# Does the Broken Windows Theory apply to trails?



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

SuprGrovr said:


> Lots of ridearound trail widening happening around lately at the smallest of roots. Also some shortcuts are being worn in.
> :nono:


Does the Broken Windows Theory apply to trails?

Conjecture: If there is no trail bypassing a feature, riders will be reluctant to ride around it. But when there is even a faint track around a feature, riders will eagerly ride around the feature, adding to the track, and further they will ride around other features on the same trail. Only vigilant and total closing of ad-hoc ride-arounds and trail widening will prevent a trail from sanitizing itself.


----------



## SuprGrovr (Jan 9, 2008)

raganwald said:


> Does the Broken Windows Theory apply to trails?
> 
> Conjecture: If there is no trail bypassing a feature, riders will be reluctant to ride around it. But when there is even a faint track around a feature, riders will eagerly ride around the feature, adding to the track, and further they will ride around other features on the same trail. Only vigilant and total closing of ad-hoc ride-arounds and trail widening will prevent a trail from sanitizing itself.


I would say yes, it does. I noticed the same epidemic last fall at Albion. Spring growth seems to do a good job of covering it back up though.


----------



## garage monster (Oct 13, 2006)

Absolutely it does and it's a lot harder to close ride-around once it gets established.

For instance, on the Christie Lake trail we just opened (not a very well-kept secret, I admit), a "rogue" exit had already been beaten-in and it took 5 people over an hour to dig it up, re-route it and disguise it.


----------



## Crash&bern (Aug 23, 2011)

I'm not for cheater paths as I think biking like life,you gain nothing by not challenging yourself & taking the easy way !
That said , maybe the solution is to make cheater paths before they get cut in by lazy riders. But make them longer, more time consuming& inconvenient than doing the feature !
This gives them a choice but not giving them a time advantage. 
Might even encourage them to actually try a feature


----------



## anthony.delorenzo (Aug 17, 2006)

I think people riding around trail features is inevitable, to the point where I've seen newer riders ride what amounts to a more difficult line to get around something. Wherever possible, build a decent ride-around (or walk-around) and everyone wins. Otherwise one will just form anyways. 

I don't think that ride-arounds are "sanitizing" trails. (**** I hate that word.) The guys that want to hit the features can still hit them. Mountain biking is a sport of progression, and it's important to give people options.

Otherwise you open yourself up to more problems with erosion, trail braiding, etc.


----------



## robbiexor (Aug 22, 2011)

Solution, control the ride-around yourself, and build it in. I don't understand the idea of forcing people to go over objects so it makes them a better rider. Let them choose when to go over them.
Green Trails: little to no obstacles, relatively easy if present
Blue Trails: obstacles on optional line, go out of your way to ride them
Black Trails: obstacles on main line, go out of your way to ride around


----------



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

anthony.delorenzo said:


> I don't think that ride-arounds are "sanitizing" trails. (**** I hate that word.) The guys that want to hit the features can still hit them. Mountain biking is a sport of progression, and it's important to give people options.
> 
> Otherwise you open yourself up to more problems with erosion, trail braiding, etc.


You're making two entirely unconnected points. In the first, you are saying that in your opinion, "progressive" trails are a benefit for their own merits. In the second, you are saying nothing about whether progressive trails are a good idea, but instead are arguing that since sanitization is inevitable, you might as well let the riders dictate the design of your trail.

I'm, sorry you don't like the word, but there is a difference between designing a progressive trail and retroactively making a trail easier. If you build trails that everybody can ride and where the direct line doesn't lead over a log or over a root or through a rock garden or along an off-camber greasy section, the word will never come up in conversation, will it?


----------



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

robbiexor said:


> Black Trails: obstacles on main line, go out of your way to ride around


What on Earth are people doing on Black trails if they do not care for rock gardens, features, or other obstacles? I'm with you on the green, blue, yellow, or whatever other colour, but why should an advanced trail be developed as a braid of options such that someone can actually ride an intermediate trail by taking all of the ride-arounds?

Why can't they simply go ride the blue trail?


----------



## robbiexor (Aug 22, 2011)

raganwald said:


> What on Earth are people doing on Black trails if they do not care for rock gardens, features, or other obstacles? I'm with you on the green, blue, yellow, or whatever other colour, but why should an advanced trail be developed as a braid of options such that someone can actually ride an intermediate trail by taking all of the ride-arounds?
> 
> Why can't they simply go ride the blue trail?


For a number of reasons. One might be that they want to attempt only certain features, or ride half of them. And you have to start somewhere. People don't ride Blue for years and then one day hop on the Black, and thanks to their excessive Blue practice, they are able to conquer everything. Or you take that one extra lap, and like the flow of sections of the Black trails but are just too wiped to ride ALL of it.

Ultimately, do you want to be in control of the trail design or do you want to leave opt-outs and route-arounds up to the people who are going to use them regardless if they were designed or not. Even the most advanced riders will hike-a-bike on occasion.

Like I said, make the lesser route off the mainline, so the natural flow of the trail is over/through the obstacle. Why this bothers or threatens people who ride at an "expert" level, I'll never know.


----------



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

robbiexor said:


> For a number of reasons. One might be that they want to attempt only certain features, or ride half of them. And you have to start somewhere. People don't ride Blue for years and then one day hop on the Black, and thanks to their excessive Blue practice, they are able to conquer everything. Or you take that one extra lap, and like the flow of sections of the Black trails but are just too wiped to ride ALL of it.
> 
> Ultimately, do you want to be in control of the trail design or do you want to leave opt-outs and route-arounds up to the people who are going to use them regardless if they were designed or not. Even the most advanced riders will hike-a-bike on occasion.


Your second paragraph answers the questions in your first. Years of practice on the blue trails won't make you clean the black trail, but sessioning the features of the black trail and hiking your bike over those you don't feel like sessioning will. Riding around them won't do anything except create a new trail.

If you as a designer want to build braids, blue trails with optional black features, black trails that can be ridden as a blue or even green by skipping the features, I'm 100% in favour of that and have no problem whatsoever with you as a trail designer creating a trail with optional features.

However, I do have a problem with riders creating their own ride-arounds. The two arguments-should trail builders build cheater lines and should riders cheat when no line is available-are separate discussions.



robbiexor said:


> make the lesser route off the mainline, so the natural flow of the trail is over/through the obstacle. Why this bothers or threatens people who ride at an "expert" level, I'll never know.


I'll repeat myself so it is crystal clear: I am not bothered or threatened when you as a trail builder make the easier route around the feature, or even if you make the feature part of teh longer, less flowy route.

I am only bothered when riders cheat. And in my experience, they will do so unless the fastest, simplest line is the green one.


----------



## SuprGrovr (Jan 9, 2008)

A local trail system has a trail with a large rock to ride over for the direct route and 15 foot ride around to avoid it, put in by the trail builder. People still trampled foliage next to the rock and made a cheater line. That has to be frustrating to the trail builder.


----------



## Crash&bern (Aug 23, 2011)

robbiexor said:


> For a number of reasons. One might be that they want to attempt only certain features, or ride half of them. And you have to start somewhere. People don't ride Blue for years and then one day hop on the Black, and thanks to their excessive Blue practice, they are able to conquer everything. Or you take that one extra lap, and like the flow of sections of the Black trails but are just too wiped to ride ALL of it.
> 
> Ultimately, do you want to be in control of the trail design or do you want to leave opt-outs and route-arounds up to the people who are going to use them regardless if they were designed or not. Even the most advanced riders will hike-a-bike on occasion.
> 
> Like I said, make the lesser route off the mainline, so the natural flow of the trail is over/through the obstacle. Why this bothers or threatens people who ride at an "expert" level, I'll never know.


 'll let you know then. 
Ever ride a trail like ravenshoe ? Lord knows why there are so many cheaterpaths on such a easy trail system ! But there are so many ,it's hard to ride with flow because there are so many forks. In the trail that you have to keep stopping to see where the original trail is !!


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

You need to define what a broken window means when used in this context.

Is a ride-around the only one?


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

raganwald said:


> Does the Broken Windows Theory apply to trails?
> 
> Conjecture: If there is no trail bypassing a feature, riders will be reluctant to ride around it. But when there is even a faint track around a feature, riders will eagerly ride around the feature, adding to the track, and further they will ride around other features on the same trail. Only vigilant and total closing of ad-hoc ride-arounds and trail widening will prevent a trail from sanitizing itself.


This is a little bit over the top. Using words like eagerly ride around etc. More often than not riders are not putting this much thought into a bypass. It's not a fair assumption that every rider is using a go-around because it's above their comfort level in skill.

As a trail designer or trail builder it's more important to understand that there is indeed something different happening than initially anticipated. Then carefully considering design flaws or poor rider habits, coupled with what kind of trail theme is supposed to be experienced, move forward with the fix.

There are three things that can be solutions. Go with what the herd wants is one option. Sometimes the crowd does have a better bearing, and you fix up the go around, and possibly close the original path and/or feature. This would happen if it were a design flaw, perhaps you got too creative, and wanted something to work, and it just doesn't. More often than not this isn't the case and even it is, the solution of bagging the original idea may not be the best idea. Just depends.

An example would be a small downhill run where you build a little mound that people can jump or pump speed off of. At the bottom of the hill before you start climbing you route the trail to the right into an S inbetween two trees where it makes for a rooted ascent. People are blowing off the left of the first tree avoiding the sudden turn out of the downhill in favor of not having of carrying your speed out of the low and into the next turn. This is a case where people can ride a technical ascent but favor the flow better by just bypassing the routing. This would be an example of where it would be appropriate to go with what the riders are wanting.

The second one would be the compromise. There is a feature that people are just going around for whatever reason. So you keep the feature and armor up the go-around so there is no erosion problem. One thing to consider is even go-arounds you can make into a feature. If you can create a similar type technical experience in the go around, but significantly easier to accomplish, you'll be helping people progress.

The final would be to shut down the go-around, and bottleneck them back into what is there within the original design. i would say that sometimes this is the best route to go, but i would always warn a trail builder that choosing battles carefully is always sound advice. If you consider alternatives and you still find that this option is best, then be prepared to throw in work to engineer a sturdy fix and possibly keep going back to re-fix the trail. Could lead to frustration.

