# climbing right of way



## radiocraig (May 28, 2010)

Not sure if this goes here....

I have always been a courteous rider, even when climbing I have almost always moved over and given those going downhill the right of way, I know how much fun it is.


This past weekend I drove to the trailhead and I parked in the lot. There was a group of downhill guys getting ready to shuttle to the top, as I passed them to start up the trail I get the dirtiest look from one of them, like "what are YOU doing on OUR hill. (I live within the national forest that the trail is in and I often ride to the trail head from my house, its 3 miles and I ride this trail more than once a week).

I head up the trail and see them heading down, I pull over to not slow them down. (I figure be nice and they will be)

On their second run the trail was wide and I moved over and continue to climb, all but one leave me plenty of room but one of them moves in my direction and comes within inches of me(he was moving very fast). 

As I reach the parking lot, the same person that was staring me down says sarcastically something along the lines of, “ wee!! You rock..” I am a short tempered person (a lit fuse), it took everything I had not to confront him and possible get into a fight, I don’t care if he had friends there, I have no control once a fist goes flying, it will end with someone in a bloody mess, even if it is me.

So…..

I can deal with words, but if you are going to try to get as close as you can and try to scare me…I get “Hulk” pissed.

No more letting anyone on a bike have the right of way when I am climbing, you’ll have to run into me to get past. All because one or more *******s decided to be dicks, even when I was being nice.


That is all, thank you for letting me vent.


----------



## Maxwe11 (Mar 15, 2010)

Please don't start acting like a dick because there are dicks out there. If everyone thought that way, eventually we'd all be dicks.

Sorry about your experience.


----------



## radiocraig (May 28, 2010)

If i have the right of way, i am not being a dick


----------



## tjchad (Aug 15, 2009)

I always thought the climber had the right of way. It's a hell of a lot harder to regain momentum when climbing than when descending.

I do agree with Max though- don't let dicks ruin your day. Karma will get them eventually.


----------



## radiocraig (May 28, 2010)

i do have the right of way, i was being kind, and now i will stop


----------



## 2ridealot (Jun 15, 2004)

There will always be a certain percentage...whether its in the grocery store, on the internet or trail!
I hear you though, it would have pissed me off too.


----------



## Maxwe11 (Mar 15, 2010)

radiocraig said:


> If i have the right of way, i am not being a dick


I guess I meant, in general. I guess you wouldn't be a dick in this instance.

My point is, you shouldn't let the actions of some dick dictate your future actions toward people who might not be dicks. From the sound of it, you seem like a good guy. Your conscience will make you regret acting like a dick.


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

when you have to vent you gotta vent, radiocraig. be nice but then when its time to not be nice don't be nice.


----------



## Dougie (Aug 29, 2004)

Right of way or not right of way, it's not worth getting into a fight about it man. We're all just out riding bikes. Be the bigger person and just let it go.

If it bothers you that much, you could always say something to the guy that got close, but not in a violent or engaging way. Something along the lines of "Hey man, I'm not trying to start anything, but you got a little close while you were passing me and I'm just trying to look out and keep everyone safe so we can all enjoy the ride".


----------



## manabiker (Jul 18, 2010)

How about a sign where everyone can read it,, something like,

"Reminder, (or Remember) Uphill Traffic Has the Right of Way, Thank You"


----------



## speedmetal (Feb 28, 2007)

manabiker said:


> How about a sign where everyone can read it,, something like,
> 
> "Reminder, (or Remember) Uphill Traffic Has the Right of Way, Thank You"


Or, you could get a big sign made with IMBA's rules of the trail.:thumbsup:


----------



## dkbikes4life (Nov 20, 2010)

I understand where your coming from. At the trails I ride at, its all 2 way single track through the woods, so there isnt always an easy way for people to pass going opposite ways. I usually will be the one to dismount and get over to let the other people by. 9 out of 10 times people out there on Wal-Mart bikes who have no clue what they are doing will all say thank you to me for moving over. 9 out 10 times groups that are all where cycling clothes with expensive bikes dont even acknowledge the fact that I'm there much less the fact that I just unclipped and moved for them. I'll usually yell at them "Your welcome!" but none of them respond. They dont even slow down when they are coming up on me. Its like they already expect you to move for them. I'm really considering having their same attitude one day and just let the wreck happen.


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

People bring their life shortcomings onto the trail and act like dicks. Shortcomings and "dicks" in the same sentence was on purspose, BTW. 

I would've said something after he said "Wee! You Rock." like "No, you more than me. Just look at you..."

The guys who have nothing but nice things to say to others on the trail are generally accomplished in life, IMO, and have fulfilling lives that neuter the hostile part of their nature. They burn all their calories out in the world, so when it comes to a passion sport, there's absolutely no need to be a dick. I feel this way about people who act like dicks on this forum, too.

Just realize that the people who act this way are sorry low-life's with nothing else going on. Their lives are so unfulfilled, they need to get it out somehow.

I let all this stuff pass, personally. I have other areas of focus and energy I need to turn my attention to.


----------



## Idriver (Nov 14, 2007)

I was always under the impression that people going up had the right of way and have always yeilded to them! I have never experienced anything like what you described but I agree with Dion find other places that need that energy! You are not going to get anything accomplished by getting all worked up and you are only setting yourself up for future confrontations!


----------



## dust3313 (Sep 15, 2010)

I am not a confrontational person at all! I do whatever is possible to avoid confrontation but I know what you are talking about. The guys that go out there and act like they own the trails are, IME, pretty slow and not really all that good of riders. So thats what I think about when someone acts like a dick, "you might think you are really cool and fast but I bet I could drop you on my hardtail." The really fast guys are usually super nice.


----------



## Slowup (Dec 16, 2009)

You're well within your rights to confront the knob(s) as essentially he, and possibly all of them if no-one in the group said anything to shut the speaker up, are being bullies.

What happens next time when these same yahoos decide to pick on or bother say a female or family group??


----------



## radiocraig (May 28, 2010)

dust3313 said:


> So thats what I think about when someone acts like a dick, "you might think you are really cool and fast but I bet I could drop you on my hardtail." The really fast guys are usually super nice.


maybe that was the problem, i was on a XC hardtail in lycra, clip-less pedals and a road helmet and they were on FS downhill bikes sporting downhill gear, full face helmets and little bitty wieners.


----------



## RogerDoger (Sep 20, 2008)

radiocraig said:


> If i have the right of way, i am not being a dick


There is no "right of way" law or rule. There is common courtesy, but it can go either way on this issue.


----------



## Idriver (Nov 14, 2007)

It is one thing to confront someone in an intellegent calm manner, but when you are talking about someone who is a self proclaimed hothead all that is going to be accomplished is argueing and fighting with solution! He would be better served to learn brush it off and enjoy the rest of his ride!

If he were not such a hothead than yes I would agree that approaching the group would be a good idea! In any case there are always those people in any sport that have no respect for others and think if you are in front of them than you are in their way! Just because he says something to the one or group it is not going to prevent this behavior in the future (this time was probably not the first time it has happened). 

Besides one person taking a stand is not going to prevent this in the future nor should one advocate themselves as the trailhead police!


----------



## charging_rhinos (Jul 29, 2008)

Good on you for controlling yourself. Sounds like I'm a lot like you. When someone pisses me off to the point that I'll confront them, they're going to feel it (usually in the face and rib regions). It's hard for me to keep a cool head when people are being jerks. A few months ago, I was riding with my brother, when a group of prancing nancies in front of us had fanned out across a nice wide downhill trail, all listening to their iPods. We slowed and gave them a bit of cushion, waiting to be able to pass, but that moment never came. After about a minute of waiting, we started out with the usual, not-too-loud, 'hey, can we pass you guys?' comment. They didn't hear. We repeated louder. No response. My brother almost-yells it to them. They get startled, swerve all around, pull over and remove the Jerry Garcia from their ears. As we pass them, they begin chewing us out for yelling. Cussing us out and everything. What?! I wanted to pull over and punch me some nancy, but I kept riding past them. SO hard not to get angry when people wrong you twice. But anyway, I'm glad you didn't get physical with those jerks. Like was said earlier, what goes around will eventually come around. And if you're lucky, you'll be there to see it all go down without having to participate.


----------



## gregnash (Jul 17, 2010)

RogerDoger said:


> There is no "right of way" law or rule. There is common courtesy, but it can go either way on this issue.


 :nono:

Actually there is.. read rule #4 Yield Appropriately
http://www.imba.com/about/rules-trail


----------



## pointerDixie214 (Feb 10, 2009)

Dion said:


> People bring their life shortcomings onto the trail and act like dicks. Shortcomings and "dicks" in the same sentence was on purspose, BTW.
> 
> I would've said something after he said "Wee! You Rock." like "No, you more than me. Just look at you..."
> 
> ...


Great post and so true!


----------



## rzims (Sep 7, 2005)

I think it's good you didn't lose your temper....not worth it in the long run....
One other possible scenario. We ride every Thurs night and there was a new kid (late teens)that joined us. His parents drove him to the trailhead... Bombing downhills with riders coming up, rode right by horseback riders without moving over or stopping, whizzed by hikers...
Turns out he had no idea he was being a d-bag....after the second time he showed up and did this we pulled him aside and talked to him.....he looked at us like "what? they have rules for this stuff?" Ever since then he's been a model citizen....so, my point is that sometimes a conversation (calmly) can go a long way towards educating people as to proper behavior.

Besides punching him out would only get you arrested....(or so I've heard)


----------



## forkboy (Apr 20, 2004)

radiocraig said:


> As I reach the parking lot, the same person that was staring me down says sarcastically something along the lines of, " wee!! You rock.."


Have you entertained the notion that they could have been thanking you for moving aside for them, and that your crappy attitude distorted your perception of events?

From your comments here, you don't seem to have any moral high ground to preach from.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

I'm of two minds on this issue. The first is my High and Wise mind, which insists I be nice, and resist anger and violence when dealing with the occasional dick. The other mind is my LizardBrain-Chuck-You-Farley mind which likes to think about punching said dicks. Fortunately, most folks are pretty ok, with only the occasional jerk, and the times I've confronted them it usually works out ok if I don't come on strong, just straight and honest. Truth be told, I also don't much care for actual fighting, and have learned that it's possible to make my point when necessary in a firm but non-hostile way.


----------



## Fat Bob (Mar 5, 2004)

I wish I could say I was perfect and reacted correctly to every situation, but that's not the case. 

In your situation, I think you did the smart thing by letting it go regardless of how bad you wanted to pound on him. 

Next time, rather than stare each other down, engage them before you start off on your ride. Ask them questions about their bikes.... they're probably a lot more like you than you think (after all we're all on bikes). Then wish them a great ride. I've found that when I'm a little more outgoing with user groups that aren't like me, it goes a long way. As others have mentioned, most folks aren't even aware of the rules of the trail. 

Being the fat azz I am, there's usually a cooler with beer in my car... a cold one @ the end of a ride (gravity fed, or xc) is usually a universal olive branch.


----------



## thorkild (Jul 22, 2008)

gregnash said:


> :nono:
> 
> Actually there is.. read rule #4 Yield Appropriately
> http://www.imba.com/about/rules-trail


Actually you are both right. I agree with you that the "general rule" is that uphill has the right-of-way, and some places even have this set as an actual rule. However, the IMBA rules have no more authority for biking than the Sierra Club's rules have authority for hiking. Rules are set by landowners--some of which follow the IMBA rules. Even the IMBA rules specifically point out "Keep in mind that conventions for yielding and passing may vary in different locations, or with traffic conditions."

Personally, I yield both ways. I yeild to the uphill rider because that seems to be the norm, even though I hate it. I yield to the downhill rider because I don't like the uphill yeild rule and would rather let someone have a fun descent than get excited about cleaning an uphill.


----------



## arkon11 (Jul 26, 2009)

I agree with Fat Bob, a cold brew usually will help ease the tension and you might even come out of it with a new set of riding buddies. 

Anyhow.... that IMBA rule that downhill traffic should yield to uphill traffic is ridiculous. It's much easier for someone going uphill to dismount and jump off to the side than someone flying down a hill. Plus no one likes going uphill, so why not yield to those going downhill so they can enjoy the run.


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

Last week I went to tackle one of the more difficult climbs in the SF Bay Area called Hicks Rd. I did it on a commuter style MTB with Schwalbe Big Apples, super slow and comfy for road riding. I just built this bike and wanted to throw a tough climb at it.

I was getting dropped by paper thin waif roadies throughout the ride, but I was on a bike that was really not road worthy to begin with. When I got to the top, I saw a guy I've met on the trail and we started chatting. One of the roadies rode by and dickfully says, "Race you to the top..."

The guy I was talking to says "You win."

WTF that was all about, I don't know. But it made me laugh out loud and hopefully embarrassed the dude.


----------



## Kaizer (Jul 19, 2010)

I yield both ways. Coz everybody's riding faster than me and they look like they're into serious training.

I just ride for fun and to collect positive vibes to feel good. A "thank you" is a positive vibe. I also try to make sure I greet everybody I see on the trail, be it hikers or bikers.


----------



## skrap1r0n (Oct 15, 2010)

If you get wound up to the point where you are wanting to knock some heads together, it may be time to re-evaluate a few things. Getting pissed is ok and perfectly normal, its what you do when you get pissed that can be problematic.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

It's common knowledge and posted at the trail heads around here to yield to the ascending rider yet a lot of obviously experienced riders who know the drill prefer to play chicken with the uphill rider as 95% of them will bail. Me , I'll play chicken and they hit the bushes because I look em right in the eye and take the right of way. I call l bullxyzx on that nonsense.


----------



## N10S (Sep 27, 2004)

I agree that the IMBA rules, although a great reference, don't matter to a lot of self-absorbed riders. Its a "me-first" society and it gets played-out in a lot of different ways including on the trail. The best that you can hope for is that someone will use common sense and apply what they know about riding to yield properly. I will usually always yield to an uphill rider unless they beat me to it and wave me through. From the uphill riders perspective, especially if its a gnarly trail, it sucks to stop momentum. On the other hand though, gravity is a force to be reckoned with too, and if I see someone rolling down through some technical trail section at speed, especially if its rutted-out and narrow, I will usually give that rider berth even if I am the uphill rider. Self preservation I suppose.  

I personally think there is a bigger issue at play than simple yield rules though. Its a class kind of thing. A lot of skilled riders feel they are in an elite class where they "rule". Courtesy and patience is a fleeting thing when you and your buddies are riding hot laps trying to get past the morons tying up the trails. Pack mentality can be an influence in helping magnify the bad behavior. Its never good to lose your temper ( pot, meet kettel  ), but in some cases it is important to be able to communicate and engage in constructive discussion and step outside of your own shoes and consider the other perspective as well. Just letting it go almost guarantees the problem will continue another day. Use your head though, because even the most civil attempt to discuss matters can turn sour when you are dealing with a large group of guys (or gals).


----------



## MrRogers1935 (Jul 27, 2010)

..........


----------



## gregnash (Jul 17, 2010)

In this particular situation I think it was more that the "downhillers" were being nothing more than ******bags and decided to give the "mountain biker" a hard time. I am with most of the people here that if I am the downhiller it is much easier for me to dismount and get out of the way than trouble the climber to lose momentum and have a harder time getting his momentum back up again. Another thing is that on singletrack it is much easier to find a re-start place for those going downhill, but much MUCH harder for the person going up hill to find a good section to start in and get moving. For this reason alone I yield to the climber. 

I am not a confrontational person, I actually avoid confrontation as much as possible. But I would have made an exception with this ******bags move and given him something to think about the next time he was on his "super cool downhill run, brah." This "kid" seems like all the other little t#$!s in the area around here. Actually, those same [email protected]!%s are the same ones that we caught destroying a local trail by digging 3ft long by 2 foot wide by 18" deep holes in the most used sections of the trails (right in good blinds spots too.) You better believe that they are doing a good amount of public service because of the potential injuries they could have caused. Oh, and the reason they did this.... because one of the local bike shop owners was riding and got practically run over by a group of them and tracked them back down the hill and ripped into them.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*You were being bullied by the Downhillers.*

That is clear. You were threatening THEIR experience.

Uphill right-of-way has a very long history from other modes of transportation. That is inconvenient to the Downhill style on shared trails.

I would have said something. Measured, succinct, and insistent. No arguing, no debate, no crap. Just plain.

Riders like this get away with stuff like this because no one stands up for themselves, as if it is uncool or that karma will take care of things.

Give me a break. Get a backbone. Stand up for yourselves. Don't be a dick about it, just speak your piece. Let them know they are out of line.

Jeez.


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

You try and do the right thing and sometimes just cant win with all the idiots in this world. 

Some pants on the ground, hat to the side, flat biller punk gets a "downhill" bike, full face helmet some pads and next thing they think they are trying out for some RedBullcrap or Munster Xtreme challenge break all your Bonze Gamze. I can only laugh at those poseurs, but you have to deal with them on the trail sometimes.

Its the same with vehicles. Skinny road for one vehicle....downhill vehicle gives "right of way" to uphill vehicle unless it makes more sense for the uphill vehicle to yield. 

As some have mentioned I will do either, depending on the situation. If the situation allows for it I will I generally pull way over for the guy ripping the downhill so they can keep the session rolling. If I am in a narly climb situation, then I expect the downhill rider to have enough sense to yield to me, but it may not happen that way always. 

Every situation is different and you expect people to use common sense; but therein lies the problem.

Definitely speak your mind otherwise it will fester with you for a long time....I hate that.


----------



## kestrel242 (Jul 11, 2008)

arkon11 said:


> I agree with Fat Bob, a cold brew usually will help ease the tension and you might even come out of it with a new set of riding buddies.
> 
> Anyhow.... that IMBA rule that downhill traffic should yield to uphill traffic is ridiculous. It's much easier for someone going uphill to dismount and jump off to the side than someone flying down a hill.


IMBA wasn't making up those rules arbitrarily - it's still easier for the downhill guy to stop than it is for the uphill guy to start again.  


> Plus no one likes going uphill...


Speak for yourself. Lots of folks enjoy climbing.


