# Our etiquette problem.



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

A few thoughts on a current hot-button topic are HERE.

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mikesee said:


> A few thoughts on a current hot-button topic are HERE.
> 
> Thanks for reading.


I've heard the rule stated something to the effect of the person downhill of you has the ROW, which covers the fact that the faster rider bears the responsibility for executing a safe pass (assuming slower rider also going downhill) as well as the fact that the climbing rider has the right of way.

I agree wholeheartedly that this is a problem. Thankfully, it's not a problem for the vast majority. But for the ones that do have a problem with it, it's a major problem.


----------



## RYNOFREERIDE (Feb 26, 2004)

We have enough users on our metro area trail clusters that we have been one way for 20 plus years. Only way it works here. No problems this way. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

100% agree. Good topic.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Yes. I first encountered this thinking in the early days of Strava when someone literally yelled strava at me as they were descending a trail that a lot of folks complain about climbing, but in my opinion, the "full loop" of the system (no specified direction any day) works best if you climb this trail because the other trail gives you a longer flowier descent. So I saw them, then heard them, then grabbed two fists full of handlebar and stood up on my single speed and sprinted at them, right up the middle of the trail as they were approaching the steepest part of the trail and sideslope on the hill. Both of those noobs tried to get out of my way on the downhill side, only the first one put his foot down uphill, and the second one....downhill. Last I saw he was arse over teakettle rolling through the woods with this bike....


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Part of the problem is that new riders may have never heard of this rule or even IMBA. I don't remember seeing this rule posted at my local trail head signs. In some cases not following trail etiquette may be willful intent but I bet a majority of it is ignorance. There's tons of discussions online where people ask who has the right of way, and then people debate the merits of each position often without realizing there's an established protocol from IMBA.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jeremy3220 said:


> Part of the problem is that new riders may have never heard of this rule or even IMBA. I don't remember seeing this rule posted at my local trail head signs. In some cases not following trail etiquette may be willful intent but I bet a majority of it is ignorance. There's tons of discussions online where people ask who has the right of way, and then people debate the merits of each position often without realizing there's an established protocol from IMBA.


It really predates IMBA, if you want to get into it. NORBA put out the first rules. But neither of those are enforceable, because they're really just "best practices" for riders. What's enforceable, however, are rules adopted by land managers. Sure, they'll often adopt those rules verbatim, but not always.

IMO, the resurgence in ROW arguments seems to stem from the fact that some bike parks with downhill-only or downhill-priority trails have customized trail rules for their own uses, and certain morons think they can apply those everywhere else. Some of them might be noobs who simply started riding at bike parks, but others are definitely not.

Some land managers are better than others about posting trail rules. the USFS has a laundry list of rules for various users, so the mtb rules can be easily overlooked when they put ALL THE RULES on a single kiosk or their website. In my area, there are dozens of "trailheads" in our local USFS system. It's rather impractical for the USFS to put up kiosks with all the forest rules at every single one of them. They have a handful up at major trailheads, though.

Some land managers don't budget for any signage whatsoever, true. But IME, that's an increasingly small number of land managers.

A fair number of land managers simply fall back on the old ROW triangle that addresses multiuse trails. Simple and graphical, it conveys concepts needed for multiuse trails, true. Unfortunately, a number of land managers don't bother to address within-group issues like this one, though. And I think that's probably what jeremy has seen. It doesn't help that the places that are exceptions to the "best practices" rules posted by IMBA tend to be the ones that display them most prominently.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Oblivious ear bud wearing trail users are much more concerning.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Shark said:


> Oblivious ear bud wearing trail users are much more concerning.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


annoying, but not the safety hazard as downhill riders thinking they have the ROW.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Totally trail/location specific. At the Kingdom Trail system, the policy is broadly the opposite - uphill riders should yield. Also, some trails are "de-facto" or explicit downhill direction, but some people inevitably choose to ride up them anyway. 

But yes, the generally accepted "yield to the climbing rider" is certainly not something that many new mountain bikers know about and remains the predominant etiquette rule in place.


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

Makes more sense to me that uphill riders would "yield". They have more maneuverability and it's easier for them to stop. Just speaking for myself, if I had to temporarily take a different line or put a foot down when climbing, it would impact my enjoyment very little. But if I had to come to a stop from a full descent speed, that would just suck, considering that the decent only lasts a short time and I had put so much time into climbing to get there.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

TylerVernon said:


> Makes more sense to me that uphill riders would "yield". They have more maneuverability and it's easier for them to stop. Just speaking for myself, if I had to temporarily take a different line or put a foot down when climbing, it would impact my enjoyment very little. But if I had to come to a stop from a full descent speed, that would just suck, considering that the decent only lasts a short time and I had put so much time into climbing to get there.


Wrong. When the absolute biggest rule for mountain bikers is that they should control their speed, the onus is directly on the faster rider.

The faster rider is the one who is responsible for executing a safe pass. The mountain biker is responsible for safe encounters with hikers and horses. It's no different when encountering another rider going slower or going the other direction. If you're riding too fast to be able to safely handle an encounter with someone else on two-way multi-use trails, then YOU are riding too fast and you are out of control.

Things change when trail rules change. If your trails are specifically labeled as directional, or mtb priority, or downhill priority, or whatever, then the rules change. But for standard two-way multi-use trails, this is how it works whether you like it or not.

You do NOT have to come to a full stop when you encounter riders coming the other direction. You usually do with horses, though (unless the rider tells you otherwise). What you DO have to do is slow down enough that both riders can pass each other safely. MAYBE you'll have to stop, but that depends on what's safe. Minimally, all you need to do is slow down. If the climbing rider chooses to step to the side, that's fine. But you should STILL slow down when you pass them out of respect for them. Space can often be at a premium, and the faster the closing/passing speed, the more space is needed for them to feel comfortable. So the less space there is, the slower you should be passing them, whether they step aside or not.

Enjoyment has no part of it. It's SAFETY.


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

Well I have to say, after reading all that, I am far more in favor of the uphill rider yielding than I was before.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

TylerVernon said:


> Well I have to say, after reading all that, I am far more in favor of the uphill rider yielding than I was before.


*whoosh*


----------



## notsendy (Jul 11, 2018)

I might be contributing to the problem but I just default to yielding (ascending or descending) if there is a safe spot to do so. Avoids conflicts and potentially having to educate people that don't care. The worst thing that happens is I get into a Canadian standoff with the other trail user/s every once in a while.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

notsendy said:


> I get into a Canadian standoff with the other trail user/s every once in a while.


This is the overwhelming majority of my trail interactions with bikers and hikers alike. A trend I notice is the busier a place is the less patience people have. All the more reason to keep outdoor and recreation spots as plentiful as possible.

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

TylerVernon said:


> Well I have to say, after reading all that, I am far more in favor of the uphill rider yielding than I was before.


This is obnoxiously 'me-centric'.

How dare 'your' flow be interrupted. It's obviously more important than everyone elses.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

notsendy said:


> The worst thing that happens is I get into a Canadian standoff with the other trail user/s every once in a while.


Thankfully I also experience more of these than I do riders who refuse to yield no matter what.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jochribs said:


> This is _dangerously_ 'me-centric'.
> 
> How dare 'your' flow be interrupted. It's obviously more important than everyone elses.


FIFY

I would MUCH rather have to stop while going downhill than to be run off the trail in a difficult spot while climbing.

Sure, when I'm climbing I might have more time to react to a downhill rider (MIGHT...this isn't always the case) and choose a safer spot for the interaction to occur, but that does not change the fact that the faster, downhill rider has the *RESPONSIBILITY* to ride in control and to be able to adjust to others using the same trail. And this is owing to physics, and nothing else, because with increased speed, that downhill rider has the potential to cause far more damage to others.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Harold said:


> FIFY
> 
> I would MUCH rather have to stop while going downhill than to be run off the trail in a difficult spot while climbing.
> 
> Sure, when I'm climbing I might have more time to react to a downhill rider (MIGHT...this isn't always the case) and choose a safer spot for the interaction to occur, but that does not change the fact that the faster, downhill rider has the *RESPONSIBILITY* to ride in control and to be able to adjust to others using the same trail. And this is owing to physics, and nothing else, because with increased speed, that downhill rider has the potential to cause far more damage to others.


I can't argue with that fix Harold.

