# When is a trail 'too much'?



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

My son and I were exploring some trails that a few local kids have built in the forest owned by our town's rec department off the playground/sports fields. They've been working on them for several years I think and they are very good riders and so they are building the trails they want to ride. We turned down a section of the trail today and found their latest creation in progress, a gap/drop that I don't think would be out of place on a double black downhill trail.

I'm not sure whether the town's rec manager knows the scale of what they're building but my gut reaction was that it's too much for where it is and it is a serious accident waiting to happen. Do you think I should have a word with the Rec Manager?

My son is 4'7", the drop-off is up above him to the right, and you can see the landing on the left. My fear is someone has no idea it's there, can't stop in time, front wheel goes off and they OTB and drop spine first onto the stack of logs building up the landing:


----------



## smearin (May 3, 2021)

Looks like a fun drop assuming there's an appropriate runout.

Suggest that they add:

Appropriate signage
B-line around OR wooden ramp (that can be dropped over to the lander if going fast enough).

Don't talk to the Manager if it's about scrapping it. Talk about more progression opportunities on the trails, and signage.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

smearin said:


> Looks like a fun drop assuming there's an appropriate runout.
> 
> Suggest that they add:
> 
> ...


Knowing the manager I don't think she'd leave it there, even with signage, because suddenly issues of liability come into play, but without it's a real hazard.

None of the trails are posted, it's basically these kids' private trail network on town land and I think it's great, I just worry they're getting too big for something that anybody could 'stumble' on.


----------



## VThuckster (Jul 10, 2010)

smearin said:


> Looks like a fun drop assuming there's an appropriate runout.
> 
> Suggest that they add:
> 
> ...


Exactly, that looks like a fun feature that should be properly labeled "gap". I hate it when gaps are labeled "drop" and you scrub your speed to discover it's a gap. It should also have an obvious go around that is basically the main trail ie you should have to deviate from the main trail for a gap feature like that. I don't think the kids would appreciate a plank that takes all the risk out of it.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

As long as they have appropriate signage I don't see the issue. If you want easier trails to ride then volunteer to help build some.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

jeremy3220 said:


> As long as they have appropriate signage I don't see the issue. If you want easier trails to ride then volunteer to help build some.


It's not about wanting easier trails, this is an entirely unmarked/unsigned network and I hate the idea of some non-MTB kids stumbling on it and having a big accident.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

chiefsilverback said:


> It's not about wanting easier trails, this is an entirely unmarked/unsigned network and I hate the idea of some non-MTB kids stumbling on it and having a big accident.


Just ask the builders to add a sign.


----------



## idividebyzero (Sep 25, 2014)

People dont blindly ride off a drops, that's not realistic, drops like that are obvious and everyone's instinct when approaching one is to STOP and look at it. How many people accidentally fly off cliffs because they thought there was a hill on the other side? Humans would be extinct if we werent hard wired to freeze when we approach something where we cant see the bottom. The whole reason drops like that are thrilling is because its about overcoming that fear and forcing yourself to go off it.

Kids are also not going to just jump it when they dont have the skill because things like that are too scary. There are 6ft drops all over the world and kids have survived.

Stuff like this simply isnt as dangerous as you think, its the unassuming poorly built stuff that gets people hurt.


----------



## Fairbanks007 (Sep 5, 2009)

idividebyzero said:


> People dont blindly ride off a drops, that's not realistic, drops like that are obvious and everyone's instinct when approaching one is to STOP and look at it. How many people accidentally fly off cliffs because they thought there was a hill on the other side? Humans would be extinct if we werent hard wired to freeze when we approach something where we cant see the bottom. The whole reason drops like that are thrilling is because its about overcoming that fear and forcing yourself to go off it.
> 
> Kids are also not going to just jump it when they dont have the skill because things like that are too scary. There are 6ft drops all over the world and kids have survived.
> 
> Stuff like this simply isnt as dangerous as you think, its the unassuming poorly built stuff that gets people hurt.


Agreed 100%. Something else that gets forgotten is that mountain bikers have a responsibility to ride in control. If you blindly sail off that because you you couldn't stop then you were riding too fast, pure and simple. Skiing has had this figured out for a while now. Us? Not so much.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

idividebyzero said:


> People dont blindly ride off a drops, that's not realistic, drops like that are obvious and everyone's instinct when approaching one is to STOP and look at it. How many people accidentally fly off cliffs because they thought there was a hill on the other side? Humans would be extinct if we werent hard wired to freeze when we approach something where we cant see the bottom. The whole reason drops like that are thrilling is because its about overcoming that fear and forcing yourself to go off it.
> 
> Kids are also not going to just jump it when they dont have the skill because things like that are too scary. There are 6ft drops all over the world and kids have survived.
> 
> Stuff like this simply isnt as dangerous as you think, its the unassuming poorly built stuff that gets people hurt.


As it stands today it's completely blind, there's no warning, you're riding along what is ostensibly an XC trail and suddenly the trail isn't there anymore.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

chiefsilverback said:


> As it stands today it's completely blind, there's no warning, you're riding along what is ostensibly an XC trail and suddenly the trail isn't there anymore.


You know the trail, the conditions, and the people building the trails.
Use your own judgement.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

MSU Alum said:


> You know the trail, the conditions, and the people building the trails.
> Use your own judgement.


We met a kid last year who showed us where some of these trails were and he said he and his brother built them, and I literally don't know the trail which is why we were just pottering about, but a couple of mph faster and you literally wouldn't have been able to stop before your front wheel was over the edge. It never occurred to me that there would be a feature like that on these trails.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

VThuckster said:


> Exactly, that looks like a fun feature that should be properly labeled "gap". I hate it when gaps are labeled "drop" and you scrub your speed to discover it's a gap. It should also have an obvious go around that is basically the main trail ie you should have to deviate from the main trail for a gap feature like that. I don't think the kids would appreciate a plank that takes all the risk out of it.


As I stated in another comment the trail literally leads over the drop, there is no b-line and zero signage, and it goes from what is basically a 'green' XC trail to a pretty significant feature.

My fear is that 'formalizing' the trails with signage might bring them under scrutiny and lead to the town pulling their permission, but leaving them as is could result in a serious accident...


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

If you want the trails closed then call Parks and Rec. If you want a sign then put a sign up. It's really simple honestly.


----------



## PatRidesBikes (Aug 19, 2019)

Talk to the individuals building the trail. Don't drink the Karen cool-aid and act like talking to a manager is going to help make the world safer. They were building the trails before they showed you, don't ruin their hard work because you want to create a hypothetical bad scenario in your mind about what could be. Just suggest that they label it and put a b-line around it.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

jeremy3220 said:


> If you want the trails closed then call Parks and Rec. If you want a sign then put a sign up. It's really simple honestly.


As stated, my concern is that signage leads to scrutiny which leads to closure anyway...


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

PatRidesBikes said:


> Talk to the individuals building the trail. Don't drink the Karen cool-aid and act like talking to a manager is going to help make the world safer. They were building the trails before they showed you, don't ruin their hard work because you want to create a hypothetical bad scenario in your mind about what could be. Just suggest that they label it and put a b-line around it.


My whole point is that I don't want to rock the boat and take away a good thing, but at the same time I imagine when they asked for permission to put some trails in no one was considering features like this. As I said we met a kid who showed us some of these trails and I've never seen him again, so I have no way of "speaking to them". I could go and put some signs up but that might lead to closure anyway if they draw the wrong attention.


----------



## idividebyzero (Sep 25, 2014)

You saw the drop and you stopped so why wouldnt other people? Ive never accidentally went over a drop or heard of anyone that has. I live near a drop that is almost a clone of that and there is a perspective effect you get between the lip and the background that screams "cliff" as you approach and not "trail", I dont see how its possible anyone can mistake something that high as anything but a drop. 

I think adding a small drop sign on the run-in is a good peace of mind but even without it I HIGHLY doubt anyone accidentally goes over it. You have to trust that people arent brain dead and will just ride off a blind drop, its a one in a million kind of accident.


----------



## austink26 (Jun 24, 2019)

If these are non sanctioned trails as is, getting the land manager involved is just going to have all of them destroyed. Putting up one sign on a stake about 20ft before the drop warns people of it and isn’t drawing too much attention to it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

chiefsilverback said:


> My whole point is that I don't want to rock the boat and take away a good thing, but at the same time I imagine when they asked for permission to put some trails in no one was considering features like this. As I said we met a kid who showed us some of these trails and I've never seen him again, so I have no way of "speaking to them". I could go and put some signs up but that might lead to closure anyway if they draw the wrong attention.


Ah yes, the eternal conundrum. 
Haste makes waste.
OTOH,
He who hesitates is lost.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

I’d do what I generally do. Mind my business.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> As stated, my concern is that signage leads to scrutiny which leads to closure anyway...


Someone would have to come across the sign to then scrutinize. If there isn't a sign, they would just come across the gap anyway.


----------



## waltaz (Oct 14, 2004)

They're illegal pirate trails. Do whatever you want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## alwayslivingthedream (Mar 14, 2009)

You lost me at "We turned down a section of the trail today"

Also posting a picture of your kid..really! Poor kid.


----------



## Salespunk (Sep 15, 2005)

You seem to want the trail torn down and you want us to justify you ratting out the builders. 

Pretty simple solution is to ask the builders to put up a sign and build a B line if you are really concerned about it. There is zero reason to turn the kids in and have the trail torn down. It looks to be a very well built gap that could be cleared with minimal speed from the picture you posted.


----------



## austink26 (Jun 24, 2019)

Another option would be to put a squirrel catcher earlier in the trail. That will keep it so nobody thinks it is just a flat xc trail. Something like a small double or some rocks without a go around. 

No signs needed, no need to involve the land manager and you help the kids build a fun trail. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> As stated, my concern is that signage leads to scrutiny which leads to closure anyway...


Are you worried about a sign or someone flying off it and getting hurt?

Just put up a sign and talk to the builders.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

idividebyzero said:


> People dont blindly ride off a drops


Yes, they do.

This coming from someone that found a rider passed out from a concussion on a trail last year (on a trail feature) and attended to them.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Kids are making their own trails and not ruining other trails that's a good thing. 

Let the sleaping dogs lie and leave the kids to there tracks. As others have said there are batshit crazy tracks all around the world were kids aren't being injured by accidental riding of the tracks. 