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

So glad I ride everyday, weekdays, in the middle of the day. And yes, I have a full time job .

I fortunately don't have many experiences with this kind of behavior. Unless I'm road riding


----------



## idbrian (May 10, 2006)

I can imagine DH'ers not even being aware or not acknowledging MTBR's *suggested *rules. The MTBR rules don't exactly cater towards DH'ers, and those laws aren't really needed at DH parks.

That has to be a weird angle, getting mad at a group of people for not following a set of rules that are made up by some organization that they may not even be aware of.


----------



## greg de taos (Jul 23, 2007)

I would give RadioCraig a wide berth either direction, he sounds a little scary.


----------



## radiocraig (May 28, 2010)

As much as i would like to confront people like this, i know how my temper can get, so i will keep my mouth shut. 

Thanks for all the input, I wont judge bikers before they piss me off, if they do, ill stop for a "smoke" to chill me out before/if I have to see them on the trail again.

Ill continue to be kind on the trail, its better for my mood and blood pressure.


----------



## De La Pena (Oct 7, 2008)

radiocraig said:


> As much as i would like to confront people like this, i know how my temper can get, so i will keep my mouth shut.
> 
> Thanks for all the input, I wont judge bikers before they piss me off, if they do, ill stop for a "smoke" to chill me out before/if I have to see them on the trail again.
> 
> Ill continue to be kind on the trail, its better for my mood and blood pressure.


Thats probably good, but climbers have the right of way unless its a downhill only trail. Some people think they own the mountain, so crash them next time they are being dick and own them.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

gregnash said:


> :nono:
> 
> Actually there is.. read rule #4 Yield Appropriately
> http://www.imba.com/about/rules-trail


ROFL. That "rule"... a rule that I pay ZERO attention to as IMBA is not an authority over my riding in ANY way, changes like the freaking wind. Read that rule last year? Totally dfifferent. Read it a year from now and it will probably change again. It is a JOKE.

The ONLY rule I abide by is to make it safe for others. That means I slow down and yield the trail to almost anyone. The only thing I am responsible for regarding others on the trail is their safety in regards to MY actions. That is IT.

That guy says that to me in the parking lot? He cries and urinates down his leg as I explain to him the err of his ways, or I beat the ever loving hell out of his puking, sad bag of a body.


----------



## bmateo (Jan 13, 2004)

radiocraig said:


> On their second run the trail was wide and I moved over and continue to climb, all but one leave me plenty of room but one of them moves in my direction and comes within inches of me(he was moving very fast).


You could have gotten all "New York Jets, Training Coach" on his azz, like that guy did to the Miami Dolphins on [email protected]!!

As others said, I think you did the right thing. Fat Bob makes some good points (Proactive) which I will try to remember for my own sake.

As an aside, I wonder if there is any sort of established record for the number of times the word "dick" has been used in a single thread?


----------



## gregnash (Jul 17, 2010)

"The pirate code really isn't a code, you see. It's more of a set of....guidelines." _Capt. Barbosa

Gotta love the people that laugh at the rules, then get pissed at the system when something goes wrong because they didn't follow the rules. Funny that you say that rule changes yearly, because I surely don't remember it changing. I even asked my brother-in-law this summer on my first real ride in CO why I had to yield to the climber when I was already on my way down. Same explanation I gave here. 

When I ride, I know I am slow, so should I have the foresight to see someone booming the hill I will pull aside and let them through. However, the guy that barrels past me and makes a snide comment gets a rock thrown at him and me riding into his buddies. Sorry, but I am a true believer of "guilty by association" prove me wrong by pulling over and letting me climb past you and you will get a hearty "THANKS!!"

These rules are there for a reason and more than likely this trail that RC was on was also open to others (horseback, hiking) and I would hate to lose access to a trail because some little ******bag and his friends decided to not heed the rules and plowed through a hiker or spooked a horse and caused and issue. This all comes down to respect and obviously there was none shown here.. 

Frosty... while you say you don't abide by the rules your statements and actions show otherwise.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

> Gotta love the people that laugh at the rules, then get pissed at the system when something goes wrong because they didn't follow the rules.


What rules? IMBA "rules" are NOT rules. VERY few mountain bikers have ever read them let alone know what IMBA even is. Think about it.

I agree with you regarding posted rules though. Take the "Triangle of Yield" signs. If the sign at the trail says I must yield to fluttering monarch butterflies, then yeah... don't laugh at the rule when you get attacked by hordes of monarch butterflies as you fail to yield to them.



> Funny that you say that rule changes yearly, because I surely don't remember it changing. I even asked my brother-in-law this summer on my first real ride in CO why I had to yield to the climber when I was already on my way down. Same explanation I gave here.


I was being a BIT facetious as far as "yearly", but I have had several discussions ON THIS FORUM over the years about Rule #4. I don't even know if it is still rule #4, but the "yielding rule" was always #4. It has shifted stances at least 4 times that I am aware of in the last decade. It has gone from yielding the trail to all users, to yielding to the uphill rider, back to yield to everyone, to simply "Yield the trail", and now back to yielding to the uphill rider. (Why they ever went back to that idiocy is beyond me)

But that is all basically irrelevant as IMBA has no authority to create rules for anything at all short of it's own internal regulation. That being the case, the only "rule" one can follow short of posted rules is that of personal responsibility. Ride responsibly. If you need to be taught what that is, then IMBA is a good place to start for that type of education, but in the end, it comes down to individual responsibility. Rules AND laws are already in place to deal with irresponsibility that leads to a claim of liability.



> When I ride, I know I am slow, so should I have the foresight to see someone booming the hill I will pull aside and let them through. However, the guy that barrels past me and makes a snide comment gets a rock thrown at him and me riding into his buddies. Sorry, but I am a true believer of "guilty by association" prove me wrong by pulling over and letting me climb past you and you will get a hearty "THANKS!!"


I will be perfectly frank right here. I am not slow. Nothing I have ever done has been slow. I sleep fast. It isn't gloating, it is just a character trait. I often wish that I could slow down many aspects of my world. But that is not the topic...

Not all that long ago, I was the one that bombed every piece of track I rode. I didn't care about you. If I happened to be in a spot on the trail going 40mph, and you were coming up, I was prepared to crush you. Rules? Pffft. That's pretty funny. The rules that applied to me were that I was going to probably kill whoever decided to challenge me in that situation. The rules that applied to you is that you better jump out of the way... and fast. Snide comments? Rocks flying? Again... funny stuff, but believe me, it doesn't go down like that when you decide to play chicken with one big idiot like me on a giant rocket sled.

I offer this because I don't think you are aware of what might be going through, or not going through, the mind of the guy that really doesn't care about you or ANY rules at all. The guy that isn't going to speak to you... period. The guy that doesn't even know the meaning of the word, "Thanks".. and quite honestly, just gets offended by it. Not everyone lives in a anothers happy world. Not everyone is snide... Not everyone considers rock throwers a threat...

And you have to ask yourself... is it worth all that for you? Is it worth all that for you when there is a possibility that there is nothing of worth to the freight train bearing down on you, but breaking "the rules"? I would think that it is not worth it to you as you have a lot of worth in your life.



> These rules are there for a reason and more than likely this trail that RC was on was also open to others (horseback, hiking) and I would hate to lose access to a trail because some little ******bag and his friends decided to not heed the rules and plowed through a hiker or spooked a horse and caused and issue. This all comes down to respect and obviously there was none shown here..


That is a fallacy of argument. It is appealing to the bandwagon. It is also appealing to a false conclusion. "The rules" are there so that everyone is treated equally and as individuals under those rules. They are not there to be used from a soapbox to encourage people to act a certain way for one's own self-interest no matter how justified that one might think that self-interest might be. And in this case, the rules aren't "there" at all unless they are posted.

Also, for there to be "rules", they must be compulsary. I.e., the law that states that ignorance to the law is not justification for breaking the law. It applies to everyone. IMBA can't make compulsary rules and/or laws therefore they can't be used as such. They can only really be used as suggestive information. To use them as "Rules" in such a way that dictates everyone know them, is not valid.



> Frosty... while you say you don't abide by the rules your statements and actions show otherwise.


It isn't that I don't "abide by the rules", it is that I don't have to. All I have to do is ride with personal responsibility regarding the safety of others. When I do that, there are no rules that I need to know short of the law as it applies to my situation.

I'm not trying to be crass, but more honest to the real world. I am not perfect. I am selfish and often ride faster than many people think I should. Sometimes hikers get scared when they don't realize I am approaching. Often I push the issue with the uphill rider depending on the situation. But I think the point has to be made that it is the NATURE of the multi-use trail that allows mountain bikes to have conflicts with users and no rules on some unknown website, or from some advocacy group into biking is going to change that. "Spreading the word" is not effective and never will be... obviously.

So what is the answer Frosty you big jerk know it all you!! 

One word.

MATURITY.

You can't badger people into it. They have to earn it by making their own mistakes... by being ALLOWED to make their own mistakes. It is physics. It is nature. It is what it is.

:thumbsup:


----------



## bmateo (Jan 13, 2004)

Just because your percieved lack of "compulsory rules" apparently gives you the right to be a jerk, and put others in danger so that they can "earn maturity" by having the priveledge of being mowed down by you or one of your buddies on a 50# rig doesn't mean that you actually have to do it.

The "unwritten rule" for most situations is "don't be a prick". Ride with enough control that you don't put others in danger. IMBA, Sierra, Horse Club nor others don't need to publish it, it's just plain curtosey. Your point that some people don't care is well taken, but it doesn't justify anything.

Up, down, left or right, I make sure that I am in control to the point where I can see. If I don't know what is around the corner, I treat it like there is a cliff, or a downed rider. If I am climbing or descending, I make sure that everything is OK until all riders can safely pass. I "expect" other trail users to do the same, but assume nothing. A little eye contact or verbal communication usually allows all involved to pass without having to give up their precious climb or descent.

Common decency can go a long way.


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

I remember a guy bombing by a riding buddy who was climbing on purpose at probably 45 MPH. The downhill rider waited at the top until the climber was at the toughest part of the ascent and then buzzed him. 

My riding buddy was completely ready to scrap but slaughtered the guy with words alone when he met up with us a few minutes later. The descender could tell he was pi$$ed and definietely ready to go so he backed off. 

I don't blame Radiocraig at all. I've known the 'climbers get right of way' rule for about 15 years now. 

A lot of folks in cycling can be total a$$hats. To my surprise it maybe isn't roadies after all who are the worst....

Drew

Drew


----------



## dust3313 (Sep 15, 2010)

Frosty, you really sound like a real a** to be honest. So you are saying that people should be allowed to act like dicks because that is how they learn to not be dicks?

I would also consider myself a fast rider. I have never been passed and can't remember the last time I went riding and didn't drop someone. but no matter what I would never take the attitude of "I am faster than you so I have the right of way"

I am 18 yrs old, wear a flat brim hat and jeans that are too low by some peoples standards, my parents included. Does that mean I don't respect people? Hell no. Like I said before the guys that think they are really cool and fast are usually not either.

You want to know the real reason people act like Dicks, because they truly believe that they are better than others. You wanna know how that is solved? They are proven wrong.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

Frosty,

If your point is there are psychopaths out there and one should be judicious in their personal interactions with strangers, that goes for life in general. If your point is there are people who don't care about others or rules, again, duly noted.

As far as the rule about yielding changing, no, it hasn't. Perhaps how you've seen it worded has changed, but the basic principal of traffic moving downhill yielding to uphill is well over 100 years old. It goes back to horse powered means of transportation. It's part of the vehicle code in many states, and is also a legal rule in many parks and open spaces I've ridden in. 

No, IMBA doesn't have any legal authority, so their signs or brochures might better be seen as "Rules of thumb. But many land managing agencies that do have legal authority have adopted the IMBA code or have similar rules. As far as your comment that rules don't apply unless posted, that is pure fabrication on your part.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

bmateo said:


> Just because your percieved lack of "compulsory rules"


Back up. It is not my perception, it is fact. There are no compulsory rules that apply to everyone in regards to what bike yields to what bike in what circumstance while out on the trail. IMBA rules are certainly not compulsory. That can't be argued. What there is though, are laws in regards to personal responsibility and laws regarding the safety of others that are compulsory and do apply to everyone.



> apparently gives you the right to be a jerk


No, it wouldn't give me the right to be a jerk either as I already have that right as an individual. Let's face it, humans don't need to be given the right to be jerks. They can wake up jerks, and they can go to bed jerks if they so desire.



> and put others in danger so that they can "earn maturity" by having the priveledge of being mowed down by you or one of your buddies on a 50# rig doesn't mean that you actually have to do it.


Now you are making irrational leaps. No one has plowed anyone down in this conversation. In fact, no one has even been threatened in anecdote. It is hyperbole that you are engaging in that doesn't seem honest to me. It seems self-serving. Also, what someone might believe to be danger, doesn't constitute injury, and as I have explained, multi-use trails have a certain inherent characteristic to them that will cause conflicts. It is the nature of multi-use trails.

The perception of danger when suddenly becoming aware of an object close to you does not constitute injury.



> The "unwritten rule" for most situations is "don't be a prick".


That is YOUR "unwritten rule", but it is not mine. Mine is to be responsible for myself so that I don't become responsible for others. If you want to be concerned about me being a prick, then I will be a prick. If you want to be concerned about yourself and your own personal responsibility in regards to others safety, then it doesn't matter who is a prick and who isn't.



> Ride with enough control that you don't put others in danger. IMBA, Sierra, Horse Club nor others don't need to publish it, it's just plain curtosey. Your point that some people don't care is well taken, but it doesn't justify anything.


It most certainly does. It justifies the LAW and there are no silly rules and regulations put out by some acronym for a bicycle advocacy group that will usurp the law and/or superseded it. The dynamic behavior of man dictates the justification and need for laws. In America, law is generally based on personal responsibility and the accountability for an individuals actions. It is NOT about "unwritten rules" in any situation but a corrupt situation.



> Up, down, left or right, I make sure that I am in control to the point where I can see. If I don't know what is around the corner, I treat it like there is a cliff, or a downed rider. If I am climbing or descending, I make sure that everything is OK until all riders can safely pass. I "expect" other trail users to do the same, but assume nothing. A little eye contact or verbal communication usually allows all involved to pass without having to give up their precious climb or descent.


Sorry, but you shouldn't expect ANYTHING from other riders no matter what you are assuming. You shouldn't even expect them to not break the law. I don't ride like you do. I am in control until I crash. I don't treat every corner where I can't see all the way around as if there is a cliff or a downed rider or anything else. I have no idea what your make sure all is OK..." even means. It just sounds unbelievable to me. Like a bad book that you can't believe. Bad plot.

What I do is rip. When I see an object or a person that I need to stop for, I hit the brakes hard and stop. I have been ripping singletrack for decades and although I have gone off the trail to avoid a few people, I have never mowed anyone down. I have been more than willing on hundreds of occasions as I have stated, but it has never happened. I have scared thousands of people. Some deserved it, and some didn't, but again... it is the nature of a multi-use trail.



> Common decency can go a long way.


We are back full circle? A long way to what? What can it go a long way for?



I get the feeling we are back to the self-serving part. You don't want _it_ to look bad? So people don't feel bad? Due to poor actions and misplaced thoughts? It seems to be about what you happen to think is right or wrong, not about what has been legislated as right or wrong. That might work for you, but you can't work for everyone.



I just don't play the game that way. I am an individual with JUST AS MUCH right to be on the legal trail as anyone else. I will abide by posted rules. I will abide by the law. If I break the law, I will stand accountable. THAT is what should be expected as that is compulsory of everyone as is dictated by the law. To do anything else by trying to control perception through "unwritten rules" and "spreading the word" is a capitulation and marginalization that I will not participate in. I believe that methodology is self-serving and is counter-productive to just about anything on this planet. That includes trail access.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

HarryCallahan said:


> As far as the rule about yielding changing, no, it hasn't.


I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. The IMBA rule has changed SEVERAL TIMES over the last decade. Your anecdote regarding horses is simply a non sequitur. We were specifically discussing the IMBA rule and it's constant wordsmithing.



> No, IMBA doesn't have any legal authority, so their signs or brochures might better be seen as "Rules of thumb.


Rules of thumb for those that happen to read them. Those people probably don't even constitue 20% of the biking population. They are not tenants to preach to noob riders when one believes their space has been violated or whatever. They are not mandates and compulsary rules of the trails and shouldn't be used in defense of making a poor decision. And let's face it: Holding your ground based on an IMBA "rule of thumb" that is under neverending flux in interpretation, that probably only 20% of riders have actually read, when a speeding rider is bearing down on you with what appears to be no inention of stopping, is not a very good decision.



> But many land managing agencies that do have legal authority have adopted the IMBA code or have similar rules. As far as your comment that rules don't apply unless posted, that is pure fabrication on your part.


Whaaaa?

So since a land managing agency has adopted IMBA rules into it's own code, that means that my assertion that if the rules are not posted they don't apply is a "fabrication"?

How in the heck do you come up with that???

I'll make it easy. Please direct me to one land managing agency that has legal authority that has adopted IMBA rules into it's code and doesn't post them...

:skep:

It aint working for ya...


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

dust3313 said:


> Frosty, you really sound like a real a** to be honest. So you are saying that people should be allowed to act like dicks because that is how they learn to not be dicks?


First, I am not all that interested in your insults. I don't know why you need them to start participating here.

Second, I am saying that if someone wants to be a dick, then they are ALREADY allowed to be a dick. And yes, most times in life you have to experience something first hand in order to learn if it is something that you want to entertain in your life or not. How does a dick not become a dick? If he doesn't learn from dicks, then he learns it by being a dick and seeing what he is from being one. It isn't rocket science. It is the human condition.



> I would also consider myself a fast rider. I have never been passed and can't remember the last time I went riding and didn't drop someone. but no matter what I would never take the attitude of "I am faster than you so I have the right of way"


That is great. I am happy that you find pleasure in your riding. I have no idea how what you stated is applicable to this discussion, but I am happy all the same. It s a good place to be.



