Tygerberg mtb Club to become multisport?!?

[Chainmail]

An SGM is coming up on Thursday 6th Sept to vote in a new constitution for the Tygerberg MTB Club. As most people will not read it, it should be pointed out that there are some key changes proposed;-

Clause 4.1 In the new vision for the club is the phrase to 'promote mountain biking and trail running'

Clause 4.3 In the new objectives is the phrase ' to be the biggest multisport club in the country'

Clause 33.1 'The club may merge with any other body with similar objects (sic!)'

 

Put these changes together and it looks like the committee are paving the way for a fundamental swing away from the core business of mountain biking, and although they have a mandate to run the club, it is not right that they introduce changes that will affect all the members without any consultation. How the changes will affect you is outlined below.

 

1) Definition of

multisport

needed. Which sports exactly and for

what purpose

? And why the desire to become the biggest? Surely that should read 'best'? Tygerberg is a mountainbike club first and foremost that build trails for it's members, and whilst many members do belong to other clubs, would it not confuse the issue to bring in other sporting codes? In addition, and more importantly, such a radical departure from the core business of the club deserves to be talked over in advance of any decision to change and even voted on at a referendum, not slyly slipped into a constitution most people will not read on the quiet.

2)

Runners

. Previously the club has adopted a strongly

risk-averse

policy towards the management of, AND SAFETY ON, the trails. This is as much to do with minimizing potential legal liability though sensible risk management, as it has to do with plain old common sense over shared-use trails in a country where bad manners, road rage and bad driving habits spill over onto the single track. Whilst the IMBA supports shared-use trails, sadly it will not work in this country for the reasons given above, at least at present.

Supposing the club merges with a running club, potentially hundreds of runners could also be on singletrack designed for faster moving bikes, as in Tokai or Majik Forest, opening up the potential for accidents, and possible lawsuits.

If you are a member who cares about your ability to freely use the trails you have paid for, then

consider the above, ATTEND THE MEETING OR SEND IN YOUR PROXY VOTE TO THE CHAIRMAN BY MONDAY 3RD SEPT;-

Copies of the proposed constitution and proxy forms can be found on the club website www.tygerbergmtb.co.za, and questions about it should be emailed to info@tygerbergmtb.co.za.

[Cassie]

Wow! Heavy topic!!

 

Firstly, I'm not a memebr of Tygerberg MTB club...but indeed a member of another w-cape MTB club...

 

Now, I'm in two minds as to how this affect, say for example MY MTB club....for one...more members will definately increase club revenues - which could go a long way in expanding our operations...but then - do we want a bunch of fancy pantsy runners in our club???

 

As for the conflict on the trails.....I'm going to sit back and read the much anticipated replies!!

{popcorn ready!!}

[porqui]

Soon mountain biking will be banned from the hills as they pose a danger to trail runners - mark my word - serrias - also popcorned.

[Skubarra]

I am a Tygerberg clubmember and actually not particularly thrilled by the idea of sharing single track with trailrunners.

 

However, I am even less thrilled by "Chainmail" using a public forum to discuss internal club matters. Chainmail, have you bothered to discuss this with the club committee yet? As I understand they are quite open to discuss this and to explain their reasons.

[Prowler]

I for one, am very stoked that Tygerberg Club will look at opening up to trail running.

I am an avid mountainbiker but also a keen trail runner.

 

In my humble opinion, these trails have been very under utilised for the amount of effort that has gone into the building of them.

 

Tokai has had both mtb and trail running for decades and I dont think it has been a bad thing.

[Tubeless]

What .......................

 

 

Can the club please comment here ?

[Mackem]

I am a Tygerberg clubmember and actually not particularly thrilled by the idea of sharing single track with trailrunners.

 

However, I am even less thrilled by "Chainmail" using a public forum to discuss internal club matters. Chainmail, have you bothered to discuss this with the club committee yet? As I understand they are quite open to discuss this and to explain their reasons.

 

As a member of TMC this is the first I have seen of this proposed amendment through special resolution. Skubarra - please could you let me know in which newsletter this proposed change was outlined?

[Tubeless]

It was never outlined anywhere!

 

And see, they can slip it in because it is the approval of a new constitution in full.

 

Thanks Chainmail for bringing it to our attention.