Just because you personally won't ride the track doesn't mean it's not easy to others. There are many levels of rider out there in the mtb world.

My suggestion for the track builders. Out a squirrel catcher at the start of the track.


----------



## REZEN (Aug 7, 2020)

America, where everything has to be lawyer safe. Sigh.

I would say signage and ride arounds are perfect. Removing the features is a terrible thing to do, no matter how scary they may seem.


----------



## Tjomball (Jul 6, 2021)

So because you can't ride something, no one else should be able to?
I just reamed a Karen a new one over the exact same scenario a couple of days ago.
She'd come across a trail that was marked as black and she thought it unrideable and wanted it removed.
My response was along the following.

"Just because you're not at the level of riding that others are does not entitle you to undo other riders effort. You are a part of a growing problem that has ruined many great trails. It starts with one turn being shortened and manicured, and before you know it you end up with sanitized flow trails. If that's the surface you want to ride there is something called gravel bikes. Leave the dirt to us real mountainbikers."

To you specifically. If it bothers you. Hang a sign. Or even better, cut a B-Line yourself.
If you tell the land manager the trails will be torn down and more than likely some form of charges will be brought.
So you really need to do some thinking here.
It sounds like you really want to **** those kids over. And thats all on you.


----------



## dietz31684 (Mar 30, 2010)

chiefsilverback said:


> As stated, my concern is that signage leads to scrutiny which leads to closure anyway...


Dude, you have 4 choices. Put up a sign yourself, talk to the kids, go Karen with the land manager, do nothing. All have been suggested. Not sure what else you're looking for? One of us to make the sign, hold your hand, and put it up for you?

I'd suggest doing nothing.


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

A trail is never "too much". Kids these days are pushing limits that we never thought of pushing 20 years ago. It's awesome.

Leave them alone, let them have their fun and go ride easier trails if that's what makes you happy.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

The drop in the pic looks fun and not outrageous at all. I’ve come across features that are way bigger yet rideable.

The OP should mind his own business and not act like a forest hall monitor.


----------



## OldSchoolMBer (May 25, 2013)

I wouldn't get beaurocrats involved, that's a loser deal for everyone. Most are only good at doing two things, nothing and overreacting. If it's an informal trail anyway, maybe take a few min and scratch out the bypass you would feel comfortable with. Everybody gets what they want.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

chiefsilverback said:


> As stated, my concern is that signage leads to scrutiny which leads to closure anyway...


A sign before the feature that says "Drop" isn't going to lead to any more scrutiny than the drop itself.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

I think the obvious answer to this is to make a sign, but hide it in the bushes...


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

s0ckeyeus said:


> I think the obvious answer to this is to make a sign, but hide it in the bushes...


Haha! Or put the sign down on the landing zone&#8230;


----------



## Brad In A Van (Nov 26, 2017)

Going out and doing some work and cutting a B line around the feature you don’t like seems like a reasonable solution.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

I've heard on the grapevine that the rec manager is already sniffing around, so this might have been an entirely moot post.

I was a little surprised by some of the responses here, especially the "poor kid" comment. I actively encourage my children to ride, take them to DH parks, provide them with proper equipment etc... The "poor kid" in question will happily 'send it' down a black diamond, and clocked over 60mph on a pair of skis, and rips it through the moguls on the freestyle team, and he thought this particular feature was completely out of place. It was also his idea to stand in the feature to give a sense of scale for the photo.

I never said it shouldn't be there because I can't personally ride it and there was some anecdote about a woman who didn't think a trail should exist. If this was clearly signed as a black trail then I wouldn't have even asked the question.

I genuinely asked the question with the best of intentions because I don't want all their hard work to be torn out but I worry they have maybe gone 'too far' for where they are building. I was looking for advice because I'm new to this and I was looking for others experiences dealing with land owners/local authorities etc... in the creation and maintenance of trails.


----------



## BuzzinHornets (Sep 17, 2005)

Leave it be Karen, unless you want to become the land manager, then you can crush these kids dreams with your push for safety. Until then ride what you want and let others ride what they want. Why do you think you get to be the judge of what is safe for others?


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

BuzzinHornets said:


> Leave it be Karen, unless you want to become the land manager, then you can crush these kids dreams with your push for safety. Until then ride what you want and let others ride what they want. Why do you think you get to be the judge of what is safe for others?


Read what I've posted before your make snarky comments! I'm not worried about the kids building the trails getting hurt, I'm worried about other people who go for a poke around on the trails built on the town's recreation area, who would never even consider that there might be features like this, riding down a seemingly benign little XC trail that suddenly disappears off a cliff.

We surely have a duty of care to the wider community, not just the small population of mountain bikers?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

He’s not listening.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

chiefsilverback said:


> I've heard on the grapevine that the rec manager is already sniffing around, so this might have been an entirely moot post.
> 
> I was a little surprised by some of the responses here, especially the "poor kid" comment. I actively encourage my children to ride, take them to DH parks, provide them with proper equipment etc... The "poor kid" in question will happily 'send it' down a black diamond, and clocked over 60mph on a pair of skis, and rips it through the moguls on the freestyle team, and he thought this particular feature was completely out of place. It was also his idea to stand in the feature to give a sense of scale for the photo.
> 
> ...


Less word. Make sign.


----------



## Big Fil (Nov 5, 2014)

Stop worrying. Let it be.


----------



## Tommy E (Oct 30, 2019)

New sign for Trailhead once official complaints are documented on pirated trails-


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Tommy E said:


> New sign for Trailhead once official complaints are documented on pirated trails-
> 
> View attachment 1939870


Not sure why you're assuming they're "pirate" trails, the kid I spoke to last year said they had received permission at some point in the past. Not being privy to the conversations/agreements I would have no idea what permission was granted our how it was documented and whether the are still building what was agreed on? "Can we scratch out a few trails to ride around on?" is very different to "can we build a mini-DH course with gaps/jumps/drops etc..?"

Again this is why I don't want to rock the boat, a huge amount of effort has gone into these trails and I'd hate to see them shut down, but I also don't want for someone to have a nasty accident which would automatically shut them down.


----------



## Tommy E (Oct 30, 2019)

I'd personally just enjoy the trails for what they are and not rock the boat as you mentioned. I'd also build an alternative route if I felt it was needed. I wouldn't put up any signs though because if I didn't build the feature then I don't want to potentially assume any responsibly for it.


----------



## monsterinthewoods (Jul 13, 2021)

If you report the trails to the park manager and frame it that you're concerned that people are going to get hurt because of the "big" features, those trails are going to get shut down and most likely destroyed.

If you put up a sign before the gap that says "Caution Gap" or "Caution Drop" or just "Caution Ahead", you're only going to alert someone who is using the trail. If the park manager or anyone reporting to them sees the sign, they were almost guaranteed to see the feature anyway.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

chiefsilverback said:


> Not sure why you're assuming they're "pirate" trails


I got the impression that they were pirate trails too, based upon what you wrote earlier:



chiefsilverback said:


> None of the trails are posted, it's basically these kids' private trail network on town land


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> I've heard on the grapevine that the rec manager is already sniffing around, so this might have been an entirely moot post.
> 
> I was a little surprised by some of the responses here, especially the "poor kid" comment. I actively encourage my children to ride, take them to DH parks, provide them with proper equipment etc... The "poor kid" in question will happily 'send it' down a black diamond, and clocked over 60mph on a pair of skis, and rips it through the moguls on the freestyle team, and he thought this particular feature was completely out of place. It was also his idea to stand in the feature to give a sense of scale for the photo.
> 
> ...


I'm also surprised at some of the responses to what I find a very reasonable question. 
It's weird how some people are acting all bitchy about this without first-hand knowledge of the spot/situation.

I've built plenty of trails with drops/gaps in them in places where they make sense, but I wouldn't put anything like that on the trails I build/maintain on town rec land because those trails are more likely to see use by the type of riders who aren't as experienced as the ones that figured out how to find the more hidden 'good stuff'. I also know that the people who manage our rec land would definitely NOT want something like on a multi-use trail, specially if it comes up as a surprise while riding (which is of course shitty trail design). As mentioned, anonymously slapping in some sort of sign is probably the best compromise.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

There's been a real culture change in MTB over the years. No one would bring this up in the past. I'm a life long lib, but something is going on with snowflakes, helicopter parents, Karens.... I don't get it. I don't like it.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Nat said:


> I got the impression that they were pirate trails too, based upon what you wrote earlier:


 I also wrote:


chiefsilverback said:


> My whole point is that I don't want to rock the boat and take away a good thing, but at the same time I imagine when they asked for permission to put some trails in no one was considering features like this.


What I meant when I said "private trail network" is that these kids are building what they want to ride, they haven't come at it as a local MTB chapter might by planning different levels of trails to cater for different abilities.

The best case scenario would be that it could be formalized, signed etc... and make it a feature of the town.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

It 100% needs a very serious sign but otherwise it's rad.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

slimat99 said:


> snowflakes, helicopter parents, Karens.... I don't get it. I don't like it.


Those terms mean whatever the person throwing them about wants them to mean, so they're entirely pointless.

"Karen" came about from a white woman called Karen calling the police over a black girl selling lemonade at the end of her driveway. I'm not sure it's fair to lump concern over a poorly thought out trail feature with outright racism, but that's just me.


----------



## Brad In A Van (Nov 26, 2017)

Maybe they need some guidance and leadership from adults? Maybe an advocacy/trail building group should be formed to have a formal relationship with the land manager?


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Never ever go through the park manager or some other bureaucrat as your first or even your last option. It likely will not work out for the mountain bikers. Gotta keep this in-house and resolve it within the community. The sign is a good idea. A b-line might be a good idea. I'm sure there are other ideas. Talking to the park manager is not an idea but a call to get the trails eliminated.


----------



## sfmtber (Aug 30, 2004)

Sounds like the OP really wants to talk to the land manager and is just looking for somebody to agree with him. I'm going to speculate that it's just a bit more about "making it safe for others".

