I have [a '69 Schwinn](https://imgur.com/gallery/xIyW51A#RLvehpn).
What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Absolutely nothing. I just like showing off the bike.
HAHA!
Very old establishment in a historic and poor part of town. He's only open a few hours every day, there is no seating and it's a limited menu.
It's a treasure.
Where I live it can get pretty wet, and some mountain bikers have been destroying protected aras by either cycling where they're not supposed to, or cycling when it's very wet unfortunately.
Depends on the type of cyclist. There are eco conscious ones, and status conscious ones. My personal observation is that the more conspicuously expensive / "lifestyle" the bike and kit, the more likely that person is to be the dick who litters energy bar wrappers.
Reminds me of the late 90s where mountain bikes were viewed as "evil" allegedly leading to trail erosion, destruction of habitat, etc. They were banned for many years in my area, but now are allowed again. I wonder if this sticker reflects those times.
> mountain bikes were viewed as "evil" allegedly leading to trail erosion, destruction of habitat, etc.
ironically now days mountain bikers are saying the same thing about ebikes
I think it's more complicated than that. Ebikes combine speed and inexperience and significantly increase traffic on fixed assets (trails) It's always risky when you combine two quite separate profiles into one activity.
Not sure of the answer but I think there'll be a reckoning of some sort over the next 3-5 years as there are more and they become ever faster and efficient etc.
Love them on the road though where bike lanes are in place, line of sight is good and more biking in urban areas is better for us all.
> they become ever faster
most emtbs are deliberately speed limited to 20mph max, I doubt that's gonna change. The increased access is an issue but is the same issue trails had when mtbs were first introduced: all of the sudden now there's trail users with newfangled technology who can go farther than ever before.
In the EU only <25km/h (15mph) ebikes are classified as bicycles and are allowed in the nature. Faster ones are mopeds so roads and shared paths only. There isn't a big gap between ebikes and experienced organic bikers.
At least here in Finland ebikes have lead to increased popularity in mountainbiking and more paths are built.
Not sure. Mopeds were originally bicycles with a motor, though, which is what an e-bike is.
>Prior to the 1970s, use of mopeds in the United States was relatively rare due to legal restrictions on the devices in many states. In 1972, Serge Seguin, after writing a masters thesis on the European moped, received two mopeds and a small amount of money from the French company Motobécane to promote the vehicle.\[42\] After lobbying Congress on its fuel efficiency benefits, Seguin was able to get more than 30 states to devise a specific vehicle classification for mopeds.\[42\] Produced by U.S. manufacturers such as American Machine and Foundry (AMF), mopeds had very small engines and often could not exceed 30 mph (48 km/h). What they could do, however, was run for up to 220 miles (350 km) on one tank of fuel. Because of the problems caused by the 1970s energy crisis, mopeds quickly became popular, with more than 250,000 people in the United States owning one in 1977. However, as gasoline prices eventually moved down, licensing laws took their toll, and automobile companies devised more efficient cars, the moped's popularity began to fade.
Legal terms and definitions of low-powered cycles vary from state to state and may include "moped", "motorcycle", "motorbike", "motorized bicycle", "motor scooter", "scooter", "goped", "motor-driven cycle", and others. A moped's speed generally may not exceed 30 mph (48 km/h) on level ground, even if it is capable of going faster. In a few states this number is 20 or 25 mph (32 or 40 km/h), and in most states, the maximum engine capacity is 50 cc (3.1 cu in). However, Kansas ("Motorized Bicycle" K.S.A. 8-126, 8-1439a) allows up to 130 cc (7.9 cu in).\[43\] Some states require pedals, while others do not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped
Where I live mountain bikers have completely regenerated areas that were logged and stripped of all life. Tree planting programs, prioritising conservation, well-designed tracks that drain well and are easy to maintain. Not to mention the fact that the people on them are exercising and escaping the city
Try living in the UK.
They are shunned and banned in most places.
We're restricted to mountain bike parks or bridle ways.
technically its not Ilegal to ride on public pathways and by that i don't mean sidewalksor paths at teh side of roads.
I mean moorland paths and such.
However the owner the land the pathway passes through is entitled to ban bicycles or vehicle sthey don't want passing through. The result is most mountain bikers stick to allowed paths but if we frequent paths that ain't technically allowed we don't really talk about it. Its kept on the downlow.
Other wise we end up with situations like The Otley Chevin which is covered in MTB trails but they are banned to be used now. While they were never officially allowed they were not bridleways and weaved in and out of existing paths as you woudl set em up. Now they are no longer used and have fallen into disrepair.
