "caustic soccer mommy" on an obscure web forum is not insulting her. How could she possibly be insulted.


If you make posts like you were talking directly to the person, maybe you'd actually take the time to know some of the people that routinely post in here, like apclassic and you'd be a little more informed, instead of hiding behind your computer and spouting out insults.

So, in your little world, people shouldn't reply unless they've done a background check on the folks that they intend to reply to. Brilliant! Absolutely mental but brilliant nonetheless!

p.s. I do "know" (in a virtual kind of way) some of the people that routinely post here. Heck, I've even met a few people in real life! Go figure...

No hiding here. If apclassic had made the same clueless comments in person I would have responded in the same manner. Heck, I'm even more irreverent in person.

In my book, the first person to get so emotionally involved that they resort to hurling insults is the loser!

Facts can be insulting, especially if they reveal that someone hasn't understood what they have read and is making things up in an effort to "argue" their "point."

Dang Hank, your quick. I deleted that post because I didnt want to feed your irreverence, which you seem to list as an attribute for some reason. You brought religion into the discussion to fuel the fire and youve enjoyed every bit of it. You've brought insults directed towards someone who didnt deserve it in the least, and youve been warned by the moderator, but you just don't get it. You make it sound like youve made one post, the first one with the photos.

I've figured it out though, you don't understand what an "insult" actually is. Too bad, I feel sorry for you. I will pray for you.

Because the law says so.



The Outdoor Recreation Act of 1957.



At this point (actually for quite a while) the responses are being colored by reading comprehension issues.The Outdoor Recreation Act of 1957 from what country? Norway? If so, any reading comprhension problems were created by you by not identifying the country you were referring to. From your subsequent posts, it is apparent this small omission was by design and not by accident. No where do you state clearly it is another country other than the US. Your bassackwards allusion comes across initially as an unrelated statement to your initial point. IMO, either poor writing or serious trolling. Take your pick.

As an aside though, even that Act has large loopholes by which the government or the property owner can shut areas off. It appears that it is not a right but a permission granted generally that is at the whim of the county governor and the local powers that be. The mission statement of the act indicates an interest in securing right of access, but the following words chip away at that bold ideal by giving the government an easy out if it wants one.

I've had to deal with this same situation on my daily commute. Just up the street is a "private road" that stretches about 100 yards. There is one caustic soccer mommy who has told me that I can't walk my dog (access to loacl trail) or ride my bike there since it is "private" (despite lack of signage and continuous use by the public for eight plus years).


Technically speaking (and based solely upon the limited information you've provided), if you do not have express permission from the landowner, you are in fact trespassing, irrespective of signage or time period the property has been subject to the use you describe.

Sure, it's all fun till the owner of the property threatens to shoot you next time he sees you.

Goddamn hicks...

The Outdoor Recreation Act of 1957 from what country? Norway?

Congrats! You can use Google.


If so, any reading comprhension problems were created by you by not identifying the country you were referring to.

I disagree.

"Some countries give their citizens rights that are unimaginable to most folks living in North America.

(DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME)"

That clearly identifies the picture as not being in North America, if you can read.

In addition, Gastro was kind enough to spell it out such that even people who are used to readng and writing with crayons should have been able to realize that it's not in North America.

Gastro spake thusly on the very first page: "Oh, and Hank Rearden, thanks for the primer on Scandanavian real property law."


No where do you state clearly it is another country other than the US.

There's that problem with reading comprehension again. See above, or see the post with the big red letters on the first page.


As an aside though, even that Act has large loopholes by which the government or the property owner can shut areas off.

As an aside, that Act was revised in 1996 with a new purpose statement:

"The purpose of this Act is to safeguard the bases for outdoor recreation and ensure the public right of passage, stopping, etc. in the outdoors, and thereby preserve and further outdoor recreation as a health-promoting, satisfaction creating and environmentally friendly activity."

As long as it is uncultivated land (defined term) the public can ride on it.