> I am 18 yrs old, wear a flat brim hat and jeans that are too low by some peoples standards, my parents included. Does that mean I don't respect people? Hell no. Like I said before the guys that think they are really cool and fast are usually not either.


Again, I am pleased that you are pleased and happy with your situation. I am happy you are comfortable with yourself.



> You want to know the real reason people act like Dicks, because they truly believe that they are better than others. You wanna know how that is solved? They are proven wrong.


That is nice. I prefer not to wonder about dicks and why they are dicks as I really don't care about the fact that people can be dicks. I don't have the time to worry about dicks. I don't wonder about the reason that you have for dicks being dicks. It takes all kinds in this world... many definitions. Dick is just one definition.


----------



## bmateo (Jan 13, 2004)

FrostyStruthers said:


> Back up. It is not my perception, it is fact. There are no compulsory rules that apply to everyone in regards to what bike yields to what bike in what circumstance while out on the trail. IMBA rules are certainly not compulsory. That can't be argued. What there is though, are laws in regards to personal responsibility and laws regarding the safety of others that are compulsory and do apply to everyone.


You're simply wrong here. There is a long history of unwritten law and "precidence" in our judicial system.

I did not spend a lot of time researching this, as your post is so rediculous that it doesn't really warrant much effort, but here's the first hit of many that I got when I googled it:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25960220/Chapter-2-Source-of-Law-Part-II-unwritten-Law

It's an entire lesson on unwritten law, and some of the slides make the exact point that while the MAJORITY of laws are not statitorily enacted:


> ▫Originally, a judge-made law because almost all English law are not statutorily enacted.
> ▫Lately, many ratio decidendi have been replaced or supplemented by statutes (enacted as written law)
> ▫Reasons to follow: higher court has decided such principle as applicable law.


Yeah, blah blah blah, this is not in a law-book somewhere, it's just something googled off the internet, blah blah blah....

Dude, you're wrong. If you come crashing down a hill at 45 mph, take out a family of XC riders, or hikers and their cute little kitten, you're ass is going to be found liable in a court of law, and if there is any justice in the world, you'll be going to jail to serve time. (and at minimum, in a civil case will be paying for a their loss)

But again, I (and others) have acknowledged your assertation that the constitution gives you the right to be a dick. Nobody is debating that, and if they are, they only need to read this thread to see that it's true, you can indeed be a dick .... All people are saying is that even though you don't have choose it, that being a non-dick is a better choice for all involved. Moreso, most people are reading the Original Post and empethizing with the OP that it's a bull$hit situation, and the DH rider was asserting his right to be a dick, and in doing so endangering others.

I really hate that I get sucked into these worthless discussions. It's a no-win scenario. You are not likely to change, and neither am I, or others. Go on being a dick, go on not caring, and in the unfortunate event that you hurt someone, and then honor your word that you'll accept responsibility for your actions, then let us all know how that works for you.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

Frosty,

Saying that IMBA has wordsmithed their rule isn't the same as the rule changing. IMBA would also not be responsible for however a particular park chooses to word their particular trail signs. Again, because the idea is expressed in a variety of ways doesn't mean the concept has changed.

Many parks and open spaces post the general disclaimer that visitors are responsible for obeying all applicable ordinances, whether or not they are posted.

I didn't debate the prudence of asserting right of way.

Chill. Go for a ride. The e-thug thing is old.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*DH is gravity-fed like skiing*

The athlete is the only limitation. By and large, omitting XC, skiing is a downhill-only sport; they do not have to encounter their compatriots climbing up the very slopes they descend. Admittedly, add a slope crowded with weekenders and things change. There are also people around to enforce it.

Our sport is relegated to a relatively small venue and rarely specifically dedicated solely to our use. Further, venues are rarely dedicated to specific disciplines within our sport. Some disciplines seldom encounter each other. Yet XC climbers and DH'ers will impact each other where sloped riding venues are limited.

I train racers. We train on trails with hikers, dogs, and horses, and have not had a negative encounter in 9 years. I make sure of that. The only time they really test their limits of control is on a closed race course. It is self-serving; you can't race if you get hurt. You can't train if you get thrown off of trails.

Humans appear to be the only animals who can overcome their evolutionary aggressive tendencies by themselves. It is a matter of will.

A basic rule is to always ride in control. The limits of control for a gravity-fed DH'er have a different criteria. Include other live moving bodies in their run and they must change again. It puts people at risk. Destructive behaviors will only be extinguished when a community refuses to tolerate them. Walking away in silence serves nothing.


----------



## Iridethedirt (Jan 20, 2008)

I saw a lot of mention of being courteous, some mentions of personal responsibility, a lot of people talking about people being dicks, and such a massive interpretation of "rules of the trail". 
We (mountain bikers) are the fastest thing using these trails (unless you share with atv and the like) and so we can all agree, we have to allow hikers, equestrians, dog walkers, etc the complete right of way. But a lot of these folks upon hearing a bike coming up behind them, step off the trail, and let us pass (at least around here). It's not cause they are all super nice people, it's because they are looking out for their own safety, and by proxy, yours.
SAFETY is what this is really about, not courtesy, or rudeness, although that does come into it. We all should be thinking of safety in these situations. I don't care if you think uphill or downhill rider should yield... trail condition, type, and each individual scenario has it's own unique variables, we look at these situations, and make fast decisions... Yield, or bomb it... Yield, or keep climbing... Both can work, but it seems most riders agree, uphill rider has the right of way, and in most situations, this is the most safe option. I have talked to lots of people who have colided with other riders, and been given an earfull by hikers who have been hit by mountain bikes. If there is a "rule of thumb" or an "unwritten law" it is to use common sense and be safe. It does seem however, that the uphill rider right of way is more unversally accepted than downhiller right of way... 
Be safe, ride in control, and yield when appropriate based on said variables while keeping safety priority #1
How about blind corners? 
I yell out "rider up!" when I approach a fully blind corner on the trail if it is multi dirctional, and especially if it is multi use. 
How about stopping and asking if folks need any help when broken down on the trail? Lending a tool, or giving them a patch for their tube? This one is more about being considerate than safety, unless they could get stranded far from a trail head...
I yield quite often to both downhill and uphill riders. Hell, I stop and cheer riders on when they are on a tough climb! We are out there to have fun... Putting others at risk for your own self satisfaction of speed, is worse than just being a dick, it's being reckless with others lives. It's not fun to get hurt, (I know... Recovering from grade 3 AC joint separation) and it's no fun causing others to get hurt, and it's no fun getting sued over it either. 
The best part about drinking that beer at the trail head, and chatting with new folks, and maybe kindly educating them about yielding, etc... Is going home un-injured so you can come back and do it again the next day/week/whatever. 
Be safe, be courteous, be an ambassador for our sport, you never know who you might make an impression on.


----------



## Plummit (Jan 14, 2004)

:thumbsup:



Berkeley Mike said:


> The athlete is the only limitation. By and large, omitting XC, skiing is a downhill-only sport; they do not have to encounter their compatriots climbing up the very slopes they descend. Admittedly, add a slope crowded with weekenders and things change. There are also people around to enforce it.
> 
> Our sport is relegated to a relatively small venue and rarely specifically dedicated solely to our use. Further, venues are rarely dedicated to specific disciplines within our sport. Some disciplines seldom encounter each other. Yet XC climbers and DH'ers will impact each other where sloped riding venues are limited.
> 
> ...


----------



## screampint (Dec 10, 2001)

"He who angers you conquers you." ~Elizabeth Kenny


----------



## dust3313 (Sep 15, 2010)

FrostyStruthers said:


> First, I am not all that interested in your insults. I don't know why you need them to start participating here.
> 
> Second, I am saying that if someone wants to be a dick, then they are ALREADY allowed to be a dick. And yes, most times in life you have to experience something first hand in order to learn if it is something that you want to entertain in your life or not. How does a dick not become a dick? If he doesn't learn from dicks, then he learns it by being a dick and seeing what he is from being one. It isn't rocket science. It is the human condition.
> 
> ...


I typed some long argument but like you said yourself dicks are going to be dicks so see below


----------



## dust3313 (Sep 15, 2010)

This



HarryCallahan said:


> Frosty,
> 
> Chill. Go for a ride. The e-thug thing is old.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

bmateo said:


> You're simply wrong here. There is a long history of unwritten law and "precidence" in our judicial system.
> 
> I did not spend a lot of time researching this, as your post is so rediculous that it doesn't really warrant much effort, but here's the first hit of many that I got when I googled it:
> 
> ...


Really? Come on... are you serious? Why did you cut and paste that there? I have no idea what you tried to prove by posting that. I'm afraid you will have to be more succinct.

Unwritten law is NOT compulsory. Compulsory means REQUIRED by all. MANDATED as in by LAW. Laws are obligatory. IMBA guidelines are NOT. They are NOT required, mandated, or obligatory of anyone and never have been. Legal precedent is NOT law. Legal precedent DEFINES law as laws are created FROM the basis of previous legal precedent. This has been the case ever since... in about the 1920's... the United States began evolving from Constitutional law to Precedent law. There has been NO legal precedent set in ANY state regarding what bike should be yielding to what bike while on a trail.



> Dude, you're wrong. If you come crashing down a hill at 45 mph, take out a family of XC riders, or hikers and their cute little kitten, you're ass is going to be found liable in a court of law, and if there is any justice in the world, you'll be going to jail to serve time. (and at minimum, in a civil case will be paying for a their loss)


You are not making any sense at all. I am wrong because of what? What am I wrong about? I'm sorry, but IMBA suggestive guidelines for riding single track are in NO way compulsory. If you believe they are, then it is YOU that is wrong and simply don't understand the meaning of the terms being used here.



> But again, I (and others) have acknowledged your assertation that the constitution gives you the right to be a dick.


The Constitution does that? Really? no it does not and I never made the assertion.





> Nobody is debating that, and if they are, they only need to read this thread to see that it's true, you can indeed be a dick .... All people are saying is that even though you don't have choose it, that being a non-dick is a better choice for all involved.


I'm sorry, but I disagree. I don't believe that being a "non-dick is a better choice for all involved. Not all the time anyway. See, I like a dynamic world. I like dynamic people. I wouldn't trade the dicks of the world for anything. I certainly wouldn't trade them for a bunch of hand-wringing ninnies...

It takes all kinds for YOU to be who you are.



> Moreso, most people are reading the Original Post and empethizing with the OP that it's a bull$hit situation, and the DH rider was asserting his right to be a dick, and in doing so endangering others.


How is being a mouthy dick endangering others? Back to the self-serving issue at hand. A dick endangers NO ONE unless he threatens someone with violence and/or personal harm. That is because a dick is subject to the SAME laws that you are. That is due to the fact that they are compulsory. No more laws, and no less laws. It just seems like you are trying to pour your ego all over the situation. Where is the problem? I am begging that it is in your reaction, not a reality of being in danger that is the problem. Dicks aren't dangerous until ones steers themselves their way and begins dicktating (sic).



> I really hate that I get sucked into these worthless discussions. It's a no-win scenario. You are not likely to change


What is it that I have asserted that you would like me to change? What is my offense that is so grievous that you got sucked in to such a worthless discussion?



> and neither am I, or others.


What is it that you and others need to change? What are you talking about?



> Go on being a dick, go on not caring, and in the unfortunate event that you hurt someone, and then honor your word that you'll accept responsibility for your actions, then let us all know how that works for you.


:skep: 

It is strange that people believe that everyone on this planet thinks just like they do.. and if they don't, then you must assault them and insult them while pretending to participate in rational discourse.

Make your assertion if you happen to disagree. Support it with substantiating evidence or even anecdotal experience. And move on. I don't get all the strange emotional attacks. Is it really that big of a deal? Conversation. Differing viewpoints. No. It isn't. It isn't a big deal AT ALL.

The word "dignity" comes to mind. As in relative importance applied to any situation. All the emotion and personal attacks are not dignified. 

And just for info... and I'm not a spelling nazi... but your spelling makes your posts hard to take seriously. I just offer it because it is such an easy thing to correct, and it goes a long way towards earning respect.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Good pissing match.

The rule I live by when riding is to yield to on coming riders. Doesn't matter if they are going up or down I always slow down and make room. Most people on the trail in my experience behave the same way.

But there is the occasional jerk out there.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

This is meaningless here. IMBA makes suggestions to people that happen to read the rules on their website or wherever it might be posted... which is almost nowhere but the website...

Law is law. COMPULSARY. IMBA suggestions are NOT compulsory. They are NOT laws. They are NOT ordinances. They are SUGGESTIONS on a website by a bike advocacy group.

VERY few mountain bikers out of all of us out there have EVER heard of the IMBA let alone read their suggestions on how we should be riding. And you know what? We don't need the suggestions. We already have all the laws in place to deal with people that assault others etc. The rest is how we choose to approach our actions in order to live within the constraints of those laws. 

As I have stated. The IMBA suggestions are fine and great for noobs or anyone. You want some suggestions on how to ride, then go check out the IMBA website... read the rules... become a member if you think it is a good thing to do. But when it comes time to act all righteous and angry out on the trail due to what you believe to be a grievous violation of the IMBA suggestions that you would like to make obligatory, your reaction is unjustified as the IMBA suggestions are not only hardly even known by riders, but not even remotely and not in ANY way compulsory.

You can't justifiably talk down to people about breaking rules that aren't compulsory. You can't be righteous and angry with others for not following rules that have no mandate whatsoever. I am not a member of IMBA. I will never be a member. I don't like "bike advocacy groups"m, and I don't support them.

IMBA suggestions mean nothing to me. I also don't agree with the suggestion that the uphill rider always has the right of way. It doesn't work for me.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

Frosty, you are doing a great job of reading things into other folks postings, then making up arguments and rebutting the things you made up. You've probably got a future in talk radio.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

dust3313 said:


> I typed some long argument but like you said yourself dicks are going to be dicks so see below


So I guess you made the choice to be a dick instead?

What the heck has offended you so badly that you have to just post just to insult me? It is just a conversation about riding... something we are all passionate about. We all live in different places with different riding conditions. We all have different type of trails that allow different things. They are laid out differently. SOme require more care of safety than others do. Some people ride better. Some people ride better equipped machines. Some conflicts that we all seem to describe in the same way, are actually very different based on all of the above and more.

Take the guy that ran into the girl at Winter Park. Would you have run into her? I wouldn't even have come close to hitting her. I would have been riding CLOSER to her tire than Alex was, but I woulnd't have hit her no matter what she did. I know how to ride tire to CREATE the opportunity to pass when others are not complying, but when they brake check or whatever, I don't run into them.

So I follow closer and follow more aggressively and don't run into the girl, but Alex follows farther away and with hardly any aggressiveness, and he DID run into her. These are the type of differences and dynamics that I don't think people really entertain when engaging in these types of discussions. Once you realize where people could be coming from, you can drop the emotional and personal attacks and just chat it up about it without it being such a big deal. 

(here is the video thread just for reference. http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=656487&highlight=master+chief)


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

HarryCallahan said:


> Frosty, you are doing a great job of reading things into other folks postings, then making up arguments and rebutting the things you made up. You've probably got a future in talk radio.


Thanks for attacking me with no supportive evidence or example given. I appreciate baseless attacks. They have such impact with no support given.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Okay... how about this*

Is passing on the left compulsory or voluntary or customary?

Is allowing people to pass compulsory or voluntary or customary?

Is faster traffic to the left compulsory or voluntary or customary?

Is riding on the right compulsory or voluntary or customary?

In the face of this "I oughtta be able to do what I think is right when I want" is only self-serving.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Is passing on the left compulsory or voluntary or customary?


None of the above. It is situational.



> Is allowing people to pass compulsory or voluntary or customary?


None of the above. It is situational.



> Is faster traffic to the left compulsory or voluntary or customary?


None of the above. It is situational.



> Is riding on the right compulsory or voluntary or customary?


None of the above. It is situational.



> In the face of this "I oughtta be able to do what I think is right when I want" is only self-serving.


In the face of what? Self-serving?

Whaaa?


----------



## DParks (Oct 3, 2009)

Rule 34

No Exceptions!


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

FrostyStruthers said:


> Thanks for attacking me:crazy: with no supportive evidence or example given. I appreciate baseless attacks. They have such impact with no support given.


Frosty, I fixed it for you.

Here's how I see it. I doesn't matter what I say. It doesn't matter what anyone else posts here. Any of us could spend hours refuting everything you post, and you'll find or make up some perceived flaw to continue posting your point of view.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Situational.*

Two people are walking towards each other and meet at a door. What is that little dance they do? No harm no foul.

Two riders are headed towards each other on a trail. Which side of the trail do they take? Why?


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Two people are walking towards each other and meet at a door. What is that little dance they do? No harm no foul.


It is a "my bad" situation that leads to a "no harm no foul" result. (and maybe a date!)

:thumbsup:



> Two riders are headed towards each other on a trail. Which side of the trail do they take?




The question doesn't make sense.

Matter can not occupy the same space at the same time. There are no sides. If there are sides, then there is no issue in the first place.


----------



## Oldfatbaldguy (Nov 4, 2010)

I can't resist:
_[Matter can not occupy the same space at the same time. There are no sides./I]

String theory says differently.

OK, I'm sorry; I'm being a dick, too, I guess. But I'm doing it with a twinkle in my eye and a grin.
Funny thing about dikcheads: they win when they pizz you off, but lose when their own personal unhappiness doesn't rub off. Should they be allowed to win?_


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*If they try to occupy the same space at the same time*

there will be a collision. This is not a desirable result by most standards. For the sake of illustration would I like to ask you all to agree that we want to avoid a collision.

How do the riders get past each other?


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Jamb a stick in his spokes next time....


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> there will be a collision. This is not a desirable result by most standards. For the sake of illustration would I like to ask you all to agree that we want to avoid a collision.
> 
> How do the riders get past each other?


 
Man.. come OUT of the rabbit hole. You have gone TOO FAR... TOO DEEP!!! You have to be kidding...

