Constantia Greenbelt Trail news and updates

[splat]

I see there was a bit of a FB/twitter eruption about some MTBers riding Die Hel (closed trail) and having a verbal barney with some walkers in the last 24 hours Could not make much sense of it as they were tweets shared to FB.

 

Some pics of the alleged perps

(That looks more like Cecelia though)

 

https://m.facebook.com/groups/171385773234522?view=permalink&id=231276277245471

[Epic Rookie]

So I was looking at a few Strava segments in the hopes of nominating a couple for the Contego comp when I noticed just how many people ride illegally around Constantia and save the segments on Strava.

 

Just for starters, can someone point out how far up toward Woodhead Dam you can ride?

 

I always thought it was illegal and the only section we could ride was the lower trail from Constantia Neck to Cecilia Forest car park.

 

But apparently not according to the group ride of 6 that went up there a while ago, or the pro riders who did the similar climb earlier in the year or even the other guy who did a loop around the dam one evening.

 

I really feel for the guys who put so much time and effort into discussions with SANPARKS and communities and then wonder why it's so difficult to get access.

[Headshot]

We have access to the green belts precisely because they have been used for years by cyclists and were a logical target for trail expansion. The reality is this is how mountain biking has always spread and will continue to, here and around the world.

 

The fact that people cycle up Cecilia is precisely because there is a need for recreational spaces for this activity. It may well be a two edged sword but it is also a sign that access is needed and that its a suitable place for bikes. Not an excuse to bar access. Stellenbosch is packed with trails that riders built or simply started riding and the original Tokai single track was created by people riding bikes up or down a nice hill. 

[(Deon)]

 

So in the case of the greenbelts, as per your logic, we should all ride where it is not allowed and management will see that we need more access and oblige.

 

How is this any different from squatting?

 

Or burning schools?

[DJR]

So in the case of the greenbelts, as per your logic, we should all ride where it is not allowed and management will see that we need more access and oblige.

 

How is this any different from squatting?

 

Or burning schools?

No difference, but you have to admit that the squatting thing has really gone BIG!

 

(Edit: My emoticons refuse to co-operate today, so, I trust you can see my tongue in my cheek!)

[Headshot]

So in the case of the greenbelts, as per your logic, we should all ride where it is not allowed and management will see that we need more access and oblige.

 

How is this any different from squatting?

 

Or burning schools?

 

The differences are obvious. Tell us how many times a week do you break the law Deon?

[Headshot]

So in the case of the greenbelts, as per your logic, we should all ride where it is not allowed and management will see that we need more access and oblige.

 

More petty point scoring Deon? 

 

I said we would not have any trails if it were not for the fact that people used to ride bikes there and built trails in some cases. 

 

For instance, many of the trails proposed in the new EMP( as you well know Deon) are there because illegal as they are, people have been riding them for years and continue to be ridden. The fact that there are no deaths or injury or serious environmental damage  speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the ban on cycling. 

 

The problem is not just cyclists but rather entrenched attitudes held by other users who don't want anyone else encroaching on their turf or could not be bothered to change. . 

 

As an illustration, the green belt signage aims squarely at cyclists with nothing to say about any other trail users. You know, like keep a look out and your dogs under control and such like? Why is that? 

 

The national pass time in SA is to get irritated with someone else be it in your car, with other drivers or cyclists or other people trying to enjoy themselves on a trail. Time for some tolerance from all sides, not just an exaggerated responsibility placed on a single user group, most of whom are walkers, dog walkers and motorists as well. 

 

 

[(Deon)]

So in the case of the greenbelts, as per your logic, we should all ride where it is not allowed and management will see that we need more access and oblige.

 

More petty point scoring Deon? 

 

I said we would not have any trails if it were not for the fact that people used to ride bikes there and built trails in some cases. 

 

For instance, many of the trails proposed in the new EMP( as you well know Deon) are there because illegal as they are, people have been riding them for years and continue to be ridden. The fact that there are no deaths or injury or serious environmental damage  speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the ban on cycling. 

 

The problem is not just cyclists but rather entrenched attitudes held by other users who don't want anyone else encroaching on their turf or could not be bothered to change. . 