OP - Leave it alone or talk to the builders and ask them to put up a sign. Don't ruin it for them by bringing in the land manager, who will more than likely destroy the feature. At some point, they (land managers) will probably find it and at that point, let that process take it's natural course but for now, just enjoy some additional trails that some kids were kind enough to show you. You're not being a hero to the community by getting these kids hard work destroyed.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Brad In A Van said:


> Maybe they need some guidance and leadership from adults? Maybe an advocacy/trail building group should be formed to have a formal relationship with the land manager?


This is what I'm thinking. I'm in NH so we've got NEMBA chapters all around us, but nothing that covers our town/immediate area.

There's a trail group in the next town over that are setup as a 501.3c and they maintain 50+ miles of trail, but it's all XC and whilst accessible to anyone it if you don't know about it you'd never know it's there.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

The land manager might even calm the f down to if she sees signs and a b-line. It would show a genuine effort to ensure safety. But talking about it before those things are up will probably just inspire panic.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

tick_magnet said:


> Never ever go through the park manager or some other bureaucrat as your first or even your last option. It likely will not work out for the mountain bikers.


I'm not sure this is entirely true. Over in Keene, NH there's a whole trail network on town land, mapped, published on TrailForks etc... The town must have given permission for it at some point...


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Why do you think it is your responsibility to do anything at all?


----------



## Tommy E (Oct 30, 2019)

Out of curiosity, is there any sort of signage of any kind now? Not in relation to the gap jump but in relation to the trails in general. Anything labeling them as a trail for walking or for biking or anything stating to ride at your own risk?


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

d365 said:


> Why do you think it is your responsibility to do anything at all?


Because I care about the broader community and I'd hate to hear about a local kid who ends up in a wheelchair because they rode off a feature that probably shouldn't have been there!


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

chiefsilverback said:


> I'm not sure this is entirely true. Over in Keene, NH there's a whole trail network on town land, mapped, published on TrailForks etc... The town must have given permission for it at some point...


Sorry, what I meant was when it comes to safety issues or issues perceived to be "too much." Of course you have to go through them before building trails to begin with.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Jayem said:


> Yes, they do.
> 
> This coming from someone that found a rider passed out from a concussion on a trail last year (on a trail feature) and attended to them.


I've been caught on the builder's side of this. I had permission to build trails in a park. Said park was mostly flat, but there was a gorge running through the middle of it with some nice 20-30ft cliffs. Everything was pretty easily accessible to just about anyone. Someone in the past on a crappy bike they couldn't control rode off the top of the cliff and died. Park manager, therefore, didn't want the mtb trails anywhere near the cliff, and wanted the overall difficulty of the trails I did build to stay fairly easy.

Good trail design involves making features like this visible well ahead of time, and it involves making it obvious to people entering the trail in question that high level features will be present. On a trail that's otherwise an easy trail, you simply don't put a feature like that in the main line. You just don't. There are HUGE liability concerns over something like that. You can put more difficult features on the b-line on an easier trail. Signing the feature isn't going to be enough in this case to cover due diligence. Building a b-line won't cover due diligence. Building a major squirrel catcher at the entrance to said trail would do a better job of it. That way anyone entering the trail will see that there's more going on here.

It certainly does sound like the permission situation is at least unknown. Maybe the kids got some level of permission in the past (maybe not). I doubt said permission included features like this. Ultimately, the land manager gets to decide whether something like this may remain on the trails, and any conditions that might be applied. Chances are, however, that the land manager will take a heavily conservative stance on it. The places I know where similar kinds of features were finally allowed to be built in the first place involved years of work educating the land manager, demonstrating that with proper design and construction, lower level features could be fine and slowly working the land manager up to bigger and bigger features. Progression, but in a different sense than it's usually meant around here.


----------



## GeePhroh (Jan 13, 2004)

idividebyzero said:


> People dont blindly ride off a drops, that's not realistic, drops like that are obvious and everyone's instinct when approaching one is to STOP and look at it.


I actually agree that riders should look before they hit new features, and I'd like to have hope for humanity; but the hours of entertainment me and my crew had watching people do the dumbest thing you could possibly imagine off something we'd just built says otherwise.

That said, the OP should talk to the builders about putting a sign on it, or just do it himself. (Not that anybody pays attention to signs...)


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

chiefsilverback said:


> Because I care about the broader community and I'd hate to hear about a local kid who ends up in a wheelchair because they rode off a feature that probably shouldn't have been there!


It sounds like you've already made up your mind and don't really need or want our opinion. Let us know the outcome.


----------



## VThuckster (Jul 10, 2010)

That feature is absolutely appropriate for a trail and is something I would hit blind depending on my assessment of the trail before it. A well built trail will facilitate the appropriate speed required for a feature and a sign indicating “gap” will let the rider know some speed is required and that there is a consequence for failure. If I am riding a trail where there were no previous features or where the features were either too big or too small for the natural speed of the trail I would stop and inspect. I’ve ridden trails at SDM in Quebec with huge features that I hit blind on lap one because the trail was built perfectly and you maintained the correct speed to clear and not overshoot naturally. No idea if this is the case here. We’d need to have a full video of the trail being ridden. I’ve come across plenty of trails built by kids or amateurs that need to be corrected. As others have said start with the builders to make it safer for the general public and not the managers. It is unfortunate, but the OP is right to be concerned in general as there are more and more people flocking to the sport with no clue about anything and everything.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Tommy E said:


> Out of curiosity, is there any sort of signage of any kind now? Not in relation to the gap jump but in relation to the trails in general. Anything labeling them as a trail for walking or for biking or anything stating to ride at your own risk?


A few 'arrows' have gone up recently where some folks are designating a walking trail, but nothing for the riding side of it.


----------



## Colo Springs E (Dec 20, 2009)

idividebyzero said:


> People dont blindly ride off a drops, that's not realistic, drops like that are obvious and everyone's instinct when approaching one is to STOP and look at it. How many people accidentally fly off cliffs because they thought there was a hill on the other side? Humans would be extinct if we werent hard wired to freeze when we approach something where we cant see the bottom. The whole reason drops like that are thrilling is because its about overcoming that fear and forcing yourself to go off it.
> 
> Kids are also not going to just jump it when they dont have the skill because things like that are too scary. There are 6ft drops all over the world and kids have survived.
> 
> Stuff like this simply isnt as dangerous as you think, its the unassuming poorly built stuff that gets people hurt.


This is my thought. COULD it happen? I guess... but I think the likelihood is pretty low.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> Because I care about the broader community and I'd hate to hear about a local kid who ends up in a wheelchair because they rode off a feature that probably shouldn't have been there!


So you deem that this feature "shouldn't be there", and now it is your responsibility to do something about it... got it. That's not Karen at all....

Let us know what the manger says....


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

VThuckster said:


> That feature is absolutely appropriate for a trail and is something I would hit blind depending on my assessment of the trail before it.


The trail before is a relatively short section of flat single track that you'd likely have to crank along to get enough speed to clear that gap. It's built right at the highest point in the forest and there's no opportunity for a squirrel catcher.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

So what do you want to see happen (other than dragging this thread out forever)?


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

chiefsilverback said:


> Those terms mean whatever the person throwing them about wants them to mean, so they're entirely pointless.
> 
> "Karen" came about from a white woman called Karen calling the police over a black girl selling lemonade at the end of her driveway. I'm not sure it's fair to lump concern over a poorly thought out trail feature with outright racism, but that's just me.


Ok Boomer. You sound like a helicopter parent to me. I've never heard of someone sending a gap because they didn't know it was there. Scoping a trail first time down is MTB 101. You're worried about kids when your local kids are sending that shi! with a big grins on their faces. let them have fun. If it's an illegal feature it might get shut down. That's been a part of MTB forever and it's never going to stop.


----------



## Tjomball (Jul 6, 2021)

chiefsilverback said:


> Because I care about the broader community and I'd hate to hear about a local kid who ends up in a wheelchair because they rode off a feature that probably shouldn't have been there!


We had a case a few years ago down southwest in my country. A 15 year old hit jumps clearly built for experts and marked as such. Kid went otb mid air and landed on his head, breaking his neck and paralyzing him in the process.
A lot of people protested the excistance of that jumpspot, that was built by the council.
So bad sh*t happen even on "properly built and sanctioned spots" as well.

And lets talk bikeparks. They are all "properly built". Riders still managed to injure themselves grievously there.

I get it. You want safety, fine. Maybe start looking for a different sport then. Or maybe look into gravel riding or nineties style xc riding, meaning 90 percent fireroads and 10 percent singletrack. That's about as safe a way of doing mountainbiking as I can think of.
But guess what. Riders still went down on flat ground.

Mountainbiking is an inherently risky sport. That's part of the appeal for many riders, myself included.
If trails get sanitized and dumbed down it kills the sport and all appeal for me. And I know I'm not alone.
We're many riders who've spent years developing our skills. We have our little "playgrounds" that have been tailored over time. Let the good riders have their spots.


----------



## Deviant_MechE (Dec 26, 2015)

So, you’re not the builder and you’re not the land manager…live and let live. One man’s black is another man’s blue and that looks like a well built drop.

Less bubble wrap and bureaucracy and more kids building rad features in the woods


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

slimat99 said:


> I've never heard of someone sending a gap because they didn't know it was there.


Then you haven't ridden enough.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

slapheadmofo said:


> Then you haven't ridden enough.


yup. ppl will do it (maybe even after they've been drinking), and then their health insurance company will force them to go after the land manager and anyone involved in building the feature in an attempt to recoup treatment costs.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

OP = Karen Terry


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I completely understand what the OP is talking about and it's got nothing to do with playing 'Karen' or any ridiculous **** like that. He found a poorly designed (with respect to layout/location anyway) potentially dangerous feature and is trying to figure out how best to maybe keep one of his neighbors kids from getting f'ed up on it without ruining things for the kids that built it.

And a number of you guys apparently woke up today with your Internet Hardo shirts on looking for somebody to baselessly insult.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> I'm not sure this is entirely true. Over in Keene, NH there's a whole trail network on town land, mapped, published on TrailForks etc... The town must have given permission for it at some point...


Exactly how we did it here as well.
That new Keene park is pretty sweet.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> I completely understand what the OP is talking about and it's got nothing to do with playing 'Karen' or any ridiculous **** like that. He found a poorly designed (with respect to layout/location anyway) potentially dangerous feature and is trying to figure out how best to maybe keep one of his neighbors kids from getting f'ed up on it without ruining things for the kids that built it.
> 
> And a number of you guys apparently woke up today with your Internet Hardo shirts on looking for somebody to baselessly insult.