How on Earth do riders avoid each other? Will we ever know? Can we ever know? Some of us obviously DO NOT know. How do you ride? When you come up to another rider, do you turn around and go home? 

People get past riders THE SAME WAY YOU DO. They either get out of your way, or you get of their way. It is really easy and all of us do it all the time.

Isn't learning new stuff fun?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Commit Frosty*

If you are encountering an oncoming rider would you go to the right or to the left?


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> If you are encountering an oncoming writer would you go to the right or to the left?


If he commits or gives a clear definitive answer, the discussion is over. Then what is he going to do?


----------



## ditchart (Oct 12, 2009)

frosty I admire your anarchistic take on life. This outlooks works well until something goes wrong, then suddenly you are beholden to Laws. Now yielding to the uphill rider is not set in stone, but it is a "perceived rule "among the general population of MTB riders. If not a law then perhaps a custom or "good manners".
Now the fact that you have argued against this "perceived rule" on this forum means you know about it(maybe not agree with it) and so if, by chance & bad luck you did injure someone by not yielding, a judge would look harshly on this, especially in a civil case.

Ok this is not a law per say, but it is a practise that keeps us from not running into each other. If we all practice this "custom", we will know what to expect when next we come across each other on the trail.


----------



## OldGlory (Nov 14, 2010)

It would be situational on whether you go left or right. Depending on the trail, conditions, what side you are closer to, etc. I will probably get a lot of crap for saying this, but I agree with a lot of what Frosty has said. It is true, we do not HAVE to follow these "guidlines" put up by IMBA and the other organizations. And really the only thing that truely matters is the safety of yourself and others.

Although I do not agree with the way he handles his situations, that is just MY opinion and MY way of how I do things. Then again, he says that he is in control, and believes that other's safety is important (as it is the law), and if he needs to slow down he says he does. We should just accept that he does and not worry about it. Again, I do not operate the way he does, I try to be respectful, I believe treat others the way you want to be treated, and I know not everyone follows this so it doesnt always work, but that is just me.

I personally love riding downhill, but in order for me to go downhill, but where I live, I usually have to ride uphill first, which I also enjoy. The trails that I ride around here are used by lots of hikers, familes with kids, pets, ect and all types of bikers. Since I and the group of guys that I normally ride with are fairly "nice" people, and we all agree that bombing down is much more fun, we tend to "yield" or stop and get out of the way for the downhillers. I don't care if it takes a little more push to get me going uphill again, I ride up the technical trails for a reason, and that is for a challenge, and having to stop is just an added challenge (and sometimes a needed breather). I just think about me bombing down that same section in a hour or so. I so the exact same thingwhen I am walking the same trails. When coming down, I like to go fast (i know im not the fastest or best, then again not the slowest or worst either) but i'm just out there to have fun. When I come up on other riders, hikers, dogs, or what have you, I will usually slow my speed down a bit, just out of courtesy (not because it is law, but because that is how I am) even if I still eel in control at the fast speed. I will slow down even more if I notice young ones or pets in the group, just in case, since they are sometimes less predictable. But slowing down that little bit hasnt hindered myself, or made my riding any less enjoyable. It is just my way of being respectful. Normally when I/we are coming down and there are some hikers they will move out of the way (not sure if it cause they are scared or it is their courtesy), I will also yell out a "Thank you" when I pass by for them stepping aside (because that is the type of person I am and also because I know they do not HAVE to move, nor do I for that matter).

As for the OP, glad you didn't make a big deal over it, some people are best to be ignored. There are certain situations that someone needs to say something to them, but in this case you being the big boy and not saying anything I believe was for the best. And yes, asking someone about their rigs or even what the best trails to take is usually a great way to start up a converstation on a get on other rider's "good side".


----------



## Surly Gentleman (Aug 9, 2010)

Shark said:


> Jamb a stick in his spokes next time....


thread over. next...


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

The times of day I usually ride, I usually don't encounter too many other riders. This past fall, I was out on a Sunday morning which I usually do not get to do. I rode up a favorite trail and was now headed back and heading downhill. I see two women starting to climb. I recognize the older lady, having spoken to her weeks earlier, she's training for a race.. I know where the good line is in this sandy, rooty climb, so I stop and leave it open for her. She rode by and thanked me profusely. 
Afterwards, it got me thinking... I'm sure everyone else just hammers down that hill when others are coming up. I've seen them do it. After all, it is Long Island... Home of the privelaged. 
I can understand the OP getting pissed. Once, my friends and I were taking a break on a new to us trail and a skinny ass dude on a carbon featherweight hardtail went by, poked me in the belly and yelled come on!! Keep moving!! I grabbed his Camelbak and stopped him dead in his tracks. All I said was Don't touch me. Let him go and that was the end of it. I never get mad like that, but sometimes, people bring it out in you.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> If you are encountering an oncoming writer would you go to the right or to the left?


It depends entirely on the situation. I would go whatever way I had to go to get by and continue my ride. Usually that means I wait for the other rider to move. If they don't see me, I might be the one to move or slow down or stop.

This is not rocket science and doesn't deserve the appeal to insignificance you are applying to it. Try to converse without trying to be argumentative, and this would be a lot different for you.

But really? When I encounter oncoming writers, I like to ask them what they are writing. What genre am I encountering here? Fiction? Nonfiction? Biography maybe?


----------



## nemhed (May 2, 2010)

Wow, this has turned into another one of those fascinating train wreck type threads that I can't stop watching! I think this is a great time to remind folks that there is an ignore feature on their user control panel. It's great to make people "virtually" disappear:thumbsup: . It doesn't work out on the trail though.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

ditchart said:


> frosty I admire your anarchistic take on life. This outlooks works well until something goes wrong, then suddenly you are beholden to Laws. Now yielding to the uphill rider is not set in stone, but it is a "perceived rule "among the general population of MTB riders. If not a law then perhaps a custom or "good manners".


I disagree and find that MOST people out on the trails either don't agree either, don't care, or have never even heard of your "good manners" custom.

Browbeating people into your way of thinking based on what you believe to be "good manners" doesn't work.



> Now the fact that you have argued against this "perceived rule" on this forum means you know about it(maybe not agree with it) and so if, by chance & bad luck you did injure someone by not yielding, a judge would look harshly on this, especially in a civil case.


I don't agree and I doubt that a judge would even allow IMBA suggestions as evidence in court. I don't follow IMBA suggestions as I don't care what they happen to suggest. I DO NOT RECOGNIZE ANY AUTHORITY THEY OR ANYONE ELSE MIGHT IMPLY. I don't need their suggestions to ride responsibly and neither does anyone else. I don't need their rules for ANYTHING. I don't use them. I don't preach them. They are not rules. They are not mandates. NO one on the face of this planet is required in ANY WAY to follow IMBA suggestions. Yielding to the uphill rider has next to nothing to do with safety to me, and has only to do with "finishing the dreadful climb without being interrupted". I'm sorry, but that is not a good enough reason to just stop for the supposed "uphill rider everytime no matter what because some dumb biking organization or group happens to make the suggestion.

The idea that IMBA suggestions would be used in court to incriminate me is absolutely HILARIOUS. My attorney would TEAR their silly little suggestions apart. I have a hard time believing that you were serious in your assertion.



> Ok this is not a law per say


[

No no no. It is not a law AT ALL. AT ALL AND IN NO WAY. It is not a law in ANY WAY. There is NOTHING about IMBA suggestions that are obligatory or mandated. NOT LAWS. And as I have stated, MOST riders have never even seen them or heard of them. If they have, they can choose to ride that way or not. No prosecutor on the face of this planet, unless he is a pure and born idiot, would even present the silly suggestions as evidence of wrong doing. They have NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER.



> but it is a practise that keeps us from not running into each other.


No it is not. That was not the intention of the suggestion. NEVER WAS. It was to let the uphill rider complete his grueling climb blah blah blah. It had nothing to do with running into bikers. That didn't happen until several years ago when people started to get all sad when they felt insulted by riders that went by without much acknowledgment to their presence. People's egos got out of control, and the reason behind the suggestion has now changed.



> If we all practice this "custom", we will know what to expect when next we come across each other on the trail.


We will NOT all "practise" whatever it is that you want us to. That is because stopping all the time for any uphill rider is STUPID and unnecessary in a lot of areas and on a lot of trails. The suggestion simply doesn't apply most of the time. It is also rarely adhered to. I.e. Due to the stupidity of it.

IMBA rules have NO AUTHORITY over anyone. No one needs them to ride responsibly. If one would like to join IMBA and ride under the tenants and their suggestions, then more power to you, but don't EVER expect me to do the same as I never will. Your ego will NEVER be able to make me follow IMBA's silly suggestions that are redundant and simply not needed for responsible riding on multi-use trails.

It is micro-management ego mentality that is destructive NOT constructive.


----------



## bmateo (Jan 13, 2004)

This is fun..... I don't really take the discussion seriously, but it's rainy and cold out, so why not....



FrostyStruthers said:


> Really? Come on... are you serious? Why did you cut and paste that there? I have no idea what you tried to prove by posting that. I'm afraid you will have to be more succinct.
> 
> Unwritten law is NOT compulsory. Compulsory means REQUIRED by all. MANDATED as in by LAW. Laws are obligatory. IMBA guidelines are NOT. They are NOT required, mandated, or obligatory of anyone and never have been. Legal precedent is NOT law. Legal precedent DEFINES law as laws are created FROM the basis of previous legal precedent. This has been the case ever since... in about the 1920's... the United States began evolving from Constitutional law to Precedent law. There has been NO legal precedent set in ANY state regarding what bike should be yielding to what bike while on a trail.
> 
> ...


*Again, mostly just funning around, having a friendly debate. I truly do think you are a dick, but I respect your resolve, and I at least have tried to see the world through your eyes.....I've acknowledged that you have some good points, and have noted my concerns and objections to them, which you have in turn either ignored, or twisted.... I really don't care how you reply, but you should do yourself (not even the rest of us) a favor and break out of your narrow world and see things from a different viewpoint.,

And that is not meant as an insult, but a sincere suggestion...*

G'day....


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Frosty, are you not willing to suggest*

that you might tend to move to the right?


----------



## dust3313 (Sep 15, 2010)

FrostyStruthers said:


> So I guess you made the choice to be a dick instead?
> 
> What the heck has offended you so badly that you have to just post just to insult me? It is just a conversation about riding... something we are all passionate about. We all live in different places with different riding conditions. We all have different type of trails that allow different things. They are laid out differently. SOme require more care of safety than others do. Some people ride better. Some people ride better equipped machines. Some conflicts that we all seem to describe in the same way, are actually very different based on all of the above and more.
> 
> ...


This doesn't make sense to me. So You are a perfect rider that can control what is out of your control? You are predicting what would happen in a situation that you were not in?

OK my friends if he is being honest i think we just found god, if such a thing even exist.

(This is the part when you complain of baseless personal attacks)


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*Having the right of way...*



radiocraig said:


> If i have the right of way, i am not being a dick


Has nothing to do with it. If you had the right of way, you can technically block the whole trail, and go as slow as you want and be as obnoxious about it as you can, but that would make you a dick.

I can see your point, tho. If the DHers are mowing their way down the hill not slowing down, not passing safely and showing any signs of sharing the trail, then I would get pretty pished too.\

In reality, things are rarely that black and white. In almost every case, it isn't one single thing that causes an incident. It's usually a few small things that set it up for the one big thing that triggers the incident. In an accident, who cares who gets 100% of the finger of blame when you are taking a ride in the back of a meat wagon. Best for everybody to take an extra credit step and not have the issue in the first place. Those extra credit steps that should be taken proportionality to the speed involved. The faster you go, the more extra safety steps you should take. It's not just you that gets hurt, it's those you run into, and those trying to rescue you.



Dougie said:


> Right of way or not right of way, it's not worth getting into a fight about it man. We're all just out riding bikes. Be the bigger person and just let it go.
> 
> If it bothers you that much, you could always say something to the guy that got close, but not in a violent or engaging way. Something along the lines of "Hey man, I'm not trying to start anything, but you got a little close while you were passing me and I'm just trying to look out and keep everyone safe so we can all enjoy the ride".


Zactly. We aren't battling to keep the aliens from enslaving us. We're out riding bikes, enjoying the outdoors.


----------



## Acero853 (Feb 19, 2010)

I love semantics.


----------



## Brodino (Sep 15, 2008)

Classic!


----------



## bentcog (Aug 13, 2010)

The thing I understand here is we are supposed to "abide" to someone else's "rules". 

So, are we supposed to magically read their minds and figure out what they are using as a set of rules? Or are we to be out for number 1 in this situation and make sure that we above all else are responsible for our safety first. 

Secondly for the person(s) riding, walking or are on horse approaching in our direction. Why is it that I must go out into nature to forget all of civilized life as I know it, albeit, for an hour or three, and suddenly have rules, regulations and the like jammed down my throat by the "saints" of the trail that I must follow because I post on some board. The same group of people that would run me down in a cross walk, cut me off to get into the exit lane ahead of me and run a red light so they can get to the next one and wait there longer. I am sure that every walk of life that uses trails feels that they are in the right because they are the only group that works on the trails, utilizes them and therefore should have the majority of rights. 

Come one people, nobody is saying that every trail use experience is going to be perfect and that everything is going to follow perfectly for all users all of the time. But do we really need to have thousands of topics on hundreds of forums throughout the world for this very reason? We have turned every experience that we have with other people into a "why did they do that to me and why didn't they yield/be nice/move over more/pick up their animals feces/litter/not show up to trail repair day. Not everyone is as responsible as some and some are less responsible than others and there is no longer an acceptance towards humans we have interactions with. Look with in yourselves and we would all see that we are guilty as well but are still willing to cast the first stone. 

I don't care who picked up more trash, rebuilt what trail or who has pulled over more for passers by that they encounter along the way. I care about everyone doing what they feel is right and only for the sole reason of they think it is good. Not for a pat on the back. You should not need a forum, person or team of people to tell you that you did a good job today. When you put your head on the pillow at the end of the day that is when your deeds matter. Can you sleep tonight? Does what you did throughout the day make you a good person or a bad person? What can you do tomorrow to change what you did today? Nothing. So make sure tomorrow is a better representation of who you truly are and move on with people’s imperfections. We all have them and nobody is without them.

As for approaching someone for being an @$$ on the trail. Where does it say I cannot vent my frustration towards someone that has just taken the sacred rule of self-preservation, my rule, and thrown it out the window? After all, we as a society are a self serving people and that means I should have the "right to influence" this young rider that may not care about his preservation, right? Not everybody is having the type of day you are. They may feel bad for it later on down the road though you may never know it. Let them deal with their imperfections; you deal with your own. I am sure there are plenty of people that would love to have beat the crap out of you for something you did that you were not even aware of that deeply offended them. But did they go over and voice their opinions? Obviously not, otherwise, you would have known about it and probably gotten upset some and later, after you cooled down some, tried to figure out how you could fix it.

On another note, I have left many hobbies behind because so many of the people in them thought that it would be super cool to be @$$3$ to everyone the met. I am sad to see this with this group of people and I fear that this too is another one of "those " groups. Damn.


----------



## Pimpride (Nov 14, 2005)

Wouldn't be an issue if the trail had a designated direction.... Then only passing manners come into play.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

*



And that is not meant as an insult, but a sincere suggestion...

Click to expand...

*


> G'day....


I can't respond to your post without chopping it all up and creating your quotes from mine... since you double quoted and all. Sorry... it just isn't worth it. I would... but... yeah... sorry.

If you would like to rewrite is and quote it properly so that I can respond in kind, I would be happy to read it and reply.

:thumbsup:


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

dust3313 said:


> This doesn't make sense to me. So You are a perfect rider that can control what is out of your control? You are predicting what would happen in a situation that you were not in?


What? I didn't say any of that. What I said was that I would not have hit the girl that hit her brakes in the middle of the trail. There is nothing outside my control regarding what she was doing and/or capable of doing. Hit your brakes in the middle of the trail going 7 mph with me 12 inches off your wheel, and I will be stopped before you will. That is child's play.



> OK my friends if he is being honest i think we just found god, if such a thing even exist.


You best roll up the pant leg on that strawman of yours. It is getting deep.





> (This is the part when you complain of baseless personal attacks)


(It is just disappointment. I am disappointed when people feel the need to engage in ad hom attacks as they are logical fallacies and just force the user into a losing situation of irrational behavior. It is embarrassing, and in turn a disappointment.

Ohh yeah.. who are we talking to while we are in quotes? Are we to the side... in a soliloquy of drama? HELLO!!! ANYONE INSIDE THESE QUOTES???  )


----------



## dust3313 (Sep 15, 2010)

FrostyStruthers said:


> What? I didn't say any of that. What I said was that I would not have hit the girl that hit her brakes in the middle of the trail. There is nothing outside my control regarding what she was doing and/or capable of doing. Hit your brakes in the middle of the trail going 7 mph with me 12 inches off your wheel, and I will be stopped before you will. That is child's play.
> 
> You best roll up the pant leg on that strawman of yours. It is getting deep.
> 
> ...


Ok I give up you are a better man than I. I only hope to have some day the fast knowledge of the universe you do.


----------



## bentcog (Aug 13, 2010)

Frosty, you haven't made many friends lately, have you. Oh well. So much for trying to be an intellectual individual and prove that neither side is necessary in all of its glory but at the same time that both sides have valid and plausible positions within the realm of trail etiquette.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

bentcog said:


> Frosty, you haven't made many friends lately, have you. Oh well. So much for trying to be an intellectual individual and prove that neither side is necessary in all of its glory but at the same time that both sides have valid and plausible positions within the realm of trail etiquette.


That was so cute.

I'm flattered with your fixation, but it is off topic and I am taken anyway.

Sorry. You will find someone.... I just know it.

:thumbsup:


----------



## bentcog (Aug 13, 2010)

Taken too. But you can have me every other Friday and the 2nd week of every month.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

bentcog said:


> Taken too. But you can have me every other Friday and the 2nd week of every month.


A little too late for you to try and come back with what you just got...



As you have strayed from the topic, I believe we are done here. I will not respond to any more of your posts in this thread. I think it is best.