I personally can climb like a goat, and descend like I'm getting chased, and yet, I have NEVER had the asshat view that my fun is paramount to the other users on the trail. I don't want to get into a segue of drawing parallels as to the types of riders and their questionable skill level (which generally goes to the contrary of their purported self worth), but I've been riding so long that I can make some fairly safe assumptions.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

notsendy said:


> The worst thing that happens is I get into a Canadian standoff with the other trail user/s every once in a while.


Agreed.

Which is indicative of two users having a grounded sense of consideration for others, as opposed to being the sort that had mommy and daddy tell them that they were 'special'.


----------



## tbmaddux (May 22, 2012)

jochribs said:


> I have NEVER had the asshat view that my fun is paramount to the other users on the trail.


Exactly. Yes. Thank you.


----------



## Lopaka (Sep 7, 2006)

These ROW scenarios are endless so having trail rules is very helpful really. I get surprised from time to time by riders who seem to have no idea about trail courtesy or rules. They often have the "deer in the headlights look" that riders get when they are in over their heads. I get the feeling that they are in survival mode and just want to live through the experience. I just give them the room they need. I usually mention to the last guy in the group that he might want to teach his buddies some trail manners. Hopefully they research and or talk about the rules after they regroup.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Yes, it's the correct thing to do, but some folks don't care about being correct.

If there's room I move over, if not I take the trail and make them stop.

I try to avoid getting mad at the rider(s), stupid and ignorant is not an excuse, but it's often the reason.

The only time I make a comment is when it's large group of riders, such as our local higher school mountain bike team; I make sure to let the "adults" know that I'm not pleased.

Avoiding heavily used trails helps.


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

jochribs said:


> This is obnoxiously 'me-centric'.
> 
> How dare 'your' flow be interrupted. It's obviously more important than everyone elses.


No, it isn't.

If the uphill rider yields to the side, then the downhill rider can also yield as safely as he needs to for the pass while still riding. The uphill rider is going to be the downhill rider eventually, so he's paying it forward in a way.

Putting all the responsibility on the downhill rider seems more dangerous to me. Trails are getting steeper and aren't designed for a rider to come to a stop on command in all places.

I think my way is far more logical and also safer. You can throw childish insults as you wish. Please continue.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

TylerVernon said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> If the uphill rider yields to the side, then the downhill rider can also yield as safely as he needs to for the pass while still riding. The uphill rider is going to be the downhill rider eventually, so he's paying it forward in a way.
> 
> ...


It isn't a childish insult, it's describing childish thinking. The difference isn't even subtle. It's glaring.

You can't say "No, it isn't" if you changed the goal posts on what you said before. You made no mention of the downhill rider yielding _at all_.

If both parties are being considerate and putting in effort to avoid conflict, great. That's the way it should be, and that's the way I ride, regardless of direction.

But be honest, that's not what you were initially saying, and that's not what you initially meant. You're now (like 3 days later) just trying to ride the fence and not sound so entitled because you certainly did when describing getting your gnar going on the downhill, and how that is hard earned, so you should be able to enjoy it to its fullest. Uphill riders...out of the way.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

TylerVernon said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> If the uphill rider yields to the side, then the downhill rider can also yield as safely as he needs to for the pass while still riding. The uphill rider is going to be the downhill rider eventually, so he's paying it forward in a way.
> 
> ...


I get what you are selling but in my neck of the woods when you are climbing at 3 or 4 mph and the descending rider is hitting 20 mph plus they are on top of you before you have time to react. That, combined with poor line of sight, leads to conflict. And when your in your anaerobic zone or simply looking at the flowers your not always looking up in 100% readiness for folks coming at you.

My user experience doesn't include being buzzed by descending riders at mach speed within inches of me. It detracts from most of the reasons I'm out in the woods. On a week-day fine I'll move over and let them keep their flow on but on a busy weekend, which most are these days, no way I'm yielding. Especially on busy arterial trails. Slow your ass down, be a good steward of the resource, and be kind to those sharing the trails with you.

Uphill versus downhill perspectives. Often the middle ground is the best. But on bi-directional, shared-use trails the idea that the downhiller has the right of way is only going to increase more user-conflict and pissed off people that then actually get involved rather than just complaining and boom mtn bikers have lost access or banned from the trail. It does happen.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

This is the reason I’m in favor of directional trails. Clockwise on even days and counter-clockwise on odd days. Too many different schools of thought. Me personally, uphill rider has ROW. When on directional trails it’s so much nicer to not worry about constantly looking up ahead for people getting their gnar on. Once I reach the downhill....I CAN GET MY GNAR ON! I really wish there were more directional trails that alternate everyday.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

rockman said:


> I get what you are selling but in my neck of the woods when you are climbing at 3 or 4 mph and the descending rider is hitting 20 mph plus they are on top of you before you have time to react. That, combined with poor line of sight, leads to conflict. And when your in your anaerobic zone or simply looking at the flowers your not always looking up in 100% readiness for folks coming at you.
> 
> My user experience doesn't include being buzzed by descending riders at mach speed within inches of me. It detracts from most of the reasons I'm out in the woods. On a week-day fine I'll move over and let them keep their flow on but on a busy weekend, which most are these days, no way I'm yielding. Especially on busy arterial trails. Slow your ass down, be a good steward of the resource, and be kind to those sharing the trails with you.
> 
> Uphill versus downhill perspectives. Often the middle ground is the best. But on bi-directional, shared-use trails the idea that the downhiller has the right of way is only going to increase more user-conflict and pissed off people that then actually get involved rather than just complaining and boom mtn bikers have lost access or banned from the trail. It does happen.


+1

I want to like downhill having right of way but there's way to much potential for damage. You need to keep your pace within sight lines and that's tough with summer overgrowth. I push that sight line limit as close as I can and no doubt exceed it in short sections but that's only on weekdays when there's very few other trail users. When the trail is busy I keep a strict line of sight rule to my downhill pace.

Downhill has to take responsibility for causing a collision but I feel like right of way needs to be a mutual kind of agreement when two riders meet. Taking the hard line of holding your ground as an uphill rider only pisses people off regardless of who's right or wrong.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Sir kayakalot said:


> This is the reason I'm in favor of directional trails. Clockwise on even days and counter-clockwise on odd days. Too many different schools of thought. Me personally, uphill rider has ROW. When on directional trails it's so much nicer to not worry about constantly looking up ahead for people getting their gnar on. Once I reach the downhill....I CAN GET MY GNAR ON! I really wish there were more directional trails that alternate everyday.


This would be great but wouldn't work in the trail parks around here. There tends to be a perimeter trail and the middle gets filled with other trails. There wouldn't be a way to make the inner trails directional. Also to reach an inner trail you might need to ride 3+ miles of the perimeter loop one way when it's only 1/2 mile in the "wrong" direction.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I get that directional trails seriously reduce conflict on busy systems. I've ridden plenty of places that had directional trails and it makes sense in some places. But the system needs to be designed around that. You need discrete loops. It would be wildly difficult where I live/ride now. Not to mention the fact that the trail systems where I ride are going to have hikers on them going any direction, and some trails will have horses also going any direction. 

A lot of the trails riders like for downhills here have relatively long sight lines, which helps minimize potential conflicts by giving downhill riders more time to react/adjust. It can also give the climbing riders some time. Loud hubs and conversation (at least for descending riders) can even give others an audible hint of something coming, especially on the trails that have less open sight lines (there are some).

But you absolutely cannot expect a climbing rider who has a good chance of being at the wall physically to do much when there's a rider descending at mach chicken. Where I ride, if you're climbing singletrack, it's going to be technical and steep and your line selection is at a premium. Chances are, you wouldn't be able to ride anything except the line you're on. So your choices are to ride THAT line, or stop to get off the side, then walk. But when you're redlined like that, your decision-making abilities are slower. You might not have the ability to react to a fast descending rider in any way other than bailing. In steep, chunky terrain, there's a good chance that ditching the bike to avoid a descending rider will get you hurt. In some places, it might get you killed (falls from height are the number one killer in the backcountry).

Who has more control over these kinds of interactions? The descending rider. If it's unsafe for a downhill rider to slow down, then there's a couple of possible reasons that they failed in that scenario.

If the terrain is too chunky to allow for braking, then the descending rider didn't check out the line before choosing to ride it. Chances are, nobody will be riding up something like this, but you very well might have someone hiking it (carrying their bike or no). Before committing to something like this, you need to have eyes on it. An exception here would be if the trail in question gives descending rider explicit right of way. On jump lines and dedicated downhill trails with big drops and such, this very well might be the safest option. But if no explicit right of way is given, you MUST assume that the descending rider is the lowest on the ROW scale and must exercise extra caution before sending it.