What should OP do?


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Tjomball said:


> And lets talk bikeparks. They are all "properly built". Riders still managed to injure themselves grievously there.
> 
> I get it. You want safety, fine. Maybe start looking for a different sport then.


The lift serviced DH park near me signs each gap and drop on black diamond trails, and there are clear b-lines for every feature.

Yes MTB is an inherently risky sport but you still seem to be missing my concern that this one feature is so entirely out of context for the area in which it's build, and basically blind, so someone who isn't a 'mountain biker' could be caught completely unawares and have a very serious accident.

At what point does our 'right to have fun' outweigh the safety of others?


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

slapheadmofo said:


> That new Keene park is pretty sweet.


It is, but even there you can't rule out stupidity. I watched in horror as friend of my son dropped in head first into some other kid who thought it would be a good idea to ride up the ramp. I'm sure the kid who was riding up had seen some of the other adults there doing the same thing...


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jeremy3220 said:


> What should OP do?


First and foremost, tell a bunch of people here to go **** themselves.

Next, anonymously slap up a warning sign for the feature.

Then, come back here and tell a bunch of people to go **** themselves again.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> It is, but even there you can't rule out stupidity. I watched in horror as friend of my son dropped in head first into some other kid who thought it would be a good idea to ride up the ramp. I'm sure the kid who was riding up had seen some of the other adults there doing the same thing...


I've got a pumptrack I built/maintain for our town and the amount of dumb **** I see people do there regularly is pretty impressive.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

slapheadmofo said:


> First and foremost, tell a bunch of people here to go **** themselves.
> 
> Next, anonymously slap up a warning sign for the feature.
> 
> Then, come back here and tell a bunch of people to go **** themselves again.


I try to keep the discourse civil!


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

LOL


----------



## FrankS29 (Oct 23, 2019)

slapheadmofo said:


> I completely understand what the OP is talking about and it's got nothing to do with playing 'Karen' or any ridiculous **** like that. He found a poorly designed (with respect to layout/location anyway) potentially dangerous feature and is trying to figure out how best to maybe keep one of his neighbors kids from getting f'ed up on it without ruining things for the kids that built it.
> 
> And a number of you guys apparently woke up today with your Internet Hardo shirts on looking for somebody to baselessly insult.


This, 100%

A "Karen" would not come to members of the community asking for advise on how to handle the situation. A "Karen" would go insane right away and already have a full head of steam with a firmly held belief of exactly how this needs to be addressed.

He very reasonably came here looking for advice and mostly got $hit for it.

The only "Karens" I see here are the ones throwing an immediate fit because he noticed a potentially dangerous situation and was looking for advice on how to address it. I, like him would also feel a sense of responsibility to address it. I would hate myself if someone was seriously injured because I simply walked away from it because "Hey, mountain biking is dangerous Bro..."

He didn't come in here spewing hate for the trail builders and saying he destroyed the feature and called every authority that would listen.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> First and foremost, tell a bunch of people here to go **** themselves.
> 
> Next, anonymously slap up a warning sign for the feature.
> 
> Then, come back here and tell a bunch of people to go **** themselves again.


We've suggested that multiple times and OP didn't like the idea. Hopefully he doesn't tell you to go **** yourself though.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> I try to keep the discourse civil!


You need to spend more time in MA and get over that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jeremy3220 said:


> We've suggested that multiple times and OP didn't like the idea. Hopefully he doesn't tell you to go **** yourself though.


He didn't say he didn't like it, he said he had some concerns about signage in general.
Which is why I wouldn't go crazy putting 'official' signs all over the place, just sneak in one for this particular spot to maybe give a little heads-up.

He probably won't tell me to go **** myself because I didn't act like complete dick to him, unlike a number of other people here.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

jeremy3220 said:


> We've suggested that multiple times and OP didn't like the idea. Hopefully he doesn't tell you to go **** yourself though.


When did I ever say I didn't like the idea? I've pulled a few strings to see if I can get any contact info for the trail builders, and when I get a chance I'll swing by the hardware store and grab a "Caution" sign, although a couple of seeming experienced and responsible trail builders have indicated that even a caution sign might not be sufficient.

Other than that I just enjoy swinging back against the idiots calling me a "Karen", a "helicopter parent", a "snowflake" etc...

My sons all ski black and double black, hit every bump and jump they can find, disappear into the trees, ski rock drops and spend countless hours in the terrain park. I work with them and coach them to develop their skills. I watched my five your old fall off a rainbow in the terrain park and then carried him screaming and crying to the medical room with a broken arm. Did I try to shut down the mountain? No, it's a risk of skiing. He'll be straight back out there when the mountain opens again in the winter and I'll be there with him encouraging him and helping him develop.

My 8 year old hit the DH park for the first time ever this year, 5 runs in and he dropped into a black diamond, I was more scared than he was but they inspire me and I encourage them.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Ok great idea guys.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

thread about nothing

*
"look before you leap"*
-Douce MS

First use of this in US was guesstimated *1677 *in what is now New England


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Harold said:


> I've been caught on the builder's side of this. I had permission to build trails in a park. Said park was mostly flat, but there was a gorge running through the middle of it with some nice 20-30ft cliffs. Everything was pretty easily accessible to just about anyone. Someone in the past on a crappy bike they couldn't control rode off the top of the cliff and died. Park manager, therefore, didn't want the mtb trails anywhere near the cliff, and wanted the overall difficulty of the trails I did build to stay fairly easy.
> 
> Good trail design involves making features like this visible well ahead of time, and it involves making it obvious to people entering the trail in question that high level features will be present. On a trail that's otherwise an easy trail, you simply don't put a feature like that in the main line. You just don't. There are HUGE liability concerns over something like that. You can put more difficult features on the b-line on an easier trail. Signing the feature isn't going to be enough in this case to cover due diligence. Building a b-line won't cover due diligence. Building a major squirrel catcher at the entrance to said trail would do a better job of it. That way anyone entering the trail will see that there's more going on here.
> 
> It certainly does sound like the permission situation is at least unknown. Maybe the kids got some level of permission in the past (maybe not). I doubt said permission included features like this. Ultimately, the land manager gets to decide whether something like this may remain on the trails, and any conditions that might be applied. Chances are, however, that the land manager will take a heavily conservative stance on it. The places I know where similar kinds of features were finally allowed to be built in the first place involved years of work educating the land manager, demonstrating that with proper design and construction, lower level features could be fine and slowly working the land manager up to bigger and bigger features. Progression, but in a different sense than it's usually meant around here.


Yeah, I'm involved with trail building groups, leading crews, and so on.

The whole liability thing usually comes down to reasonableness. Is it reasonable to expect said feature on said trail, which means there needs to be some sort of indication of the type of terrain on the trail at reasonable locations. This could be at a trailhead, the beginning of that exact trail, or on the trail itself, etc. Lots of people are quick to think that lawyers and liability is just out to get everyone, but while you can sue anyone for anything, it's not common that you get away with something unreasonable, unless the other company just wants to settle rather than going to court. With these kind of civil suites though, it's not uncommon for the losing side to have to pay the winning side's legal fees, so again, there aren't really that many unreasonable things going on. The McDonalds hot coffee case is a textbook case in people just reading a headline and thinking they know everything. Reading the court docs and what really went on shows that McDonalds lied several times about prior occurrences and settlements. They tried to claim they knew nothing about the issue of it being hotter than industry standard and hurting people and got caught lying about it. That and the injuries were very debilitating. There was also judgement against the person that brought the suit, saying they were partially responsible. But I digress, most people don't take the time to really get beyond the headline and see why the decisions were made. Again it usually comes down to reasonableness and for trails, that usually includes some sort of signage and notification. Other aspects of liability have to do with design, like not making things inherently unsafe by placing pungi-stick like features nearby or not having a safe "ride-around", depending on the trail. It's not that you need a perfect trail, it just needs to be reasonable for the intended application. A double black trail with a gap that no advanced rider can actually make due to other design aspects of the trail is just as unreasonable as a drop on a beginner trail. There's a balance between progression and stupidity.

The 800lb gorilla though is all the land managers and municipalities that refuse to try and accommodate any kind of challenging riding. It leads to a lot of the illegal trails. And then you get into the argument about should you just build said trails and hope they get incorporated one day, or not build the trails and just "enjoy" the flat stuff, or just move to someplace where "they actually get it", like WA state?


----------



## Tjomball (Jul 6, 2021)

slapheadmofo said:


> I completely understand what the OP is talking about and it's got nothing to do with playing 'Karen' or any ridiculous **** like that. He found a poorly designed (with respect to layout/location anyway) potentially dangerous feature and is trying to figure out how best to maybe keep one of his neighbors kids from getting f'ed up on it without ruining things for the kids that built it.
> 
> And a number of you guys apparently woke up today with your Internet Hardo shirts on looking for somebody to baselessly insult.


And he's repeatedly been told to just make a sign and post it himself if he's that concerned.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Jayem said:


> The whole liability thing usually comes down to reasonableness.


My understanding is that there's very little actual settled caselaw on this. The expense of things actually going through a trial has persuaded a lot of people being sued to just settle to make it go away. So "reasonableness" hasn't much factored into it at that end. I do agree that expectations need to be set, though. The more you set people's expectations, the less trouble you're likely to encounter later.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Harold said:


> My understanding is that there's very little actual settled caselaw on this. The expense of things actually going through a trial has persuaded a lot of people being sued to just settle to make it go away. So "reasonableness" hasn't much factored into it at that end. I do agree that expectations need to be set, though. The more you set people's expectations, the less trouble you're likely to encounter later.


Coming from the UK I knew how 'lawsuit happy' Americans are, but you made the point earlier that often it's not the injured party that's suing, it's their insurance company. One of my kids cut their finger at day care, they were making something with old tin cans and obviously one had a sharp edge. As I recall he had to have a couple of stitches and we didn't think anything of it until the owner of the daycare called because she had a letter from Cigna wanting her to pay the bill!!!!


----------



## Tjomball (Jul 6, 2021)

chiefsilverback said:


> At what point does our 'right to have fun' outweigh the safety of others?