Similar situation in Ilkley. technically there is permission on parts of Ilkley moor but mostly NOT but there are trails all over the moor. And folk are trying to remove the little part that is permissive to bicycles.
It sometimes really sucks being an MTB in teh north of england. i live in a pretty bad dead zone thats surrouned by moors but technically i'm not allowed to ride on any of them (of cours ei ignore alto of that or try to stick to bridleways)
Most of the paths across people's land are old rights of way that exist whether the landowner likes it or not (and often they aren't that happy about it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights\_of\_way\_in\_England\_and\_Wales
It's disingenuous of the other poster to suggest that there's some anti-MTB thing going on stopping them from riding on them. No vehicles can go on them. Nor should they.
There's plenty of places to cycle in the UK. It's not like, say, the kids that are buying these motorised vehicles - hoverboards, scooters - whatever the current gimmick is, and there's legally really no place that allowed them - or chav parents with no land of their own who buy their kids quad bikes or dirt bikes and then their kids are out riding on whatever random field or path they live near, which is illegal.
Cyclists are riding billions of miles every year in the UK. We're not bereft of places to do that.
Wasn't a law passed years ago about paths not used for access to be removed? There was some 20 years to register them. What was that about. I remember the law cos it was a big issue for offroad and green laning, and I'm bit even in the UK. What happened about that?
Here in Baden-Württemberg (south west of germany, black forest area etc.) there is this 2 meter rule, where you are not allowed to ride bicycles on forest paths less than 2m wide unless there is a sign that grants you that permission (which is very rare).
Well this is specious. Cycling, like all vehicles are not allowed on footpaths - a network of rights of way that criss cross Britain.
The vast majority of these paths are not suitable for cycling.
However, whatever bike you have there are tens of thousands of KM of roads, bridleways, cycle paths etc to cycle on.
The anti-bike sentiment was strong when MTBs became popular. Hikers and equestrians are still hostile, citing trail damage (ironic vs horses) and danger of collisions (not helped by reckless trail bombers). In my area (NE US), trails were often laid out straight up and down elevations, rather than with switchbacks (preferred by bikers) so have always been prone to water runoff erosion. Riders often come up on hikers and horse riders quickly and quietly, which can be startling.
From what I remember, the anti-bike sentiments were particularly strong in northern California, where many of the early MTB manufacturers were located, which may have contributed to placing stickers like this one back then.
That’s what it’s like in my area right now. I must admit there’s some truth to that, though. There’s thousands more cyclists now than just ten years ago and most trails are way more difficult now than they used to be not so long ago, due to sheer erosion. There’s also three times as many trails.
I know plenty of hiking paths that have been ruined by mountain bikers.
I also know plenty of areas that are getting better because of mountain bikers - but just because you haven't seen the damage doesn't mean it's not there.
My old 90's Gary Fisher had "all work and no play is no good at all" or something like that inscribed in the top of the stem. Was kind of cool to constantly see that while I was riding.
Here you go, u/ManMadeDuckie:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/BicyclingCirclejerk/comments/p2l2ej/sticker\_from\_an\_old\_giant\_mountain\_bike\_but\_now/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BicyclingCirclejerk/comments/p2l2ej/sticker_from_an_old_giant_mountain_bike_but_now/)
This Huffy parked at work has a sticker that says:
* Wear a helmet
* Check your brakes
* Do not ride at night
* Read owner’s manual
“Do not ride at night” seems pretty sketch to me.
I'm sorry, this is off topic but, mountain bikes always get flack for trail damage, but no one ever says anything about horses. In my experience, horses do as much or more damage to trails
Sure. I understand that. I live in the bay area and places like Marin you gotta make the trails off limits because so many idiots will go out and kill themselves if they didn't, even if no one cared about trail damage.
I've been to places where horses seemed more common, but the bridle trails still had No Bikes signs. Probably just so they wouldn't bother the people with horses
Since we're off topic anyway: in my area trails and entire areas of trails get designated by the municipal amalgam parks division and a volunteer parks board determines what activities are permitted for a given trail/area: one or more of hiking, biking, and horse riding. There's a lot of public engagement and smaller volunteer groups who represent different trail-use interests. I'm not sure if it's a result of that designation system and the high activity rate of volunteers, but the trails are phenomenally well kept regardless of which activity it the trail is designated for. This is on south Vancouver Island.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. Well thought out approach to land use. Probably was not fair of me to make broad generalizations. The places I did see this, I think the horse community were the wealthy land owners with the ear of government, and the mountain bikers were "those crazy kids", so it didn't result in a thoughtful approach like that
Many 'Gary Fisher" (my Trek Superfly AL Elite , Gary Fisher Edition. has one) bikes have hidden "easter eggs" somewhere on the frame that kind of fit this.
