Should I fight this unicycling ticket I got in the Grand Canyon?

[tholub]

Originally Posted by maestro8

Tom echoes my sentiments exactly.

When in a national park, or other protected area, I say: "Take only photograps, leave only footprints". Even then, be careful only to leave footprints on walkways... straying off marked / constructed walkways can damage vegatation and wildlife.

Our national parks aren't your playgrounds. They're museums of sorts where nature is to be preserved for the enjoyment of future generations. Your act of defiance is selfish and begs punishment.

The above pontificating, it should be noted, is coming from someone who scrawled graffiti on Pritchett Arch.

[steveyo]

Originally Posted by tholub

The above pontificating, it should be noted, is coming from someone who scrawled graffiti on Pritchett Arch.

Maestro - did you really? Tholub - did he really?

[Munivision]

I think it is better to stay under the radar with unis and not take it to court. As soon as "they" start looking at us, we'll start getting more regulated. Same thing happened with kitesurfing, we are really restricted now. The best you'll get is a reduced fine, they won't throw it out. I fought a ticket for an undersized abalone where the game warden actually chiseled growth off the back of the shell until it was short, took him 3 or 4 tries. The judge had no idea what an abalone was, did not care, just reduced the fine to get rid of me. I suspect the same would happen to you.

[JJuggle]

If you were to see a sign that said "Bicycling Permitted in this Area" would you assume that unicycling was not?

At a local skate park where bicycling is not permitted and unicycles clearly don't fit the legal definition, I'd say go ahead and fight it.

But at the site of a national treasure like the Grand Canyon, there's probably a good reason bicycling is prohibited and if not to the letter of the law at least in spirit, unicycles are equivalent.

So I say, pay the ticket. You earned it.

(Note: I'd say this goes against my general gut feeling that the law, when in question, should let the citizen slide, without the reverse being the case. But as I said, the Grand Canyon, no matter how old it really is, is a treasure to be protected.)

[harper]

It took millions of years for water and ice to form the Grand Canyon by erosion. How long would it take one unicycle to cause that much erosion? The thing was formed by erosion, for Pete's sake. Unicycling by definition enhances the Grand Canyon.

[nathan]

Personally I think you should not fight it. There might be some value to you in seeing how the legal system works, but I doubt much. While by the letter of the law you may be in the right, you clearly weren't following the intent - others have written about that. I think $125 is actually lenient, especially for 3 people. Around here it's $250 per person, and that was over 10 years ago - it may be higher now. And this was in one of the most famous National Parks in the country - I think it's pretty cut and dried what the judge would say.

---Nathan

[UniBrier]

I think before you fight the uni ticket we need to send Tyler down there with a Mountain LongBoard and see if he gets cited. That is definitely not a bicycle. If he gets cited then Tyler's dad can argue his case, if he loses you're toast, if he wins you might have a chance.

[johnfoss]

51 replies already and nobody has said this? Allow me to be first:

Told you so.

Didn't we have this discussion with you already, about the Grand Canyon, right here in this forum? I won't bother looking it up because it's not really relevant. You were warned, along with being given instructions on where you could ride legally (North rim; not exactly convenient if you're on the South rim).

The other major point: an experienced unicyclist like you should know better.

If I were the judge I'd consider extending the fine to the three of you, if all three showed up, or doubling it for your wasting of the court's time. But I can't blame the Danes for following your lead; you're the citizen. You pay.

Flying our unicycles below the legal radar only works if we do it intelligently. As a general rule, "no bikes" should mean no unicycles. Abide by that and you'll rarely have a problem. If there is ever the formation of an International Mountain Unicycling Association (IMUA), one of the things it should do is self-define us as following posted rules/laws for bicycles.

Originally Posted by tholub

The reason for no bicycling is simple politics: "we were here first."

Not so simple as that, I think. Adding bikes to a trail full of tourists from all over the world does more than create erosion. Namely it also adds collisions and falling objects. Liability in general. Good, concientious cyclists can mix well with hikers, as long as there aren't too many of them. But so far nobody has figured out a good way to only allow the "good" cyclists on any trail. There will always be people who can barely ride, and people who think everyone should get out of their way.

Originally Posted by unicycle6869

I'm pretty sure I will defend it but am still thinking it over.

I recommend you do. Time, cost of gas and other expenses will add to the lesson.

And I'd also like to say that we were very curtious to any people walking on the trail, and most of them saw us coming and kindly stepped out of the way.

If the law had been written specifically for the three of you, this would have been fine. As long as everything worked out fine. As long as there were no cliffside retrievals with more trail below, or scared hikers stepping the wrong way off the trail, etc.