The descending rider may also simply be riding too fast for conditions. If it's slippery, you need to slow TF down. 

The descending rider might be riding too fast for their equipment, too. Maybe the tires have insufficient grip to allow for a hard braking effort at speed. Maybe the brakes are inadequate for high speed downhills (wimpy xc brakes on big mountain descents, for example). If this is the case, then you probably shouldn't be on that bike on that trail. This kind of thing is pretty common in touristy mountain riding destinations.

The descending rider might be riding too fast for their riding skills. If you can't control your bike on a trail, then you should level up your riding before attempting that trail.

There's SO MUCH misunderstanding about what yielding actually means, too. At its minimum, it just means slowing down enough so that the person with the right-of-way has time to make a decision about the encounter. The descending rider doesn't have the right to force a particular decision. Slow down, be acknowledged, let the other person decide. If the trail is so narrow that there's simply not space for either rider to ride past safely, then both of you might have to stop and dismount. If you're approaching some chunder that you want to send unimpeded, maybe you stop and wait for the climbing rider (or hiker) to clear the spot so you can let 'er rip. The answer is not to send it while someone else is in the middle of it. That's going to get someone hurt. If they want to step to the side to give you room for a line, then slow down enough to give them a chance to do so without falling over themselves. If it's not the line you want, then stop and wait.

Practically every permutation of this happens on nearly every ride that I do. Sometimes I'm the climbing rider and sometimes the descending one. The yield happens the moment the descending rider slows down to give more time for decisions to happen. If there's room for both riders to continue riding, then good etiquette is to slow down enough that the slowest rider doesn't feel threatened by your speed. What speed that means depends on the space. If you're talking about a gravel descent and there's tons of space, then you don't need to do much to give that other rider space. If you're talking about something narrow enough that there might be a couple inches between your bars, then you slow WAY down to ensure the encounter happens safely.

It's all very fluid. But note that every scenario starts with the descending rider slowing down. If the descending rider has to ride through the brush to avoid a crash, then the descending rider was going too fast.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Well said Harold. 

It will still be argued, without doubt.


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> This would be great but wouldn't work in the trail parks around here. There tends to be a perimeter trail and the middle gets filled with other trails. There wouldn't be a way to make the inner trails directional. Also to reach an inner trail you might need to ride 3+ miles of the perimeter loop one way when it's only 1/2 mile in the "wrong" direction.


Good point, I totally agree. It only works on trails that have an outer loop with no intersections. The rest comes down to rules or common sense. Common sense is out of the equation any more, so that leaves us with rules. Uphill rider has right of way. Now back to the arguments.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

On our trails this has gotten so out of hand, my son, my friends and I just gave up and let the downhillers go by. Once, last summer, we all pulled over when we saw some guy coming. He stopped and yelled you guys are coming uphill! You have the right of way! We all shook hands with him as we passed by. First guy in years that even knew the rule.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Except the downhill rider is the one who needs to be responsible because they are the ones who are riding at a higher rate of speed and they are the cause of uncontrolled collisions.

When I think of responsibility, this includes recognizing when and where there could be a potential for a collision and "slowing down", also wearing a bell to warn downhill riders. Uphill riders are moving slower, they have the ability to move over or stop, but they cannot control the behaviors of the downhill riders.

Imagine for a moment if the uphill and downhill riders were going the same speed, then we wouldn't be as concerned, so really the burden is always going to be on the downhill rider to ride "under control".

I'm all for one way trails, but that's not an option in most places.

I would rather the downhill riders have less fun than cause a collision through carelessness.

You might feel the same if you were involved in a serious collision.

All this ^ aside, I am a downhiller, I ride up to go down, so it is frustrating to have to control your speed and watch for traffic, sucks to be us.

Be responsible, don't be a dick, don't be that guy.



TylerVernon said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> If the uphill rider yields to the side, then the downhill rider can also yield as safely as he needs to for the pass while still riding. The uphill rider is going to be the downhill rider eventually, so he's paying it forward in a way.
> 
> ...


----------



## Surestick Malone (Jan 24, 2004)

jochribs said:


> Well said Harold.


+1 to this.

There was an old Specialized (I think?) ad with for some S-Works frame (I think, maybe one of their MMC frames? Funny the things that stick in your head) that I thought had John Tomac in it though that doesn't make sense, so maybe Ned Overend? Anyway, the line in the ad was:

"Thou shouldst not careen lest thou art racing".

Words to ride by?


----------



## Radium (Jan 11, 2019)

There are many younger riders in my area who actually don't know that the trail they are bombing down existed before they began riding mobs. Or that it existed before mtbs altogether. 
And these trails are some of the most popular trails in the County. I had a hiker tell me that an adolescent, all decked out in his DH gear, yelled at him to get off of THEIR trail!

This is stupidity and ignorance at a quantum level.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Radium said:


> There are many younger riders in my area who actually don't know that the trail they are bombing down existed before they began riding mobs. Or that it existed before mtbs altogether.
> And these trails are some of the most popular trails in the County. I had a hiker tell me that an adolescent, all decked out in his DH gear, yelled at him to get off of THEIR trail!
> 
> This is stupidity and ignorance at a quantum level.


And it probably has many parallels in their everyday behavior. The more the principle of being a social being that doesn't place their own experience as paramount over others (I mean, this points to clinical narcissism) is explained to them, the more they return with entitled snark that illustrates they have their heads completely inserted up their own sphincters...because how dare their mellow be harshed by being forced to be considerate.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I had a recent unique experience. I encountered a motorcyclist at the top of a trail (legal for him). He was on his phone for a second and so I told him I would go ahead since I was probably faster downhill than he was. He smiled but nodded in acknowledgement. I cruised down the hill and as I was climbing back out of the draw a few miles later, I heard him coming up behind me so I pulled off to the side. He flew past me. Whatever. I just shook my head and continued on. A few seconds later I heard his engine cut out and then a whole bunch of swearing. Btw, at that point we'd turned back downhill. Anyway, I came around a tight corner to find the motorcyclist picking his bike up of the ground and he was yelling at an ebiker who had been coming up the trail but was now standing off the trail. I overheard the motorcyclist explaining to the ebiker that since most bikers rode the trail the other way, he should have been as well and he should have expected downhill traffic and should have moved. Instead the motorcyclist had been forced to dump his bike at high speed around a blind corner. Having overheard all this, I stopped him right there. I explained that even if it was a popular trail going our way, it was still a good and popular trail going the ebikers way. I also explained that the downhill rider, regardless of mode, needed to ride in a manner as to expect traffic around blind corners and to be able to stop if needed. He was wrong and he wasn't happy hearing it although I suspect he was more embarrassed than anything. He left in a huff and I made sure the ebiker was ok and then I made fun of him for being on an ebike, because f that guy ().

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I used to be an avid steep creek kayaker. There was always a risk that a strainer or being off line could take your life, so paddling conservatively was the name of the game.

Ride like you expect the unexpected and you won’t be surprised.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

There have been a few head-on collisions at some of my local trails and in every case, it was an out of control downhiller not holding back even when there were blind spots. The climber is basically deer in the headlights and really has no time to react. So there has to be some incentive to downhillers to take it easy on blind sections of the trail. Giving them the right of way is just egging them on.

But I am generally in favor of directional trails. One thing I've learned is no matter how much you broadcast the rules, post the rules, mark them with bold letters on big red signs, post them on the website, post them on the club Face Book page, or just tell them directly, some people just don't give a fvck. It's like riding muddy trails, you can't stop them. A percentage of the population are just sociopaths. 

Some of our local trail builders tend to be idealistic about people "just have to take personal responsibility" and had the brilliant idea to create a two way flow trail. Within the first week, there was a gnarly head-on. I ride that trail in fear, both climbing and descending.


----------



## CycleKrieg (Dec 19, 2013)

I'm so happy my local trail are nearly 100% directional and many (most?) of the ones I ride in the state are too.


----------



## walkerwalker (Jul 17, 2020)

As a noob, this thread has been very enlightening. I did not know of the IMBA or any universal rules. But I have been out on MTB only parks, bi-directional trails, shared use/hiking trails, fire roads, etc. Without knowing the rules, my instinct was to always stop completely for hikers/dog walkers and to yield to uphill riders. I pulled aside for an uphill rider and he said "Three more back" as he passed, which I appreciated, as they were ascending around a blind corner. 