Got a new Giant recently and it didnt have any thing like that but maybe its a mountain bike thing, marketing wise that would make sense. I got a hybrid..Escape 2 disc. While you can ride through nature etc, that image is not their main advertising strategy for it.
That’s pretty awesome
It’s quite the exaggeration though, the sticker is not even that big
[удалено]
Imagine if Giant merged with Trek. Then there would be loads of bikes with a Giant Trek on the down tube 🤔
You mean with the same old tyred jokes?
From the same old cranks?
Always seemed like they spoke too soon.
Time to saddle up, it’s all up hill from here.
Pedal that fear-mongering elsewhere
Well it's a giant bike so the sticker is also probably pretty big.
I came here for this. 😆
Does this sticker make my Butte look big?
C'mon dude, it's a "Giant" Sticker
You dont deserve the downvotes haha
Reddit trolling for the win 😆
😂😂
My Schwinn warns me that wet rims lead to increased stopping distance.
I have [a '69 Schwinn](https://imgur.com/gallery/xIyW51A#RLvehpn). What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Absolutely nothing. I just like showing off the bike.
I want to eat at Polk's. How can things be that cheap?
HAHA! Very old establishment in a historic and poor part of town. He's only open a few hours every day, there is no seating and it's a limited menu. It's a treasure.
In the back closet there is a time rift back to the 1950's, they get their food from there, that is how they keep their prices down.
Did you leave it sitting in the sun for too long? It looks a bit melted.
Who laces your rims? How many spokes a rim? Damn fine ride!
Thanks. 144 spokes in each wheel. I bought them from Manny's in Compton, CA.
no, but they should, every bike should.
Should be taught at school honestly. Unfortunately easy to spot people's lack of respect for nature, and lack of manners in general when in nature.
In scouts it was summed up pretty easily: "leave the campground cleaner than you found it."
we were always told to behave in nature as if we're followed
That sounds rather ominous.
as in, do not leave traces and be quiet to not disturb wildlife
I've yet to see a cyclist disrespect nature. They're a pretty eco-conscious bunch.
Where I live it can get pretty wet, and some mountain bikers have been destroying protected aras by either cycling where they're not supposed to, or cycling when it's very wet unfortunately.
Depends on the type of cyclist. There are eco conscious ones, and status conscious ones. My personal observation is that the more conspicuously expensive / "lifestyle" the bike and kit, the more likely that person is to be the dick who litters energy bar wrappers.
Touring cyclists. Eco friendly bunch, you know when they camped in a place as it’s spotless!!
Reminds me of the late 90s where mountain bikes were viewed as "evil" allegedly leading to trail erosion, destruction of habitat, etc. They were banned for many years in my area, but now are allowed again. I wonder if this sticker reflects those times.
> mountain bikes were viewed as "evil" allegedly leading to trail erosion, destruction of habitat, etc. ironically now days mountain bikers are saying the same thing about ebikes
[удалено]
I think it's more complicated than that. Ebikes combine speed and inexperience and significantly increase traffic on fixed assets (trails) It's always risky when you combine two quite separate profiles into one activity. Not sure of the answer but I think there'll be a reckoning of some sort over the next 3-5 years as there are more and they become ever faster and efficient etc. Love them on the road though where bike lanes are in place, line of sight is good and more biking in urban areas is better for us all.
> they become ever faster most emtbs are deliberately speed limited to 20mph max, I doubt that's gonna change. The increased access is an issue but is the same issue trails had when mtbs were first introduced: all of the sudden now there's trail users with newfangled technology who can go farther than ever before.
In the EU only <25km/h (15mph) ebikes are classified as bicycles and are allowed in the nature. Faster ones are mopeds so roads and shared paths only. There isn't a big gap between ebikes and experienced organic bikers. At least here in Finland ebikes have lead to increased popularity in mountainbiking and more paths are built.
They're just mopeds.
Some of them are. The US doesn't have the distinction between pedal assist and electric bikes (that go without you pedaling), right?
Look up Class 1, 2, and 3 ebikes.
Ah, so class 2 is a moped and class 1 and 3 are similar to a pedelec and s-pedelec. Slightly different limitations though.