An example of this would be a trail that was originally designed to be super tight and twisty. Persons "bushwhack" or bypass off a tight turn, fauna gets trampled, and next thing you know most persons are riding into the bypass before they even know it's a bypass, simply from not paying attention. (this goes into why i think the original premise of broken windows is a little bit much) A solution to this problem was building a simple pole fence in the critical bypass area. 5-10 years is how long the fence will last, in the meantime plant a sapling right smack dab where the "desire path" was shooting off from, and by the time the simple fence is weakened and ready to decompose, nature has hopefully grown sufficiently enough to keep the problem from arising again.

At the end of the day it's helpful to examine and study how persons ride the trail your working on, but if all of this thought doesn't lead you to a good conclusion for a good trail fix, then it's just so much thought... But to me, i often view them as challenges to sleuth, and from that creativity can sometimes spark on the trail maintenance end of things.


----------



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

electrik said:


> You need to define what a broken window means when used in this context.
> 
> Is a ride-around the only one?


I mean an ad hoc ride-around, not one designed and built into the trail. Or dragging a log off the trail, removing a ride-over.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

raganwald said:


> I mean an ad hoc ride-around, not one designed and built into the trail. Or dragging a log off the trail, removing a ride-over.


I get that, the question is what else constitutes a broken window?

Garbage?
Dogs off leash?


----------



## gmcttr (Oct 7, 2006)

Why do so few riders seem to understand the concept of _walking_ the feature that they're not ready to ride? It lets you ride more trails sooner, gives you a chance to study the line and think it through and doesn't eff up the trail with cheater lines.

Just my .02 as a trail worker.


----------



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

electrik said:


> I get that, the question is what else constitutes a broken window?
> 
> Garbage?
> Dogs off leash?


I've told you what it means to me in the context of this thread. I strongly suspect the two things you've mentioned also behave in accordance with the theory, although with dogs I'm cautious: Some forests are perfectly acceptable places to have a dog off leash.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

I've been fighting this battle long enough to know that you have to pick your battles. Or drive yourself crazy. Lots of riders don't like rock or log-overs and won't ride them no matter what I do. I gave up the mission to make riders more skilled years ago. Most of the trails in my area are easy, the riders prefer to ride fast on hard tail bikes, and I get tired of the same old whining.

Then there's the issue with riders getting injured by taking on features outside their skill level. Of course, it's everyone's responsibility to ride within their ability, but I still am saddened when I hear that the local ambulance service had to be called in again.

IMO, the best compromise is, as suggested above, to make the feature the shorter line. Usually.

Walt


----------



## gmcttr (Oct 7, 2006)

Walt Dizzy said:


> IMO, the best compromise is, as suggested above, to make the feature the shorter line. Usually.
> 
> Walt


Or build the ride around as a "noobie trap"...looks easier, but in reality is much more difficult.


----------



## anthony.delorenzo (Aug 17, 2006)

Builders build trails how they want, people ride trails how *they* want. We can create them but once they are out there they'll evolve on their own.

Question: What happens when riders create a more advanced line on a trail? Maybe kick in a line to air off a boulder beside the trail or something like that. Does that "cheating" annoy you as much as riders who create an easier line?


----------



## Crash&bern (Aug 23, 2011)

anthony.delorenzo said:


> Builders build trails how they want, people ride trails how *they* want. We can create them but once they are out there they'll evolve on their own.
> 
> Question: What happens when riders create a more advanced line on a trail? Maybe kick in a line to air off a boulder beside the trail or something like that. Does that "cheating" annoy you as much as riders who create an easier line?


Bottom line , leave the trail alone period !!!
Can't ride the trail ? Learn to or pick an easier one !
Trail not hard enough ? Build your own or volunteer your services to the hard working trail builders. 
Leave them as you find them !!


----------



## Skookum (Jan 17, 2005)

gmcttr said:


> Why do so few riders seem to understand the concept of _walking_ the feature that they're not ready to ride? It lets you ride more trails sooner, gives you a chance to study the line and think it through and doesn't eff up the trail with cheater lines.
> 
> Just my .02 as a trail worker.


Because i don't think many riders view trail the way you do. Being a trail builder/worker you really develop an eye for studying how a bike will react to the trail, looking at it from many angles. For most people who are learning how to ride, they haven't gotten to the point of being able to interpret that.

They are looking less at a feature, and they are wondering where they will land when they crash.

The set up, the approach, and the fall zone and the exit all contribute to the confidence or lack thereof for a beginning rider. This is stuff that you have to obsess over if you're building a beginner skills trail. And if you are having an issue with a particular feature in your trail, understanding this may help.



anthony.delorenzo said:


> Builders build trails how they want, people ride trails how *they* want. We can create them but once they are out there they'll evolve on their own.
> 
> Question: What happens when riders create a more advanced line on a trail? Maybe kick in a line to air off a boulder beside the trail or something like that. Does that "cheating" annoy you as much as riders who create an easier line?


i think this is a valid concern and most often times can be more of a problem. As now we're getting into safety and liability issues. If the modification is engineered and created without much thought to fall hazard issues, then things can go South.

Every situation is different, it's a fine line in how a trail evolves. It's more cut and dry when it's a trail where you have a trail builder who is owning a project, building with permission. But i've seen where some trails evolve into a more advanced line, and it helps satisfy a demand that's out there.

The problem is if there is no structure for defining what a trail is supposed to be, a grey trail in other words, alterations and changes, though maybe for the better for some, many times come at risk and at the expense of others.

i think the more experienced folk acquire this type of awareness, and the trick is to get things dialed, work within the parameters of whatever you have to get it to work.

But unauthorized alterations are always a tricky issue, and generally should be discouraged.


----------



## anthony.delorenzo (Aug 17, 2006)

Good post Skookum. 

I remember reading Magic Johnson's autobiography, one of his coaches told him it was his fault if a teammate didn't catch a pass. Even if it hit the guy right in the hands. 

I think trail building is the same in a lot of ways. At the end of the day, I think a lot of problems with braiding, ride-arounds, shortcuts, what have you come back to the trail design and the builders, not the people riding it.


----------



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

anthony.delorenzo said:


> Good post Skookum.
> 
> I remember reading Magic Johnson's autobiography, one of his coaches told him it was his fault if a teammate didn't catch a pass. Even if it hit the guy right in the hands.
> 
> I think trail building is the same in a lot of ways. At the end of the day, I think a lot of problems with braiding, ride-arounds, shortcuts, what have you come back to the trail design and the builders, not the people riding it.


The problem being that they didn't build a trail such that no rider would ever take matters into their own hands and ride around a feature?

In rock climbing, there is a certain type of person who, if they cannot climb something, gets out the cold chisel and chips holds. Or he drills pockets for his fingers. Or he glues rocks onto a blank face to create holds. His argument is always that if you want to do the harder climb, you can reach past his artificial holds. If he enlarges a shallow two-finger pocket into a four-finger crimp, he says you can always use two fingers if that's how you want to make your life difficult for yourself.

In his mind he has not removed any of the challenges the first ascentionists faced, he has merely made the climb appealing for a wider variety of people, or perhaps made it useful for doing fast laps as well as challenging ascents.

I bring up the rock climbing example, because in truth there are far, far more 5.11 climbers than chippers. But once a climb is chipped, 5.11 climbers will get on it. This was the point of my original post. The inflection point is the first rider who mows down vegetation to go around a feature, or who drags the log out of the way, or who brings a hatchet and chops roots.

My conjecture is that such people are far more rare than the people who, seeing a ride-around that already exists, will take it. This matters, because of the following: If you see a heavily-travelled ride-around, you might say "The trail builder is at fault for not making the trail easy with a braid, obviously people hate the feature."

But had the ride-around been swiftly closed, perhaps many of the people who take the ride-around would simply learn to ride the feature. I bet that many of them already know how to ride the feature and did so before the ride-around appeared, it's just that given the choice of route, they'll take the blue over the black option.

It's not the case that each and every one of them would hack away at whatever you put up to close the ride-around, that's just a small and aggressive minority of riders who "Break the first window."

So if my conjecture is correct, a trail with a travelled ride-around is like a neighbourhood with a lot of broken windows. If you close the ride-arounds and then are aggressive about keeping them closed, the riders simply ride the trail and features as it was designed. The appearance of ride-arounds may not reflect poorly on the builder, it may simply reflect the dynamic that once somebody, somewhere takes matters into his own hands, others will follow passively.


----------



## gmcttr (Oct 7, 2006)

raganwald said:


> ...So if my conjecture is correct, a trail with a travelled ride-around is like a neighbourhood with a lot of broken windows. If you close the ride-arounds and then are aggressive about keeping them closed, the riders simply ride the trail and features as it was designed. The appearance of ride-arounds may not reflect poorly on the builder, it may simply reflect the dynamic that once somebody, somewhere takes matters into his own hands, others will follow passively.


This certainly fits with my observations on the trail system that I help out on. If the ride-a-round gets closed quickly and camouflaged enough that the real trail catches the riders eye first, then it usually stays closed for a considerable time.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

raganwald said:


> I've told you what it means to me in the context of this thread. I strongly suspect the two things you've mentioned also behave in accordance with the theory, although with dogs I'm cautious: Some forests are perfectly acceptable places to have a dog off leash.


Er you told me huh. Well, this cheater line stuff is not much of a valid application of broken windows _theory_. If only because the scope is quite narrow. It is sort of like putting forth broken windows theory as only about the actual broken windows. Too literal. There is no for the sake of which the actual theory needs to be used in this case. Simply fix all the corners, see how that works and then come back later.

About the dogs, i again don't really agree unless you're thinking of some gigantic forest. Even those like the national parks have leash laws.



Walt Dizzy said:


> I've been fighting this battle long enough to know that you have to pick your battles. Or drive yourself crazy. Lots of riders don't like rock or log-overs and won't ride them no matter what I do. I gave up the mission to make riders more skilled years ago. Most of the trails in my area are easy, the riders prefer to ride fast on hard tail bikes, and I get tired of the same old whining.
> 
> Then there's the issue with riders getting injured by taking on features outside their skill level. Of course, it's everyone's responsibility to ride within their ability, but I still am saddened when I hear that the local ambulance service had to be called in again.
> 
> ...