I think I've just been yielding to anybody tho, uphill or down. Maybe subconsciously I'm yielding to more experienced riders, which right now is everybody. 

BTW, if I ever saw a horse on a trail I would either turn around and pedal as fast and far away as possible, or throw my bike and hide behind the biggest tree I could find. Horse are terrifying.


----------



## walkerwalker (Jul 17, 2020)

Real question....how do you announce your presence around a blind corner or any area with limited sightlines? Obviously a bell would work but guessing not a lot of mountain bikers are rocking a bell. Golfers yell "fore", on the rail trails I give pedestrians an "On your left" before I pass. Is there a phrase mtbr's use?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

walkerwalker said:


> Real question....how do you announce your presence around a blind corner or any area with limited sightlines? Obviously a bell would work but guessing not a lot of mountain bikers are rocking a bell. Golfers yell "fore", on the rail trails I give pedestrians an "On your left" before I pass. Is there a phrase mtbr's use?


Just expect it. You should always be covering the brakes anyway. You can't be perfect but you can be ready.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Letterkenny (Jan 26, 2020)

walkerwalker said:


> Real question....how do you announce your presence around a blind corner or any area with limited sightlines? Obviously a bell would work but guessing not a lot of mountain bikers are rocking a bell. Golfers yell "fore", on the rail trails I give pedestrians an "On your left" before I pass. Is there a phrase mtbr's use?


Loudly yell STRAVA before any blind corners.

The last couple of years we have noticed an increase of entitled a-holes on the dirt sidewalk trails. Usually on the weekends we "run into" large groups while climbing that are not looking ahead even with good sight lines. When they finally see us and slow down their response is "there's a lot more coming" or similar said in an aggressive tone. As there is plenty of room for riders to pass on a trail that is so wide we continue climbing. This is met with 4 of 5 riders acting pissy that their "flow" is interrupted with one acting like an adult and courteously giving space and or yelling "rider up".
The women in a couple of these groups bringing up the rear have been very nice, yielding and calling "rider up" and saying "hello" ect.. So it seems that proper etiquette is sometimes ignored by the Bro crowd due to pack mentality. 
Without making trails directional I think more thought should go into construction. Far too little planning for uphill traffic, which is often a highlight used during the permitting phase, is done and a result is areas of high speed downhill feeding into blind corners without any though to checking riders speed. But like has been said many times all of these trails are just a copy of the first one built with no character.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

walkerwalker said:


> Real question....how do you announce your presence around a blind corner or any area with limited sightlines? Obviously a bell would work but guessing not a lot of mountain bikers are rocking a bell. Golfers yell "fore", on the rail trails I give pedestrians an "On your left" before I pass. Is there a phrase mtbr's use?


There are active ways and passive ways. I prefer having passive signaling, because actively doing this stuff can be exhausting given the "right" conditions. But IME, any passive signaling still should be combined with some active signaling.

The Timber bell offers a passive jingle as you ride, which works whether you're climbing or descending. It's probably the best passive option for tight conditions with poor sight lines.

I tend to rely on loud hubs for the most part, though. That allows for a level of passive signaling when I'm coasting (doesn't really do much when climbing). When OTHERS have loud hubs (Industry Nine builds their stuff in my area, so lots of loud hubs in the woods here), I tend to call out "rider up" when I hear them so they know to slow down. Because one thing that passive signaling does is it can make it harder for the person with the passive signaling to hear others' passive signaling.

One notable conflict I had with descending riders failing to yield, I did this because I heard them a long way off and they STILL charged through, forcing me and another rider off the trail. And they apparently forced a third climbing rider off the trail before they reached us, and that's about when we heard them.

One thing my group tries to do a good job of is for the first person in the group to call out when there are other trail users ahead, and to inform those folks how many of us are following. That way, riders farther back can slow down more gradually and be prepared.

But yeah, on a tight trail with poor sight lines, our primary tends to be staying prepared, so moderating speed and covering the brakes to be ready for a quiet hiker who doesn't call out, that sort of thing. A well-maintained trail SHOULD have the brush trimmed far enough back on either side of the actual trail to open visibility and improve safety. There's definitely a selfishness problem going on with people who absolutely cannot be bothered to moderate their speeds when conditions make that increasingly risky/dangerous. For them, mountain biking isn't fun, period, unless they're always riding at speeds at or above the threshold of control. Similarly, I know people who are absolutely unwilling to slow down in order to ride with a friend who is slower. Seems to me that these are two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> There have been a few head-on collisions at some of my local trails and in every case, it was an out of control downhiller not holding back even when there were blind spots. The climber is basically deer in the headlights and really has no time to react. So there has to be some incentive to downhillers to take it easy on blind sections of the trail. Giving them the right of way is just egging them on.
> 
> But I am generally in favor of directional trails. One thing I've learned is no matter how much you broadcast the rules, post the rules, mark them with bold letters on big red signs, post them on the website, post them on the club Face Book page, or just tell them directly, some people just don't give a fvck. It's like riding muddy trails, you can't stop them. A percentage of the population are just sociopaths.
> 
> Some of our local trail builders tend to be idealistic about people "just have to take personal responsibility" and had the brilliant idea to create a two way flow trail. Within the first week, there was a gnarly head-on. I ride that trail in fear, both climbing and descending.


I know the trail you're talking about, I know the situation, and I know a number of the people involved in building it. Haven't ridden it, though. I don't know all of the things about it, but people DO have to take personal responsibility. You have to take personal responsibility every time you climb on your bike, every time you wake up, every day of your life.

You're right that some people don't care, and that some of them are simply sociopaths. How do you deal with it? No amount of rulemaking is going to work for those people. In fact, the more rules you have, the less they'll work because there's a segment who actively opposes as many written rules as they think they can get away with. One nice thing is that the design of the trail itself can be used to push riders a certain way. This is one reason why it's good to have folks maintaining and revisiting a trail after it's built. You can tweak the trail to account for any issues you might be seeing. Drainage, user issues, and so on.


----------



## notsendy (Jul 11, 2018)

Harold said:


> The Timber bell offers a passive jingle as you ride, which works whether you're climbing or descending. It's probably the best passive option for tight conditions with poor sight lines.


Other pros: It warns people well ahead of time vs. a sudden "on your left!" and I find that the chime is good at cutting through headphones. When I use the bell, hikers are often already standing on the side of a trail by the time I get to them.

It's weird that people actually take the time to comment negatively about bells on MTB vids. If there's a bell in a vid there is probably some version of "every time a bell rings a biker loses their wings" in the comments.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Harold said:


> I know the trail you're talking about, I know the situation, and I know a number of the people involved in building it. Haven't ridden it, though. I don't know all of the things about it, but people DO have to take personal responsibility. You have to take personal responsibility every time you climb on your bike, every time you wake up, every day of your life.
> 
> You're right that some people don't care, and that some of them are simply sociopaths. How do you deal with it? No amount of rulemaking is going to work for those people. In fact, the more rules you have, the less they'll work because there's a segment who actively opposes as many written rules as they think they can get away with. One nice thing is that the design of the trail itself can be used to push riders a certain way. This is one reason why it's good to have folks maintaining and revisiting a trail after it's built. You can tweak the trail to account for any issues you might be seeing. Drainage, user issues, and so on.


I agree on personal responsibility to a point. If the consequences are huge, I am not going to rely on that - like people hitting 30mph on a flow trail. Make the damn thing directional already. But it seems like somebody needs to be hauled away in an ambulance or a lawsuit has to occur before things change.

I am okay with two-way trails if it's an old school, low speed tech type trail.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> I agree on personal responsibility to a point. If the consequences are huge, I am not going to rely on that - like people hitting 30mph on a flow trail. Make the damn thing directional already. But it seems like somebody needs to be hauled away in an ambulance or a lawsuit has to occur before things change.
> 
> I am okay with two-way trails if it's an old school, low speed tech type trail.


I'm fairly certain that in this case, the land manager is part of why things are the way they are. But also, when you make a trail one-way, you need to have a similar-difficulty (or easier) trail that goes the other way, too. If you don't have that, then you can't make the trail in question directional.

I know of a number of instances scattered about where land manager resistance is at least part of the reason why certain trails have user conflict issues.