At what point does catering to unknowing and downright ignorant people go too far?
By your logic we should ban cars because more people die in traffic accidents every year than cycling.
And I'm lactose intolerant. Like many others. So lets ban Dairy as well because that directly affects ME.
And since many mountainbikers hate roadies. Lets just ban that as well.

You see where this is going?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Harold said:


> My understanding is that there's very little actual settled caselaw on this. The expense of things actually going through a trial has persuaded a lot of people being sued to just settle to make it go away. So "reasonableness" hasn't much factored into it at that end. I do agree that expectations need to be set, though. The more you set people's expectations, the less trouble you're likely to encounter later.


Well, for a lot of it you really have to get in and read the court docs, not just the summary, and even then you aren't privy to what each side knew unless you were there in negotiations. It's easy to say it was settled just to make it go away and that does happen, but there's often more information too and the company that paid to make it go away wasn't really in "the clear" or "the right" entirely.

But yeah, people don't need to die because they got on "the wrong" trail. It's kind of like a one-way ski-trail that starts as a green run and ends up as a double-black diamond. That for sure could injure or kill someone. They may not be fit enough to hike all the way back up and it puts them in a bad situation. It's easy to say everyone should know their abilities, but really, they don't. Lots of people think they are fine riding intermediate trails and the one I found with the concussion had fallen off a 1-2 foot wide ladder ramp intended as the qualifying feature. They endoed at the end, which seems impossible for any experienced rider, but again, people can and will do these things. You have the signage and warning because it's reasonable. You can't protect people 100% nor are you trying to, you are just trying to make a reasonable attempt to ensure the person is informed of the required skill level.

But for sure, people will ride straight off stuff.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

chiefsilverback said:


> Coming from the UK I knew how 'lawsuit happy' Americans are, but you made the point earlier that often it's not the injured party that's suing, it's their insurance company. One of my kids cut their finger at day care, they were making something with old tin cans and obviously one had a sharp edge. As I recall he had to have a couple of stitches and we didn't think anything of it until the owner of the daycare called because she had a letter from Cigna wanting her to pay the bill!!!!


Yeah, it's not really "Americans" who are lawsuit happy, in all honesty. I'm aware of a couple situations (mtb injury situations) where the injured rider (or the injured rider's family) was actually FORCED to file a civil suit by their insurance company to receive a payout. The insurance co didn't file suit. But they absolutely were pulling the strings in the end.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Tjomball said:


> At what point does catering to unknowing and downright ignorant people go too far?
> By your logic we should ban cars because more people die in traffic accidents every year than cycling.
> And I'm lactose intolerant. Like many others. So lets ban Dairy as well because that directly affects ME.
> And since many mountainbikers hate roadies. Lets just ban that as well.
> ...


You should update your signature to state you're a deliberately argumentative asshole!


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Jayem said:


> Well, for a lot of it you really have to get in and read the court docs, not just the summary, and even then you aren't privy to what each side knew unless you were there in negotiations. It's easy to say it was settled just to make it go away and that does happen, but there's often more information too and the company that paid to make it go away wasn't really in "the clear" or "the right" entirely.


My point was that the case often doesn't go far enough. That oftentimes it's less expensive to settle than it is to fight a case in court. Even though established court results would help clarify what does and does not count for future cases, expediency and cost send most to settlements. Certainly it stands to reason that many that settle actually do have some responsibility. But some may not. But since those cases haven't gone to trial to become established caselaw, they're not helping to inform other cases.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

IMO the feature is fine but it needs a ride-around.

Even with double blacks on private property and no-trespassing signs it was decided to make sure there are ride-arounds at some trails in my area. It's really easy to do, not that much extra work.


----------



## Tjomball (Jul 6, 2021)

chiefsilverback said:


> You should update your signature to state you're a deliberately argumentative asshole!


When dealing with certain types of people I am yes. 
Because certain people have been repeatedly told to just make a sign and post it up.
Yet still b*tches about it here instead of actually doing something about said issue. 
And certain people should either just do something about the issue or let it go.

But when one person goes on a crusade against iniative from kids that keeps them out of trouble and actually makes them happy, I take offence.


----------



## gdg1 (Apr 10, 2020)

austink26 said:


> If these are non sanctioned trails as is, getting the land manager involved is just going to have all of them destroyed. Putting up one sign on a stake about 20ft before the drop warns people of it and isn't drawing too much attention to it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This. I think this was lost in the dialogue above. A sign before the feature that you wouldn't see unless out on the trail to start is the way to go, coupled with a b-line.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Tjomball said:


> When dealing with certain types of people I am yes.
> Because certain people have been repeatedly told to just make a sign and post it up.
> Yet still b*tches about it here instead of actually doing something about said issue.
> And certain people should either just do something about the issue or let it go.
> ...


At what point am I on a crusade? You keep dragging this out, you've given your advice, others have done the same, you just want to keep having digs at me for some unknown reason.

I've repeatedly said that these kids have put in a big effort and I'd hate to see their trails removed, although even if I do absolutely nothing at this point it sounds like they don't have much longer to live because the land manager is already involved.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

davec113 said:


> IMO the feature is fine but it needs a ride-around.
> 
> Even with double blacks on private property and no-trespassing signs it was decided to make sure there are ride-arounds at some trails in my area. It's really easy to do, not that much extra work.


Ride-arounds will develop even without any formal construction because people do that. People will deliberately avoid even the tiniest little roots or rocks in the trail. I'm guessing the OP and his son walked down off of the one in the pic. Bam -- ridearound started.


----------



## Brad In A Van (Nov 26, 2017)

Am I the only one that’s noticed that the OP hasn’t acknowledged any of the times it’s been suggested he and his kid go dig a B line around the gap? He has the chance to build a safe alternative line to this gap that he is concerned with. Clearly people can go build trail there. Grab a McLeod and a rake and make a safe B line.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Brad In A Van said:


> Am I the only one that's noticed that the OP hasn't acknowledged any of the times it's been suggested he and his kid go dig a B line around the gap? He has the chance to build a safe alternative line to this gap that he is concerned with. Clearly people can go build trail there. Grab a McLeod and a rake and make a safe B line.


Because when you don't know there's something that you need to go around until you've already gone over it, a B-line doesn't make any difference?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> You should update your signature to state you're a deliberately argumentative asshole!


Now you're getting the hang of it!


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Nat said:


> Ride-arounds will develop even without any formal construction because people do that. People will deliberately avoid even the tiniest little roots or rocks in the trail. I'm guessing the OP and his son walked down off of the one in the pic. Bam -- ridearound started.


They've built a route to push their bikes back up so that they can session it, but it is not a b-line, it's stop at the top and take a sharp 90 degree turn just before the edge of the rock.

It might be that they don't plan to take the trail any further than the landing and they just want a big feature to session? In that case there's no need for a b-line because it won't go anywhere, just some warning signs at the start that indicate a dead-end and a big feature.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

slapheadmofo said:


> Because when you don't know there's something that you need to go around until you've already gone over it, a B-line doesn't make any difference?


I'm assuming that neither you, I, nor anyone else in this thread other than the OP has first-hand knowledge of the feature. We don't know if the lead-up is really that visually misleading or not. However, a sign at the approach takes care of that problem.

Sign and a B-line. Problem solved.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Tjomball said:


> At what point does catering to unknowing and downright ignorant people go too far?
> By your logic we should ban cars because more people die in traffic accidents every year than cycling.
> And I'm lactose intolerant. Like many others. So lets ban Dairy as well because that directly affects ME.
> And since many mountainbikers hate roadies. Lets just ban that as well.
> ...


If this was way off on a more backwoods trail or an actual mtb trail network, I would agree with you. But this is "off the playground/sports fields" so probably around neighborhoods. Which means neighborhood kids on wally world bikes and no real mtb experience are likely to find them and ride them (I know I did when I was a kid). And if the trail is all mellow and they're riding along just fine, they are not going to expect a sudden gap like that.

I've come across plenty of people who got in over their heads on trails. I live close to a NPS NRA with mtb trails. The park also has flat granite dust paths that are very popular. It's not that uncommon for people to ride the granite path and then get curious and try the mtb trail that goes off from it, despite not having the right bike and often not having a helmet. The trail isn't all that difficult, though, no gap jumps or drops, it's usually the climbing that get them though some of the descending is more than most beginners are ready for.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

The two trail builders, Harold and Jayem, are offering the most sensible advice that if adopted, would be a win-win for everyone involved. But it's getting drowned out by the bickering.


----------



## Brad In A Van (Nov 26, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> Because when you don't know there's something that you need to go around until you've already gone over it, a B-line doesn't make any difference?


So a B line and a sign then. Simple enough and should address any safety concerns.

I also suggested some adult guidance for the trail builders and possibly forming an advocacy group and all he did was talk about groups in other towns.

When people were building illegal trails in Missoula back in the day they kept the entrances hidden to the ones that had features. Letting this trail be known to others is where these kids messed up.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Brad In A Van said:


> So a B line and a sign then. Simple enough and should address any safety concerns.
> 
> I also suggested some adult guidance for the trail builders and possibly forming an advocacy group and all he did was talk about groups in other towns.
> 
> When people were building illegal trails in Missoula back in the day they kept the entrances hidden to the ones that had features. Letting this trail be known to others is where these kids messed up.


Agree with most of this, but 'forming an advocacy group' to deal with one feature is silly, particularly when our entire region is well covered by existing MTB trail groups.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Brad In A Van said:


> I also suggested some adult guidance for the trail builders and possibly forming an advocacy group and all he did was talk about groups in other towns.


I acknowledged that it might be the way to go, and pointed out that they exist around us, but there isn't one for our area. Why that is I don't know, maybe it's been tried in the past and there's no appetite? A pump track was built in town last year to much fanfare but now it sits barely maintained and mostly unused. My son has done a bit of work to tune it up but it appears like it might have been a flash in the pan event?


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Brad In A Van said:


> When people were building illegal trails in Missoula back in the day they kept the entrances hidden to the ones that had features. Letting this trail be known to others is where these kids messed up.


Per earlier replies I don't think they think these trails are illegal, but they are also building the trails they want to ride and probably not thinking about how others might use them. I think they've had to clear an obvious trail/lead-in in order to give them somewhere to build up enough speed to clear the gap because it's right at the top of the hill.