Should our taxes have to pay for signs that list all the stuff that's not allowed on the trails? Should the signs list cycling, segways, skateboards, inline skates, regular roller skates, scooters, etc? I hope not. Our national parks are great places to get reinforcement of good old common sense. I remember my first visit to Yellowstone. On entry, you get handed a brochure. In it is lots of useful information for people who enter this wild and protected area. Like what not to do around bears, bison, etc. Read the information or not, but it's *their* park first. You're on your own.

I don't know who carved it, but here's a picture of the Muni carving from the Pritchett Canyon arch. Will that go away after a few rains or still be there next time we visit? I don't know. There were definitely some deeper carvings around there. At least it's not a national park...

All of that said, what trail was it and how did you like it? Did you guys ride back up? Was it the Bright Angel Trail? That's the main trail for the mule tours. See my Bright Angel pictures (only the first 1/2 mile or so) starting with this one.

[unicycle6869]

Originally Posted by harper

It took millions of years for water and ice to form the Grand Canyon by erosion. How long would it take one unicycle to cause that much erosion? The thing was formed by erosion, for Pete's sake. Unicycling by definition enhances the Grand Canyon.

Thanks for the support Harper and I think you make a good point here! But I also think that everyone else has made good points as well on both sides of the gun. Again, keep the comments coming if you have some good ones....

I'd also like to state that we did not know 100% that it was illegal to unicycle there. So it wasn't like we were purposely breaking the law, we just thought it'd be fun and exciting to ride below the rim for a little bit and didn't see any harm in it. Like I said, we were very careful of pedestrians and dismounted for any mules we came upon and let them pass. We figured if it was illegal, we would just get warned as it is not stated in the rules/signs/etc. We really didn't think we actually could or would get a ticket for unicycling. Also I didn't do it to disrespect the grand canyon or anyone cause I have much love for that huge inverted mt just have a hard time seeing the harm in unicycling into the canyon for 15 minutes.

I'd like to hear some more reasons why unicycles shouldn't be allowed in the Grand Canyon and why I deserved to get fined so I can further understand the other view. I've already heard these below but am not convinced they are good reasons;
-erosion (mules are worse and probably even hikers)
-bicycles imply unicycles (bi does not eqaul uni)
-we should have known better (why? cause we didn't see the harm in it and wouldn't have done it if we knew it was 100% illegal)
-putting ourselfs or others in danger (we didn't do either)
I do understand why bicycles are illegal, cause they go much much faster downhill and put lots of people in danger, plus when they skid they erode the trails much faster.

[tholub]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

At least it's not a national park...

As long as we're going off on a tangent:

The National Park Service is in trouble. Partly that's due to the short-sighted, industry-is-everything orientation of the current administration, but it's also due to a change in demographics. Attendance is down across the board, partly because young people aren't as interested in their parents in visiting places like Arches and the Grand Canyon. The Economist had an interesting article on the subject, with the slant that the NPS has set up our parks as if they are museums: places to visit for serious study, rather than places to have fun. The attitude of a lot of young people is, why should I go to Yosemite where I can't ride my bike/unicycle/skateboard, when I can go to Northstar and ride the lifts? It's still beautiful in Tahoe.

The NPS is trying to do something about this; a couple of years ago they drafted a resolution recognizing bicycling as being consistent with the goals of the national parks, and now they're organizing forums with ROMP and the IMBA, looking for appropriate places to allow biking in our parks. (Which will almost certainly not include the singletrack down from the south rim of the Grand Canyon, for what that's worth). Over time, I think you'll see more and more bike/yike access to existing park trails where conflicts are not likely to be problematic.

On yet another tangent, I personally think that the designation of land as national park or not really shouldn't change your behavior much. The Pritchett Arch area is literally across the street from Arches National Park, and has as many named arches as Arches itself. The national park boundary is arbitrary, and being outside it shouldn't mean that we can ignore our environmental impact.

We should treat all our public lands as if they're national parks. And we should treat our national parks as if they're places to enjoy, not just study.

[unicycle6869]

Interesting tholub...very interesting.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by unicycle6869

I'd also like to state that we did not know 100% that it was illegal to unicycle there.

All right, you made me go and use the Search. I guess I'm reluctant because results are often iffy, but a "grand canyon" search worked just fine. Memories. That doesn't establish riding there as "100% illegal" but the message was pretty clear.

So it wasn't like we were purposely breaking the law, we just thought it'd be fun and exciting to ride below the rim for a little bit and didn't see any harm in it.

Lots of us have longed to ride those trails. That doesn't make it right, even if nothing *did* go wrong. The harm would be in if something did. You can control what you do, but you cannot control the reactions of an inexperienced hiker from Japan, or a mule (with a fat woman on it) that you didn't see until you came around the corner. You were lucky. Lucky nothing bad happened, and lucky you were only fined $125. Not only do you have the ticket to put in a frame and tell stories about, but you got to do the ride many of us wanted to try!