----------



## walkerwalker (Jul 17, 2020)

The Timber Bell seems like a great solution and I'll add "rider up" to my vocabulary. 

Funny about the bike itself being noisy, this is the same reason motorcyclists use obnoxiously loud exhaust pipes. My bike had some drive train noises plus an incessant clicking which turned out to be the pedals (probably a busted bearing). Loud enough that most pedestrians heard me well in advance. After a few youtube videos and new pedals my bike is much quieter and I feel stealthier, which is not a good thing.


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

jochribs said:


> It isn't a childish insult, it's describing childish thinking. The difference isn't even subtle. It's glaring.
> 
> You can't say "No, it isn't" if you changed the goal posts on what you said before. You made no mention of the downhill rider yielding _at all_.
> 
> ...


Your attitude is confrontational and the opposite of constructive, and I think this may be indicative of the cultural source of the "etiquette problem" mike was originally talking about. There are no trail police, so people like you cannot force trail users to behave in a certain way. Reading your posts, I feel alienated and marginalized, and I feel less inclined to "play along" than I was before. It is only because of the strength of my character that I shall continue to be courteous to other trail users, but lesser men may not do so. Ultimately we all do what we want out on the trail, and a spirit of cooperation is the best way to foster trust and camaraderie. I hope you have a better day, sir.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

Lol, seriously? :madman:


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Harold said:


> I'm fairly certain that in this case, the land manager is part of why things are the way they are. But also, when you make a trail one-way, you need to have a similar-difficulty (or easier) trail that goes the other way, too. If you don't have that, then you can't make the trail in question directional.
> 
> I know of a number of instances scattered about where land manager resistance is at least part of the reason why certain trails have user conflict issues.


Not sure if in this specific case, it was the land manager. But it would not surprise me because I've seen resistant managers in other cases. I remember on one of the county trails, some land manager didn't want a high speed trail to be directional because it "makes people more careful." lol. This is formidable logic. We should just get rid of stop lights, stop signs, directional highways too.....


----------



## CycleKrieg (Dec 19, 2013)

Harold said:


> I know of a number of instances scattered about where land manager resistance is at least part of the reason why certain trails have user conflict issues.


Which why I think MTB organizations need to get onboard now with directional trails. They need to push for them because many land managers won't.

I know there is resistance in some quarters about directional trails, but they just work well and can work in most properties. There is a wee bit more thought required, but not much.

It always feels weird to me when I visit my parents and ride places with 2-way trails, like Brown County. Just never seem to be able to get in the groove, worrying about what is around the corner.

BTW, Timberbells are the best.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

TylerVernon said:


> Your attitude is confrontational and the opposite of constructive, and I think this may be indicative of the cultural source of the "etiquette problem" mike was originally talking about. There are no trail police, so people like you cannot force trail users to behave in a certain way. Reading your posts, I feel alienated and marginalized, and I feel less inclined to "play along" than I was before. It is only because of the strength of my character that I shall continue to be courteous to other trail users, but lesser men may not do so. Ultimately we all do what we want out on the trail, and a spirit of cooperation is the best way to foster trust and camaraderie. I hope you have a better day, sir.


Cry me a river. You alienated_ yourself_ by responding like a brat to Harold explaining exhaustively why you should be more considerate..._before I said a word to you_.

It boggles my mind how you can with a straight face sit and type what you just did about being courteous to other riders and users, when you've been taking about your entitlement to do the opposite with each post and response you've put up.

You feel marginalized for being confronted about your admitted self-centeredness?? Go talk to a therapist. That's your problem and what I say to you is to grow up.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

davec113 said:


> Lol, seriously? :madman:


I know! This is indicative of a tentative grasp on reality on so many levels I don't know where to start.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

CycleKrieg said:


> Which why I think MTB organizations need to get onboard now with directional trails. They need to push for them because many land managers won't.
> 
> I know there is resistance in some quarters about directional trails, but they just work well and can work in most properties. There is a wee bit more thought required, but not much.
> 
> ...


The big failure with this logic is that bikes aren't the only ones on most trails. There's pedestrian traffic, too, often at minimum.

There's a place for directional trails, but there's also very much a place for two-way trails. As a rider, you need to be able to adapt to either situation.

You will never be able to turn an entire trail system like what's in Pisgah or Dupont State Forest into directional trails. Won't work. Even trails now that are almost exclusively ridden as downhill trails were not always ridden that way. I have a guide book from 1993 that recommends climbing many of those trails. Certainly part of that is because bikes have changed and riding styles have changed, but who's to say that it won't change again?

That's not to say that there's no possibility that directional trails won't ever be built in those places. From what I understand, Pisgah land managers are open to the idea, but I don't think any new trails are coming until the massive maintenance backlog is farther along. Dupont is more resistant to the concept. And the local club DOES advocate for directional trails where warranted. But not as a blanket recommendation that all trails should be directional. That's unnecessary. A new bike park opened up on private property that has 20-ish miles of trails. There are some 2-way trails and some directional trails, where that makes sense.

2-way trails should and often do make people more careful. Plenty of people have mentioned it in this thread already. However sometimes they don't (as indicated by the anecdote about the head-on collision). IME, the biggest problems on 2-way trails come from people who show up expecting directional trails and treat them as such. I lived near enough to Brown County to ride there often, and I saw it and spoke to people about it often enough. People used to 2-way trails generally don't have problems with it and manage just fine. IME, exposure to nothing but directional trails makes riders LESS careful (less likely to moderate their speed on 2 way trails), and I think there was probably a miscommunication.

Pisgah is now my backyard and even though there are quite a few trails ridden as downhills sort of by default, there are still plenty of trails that people ride both directions, and trails that might be a rowdy good time on the descent that also happen to be effective climbing routes in order to access a different rowdy good time of a descent. Folks here handle it just fine. On the whole, locals descending slow down when they encounter someone climbing, and they're pretty respectful about approaching slower riders from behind. The vast majority of visitors are fine with it, too. There's a limited number of jagoffs and fools who aren't. Those few idiots don't mean the whole network of hundreds of miles of trails needs to be directional, thereby limiting route options.

I do understand how directional trails are useful for bike park environments and downhills with big tech features and jumps. I do understand how directional trails reduce conflicts on compact and busy urban trail systems. But directional trails are not a one-size-fits-all option. Directional trails are not an excuse to ride out of control.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

I agree that directional trails are not necessary everywhere. There are plenty of trails that are techy, lower speed, have great sight lines where you don't need to turn them into directional trails to keep them fun and safe for everyone. However, when a trail is high speed, has crappy sight lines, then not making them directional is irresponsible. Sure people will be more careful if they are bi-directional, but accidents are not caused by the careful ones - they are caused by the bottom dwellers on the distribution who will never be careful because something is turned off in the brain. That's who you are protecting people from.


----------



## bingemtbr (Apr 1, 2004)

Bike bells (handle bar mounts or cow bells) are 100% necessity now. In the midwest, we have trail "traffic" and lots of blind corners. I'm finally in the habit of ringing the bell anytime my line of sight is obscured (2 way trails, trying to avoid head on collisions). 

Otherwise, on my trails all users yield to each other 90% of the time. Hikers/runners will stop and step off when they hear/see you. Other riders (even the bro's and DH set) will pause/coast when riding dh and encountering a climber. 

Mike-I hope the move is doing you well. You most recent posts (GJ and now trail ettiquette) have me concerned for your current mindspace. I agree with your perspective and do my best not to accelerate these aggravations. Looking forward to your next posts about new found wanderlust and your next adventures.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> not making them directional is irresponsible


You can't just "make" a trail directional, though. See my earlier statement about there needing to be a similar-difficulty (or easier) trail going the opposite direction. Designating that trail directional requires the plan cover both directions of travel, and doing so there would require building a new trail going the opposite direction, because one of a similar or easier difficulty does not exist.

Knowing the area as I do (I have both planned and built trail in that area in the past), I know that the trail WILL get slower as it packs in and more rocks and roots poke up out of the tread. And if speed issues and user conflicts continue to be a problem, it's highly likely that the trail will be adjusted to slow people down and/or give better sightlines.