 

As an illustration, the green belt signage aims squarely at cyclists with nothing to say about any other trail users. You know, like keep a look out and your dogs under control and such like? Why is that? 

 

The national pass time in SA is to get irritated with someone else be it in your car, with other drivers or cyclists or other people trying to enjoy themselves on a trail. Time for some tolerance from all sides, not just an exaggerated responsibility placed on a single user group, most of whom are walkers, dog walkers and motorists as well. 

If I look objectively at the situation of illegal riding on the greenbelts, it looks more and more like we are really difficult to please.

 

We have access where previously we had none, but now it's not the right access even though it has been explained it is on trial.

 

We also don't have any patience to see the trial basis out, the same one we agreed to through the comment period, the one that says if we all act in good faith, then maybe we will get some more.

 

So what is a "trial"? To me a trial says that we, as the largest user group moving at speeds with the potential to displace other users, need to reign in that "don't care for the rules" attitude and prove we do belong and can share. Would that not dismiss the reason for the complaints as completely unfounded?  

 

I'm torn. What should I as a user do; should I not be satisfied with anything less than what I want now?

 

Look, to be honest  I have no idea what is being debated. In all the years of people riding illegally, not once was there an offer for more access.

[raptor-22]

You're missing the point. People have ridden the green belt for decades .

Then we're told they can't cos some wealthy pensioner moaned. All the while her grand children and neighbours kids enjoyed unrestricted access.

Now access is allowed under review while those who live along it utilizes public land as they always have now under the guise of members of the mtb community .

 

Double standards...

[Headshot]

If there is a complaint the cyclists are always guilty? 

 

There have been a few transgressions but from my observations there is way less cycling on off limits green belts than there was before especially the Hohenhort area. You will never get 100% compliance with any user group anywhere in the world.

 

The latest complaint had nothing to do with speed or bike control. The trial period is more about walkers getting used to sharing than cyclists controlling their bikes- we do that anyway because we don't want to hurt anyone or ourselves.

 

However, we can't control other peoples reactions to us. What many would see as a radical braking maneuver and a safe pass, some over sensitive people might think is dangerous and use it to justify a complaint.

 

There are also strong safety concerns about riding Rhodes Drive leading to some people riding Die Hel. Should a rider risk getting hit by a truck because the public won't allow legal cycling in Die Hel?

 

Why do you think cyclists are the biggest user group? Go and look at the dog walking hot spots in the green belts and you'll see it probably isn't the case. 

 

Cyclists are vocal here and abroad because there is a lot of hate, much of it unjustified hate, thrown our way.  

 

Your last sentence makes no sense at all. Previously everyone co-existed so there was no need for more access  - it was effectively a free pass and it worked. 

[DJR]

If you keep looking only at your rear view mirror when you hurtle down the highway, it will end badly! The fact that people rode the greenbelts illegally for two decades, does NOT mean riding it illegally now will help us getting more access in future. On the contrary. The access we got happened precisely because someone did the right thing, not the wrong thing!

 

The reason for this is that the world has changed since those greenbelts were established. Think I'm joking? Nope! See all the high walls, security guards, electrified fences? They were not there 30 years ago. The worlds attitude to conservation has changed hugely in the same time. Who cared about the Leopard Toad in the 1980s? Mountain biking wasn't even a sport when the greenbelts were formalized. Twenty years ago there were perhaps a dozen people riding the belts. Now (well, before the fire) Tokai saw well over a thousand heads on a weekend day. Our sport has boomed, meaning WE have a huge impact, and that makes us impossible to ignore (for better or worse). It also makes it impossible for us to fly under the radar as we could before.

 

That all means simply that the ONLY logical way forward is to negotiate, motivate and use legal ways to get legitimate access to trails. That will give us long term tenure. No "top down" shortcuts will work anymore. The City of Cape Town has proved its goodwill by opening several places, the Sea point promenade was the first. The Constantia greenbelts also! They have built and are building cycle lanes for commuters and they allow us to have the Argus. That shows me that they are bike friendly. Why not work with them to get what we want?

 

There is a place and a time for protest and civil disobedience (we are South Africans after all) but this is not the thing that will work here.

[DJR]

................... The trial period is more about walkers getting used to sharing than cyclists controlling their bikes- we do that anyway because we don't want to hurt anyone or ourselves....................