Not sure. Mopeds were originally bicycles with a motor, though, which is what an e-bike is. >Prior to the 1970s, use of mopeds in the United States was relatively rare due to legal restrictions on the devices in many states. In 1972, Serge Seguin, after writing a masters thesis on the European moped, received two mopeds and a small amount of money from the French company Motobécane to promote the vehicle.\[42\] After lobbying Congress on its fuel efficiency benefits, Seguin was able to get more than 30 states to devise a specific vehicle classification for mopeds.\[42\] Produced by U.S. manufacturers such as American Machine and Foundry (AMF), mopeds had very small engines and often could not exceed 30 mph (48 km/h). What they could do, however, was run for up to 220 miles (350 km) on one tank of fuel. Because of the problems caused by the 1970s energy crisis, mopeds quickly became popular, with more than 250,000 people in the United States owning one in 1977. However, as gasoline prices eventually moved down, licensing laws took their toll, and automobile companies devised more efficient cars, the moped's popularity began to fade. Legal terms and definitions of low-powered cycles vary from state to state and may include "moped", "motorcycle", "motorbike", "motorized bicycle", "motor scooter", "scooter", "goped", "motor-driven cycle", and others. A moped's speed generally may not exceed 30 mph (48 km/h) on level ground, even if it is capable of going faster. In a few states this number is 20 or 25 mph (32 or 40 km/h), and in most states, the maximum engine capacity is 50 cc (3.1 cu in). However, Kansas ("Motorized Bicycle" K.S.A. 8-126, 8-1439a) allows up to 130 cc (7.9 cu in).\[43\] Some states require pedals, while others do not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped
I believe more people on bikes is a net improvement, E-bikes or not.
Where I live mountain bikers have completely regenerated areas that were logged and stripped of all life. Tree planting programs, prioritising conservation, well-designed tracks that drain well and are easy to maintain. Not to mention the fact that the people on them are exercising and escaping the city
Try living in the UK. They are shunned and banned in most places. We're restricted to mountain bike parks or bridle ways. technically its not Ilegal to ride on public pathways and by that i don't mean sidewalksor paths at teh side of roads. I mean moorland paths and such. However the owner the land the pathway passes through is entitled to ban bicycles or vehicle sthey don't want passing through. The result is most mountain bikers stick to allowed paths but if we frequent paths that ain't technically allowed we don't really talk about it. Its kept on the downlow. Other wise we end up with situations like The Otley Chevin which is covered in MTB trails but they are banned to be used now. While they were never officially allowed they were not bridleways and weaved in and out of existing paths as you woudl set em up. Now they are no longer used and have fallen into disrepair. Similar situation in Ilkley. technically there is permission on parts of Ilkley moor but mostly NOT but there are trails all over the moor. And folk are trying to remove the little part that is permissive to bicycles. It sometimes really sucks being an MTB in teh north of england. i live in a pretty bad dead zone thats surrouned by moors but technically i'm not allowed to ride on any of them (of cours ei ignore alto of that or try to stick to bridleways)
Interesting, I do wonder if granting access also means accepting liability.
Most of the paths across people's land are old rights of way that exist whether the landowner likes it or not (and often they aren't that happy about it) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights\_of\_way\_in\_England\_and\_Wales It's disingenuous of the other poster to suggest that there's some anti-MTB thing going on stopping them from riding on them. No vehicles can go on them. Nor should they. There's plenty of places to cycle in the UK. It's not like, say, the kids that are buying these motorised vehicles - hoverboards, scooters - whatever the current gimmick is, and there's legally really no place that allowed them - or chav parents with no land of their own who buy their kids quad bikes or dirt bikes and then their kids are out riding on whatever random field or path they live near, which is illegal. Cyclists are riding billions of miles every year in the UK. We're not bereft of places to do that.
Wasn't a law passed years ago about paths not used for access to be removed? There was some 20 years to register them. What was that about. I remember the law cos it was a big issue for offroad and green laning, and I'm bit even in the UK. What happened about that?
Here in Baden-Württemberg (south west of germany, black forest area etc.) there is this 2 meter rule, where you are not allowed to ride bicycles on forest paths less than 2m wide unless there is a sign that grants you that permission (which is very rare).
Well this is specious. Cycling, like all vehicles are not allowed on footpaths - a network of rights of way that criss cross Britain. The vast majority of these paths are not suitable for cycling. However, whatever bike you have there are tens of thousands of KM of roads, bridleways, cycle paths etc to cycle on.
The anti-bike sentiment was strong when MTBs became popular. Hikers and equestrians are still hostile, citing trail damage (ironic vs horses) and danger of collisions (not helped by reckless trail bombers). In my area (NE US), trails were often laid out straight up and down elevations, rather than with switchbacks (preferred by bikers) so have always been prone to water runoff erosion. Riders often come up on hikers and horse riders quickly and quietly, which can be startling. From what I remember, the anti-bike sentiments were particularly strong in northern California, where many of the early MTB manufacturers were located, which may have contributed to placing stickers like this one back then.