Seeing as this is a trail building thread I would expect a serious poster here to blame the trail. However that is most likely flogging a dead horse. I've noticed any trail having a serious(perhaps biblical influx) level of beginners will wash out a lot of the riding and it won't matter how much policing goes down those beginners will do whatever. They will make three cheater lines for every one you think of. In my little group we call advocacy(popularizing) organizations like IMBA the local trail _sanitizing_ crew - not the creators as they're often billed. In my books IMBA create trails in the same spirit that Columbus discovers america. You get a bad feeling when after 20yrs of trail the shovels and advocates come out. It's probably too late to say this because the Europeans have arrived and they brought all their baggage and friends. So to put it directly - who is really causing the breaking of windows? History seems to repeat itself here. I've been to less popular, intermediate spots and the cheater lines almost always disappear and perhaps by co-incidence these spot aren't managed by advocacy groups. However it all follows a certain trend.

As a side note, Walt, a local politician is trying to ban bicycles from a national park by claiming they'll turn the place into "disney land" - not dizzy land but close!


----------



## anthony.delorenzo (Aug 17, 2006)

Right, and NONE of you were ever beginners to the sport. You got your first mountain bike and could ride everything, immediately. You instantly knew all these 'rules' about how to ride a trail. 

Gimme a break. People are out there having fun on bikes. I'm having fun building trails for those people. That's what it's all about, not some weird little world where someone riding around your AWESOME STUNTZ is a crime against all that is holy.


----------



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

anthony.delorenzo said:


> Right, and NONE of you were ever beginners to the sport. You got your first mountain bike and could ride everything, immediately. You instantly knew all these 'rules' about how to ride a trail.
> 
> Gimme a break. People are out there having fun on bikes. I'm having fun building trails for those people. That's what it's all about, not some weird little world where someone riding around your AWESOME STUNTZ is a crime against all that is holy.


Actually, I am a beginner, so no I will not give you a break. I know that when there is a trail of any kind through a natural area, going off trail and trampling vegetation is wrong. I have stopped and walked lots of things on the trails I have ridden. Some were awesome stunts, some were slopes that were too steep for my liking, some were rock gardens that intimidated me.

If you want to build a trail for all the people, good for you, I honor your commitment. But as a rider, I don't feel some sense of entitlement that I can just ride my bike around anything on the trail I don't like, especially if by doing so I am mowing down vegetation and widening the trail.

This is a discussion about the social behavior of riders and trail builders. Your divisive invective against people who don't build the kind of trail you like is quite interesting when viewed in that light. Quite obviously some people get very offended if a trail isn't all about everybody having fun, to the point of abandoning all pretense of carrying on a constructive conversation.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

Trail designers are not perfect. They often make turns with too tight a radius that riders soon widen to beeter suit the sppeds being ridden. This has the added benefit of reducing washboard braking bumps.

Designers, like many riders, can often be arrogant and create features most riders would chose to ride around. What I find most interesting is that in bars and on MTBR forums, the majority of riders mock the riders who ride around difficult features, while out on the trails, those same people will also chose to ride around the difficult feature.

There are no green, blue. or black trails anywhere I have ridden. There are difficult sections of trail on what is mostly an easy trail and easy sections of trail on a mostly technical trail. For me, an expert rider with 23 years of riding experience and 16 years of experience designing, building, restoring and maintaining trails, I respond to those who think riders should improve their skills and not ride around features by stating that on those days I wish to go for a hike in the woods, I leave my bike at home. On riding days, I prefer to ride my bike and not walk it. 

I design trails that an expert can clean, without lobster gear, without a 40 pound rig, without going to the ER. I am fully aware of the needs of downhill type riders and I turn a blind eye to their illegally built trails. I prefer them to skid deep ruts into those trail rather than on system trails I work hard to maintain.

Allow b-lines and don't cover them up. If you want to take risks, ride the a-line and continue mocking those that don't, if it makes you feel better about yourself.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

raganwald said:


> Years of practice on the blue trails won't make you clean the black trail, but sessioning the features of the black trail and hiking your bike over those you don't feel like sessioning will. Riding around them won't do anything except create a new trail.
> 
> If you as a designer want to build braids, blue trails with optional black features, black trails that can be ridden as a blue or even green by skipping the features, I'm 100% in favour of that and have no problem whatsoever with you as a trail designer creating a trail with optional features.
> 
> ...


You have a lot to learn about trail builders and designers. And I don't understand your need to describe riders as cheaters. It's like me calling riders dopes for risking serious injury so they can boast about doing something others choose to avoid.

First, most trail builders and designers are not even riders. They are land managers and their hired crews. They often have minimal experience and have little concern for the needs of one user group. Most of the time, bikers making changes to their trails are doing all of us a service. Especially when the land managers failed to consider the different lines needed by downhill vs. uphill riders. The downhill riders speed forces them wider around turns. When hikers and other cover those wide lines, they put riders at risk. Land managers also cannot do all the brush work needed to keep sight lines open and remove blind corners. Brush can also hide hidden rocks that will cause serious accidents for even expert riders.

My experience around riders who are risk averse and riders who like launching into the air has brought me to the conclusion that some of us are in this sport for the long haul and for different reasons than the riders who will spend hours and hours and days and days at one location learning to jump their bike and land it, or scream down a 20 percent grade while maintaining control of their bike. I had a downhill expert on one of my trail crews. He left mid-season to get a second shoulder surgery, after taking a dare to jump a staircase at the nearby university. Now he is out of the sport entirely, like so many other daredevils before him. And like most young riders in their 20's, he had no insurance and his father had to pay his medical bills. So rathenr than refer to riders prolonging their lifespans in this sport as cheaters, you might consider the fact they chose b-lines because they want to ride for many decades without pins and plates holding their limbs together. Just think about all the expert riders who took one risk too many. Eathquake Jake comes to mind. He thought he'd shave a second off his downhill run by jumping an obstacle. He was one of the most skilled riders I ever saw, but now he's dead. I also met a young downhill racer in Idaho in 1995, who was flying down the race course until he lost traction and slid along the ground. His visor caught on some brush and snapped his neck, leaving him paralized from the shoulders down, at 23 years of age.

You go ahead and ride whatever features you like. I'll do the same, while riding around some of them. If there isn't a b-line when needed, I'll create one, for those who want to ride their bikes on a safe flowing trail. Because if riders are opting out of riding a feature, that trail is by definition not a flowing trail.


----------



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

The Prodigal Son said:


> Allow b-lines and don't cover them up. If you want to take risks, ride the a-line and continue mocking those that don't, if it makes you feel better about yourself.


Your argument in that message contained some interesting experience but was marred by a straw man fallacy. This thread is not about mocking riders who don't ride features. This thread is not a conversation in a bar. I have repeatedly said that I am very ok with trails that have b lines or braids or whatever you want to call them built in as part of the trail.

In fact, if you want to build extra braids in every time someone rides around a tree root on your trail, over time creating a trail that is neither green nor blue nor black but a single flawy thing with some options here and there, God Bless You. I have absolutely nothing against that.

The question I raised was whether riders have a certain type of behavior, and therefore whether a certain type of trail maintenance would produce a certain type of outcome for those trails where the builder(s) had a different design in mind.

It's fine with me if you want to climb on a soap box and preach against trails that are different from the ones you build, but of course that really has nothing to do with whether ad hoc ride-arounds (I hope you can stomach this term more easily) follow a certain social behavior similar to a narrow interpretation of Broken Windows Theory.



The Prodigal Son said:


> You go ahead and ride whatever features you like. I'll do the same, while riding around some of them. If there isn't a b-line when needed, I'll create one, for those who want to ride their bikes on a safe flowing trail. Because if riders are opting out of riding a feature, that trail is by definition not a flowing trail.


This is another rhetorical misstep, redefining the conclusion. If you want to describe a "flowing" trail as one that every rider, every time, rides without hacking down bushes to avoid something like a tree root, be my guest.

This, however, has nothing to do with what I was posting about. I never said that a flowing trail by your definition was the sole objective of trail building. Nor did I start this thread to ask how to make a trail that nobody would ever want to hack around.

If you want to build a trail that meets your definition of flowing, again I say God Bless You. I would ride it and enjoy it. If you abhor dabbing or carrying on trail rides, fine with me. I'm sure that you pick and choose the trails that allow you to do this when you aren't maintaining them.

Carry on building your trails!


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Ridearounds make sense on almost every trail. Made well in the first place they allow even good riders an alternative if they get the line wrong leading into a feature. Apart from reducing braking bumps, they should also be the fun line for everyone. Everyone changes their line with their mood, so lots of pre-riding in construction make for a trail with more options where they actually are needed. 

Not every trail can be the holy grail of trail - with perfect flow, perfect turns, no need to brake suddenly, no need to worry, just fall into the trail with a grin on the dial type of trail, because they have to respect the terrain they cross. Sadly people will dumb things down over time if they see a need. Removing rocks, riding around a bit of log, trail widening and even removing drainage features to suit whatever level of experience and arrogance they have reached will happen. 

So why not try to predict it and make that sort of modification fun for all? Often just "clearing" or thinning things like long grass, overhanging vegetation or saplings that are not part of the trail, but change your perspective when approaching it can concentrate the rider's eye on what's next rather than what's now. Removing visual threat can increase fun for beginner to the expert and identify the line the builder saw in the first place. Simple maintenance at rooty and tech bits keep up the public's confidence so they keep wanting to clear the feature.

What you can't stop is someone adding some dodgy, fly-by-night skinny or gap that screws things for everyone else. No trail can prevent the facts of supreme dumbarseness and litigation, but risk mitigation and fun often go hand in hand in construction.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Are you talking about legal trails? If they're legal trails open to the general public they need to be designed worth a wide variety of skill sets in mind. If you are approved to build purpose made, artificial "features" fine, but you need to acknowledge that not everyone wants to utilize - for whatever reason - those artificial features. It is fairly typical to design and build a ride around into the feature. If the nature of topography of the trail makes for a technical trail (IE: lots of rocks) then that is what nature provides and people widening the trail to avoid roots, rocks , etc need to be dealt with by any number of methods.