 

On Sunday we were treated to the amazing spectacle of a fellow cyclist doing 100% the opposite. Flying at breakneck speed through the narrow blind sections in the lower part of the trail. We saw him coming in time to pull over and stop ourselves. He did not even slow down, actually he stood up and powered around us just to be confronted with a tree which he avoided by swerving into our last rider and then crashed down the bank.....only to get up, jump on his bike and rush off without a word, not even checking that the youngster he ran over was OK.

 

Some people are our enemies even in they walk like us and talk like us!

[raptor-22]

 

 

On Sunday we were treated to the amazing spectacle of a fellow cyclist doing 100% the opposite. Flying at breakneck speed through the narrow blind sections in the lower part of the trail. We saw him coming in time to pull over and stop ourselves. He did not even slow down, actually he stood up and powered around us just to be confronted with a tree which he avoided by swerving into our last rider and then crashed down the bank.....only to get up, jump on his bike and rush off without a word, not even checking that the youngster he ran over was OK.
 
Some people are our enemies even in they walk like us and talk like us!

Yes and they ride and live on the green belt. And when cycling is banned there due to their attitude they will continue to ride there while the rest have to shove off. It's called "sabotage" and not in my back yard.
We re negotiating for access to public land that is not treated as public by the stakeholder laying the complaints.

[(Deon)]

If there is a complaint the cyclists are always guilty? 

 

There have been a few transgressions but from my observations there is way less cycling on off limits green belts than there was before especially the Hohenhort area. You will never get 100% compliance with any user group anywhere in the world.

 

The latest complaint had nothing to do with speed or bike control. The trial period is more about walkers getting used to sharing than cyclists controlling their bikes- we do that anyway because we don't want to hurt anyone or ourselves.

 

However, we can't control other peoples reactions to us. What many would see as a radical braking maneuver and a safe pass, some over sensitive people might think is dangerous and use it to justify a complaint.

 

There are also strong safety concerns about riding Rhodes Drive leading to some people riding Die Hel. Should a rider risk getting hit by a truck because the public won't allow legal cycling in Die Hel?

 

Why do you think cyclists are the biggest user group? Go and look at the dog walking hot spots in the green belts and you'll see it probably isn't the case. 

 

Cyclists are vocal here and abroad because there is a lot of hate, much of it unjustified hate, thrown our way.  

 

Your last sentence makes no sense at all. Previously everyone co-existed so there was no need for more access  - it was effectively a free pass and it worked. 

I understand why I am missing your point. You are not just making one.

 

1. Re cyclists being unfairly targeted for criticism; if you step in dog crap in an area where a sign shows the owner's responsibility to pick it up, you have every right to lay a formal complaint. This works both ways, be found riding in out of bounds areas and suffer the same consequence. Equal rights to the casting of stones.

 

2. The way life was has forever been changed through the request to formally introduce cycling into an area you say needed no intervention. Others feel it was needed. 

 

Like it or not, some grundy was going to put an end to the "agreement" by asking for a piece of paper proving you belong... yes, a piece of paper. So actually, the formality of cycling's induction into the greenbelt is a good thing, now you have your piece of paper. But in return, as it is with the other users, there are a set of rules that apply to you, the cyclist.

 

You say there are good reasons why people continue to ride De Hel. There was a time where people were given an opportunity to state their case or voice their objections to the proposed trial route. I wonder if any of those rogue riders in the pics made any comment at all, or just selfishly threw up their arms??

 

So where do you stand?

 

Cycling where the agreement clearly states we may not:

A. is condoned based on safety concerns of cycling on Rhodes Drive.

B. is not condoned because it has the potential of hurting our case that we can responsibly be given access to all the greenbelts.

[(Deon)]

 

Yes and they ride and live on the green belt. And when cycling is banned there due to their attitude they will continue to ride there while the rest have to shove off. It's called "sabotage" and not in my back yard.

We re negotiating for access to public land that is not treated as public by the stakeholder laying the complaints.

can you prove this?

[Oneman]

I think we've heard everyone's point of view now. May I suggest that if you want to continue, you either start a new thread specifically for that subject, or meet each other for a cup of coffee?

 

As for this thread, I'd like to follow it for updates and news relating to the Constantia Green Belt trail.