|
Mixing bicyclists and non-bicyclists within the same facility introduces a potentially
fatal safety conflict on par with mountain bikers and pedestrians sharing city park trails. The
issue of mixed usage is simply insurmountable, given the potential for liability, physical injury,
unstructured nature of the activity, and current municipal budgetary realities.
However, what bicyclists
seek is legitimate: a recreational outlet. Skaters for Public Skateparks is leveraging
its experience to assist their efforts, yet protect the safety of non-bicyclists, through
the creation of freestyle bicycling areas open to a diverse spectrum of bicycling styles. Stay tuned
for developments in this area as discussions with representatives of the mountain and trials biking community mature
to the point a tangible recommendations and actionable adoption plans become available.
Bicycles and non-bicylists in Skateboard Parks - Unsafe at Any Speed
SPS exists to aid communities in the acquisition of a quality skatepark.
Typically, those who decide these matters are non-skaters, and we find it most
productive to speak in a language they understand, which necessitates an
abandonment of hyperbole and hysteria.
Allow us to step back and illustrate this from a 30,000 ft level.
Think about city parks - not skateparks, just parks where families play in the
grass, people jog, and friends play Frisbee. When you think of great city parks,
you may think of Boston's Commons, America's oldest public park. Today it's a
stellar example of what a public space should be, but did you know that a few
hundred years ago it was used to host a public gallows? Or that it was used for
grazing cattle and sheep? These weren't misuses: at the time these were
considered acceptable ways to use public spaces.
Over time society evolved and with it the concept of what a public space
should be, and in what manner it should serve the public at large. That brings
us full-circle: what are city parks in 21st century America? Lush, inviting
public spaces where the following activities can be enjoyed:
-
- Jogging
- Walking
- Laying in the grass
- Basketball / tennis / baseball (within well-defined and regulated areas)
Even if you aren't a skater or a biker, involvement with the issues facing
today's Parks and Recreation departments finds a continuation of the kind of
societal evolution that turned Boston's corpse and cattle-littered Commons
into the park it is today.
What issues face 21st century Parks and Recreation departments? Trails in the
past reserved for hikers and joggers are "torn up" by bicyclists on equipment
representing the leading-edge of a rapidly-evolving sport. Grassy fields that
played exclusive host to generations of children are today muddied and littered
with feces as a new generation of urban citizen demands equitable recreational
rights for their canine companions. Tennis and basketball courts are disrupted
and destroyed as skateboarders desperately seek any paved surface to recreate
in a manner of their choosing. And so on.
The public's will evolves as society changes, and Parks and Recreation
Departments respond by identifying new recreational trends and activities,
enumerating their attributes, evaluating how the activity may complement or
challenge others, eventually recommending solutions striking an equitable
balance between the diverse and aggregate needs of their community.
And that's where we are with the issue of bikes and skateboards within the
context of freely-accessible public skateboard parks. Given the immaturity
of the issue it would be reckless and irresponsible to merely dictate
opinion as recommended policy. Instead, SPS serves to assist Parks and
Recreation Departments as they thoughtfully evaluate the inherent issues
related to combining these uses.
SPS is an orchestrated aggregation of the world's most experienced skatepark
advocates. We have developed tools for evaluating these kinds of issues, and
make them freely available to those charged with addressing them. It's for this
reason we chose to ignore the hysterical and focus instead on the real issues.
For example, the issue of bikes within the context of a skateboard park is
comprehensively separated into two global categories:
- Safety of the users
- Damage to the facility
1.) Safety of the users
Just as one must evaluate the feasibility of mixing dogs and children, or
mountain bikes and joggers, Parks and Recreation personnel must determine what
represents a safe mix of bikers and skateboarders within an enclosed and often
crowded skateboard park. Many potential options exist, from on-site management,
to split-sessions, to dual single-use facilities. All come with associated
costs, advantages and disadvantages.
2.) Damage to the facility (not to be confused with normal wear and tear)
Addressing issues pertaining to potential damage is no different than doing
so with other dual or multi-usage facilities. From an engineering perspective
one only needs to identify those attributes that cause damage, enumerate their
properties, then develop strategies for mitigating damage, all within the
project's fiscal constraints.
The artful balance so commonly attributed to Parks and Recreation personnel
is the ability to strike a balance between mitigating damage and protecting
the core intended usage of the facility...within budget.
As it pertains to skateboard parks, we've learned that high-quality steel
edging (or "coping") adequately mitigates damage from bikes, but the manner
in which it must be installed comes with an additional cost. Additionally,
this steel coping represents for many skateboarders a significantly weakened
athletic experience, relative to available, albeit illicit, alternatives
(namely, the urban environment). We’ve also learned that concrete with a
higher structural (PSI) value has a better chance to survive the pounding of
handlebars, pedals and pegs etc. from an elevated bike bailout. Issues such as
this must be considered before the installation of any skatepark facility.
We ask that all avoid the temptation to seek the quick answers for these kinds
of issues. Doing so only ensures an inadequately informed community invests
in a facility that fails to best serve the community's needs. Similarly, we
thank the majority who continue to assist our efforts to formalize a framework
for decision-making on this issue and others. This may not be the easy path,
and may not satisfy those who seek to divide by inflaming passions, but in
the end will surely emerge as the most effective way to strike an equitable
balance for each community.
|