Have a swell day and a fancy dinner.

:thumbsup:


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

dust3313 said:


> Ok I give up you are a better man than I. I only hope to have some day the fast knowledge of the universe you do.


Whaaa?

Better man? Hmmm... this thread has nothing to do with someone being a "better man". Get a grip on yourself. Have some dignity. This is a thread about mountain biking. It is about how we ride and what dictates it. No one is going to be the same or ride by the same set of "rules". To go off the deep end of ad hom, knee jerk throw your hands up in the air mentality of defeat is really sort of over dramatic, don't you think?

And "fast" knowledge is no good unless it is "vast" knowledge.

:thumbsup:


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*This is really about cooperation*

and sharing.

Too bad we got sidetracked because it is a useful discussion. "Common sense", IMBA "Rules", local traditions, individual desires, varied skills, and serendipity all play a part. We all would rather be at the cafe eating burgers and having beers rather than the ER after a ride. What we decide to do every ride goes into making that determination whether one is a dick or a nazi.


----------



## skrap1r0n (Oct 15, 2010)

There is a little thing called etiquette. IMBA may not be law or authority, but the items they outline are fairly common sense and are in place to keep the rest of the world from thinking MTBers are complete jack-wagons. 

I can see by some posts here that some MTBers are complete jack-wagons... go figure.


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

*being conventional*

Imagine being conventional in a sport some think is anything but.

Frosty, you are just a cyclist after all. That's really nothing that special or counter culture about you as a cyclist

I'm sorry but people approaching each other generally pass each other on the right, it's just custom, whether walking, driving, or even cycling.

Your assertion that people don't obey this can be dismissed instantly by viewing any video of large groups of people walking downtown at lunch. The Turks even have a saying 'All good Turks move to the right' although this is clearly also a pun on politics.

To not obey convention for absolutely no reason aside from being obstinate is certainly one's choice but a pointless one.

What exactly does it prove, what do you accomplish?

That you can annoy people?

Same thing with downhill vs uphill. If most people believe that descenders yield to climbers and you break that rule, go for it.

And contrary to your assertion that most people don't know this I disagree.

Most young people don't know this.

And if the convention is to pass on the right and you move to the left you make the opposing rider who obeys convention second guess himself and needlessly change course. You may in fact endanger the other rider because you can't transfer your superior skills and intentions to him telepathically.

Do you care that you might hurt someone this way?

What do you prove by your actions?

You can break 'rules' or conventions...

Good for you!

Drew


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

dru said:


> Imagine being conventional in a sport some think is anything but.




Hey man, I just ride a bike.



> Frosty, you are just a cyclist after all. That's really nothing that special or counter culture about you as a cyclist


Whoa... ESP... Yeah... I am a biker (see above). I never said there was anything "special" or "counter culture" about ANYTHING. You are projecting. 



> I'm sorry but people approaching each other generally pass each other on the right, it's just custom, whether walking, driving, or even cycling.


All that "generally" means is that the situation will end up defining what people do. And of course, the situation IS what ends up determining how cyclists pass each other on the trail.



> Your assertion that people don't obey this can be dismissed instantly by viewing any video of large groups of people walking downtown at lunch.


There is nothing to "obey". There is NO law on the trail that mandates that people pass or don't pass on any particular side. There is no mandate. Why do you want to be led around on some string that doesn't even exist? Pass with care. If a guy decides to lean his bike over on his left side of the trail, and waves for you to continue down, and you pass on the left, then the situation has determined what you are gonna do. And it aint passing on the right. And that is what happens EVERY time. It doesn't matter if you happen think that people will just pass on the right naturally. There is no mandate, therefore you better pay attention and pass with care no matter what side that happens to be on. Get over your self-inflation that demands that your culture, and your traditions apply to everyone in the woods. They don't apply. OK? If you push the issue based on what you happen to want others to do, you can expect to be treated poorly.



> The Turks even have a saying 'All good Turks move to the right' although this is clearly also a pun on politics.


Good God....



We are done here.

The PC mentality DESTROYS trails and trail systems. BEFORE people began crying about Barney's riding off the trial in Fruita, no one did it. Now that every bozo is a weekend warrior with a giant ego and a 4,000 dollar ride, they have to try and make everyone conform to what THEY happen to want based on lunacy that doesn't even apply in the woods or the desert.

Here is the deal. I will ride for pleasure. I will ride fast. I will scare people from time to time as I approach them unaware at a high rate of speed. But I will brake. And I will stop if necessary. If I have to fly off a cliff and die, I will do that before hitting someone.

When this type of situation develops, I am usually fully stopped quite a distance from a hiker before they stop tripping over rocks and falling down like Bambi on newborn legs to get out of the way as their ear buds catch on their knees and get yanked out of their stuffed ears... Riders? If they push the issue (are looking and not stopping) on a tough climb, I will stop.... or if I know it is a tough climb, I want to stop to watch and always do. If they are putzing along on some weak grade, I will push them to stop and let me by when I am coming down. Sometimes I will push hard. Sometimes people yell or say something, but it is just out of sheer ego or panic that makes them do it. It is never out of really being in any dangeruntil they made the choice to put themselves in danger. It is about ego and pride or something. Or they are just tooled by the masses. Like I have stated, I have been there as I have come full circle on all of this. I used to be Mr. Safe. I stopped and let people go. Speed is what hurts. Best slow down and let others by. You know what happened? Rides sucked. It began to sap all the life out of the fun. And people just took it all for granted anyway. People do whatever they want. Pass on the right? Sure... if that is the way it goes... and when it doesn't go that way, then you just get along the best you can...

In the mean time? I'll just ride and if people want to cry about it, then they can cry. I don't really care anymore about riding for trail access or for hikers that get mad or horses that are skiddrey with stupid people and arrogant people riding them or for "keeping singletrack single". I'm done caring about that idiocy. It goes nowhere. It ruins riding. It ruins rides. I ride in the rain and mud. If I don't ride through the mud puddle, then I ride around it. It is too muddy when my wheels don't turn anymore, and then, more often than not, it still isn't too muddy. That is just the way it is going to be. And in the end, I couldn't be more happy with finally getting back to what it is all about... just riding.

Pay attention out there. You hiking up some trail that bikes ride? Pay attention and get to the side of the trail for a second to let them pass when they are coming down. There is no reason for the bike to stop and let you hike up the trail with your headphones on either. Zero reason except for your ego and your arrogance. Take the headphones off people, or be caught unprepared. I'll stop if I have to because that is the rule that is posted around here, but that doesn't mean that you are going to feel safe when you realize I am close. The same thing goes for climbing bikers. Pay attention. If you are putzing along on a mild grade, lean the bike to the side... ANY SIDE, shout out some encouragment to the riders coming down as they go by. If you are on some tech climb that you have been riding for 3 years and never cleaned or something that we all love to smash out, then make sure you have looked forward so the guy coming down sees that you see. Maybe they will stop for you. I would. Just remember, he doesn't have to stop no matter what you happen to think about culture and society and tradition and driving and walking on a sidewalk and whatever else you want to use to make your pount that EVERYONE should be doing what YOU want them to do.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

skrap1r0n said:


> There is a little thing called etiquette. IMBA may not be law or authority, but the items they outline are fairly common sense and are in place to keep the rest of the world from thinking MTBers are complete jack-wagons.


IMBA suggestions are just that. They are suggestions on how to ride responsibly and safely. Their intent is to offer their members the tools to ride in such a way that they believes represents their organization. They are not intended to be used by those members to brow beat others into riding submission by force feeding them into riding the way IMBA suggests or to interject that the suggestions are a mandate and/or obligatory to everyone.

If you want to ride under the tenants of the suggestions, then go ahead. I will do what I happen to see fit in regards to responsibility and safety as that is MY responsibility and not anyone elses.

:thumbsup:


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

FrostyStruthers said:


> We are done here.


We can only hope.

But somehow I doubt it.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

HarryCallahan said:


> We can only hope. But somehow I doubt it.


These posts are always funny. Stand on your own two feet, Harry. 


This thread is done anytime you stop looking at it, and that is what we are talking about isn't it? This is no different. You don't have to keep reading. You certainly didn't have to insult me by talking around me as you try and rally forces around you as if you are superior. _And you certainly didn't have to push your elbows out on that 3% grade as you puffed up with your sense of entitlement because IMBA suggests that yielding to YOU simply because you are climbingis some kind of law or something... Pffft... you are climbing after all... but you know what? You didn't have to be such a dick about it. You could have just put a foot down, leaned over a bit, and let me by... .but nope.. IMBA gave you some misguided sense of entitlement.._



And that is what people do when they are on the trail. They use IMBA suggestions et.al on how it's members should ride as a tool to be "The Big Boss" out on the trail as they dictate to others that everyone should be doing the same thing, and if they aren't, they are idiots that aren't riding responsibly and safely.

That is BS.


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

FrostyStruthers said:


> Whoa... ESP... Yeah... I am a biker (see above). I never said there was anything "special" or "counter culture" about ANYTHING. You are projecting.


I think your behaviour here makes it quite clear that you are indeed special.



> All that "generally" means is that the situation will end up defining what people do. And of course, the situation IS what ends up determining how cyclists pass each other on the trail.


I notice that you like to play loose with the english language. I'll have to put a stop to that...

It was quite clear the use of 'generally' in my statement means 'most of' or 'all of' the time in talking about people's behaviour. Your 'rebranding' of my adjective does not prove your case.

The 'situation' for most groups of people, either cycling, driving a car, or walking is as I stated in my earlier post.



> There is nothing to "obey". There is NO law on the trail that mandates that people pass or don't pass on any particular side. There is no mandate.


Why do you say that, especially when it is untrue?

Again, my examples of driving, cycling, and walking behaviour! Do you swerve into the shoulder of the opposite lane when a car is approaching you. Of course not, because you obey rules.

Do you deny that most people in a great big city like NY walk on the right of people who are approaching them, and vice-versa? Do you not ride, walk, or roller blade on community trails?

I won't even bother mentioning what side of the trail is in question!

Do most people obey this 'convention' (that you insist on calling a 'rule') or not?



> Why do you want to be led around on some string that doesn't even exist?


I want people to behave predictably. This is so people don't get hurt.
People behave predictably by obeying (clearly a word you despise) unwritten rules, conventions, or actual bonafide rules.

I noticed that you haven't answered my question about how you felt about endangering others by being unpredictable. You know, those folks you are coming up on that can't read your mind, and expect you to pass them on the right. You know those people, known as 'the rest of us'....



> There is no mandate


I never said there was. I said there was convention, and rules, both written and unwritten. You are arguing that rules in the case of mountain biking don't exist when in fact they do.

You are using little rhetorical tricks like closely defining 'rules' to fit your argument so as to throw out examples like IMBA guidelines, and conventions in mass behaviour like the examples I provided. Hell, I even used actual rules of the road that you tried to turn into some form of 'imaginary string'.

I'm sorry that's pretty cheesey.



> Get over your self-inflation that demands that your culture, and your traditions apply to everyone in the woods. They don't apply. OK?


Why don't you try, really really hard, to lose the huge chip on your shoulder and just go with the flow. Meaning obeying convention, since most of the rest of the world does



> Good God....
> 
> 
> 
> We are done here.


Why did you continue then, why...?????



> The PC mentality DESTROYS trails and trail systems. BEFORE people began crying about Barney's riding off the trial in Fruita, no one did it. Now that every bozo is a weekend warrior with a giant ego and a 4,000 dollar ride, they have to try and make everyone conform to what THEY happen to want based on lunacy that doesn't even apply in the woods or the desert.


You don't know me, or the other posters. You are 'projecting' as you would put it. I do have a few nice bikes, not one. But I'm certainly not new to this nor a 'weekend warrior'. The rules (that don't exist) were in place when I entered the sport 15 years ago. I build trails too, and if I caught some idiot riding the trails backwards (remember -no rules) I'd be the 1st to tell him.



> Here is the deal. I will ride for pleasure. I will ride fast. I will scare people from time to time as I approach them unaware at a high rate of speed.


You are a class act.



> When this type of situation develops, I am usually fully stopped quite a distance from a hiker before they stop tripping over rocks and falling down like Bambi on newborn legs to get out of the way as their ear buds catch on their knees and get yanked out of their stuffed ears...


Again, classy. What is 'good' about your behaviour? Try behaving more like a human being by yelling 'rider up' or by (gasp)ringing a bell.



> Sometimes I will push hard. Sometimes people yell or say something, but it is just out of sheer ego or panic that makes them do it. It is never out of really being in any dangeruntil they made the choice to put themselves in danger.


You are stunning example of manhood. Can we have sex?



> It is about ego and pride or something.


I know I'm misquoting you here, but I can't help it. Clearly your entire life is all about YOU. That's kind of sad



> Or they are just tooled by the masses


Oh yes you aren't coming across as some kind of edgy counter-culture warrior biker, not at all......

Drew


----------



## skrap1r0n (Oct 15, 2010)

FrostyStruthers said:


> I will do what I happen to see fit in regards to responsibility and safety as that is MY responsibility and not anyone elses.
> 
> :thumbsup:


Sooooo, are you saying that you prefer not to show some etiquette for others on the trail?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*I think you are all mistaken about Frosty.*

He is hardly counter-culture, edgy, a rebel, or even contrarian. He is a loose cannon who seems to believe his skill is enough to get him through anything. Further he seems to believe that any interaction with other riders can be managed in the same way by that rider, independent of any paradigms of de facto rules, suggestions or cultural tendencies suggested in this forum. In a sport of such widely ranging levels of skill and stamina I find such a disposition suspect, reactionary and overstated in this thread, and most of all, untenable.

My High School racers ride 1000 miles together each year. The most important thing they learn is how to ride with each other, in all conditions, without inflicting harm. This gets refined as the season progresses as they build skill and stamina and get to know each others moves. The other thing they learn is another survival skill, and that is being a quick judge of other riders they encounter, remain the one in control, and to be aware of the basic rules of trail use.

Our injury rate is one of the lowest in the League of 550 racers. Further, when riding amongst other adult organizations they are faster, stronger and safer. They usually end up leading the various groups. And when we bring in special adult talent to take them out, the leader always glows with their facility at following instructions, their adaptability, and their grace.

When the racers go out with friends I caution them to not press them beyond their limited abilities, to give them room, keep away from them, and watch them for fatigue. They have learned to carry extra food and schedule water breaks in support of a less developed riders needs. What all of this speaks to is the value of knowing the riders around you and what one can expect..

I have 12 years of leading group rides and 10 years of training rides that say Frosty has integrated much more of the riding culture's rules than he is willing or able to admit. I figure he is pretty well-skilled as a mountain biker (and reparte') and I offer this. Not only do I train racers but coaches, too. The least effective coaches, lacking training, are frequently very highly skilled riders or racers. Why? They have lost sight of the experience of the early learning curve, the acquisition of fundamentals, and the countless layers of experience which builds their current facility. They can be clueless about foundations earned much like the republican who wakes up on 3rd base thinking he hit a triple and figures all the least you can do is hit a simple single to drive him home. It is a common disconnect.

I do hear a tendency in this thread and on this forum at times, which bridles at guidance, direction, requirement,or restriction. It espouses lessez-faire in service of escape or respite from a world some feel steadily encroaches on freedom. Like it or not, the explosion of mountain biking will bring all kinds of athletes to the trails. Unless they are all as skilled as Frosty, some form or organization will have to be recognized.

I am reminded of the Texan who refused to wear seatbelts because he felt that in a collision he would rather be "thrown clear." It defies the quantification of our sport and its transmission. So I ask this question: how would you like to be 35 years old with 20 years of mtb under your belt? Won't happen without some rules.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

Berkeley Mike said:


> They can be clueless about foundations earned much like the republican who wakes up on 3rd base thinking he hit a triple and figures all the least you can do is hit a simple single to drive him home.


Uhhhh.... huh?


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

FrostyStruthers said:


> One word.
> 
> MATURITY.


If you had any, you'd know that pissing into the wind only gets you wet and stinky.



Frosty said:


> Browbeating people into your way of thinking based on what you believe to be "good manners" doesn't work.


Then just what is it that you are trying to do with all of your posts?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Try this, Skiahh*



skiahh said:


> Uhhhh.... huh?


It is not uncommon for highly skilled people to lose track of what it took to get where they are. Their facility for acting at that level is immediate and they see subsequent moves from that point as a matter of executing a few simple steps. It presumes too much and is a fallacy.

One of my racers is an accomplished musician and we were writing back from a workout talking about why we were doing fundamentals when many of our racers were pretty advanced. So I asked him if his music mentor had ever done anything like this with him. And you could see the lightbulb go on. He described recent weeks where his jazz ensemble went back to some basics in order to get a grasp on the advanced things that they were about to do. And it made things so much clearer to them.

The interesting thing here is that teens are in a mode of learning. They are closer to their beginnings they are more flexible, are more agile and they are in a learning mode. Adults are not quite there anymore. We all know crusty mountain bikers.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

Berkeley Mike said:


> It is not uncommon for highly skilled people to lose track of what it took to get where they are. Their facility for acting at that level is immediate and they see subsequent moves from that point as a matter of executing a few simple steps. It presumes too much and is a fallacy.
> 
> One of my racers is an accomplished musician and we were writing back from a workout talking about why we were doing fundamentals when many of our racers were pretty advanced. So I asked him if his music mentor had ever done anything like this with him. And you could see the lightbulb go on. He described recent weeks where his jazz ensemble went back to some basics in order to get a grasp on the advanced things that they were about to do. And it made things so much clearer to them.
> 
> The interesting thing here is that teens are in a mode of learning. They are closer to their beginnings they are more flexible, are more agile and they are in a learning mode. Adults are not quite there anymore. We all know crusty mountain bikers.


Adults... yes. But I would suggest that republicans are not the only group to suffer from this dilemma. It's a very apolitical condition; I guess I should have been more specific in my lack of understanding of your post!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*It is a joke once told about George Bush Sr.*

and he could be really clueless about wealth but has always been attributed to Republicans in general.