-we should have known better (why? cause we didn't see the harm in it and wouldn't have done it if we knew it was 100% illegal)

You don't need to see the harm, just use common sense. Lots of great, funny videos are made of people who didn't see the harm.

-putting ourselfs or others in danger (we didn't do either)

Everyone who ventures onto one of those trails puts theirself in danger, not only to mistakes they might make, but to the possible mistakes of others or natural causes.

I think what happened was that you made your choice, and the consequences were steeper than you expected. Your choice was not without thought or previous advice from other unicyclists. Your lesson is that the National Parks Service doesn't mess around. If they had only given you a warning, what would your message to all of us have been? C'mon down and ride the Grand Canyon's trails! We got yelled at, but we still got to do it, so what's the problem? I think the ranger did the right thing. The Danes probably didn't get fines because they may be harder or impossible to prosecute if they don't pay.

[unicycle6869]

I was waiting for your response John! Yes we did already talk about it a year or two ago on the forums just before I went there. But I never brought my uni with me on the trip and so I didn't try riding it then. Now I did.

You say an experienced rider like me should know better, but I guess I did not cause I did it, right? I guess I just didn't see any harm in it and so I didn't see a problem with it. Plus it usually is easier to ask for forgiveness than permision! And don't really see why common sense should have told us not to ride it? Cause apparantly it didnt'?

The trail was the Bright Angel one and looking back I guess we probably should have rode the other one since it's probably less busy and we might not have been caught or ticketed on that one? We only rode about 10-15 minutes down, not even to the 1 1/2 mile spot. Then hiked back up, we didn't ride up. The trail was fun going down and it really would have been cool to ride to the bottom. Maybe when/if I go fight it, I'll try riding down the other trail all the way to the bottom! That is if I win of course!

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Flying our unicycles below the legal radar only works if we do it intelligently. As a general rule, "no bikes" should mean no unicycles. Abide by that and you'll rarely have a problem. If there is ever the formation of an International Mountain Unicycling Association (IMUA), one of the things it should do is self-define us as following posted rules/laws for bicycles.

Should our taxes have to pay for signs that list all the stuff that's not allowed on the trails? Should the signs list cycling, segways, skateboards, inline skates, regular roller skates, scooters, etc? I hope not. Our national parks are great places to get reinforcement of good old common sense. I remember my first visit to Yellowstone. On entry, you get handed a brochure. In it is lots of useful information for people who enter this wild and protected area. Like what not to do around bears, bison, etc. Read the information or not, but it's *their* park first. You're on your own.

And I disagree that if a IMUA is formed that they should self-define us as following posted rules/laws for bicycles. Cause we are not the same as them and I think we should be allowed on more trails than a fast dangerous mt bike and maybe even not allowed on some of the fast smooth downhill mt bike trails.

Also, BTW all the sign would have to say is "No cycles" or "No wheels" and that'd cover all of the above. Actually pretty simple and even less lettering than saying "No Bicycling". Wouldn't it actually be nice to see signs that say if you can actually unicycle there or not? I think it'd be very nice.

Thanks for the input and thoughts John. I do agree and see some of the points you made!

[unicycle6869]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Everyone who ventures onto one of those trails puts theirself in danger, not only to mistakes they might make, but to the possible mistakes of others or natural causes.

I think what happened was that you made your choice, and the consequences were steeper than you expected. Your choice was not without thought or previous advice from other unicyclists. Your lesson is that the National Parks Service doesn't mess around. If they had only given you a warning, what would your message to all of us have been? C'mon down and ride the Grand Canyon's trails! We got yelled at, but we still got to do it, so what's the problem? I think the ranger did the right thing. The Danes probably didn't get fines because they may be harder or impossible to prosecute if they don't pay.

Yes, I guess everyon is at danger in the grand canyon but I didn't think that us riding down there put the danger any higher. Especially since the trails are pretty wide and relatively smooth (at least to the point we rode). Actually I think I'd be more at danger walking as I'm very clumsy!

You do make a great point in the above paragragh though. And I'd say you're almost right on the money (especially about the Danes not getting fined). And one more thing I forgot to mention is that we probably wouldn't have gotten a ticket if it weren't for some bicyclists that got caught a few weeks ago in the Grand Canyon. Apparantly the ranger told us they got fined or something, but they just laughed it off and said it was a joke. So now they are trying to be more strict so more bikers don't come and try it. Or something like that.

[harper]

Sometime ago, a very famous unicyclist.com member had a quote from Mark Twain in his signature line.

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do."