I also ask, have you voiced your concerns about this to the land manager? That's the person who will have the most power to dictate changes.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

There are some trails in the area that are directional with perhaps less of an obvious way to return. In fact, the trail I am talking is just sort of isolated and dangling out there by itself and the two ends of the trail are connected by a paved road. It would be so easy to ride that trail one way and then do the short paved road back to the start (it's honestly about a three-five minute ride on the paved road. And because it's isolated, you do not even have to ride it to ride the rest of the system.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> There are some trails in the area that are directional with perhaps less of an obvious way to return. In fact, the trail I am talking is just sort of isolated and dangling out there by itself and the two ends of the trail are connected by a paved road. It would be so easy to ride that trail one way and then do the short paved road back to the start (it's honestly about a three-five minute ride on the paved road. And because it's isolated, you do not even have to ride it to ride the rest of the system.


Dumping people out onto the road is not an appropriate long term solution.

You also have to consider that the trail network in that park is not finished. There are more trails in the plan to be built.

Again, have you voiced your concern to the land manager?


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

I don't know the land manager but I've made (as have many others) made my opinion loud and clear to the head trailbuilder. He sort of blew us off and appealed to the personal responsibility argument.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> I don't know the land manager but I've made (as have many others) made my opinion loud and clear to the head trailbuilder. He sort of blew us off and appealed to the personal responsibility argument.


anyone building trails on public land does so at the direction of the land manager, and answers to that person.

further, he's not wrong. you just have to get used to 2 way trails with speed. I guarantee you that 2 way trails in my area are faster and rowdier than anything in Brown County, and we manage just fine.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Harold said:


> anyone building trails on public land does so at the direction of the land manager, and answers to that person.
> 
> further, he's not wrong. you just have to get used to 2 way trails with speed. I guarantee you that 2 way trails in my area are faster and rowdier than anything in Brown County, and we manage just fine.


Sure, we are talking about first world problems. But within the context of our first world problems, why would you make Hobbs directional and Weedpatch non-directional when the latter is faster, has worse sightlines, AND has easier return options. And then it's also advertised as a beginner trail so you throw a bunch of noobs with questionable grasp of mtb etiquette into the mix.

I mean this respectfully as you have been very respectful here, but I honestly don't understand your logic in defending this decision.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> Sure, we are talking about first world problems. But within the context of our first world problems, why would you make Hobbs directional and Weedpatch non-directional when the latter is faster, has worse sightlines, AND has easier return options. And then it's also advertised as a beginner trail so you throw a bunch of noobs with questionable grasp of mtb etiquette into the mix.
> 
> I mean this respectfully as you have been very respectful here, but I honestly don't understand your logic in defending this decision.


Weedpatch has NO easier singletrack return options. That's the one trail in the park I haven't actually ridden, so I can only offer limited comments on it in a specific sense. I do have a concept of the trail plan in that park, and Weed Patch is the easier connection between the northern portion of the park and the campground portion of the park (because it bypasses Walnut and Schooner). The full connections are not all built yet, as there's a 2nd leg of Limekiln coming (same side of the road as Weed Patch), and also HP East.

Space is a premium there. As I said before, dumping people onto the road is not a viable long-term solution. A paved greenway alongside the road might work, but to make Weed Patch directional, you'd need another easy directional or two-way trail to be built. Good luck cramming that in.

Hobbs is directional because of the tabletops. Those things are big and once you're in the air, you absolutely cannot adjust for anyone coming the other direction. Speed is not really a great reason by itself to say a trail should be directional, because speed can be adjusted. Sight lines can often be improved with just some brush trimming. Two-way flow trails exist elsewhere and work.

That's not to say that Weed Patch is an ideal application of the concept. I don't know for sure as I haven't ridden it. But there are viable reasons why it isn't directional and probably never will be. I also know the people who designed it and lead the construction, and they're not idiots. They're also not unwilling to make adjustments to the trail if they're warranted. They do it all the time. They've probably already made some. Adjusting the trail to slow traffic is a more viable solution for that location than adding another trail in order to make it directional.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

if other trails are to be built, then using the road is not a long term solution; it would be a temporary one. And I can tell you that there are table tops on Weedpatch and when you are climbing, you cant see over some of them. Not only that, if you look at the BC map, it is not at all an essential trail. You can do the whole system by singltrack and not even ride it. Last time I was there, I didn't even bother with it. It's not fun riding a trail where your mental state is in fear mode more than fun mode. A waste of a good flow trail.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Didn't read all the responses but I simply never ride blind corners at a speed I can't stop on a dime. In areas with expected foot traffic we will usually send down a scout to run cover. Their job is stop far uphill from hikers so we see him before them.
Imagine coming around a corner and plowing into a mom or father with an infant on there back and flinging them off a cliff. There are many of both here. Don't be stupid. 

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Dup


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> if other trails are to be built, then using the road is not a long term solution; it would be a temporary one. And I can tell you that there are table tops on Weedpatch and when you are climbing, you cant see over some of them. Not only that, if you look at the BC map, it is not at all an essential trail. You can do the whole system by singltrack and not even ride it. Last time I was there, I didn't even bother with it. It's not fun riding a trail where your mental state is in fear mode more than fun mode. A waste of a good flow trail.


None of the trails in the plan would be alternates to Weed Patch. The point of Weed Patch is to BE the easier alternate to Walnut/Schooner and BE the alternate to riding the road to avoid those trails. When it's all done, Weed Patch will connect the as-yet-built trails to each other.

You're awful opinionated about this, but you're missing a lot of the big picture information to put it into context.

Fact of the matter is, that no matter which direction you ride on that trail, you need to be aware that riders are likely to be coming from the other direction and control your bike such that you can accommodate them. That's the point of this discussion.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

WHALENARD said:


> In areas with expected foot traffic we will usually send down a scout to run cover. Their job is stop far uphill from hikers so we see him before them.


That's a strategy that I've used on group rides for 20yrs. First person in the group is always the one needing to be most careful because they're keeping an eye peeled for other trail users, downed trees, clearing spiders, etc. On the plus side, the first person is usually the one who avoids getting stung by yellowjackets this time of year, but pisses them off so that the next riders get nailed.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Harold said:


> None of the trails in the plan would be alternates to Weed Patch. The point of Weed Patch is to BE the easier alternate to Walnut/Schooner and BE the alternate to riding the road to avoid those trails. When it's all done, Weed Patch will connect the as-yet-built trails to each other.
> 
> You're awful opinionated about this, but you're missing a lot of the big picture information to put it into context.
> 
> Fact of the matter is, that no matter which direction you ride on that trail, you need to be aware that riders are likely to be coming from the other direction and control your bike such that you can accommodate them. That's the point of this discussion.


I think we are both opinionated about this. So let's be honest about that. We just happen to have different opinions.

Look at the MTB project map. Weedpatch is surrounded by black trails on both ends. Whatever goal the planners have for it - well it's not meeting those goals. Maybe it will someday and on that day is when they should make it two-ways. Not some half a$$sed justification of how "this is just short term and we have big plans" but then use a long term excuses when it's convenient to stifle short term safety measures. Either choose the time window and be consistent about it or leave it out. Don't cherry pick the time frame to suit the excuse.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Harold said:


> On the plus side, the first person is usually the one who avoids getting stung by yellowjackets this time of year, but pisses them off so that the next riders get nailed.


Lol. We get that exact scenario in the high country this time of year but climbing which is even worse. Pays to be the strong climber I guess.

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## bingemtbr (Apr 1, 2004)

Off topic: Harold and Tick_Magnet, can you enlighten me on how busy Nashville/BC has been?

I am a member of HMBA and received the Backwoods Epic cancellation notice this past week. They mentioned "unprecedented" amounts of people contributing to the decision to cancel. I'm in StL and usually ride in Brown County 3-6 times a year. Haven't been in 2020 and would prefer NOT to contribute to over crowding. However, I am being forced to use vacation time before the end of September. Any insight is appreciated.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

bingemtbr said:


> Off topic: Harold and Tick_Magnet, can you enlighten me on how busy Nashville/BC has been?
> 
> I am a member of HMBA and received the Backwoods Epic cancellation notice this past week. They mentioned "unprecedented" amounts of people contributing to the decision to cancel. I'm in StL and usually ride in Brown County 3-6 times a year. Haven't been in 2020 and would prefer to NOT to contribute to over crowding. However, I am being forced to use vacation time before the end of September. Any insight is appreciated.


I rode there about three weeks ago, but I didn't go into the town of Nashville so I can't comment on that.