----------



## Duke of Earl (Apr 29, 2008)

Maxwe11 said:


> Please don't start acting like a dick because there are dicks out there. If everyone thought that way, eventually we'd all be dicks.


Couldn't have said it better myself. Sometimes, it is necessary to suck up pride and move on.


----------



## rebel1916 (Sep 16, 2006)

This Frosty fellow has nearly 700 (apparently extremely lengthy) posts in under 6 months. My guess is he doesn't actually do much riding. He also probably doesn't do a whole lot of interacting with real people in real life.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

rebel1916 said:


> This Frosty fellow has nearly 700 (apparently extremely lengthy) posts in under 6 months. My guess is he doesn't actually do much riding. He also probably doesn't do a whole lot of interacting with real people in real life.


Hmmm... So let me get this insult train you have going here straight? Due to how many posts I have in a 6 month period, you have come to the conclusion that I, "don't ride much"? How many posts are required for you to come to this assumption? What is your cut-off? If someone has, say, over 500 posts in a 6 month period, does that mean they don't ride much? Is 500 enough? How many words constitutes a "long" post? How much riding is much? How many people do I need to interact with in real life to be like you? 2? 5? 10? 500? What is good enough? How many do you think I should be interacting with? Do you entertain typing speed in your logarithmic equations? How about riding speed? Elevation gain? Duration?

Do you believe that posting 700 times in less than 6 months _eats_ into probable riding time? If I didn't post as much as I have, I would have ridden instead? I would have ridden more? So I must not ride much?

Is that your rationale? Or are you just being a dick?

:skep:



:crazy:

ut:

:nono:


----------



## Iridethedirt (Jan 20, 2008)

Frosty, I get needing to use lots of words to get a point across sometimes, but wow man...
There are more people here disagreeing with your opinions, and methodology of trail etiquette, than there are backing you up. 
The guy who coaches a high school team gave a very solid argument..
I volunteer with a youth mountain bike group, we teach yielding to uphill riders.
I take lots of opportunities to stop and chat with fellow trail users, be they on bike, or foot, or hoof... The majority of mountain bikers who have been at it for more than a season or two, share the yield to uphill rider custom. Your claims that this is untrue is really hard to believe when so many here argue against you, and my experiences on the trail do not back you up either.
You seem to be arguing these things on a philisophical level, rather than a practical one, from the viewpoint of a near anarchist, only out for number 1... Your aparent world view is quite narcissistic, and honestly it bums me out. My safety on the trail is my number 1 priority, making sure I do not endanger other trail users is my number 1 responsibility. This is about safety! This is about making sure your actions do not put someone in the hospital. 
Wether or not you are rude, nice, mean, courteous, I dont care, but please take a real look at your practices, and really take a second to make sure you dont put others in danger...
I'm nit saying you definitely do, but your posts do give a bit of cause form concern.


----------



## rebel1916 (Sep 16, 2006)

I do appreciate that you kept your dazzling comeback fairly short.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

FrostyStruthers said:


> The PC mentality DESTROYS trails and trail systems. BEFORE people began crying about Barney's riding off the trial in Fruita, no one did it. Now that every bozo is a weekend warrior with a giant ego and a 4,000 dollar ride, they have to try and make everyone conform to what THEY happen to want based on lunacy that doesn't even apply in the woods or the desert.
> 
> Here is the deal. I will ride for pleasure. I will ride fast. I will scare people from time to time as I approach them unaware at a high rate of speed. But I will brake. And I will stop if necessary. If I have to fly off a cliff and die, I will do that before hitting someone.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Plummit (Jan 14, 2004)

Why don't we just combine this thread with fireroads v. singletrack into some sort of sordid "climbing right of way on fireroads v. singletrack" melange. Two threads that should but will not die are stronger than one.


----------



## N10S (Sep 27, 2004)

Plummit said:


> Why don't we just combine this thread with fireroads v. singletrack into some sort of sordid "climbing right of way on fireroads v. singletrack" melange. Two threads that should but will not die are stronger than one.


Hmmm...you may have something there. We could further inflame things by integrating the headphone debate thread, making it a "climbing right of way on fireroads v. singletrack while debating the headache of dealing with self absorbed earbud zombies on the trail" .


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Iridethedirt said:


> Frosty, I get needing to use lots of words to get a point across sometimes, but wow man...
> There are more people here disagreeing with your opinions, and methodology of trail etiquette, than there are backing you up.
> The guy who coaches a high school team gave a very solid argument..
> I volunteer with a youth mountain bike group, we teach yielding to uphill riders.
> ...


The people who post to a forum are not necessarily your typical trail users.

Although I am aware of the IMBA recommendations and I generally put them into practice, I am also aware enough that the majority of riders do not follow them. In my 20+ years of riding it has been a rare occasion where the downhill rider stops and pulls over to the right so the uphill rider can continue without stopping.

If you take a second you will realize that IMBA recommendation doesn't make sense at all. It was developed 15+ years ago when we were fighting like crazy to maintain some trail access and politically it sounds good. In XC skiing the recommendation is the other way around, up-skiers yield to downhill skiers.

Really IMBA should re-write their recommendation to "Yield to on coming riders" Everybody should slow down and give space when they meet someone on the trail.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

LMN said:


> The people who post to a forum are not necessarily your typical trail users.
> 
> Although I am aware of the IMBA recommendations and I generally put them into practice, I am also aware enough that the majority of riders do not follow them. In my 20+ years of riding it has been a rare occasion where the downhill rider stops and pulls over to the right so the uphill rider can continue without stopping.
> 
> ...


The opposite suggestion for xc skiers might have just a little bit to do with how much they suck at stopping....

I'm usually prepared to yield to climbing riders when I'm descending, but on the trail, the climbing riders usually yield before I get the chance.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

N10S said:


> Hmmm...you may have something there. We could further inflame things by integrating the headphone debate thread, making it a "climbing right of way on fireroads v. singletrack while debating the headache of dealing with self absorbed earbud zombies on the trail" .


You gotta leave room for Huckin' Kitty! The entire thing must be hucked!


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

Iridethedirt said:


> Frosty, I get needing to use lots of words to get a point across sometimes, but wow man...






> There are more people here disagreeing with your opinions, and methodology of trail etiquette, than there are backing you up.


And you came to this assumption how? And it means what?



> The guy who coaches a high school team gave a very solid argument..


There is no "argument". You ride how you ride, and I will ride how I ride. I will be responsible for my riding, and you will be responsible for yours. You will not control mine and/or take control of my riding, and I will do the same. If you want to ride as if IMBA suggestions are rules, then you go ahead and do it. I will do whatever I choose to do in that regard.



> I volunteer with a youth mountain bike group, we teach yielding to uphill riders.


That is great for you. I don't volunteer for any bike groups, and I don't attempt to teach anyone how to ride.



> I take lots of opportunities to stop and chat with fellow trail users, be they on bike, or foot, or hoof...


I am not all that interested in talking to anyone while on the trail. I don't care if they are on a bike or a horse or on foot. I am not interested in chatting and I have no "fellow" trail users as I am not in their group either. I prefer to be my own user and do my own thing.



> The majority of mountain bikers who have been at it for more than a season or two, share the yield to uphill rider custom. Your claims that this is untrue is really hard to believe when so many here argue against you, and my experiences on the trail do not back you up either.


From my many years of experience, I disagree with you. And in the end it doesn't matter who happens to follow what custom. I am not following YOUR custom or IMBAs suggestion and quite frankly I don't have to as there is no mandate to it. Also, I don't agree with it. That is my prerogative.



> You seem to be arguing these things on a philosophical level, rather than a practical one, from the viewpoint of a near anarchist, only out for number 1.


The "philosophy" here is the concept and idea that yielding to an uphill rider simply because he is a rider is somehow a rule that people need to follow simply because some organization said so... this year... And the "philosophy" ends there as it degrades into self-serving belligerence.

The "practicality" here is the reality that one must be aware of his surroundings and ride in accordance to the law in regards to another's safety. One must approach other trail users with caution and react according to each and every situation as it develops.

The "egocentric" position here, that builds from the supposed "philosophical" position is the one that decides to berate others based on the idea that there are unwritten and mandated rules out on the singletrack when it comes to bikes passing each other. Mandated rules based on an organizations suggestive points for how it's members should ride and act on the trails.

So what are you? What position are you taking?



> Your aparent world view is quite narcissistic, and honestly it bums me out.


And here we go with more ego trains? I'm sorry but you are just going to have to get over yourself in order to feel better. I hate to say that you brought it on yourself, but you did. Go have a lemon tea or something.



> My safety on the trail is my number 1 priority, making sure I do not endanger other trail users is my number 1 responsibility. This is about safety! This is about making sure your actions do not put someone in the hospital.


I don't want to hurt anyone, and I am not looking to hurt myself, but to tell you the truth, those items are NOT on the top of my list in regards to how I approach riding. They just don't have to be. See, it is NOT about "safety" to me. It is about a lot of other things with safety being just a small part of it. If it was always about "safety", I wouldn't do it. It would bore me. It would be a total drag. There would be o point. So yeah, I guess that is a bit of a quandary.



> Wether or not you are rude, nice, mean, courteous, I dont care, but please take a real look at your practices, and really take a second to make sure you dont put others in danger...


What "practices" would those be? What is a "real" look? I have been riding for decades. What is it that you believe I need to be looking at? I have thousands of miles of singletrack under my belt in quite literally ALL conditions. I have climbed and descended WELL over a million feet of altitude at last check.. probably several million by now. If you have something in mind... something specific that I need to take a "real" look at in regards to my "practices", then please present it.





> I'm nit saying you definitely do, but your posts do give a bit of cause form concern.


:skep:


----------



## Iridethedirt (Jan 20, 2008)

FrostyStruthers said:


> And you came to this assumption how? And it means what?
> 
> guess its my turn to be wordy...
> i made no assumption. I used my 17 years of mountain bike experience, and my ability to read others posts, to come to the conclusion, that, from what i have read, and experienced first hand, MOST people conform to the custom of yeilding to the uphill rider... most experienced riders will get upset with novices who are unfamiliar, and take many methods of "educating them"... not always in the kindest way.
> ...


When it comes down to it frosty, i get the grey area, and i understand sometimes its perfectly acceptable to ride past the uphill rider while you're on your way down, but this is rare. You do your thing, as it is obvious you'd have it no other way.... and I'll do mine. But man.... you sure are unpleasant.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

radiocraig said:


> If i have the right of way, i am not being a dick


You were doing it right before, don't stop cuz of one d**chbag. Experienced riders know it's best when both people make a little room for each other so they can pass with minimal interruption. Instead of taking your frustration out on every subsequent rider you should have confronted that guy. Uphill riders who hold their line in the middle of the trail and make a downhiller stop, when they could have moved over a little are assh*les.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

Iridethedirt said:


> When it comes down to it frosty, i get the grey area, and i understand sometimes its perfectly acceptable to ride past the uphill rider while you're on your way down, but this is rare. You do your thing, as it is obvious you'd have it no other way.... and I'll do mine. But man.... you sure are unpleasant.


Sorry, but as I am not willing to take the time to hack up your quote within a quote post, that measn that I am not going to bother reading it either. If you would like to break it down correctly by quoting correctly, then I will read it and tr to respond accordingly.

Thanks for the insult though. I am sure that insulting others makes you feel good... that would be why you do it.

Enjoy yourself.... as you are so pleasant.


----------



## rebel1916 (Sep 16, 2006)

I think Frosty is vandeman in disguise with a new tactic.


----------



## salimoneus (Oct 12, 2004)

Lelandjt said:


> You were doing it right before, don't stop cuz of one d**chbag. Experienced riders know it's best when both people make a little room for each other so they can pass with minimal interruption. Instead of taking your frustration out on every subsequent rider you should have confronted that guy. Uphill riders who hold their line in the middle of the trail and make a downhiller stop, when they could have moved over a little are assh*les.


If only it was that simple. After several hours of riding, and fatigue sets in, sometimes it's not so trivial to maintain a position on the side of the trail when you're climbing, the front tends to wander. An in fact many riders do not climb properly to begin with, and wander on the climbs even being fresh out of the gate.

Maybe the climber "holding his line" in the middle of an already narrow trail is just trying to keep from riding off the trail. Don't assume that everyone is a high level athlete or experienced rider.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

salimoneus said:


> Maybe the climber "holding his line" in the middle of an already narrow trail is just trying to keep from riding off the trail. Don't assume that everyone is a high level athlete or experienced rider.


Uh, I'm well aware of the kooks and gapers. Is it too much for me to wish everyone had their act together even though I know it won't happen? Too bad MTB isn't like the surf world where kooks have to stay out of the way of people who have been doing the sport for years. Don't bother replying to this because I KNOW IT WON'T HAPPEN.


----------



## mudforlunch (Aug 9, 2004)

If I can get by a climbing rider while going downhill with plenty of room to spare, I will do it. I'm not going to yield and screw up my run But if there isn't enough room, I will yield. If I'm climbing and a DHer doesnt yield to me, it doesnt bother me as long as he doesnt unsafely pass me (i.e. push me off the trail). I do not yield for runners, whatsoever, since they can move off the trail far easier than I can at anytime. I yield instantly for horses because, you ever ride a horse? I have. Ride a horse and then you'll start yielding to them. if I meet anyone with small children on the trail I instantly stop and wait for them to pass. I call out far ahead of time to anyone I meet on the trails, and I always say thank you as I pass and say hi to fellow riders. Anyone riding a bike and wearing an ipod on public singletrack I will call a ******bag, and ask them if they are trying to get killed. 

These are pretty much my own personal rules, and I get yelled at sometimes (mainly by runners), but overall everyone is pretty nice. The few bikers who are the biggest dicks that I have encountered have always been the XC dudes training for races (which I do as well) who act like the trail is only theirs and pass me in full team gear and make a snide comment as they go by, but who never have the balls to stop and confront anyone because they would be snapped in half.


----------



## AZspeeding (Nov 3, 2010)

gregnash said:


> :nono:
> 
> Actually there is.. read rule #4 Yield Appropriately
> http://www.imba.com/about/rules-trail


LMAO, I'll wait for IMBA to start ticketing violators any day now.

I believe what he meant was that police don't ticket for violating the code of the dirt road.


----------



## keithrad (May 4, 2007)

Damn you all! I just spent the last half hour reading this thread instead of helping my wife fold clothes. This will cost me...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*This sums up the conundrum*

There is no "code of the dirt road" to which people are willing to agree.


----------



## bentcog (Aug 13, 2010)

Mike, I think Keith could have used that at the beginning of all of this.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Bentcog, you are probably right.*

Yet it only becomes really clear when everyone has put in their 2 cents. If you put it at the beginning everyone would ignore it, chase red herrings, and miss out on calling each other dicks ad nazis and where is the fun in that?

What is core, though, is the issue of a resistance to a central code and that code is always just this side of how I RIDE!


----------



## salimoneus (Oct 12, 2004)

Lelandjt said:


> Uh, I'm well aware of the kooks and gapers. Is it too much for me to wish everyone had their act together even though I know it won't happen? Too bad MTB isn't like the surf world where kooks have to stay out of the way of people who have been doing the sport for years. Don't bother replying to this because I KNOW IT WON'T HAPPEN.


Ride harder trails then u wont find so many nubs


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

Think of it this way: When you're walking down a busy sidewalk do you follow a strict code of who should yield to who, or does everyone co-operatively try to give enough room for others while minimally impeding themselves*? Trail encounters are never a problem when 2 experienced, considerate cyclists (or hikers) meet. It's just an issue when you introduce newbies or dicks.

*Think of a real city like Manhattan, not tourist clogged Breckenridge.



salimoneus said:


> Ride harder trails then u wont find so many nubs


I actually don't encounter many people on Summit County trails. Just right around town or when I ride the Front Range parks in winter.


----------



## salimoneus (Oct 12, 2004)

Lelandjt said:


> Think of it this way: When you're walking down a busy sidewalk do you follow a strict code of who should yield to who, or does everyone co-operatively try to give enough room for others while minimally impeding themselves*? Trail encounters are never a problem when 2 experienced, considerate cyclists (or hikers) meet. It's just an issue when you introduce newbies or dicks.
> 
> *Think of a real city like Manhattan, not tourist clogged Breckenridge.
> 
> I actually don't encounter many people on Summit County trails. Just right around town or when I ride the Front Range parks in winter.


There's plenty of spots on most trails where it's narrow enough where even two experienced riders have a difficult time "barely missing" each other. Sure I do it fairly often as well, but there are times when it's just too close to bother chancing, in that case I don't feel bad about keeping a line more towards the center of the trail, especially on climbs where I'm already fatigued. If you wanna call me a dick for it then so be it, that's your problem.


----------



## Macca! (Oct 8, 2010)

dru said:


> I'm sorry but people approaching each other generally pass each other on the right, it's just custom, whether walking, driving, or even cycling.


Over there maybe, but down here we generally keep left.


----------



## Lelandjt (Feb 22, 2008)

salimoneus said:


> There's plenty of spots on most trails where it's narrow enough where even two experienced riders have a difficult time "barely missing" each other. Sure I do it fairly often as well, but there are times when it's just too close to bother chancing, in that case I don't feel bad about keeping a line more towards the center of the trail, especially on climbs where I'm already fatigued. If you wanna call me a dick for it then so be it, that's your problem.


In those cases both riders would recognize that someone needs to pull over and unless the climber moves to do it first the downhiller expects to have to stop. When I'm climbing in these situations I usually move over and stop early enough that the descender doesn't have to slow down. I do this because I usually see and hear them first and it gives me a chance to rest. You're not a dick for not doing this though and I don't always, especially if it's a technical climb.


----------



## mtbikernc69 (Mar 23, 2004)

You firetruckers leave me no choice but to pull this out.....


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

mtbikernc69 said:


> You firetruckers leave me no choice but to pull this out.....


And what does "pulling that out..." make you?

Come on, man.