----------



## minimusprime (May 26, 2009)

I see both sides of this. You have to take people's comments with a grain of salt, because there are experiences with land managers and trail builders that swing to all sorts of opposite ends of the spectrums. In addition, not every trail advocacy and/or mountain bike cooperative organization is helpful, useful or organized and successful in their local region. Previously to getting involved in some of the politics of local trail management where I live, I would have seen the fringe responses to this thread on both side of the arguments as nuts... now that I've been doing this for two decades, and been involved in the politics of it for a few years... I get all of it.

The truth is that mountain biking right now, is in the position that skate boarding was in the early 90s. It's a sport that people outside of the sport, don't understand and see it as reckless and un-essential. It's a sport that's enjoyed by lone wolfs and community minded people alike. The biggest parallel is that the sport is growing, the access to spaces to enjoy the sport are shrinking and the user group is seen by some as a nuisance. Right now, another huge issue is that those of us that have been doing this for 20 years... came up in a time period where you were fine walking your bike down a feature for years before you hit it. Or bypassing a trail that was above your paygrade for years until you had the skills and confidence. Those days are gone, and with the maturity and broader appeal of the sport, comes less patience to work at it over a very long period of time. This occurs with not only cautious, more mature riders that are looking to get outside and exercise, but also the new generation of thrill seeking kids that are willing to send everything just 1 year into their riding career. The sport is very much in a, "I should be able to access and ride everything in front of me" era, and for completely and opposite different reasons in some cases.

This reality is why there are some passionate, pointed responses to leave well enough alone. I too have seen well intentioned newer users/riders come into the scene and assume that there is more of an open, community minded line of communication that exists. Where I live, that is for sure, not what is going on. Bringing any sort of attention to trails that are being used in a don't ask, don't tell, or even completely off the book unsanctioned, unwelcome trails... can go very poorly.

Ideally, we'd be able to surf the middle ground of creating progression, properly built and safe, approachable trails for all and a great relationship between land managers, builders and user groups. Unfortunately, the situation is much more complicated and nuanced and many times, significantly more harm is done when trying to do the right thing, or do good and once that bell is rung, you can't un-ring it.

That is why you're seeing so much push back. It's easy in the first 5 years of the sport to be enamored with the sense of community, excitement for the sport and all of that and assume that a little input can shape the sport for the better. It's just as easy to see trails that have been used by mountain bikers for 20+ years get demolished by housing developments, or blown up by youtube videos, or get highlighted by some one with good intentions.

Make no mistake, this sport is skate boarding in 1992.... it's young, raw and not even close to mature. It's a sport that exists as a bird on a wire and requires trail access and respect from trail users.... which is harder to manage then you could ever imagine on the front end.

*TLDR?*
As far as your particular situation... what I would say, and I'll preface this by saying, I realize this may sound elitist and I'm sorry for that. If you don't know the people building the gray area, or un-sanctioned trails... you don't ride them often enough where I feel getting involved is appropriate. Not because you're a karen, or because you're a _insert generational war trope here... _but because you are getting involved in the politics of the sport, without the full knowledge of what exactly is at play. If you ride a trail network regularly... you quickly get to know the locals and the land managers and in that case, you wouldn't have to post here to know what to do.

The reality is, the fact that you don't know the answer on what to do in this situation, likely means you have further to go, before you should get involved in things that lead to access issues. That way, you are certain you are doing actual good and improving the sport and your local community. No one that isn't from your local trail network can define what the right move here is...


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

Camp Goodbuddy always trying to ruin it for everyone else. can't even count the trails and jumps we've had destroyed because some outside gaper came wandering along and thought 'wow, these are dangerous, i'm gonna have them torn down to make myself feel good' when there was no real danger to begin with...


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> 'wow, these are dangerous, i'm gonna have them torn down to make myself feel good'


Said nobody.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

minimusprime said:


> *TLDR?*
> As far as your particular situation... what I would say, and I'll preface this by saying, I realize this may sound elitist and I'm sorry for that. If you don't know the people building the gray area, or un-sanctioned trails... you don't ride them often enough where I feel getting involved is appropriate. Not because you're a karen, or because you're a _insert generational war trope here... _but because you are getting involved in the politics of the sport, without the full knowledge of what exactly is at play.


This is exactly the problem. I know the old rec manager who would have granted permission (if it has been) and the new rec manager. The former was pragmatic and would apply common sense, the latter has removed the diving board from the town swimming pool because apparently it's no longer deep enough!?!?!

Would your caution to "do nothing" extend as far as not installing a sign?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> Would your caution to "do nothing" extend as far as not installing a sign?


If a sign magically shows up and nobody knows how it got there, what does it hurt?


----------



## walkerwalker (Jul 17, 2020)

What were you going to do about it before you started this thread? I think you're looking for conformation bias, and so far nobody has told you what you want to hear. So, you tell us...what do you want us to tell you?


----------



## Dung Hopper (Jun 24, 2013)

Don't be a Karen. If you are really worried about it, put up a sign. If you get the town involved, they will ruin it. The government excels at ruining a good time.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

I've accidentally gone over a blind gap drop. In my case there was a sign, but I missed it as I was riding a bit too recklessly. The result was I did not clear the gap, taco'd my front wheel on the landing lip, and went over the bars. Thankfully, my only injuries were a few bumps and bruises.

I think on the one hand, we need trails with big features to allow people to progress and test their limits. Mountain biking is supposed to be about adventure, and if you take out the danger you take out an important piece. On the other hand, I can see why anyone would be concerned about the danger, here.

I think a sign makes sense, but depending on the circumstances, it might not be enough.I would suggest a modification to make the feature less dangerous. If you filled the space between the landing lip and the face of the rock with some logs, rocks, and dirt up to the level of the top of the landing lip, you would have a safety platform for people who can't make the gap. More experienced riders could still jump the gap, while people who are surprised have a safety valve.


----------



## minimusprime (May 26, 2009)

chiefsilverback said:


> Would your caution to "do nothing" extend as far as not installing a sign?





slapheadmofo said:


> If a sign magically shows up and nobody knows how it got there, what does it hurt?


Bingo. For better or worse, the same approach that has allowed these trails to exist and the building to continue, is the same approach that generally keeps them going. That is, self policing and plausible deniability. All too often, once a conversation is had with a land manager or corporate entity, their hand is forced to address it because if they don't and something happens, it qualifies as negligence.

So the bad news is that doing things the right way, will force the outcome, so things tend to stay wild-wild-west with situations like this. The good news... is that as a user of these trails and some one that respects them, you have just as much of a right to put up a sign, or create a ride around. Generally, I wouldn't recommend jumping onto another builders trail and creating ride arounds, but if the features truly are questionable and don't work at trail speed, then doing something is the smart choice.

Me personally, I would put the sign up with impunity and not ask anyone about it and not lose any sleep. If I felt strongly enough that a feature was built wrong and was an issue, I would work pretty hard to figure out the builder, and approach them by saying something like, "these trails are rad... I'm so thankful that you're doing this. Buuuuuttt, I'm a bit worried about this feature as I feel it can sneak up on people, and there isn't much of a squirrel catcher before it. Would you be open to putting in a ride around or B line option? And if yes, but you're too busy, do you mind if I create it?"

That would be the door cracked open for you to help pre-emptively shape these trails and keep them what they are, but also help shape the land management from both sides without jumping to the final step in the process. Which is acceptance of the off the menu trails as official, and brought into the light.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

walkerwalker said:


> What were you going to do about it before you started this thread? I think you're looking for conformation bias, and so far nobody has told you what you want to hear. So, you tell us...what do you want us to tell you?


He didn't have a plan, that's the whole reason he made the thread. Derrr....

Another one with no advice or opinion, just chiming in to be a dick apparently. Nice.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

I am going to teach my kids to OBSERVE and REFLECT before ACTION

that is how I can contribute


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

minimusprime said:


> Bingo. For better or worse, the same approach that has allowed these trails to exist and the building to continue, is the same approach that generally keeps them going. That is, self policing and plausible deniability. All too often, once a conversation is had with a land manager or corporate entity, their hand is forced to address it because if they don't and something happens, it qualifies as negligence.
> 
> So the bad news is that doing things the right way, will force the outcome, so things tend to stay wild-wild-west with situations like this. The good news... is that as a user of these trails and some one that respects them, you have just as much of a right to put up a sign, or create a ride around. Generally, I wouldn't recommend jumping onto another builders trail and creating ride arounds, but if the features truly are questionable and don't work at trail speed, then doing something is the smart choice.
> 
> ...


Nice to hear from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

chiefsilverback said:


> I acknowledged that it might be the way to go, and pointed out that they exist around us, but there isn't one for our area. Why that is I don't know, maybe it's been tried in the past and there's no appetite? A pump track was built in town last year to much fanfare but now it sits barely maintained and mostly unused. My son has done a bit of work to tune it up but it appears like it might have been a flash in the pan event?


unfortunately, a lot of dirt pump tracks get built with much fanfare, but with no plan to maintain them moving forward (esp from ppl who have a clue about them). so they fall into disrepair and disuse. I've seen the same happen with dirt jumps, too, for that matter.

paved pump tracks are better solutions for a lot of places, but they get passed on because they cost more.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Harold said:


> unfortunately, a lot of dirt pump tracks get built with much fanfare, but with no plan to maintain them moving forward (esp from ppl who have a clue about them). so they fall into disrepair and disuse.


Yup. I regularly hear people who've come to ride at ours say things like 'we should get one of these for our town', like it's something they think you can just purchase and you're done. They require a ton of maintenance to stay fun, and the people who will actually go and do it are few and far between. Lots of them will talk a good game, but when it comes down to putting shovel/broom to dirt, it's usually a 1 or 2 man show.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

As was mentioned earlier, a big part of the solution will be ensuring people have reasonable expectations as they are entering the trail. So you find ways to make to set people's expectations as they are entering the trail not ten feet before the gap with a sign they might not see. That would not pass the "reasonable" test that is often used in lawsuits. 

There is a gnarly double black diamond trail near me. At the entrance, there is both a big sign that you can't miss and a huge rock garden that only a skilled rider can ride without walking it. Basically, you know exactly what you are getting into if you proceed.