But within the park itself, I would say it was less busy than I've seen it prior to the pandemic. I was honestly shocked at how few people I had to pull over for. It was the weekend too but it felt more like a morning ride on a weekday.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> I think we are both opinionated about this. So let's be honest about that. We just happen to have different opinions.
> 
> Look at the MTB project map. Weedpatch is surrounded by black trails on both ends. Whatever goal the planners have for it - well it's not meeting those goals. Maybe it will someday and on that day is when they should make it two-ways. Not some half a$$sed justification of how "this is just short term and we have big plans" but then use a long term excuses when it's convenient to stifle short term safety measures. Either choose the time window and be consistent about it or leave it out. Don't cherry pick the time frame to suit the excuse.


Look at the Phase 3 map posted on the HMBA website 6 years ago. It's not "surrounded by black trails". Limekiln is across the street (and a parking lot) from the southern terminus. Limekiln is not a black trail.

This is from 2014, so names are different and specific routing is a bit different, but it shows you where the general plan is heading (light green being the "new" trails in Phase 3, only some of which have been completed). None of this has been secret. This came out before I moved.










You're opinionated without information. That's the difference. The trail is what it is, and there are reasons why. I'm aware of some of them, but not all. In the end, riders have to adapt to conditions, and this is one of them. Adapt to it. Don't like it, tell the land manager (not the people who built it and who operate at the land manager's direction and with the land manager's permission). Any changes would require the land manager's input, anyway. Until anything changes (if ever), you still need to get used to the conditions as they are. That's not my opinion. That's what IS and that is the part I'm being forceful about. It doesn't matter if you like it or not.

There's a local trail where I live where I don't like how it's managed, either. But that doesn't matter, because the land manager is unwilling to make the changes that many have suggested. We have to get used to it the way it is, which means even though it's a flow trail that you can absolutely haul AZZ down (and get lots of air), there very well might be horses coming up it, there will probably be hikers coming up it, and there might be small children riding up it because it ends feet from the parking lot. It's fun as hell to ride, so I'm going to ride it, but I have to hold back from what the trail will permit because of the other trail users. It just is what it is, and everyone who rides it has to live with it.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

bingemtbr said:


> Off topic: Harold and Tick_Magnet, can you enlighten me on how busy Nashville/BC has been?


I'm no longer local, so can't speak to recent local conditions.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Harold, one goal of Weedpatch was to allow beginner users to connect to other trails without riding Walnut because it's black. Well, if you connect onto Weedpatch from Limekiln, how exactly does that allow you to bypass black trails if it dumps you on Bobcat on the other end? Like I said, it is currently not achieving it's stated goal. The *current* way to avoid black trails is to take the paved road, but apparently you think that is an ironclad no no. 

And yes, you are correct, it is what it is. And me and many other riders simply avoid Weedpatch. The group I rode with three weeks ago wanted no part of it. So we do deal with it, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it. So there you have it.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

In my neck of the woods the idea of directional trails meets with much resistance. It goes against the shared-use mandate of the forest service and trail runners are going to run up a dh trail anyway. The go-around is to design and manage for mtn bike use but open to other users. That gets around the exclusivity of having certain trails only for one use on public land. That's our best bet of downhill trails but I don't see directional uphill trails similar to Park City anytime soon.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> Harold, one goal of Weedpatch was to allow beginner users to connect to other trails without riding Walnut because it's black. Well, if you connect onto Weedpatch from Limekiln, how exactly does that allow you to bypass black trails if it dumps you on Bobcat on the other end? Like I said, it is currently not achieving it's stated goal. The *current* way to avoid black trails is to take the paved road, but apparently you think that is an ironclad no no.
> 
> And yes, you are correct, it is what it is. And me and many other riders simply avoid Weedpatch. The group I rode with three weeks ago wanted no part of it. So we do deal with it, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it. So there you have it.


*facepalm*

Did you miss the point that the easier connection from Weed Patch to HP is in the plan? It's coming. There's not enough money to build all the trail all at once. Limekiln has been hanging out on its lonesome for a lot of years. No, forcing riders onto the road is not a viable permanent option. But sometimes that's what you get in the short term. The whole trail system has taken, what 20yrs to get where it is now?

Man, I'm sure the trail builders wish they had enough money and flexibility from the land manager to make the trail system do all things for everyone.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

rockman said:


> trail runners are going to run up a dh trail anyway.


We have very few directional trails here in SW Utah. The JEM trail has a very short section that is downhill only and is well signed at either end. I caught an older lady on foot a couple years ago as she was about 50 feet past the sign and heading uphill. I asked her to stop and pointed out the very obvious sign. Her response was that the designation only concerned the mountain bikers. After I was done staring blankly at her for a few seconds, I had to explain to her all about directional trails and their purpose. She was genuinely surprised and said she hiked up that trail 2x a week. You just can't help some people. As a prolific trail builder, I have never built a directional trail. Most of the time, there just isn't room for them as they require twice the space. If I could, I would.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Harold said:


> *facepalm*
> 
> Did you miss the point that the easier connection from Weed Patch to HP is in the plan? It's coming. There's not enough money to build all the trail all at once. Limekiln has been hanging out on its lonesome for a lot of years. No, forcing riders onto the road is not a viable permanent option. But sometimes that's what you get in the short term. The whole trail system has taken, what 20yrs to get where it is now?
> 
> Man, I'm sure the trail builders wish they had enough money and flexibility from the land manager to make the trail system do all things for everyone.


Let me make this as simple as possible for you so that we don't continuously run in circles given your inability to apply logic or consistent time frames: In the SHORT TERM, there is no reason why that trail should be two ways because there is NO WAY to avoid the pavement to avoid black trails. That is the reality of the situation as it stands currently. So make it one way FOR NOW and let people ride the pavement back because they HAVE TO RIDE THE PAVEMENT ANYWAYS!

Now in case you think this is an insurmountable problem, during last year's BC Epic they ran Weedpatch one way. Not only did they run it one way, they alternated direction across consecutive days over the weekend! So apparently, it can be done! What a concept!

Now in the long term, a situation we are currently not in, it could be possible to run it two ways, I don't know. Because none of us have ridden those future trails yet. But I hope they achieve their goals.


----------



## brawwp (Jul 10, 2020)

Cotharyus said:


> Yes. I first encountered this thinking in the early days of Strava when someone literally yelled strava at me as they were descending a trail that a lot of folks complain about climbing, but in my opinion, the "full loop" of the system (no specified direction any day) works best if you climb this trail because the other trail gives you a longer flowier descent. So I saw them, then heard them, then grabbed two fists full of handlebar and stood up on my single speed and sprinted at them, right up the middle of the trail as they were approaching the steepest part of the trail and sideslope on the hill. Both of those noobs tried to get out of my way on the downhill side, only the first one put his foot down uphill, and the second one....downhill. Last I saw he was arse over teakettle rolling through the woods with this bike....


Wait, so you purposefully sprinted at them and one crashed? Why are you bragging about this? That's completely messed up.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> Let me make this as simple as possible for you so that we don't continuously run in circles given your inability to apply logic or consistent time frames: In the SHORT TERM, there is no reason why that trail should be two ways because there is NO WAY to avoid the pavement to avoid black trails. That is the reality of the situation as it stands currently. So make it one way FOR NOW and let people ride the pavement back because they HAVE TO RIDE THE PAVEMENT ANYWAYS!
> 
> Now in case you think this is an insurmountable problem, during last year's BC Epic they ran Weedpatch one way. Not only did they run it one way, they alternated direction across consecutive days over the weekend! So apparently, it can be done! What a concept!
> 
> Now in the long term, a situation we are currently not in, it could be possible to run it two ways, I don't know. Because none of us have ridden those future trails yet. But I hope they achieve their goals.


You are so focused on the minutiae of one trail in one park that you're missing the big picture, and the entire point of this thread.

What happens during the Epic doesn't mean squat for day-to-day use. The Epic has had all sorts of one-day rule changes and exceptions over the years.

I've said before that I'm only privy to SOME of the reasons things are the way they are, not all of them. It's very likely that the person you spoke to was not going to tell a long story about why Weed Patch is the way it is because those details are irrelevant in the big picture. They really are, because riders have to deal with things right now, as they are. IF YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE DIFFERENT THEN TALK TO THE LAND MANAGER, not to me.