:nono:


----------



## Mike E (Apr 16, 2008)

All this talk about is it a rule, is it not a rule, is it compulsory, etc, etc is...well... it's just sad. Why does something have to be a rule set in stone to make it right? I yeild to uphill riders because its the courteous thing to do, not because its a rule. By the same token, I don't steal, murder, rape, or torture cute little kittens because that would be wrong, not because there are rules/laws againt doing so. Its a pretty sad comment on our society that some people have to have written laws in order to know what is the right thing to do.


----------



## SpartyBiker (Mar 31, 2008)

What I can tell you is that people are loaded with testosterone and adrenaline while they're zipping down a trail. I've come to the conclusion that they're not used to that chemical cocktail so they're guilty of negligence because they're not in complete control.

I rarely stop someone on a trail because I know they're going to be on the defense as soon as I say something, and I'll get over it within a mile or less anyways. If I see them at the parking lot then I'll talk with them about trail ethics with an open-ended question, "in your experience, who gets the right of way on a trail?" Most people are clueless, apologetic, and get better at riding after a few constructive and educational conversation. If you see them again then you'll have a better chance of predicting their behavior.


----------



## nhodge (Jul 6, 2004)

Lelandjt said:


> Experienced riders know it's best when both people make a little room for each other so they can pass with minimal interruption. Uphill riders who hold their line in the middle of the trail and make a downhiller stop, when they could have moved over a little are assh*les.


that sums it up for me


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Double post*

Double post


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

SpartyBiker said:


> What I can tell you is that people are loaded with testosterone and adrenaline while they're zipping down a trail. I've come to the conclusion that they're not used to that chemical cocktail so they're guilty of negligence because they're not in complete control.
> 
> I rarely stop someone on a trail because I know they're going to be on the defense as soon as I say something, and I'll get over it within a mile or less anyways. If I see them at the parking lot then I'll talk with them about trail ethics with an open-ended question, "in your experience, who gets the right of way on a trail?" Most people are clueless, apologetic, and get better at riding after a few constructive and educational conversation. If you see them again then you'll have a better chance of predicting their behavior.


Good God. This is as ridiculous as it gets. People like you really, really, reallllllly need to get over yourselves. You are your own problem.



You are going to be "constructive" while "educating" me about how YOU WANT ME TO RIDE? Because of what? The fantasy that you create that dictates that I am not riding in control???? What the hell are you talking about? Totally nuts. The only one that is going to end up with the education out of that passive/aggressive mentality is YOU because all I am going to do is tell you to check your head and start with it by getting the hell away from me.

How is that going to make you _feel_?

Probably not so good? Well, then don't front up on peeps you know nothing about that have done NOTHING to you but wound your precious ego.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*This is the way of most social contracts*



Mike E said:


> Its a pretty sad comment on our society that some people have to have written laws in order to know what is the right thing to do.


 While few of us need laws to keep us from lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering, what we seem to forget is those are things we were taught. Society and civilization are things that have been discovered over time and reinvented and reworked to accommodate the needs of a population for survival and, in the present day, a quality-of-life.

It's much the same with our behavior on the trails. Whether were aware of it or not there is a fundamental agreement of cooperation. What you're finding in this thread is that it fluctuates depending upon the person and what they feel they need to do for their ride to succeed.

What is also being discovered in this long discussion is that riders have different levels of ability seem to adhere to different rule structures. New riders need rules or they can get creamed or cream somebody else. If you've had children you know that different children behave differently; there is the child who soon as they crawl climb to the top of the kitchen cabinets and find the knives and on the other hand others were simply content to sit and play with a rolling pin on the floor. Adults aren't much different. Oh, they may be faster or maybe more educated but they're also more self-possessed, self-determined, and cognizant of their desires.

And this comes back to my fundamental belief that although people think they don't need goals that their early involvement in the culture was based upon rules. By analogy I don't consider myself a Christian yet it would be obtuse to suggest that my behavior is not most substantially shaped by Christian beliefs. My spirit does not require Christ in my life yet the sense of brotherhood that is alive or elaborated in his name is key to how I act with people, whether I think about it on a day-to-day basis or not.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

Mike E said:


> All this talk about is it a rule, is it not a rule, is it compulsory, etc, etc is...well... it's just sad. Why does something have to be a rule set in stone to make it right?


No one is making that assertion. It doesn't have to be set in stone to be right or wrong. Being "set in stone" has nothing to do with anything.



> I yeild to uphill riders because its the courteous thing to do


No it isn't. It could be. It might be. But just because you happen to think so due to whatever it is, doesn't mean that it is courteous. I don't yield to uphill riders simply because you happen to beieve that it is courteous. I do it when the situation deems it appropriate. That situation does NOT include every time I see an uphill rider.

_Rider riding up hill... he knows you are coming so he is ready to let you by. He is going to let you by.. Ohhh... but you see him and yank your brakes to stop... OMG!!! he is the uphill guy I have to stop every time!!! It is the law of the IMBA land! I MUST stop!!!!_

Guy just shakes his head. It isn't courteous that you stopped, it is just annoying. Climbing guy is stopped and ready for you to pass, but now he has to get back going because you stopped your run in the middle of the hill simply because someone stated that you should... because... hmmm... because it is right or courteous or whatever??? Meanwhile the guy that was GOING to be courteous based on the situation gets to argue "pleasantly" about... "You go ahead." "No... you go ahead man." "No, I insist that you go." "No, you are the uphill guy so you are to go."... blah, blah, blah.

Load. That is a steamy load. A think and steamy load. A common thick and steamy load.



> By the same token, I don't steal, murder, rape, or torture cute little kittens because that would be wrong, not because there are rules/laws againt doing so. Its a pretty sad comment on our society that some people have to have written laws in order to know what is the right thing to do.


OMG... Really? Does the melodramatic hyperbole ever end with some of you people? Now not stopping on a DH when seeing an uphill rider is, "by the same token", similar to raping and murdering and torturing small, cute kittens?

Can you say, "Large pipe up against the side of the reality check head?"

No... I don't think you can.

Yielding to the uphill rider all the time just because someone once said that it was what they wanted you to do is EL STUPIDO! Not to mention that that the mere idea of it IS stupid.

But hey, to each his own. I will continue to ride on my rides, and you can continue to stop on your rides.

:thumbsup:


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> While few of us need laws to keep us from lying cheating and stealing and murdering what we seem to forget is those are things we were taught. Society and civilization are things that have been discovered over time and reinvented and we worked to accommodate the needs of a population for survival and in the present day, a quality-of-life.
> 
> It's much the same with our behavior on the trails. Whether were aware of it or not there is a fundamental agreement of cooperation. What you're finding in this thread is that it fluctuates depending upon the person and what they feel they need to do for their ride to succeed.
> 
> ...


Christ on a stick... are you kidding me?

YOU are YOUR OWN PROBLEM. Out of control ego. Totally out of control. Dangerously.

This is the problem people with encountering others on the trail. This right here. This display of ego on overdrive. Totally out of control and unstable.  Read that crap above... anyone that mulls this crap over when discusing trail encounters is simply so self-centered that they can't see the trail for their ego's need.

:skep:

It is nothing short of amazing.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*It is really about fundamentals*

and forgetting about our first steps and how they influence what we believe we do now "naturally." It isn't natural at all; it is constructed. Most importantly it isn't something unique to trail encounters. Trail encounters do not exist in a vacuum.


----------



## SpartyBiker (Mar 31, 2008)

You sound offended, the behavior that I would expect to see from someone that thinks they're above a reasonable expectation for public behavior on the trails. 

You my friend are pathetic, and need to stay off the trails so everyone else can enjoy their ride a little more.


----------



## SpartyBiker (Mar 31, 2008)

You don't have a clue what you're talking about...


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

SpartyBiker said:


> You sound offended, the behavior that I would expect to see from someone that thinks they're above a reasonable expectation for public behavior on the trails.


"Offended"?

:skep:

More ego out of control is what that is. He really actually believes that he can offend me. It is the same behavior that is indicative of someone on the trail that has an ego that is out of control... one that creates problems for himself simply for the sake of his ego... one that is constantly evaluating and offended at how others act. You can't offend me. Not with your words, or with your riding.

You are the kind of guy that while climbing sees the downhiller coming and puffs out his elbows aren't you? You are the kind that creates trail conflicts due to some idea that YOUR rules are everyone's rules and they better abide by them because you are RIGHT? That is what is pathetic.



> You my friend are pathetic, and need to stay off the trails so everyone else can enjoy their ride a little more.


Hmm.. How about no? How about I am individual that has JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to be on the trails as you do? How about no, I will NOT follow your unnecessary and made up suggestive rules and regulations so that your ego can feel full of vitality.

Expecting me to stop for you because you happen to be the uphill rider is an UNREASONABLE expectation. I am not the one that has unreasonable expectations, YOU are.

Here is a little class for you. Since your rules don't apply to ANYONE but you, I suggest you keep your head on a swivel when you are on a multi-use trail. I suggest you do what you think is appropriate in regards to your safety and everyone elses. When you know a rider is coming down, and you make the decision to puff your elbows out simply because of some suggestion you happened to read on the Internet, then you better expect to be ran the hell over because quite frankly, YOU are asking for it as you have make the choice to put yourself in danger.

I'm not the trail conflict, you are. If I hear a rider coming down, I prepare to stop before he ever gets to me. I pull over and let him go. It is very easy to do. It seems that you don't find that easy. It seems like you would rather push some issue by puffing your elbows out on some putz climb due to your unreasonable expectations that you have the right of way. Well, the FACT of the matter is that you DO NOT have the right of way. You best begin to get that through your head. Your rides will be much better when you do.

Always yielding to the uphill rider is absurd just like the silly suggestive notion to do so is absurd. Every pass I make is in regards to the situation and has NOTHING to do with your made up suggestive rules of the trail. Get over it.


You want a mandate? Call your Congressman.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

SpartyBiker said:


> You don't have a clue what you're talking about...


And you have no clue how to support an assertion.


----------



## SpartyBiker (Mar 31, 2008)

FrostyStruthers said:


> "Offended"?
> 
> :skep:
> 
> ...


That's a lot of thought and typing for someone that claims they weren't offended?

You my friend are truly pathetic and you really need to get let us all know where you ride so we can ensure that you're banned from that trail system.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

SpartyBiker said:


> That's a lot of thought and typing for someone that claims they weren't offended?


So now if I happen to type an amount of words that you believe are "alot", I am offended?

:skep:

It doesn't even make sense.



> You my friend are truly pathetic and you really need to get let us all know where you ride so we can ensure that you're banned from that trail system.


ROFL. "Banned from the trail system"?

Now that is priceless right there.


----------



## SpartyBiker (Mar 31, 2008)

FrostyStruthers said:


> And you have no clue how to support an assertion.


Says the pot who calls the tea kettle black.

Idiot!


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

OOOOKK. I see we are done here. Since you have choosen to stalk me throughout the forums by posting that I am an "idiot", or the like, in threads that are weeks old, I'm afraid that I can't continue to converse with you. See, I like to discuss the topics as to where you would rather engage in ad hom attacks so we are at an impasse.

You have a nice time here, OK kiddo?

Good bye.


----------



## SpartyBiker (Mar 31, 2008)

Yep----You're offended.....which is why you're an idiot!

Banning you would be a great start as soon as you hold your breath because you're robbing air from people that could put it to a better use than you.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*I don't know about banning Frosty from trails*

My guess is that he is a more considerate and conventional rider than he lets on. The format some have chosen to engage frosty does little to reveal anything useful in terms of trails usage and traditions and their validity. It has been more about umbrage and revealing the individuals inability to keep from taking the bait and backhanding each other repeatedly. this thread suffers from on many of the things that detract from discussions on many other forms and has almost nothing to do with mountain biking. That is unless we consider my bikers is being stubborn crusty and up noxious And all the more capable of being abusive to each other.

Like I said it's a shame because this is an issue that can really bear some fruit. Understanding is the goal.


----------



## Oldfatbaldguy (Nov 4, 2010)

I have ridden precious little in widely-used hilly terrain, and some of what I have done was well-cleared to facilitate riders giving each other a little space. Some other posters have suggested this, but maybe I can state it differently: we all make decisions based on circumstances. Under the best of conditions, almost all of us would yield somewhat to each other, but there might be situations where it just seems obvious that one party or another should "give" the greater amount. If I was enjoying the free gravity ride, but accosted a climber that was obviously in way over his or her head to the point of ragged gasping and reduced attention, I would take that into consideration, even if I believed I had the "right of way".

And I think most of the rest of us would, too. Why would any sane, rational person try to justify making other choices?


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> My guess is that he is a more considerate and conventional rider than he lets on. The format some have chosen to engage frosty does little to reveal anything useful in terms of trails usage and traditions and their validity. It has been more about umbrage and revealing the individuals inability to keep from taking the bait and backhanding each other repeatedly. this thread suffers from on many of the things that detract from discussions on many other forms and has almost nothing to do with mountain biking. That is unless we consider my bikers is being stubborn crusty and up noxious And all the more capable of being abusive to each other.
> 
> Like I said it's a shame because this is an issue that can really bear some fruit. Understanding is the goal.


Come on. Traditions on the trail are not valid. There are NO traditions short of the ones you and your buddies entertain. People come from myriad of places. They have their own traditions and customs and values. That is the dynamic I thought people such as yourself strove to achieve? Melting pot, multiculturalism mentality. Right? How can you have that while trying to maintain traditions that don't exist for most other users? It is hypocritical and self-serving.

Also, there is not a "goal" that you and I are connected to. We don't have the same goals. I am not on your team. I have no intention of following any group's traditions or culture or habits or anything else. That is because I am an individual. I have as much right to the trail as you or anyone else does. The ONLY thing that I am responsible for is obeying the law. THAT is the only thing that can be expected.

That being the case, and the only real mandate available and/or needed, it is the responsibility of every user to act in such a way to avoid situations that endanger the physical well-being of other individual users. That is subject to a riders individual skill level, their experience with their geographical location, the individual trail conditions, the type of trail in regards to visibility, the relative users speed to trail users as well as many other factors inherent to the activity and/or activities allowed on any given multi-use trail.

Everything else is just ego. Platitudes of rampant ego.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*A curiosity....*

Frosty, how do you mange non-cycling trail users. Do you yeild right -of-way to horses and hikers?


----------



## Mike E (Apr 16, 2008)

Is it just me, or do some folks on this thread appear to be auditioning for the Jerry Springer show :winker:


----------



## SpartyBiker (Mar 31, 2008)

FrostyStruthers said:


> ....That being the case, and the only real mandate available and/or needed, it is the responsibility of every user to act in such a way to avoid situations that endanger the physical well-being of other individual users......
> 
> Everything else is just ego. Platitudes of rampant ego.


To begin with, you're an idiot. If we were on the same trail and your defense for right of way was to do anything short of share the trail then you my friend are in fact an idiot.

But you wouldn't know that because you are an idiot.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Having a difference of opinion doesn't make one an idiot. I agree that riders should act responsibly and not endanger others. In an ideal world, given enough width of trail tread, an uphill rider and downhill rider could pass safely without either having to yield this "right of way". 

Some of the trails I ride are single track, two feet wide. These trails are shared use with equestrians and hikers. Most of these trails have signs at the entry points explaining trail etiquette along with the familiar "yield to" diagram. I've read in this thread that this sign is not "law", and is a "suggestion". I agree the info is not law. I choose to follow this "suggestion" because, in my opinion, I have experienced the benefits these suggestions provide other trail users and myself. These suggestions cannot ensure others will act responsibly. So, if these suggestions are not law, and cannot ensure responsible behavior, what is the point?

In my opinion, which if one doesn't agree with doesn't make one an idiot, a d-bag, or any other name used in this thread to describe someone with a different view and a pretty damn good argument to back it up, in my opinion, these suggestions are "best practices" that "may" work in a majority of situations. That said, if I see a downhill rider approaching, I may choose to ignore these suggestions and wave them through. If I'm approaching an uphill rider, I never "assume" I'll be waved through. I choose this approach for various reasons. I don't need IMBA to tell me how to behave. I don't feel that I'm a sheep following the flock. And I'm not putting any other trail user in harms way by my actions.

This is my opinion. When I wrote "I never assume" above, it is not to be taken to mean I believe someone or others are assuming anything. 

Happy Holidays.


----------



## bikerboyj17 (Dec 18, 2007)

I had an experience related to this just a couple weeks ago. I was grinding up the climb on the Grand Ridge trail near Issaquah, Washington when I noticed a kid a couple hundred yards in front of me walking his bike. When I got closer (maybe 50 feet away) I called out that there was a rider back. The kid didn't move. I kept calling out as I got closer and closer but the kid kept walking right up the middle of the trail. Eventually I reached him and I had to ride off the trail to get around the kid. I had to shoulder my way around him just to get by without crashing.

As I passed the kid I noticed he was wearing blue jeans and riding a 24" wheeled magna dual suspension bike. I shook it off and kept riding until I reached the next road-crossing in the trail where I waited for my riding partner.

The next guy to come out of the trail and cross the road wasn't my riding partner, it was the kid. After coming out the kid had the nerve to call me an a$$ hole and tell me that I should never tell another rider to move out of the way. 

What did he want me to do, walk with him? 

Some people just don't get it.


----------



## droolmonkey (Apr 29, 2007)

i just read this whole thread, waiting for my web development downloads to finish. ...im so lost and confused. may i ask for some clarification from both sides. ...what was the outcome of this discussion? was there a discussion? what was this? ...so has it been chocked up to common sense?


----------



## laxman2001 (Jun 1, 2009)

The outcome is that Frosty is clearly right and the rest of you are a bunch of idiots.


----------



## pureslop (Jul 28, 2008)

Riding uphill on a shuttle trail is not smart.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Not so little story

Last year I rode 3/4 of the way up Thredbo with the intention of riding the DH track down. To use the chairlift you have to have a suitable bike, full face helmet, armour and take a course before you are allowed to go alone. Costs hundreds and minimum 3 hours. Didn't have the time or the inclination to pay. My XC setup 140 dually is not considered suitable either. No lycra however.