If it's an illegal trail, built without permission of the land owner/manager then you have no right to complain about anything.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

Yes, but do ride arounds make sense ad infinitum? Certainly the ride-around of a large double is a good idea(99% don't hit it), but for a section of roots or a line through some rocks. The possibility for ride-arounds are endless here and that is reason for the question since there is a point when having a ride around becomes absurd. What do you do then when one appears? Cover them up? Does leaving one absurd ride around or cheater line imply your trail is soon to have a full-blown case of ride arounds?


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

The Prodigal Son said:


> You have a lot to learn about trail builders and designers. And I don't understand your need to describe riders as cheaters. It's like me calling riders dopes for risking serious injury so they can boast about doing something others choose to avoid.


The words "cheater line" come from the fact that some XC riders in a _race_ will often cut-corner and skip any technical section. Course tape is apparently only a recommendation for those cheaters.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

raganwald said:


> I'll repeat myself so it is crystal clear: I am not bothered or threatened when you as a trail builder make the easier route around the feature, or even if you make the feature part of the longer,* less flowy route*.
> 
> *I am only bothered when riders cheat*. And in my experience, they will do so unless the fastest, simplest line is the green one.


Define cheating. And why does it bother you that all riders are not looking for the same experience as you? I say they are not cheating at all. They might even wonder why a trail builder would make a feature seemingly designed to remove flow from a trail and put riders at risk, along with putting land managers at risk in a injury lawsuit. Shouldn't that bother you more? Fortunately, most courts now believe riders or skiers or any trail users assume risk and cannot sue when injured.

What you may think this thread is about is different than what I see play out on similar threads. Bikers with greater technical skills like to mock riders of lessor skills. They refer to almost all trail work as dumbing down the trail. It allows them to avoid ever doing trail work, saying they can ride any trail in any condition it may be in. This is especially true in forums and in bars frequented by riders.

I remove tree roots. I remove all loose rocks and some other rocks when I see pedal marks on them. I remove all brush that comes in contact with riders. I remove brush to create improved sight lines. I cut in drains to reduce trail ruts caused from fast moving water. I add soil to build up low spots that can trap a wheel. I remove trees when the trail is too narrow for a bikes handlebars to easily pass by. I create entirely new lines when the original line is too difficult or too dangerous to ride. I remove debris from those new lines when others cover that new line with debris. I tell other trail builders to create more flow in their trials by avoiding tight turns. I post on this forum, knowing that many will strongly disagree with at least some aspect of my work. I feel it is important to add a different point of view from those who are bothered by "cheaters" and paint them in a negative light. The sport will not be taken over by X Gamers looking for a thrill. They can continue building trails to suit there riding preferences, but they cannot turn XC trails into obstacle courses without some resistence. I too, try to be crystal clear in making statements about trails.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

electrik said:


> The words "cheater line" come from the fact that some XC riders in a _race_ will often cut-corner and skip any technical section. Course tape is apparently only a recommendation for those cheaters.


Really?


----------



## gmcttr (Oct 7, 2006)

The Prodigal Son said:


> ...The sport will not be taken over by X Gamers looking for a thrill. They can continue building trails to suit there riding preferences, but they cannot turn XC trails into obstacle courses without some resistence. I too, try to be crystal clear in making statements about trails.


Once again, you are way off topic. This thread has nothing to do with "X Gamer" jumps/features, but thanks for playing anyway. You're getting close to being a troll on this thread.


----------



## anthony.delorenzo (Aug 17, 2006)

raganwald said:


> This is a discussion about the social behavior of riders and trail builders. Your divisive invective against people who don't build the kind of trail you like is quite interesting when viewed in that light. Quite obviously some people get very offended if a trail isn't all about everybody having fun, to the point of abandoning all pretense of carrying on a constructive conversation.


This is the third reply from you where you have completely misrepresented what I am trying to say. Either I'm not making sense here or that's just your style, but either way it's not really getting us anywhere.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

gmcttr said:


> Once again, you are way off topic. This thread has nothing to do with "X Gamer" jumps/features, but thanks for playing anyway. You're getting close to being a troll on this thread.





> Conjecture: If there is no trail bypassing a feature, riders will be reluctant to ride around it. But when there is even a faint track around a feature, riders will eagerly ride around the feature, adding to the track, and further they will ride around other features on the same trail. Only vigilant and total closing of ad-hoc ride-arounds and trail widening will prevent a trail from sanitizing itself.


So this is your topic. Yes, if there is no alternate route around a feature, riders will not ride around it. Seems obvious. When there is an alternate route, riders most often take that alternate route. This explains the need for the alternate route. It is why I often build alternate routes.

The whole vigilance and total closing of alternate routes and describing them as trail sanitizing, is suggesting riders who can ride the feature should prevent all others from having an alternate route. This can lead to bad blood and threats when one group decides to be vigilantes. It is obvious here that the term sanitizing is used as a pejorative, disparaging both riders and trail volunteers. You can't say you respect ones right to build a b-line, while at the same time tell others to be vigilant and close all ride-arounds so the trail isn't dumbed down. Your suggesting some riders are superior to others and they know what is best. Somehow having two options is bad for us. I find that idea odious.

The experiences I have with technically skilled riders on trails described in the OP is very much related to this topic. You would be blind if you didn't notice this topic coming up regularly on the MTBR forums. It always begins with condescending remarks aimed at riders who avoid risk and create alternative bypass trails.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

raganwald said:


> I know that when there is a trail of any kind through a natural area, going off trail and trampling vegetation is wrong.
> 
> If you want to build a trail for all the people, good for you, I honor your commitment. But as a rider, I don't feel some sense of entitlement that I can just ride my bike around anything on the trail I don't like, especially if by doing so I am mowing down vegetation and widening the trail.
> 
> This is a discussion about the social behavior of riders and trail builders. Your divisive invective against people who don't build the kind of trail you like is quite interesting when viewed in that light. Quite obviously some people get very offended if a trail isn't all about everybody having fun, to the point of abandoning all pretense of carrying on a constructive conversation.


Be careful there, beginner. You may box yourself in. If you want to defend nature against unauthorized trail building, you may end up eliminating the majority of trails you currently ride. I have actually met such a rider. He refused to ride on social trails, wildcat trails, trails built by motorcycles with no permission from land managers. Even game trails, for fear of turning them into a trail accidentally ridden by others. In the southwest, that might include 80% of all trails.

The wise move might be to do as many land managers have done. Give up and recognized the need for these trails.

Going off trail and mowing down vegetation is part of our sport. We do it when we ride around winter blow-downs. We do it when we ride around badly eroded sections of trail, caused by heavy seasonal rain storms. We do it when there is a 50 foot section of mud. We do it when passing other trail users. Nature is no as delicate as you seem to believe. The majority of trail work I do on system trails is cutting brush that continues encroaching on the trail. It is a never-ending process. Those people going around features and creating a new line are merely doing what the original trail builder failed to do, and should have done. I use to invite lovers of technical trails to come and build a tech braid on the trail I was working on. They love to build new braids leading off the trail to a jump or boulder roll-over, or log ride. If that is what they need to find enjoyment while riding, so be it. If you are going to be bothered by such things, you will be spending a lot of time being bothered by people you call cheaters, whether they are building easy lines or more difficult lines.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

zrm said:


> Really?


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

The Prodigal Son said:


> Define cheating. And why does it bother you that all riders are not looking for the same experience as you? I say they are not cheating at all. They might even wonder why a trail builder would make a feature seemingly designed to remove flow from a trail and put riders at risk, along with putting land managers at risk in a injury lawsuit. Shouldn't that bother you more? Fortunately, most courts now believe riders or skiers or any trail users assume risk and cannot sue when injured.
> 
> What you may think this thread is about is different than what I see play out on similar threads. Bikers with greater technical skills like to mock riders of lessor skills. They refer to almost all trail work as dumbing down the trail. It allows them to avoid ever doing trail work, saying they can ride any trail in any condition it may be in. This is especially true in forums and in bars frequented by riders.
> 
> I remove tree roots. I remove all loose rocks and some other rocks when I see pedal marks on them. I remove all brush that comes in contact with riders. I remove brush to create improved sight lines. I cut in drains to reduce trail ruts caused from fast moving water. I add soil to build up low spots that can trap a wheel. I remove trees when the trail is too narrow for a bikes handlebars to easily pass by. I create entirely new lines when the original line is too difficult or too dangerous to ride. I remove debris from those new lines when others cover that new line with debris. I tell other trail builders to create more flow in their trials by avoiding tight turns. I post on this forum, knowing that many will strongly disagree with at least some aspect of my work. I feel it is important to add a different point of view from those who are bothered by "cheaters" and paint them in a negative light. The sport will not be taken over by X Gamers looking for a thrill. They can continue building trails to suit there riding preferences, but they cannot turn XC trails into obstacle courses without some resistence. I too, try to be crystal clear in making statements about trails.


Uh... The definition I gave you is pretty precise, so don't stick your head in the sand or deliberately try to muddy the water by calling what is clearly beginner rider as a cheater.

You should know, cheaters never win(eventually they have to ride over something) and if you want to make a road you shouldn't bother using a pulaski because there are bulldozers available. Sorry you feel so spited that you try to white-wash what you make just to satisfy the lawyers.

Also, you sound like a massive retro grouch going on about dem "x gamers"  All in all what you do doesn't sound weird, except tearing up tree's roots and disturbing the rocks, the eco squad gets a real hard-on about that stuff around here.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

electrik said:


> Uh... The definition I gave you is pretty precise, so don't stick your head in the sand or deliberately try to muddy the water by calling what is clearly beginner rider as a cheater.
> 
> You should know, cheaters never win(eventually they have to ride over something) and if you want to make a road you shouldn't bother using a pulaski because there are bulldozers available. Sorry you feel so spited that you try to white-wash what you make just to satisfy the lawyers.
> 
> Also, you sound like a massive retro grouch going on about dem "x gamers"  All in all what you do doesn't sound weird, except tearing up tree's roots and disturbing the rocks, the eco squad gets a real hard-on about that stuff around here.


Who do you think I was talking to? I was asking raganwald what he defines as cheating. I'm not interested in beginner riders. They will learn as they go. I'm interested in expert and pro level riders, who sometimes avoid trails that have become nearly abandoned due to lack of regular maintenance. I feel that when expert level riders avoid a trail to ride around it on a Forest road, it is time for some restoration work.