All that takes is a phone call to the park. Maybe if you make that phone call, you will learn conclusively why it's a 2-way trail and not directional. But maybe you won't. It doesn't really matter because descending riders will still have to yield to climbing riders and people will have to take some precautions to ride safely. I still have friends in that area, some of whom live VERY close to the park and ride it multiple days per week, and I don't hear anyone else going on about Weed Patch being a problem as a 2-way trail.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Harold said:


> You are so focused on the minutiae of one trail in one park that you're missing the big picture, and the entire point of this thread.


Haha, this is amusing. I started off talking about downhill riders yielding and mentioned something something about directional trails as perhaps a solution. That is the big picture. You decided to put on the hat of the proxy land manager and argue about why things can't happen and brought up the trails we are discussing. Which is it? Do you want to talk about it or don't you?

The funny thing is I probably agree with you on 95% of the issues but I noticed you are a dude that likes to argue with others so if that backdoor 5% isn't closed, it's off to the races.

But it's cool. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> You decided to put on the hat of the proxy land manager and argue about why things can't happen and brought up the trails we are discussing.


No. I just have a little insight about it (I have designed and built trails in multiple states and have worked with a lot of land managers over the the course of about 20yrs) and tried to offer some thoughts about why there might be actual reasons why that trail isn't directional.

Directional trails aren't suitable everywhere. And moreso, land managers are the ones with final say. Because they're dealing with lots of competing interests, those decisions may not represent an ideal situation for anyone.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Harold said:


> No. I just have a little insight about it (I have designed and built trails in multiple states and have worked with a lot of land managers over the the course of about 20yrs) and tried to offer some thoughts about why there might be actual reasons why that trail isn't directional.
> 
> Directional trails aren't suitable everywhere. And moreso, land managers are the ones with final say. Because they're dealing with lots of competing interests, those decisions may not represent an ideal situation for anyone.


I don't have a problem with you offering those insights. It was more you calling me out for focusing on a specific trail when you pulled us in that direction.

In any case, I apologize if I was a jerk on my end. I think this conversation has been useful - it's going give me some ideas to use the next time I have a conversation with the trail maintainers.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> I don't have a problem with you offering those insights. It was more you calling me out for focusing on a specific trail when you pulled us in that direction.
> 
> In any case, I apologize if I was a jerk on my end. I think this conversation has been useful - it's going give me some ideas to use the next time I have a conversation with the trail maintainers.


I still recommend talking to the land manager (park management staff in general). And you don't need to speak personally to the park manager. Calling the office and leaving a message with the receptionist should be fine. User conflict issues are things that they like to know. Obviously they're going to know about the bad head-on collision you referenced, but they're not going to know if the trail's design (which encourages speed) makes riders nervous about oncoming traffic unless riders actually tell them.

Conversations like that may not convince them to make it a one way trail right away (or ever), but it may be enough for the park to direct the builders to make some adjustments to reduce rider speed especially at blind corners, improve visibility, etc. Repeated reports (from more than just one person - you don't want to wind up being "that guy" because they WILL remember you if you are making more reports than anyone else) over time might convince them to make larger changes.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Harold said:


> I still recommend talking to the land manager (park management staff in general). And you don't need to speak personally to the park manager. Calling the office and leaving a message with the receptionist should be fine. User conflict issues are things that they like to know. Obviously they're going to know about the bad head-on collision you referenced, but they're not going to know if the trail's design (which encourages speed) makes riders nervous about oncoming traffic unless riders actually tell them.
> 
> Conversations like that may not convince them to make it a one way trail right away (or ever), but it may be enough for the park to direct the builders to make some adjustments to reduce rider speed especially at blind corners, improve visibility, etc. Repeated reports (from more than just one person - you don't want to wind up being "that guy" because they WILL remember you if you are making more reports than anyone else) over time might convince them to make larger changes.


Thanks. Those are good tips, and I'll probably email the land manager.

And I get it about being "that guy." I generally handle the trail maintainers with kid gloves because I know unpaid volunteer workers aren't paid enough to deal with bullshit from disgruntled users.


----------



## outside! (Mar 15, 2006)

Directional trails are not a good option for most places I have ridden, and I have ridden in a few places. Downhill travelers have always yielded to uphill travelers, be they on horseback, hiking, driving or riding a bike.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

I don't mind pulling over to let downhill riders pass, I just don't like it when they expect it. Slow down, act like you are going to yield, then if you get waved by, give them a thanks. You get to ride through and everyone is happy.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

bpressnall said:


> I don't mind pulling over to let downhill riders pass, I just don't like it when they expect it. Slow down, act like you are going to yield, then if you get waved by, give them a thanks. You get to ride through and everyone is happy.


I definitely do this. I see the downhill rider approaching, I see them begin to slow and pull over as they know they must yield, and then I will probably pull over to let them by. If the downhill rider is not showing signs of yielding, they'll definitely be forced to stop.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

tick_magnet said:


> Sure, we are talking about first world problems. But within the context of our first world problems, why would you make Hobbs directional and Weedpatch non-directional when the latter is faster, has worse sightlines, AND has easier return options. And then it's also advertised as a beginner trail so you throw a bunch of noobs with questionable grasp of mtb etiquette into the mix.
> 
> I mean this respectfully as you have been very respectful here, but I honestly don't understand your logic in defending this decision.


The key here is that if you like to bomb trails, then you have Hobbs to do that on. Weedpatch provides an opportunity for beginners and intermediate riders to experience flow.

The bottom line is that riders need to ride under control when descending on two way trails.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

tick_magnet said:


> if other trails are to be built, then using the road is not a long term solution; it would be a temporary one. And I can tell you that there are table tops on Weedpatch and when you are climbing, you cant see over some of them. Not only that, if you look at the BC map, it is not at all an essential trail. You can do the whole system by singltrack and not even ride it. Last time I was there, I didn't even bother with it. It's not fun riding a trail where your mental state is in fear mode more than fun mode. A waste of a good flow trail.


Not every trail is built for you. There are many riders how ride slower than you, who enjoy riding Weedpatch. Flowy trails aren't just for advanced riders. As you stated, there are plenty of trails at Brown County, so you can avoid trails you don't like and still have plenty of trails to ride.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

indytreckracer, I don't bomb Weedpatch. I consider myself to be a responsible rider and I slow down on blind corners whether it's Weedpatch, Green Valley, or whatever. 

And what one person does isn't really the issue because many people DO bomb Weedpatch. Just look at some of the rides on Strava - some people are hitting 35mph. Weedpatch is just as scary climbing as it is descending for that reason. 

I don't ride it anymore so it doesn't affect me pesonally. I just hope some of the beginners that ride it don't get plowed into. Seems like a dangerous policy to me, but I'm not the guy in charge.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> And what one person does isn't really the issue because many people DO bomb Weedpatch. Just look at some of the rides on Strava - some people are hitting 35mph.


You can't look at the Strava leaderboard and get the whole story. At any trail system, there are times you can go when the place is empty and the only person you endanger from bombing the trail is yourself. There was a stretch of time where I rode the trails at BCSP pretty much every monday from late morning through early afternoon. Oftentimes, I'd see nobody else on the trails and there might only be a couple cars total in all the parking lots serving the trails. Not really much harm done in using that time to get your speed work in if that's your thing, so long as you are also capable of slowing down appropriately if you do see another trail user.

The Strava leaderboard doesn't tell you anything about user conflicts that may or may not have occurred, so it's really of limited use for this kind of thing.

You'd better believe that land managers know about Strava and that they can see how fast riders go (and also view the heatmap to see where they go). If they're concerned about what Strava shows about rider behavior, then they can do something about it.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Harold, that's fair enough and I hope the land managers are looking at that data. I just remember the first time I rode that trail, I hit 25mph without even trying. I must have been riding maybe at 60% because I never bomb new (to me) trails. That is only like a few mph off my full effort runs on Hobbs. It's way smoother, steeper, and less peddly than Hobbs on the way down.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

tick_magnet said:


> Harold, that's fair enough and I hope the land managers are looking at that data. I just remember the first time I rode that trail, I hit 25mph without even trying. I must have been riding maybe at 60% because I never bomb new (to me) trails. That is only like a few mph off my full effort runs on Hobbs. It's way smoother, steeper, and less peddly than Hobbs on the way down.


Also remember, I said early on that it isn't going to stay that smooth/fast forever. It will pack down. It will erode a little. Roots and rocks will start to poke up and slow riders down. All new trails go through this process, but it's most notable on machine built trails.


----------