If expectations of what people are getting into are reasonable (i.e. they are not caught off guard or surprised after already committing), it makes it harder to sue and win which also makes it easier for the builders to put one gap jump after another because there will be no surprises. More progression, fewer lawsuits. This is a win-win.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Those against this feature because they're worried about kids need to watch vids of groms these days. Last time I was in St Geore I saw a kid being shuttle by his dad riding Kong solo. There's a vid of a 10 year old riding PG in laguna. Many of you need to realize the kids you're worried about probably ride better than you. This feature looks well built. I say well done trail builder. Keep up the good work!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

slimat99 said:


> Those against this feature


Again, nobody.

The issue is it comes up as surprise.

What's your proposal to ensure that the only people who ever ride this trail are people with high skill levels and who can handle all of sudden finding themselves going off a drop they didn't know was coming? I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

slimat99 said:


> Those against this feature because they're worried about kids need to watch vids of groms these days. Last time I was in St Geore I saw a kid being shuttle by his dad riding Kong solo. There's a vid of a 10 year old riding PG in laguna. Many of you need to realize the kids you're worried about probably ride better than you. This feature looks well built. I say well done trail builder. Keep up the good work!


lol...anyone with any sense is less concerned with the kids who are passionate about bikes and more concerned about random people who think they're just on a path through the woods and have minimal control over their bikes in the first place. the worst injury I've encountered on a trail is from a guy who tried to roll a wooden drop on his commuter bike because he saw his buddy send it (on his walmart bike). then panicked when it was too late because he wasn't prepared for the trouble he got himself into, resulting in a particularly nasty face plant. the trail in question was professionally built, well-signed, and these tech features were set apart from everything else to reduce the chances that joe-blow would just ride off **** without looking. the one thing going against it was that the piece of land in question was small and it was, imo, too easy for joe blow to get back there. insufficient skill filters, in other words.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Harold said:


> lol...anyone with any sense is less concerned with the kids who are passionate about bikes and more concerned about random people who think they're just on a path through the woods and have minimal control over their bikes in the first place. the worst injury I've encountered on a trail is from a guy who tried to roll a wooden drop on his commuter bike because he saw his buddy send it (on his walmart bike). then panicked when it was too late because he wasn't prepared for the trouble he got himself into, resulting in a particularly nasty face plant. the trail in question was professionally built, well-signed, and these tech features were set apart from everything else to reduce the chances that joe-blow would just ride off **** without looking. the one thing going against it was that the piece of land in question was small and it was, imo, too easy for joe blow to get back there. insufficient skill filters, in other words.


Darwinism. We don't need to coddle morons.


----------



## OldSchoolMBer (May 25, 2013)

chiefsilverback said:


> At what point am I on a crusade?
> 
> ...even if I do absolutely nothing at this point it sounds like they don't have much longer to live because the land manager is already involved.


Within 11hrs of posting your question you said this, "I've heard on the grapevine that the rec manager is already sniffing around, so this might have been an entirely moot post."

Within 18hrs now you're saying the manager is already involved?

Sounds like you'd already raised a stink about it and came here looking for people to validate your decision


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

OldSchoolMBer said:


> Within 11hrs of posting your question you said this, "I've heard on the grapevine that the rec manager is already sniffing around, so this might have been an entirely moot post."
> 
> Within 18hrs now you're saying the manager is already involved?
> 
> Sounds like you'd already raised a stink about it and came here looking for people to validate your decision


I rode the trail at 6.30pm yesterday, came home and posted my question on here a little later. The whole point of asking here was that I wanted the thoughts of those with more experience in these matters than I. I did however just have to grab something from the hardware store, so I picked up two "CAUTION" signs whilst I was there.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

slimat99 said:


> Darwinism. We don't need to coddle morons.


We're not coddling you, we're explaining how trails work.

What do you think happens when the town gets a call from the lawyer of the family whose clueless kid ended up in the ICU because he wasn't up to the level of riding you seem to think every kid operates at? I'll give you one guess...


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> Said nobody.


you obviously don't dig except likely in publicly approved places where moms vote if it's safe or not...

if you don't think people will complain for no reason, you are much more clueless than i thought...


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

slimat99 said:


> Those against this feature because they're worried about kids need to watch vids of groms these days. Last time I was in St Geore I saw a kid being shuttle by his dad riding Kong solo. There's a vid of a 10 year old riding PG in laguna. Many of you need to realize the kids you're worried about probably ride better than you. This feature looks well built. I say well done trail builder. Keep up the good work!


Like I've said over and over again, I'm not worried about the kids who are building these trails. The one I met last year was throwing his $7000 bike around the pump track like a pro. My boys also mentioned they saw him at the mountain in the winter throwing backflips in the terrain park, he's got skills and I'm assuming the kids he rides with do too.

My concern is that this one feature is so out of place that no one would ever think it would exist, and it comes as a complete surprise.

Many have posted about always sighting a new trail, and I practice this with my sons. Pre-ride, re-ride, free-ride, but a non-MTB kid, out exploring these trails in what is effectively his local park, no idea about features or b-lines, could very easily find themselves heading off a cliff.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> We're not coddling you, we're explaining how trails work.
> 
> What do you think happens when the town gets a call from the lawyer of the family whose clueless kid ended up in the ICU because he wasn't up to the level of riding you seem to think every kid operates at? I'll give you one guess...


When you just ride something because you saw someone else do it when you don't know what you're doing that's darwinism. We live in a litigious country. People sue over hot coffee. I expect every town trail to devolve into a dirt sidewalk to reduce lawsuits. That's just where MTB is these days. it's sad. I'm not arguing against your point, I'm arguing that features like pictured are a fundamental part of mountain biking. Mountain bikers have always built features, and they always will. Helicopter parents like the OP should explain MTB to their kids. If it's too dangerous for their kids there are other sports they can play that are much more structured with a guaranteed field of play. MTB has always been an individual sport where the rider decides what they can ride and the field is always dynamic. We've all seen random janky ass built whatever pop up here and there. Sometimes you get a good builder that makes a nice feature like pictured, other times you get a jump that will buck you to the hospital. That's mountain biking.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

slimat99 said:


> When you just ride something because you saw someone else do it when you don't know what your doing that's darwinism. We live in a litigious country. People sue over hot coffee. I expect every town trail to devolve into a dirt sidewalk to reduce lawsuits. That's just where MTB is these days. it's sad. I'm not arguing against your point, I'm arguing that features like pictured are a fundamental part of mountain biking. Mountain bikers have always built features, and they always will. Helicopter parents like the OP should explain MTB to their kids. If it's too dangerous for their kids there are other sports they can play that are much more structured with a guaranteed field of play. MTB has always been an individual sport where the rider decides what they can ride and the field is always dynamic. We've all seen random janky ass built whatever pop up here and there. Sometimes you get a good builder that makes a nice feature like pictured, other times you get a jump that will buck you to the hospital. That's mountain biking.


As soon as you reference "hot coffee" and "lawsuit" you lose all credibility. Read up on that case and then come back here and try again!


----------



## OldSchoolMBer (May 25, 2013)

chiefsilverback said:


> I rode the trail at 6.30pm yesterday, came home and posted my question on here a little later


You've been quite the busy body today if you just found it yesterday evening and by this afternoon already gotten the manager involved. I'm sure the local mountain bike community will rest easy tonight


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

OldSchoolMBer said:


> You've been quite the busy body today if you just found it yesterday evening and by this afternoon already gotten the manager involved. I'm sure the local mountain bike community will rest easy tonight


Challenge my views/opinions, don't call me a liar!


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

,,\\.....


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> you obviously don't dig except likely in publicly approved places where moms vote if it's safe or not...


You obviously don't know me. 
There are places/trails where higher level lines/features make sense, and there are places where they don't. In the middle of the local park, completely out of character with the rest of the trail, with no warning or decent sight line is probably in the 'don't' category.

Not really a hard concept to grasp, at least one would think.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

slimat99 said:


> Helicopter parents like the OP should explain MTB to their kids. If it's too dangerous for their kids there are other sports they can play that are much more structured with a guaranteed field of play.


Nothing like completely ignoring everything the OP has written and just throwing around insults based on **** you've made up. Frigging internet hardos.


----------



## OldSchoolMBer (May 25, 2013)

chiefsilverback said:


> Challenge my views/opinions, don't call me a liar!


No not at all, I believe you. Simply saying that if you found the feature yesterday evening and shook enough bushes today to know by this afternoon the manager is involved you've busy at it


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> Not really a hard concept to grasp, at least one would think.


not sure what that has to do with you thinking that people don't complain just to complain...


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> not sure what that has to do with you thinking that people don't complain just to complain...


I have no idea what your point is.

Nobody here said anything about being 'against this feature'.
Slimat made that up.
OP has said the opposite numerous times, a bunch of you apparently can't read for ****.

If I'm wrong, please point me at the post where that happened and I'll happily apologize.
Or maybe it's not me that's wrong...


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Nothing like completely ignoring everything the OP has written and just throwing around insults based on **** you've made up. Frigging internet hardos.


So a guy worried about a VERY unlikely case of someone plummeting off a medium sized drop that he himself saw in time to stop and check out isn't being overly cautious for kids safety? Sounds like a helicopter parent to me.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> I have no idea what your point is.
> 
> Nobody here said anything about being 'against this feature'.
> Slimat made that up.


put down the crack pipe my dude...



.WestCoastHucker. said:


> i can't even count the trails and jumps we've had destroyed because some outside gaper came wandering along and thought 'wow, these are dangerous, i'm gonna have them torn down to make myself feel good' when there was no real danger to begin with...





slapheadmofo said:


> "wow, these are dangerous, i'm gonna have them torn down to make myself feel good'
> Said nobody.


this thread is 100% about it and you are participating, so said at least somebody...


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> this thread is 100% about it and you are participating, so said at least somebody...


Please show me where people in this thread were coming out against this particular feature, as slimat said they were.

Everyone who actually bothered to read what was written has simply been talking about recommendations on ways to maybe make it relatively safer WITHOUT causing it to be torn out.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

slimat99 said:


> So a guy worried about a VERY unlikely case of someone plummeting off a medium sized drop that he himself saw in time to stop and check out isn't being overly cautious for kids safety? Sounds like a helicopter parent to me.


I think he had a reasonable point.
Does that make me a 'helicopter parent' too? 

What did your kids do today?