Technically speaking (and based solely upon the limited information you've provided), if you do not have express permission from the landowner, you are in fact trespassing, irrespective of signage or time period the property has been subject to the use you describe.

Not according to CA law. It's a short road that has been in continual use by the public since it was laid down (access to local trails).

See:

" When a "prescriptive use easement" is obtained in private property by members of the general public, it is more properly termed an "implied dedication." (People v. Sayig (1951) 101 Cal.App.2d 890, 896.) Recently the court in Hays v. Vanek, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at 281, explained the two ways in which implied dedications are established by the public in a road located on private property:

"A common law dedication of a roadway to the public can be proved in either one of two ways: (1) by showing approval or acquiescence of the owner in the use of the road by members of the public under circumstances inconsistent with use under a license; or (2) by establishing open and continuous use by the public for a prescriptive period. [Citations.] The first method, implied-in-fact dedication, requires a clear and unequivocal offer by the owner to dedicate the road to a public use and an acceptance of the offer by the public. [Citation.] The second method, implied-in-law dedication, shifts the focus of inquiry from the intent of the owner to the activities of the public. [Citation.]" "

Source: http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/published/96-405.htm

I disagree. ..........

As an aside, that Act was revised in 1996 with a new purpose statement:

"The purpose of this Act is to safeguard the bases for outdoor recreation and ensure the public right of passage, stopping, etc. in the outdoors, and thereby preserve and further outdoor recreation as a health-promoting, satisfaction creating and environmentally friendly activity."

As long as it is uncultivated land (defined term) the public can ride on it.No, you are just disagreeable.

Does the 1996 revision also remove the right of the county governor's power to close any area within their boundaries? I doubt it. The original act states this:


§ 2. (Access to and passage through uncultivated land)
Any person is entitled to access to and passage through uncultivated land at all times of year, provided that consideration and due care is shown.

The same applies to access and passage on horseback or with a packhorse, sledge, bicycle or the like on roads and paths across uncultivated land and in all uncultivated mountain areas, provided that the municipality, with the consent of the owner or user, has not prohibited such passage along specified routes. The municipality's decision must be confirmed by the county governor.

Bold mine. An awfully large out for the government IMO. It tickles me no end that folks think we actually have rights that are not at the whim of the governments we live under.

No, you are just disagreeable.

If stating the facts is disagreeable, then paint me disagreeable.

"The Outdoor Recreation Act applies to five areas:

a) Home fields – uncultivated land and the right of access, b) Bathing and travel on the sea and watercourses, c) Resting and camping, d) Events (such as orienteering meets, Scout camps and the like), e) Fees, expulsion, exclusion and redemption.

The public right of access coexists with property law. Hence, the public and landowners are obliged to exhibit mutual respect and consideration. In a principal case from the city of Sandefjord, the Norwegian Supreme Court has drawn principal borders between the public right of access and landowner rights. The public right of access is contingent upon whether an area is classed as home fields or uncultivated land[1]."

"[1] Home fields includes fields, meadows, cultivated land, land near and around farm buildings, newly-planted forest and industrial property; uncultivated land is negatively defined, in that it is all land other than home fields."


An awfully large out for the government IMO.

Is that the sound of black helicopters circiling over your house?


It tickles me no end that folks think we actually have rights that are not at the whim of the governments we live under.

What a humerous, albeit erroneus, assumption on your part.

" When a "prescriptive use easement" is obtained in private property by members of the general public, it is more properly termed an "implied dedication." (People v. Sayig (1951) 101 Cal.App.2d 890, 896.) Recently the court in Hays v. Vanek, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at 281, explained the two ways in which implied dedications are established by the public in a road located on private property:

"A common law dedication of a roadway to the public can be proved in either one of two ways: (1) by showing approval or acquiescence of the owner in the use of the road by members of the public under circumstances inconsistent with use under a license; or (2) by establishing open and continuous use by the public for a prescriptive period. [Citations.] The first method, implied-in-fact dedication, requires a clear and unequivocal offer by the owner to dedicate the road to a public use and an acceptance of the offer by the public. [Citation.] The second method, implied-in-law dedication, shifts the focus of inquiry from the intent of the owner to the activities of the public. [Citation.]" "

Source: http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/published/96-405.htm

Emphasis added to clarify the technical point I mentioned earlier - that the easement cannot be obtained, nor the dedication proven in fact, without a judgement from the court or other legal means of conveyance. The claim is not validated until the public record shows it as such.