Are you telling me about environmental whack jobs because you are one of them? Should I begin to concern myself over what someone in the cheap seats is screaming about? I think not. Riding on well maintained trails out your back door is my idea of happiness. Long rides, hard rides, steep climbs, rideable technical sections, fast flowing trails. All day rides. That's what I have now and I'm willing to do many times more than my share to keep it.

To answer the OP's question, I do believe the broken window theory applies to trails. That is why I do lots of trail work, including some he detests. It inspires others to copy what I do and make it possible for expert riders to ride all day and save the hiking for hikers.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

The Prodigal Son said:


> Who do you think I was talking to? I was asking raganwald what he defines as cheating. I'm not interested in beginner riders. They will learn as they go. I'm interested in expert and pro level riders, who sometimes avoid trails that have become nearly abandoned due to lack of regular maintenance. I feel that when expert level riders avoid a trail to ride around it on a Forest road, it is time for some restoration work.
> 
> Are you telling me about environmental whack jobs because you are one of them? Should I begin to concern myself over what someone in the cheap seats is screaming about? I think not. Riding on well maintained trails out your back door is my idea of happiness. Long rides, hard rides, steep climbs, rideable technical sections, fast flowing trails. All day rides. That's what I have now and I'm willing to do many times more than my share to keep it.
> 
> To answer the OP's question, I do believe the broken window theory applies to trails. That is why I do lots of trail work, including some he detests. It inspires others to copy what I do and make it possible for expert riders to ride all day and save the hiking for hikers.


Oh, well i think raganwald is probably speaking about beginner trails or a trail where both beginners and experts must share. At least this would make sense.

No, I'm not a blasphemer... goodness no.  Frankly I think those people are full of it, they drive polluting cars to the trailhead, wipe their ass with 3-ply while eating exotic fruit and living in massive houses with sprawling lawns sucking down pesticides, water, electrical power and etc. Those acts are total hypocrisy when viewed from their plantiff whining about mountain bikers not being ecologically sensitive to some newts or spiders. Last winter a hiking group was all up in arms because riders were using studded tires in the snow and they were scratching the rocks and supposedly killing trees.(if you've seen a studded bicycle tire you'll understand why it's dumb). I really can't take that fluff seriously, but they threaten to try and get cycling banned. Apparently just because it annoys them when they want to commune with virginal mother nature(as a museum). Total misunderstanding of what nature is.

I do believe in common sense though, if tearing up roots and rocks is going to lead to erosion problems that is something to be considered.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

electrik said:


> Oh, well i think raganwald is probably speaking about beginner trails or a trail where both beginners and experts must share. At least this would make sense.
> 
> No, I'm not a blasphemer... goodness no.  Frankly I think those people are full of it, they drive polluting cars to the trailhead, wipe their ass with 3-ply while eating exotic fruit and living in massive houses with sprawling lawns sucking down pesticides, water, electrical power and etc. Those acts are total hypocrisy when viewed from their plantiff whining about mountain bikers not being ecologically sensitive to some newts or spiders. Last winter a hiking group was all up in arms because riders were using studded tires in the snow and they were scratching the rocks and supposedly killing trees.(if you've seen a studded bicycle tire you'll understand why it's dumb). I really can't take that fluff seriously, but they threaten to try and get cycling banned. Apparently just because it annoys them when they want to commune with virginal mother nature(as a museum). Total misunderstanding of what nature is.
> 
> I do believe in common sense though, if tearing up roots and rocks is going to lead to erosion problems that is something to be considered.


I agree about the erosion thing. It is our enemy, along with some of those folks you describe. Be careful out there. Years ago, a disturbed individual ran a close-line across a trail to intentionally harm riders. Someone could have been decapitated. He was caught and went to jail.


----------



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

The Prodigal Son said:


> That is why I do lots of trail work, including some he detests.


You seem to be saying that there is some aspect of your trail building that I "detest." Not only did I not use that word in this thread, I had this to say in this thread about the choices trail builders make:



raganwald said:


> If you as a designer want to build braids, blue trails with optional black features, black trails that can be ridden as a blue or even green by skipping the features, I'm 100% in favour of that and have no problem whatsoever with you as a trail designer creating a trail with optional features...
> 
> I am not bothered or threatened when you as a trail builder make the easier route around the feature, or even if you make the feature part of teh(sp) longer, less flowy route.


And:



raganwald said:


> If you want to build a trail for all the people, good for you, I honor your commitment.


And:



raganwald said:


> I have repeatedly said that I am very ok with trails that have b lines or braids or whatever you want to call them built in as part of the trail...
> 
> If you want to build extra braids in every time someone rides around a tree root on your trail, over time creating a trail that is neither green nor blue nor black but a single flawy thing with some options here and there, God Bless You. I have absolutely nothing against that....
> 
> ...


I hope it is now 100% clear to you that I am saying nothing about your trail building choices except to praise you for building your trails, your way.

Saying or even implying that I detest your work mischaracterizes my point of view.


----------



## rckygrrl (Mar 19, 2011)

raganwald said:


> What on Earth are people doing on Black trails if they do not care for rock gardens, features, or other obstacles? I'm with you on the green, blue, yellow, or whatever other colour, but why should an advanced trail be developed as a braid of options such that someone can actually ride an intermediate trail by taking all of the ride-arounds?
> 
> Why can't they simply go ride the blue trail?


I have a problem with dictating that anyone who ventures onto a black trail "ought" be able to ride every single feature on that trail. We ride together- you yourself ride advanced trails and often choose to utilize braids ( some planned, some evolved) to ride past features- no one castigates you for it. No rider is born expert, and riding a blue trail cleanly doesn't mean that you can jump right up to black and clean everything on it as well. As said by others, braids allow riders to progress without disrupting the flow ( both their own, and of others) with a stop and carry. What does it matter to you whether there is a braid or not, if the challenging line remains intact?

It seems as if you are saying trail braiding or how others choose to ride is somehow an aesthetic defacement and contemptible, like vandalism. It may be true that you never use the word "detest" but it is evident from your tone and choice of analogies that it is something you have a big problem with. You borrow from rock climbing and compare it to the reviled practice of hold chipping, but the analogy doesnt properly transfer.

For one, climbing routes are static, trails are not. Climbs are planned and set by a single individual, rated by consensus and documented. They don't evolve organically by use over time with contributions by many as most MTB trails do here, such as in the Don. Secondly the climbing routes themselves are used by climbers only ( lucky them) and do not have to contend with the differing priorities of other users. Thirdly, climbers start with a guidebook to pick a mapped route according to a standardized difficulty level. I can only think of two managed MTB areas in Southern Ontario that even rate trails - most of the trails here are not even mapped, and the vast majority are shared use.

Braiding is an organic and natural process that comes from a variety of trail users and skill levels sharing public trails, the idea that it is some breach of integrity assumes that integrity is the exclusive property of the difficult.


----------



## raganwald (Mar 1, 2011)

Rckygrrl, I characterize most of your reply as being a mild Ad Hominem To Quoque fallacy. I will not bother disputing any of it, since that would derail the thread from the main point, which concerns ad hoc riding around.

The remainder seems to be a suggestion that you are ok with trails being designed with options. As I have said and repeated in this thread, so am I. One of the trails we ride regularly has a massive "advanced" option around an "intermediate" option. I absolutely take both options, mostly because they are completely different: The "advanced" option features an uphill rock garden and a cobblestone wall, while the intermediate option features a high speed downhill rock garden.

This thread is not about whether there should be an intermediate option to bypass the advanced trail. It isn't even about whether someone should have gone into that advanced option and dug a ridearound for one of the signature ride-overs, or about whether someone with a hatchet should have chopped the roots in the gully that we both were working on being able to ride cleanly on a consistent basis, or whether the portion of the trail that zig-zagged around some deadfall should have been straightened out when the deadfall was removed.

On that exact trail, there are many places where the original trail went beside a tree and over one or more roots. the trail is now three times its original width in most of those places, as some riders have elected to ride around the roots to one side, and some to the other. This thread isn't even about whether riders ought to or ought not to do such a thing. It is presented as a given that riders do such things, and I think everybody agrees they do whether they personally wish otherwise or not, I think everybody agrees they will continue to do so. Electrik asked whether ad hoc ridearounds would eventually result in trails avoiding tree roots and rocks. On the unmanaged trail we ride, the answer is yes, ridearounds will "evolve" for everything that isn't smooth if they can evolve. Neither applauding nor whining about it will change whether riders decide to go around things on the trail they don't want to ride even if there is no alternative offered by the trail builders: They'll do what they do.

I started this thread with a question of whether swiftly closing such ad hoc ridearounds when they appear will keep them closed for longer periods of time than letting them grow, and whether swiftly closing ad hoc ridearounds will reduce the incidences of ad hoc riding around in the first place.

You seem to be in the "Ad hoc ride arounds are part of the organic evolution of a trail and should be embraced as a guide to how the trail ought to be designed." (Please correct me if I misunderstand you on this point.) I know you are organizing a trail fixing up day for that particular unmanaged trail. If you want to embrace those ad hoc ridearounds, perhaps by shoring some of them up so they won't erode in the Spring, carry on. If you want to ignore them because you're busy with other priorities, such as removing dangerous stunts that have been abandoned that's fine with me. If you want to close some of those ride-arounds, I have no objection either.

My interest is in discussing what happens to trails _if_ you close such ridearounds swiftly and consistently. If you don't think that's a good idea regardless of the outcome, carry on your trail stewardship with my blessing.

p.s. I keep saying that trail is "unmanaged." In point of fact, several different groups of people regularly do trail maintenance, and at least one of them is in discussions with the land manager about its evolution and future. In practice, it's an unpoliced trail, with various groups showing up to maintain it, individuals chopping things, and so on. Trails appear, bridges over streams disappear, and there are no signs saying "Trail maintained by _____, please do not alter them without contacting _____." If you own a chain saw, you are a de facto steward


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

Does the Broken Windows Theory apply to trails? I think maybe, yes, but the more important question is what do we do about it. 

