"Newsflash: biking is bad for natural areas. The speed and weight of bikes do so much more damage than footsteps. Bikes accelerate erosion, leave v-shaped ruts in the trail, kill small plants and wildlife on and alongside trails, drive wildlife out of the area, and set an example that it's okay to disrespect the environment."

Do more research, please. The overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows no statistical difference between hikers and mountain bikers in regards to erosion and trail damage. People who hike off trail damage as many plants and wildlife. The best solution is properly designed and maintained trail systems.

"There are trails that are designed and meant for bicycles. Please stick to those."

Please look at a map of trails in the Portland area and highlight the handful that allow bicycles. The complete lack of off-road cycling access is the singular cause of this issue. Cyclists wouldn't feel the need to snipe hiking trails if there was a suitable alternative within cycling distance of the metro area.

@2, You made some great points.

I wonder who it is at the mercury who's so quick to block and censor opinions? My bet is its the one that says "ethics be damned."

What a joke. It's always interesting to see what ideas and narratives journalists and "civil rights" advocates are interesting in silencing and censoring.

I googled the definition of fascism and its described as "suppressing opposition and criticism, controlling all industry and commerce, and promoting nationalism and often racism."

While it's obvious your literacy skills can and should be questioned, your ability to converse in english implies that the issue is at hand is not a language barrier. And once more, that's all beside the point.

Listen old man, simply saying something does not make it true, you are free to sooth your ego and play make believe all you want at home, but once you venture out into public with the rest of us, we have a reasonable expectation for you to at least be mindful of the signs and traffic signals all around you.

I understand you think this is a walking trail, and it was a one-point a long long time ago. But about 8.6 years ago (give or take) this was converted into a bike trail. This fact was not only broadcast to the press and public at the time, but there have also since been follow-up reports on how popular the bike trail is with locals and tourists. There has been community investment and activities devoted to the maintenance of the bike trail. That's important to know because it furthers the record that you do not own this trail and are not solely in charge of it.

Look around you, do you see those signs with the two circles connected by a bisected diamond with two horizontal dashes above them? That's the international symbol for a bike. Beyond all the announcements and guides and other information, those signs you see along the trail you've slowly been walking on indicate that this is in-fact a bike trail. And while tricycles are always welcome, it's downright dangerous to walk along it, let alone block the paths of others.

Now you can get all your old friends together and try to wind back the progress we've made on this trail all you want, but that doesn't change the reality we share together.

Should we set aside days where it is a pedestrian only trail where older members of our community can walk through to job their memory and preserve their sense of nostalgia? It's not a completely distasteful compromise, but I would expect them to at least start showing up
and delivering their counterproposals to the community meetings where we discuss the trail, it's funding, and its maintenance together.

Now, in the spirit of understanding, not to be rude, but it would make sense if you at your advanced age would be experiencing memory and cognition issues. Whether or not that is the case, maybe you should ask someone for assistance in helping others better understand your concept of why, despite all the signs and documentation, you still think that this is a walking trail and you get to summarily dictate how others can use it without any public input.

I've had my bike rides interrupted at Gateway Green, Portland's ONLY (yes, ONLY) dedicated place to ride mountain bikes, by people hiking the trails. You know what I didn't do about it? Whine to I, Anon.

And @1 has it in a nutshell. When riding mountain bikes is outlawed, only outlaws will ride mountain bikes. Give us more trails and we'll gladly use them. Forest Park if fucking massive but we're only allowed to ride on fire roads, which is the kiddie pool version of mountain biking.

*typo, should read "is fucking massive"

Hey Beef & Slop, A simple sign like "20 is Plenty" or "Try defensive bicycling you idiot"
says more than a mere "No Bicycles Allowed" sign would. I've had 5 folding bikes, AKA the "Sidewalk Bike" because they're so slow and easy to dismount. All were built from the frame up for ergonomics, utility, safety. PBOT has some real characters in the Wheeler era, damn that clown and his "driverless" robotaxi scheme to sell Portland real estate.

Maybe somebody from the Portland Mercury can help clarify why this truly courageous and brave, speaking-truth-to-power post was published a week later in The Stranger with an "In Seattle" addition. Are we altering these anonymous accounts to fit whatever region the item is being published in? This sure doesn't seem to be a really transparent or honest decision, but perhaps there's more to this seemingly not very complicated story!

Perhaps the anonymous writer submitted the same anonymous story, nearly verbatim, to both newspapers at the same time and somehow they both decided to publish the nearly identical account within nearly a week of each other? What could it be? Please help me understand, because gosh I sure wouldn't want to think that these co-owned newspapers are coordinating bullshit, make-believe stories to gin up dumpy, stupid anti-bicycle garbage posts. Please. Help me understand. Come on.

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/03/30/69496556/i-anonymous-im-sick-of-your-bicycling-bullshit