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

speaking of reading comprehension, i simply said i've lost spots due to others complaining for no real reason. you quoted me and said it wasn't true...


----------



## GeePhroh (Jan 13, 2004)

Jayem said:


> The 800lb gorilla though is all the land managers and municipalities that refuse to try and accommodate any kind of challenging riding. It leads to a lot of the illegal trails. And then you get into the argument about should you just build said trails and hope they get incorporated one day, or not build the trails and just "enjoy" the flat stuff, or *just move to someplace where "they actually get it", like WA state*?


All true, but it was a decades-long slog to get where we are, and while there was a lot of hard work, strategy and coalition-building, there was also a decent amount of luck and good timing. We're now at the point where our community can apply a lot of pressure both politically and from a PR standpoint, but at the end of the day the land managers really do hold all the cards even in WA. And all the yahoos moving up here thinking they can just build whatever the hell they want anywhere they want (and no sh*t, I'm talking about poaching in the middle of Duthie) aren't doing any of the rest of us any favors.

I've also been building both unauthorized and legal trails for a long time, and while I'm glad that I don't have to hide in the bushes at night with a chainsaw anymore I still put a lot of time into understanding the context I'm working in before putting a shovel in the dirt.


----------



## Shane5001 (Dec 18, 2013)

Some of the best trails in existence, exist because they are incognito.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> speaking of reading comprehension, i simply said i've lost spots due to others complaining for no real reason. you quoted me and said it wasn't true...


Of course that happens. But no one in this thread was advocating tearing the feature out, and even suggestions of modifying it were dismissed from what I read. The point was what would be some ideas that might make it less potentially hazardous WITHOUT getting it torn out. Pretty much the opposite of being 'against it' or 'trying to ruin things for everyone else'.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Shane5001 said:


> Some of the best trails in existence, exist because they are incognito.


Yup. You've gotta be smart picking your spots though.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> Of course that happens. But no one in this thread was advocating tearing the feature out, and even suggestions of modifying it were dismissed from what I read. The point was what would be some ideas that might make it less potentially hazardous WITHOUT getting it torn out. Pretty much the opposite of being 'against it'.


i guess the joke is on me. i can see now that you're just talking to yourself and quoting me is just a coincidental byproduct of that. what you are saying has zero to do with anything i said other than the fact that we are both speaking english...


----------



## downcountry (Apr 27, 2019)

jeremy3220 said:


> What should OP do?


Tell this board to F/O and do what he thinks is right.


----------



## rcrocha (Jul 7, 2008)

I rode some trails in OR and they had signs that just said "Feature" on them. The features were off to the side of the main line though and all of the trails are fully sanctioned. I think a "Feature" or "Gap" sign gets the point across to check it out before riding without scaring other people like a "danger" or "caution" might.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

downcountry said:


> Tell this board to F/O and do what he thinks is right.


I wish he would have done that before making the thread


----------



## downcountry (Apr 27, 2019)

jeremy3220 said:


> I wish he would have done that before making the thread


I wish there were less folks here so goddam dumb they can't see how piss- poorly that landing ramp is designed and built.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

downcountry said:


> I wish there were less folks here so goddam dumb they can't see how piss- poorly that landing ramp is designed and built.


Me too bud


----------



## Big Fil (Nov 5, 2014)

If you cared you would make a nice sign out of local wood instead of buying some chinese made plastic sign from the hardware store. Nobody wants to see that in the forest. Could be defined as littering by some.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> I think he had a reasonable point.
> Does that make me a 'helicopter parent' too?
> 
> What did your kids do today?


My kids ran with scissors to the pool right after a big meal. Yes you are a helicopter parent, and your wife's name is Karen.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

slimat99 said:


> My kids ran with scissors to the pool right after a big meal. Yes you are a helicopter parent, and your wife's name is Karen.


_Anxiously awaiting Slap's post with pix of what his kid does&#8230;_


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

jeremy3220 said:


> Me too bud


So you don't think it's a well built feature?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

chiefsilverback said:


> So you don't think it's a well built feature?


I'll wait to comment on that once this thread reaches page 50


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

But seriously, I can't tell from the picture.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

chazpat said:


> _Anxiously awaiting Slap's post with pix of what his kid does&#8230;_


he's still a helicopter dad, his kid is just smart enough to think for himself instead of be a sheep...


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

chiefsilverback said:


> So you don't think it's a well built feature?


looks as solid as anything you'll ever see. just because it's missing the big wood plank in the middle that _*you *_need to get down it, doesn't mean it isn't well built...


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> looks as solid as anything you'll ever see. just because it's missing the big wood plank in the middle that _*you *_need to get down it, doesn't mean it isn't well built...





downcountry said:


> I wish there were less folks here so goddam dumb they can't see how piss- poorly that landing ramp is designed and built.





jeremy3220 said:


> Me too bud


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

everyone here knows they also need the plank....

in all seriousness, if your picture actually had the landing in it, instead of just the logs used to make the fringe edge, i'd consider their thoughts about its build quality. i'm just super glad you don't live anywhere around me and our trails...


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> i'm just super glad you don't live anywhere around me and our trails...


Once again, I'm not actually concerned about the design of the feature, whether it's built properly or how rideable it is. If the kids that built it crash and break bones, that's on them.

My only concern is that it is completely unexpected given everything else around it and an inexperienced rider, exploring the trails in the town's recreation area could have a very serious accident because a rather innocuous look stretch of mellow XC trail blindly goes off a 'cliff'.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

An unexpectimg person exploring a new trail, deserves every bit of what happens to them if they get hurt for not being more in control on a trail they know nothing about..


----------



## alwayslivingthedream (Mar 14, 2009)

chiefsilverback said:


> I've heard on the grapevine that the rec manager is already sniffing around, so this might have been an entirely moot post.
> 
> I was a little surprised by some of the responses here, especially the "poor kid" comment. I actively encourage my children to ride, take them to DH parks, provide them with proper equipment etc... The "poor kid" in question will happily 'send it' down a black diamond, and clocked over 60mph on a pair of skis, and rips it through the moguls on the freestyle team, and he thought this particular feature was completely out of place. It was also his idea to stand in the feature to give a sense of scale for the photo.
> 
> ...


Just put a sign up..I have kids so I get it. I just didn't find it appropriate posting I picture of your kid.

Sorry.


----------



## Squirrel in the Spokes (Apr 9, 2021)

Tjomball said:


> At what point does catering to unknowing and downright ignorant people go too far?
> By your logic we should ban cars because more people die in traffic accidents every year than cycling.
> And I'm lactose intolerant. Like many others. So lets ban Dairy as well because that directly affects ME.
> And since many mountainbikers hate roadies. Lets just ban that as well.
> ...


This post is such a straw man it could be a scarecrow lmao


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

What's the problem to just put a sign? Takes very little time and effort and a good lesson for the kids about doing the right thing and appreciating other people's work.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

alwayslivingthedream said:


> Just put a sign up..I have kids so I get it. I just didn't find it appropriate posting I picture of your kid.
> 
> Sorry.


What's wrong with posting a picture of your kid?

Ever check out the Families and Kids subforum?
Hold onto your hat.

FFS.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chazpat said:


> _Anxiously awaiting Slap's post with pix of what his kid does&#8230;_


This morning I sent him out to mow the lawn and he carved in a 60' cock'n'balls. No joke. 

My kid is funny. Be funnier if he had some bubble wrap. Or at least a license. 

__
http://instagr.am/p/CQb3JZzgboE/


----------



## GMY_RipleyAF (May 14, 2021)

TLDR: Look at it from every angle.

Let me jump in here real quick.
I bought my first MTB at 12 years old. Did we do stupid stuff? Yes. Did we crash? Yes. There were broken jaws, collarbones, wrists and ribs within our group just to list a few. Where did this happen? On clearly visible features/jumps that we observed beforehand and sessioned. Without taking classes or anybody teaching us we learned (the hard way) to take it easy on unknown terrain and progress from there.
What I am trying to say: things happen, even if the features are clearly visible. Physical harm is something inherent to the sport of mountainbiking and can never be fully eliminated. However, precautions can be taken.
OP asked for opinions, so here is mine: put up a sign and create a b-line. If the city people come close enough to see the sign, they will be close enough to see the feature anyways. If they want to find something they will. If the "dangerous" feature is already marked as such, maybe this can have a positive impact on the discussion between riders and the city as well as in the riders taking care of themselves and others.
Don't go running to your city and get things removed. This will only cause trouble. Believe me, I have been there from the perspective of the kids building jumps. Once the city took our trails and dirt jumps away, we moved somewhere more secluded, which in and of itself can also create more "danger". If something happens, you're farther away from infrastructure. Just saying, you need to look at it from every perspective.
And on the topic of advocacy groups: If there isn't one in your area, create one. If you want to protect the kids, educate them. Start small and see where it leads from there. I am sure that members of groups around you are happy to help you with questions as we are all in the same boat afterall, right?


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> An unexpectimg person exploring a new trail, deserves every bit of what happens to them if they get hurt for not being more in control on a trail they know nothing about..


Once again, these aren't posted mountain bike trails, they are trails in the town's park. There is an assumption that the town wouldn't have a trail that leads off a cliff...


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Big Fil said:


> If you cared you would make a nice sign out of local wood instead of buying some chinese made plastic sign from the hardware store. Nobody wants to see that in the forest. Could be defined as littering by some.


I'll paint it a nice camo pattern so it really blends in, you'll barely notice it!


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

People always have to be one extreme or the other. You can be pro-rad-ness AND pro common sense, and this feature is clearly lacking the latter.

You can't have a potentially paralyzing gap drop on a trail that an 8 year old child or old lady could easily be pedaling down and not be able to stop for.

Significant signage is completely reasonable and frankly the builders spent all of this time building the feature they could take the 4 hours to build a sign and setting it up.

Build a sign, or tear down the feature. Those are the 2 reasonable options. And the responsibility to build the sign is 100% on the people who built the features.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> An unexpectimg person exploring a new trail, deserves every bit of what happens to them if they get hurt for not being more in control on a trail they know nothing about..


As I said, on a backwoods trail or in a true mtb trail system: yes. On some casual trails next to recreation fields easily accessed by neighborhood kids: no. I'm guessing you don't have kids; they often lack good judgement.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

10 pages of puffy chests.


----------