Vigilant closing of cheater lines is a start, but it has to be a concerted, serious effort, or don't waste the time. We can't pull a downed tree across the path and call it a day. As someone wrote in another thread in this forum, spend a minute closing a line, it will take someone 30 seconds to rip the closure apart. Spend 10 minutes, it will take them 5. We need to make it look like the cheater line never existed in the first place, make it look totally unridable, and put serious impediments in place to re-opening it. If it looks like it will take less than 10 minutes to undo, it's not going to last.

We also need to ask ourselves why a cheater line evolved in the first place. Maybe the TTF it bypasses is too challenging relative to the rest of the trail and the feature needs an alternate line per IMBA literature. Maybe the TTF is more an annoyance than it is a challenge. Maybe the TTF is sketchy and poorly built. Maybe the cheater line flows better. Maybe the cheater line is dry and the main line doesn't drain well and is a greasy, muddy mess in need of repair. Maybe the original line was just poorly designed. Are the cheater lines arising from non-bikers shortcutting a twisty trail? If the trail is rated advanced and beginners are riding it, maybe better signage and/or gateway/qualifier/filter features are needed to coax them onto a trail more suitable for their skill level.

In short: yes, be vigilant about the closures and take the time to do them right, but if the cheater lines keep returning, there is a reason; figure it out and address the root cause.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Everywhere is different...

I think OP is correct with the Broken Windows Theory in certain situations regarding braids, such as older legacy social trail based systems in highly populated areas, and in other areas its less of a "criminal" issue rather than an indication of a missing piece of the management puzzle, as with larger less populated systems with newer trails.

There's not nearly the same population density out west as there is in New England, wilderness here is when you can't see your neighbor's house through the trees in the summer because the leaves are up. The trails go back, in some cases centuries to the 1600's, as old hunting trails or carriage roads and such. Management of the legacy and social stuff here is much different, no one ever thought about sustainable, but they're still there and without vigilance they can be braided or widened or dumbed down into shells of what they were. Managers don't see the need, or want to, change what's worked for decades or more to accommodate just one user group with potentially unique needs so reroutes don't appeal/get approval all the time because the original character is more important. 

So, if riders have been out there for 30 years riding and crashing on those old trails as they were, and people were using them for whatever purpose for years before that, the trail can take precedence over the user and the quicker you fix that "broken window" the better chance that trail will survive for the next however many years as its original users/creators had it.

We say "improve your skills, not the trails," up here and we mean it and people get called out all the time for disrespecting the trails (and told that there's no shame in walking)... besides, it is New England so you can't get away with too big/long a braid before it runs into more tech so might as well walk or learn to ride it or your riding time will be limited to a few carriage roads and minimal singletrack at very few parks in the CT/RI/MA area.:thumbsup:

Every situation and place is different so assess the situation (and history) and determine it from there.


----------



## ebxtreme (Jan 6, 2004)

In our area, the trail designer usually has the most say in this. If they are no longer involved, then it usually comes down to who maintains it. Sounds like this particular area is a bit of a clusterf*#ck because of so many folks who feel entitled to "fix" areas as they see fit.

Frankly, on an XC or even an AM trail, any features are always optional. That said, I wouldn't call roots or rocks "features" however and dumbing down those "features" is hugely frowned upon unless there's a maintenance issue that requires moving/removing them. In that case, I'd view those braids as unnecessary and block them off asap. Also, the "throw a couple of sticks" technique in the braid almost never works and will be cleared within a week. If you really need to block them off, then you should be prepared for serious moving of logs and other debris. I've known some guys who will even nail spike logs together to make them impossible to move without a chainsaw. If someone's willing to do that for a ride-around, there's not a lot you can do.

Even on our DH trails, any big jumps or drops have ride-arounds on them, That's purely for risk management purposes and because, let's be honest, some folks end up on trails where they are in way over their head.

Cheers,
EB


----------



## zachi (Jul 25, 2006)

Although I love technical features and riding...I design for flow and speed because there are more considerations normally related to this than for a hiker or climbing cyclist. Trails teach me not only about human behavior but my own relationship to how I am in the world.

We build 'B' routes that are narrower and less defined than the main flow. These options are clearly secondary and provide challenge elements. I personally like to have these optional routes somewhat elusive and create them as locals only treats. It may be visible as you ride by but you will have to hit it the next time or ride back ideally to catch the departing line.

Although I read the initial query regarding the broken window... seems like the question should have been...should a window be placed behind the catchers plate. A trail that is well designed captures the focus and intent of the user in a harmonious way. Focusing the 'A' line through sections that are non intuitive will cause unpredictable outcomes that quick fixes won't permanently fix.


----------



## Tread Lightly! (Oct 19, 2011)

First, I suppose I should say hello... For those of you who are not familiar with Tread Lightly!, we work to promote responsible use of public lands to protect access and resources. This crosses the lines of motorized, mechanized, equestrian, water sports, etc etc... So, naturally this thread topic is of great interest to us.

First, my opinion from being in the realm of recreation management... It is absolutely true that if a rider who may feel intimidated by an obstacle/challenge sees a bypass, no matter how faint, they may choose to take it. Not all, but definitely many. I have witnessed this first hand from riders of all types, and have heard every excuse from "its fine and doesn't hurt anything" to "the USFS would prefer us ride over the tundra versus risk getting hurt on that part of the trail" (yes, no joke...).

We will always encourage riders to stay on the designated and designed routes, versus going around for the sake of "self-preservation" or whatever reason. Why? Because trail braiding leads to erosion. It does harm the vegetation, and while Mother Nature is a hearty lady, unfortunately routes tend to get wider and more braided, etc etc etc and many times she doesn't have the chance to catch up after unauthorized routes are "burned in". Yes, that's a challenge for designers, riders, and managers. The dirt bike guys I have worked with have become fairly proficient at labeling trails (black-blue-green) and reaching out to newbies, and the 4x4 guys love the concepts of "gate keepers" to quickly establish the ability of both driver (more relevant) and equipment on any given trail. Would that work in a MTB setting? Not sure, but it might be worth a try. But instead of creating bypasses for obstacles and challenges, there should be a sustainable network of nearby trails that cater to different experiences. I am not sure about you all, but I treasure the singletrack experience, so its easy for me to put my efforts where my mouth is.

Now... onto some of the comments I saw. This is a great discussion everyone, by the way.



raganwald said:


> In rock climbing, there is a certain type of person who, if they cannot climb something, gets out the cold chisel and chips holds. Or he drills pockets for his fingers. Or he glues rocks onto a blank face to create holds. His argument is always that if you want to do the harder climb, you can reach past his artificial holds. If he enlarges a shallow two-finger pocket into a four-finger crimp, he says you can always use two fingers if that's how you want to make your life difficult for yourself.
> 
> In his mind he has not removed any of the challenges the first ascentionists faced, he has merely made the climb appealing for a wider variety of people, or perhaps made it useful for doing fast laps as well as challenging ascents.


Great analogy.



anthony.delorenzo said:


> Right, and NONE of you were ever beginners to the sport. You got your first mountain bike and could ride everything, immediately. You instantly knew all these 'rules' about how to ride a trail.
> 
> Gimme a break. People are out there having fun on bikes. I'm having fun building trails for those people. That's what it's all about, not some weird little world where someone riding around your AWESOME STUNTZ is a crime against all that is holy.


It may not be a crime against all that is holy, but as users of public lands, we should take our actions into consideration. The motors are not the only ones under scrutiny to be removed from public lands. Education and outreach to our fellow riders is key. If you see someone creating a bypass, encourage them to hike-a-bike over the obstacle or look for other trails while they hone their skills. Pretty sure very few, if any of us, are out to prove everything on that ONE ride. Building skills takes time, and its best to encourage that.



The Prodigal Son said:


> Going off trail and mowing down vegetation is part of our sport. We do it when we ride around winter blow-downs. We do it when we ride around badly eroded sections of trail, caused by heavy seasonal rain storms. We do it when there is a 50 foot section of mud. We do it when passing other trail users. Nature is no as delicate as you seem to believe. The majority of trail work I do on system trails is cutting brush that continues encroaching on the trail. It is a never-ending process. Those people going around features and creating a new line are merely doing what the original trail builder failed to do, and should have done. I use to invite lovers of technical trails to come and build a tech braid on the trail I was working on. They love to build new braids leading off the trail to a jump or boulder roll-over, or log ride. If that is what they need to find enjoyment while riding, so be it. If you are going to be bothered by such things, you will be spending a lot of time being bothered by people you call cheaters, whether they are building easy lines or more difficult lines.


I am going to politely disagree with you. Please forgive my "soap box", but i'll address each of your comments. Encouraging off-trail and "mowing down vegetation" gives MTB a black eye when it comes to other users. Winter blow-downs should be hiked OVER or cut instead of ridden around. Eroded parts of trails need maintained, not ridden around. Ride through the mud, not around because it widens the trail, eventually leading to more mud and erosion issues. Passing other people should wait until a suitable area is found. As I said earlier, nature is resilient. She repairs herself when given the chance. But creating numerous bypasses and braids and continually trampling the vegetation takes some of the upper hand against that ability, and ultimately those "trail issues" will be used by planners to restrict access. Fact is mountain bikes will probably be restricted just like the motors in the not-to-distant future. That is, on designated routes only, and the subjectively-minor instances you mentioned above will not be tolerated by MTB then as they are not tolerated by motors now.

I appreciate your trail-building efforts, and the efforts to include the technical features. But there must be a balance.

So yeah... I guess that qualifies as diving in with both feet on MTBR?


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

*can you be sincere and also sincerely wrong?*



Tread Lightly! said:


> First, I suppose I should say hello... For those of you who are not familiar with Tread Lightly!, we work to promote responsible use of public lands to protect access and resources. This crosses the lines of motorized, mechanized, equestrian, water sports, etc etc... So, naturally this thread topic is of great interest to us.
> 
> *You are describing a political organization. What do we all know to be true of politicians? You cannot trust them and they serve special interests or whoever wines and dines them.
> 
> ...


*My last suggestion is for you to read zachi comments. He's a guy that I met many years ago in Downieville. He is taking care of business and teaching others how to join in and create more trails for all of us to ride. I love his approach. I just don't have respect for pencil pushers who try to teach me something they themselves know nothing about, yet dogmatically describe what bikers should and shouldn't be doing.