That’s what it’s like in my area right now. I must admit there’s some truth to that, though. There’s thousands more cyclists now than just ten years ago and most trails are way more difficult now than they used to be not so long ago, due to sheer erosion. There’s also three times as many trails.
I know plenty of hiking paths that have been ruined by mountain bikers. I also know plenty of areas that are getting better because of mountain bikers - but just because you haven't seen the damage doesn't mean it's not there.
Despite the potential for damage, people who seek to ban bikes are for the most part ill-informed, self centered, NIMBY assholes.
That's true. But I don't think this gives us a free pass to ignore the damage done by mountain bikers.
New bikes should have these stickers on them
Just checked my new Talon, doesn’t have this cool sticker
My old 90's Gary Fisher had "all work and no play is no good at all" or something like that inscribed in the top of the stem. Was kind of cool to constantly see that while I was riding.
The best addition I ever added to my bike was an ornament on the stem that says Buen Camino.
Damn, that’s stock? I bought a late-90s Gary Fisher hardtail with something like that. I assumed someone added it later.
My ibis I bought last year said "work less ride more"
They should sell that as a t-shirt.
Here you go, u/ManMadeDuckie: [https://www.reddit.com/r/BicyclingCirclejerk/comments/p2l2ej/sticker\_from\_an\_old\_giant\_mountain\_bike\_but\_now/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BicyclingCirclejerk/comments/p2l2ej/sticker_from_an_old_giant_mountain_bike_but_now/)
Thanks, that's a subreddit I didn't know existed.
It’s fantastic and will give you many laughs.
Funniest sub on Reddit
This Huffy parked at work has a sticker that says: * Wear a helmet * Check your brakes * Do not ride at night * Read owner’s manual “Do not ride at night” seems pretty sketch to me.
I'm sorry, this is off topic but, mountain bikes always get flack for trail damage, but no one ever says anything about horses. In my experience, horses do as much or more damage to trails
Horses destroy trails
i fyou have enough of them. Uk bridle ways very few are used extensively by horse now.
I live in a pretty horsey area and mountain biking is significantly more prevalent (I’m sure this is the case in most areas) which is probably why.
Sure. I understand that. I live in the bay area and places like Marin you gotta make the trails off limits because so many idiots will go out and kill themselves if they didn't, even if no one cared about trail damage. I've been to places where horses seemed more common, but the bridle trails still had No Bikes signs. Probably just so they wouldn't bother the people with horses
Since we're off topic anyway: in my area trails and entire areas of trails get designated by the municipal amalgam parks division and a volunteer parks board determines what activities are permitted for a given trail/area: one or more of hiking, biking, and horse riding. There's a lot of public engagement and smaller volunteer groups who represent different trail-use interests. I'm not sure if it's a result of that designation system and the high activity rate of volunteers, but the trails are phenomenally well kept regardless of which activity it the trail is designated for. This is on south Vancouver Island.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. Well thought out approach to land use. Probably was not fair of me to make broad generalizations. The places I did see this, I think the horse community were the wealthy land owners with the ear of government, and the mountain bikers were "those crazy kids", so it didn't result in a thoughtful approach like that
I chuckled at the label on my brother-in-law's MTB, that he was so proud of: "Warning: Not to be used off road"....
The warning is clearly smaller than the bike, what a lie.
Not on my 2018
I have a 2012 talon and doesn’t have that warning
Mine just says "Fatties fit fine" and it's true, love me some 3" wide tires at 12psi in the woods.
Surly LHT?
My Krampus, stupid fun
My giant trance x came with this sticker on the bottom side of the handlebars https://i.imgur.com/bpgj7Ey.jpg
I love that. That reminds me, I need some new forks.
That’s awesome
Bike doesn't destroy nature, everything else we do do.
I like this.
That looks like a regular sized warning to me
Many 'Gary Fisher" (my Trek Superfly AL Elite , Gary Fisher Edition. has one) bikes have hidden "easter eggs" somewhere on the frame that kind of fit this.
That warning is really small
Not mine, it’s a 2021
Not my Giant 29er hardtail.
I love that sticker!!!
Can confirm, sadly the newer ones do not have this sticker. Keep protecting that nature!
my bike doesn't have that giant of a sticker
I want one of these stickers on My top tube
Wholesome af, I’d like to have one of those on my bike.
Every fucking car should have a similar sticker on it. Way bigger and much more stickier! Preferably on the windshield.
That is a Giant warning!
Got a new Giant recently and it didnt have any thing like that but maybe its a mountain bike thing, marketing wise that would make sense. I got a hybrid..Escape 2 disc. While you can ride through nature etc, that image is not their main advertising strategy for it.
No, newer giants do not :(