Best ways to keep lands open for riding are:
1) Become part of your local advocacy group to keep the public lands accessible to all;
2) Ensure you can ride on the private land by owning it, not *****ing at someone else for not letting you on their land.

Put up or shut up.

[QUOTE=Hank Rearden]Yes there is. I fact I own property. There is also private property where those pictures were taken. The point that you and some of your fellow neanderthals are missing is that different areas have different laws pertaining to private property.


Hank, Hank, Hank.... if you look back to my OP, that WAS my precise point - that different areas have different laws.

My point about asking a property owner prior to using trails on thier land is just common courtesy, and common sense. Anyone fool enough to dive into a trail on my land without stopping by will inevitably get knocked over by 2 rambuncious and large german shepards who think knocking over a bike in the woods is THEIR right, and lots of fun. If we know someone's out there, the dogs get tied up. We can also advise someone whether someone else is out there hunting, or someone else is out there riding horses, or where the gates must remain closed to prevent pasturing animals from escaping.

And, I guess just getting my tax bill in the mail might possibly have had something to do with the "unimaginable" comment....:D

And, uh, no... That was the sound of a C-110 practicing low level flying down the valley.....

If it's perfectly legal, in fact a legislated right, how does that equal a "sense of entitlement"?

If, and that's a big if. I don't live in Norway so I'm obviously not speaking in reference to that country or its laws, but rather the states - and here, trespassing is trespassing.

If stating the facts is disagreeable, then paint me disagreeable. Facts are not disagreeable, nor is your re-gurgitation of them. But your delivery by condescension is. But that's okay.



What a humerous, albeit erroneus, assumption on your part. Humorous? What is funny is that you think you have rights someone else has not bestowed on you. Now, that's funny.

without a judgement from the court or other legal means of conveyance. The claim is not validated until the public record shows it as such.

Yes, that's correct.

In my experience merely mentioning the easement goes a long way to diffusing the access issue.


My point about asking a property owner prior to using trails on thier land is just common courtesy, and common sense.

In an ideal world that works. However not all private property in the US is clearly marked, nor is it always easy to find out who owns the land (short of a title search), and in many cases the owners don't live on the property so in the real world contacting someone to be courteous just isn't always going to be a sensible option.

We have an area like that in my area. The public has an established right-of-way through many different parcels of private land (remote area) on an old stage road and there are numerous trails weaving through the area that shoot off from the stage road. Folks have been riding the area for years without contacting the owners before riding. Does that mean that people haven't been using common sense? I don't think so.


What is funny is that you think you have rights someone else has not bestowed on you.

Merely repeating your silly assumption won't alter the facts.

You know Hank, I find it funny that you insult a few people here often based on intelligence, and you can't copy and paste you're new text that you want to post, and click the handy little "EDIT" button on your first post and edit it in, thus spamming the thread with more posts then actually needed.

You tripple post.
Then double post.
Then double post. Again.

What's up? Ignorant of the edit button, arrogant of your ego thinking you can do this, or just too damn lazy?

EDIT: (Look Look I can use it! It's just to the bottom right of the post there...) I'm not going to hop on the main argument, it's a bunch of non-sensible banter back and forth between both arguements, don't think with this I'm trying.

uh oh. :eek: *runs and hides*

and click the handy little "EDIT" button on your first post and edit it in,
..........

What's up? Ignorant of the edit button,
........