That's the real beauty of not being a politician. I don't need to sugar coat my insults like you do.*


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

The Prodigal Son said:


> *My last suggestion is for you to read zachi comments. He's a guy that I met many years ago in Downieville. He is taking care of business and teaching others how to join in and create more trails for all of us to ride. I love his approach. I just don't have respect for pencil pushers who try to teach me something they themselves know nothing about, yet dogmatically describe what bikers should and shouldn't be doing.
> 
> That's the real beauty of not being a politician. I don't need to sugar coat my insults like you do.*


 I have 20+ years as a professional and volunteer trail builder/maintainer, and a founder of an MTB advocacy non profit that has been very effective at creating new trails, maintaining existing trails, and promoting stewardship. All I can say is you and the chip on your shoulder don't speak for me or too many others that I can think of.

Tread lightly is a good organization for what they do, which is a widely focused organization that encourages good stewardship practices of all people who recreate in the outdoors. There is a place for groups like them and a place for more narrowly focused groups. I'm pretty sure there isn't a place for attitudes like yours in public discourse though

You on the other hand come across like you don't give a s**t about much more than what impact whatever is in front of your wheels will have on you as you run it over. Get over yourself


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

zrm said:


> I have 20+ years as a professional and volunteer trail builder/maintainer, and a founder of an MTB advocacy non profit that has been very effective at creating new trails, maintaining existing trails, and promoting stewardship. All I can say is you and the chip on your shoulder don't speak for me or too many others that I can think of.
> 
> Tread lightly is a good organization for what they do, which is a widely focused organization that encourages good stewardship practices of all people who recreate in the outdoors. There is a place for groups like them and a place for more narrowly focused groups. I'm pretty sure there isn't a place for attitudes like yours in public discourse though
> 
> You on the other hand come across like you don't give a s**t about much more than what impact whatever is in front of your wheels will have on you as you run it over. Get over yourself


I think you may be over-offended by TPS's statements. Sounds like making good trail as well as continuing to provide time and effort to maintain it is an ambition you both (we all I hope) share.

If 1000 huge trees come down in a major storm and they are too large to climb over with or without bike, then bypasses will be made until they are cleared and the original trail re-established. That may be an extreme example, but ride-arounds are inevitable as trails age and erode and more importantly with the evolution of MTB. Something being missed here is that ride-arounds also include steep side trails and added expert features that become "mainstream" over the years. The standard of bikes and those riding them is not what it was 20 years ago and I guess not what it will be in 20 more and alternate lines can be easier, harder, or just plain different. Having someone modify a trail that had a lot of thought and effort put in is disappointing, but there may be a message in it.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

zrm said:


> I have 20+ years as a professional and volunteer trail builder/maintainer, and a founder of an MTB advocacy non profit that has been very effective at creating new trails, maintaining existing trails, and promoting stewardship. All I can say is you and the chip on your shoulder don't speak for me or too many others that I can think of.
> 
> Tread lightly is a good organization for what they do, which is a widely focused organization that encourages good stewardship practices of all people who recreate in the outdoors. There is a place for groups like them and a place for more narrowly focused groups. I'm pretty sure there isn't a place for attitudes like yours in public discourse though
> 
> You on the other hand come across like you don't give a s**t about much more than what impact whatever is in front of your wheels will have on you as you run it over. Get over yourself


Wrong, I also found the post slimy and it is full of meaningless doublespeak.

Frankly, TPS is just responding to this group's passive-aggressive finger waving. What exactly was their point after all that wind - mountain bikers braid around obstacles and trim vegetation too aggressively. Great, but who the hell are these people do they trim the trails and fix any muddy sections? I really doubt it. If they did they'd know that trimming the trail every week like its your garden is pretty time consuming and filling in every muddy section is a waste of time when a small re-route on higher ground would allow natural regeneration.


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

zrm said:


> I have 20+ years as a professional and volunteer trail builder/maintainer, and a founder of an MTB advocacy non profit that has been very effective at creating new trails, maintaining existing trails, and promoting stewardship. All I can say is you and the chip on your shoulder don't speak for me or too many others that I can think of.
> 
> Tread lightly is a good organization for what they do, which is a widely focused organization that encourages good stewardship practices of all people who recreate in the outdoors. There is a place for groups like them and a place for more narrowly focused groups. I'm pretty sure there isn't a place for attitudes like yours in public discourse though
> 
> You on the other hand come across like you don't give a s**t about much more than what impact whatever is in front of your wheels will have on you as you run it over. Get over yourself


I liked the line about attitudes in public discourse.

Who did you vote for in the last election? A left-wing radical who's attitude was that Republicans were not invited to private meetings and they could sit on the back of the bus, or a right-wing Republican who waited for liberals to screw up and lose countless seats in government during last years mid-terms, so they could take over?

Either way, the people who get elected are partisans who have ideological differences they defend at all cost. They scream and shout and make up all sorts of half-truths to defend their positions.

Do their attitudes belong in public discourse? Then why do you keep voting them into office?

I don't attend public forums. I don't meet with land managers. I don't meet with other user groups to hear their point of view. I'm well past caring. If you spend 90% of your time doing something other than swinging a tool, as part of your advocacy for mountain biking, you are wasting 90% of your time. Cleaning out drains, cutting brush, clearing loose rocks, building and restoring trails, is what deserves the highest priority. Maybe, after the trails are under a foot of snow, there is time to go to meetings.

The Sierra Club once declared mountain bikers their enemy, just like motorized trail users. Once the number of mountain bikers grew larger than most other user groups, they changed the wording in their charter to distinguish us from motorized users, and replaced the old geezer in charge of the Sierra Club with a young guy. It was all window dressing. They still hated us and they still lobbied hard to restrict our access. They were just doing that politicians do, try to appear moderate, despite being radical in their actions. Meanwhile, there were advocacy groups suggesting mountain bikers should join the Sierra Club.

Tread Lightly stepped into a discussion with trail builders with no credentials other than he joined an organization that claims high-minded goals. He's in way over his head, here.And me, I am aware of how I come across on public forums. I don't claim or try to be people friendly. I don't see the upside. I just know you need people like me out there, whether you know it or not. And it doesn't concern me in the least if you can or cannot handle this truth.


----------



## singlesprocket (Jun 9, 2004)

it is prudent to give a ride feature a bypass on a trial in a public space (i.e. conservation areas/city lands). you can't filter who goes on the trail (hikers, dog walkers, etc). you can filter who goes off an advance feature. your bypasses have to be built in such a way that flow is maintained and a degree of progression. the other option is to build into the feature a high degree of progression so that a new rider can roll over or an advance rider can gap it.

right now around my neck of the woods there are two schools of thinking. old school is the first where the trails look like squirrel laid out the trail with sharp 90's on the top and bottom of fail line hills, every little log placed over the trail, very little benching, adversion for anything that cause the wheels to leave the ground and a fetish to run up as many hills as possible. not sustainble, nor progressive.

the second school try to exploit the contors as much as possible, flow is everything, proper berms, progressive features and sustainability.


----------



## Tread Lightly! (Oct 19, 2011)

Wow. Well, I am not going to get into a pissing match with this, but I will say that my intent was to shed some light on what ethics are accepted by all the federal land managers as well as much of the outdoor industry concerning responsible use on public lands. Nothing more.

I applaud your efforts on trail building, and as for the details concerning what we consider to be "part of the sport", we'll just have to agree to disagree.



The Prodigal Son said:


> Tread Lightly stepped into a discussion with trail builders with no credentials other than he joined an organization that claims high-minded goals. He's in way over his head, here.And me, I am aware of how I come across on public forums. I don't claim or try to be people friendly. I don't see the upside. I just know you need people like me out there, whether you know it or not. And it doesn't concern me in the least if you can or cannot handle this truth.


Credentials... Just so you don't assume that i'm a "pencil pusher" who is "over his head".

I used to race XC and Dual-Slalom in CO. I worked for a local bike shop for a number of years. I have a degree in Natural Resource Management. I have handled all types of trail tools, built trail, restored trail, cut down timber, etc etc. I have heard every imaginable argument for and against the ethics I promote from many different groups. I continue to stand by those ethics as an avid hiker, jeeper, dirt biker, mountain biker, climber, rafter, camper, and all around outdoors enthusiast... Trying to keep our right to access public lands available while promoting responsible use.

Also, for anyone who is interested since the question of "what do we do" came up... We offer stewardship grants (yup... $$$$) to member clubs and individuals who are wanting to fund their trail work days. We also have Restoration for Recreation initiatives that work to cooperatively repair damaged areas to maintain a quality recreation experience. The next Stewardship Grant cycle closes later next month.

And so the mask comes off... My name is Justin. Feel free to contact me at any point with questions, concerns, comments, gripes, announcements on trail building/work parties (if you want volunteers), or anything else I can try to do to help.

justin (at) treadlightly.org

Cheers.


----------



## ando_assi (Jan 22, 2008)

an interesting read...
At our location, we have just built an AM track, and built 'b lines' on all features, but they are the long way around.
What really annoys me is that most of the 'informal' blines allways appear after rain where there is a little puddle, instead of draining it, riders just straight line the corner!!! (really frustrating!)

If you are not engaging with the group that is 'in charge/ in contact with the landmanager' no matter how good the work you do, you are not doing anyone any favors. Contact the land manager formalise what you are doing, these days most landmanagers know all the benifits and are usually really great about developing a relationship with passionate users (It saves them a TON of money in the long run). If not aleast get a dialogue started, they know what you are doing.
Unite as a user group(take personality out of it), people around here think i am all about DH, but when they meet me they realise i am just trying to get more people riding there bikes in a sustainable environment.

Yes the Broken Windows theory definately applies, and you can really see it when you design 'b lines' that are the long way around....


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

The Prodigal Son said:


> I liked the line about attitudes in public discourse.
> 
> Who did you vote for in the last election? A left-wing radical who's attitude was that Republicans were not invited to private meetings and they could sit on the back of the bus, or a right-wing Republican who waited for liberals to screw up and lose countless seats in government during last years mid-terms, so they could take over?
> 
> ...


I have no idea what your turn into who someone votes for has to do with the discussion.