[andydude]

I am a Tygerberg clubmember and actually not particularly thrilled by the idea of sharing single track with trailrunners. However, I am even less thrilled by "Chainmail" using a public forum to discuss internal club matters. Chainmail, have you bothered to discuss this with the club committee yet? As I understand they are quite open to discuss this and to explain their reasons.

 

As a member of TMC this is the first I have seen of this proposed amendment through special resolution. Skubarra - please could you let me know in which newsletter this proposed change was outlined?

 

I agree with Mackem. It's a public benefit organisation that has wider community implications. I haven't heard anything of the proposed changes yet (I'm a member), and I don't think it's wrong to highlight the changes and asking for comments. I'm all for transparency and as I've seen so far, Tygerberg MTB Club is too.

 

As The Hub is a cycling community, I think it's the perfect forum to discuss it.

 

On the actual changes - I don't have enough details yet to make an informed opinion.

Edited September 3, 2012 by andydude

[Niner]

 

However, I am even less thrilled by "Chainmail" using a public forum to discuss internal club matters. Chainmail, have you bothered to discuss this with the club committee yet? As I understand they are quite open to discuss this and to explain their reasons.

 

Why can people not discuss this? As for the "explain their reasons" seems like the "club" was not consulted in the 1st place and the commitee is acting on their own.

[4u2nv]

I am also a member. I would not neccesarily be keen on sharing the trails, main reason being safety. If we are blasting the trails and have to stop every now and then for runners, that would not be lekka.

 

For me riding at meerendal is already a frustration because of the slower riders, and i spend all my time on the contermans/hillcrest side. I can only imagine having to deal with runners as well.

That being said, if all runners give way to cyclists, it can work, but that is highly unlikely. I don't mind the runners, I enjoy trailrunning myself every once in a while.

 

They have never bothered me on majic, cause the road is a little wider, but in technical singletrack it wont work

 

I will now put on my flamesuit

 

edit: poor spelling

Edited September 3, 2012 by 4u2nv

[andydude]

Reading the comments I was thinking of something else. Who does Majik Forest belong to? I've encountered runners and walkers with animals on the single track downhill through the forest, with them coming from in front/the bottom, but didn't really mind as they've moved out of the way. I thought it was already open to anybody, cyclists and runners?

[Skubarra]

I agree with Mackem. It's a public benefit organisation that has wider community implications. I haven't heard anything of the proposed changes yet (I'm a member), and I don't think it's wrong to highlight the changes and asking for comments. I'm all for transparency and as I've seen so far, Tygerberg MTB Club is too.

 

As The Hub is a cycling community, I think it's the perfect forum to discuss it.

 

On the actual changes - I don't have enough details yet to make an informed opinion.

 

Ok this is where I'm coming from - basically an identical post was posted on the club's Facebook page and after a loooong discussion the club committee asked nicely to take the matter up directly with them (according to them nobody had done so at that stage) as debating it on public forums is not really helping to resolve the issue. A few hours later the original statement is posted almost verbatim on The Hub by a "brand new" hubber. Just thought "Chainmail" should have given the committee a proper chance to explain/discuss their thinking before running to The Hub with a internal club matter.

 

But no use crying over spilt milk, it's out in the open so discuss away

 

Mackem - The new constitution is on the website and was mentioned in the last 2 email newsletters.

[Skubarra]

Reading the comments I was thinking of something else. Who does Majik Forest belong to? I've encountered runners and walkers with animals on the single track downhill through the forest, with them coming from in front/the bottom, but didn't really mind as they've moved out of the way. I thought it was already open to anybody, cyclists and runners?

 

Majik Forest is public space and the club has no authority there, anybody can use it. The whole trail running issue would be more relevant to places like Meerendal and Nitida where the club has an agreement with the owners.

[Tubeless]

The new constitution was mentioned yes.

 

We all knew there was a proper one coming, but

 

such a drastic deviation needs special mention in the INVITE to the meeting.

[(Deon)]

SO then attend and vote.. simple, but understand the pro's and cons and give the committee a chance to present it's full vision. This cause for concern is based on a very short-sighted "As most people will not read it," opening line.

 

As for sharing the trail, I don't think there is much concern for trailrunner sharing the singletrack, but clear guidelines need to be adopted from day one.