EDIT: (Look Look I can use it! It's just to the bottom right of the post there...) I'm not going to hop on the main argument, it's a bunch of non-sensible banter back and forth between both arguements, don't think with this I'm trying.

If you are trying to make him look stupid, it aint working. Only Mods can edit the title of a thread.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_16_2.gif

You will stop this stupidity, says zeus the god of smileys!

If you are trying to make him look stupid, it aint working. Only Mods can edit the title of a thread.

Well you just made yourself look stupid. I know that you can't edit the title of the thread, and I was referring to the fact that he posted three times in a row, then two times, then two times again.

Read the second and third pages of the thread, look who posted where, and you'll see what I mean.

When I said "first post" I meant the first post in his string of posts, and not the OP of the thread.

You know Hank, I find it funny that you insult a few people here often based on intelligence, and you can't copy and paste you're (sic) new text that you want to post, and click the handy little "EDIT" button on your first post and edit it in, thus spamming the thread with more posts then actually needed.

So, you think that rather than replying to folks I should just edit my initial post with each of my replies?

That is perhaps one of the goofiest things that I've seen on a forum ina very long time.

Congrats!

If the number and/or frequency of my posts continues to cause you distress, perhaps it's time for you to take a break from the big bad world of internet discussion (key word!) forums and go gargle some razors or something.

Well you just made yourself look stupid.
boy do i feel stupid!!!!

So, you think that rather than replying to folks I should just edit my initial post with each of my replies?

That is perhaps one of the goofiest things that I've seen on a forum ina very long time.

Congrats!

If the number and/or frequency of my posts continues to cause you distress, perhaps it's time for you to take a break from the big bad world of internet discussion (key word!) forums and go gargle some razors or something.

Flaming, nice. No, I don't want you to edit your OP. You fail at reading just as much as free pizza, and everyone else you insult.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2935046&postcount=29

That and the one below it.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2937878&postcount=46

That post, and the two below it.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2938128&postcount=52

That and the one below it.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2938299&postcount=58

Finally, that one and the one below it.

Four cases where you failed to use...not one, not two, but three simple keystrokes to prevent yourself from spamming.

See?
http://andrewteman.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/spam_1.jpg
It's bad.

If anyone needs to get off of his computer, maybe get an ego check, and go out and (oh another magical word) ride, would be you. You flame, you spam, and you fail at the internet.

kthxbye, gtfo.

. You fail at reading just as much as free pizza, .
You are losing a battle against hank so you have to resort to poking lame insults at me? Bravo.

You are losing a battle against hank so you have to resort to poking lame insults at me? Bravo.

Losing? Who are you to be the judge of that? And you wouldn't be in that position if you in fact read the post, thought, then posted yourself. No insult to you, just a comparison. It's not as much you can't read, which we know you can judging by the fact you're on a forum, but a statement that you didn't.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Four cases where you failed to use...not one, not two, but three simple keystrokes to prevent yourself from spamming.

You seem to be struggling mightily with the definition of SPAM. SPAM is unsolicited commercial email, postings, etc. Exactly what I am trying to sell?

If you're still confused about what SPAM is, just type "spam definition" into your favorite search engiine and educate yourself.


If anyone needs to get off of his computer, maybe get an ego check, and go out and (oh another magical word) ride, would be you.

Ah, the ole "you're making me upset/look like an idiot/etc. so you need to go ride" fallacy. It's a classic.

I would be willing to bet that I've ridden quite a bit more than you have in the last 30 days. Are you willing to take the bet? I can offer photo and video proof if necessary.

I'm sorry that my post frequency/format causes you so much distress. Here's one solution to your problem:

http://www.botanical.com/hydro/propagation/graphics/10_blades.jpg

Don't swallow!

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_2_109.gif

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_8_218.gif

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_9_2.gif

Pheared? Where did your post go?

I know what he's talking about now, at first i thought he was talking about trying to edit the typo on his thread title. No big deal, now he's calling me stupid for not being able to read. I donno what this bozo is trying to prove.


Great pics hank, keep them coming.