I put in 10 days with a tool of one sort or another in my hand this season. Over the last 20 years there have been years when I had a tool in my hand 5 days a week. Other years I didn't volunteer nearly as much as I should have. On average though, I'd say I've done more than my share.

You say you're beyond caring about working with others, going through official channels, etc. As it relates to trail building I assume this means you just go out in the woods and do whatever you want. I'll guess you also take the same attitude with you when you're on your bike. (I apologize if I'm wrong about that, but the two tend to go together). Well, you're the only one in charge of your actions so you'll do what you do but I hope you understand how little you do for the long term viability of the sport. There's more to think about than short term gratification.

My comments about T'L is simply a defense of an organization that encourages stewardship by all users. Regardless of whether I agree with everything they do or how they do it, overall, I appreciate their efforts.

Your reply seems to have more to do with "don't tell me what to do, I do whatever I want."


----------



## skankingbiker (Jan 15, 2010)

People make unauthorizd ride-arounds because there is a demand for them. You can either respond by having an official one, or a "black market" of ride-arounds will appear.----No different than drug policy. 
IMHO, if riders are making unauthorized ride-arounds, then the trail manager should create a "proper" ride around if it is feasible. If all you do is close it, someone to just make another one. Also, from a risk assessment standpoint, you have to ask yourself, would you rather have someone making 3 feet of a rogue ride-around, or have a bunch of people get hurt on something they can't do? None of this is to suggest that I support people who make "rogue" ride-arounds. I am simply stating a fact, if there is a desire for a ride around, someone will ultimately create it.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

robbiexor said:


> Solution, control the ride-around yourself, and build it in. I don't understand the idea of forcing people to go over objects so it makes them a better rider. Let them choose when to go over them.
> Green Trails: little to no obstacles, relatively easy if present
> Blue Trails: obstacles on optional line, go out of your way to ride them
> Black Trails: obstacles on main line, go out of your way to ride around


 *Well said, I will add, people wanna have fun mt biking, and they just wanna ride, most don't even know what they passed over they just ride!

So, we build 2 or 3 option lines at areas where there is a highlight(log over, rock garden, switchback), don't get me wrong our trails are for the 70 percent of riders meaning the 15 percent at the entry level can ride, then have the opportunity to learn to ride the next level and the 15 percent at the top level know how to find the optional lines for tougher stuff that most riders never see till later in their riding career. This way the body of riders are covered.

Sometimes I build the main trail as a longer run and the stunt section shorter thus making beginners go around a further distance and making them think they might try to learn the stunt as to get the shorter prize!

If you try to force someone to hit an object they might get hurt and guess what they aren't coming back or telling their friends about going to ride that place!

It always works for us to cure a run around by adding a few well placed rocks or parallel log, or drop a log in with an angle cut so as not to snag a rear derailleur or pedal, thus stopping running around. It it's a puddle we rock armor the middle and leave the sides to collect the water. Everyone then rides the center.*

*Our easier trails have no log overs or long rock gardens, and are wider to allow more steering as beginners have to do to stay upright whereas our XXX are true single track and not tuned as much by removing stuff, not to say we don't add flow to make it fun and allow more speed.

Trails are like ordering a cake you have to get the one for the right occation!
*


----------



## The Prodigal Son (Apr 22, 2008)

zrm said:


> I have no idea what your turn into who someone votes for has to do with the discussion.
> 
> I put in 10 days with a tool of one sort or another in my hand this season. Over the last 20 years there have been years when I had a tool in my hand 5 days a week. Other years I didn't volunteer nearly as much as I should have. On average though, I'd say I've done more than my share.
> 
> ...


The voting observation was simple. We tend to elect extroverts because we believe that all that screaming and shouting ultimately gets things done.

You are definitely more than the average volunteer. While I have become essentially a volunteer these days, previously I trained hundreds to do trail work. I spent over 4000 hours swinging tools, designing trails, restoring, realigning, and even closing trails. I've worked for the Forest Service and for non-profits doing work for the Forest Service.

Your defense of TL is what most reasonable people would do or say. They assume TL is doing the right thing, and what is best for all. In my experience, you don't do mountain bikers and good at all by advocating for ATV's. It doesn't work that way. The Forest Service is often handcuffed by having to publicly say they support all user groups equally. Mountain bikers must understand we are the major user group these days and we do most of the volunteer work on trails. We are in a position to dictate to land managers which other groups are not suited to share the trails with us, for safety reasons or for reasons that some groups do more damage to the trails than can be kept up with. This means motorized users.

When I say I'm beyond caring, I mean to say that many people are spinning their wheels, getting nothing done. They have been attending meetings for years, meeting loud homeowners who think a new trail means there home will get burglarized, or some other nonsense. The land managers don't like to proceed until there is a consensus. They don't want lawyers involved. They rarely make bold moves.

There has to be a point when mountain bikers look outside of conventional wisdom. We've discussed this many times here before. In some places there are ways to get new trails that have been highly effective. What happens is this: A couple of motorcycles cut in a new trail. Some mountain bikers discover the new trail and ride it. After a few months, others find the trail and both ride it and make some improvements. Then, the FS hears about it and tells people it is a social trail or wildcat trail and they probably should not ride it. Too late, it is being enjoyed by too many riders and what's more, it serves a purpose. It goes where people have wanted to go for some time and were patiently waiting for the land manager to build in that spot. So maybe the land manager sends a couple people out to cover that trail. 24 hours later it is uncovered. They do this one or two more times and then throw up their hands. A year or two later, the Forest Service adopts the new trail into the system and it is now an official trail. This has happened over a dozen times here and it happens all over the country. The beauty is that if that trail was poorly laid out to begin with, it would have been abandoned right away. It happens a lot, even with trails designed by the land managers. Riders know what they want.

I fought against this approach for almost ten years. Finally, I came to the conclusion that people working in government agencies, managing our public lands, had much less interest or passion for trails than any of us. They prefer to waste ten years figuring out what they should do. It's less work for them. They'd prefer to charge a fee for anyone to use their public lands. Most (government) trail crews around here, bail out on their jobs during peak season, to go fight a fire somewhere else. They get paid more and don't like doing trail work all that much anyway. I just got tired of supporting the least passionate people and going out and closing great new trails made by the most passionate group. Most of those wildcat trails were actually quite sustainable and well thought out. Finally, I went to the dark side and joined the occupy our forest protesters. Sure enough, the spineless land managers follow the same M.O. as always. They complain about these youngsters, send a crew out to remove or cover there work, but when it continues to happen, they cave in and adopt the trail, rather than make a big deal about it and threaten tickets and fines, which is mostly s bluff since they don't have the manpower to patrol the woods. So what do we have now, we have one of the best network of trails in the southwest. Flagstaff and Sedona have some of the best trails in the U.S. and most of those trails were user created. Say what you will about the methods, the results show that, as in politics, the government is not the solution, they are most often the problem that prevents a solution.

And as my 8th grade home-ec teacher once said; "Put that in your pipe and smoke it".


----------



## Yukon Alvin (Dec 30, 2010)

I think a lot of people need to go for a good long bike ride!


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Yukon Alvin said:


> I think a lot of people need to go for a good long bike ride!


Nope.










This, far more full body workout!


----------



## Crash&bern (Aug 23, 2011)

Maybe one solution would be to cut down all trees close to the trails,bubble wrap all rocks. Straighten all the tight turns. Smooth all the rough spots on the trail or better yet, pave them ! Build bridges over puddles. 
Or maybe leave the trails as you find them , & just learn to ride them


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

Crash&bern said:


> Maybe one solution would be to cut down all trees close to the trails,bubble wrap all rocks. Straighten all the tight turns. Smooth all the rough spots on the trail or better yet, pave them ! Build bridges over puddles.
> Or maybe leave the trails as you find them , & just learn to ride them


You mean like a wild trail or something? The thread already concluded that nature is too fragile to handle men on bicycles. Somebody wants, er needs to be in CHARGE.

One advocacy group to rule them all, one advocacy group to find them, one advocacy group to bring them all and in the darkness bind them!


----------



## Crash&bern (Aug 23, 2011)

Naaw ,too much politics where common sense should be enough.


----------



## singlesprocket (Jun 9, 2004)

electrik said:


> You mean like a wild trail or something? The thread already concluded that nature is too fragile to handle men on bicycles. Somebody wants, er needs to be in CHARGE.
> 
> One advocacy group to rule them all, one advocacy group to find them, one advocacy group to bring them all and in the darkness bind them!


lol how true. also to black list anyone who does not drink the koolaid...


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

singlesprocket said:


> lol how true. also to black list anyone who does not drink the koolaid...


There is for sure some koolaid being served. It seems to be part and parcel when organizing large groups of people. It wouldn't be so bad, but sometimes the organizers hit their own koolaid too hard and principles get confused.



Crash&bern said:


> Naaw ,too much politics where common sense should be enough.


Common sense ain't common. If it were we'd have a network of trails that wouldn't need a large governing body. In fact some organizations until perhaps recent past had a nasty habit to spread lies and suppress common sense in an attempt to get cyclist banned. If the people who were members of local hiking group used common sense or even just looked at what is really happening instead of look at the wool over their eyes they'd see mountain bikers aren't the Great Satan. We've been riding game trails, hiking trails and our own trails for quite a while. Chances of hiking groups admitting their studies and policies were wrong are fairly low, that is until they want something from us. However if we were to bail them out, we'd be holding a cold snake to our breast and we know how that story ends. :skep:


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

You are talking about trail creep I take it.

Hard thing to fight against. Either the roots need to be cut out (yuck!!!) or you line the side of the trail with logs to hem riders in. Perhaps even put a note at the start of the trail asking riders to say on it.


----------



## Tread Lightly! (Oct 19, 2011)

Crash&bern said:


> Naaw ,too much politics where common sense should be enough.


I've always held the opinion that if more people followed common sense, organizations such as ours wouldn't exist... We also wouldn't have the mass-restrictions that have been promoted and enacted on public lands (and freedoms in general)... We'd be able to all just go for a long ride without worry.

But alas, the law of numbers means that even with more well-meaning people out there, there are also larger numbers of those who may not see why its important to be a good steward of public lands.

Which is why I appreciate everyone doing their part to help us maintain our access on public lands through responsible use and stewardship. :thumbsup:


----------