The ride up was tough and there was some hike a bike. I was surprised at the number of riders on the track and how good they were. The open area I started in was fun but is followed by dense trees and steep and rocky drops. For me it was survival riding. I knew that someone was going to catch up, so when I heard the noise I pulled myself and bike up the inside of a right hand berm by grabbing a tree. There were 3 riders in a tight train and they were flying. Their heads were almost under mine and close. The last guy looked up at me with this "what the" look on his face. I jumped back on and about 30 seconds later caught up with them and was joined by another 2 armoured warriors.

"You having a nice day?" says one guy, in an odd way, maybe snide. I was and said so. They rode off and I passed them again at the chairlift base and rode down the stairs and back to the car. They stared.

Now I guess that could have escalated, at least in part cause they were training on a closed course for the Oceania Championship the next day bluefrown: woops, didn't know that), but it was cool. No doubt they thought I was a weirdo gaper, but I didn't get in their way or give them any lip and so all was OK. In this regard I agree with what forkboy said.

From my perspective the yield issue is all about common sense. First, no-one wants to crash or worse collide, cause there are no positives in it. Therefore it pays to yield whenever to everything from animals up. Second, the uphill rider will hear the downhill rider first and have more time to yield. Third, you work long and hard to earn those downhills, flow is so important and it can be hard to safely stop, so I think uphill should yield (this is not an icy road we are talking about). Fourth, yielding does not always imply stopping.

Common sense and good manners combined with the right attitude should ensure a positive meeting on the trail.


----------



## Oldfatbaldguy (Nov 4, 2010)

There are some wise posts and some bile on this thread. It kinda reminds me of a line George Kennedy delivered to John Wayne in an old Western: "You know what the problem is...You got no grace"

Its kinda like we "aint got no grace" out in the world too. It seems to me that the posters admitting that tough downhills make it tough for the downhillers to stop and watch out for ped's and uphillers until its too late have it right. Who owns the "right-of-way" is meaningless if one party is physically unable to yield.

Do some of us REALLY want to have draconian traffic controls out in the woods and hills? Wouldn't it be better to have a little common sense and a little grace? 

Bikerboy's story about the arrogant kid is appropriate to this thread, and it takes all the grace most of us ( especially ME, if I was tired and cranky!) could muster to resist the temptation to lash out: an inexperienced kid riding a crap bike, not wearing any biking gear,wanting to take part in the sport AND give someone lip (because he's worn out too). 

Does anyone else see the irony here?


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Common sense isn't common. Add to this the fact the _county_ I live in has a population almost equal to the population of the _State of Colorado_.

When mtb'ing exploded in popularity in California, land managers had no clue how to deal with this huge new group of trail users. There were no trail etiquette suggestions to abide or ignore. So trail users did what many have posted: As individuals, they chose to do what they believed was responsible behavior. They used their best judgement.

The response to this was widespread banning of mountain bikes across the state. 30 years later we're still trying to get access on trails.

In my opinion, shared use trails are like neighbor streets. You have turns, traffic, kids and animals. Responsible drivers reduce their speed and have their head on a swivel, realizing some kid may dart out chasing a ball, or ride their bike off a curb into traffic. There's always some driver that speeds through the neighborhood. You know, the one everyone yells at "slow down you m*********er".

There are areas around the globe that don't share the shear mass of trail users as we do. Areas may have a higher percentage of mtb'ers to other user groups. Posted, site specific trail etiquette should take site specific varibles into account. I'm not saying there are no flaws and I'm certainly not saying everyone respects trail etiquette, but the majority of all trail user groups here respect our trail etiquette guidelines.

The argument that downhillers have a harder time seeing and stopping doesn't fly on shared use trails. This behavior is the same as the neighborhood speeder. I'm a downhiller, I build trail. I don't build trail so someone with their own idea, their common sense can act responsibly according to them and threaten trail access for all the "sheep" that respect trail etiquette. I view individuals with this type of attitude as a far greater threat to mtb'ing access than the Sierra Club and in turn deal with as intensely as the situation requires.

Again, Frosty makes some very valid points, many of which i agree with. In my neck of the woods, I can't count on common sense when I'm hiking with my family. And I can't count on IMBA trail etiquette. But with both in play, I've only encountered two instances out of the tens of thousands of hours I've been on the trails. If you want to fly downhill, ride one way bike only trails. If your area doesn't have trails like that, and you want trails like that, get off your lazy ass and do something about it. Happy New Year.


----------



## Oldfatbaldguy (Nov 4, 2010)

I think maybe you're addressing my post, BP, and that's great. Even if you're not, that's OK, too. I think many posters have more of an issue with the tone of some posts and posters than the underlying ideas in this thread.

Somewhere in Youtube's files is a video of (Joe Breeze?) with a helmet cam zipping down Repack...during the vid, he meets another biker, causing both (I believe) a bit of a fright. I've never ridden in Fairfax, never even seen Mt Tam up close, but I think the lady struggling to get out of the way had a reasonable expectation that someone might come flying down the hill. She obviously believed it was prudent to get out of the way. And both were glad of it.

And that's my point. 

a corrollary point might be that the gracious person is be one that avoids looking for fault and blame. The downhiller that decided he owned the trail that day was being a jerk, perhaps, but does the climber have to join him in jerkdom?


----------



## CEB (Mar 17, 2005)

pureslop said:


> Riding uphill on a shuttle trail is not smart.


No such thing as a "shuttle trail". Maybe some folks in their own twisted sense of right and wrong believe so, but this is not the case in reality. There are lots of trails that many people shuttle, but the trail is TWO WAY. How many precious seconds of your life are you "losing" to slow down and get way to the more compromised rider (usually is the uphill rider). We seek dirt as a respite from the assfault drivers, so please don't act like you are behind the "wheel".

Trail respect doesn't take much.


----------



## laxman2001 (Jun 1, 2009)

CEB said:


> No such thing as a "shuttle trail". Maybe some folks in their own twisted sense of right and wrong believe so, but this is not the case in reality. There are lots of trails that many people shuttle, but the trail is TWO WAY. How many precious seconds of your life are you "losing" to slow down and get way to the more compromised rider (usually is the uphill rider). We seek dirt as a respite from the assfault drivers, so please don't act like you are behind the "wheel".
> 
> Trail respect doesn't take much.


You do realize there are one way only trails, right dumbass?


----------



## CEB (Mar 17, 2005)

No, there are only dumbass's...... no such thing as a one way trail. 

Keep pissing........ one way thinkers, mono directional foonts, creationists, what ever you want to call yourself.


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

CEB said:


> No, there are only dumbass's...... no such thing as a one way trail.


Ouch. You are just wrong with that statement. In more way than one.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

CEB,

There are such things as one way, downhill specific trails. Not in our County, yet. 

This thread has brought out many different point of views, some of which have included very valid arguments. What works or is appropriate in one area may not be or may justify revision in another area. Someone that states an opinion different from someone elses or someone that makes an incorrect statement doesn't warrant a berating or should be subjected to name calling. Sharing of info and correcting mis-info are how solutions to issues evolve. Listening to others with a different view point than one's own is how one learns. You don't have to agree. And forcing ones view point on others while dismissing the others has no constructive value. 

If one lacks the ability to express themselves and their opinions without resorting to name calling and idiotic statements then I feel your pain and suggest you direct your frustration not here but to the education system that has failed you.


----------



## CEB (Mar 17, 2005)

Specific to the thread, there aren't one way trails. The OP was about a trail the seems to me is a XC trail. OP chooses to ride up, only to have ONE WAY THINKERS show attitude. My orig response was to the OP. WHY, yes, there are DH only trails, but for the puroses of this thread, give it up and be reasonable when coming across the "goat" you are sharing the trail with. Here in LowSoCal, we DON'T have DH trails, but then again we do to MOST folks with 40+ lbs rigs and 6+ inches of "play".

New get back on it. Share the trail and give way to the uphill rider. Just so ya know, when I got UP, I do my BEST to pull over while grinding to make room for the DH rider. Been successful on SJT, a trail some folks THINK is a shuttle trail.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Oldfatbaldguy said:


> a corrollary point might be that the gracious person is be one that avoids looking for fault and blame?


So we all agree that like him or hate him, Frosty, on the trail is that gracious person!

I despair of a world where someone is right and someone else wrong _all the time_.

The "general/traditional/IMBA" rules on passing are dumb. Simple. No rules are needed and no rules will work or be used universally (eg here we pass on the rider's left as someone else already said). Saying rules make trail access easier may be a reality in National Parks etc, but in reality it is a concept pandering to insurance companies and legislators and flies in the face of the ethic of our sport.

If all the moralists and haters on this thread really thought it out, why support stupid rules. If you want rules, at least make them sensible. Yielding to the uphill rider or pedestrians makes no sense, 1+ Frosty.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

CEB,

Touche, I stand corrected. Back to this thread. 

OFBG, I wasn't responding to you or anyone specifically. I'm an advocate of common sense as are you and Frosty and others. And responsibility towards others and respect. There's the saying"every group has the 5%" or some other random number to describe the irresponsible actions of the minority and that the majority should not be judged by the actions of a few. There are trails that mtb'ers have lost access due to the actions of a few. Doesn't make it right, actually it's wrong. But it "is". 

And since someone will no doubt argue just because "their" common sense differs from someone elses common sense in order to justify their action I'd rather hear something that goes towards understanding the multitude of issues being brought up than to have the thread derailed and another page devoted to someone trying to argue a point for the sake of arguing and others throwing opinions and showcasing their lack of vocabulary. Not directed at anyone. Back on topic.


----------



## Boulder Pilot (Jan 23, 2004)

Ridnparadise,

Please expound on your points. You made some statements and didn't explain. I'd like to hear your POV.


----------



## powpig2002 (Sep 13, 2009)

whether uphill or down I ALWAYS have the R O W


----------



## chiva (Oct 13, 2010)

Why can't we all play in the sandbox together nicely??


Chiva


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

Please, please, someone kill this thread!

It's all your fault radiocraig.


----------



## nhodge (Jul 6, 2004)

*Fruita, of all places*

has the IMBA rules posted & i guess establishing how things should be there. to me, Fruita is the best example i've seen where uphill riders having the rightaway makes no sense. i don't believe the trail builders started at the bottom & on their up were saying how great these trails were going to be & a side benefit would be that you could ride 'em downhill too if you were into that sort of thing. does the Fruita area have it's biking roots in XC? that's the only reason i can see that happening. as fun a place as it was to ride the "18" area, which is what i'm talking about, it wouldn't be worth going back there.

i suppose that would make the locals plenty happy, & a lot of people reading this thread.
\


----------



## Nenbran (Dec 7, 2010)

Frosty, are you (were you) a phil major or minor? Just curious. I appreciate your take on things, however I don't find your opinions to be pragmatic (that's the beauty of opinion). But then again, why must we be pragmatic? 

As an aside, how much time to you have to spare for this thread?


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Boulder Pilot, you asked for it. Detail I got out the wazoo.

What I mean is we don't ride for a conformist/work/structured experience. Whether DH, XC, street, riding to the pub or god forbid being a roadie, cycling is like skiing, surfing, climbing and I guess hiking, among other activities. Every moment is yours to make and/or deal with. Even in the company of others, it is in a lot of senses a solitary activity, where what comes next is decided as it happens.

There are anthropologic (prolly not the real meaning, only my term) studies showing that people and critters move in a way that is modelled on their circumstance. When there is a crowd, oddly, but not surprisingly after our history of interaction, they move in ways that create minimal conflict and are generally the most logical for survival. OK, OK, stampedes at holy sites etc, but think more the flow of the mass movements we see in nature (including our nature).

Rules are rules. By definition, the failure to follow them will have consequences. There are rules of society and rules of nature. Rules of science and rules of science yet described. Then there are the rules of law. We are increasingly bound by the rules of law as they affect our daily lives. I will try to limit the rest of this to the specifics of this thread. A short summary is that rules are made to benefit rule-makers.

No law can interpret, let alone govern safety when 2 bikes meet. This is not the flow of society in like mind, but a direct confrontation between one going up and one coming down; polar opposites. Conflict is the only logical outcome in nature.

*I am going to kill it or it is going to kill me.*

*Either I make room for you or you make room for me. This is where trail rules potentially take every encounter.*

In truth, if I were going to kill you, I'd have a gun, not a bike. So I'm not going to kill you. I might just move aside and pass, whether that means stopping or not. I may not speak (if I'm feelin kinda frosty). I might have a good old chin-wag and fill you in on a new secret trail. But I am not going to crash into you unless it is unavoidable.

If, however, "you" capture the trail and hold your line despite hearing an oncoming rider, let alone going out of your way to make things uncomfortable, whether you are a rider, walker, runner or public servent, then you really do deserve the laws of nature to come down on you. Sounds like Frosty, the OP and a heap of others are just lurking out there waiting for the chance.

So, what is the point of having rules on the trail, as opposed to the rules of humanity and common sense? Well, if you are on my property and riding as a paying customer, then "my" insurance company and bank impose rules on me and I pass them on to you (at a cost). My trails, my rules. OR ARE THEY?

If a rule makes sense, then why not support it? :thumbsup:

If a rule makes no sense (and I agree in this case there is no rule) it should not be supported. :nono:

The rule of giving way to the uphill entity is plain stupid. It should be ignored. Normal people don't kill or maim themselves or anyone else ignoring this rule, but it appears they do piss people off. Sorry I also am one, but I do say hi and thanks in the process of your pissing offedness.

Next time you get done by a speed camera because you were travelling with the flow rather than looking at your display, then have another think about this dumb argument. The rules of MTB are written by the rider and the trail. No other rules are required.

They only create conflict.:drumroll: :rockon: :rant: :smallviolin: :band: :headphones:

Bye


----------



## Radioface (Jun 22, 2010)

i gave up reading this thread after the first few pages, but figured I chime in for a miniute, considering I am an attorney who has dealt with his fair share of tort cases.

I could easily imagine a case where someone successfuly argues that, by custom (supported by IMBA rules etc), uphill riders have the right of way. custom can be instructive on a rider's duty. if you breach a duty and that breach causes damage you are liable for those damages. so while, from a regulatory perspective, IMBA rules and the like have no teeth, that does not mean they are legally meaningless. those rules, and the customs they codify, are certainly meaningful to tort law considerations.

I am not aware of any bike cases where the uphill/downhill issue has come into play, but in the skiing/snowboarding area there are MANY cases where the uphill skiier/rider caused the downhill skiier/rider injury and that uphill rider got F'd (to use the preferred legal nomenaclature) in court. of course, many states have laws that dictate the uphill skiier must yeild to the downhill skiier. others down-- and in those other states-- custom can certainly come into play-- the jury can consider it in their negligence assessment.

see Platis v. Stockwell 630 F.2d 1202, 1203 (C.A.Ill., 1980) ("Plaintiff, who had been skiing slightly downhill of defendant contended at trial that custom required the uphill skier to yield to the downhill skier.")

finally-- I wouldnt be at all surprised if a plaintiff relied on the skiing statutes in making a naegligence argument in the mountain biking area. of course, those statutes do not apply directly, but the policy considerations can certainly be instructive the duty factor.

I can tell you this much-- Im not going to be the test case.


----------



## Oldfatbaldguy (Nov 4, 2010)

So, is the key to this puzzle the idea that none of us gets what we want all that often, and we might as well get comfortable with that? Further thinking on my part leads, circularly, back to posts on the first page.

I have to admit that when I ride public lands, I enjoy the days when traffic is light or even non-existant, and while I certainly will take time to enjoy the new Cuyuna trails in MN when they're opened next spring, I also worry about what happens when hundreds of other riders of ALL skill levels descend onto the trails. There isn't much of that calibre riding in the region, and its expected to be a popular spot.

I grew up there, and still know locals: I envision plenty of local teenagers in jeans and hockey helmets and maybe even a sprinkling of poorly-equipped adults there who have a vague sense of entitlement being that the rec area is and has been their "backyard" for 90 years. They will be encountering that 2% slice of well-equipped and conditioned bikers that have no patience for "lesser" riders.

That's a huge part of the reason the opening was held off there, according to scuttlebutt. And a reason for my interest in this thread. Truth, I'm not a very experienced MTn biker, even though I began in the early 1980's: while I may have many hours of riding in, maybe 10% of that was in high-traffic conditions, and almost NONE of that was in even moderately difficult terrain. Hundreds of miles of forest roads doesn't equal tens of miles of difficult terrain.

I'm hoping to learn a bit more trail etiquette, or at least how to get more joy than tension from rides in a popular destination spot. Plan "B" of course, is to ride the hundreds of miles of forest roads within an hour or two of Cuyuna, I guess, and not worry about tension!


----------



## Radioface (Jun 22, 2010)

i realized I used uphill/downhill in a confusing way in my post (2 up). the uphill biker in the first paragraph is the biker going uphill. the uphill skiier I reference is the person located higher on the hill. I would have lost this case


----------



## FrostyStruthers (Jul 10, 2010)

Radioface said:


> i realized I used uphill/downhill in a confusing way in my post (2 up). the uphill biker in the first paragraph is the biker going uphill. the uphill skiier I reference is the person located higher on the hill. I would have lost this case


Even though it is state law (colorado) that you must yield to the skier that is lower on the terrain, I have seen the case go both ways depending on what the lower skier was doing. If one is acting like an idiot or otherwise aggravating the situation, one can easily lose the case, and often does, even with state law being what it is.

Had a guy run into an instructer the other day. The instructor was the lower skier on the terrain, but his erratic and careless movement is what caused the accident. Since there were no injuries, it stayed on the mountain. It was clearly the instructors fault anyway even though he was the lower skier.

Not all that related, but I always find it interesting. Even with the law, the skier that is lower often ends up being at fault when the law gets involved. Not more often, but often enough.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

After Radioface's post, it seems clear that despite the fact there is no law and there doesn't need to be a law, the law will win this argument and pile more unecessary BS on your reacreational activities whether needed, reasonable, sensible, thought-out, intrusive, the cause of conflict or not. It's a great world really, isn't it?:madman:


----------



## Radioface (Jun 22, 2010)

yeah-- no question it can cut both ways. what most of the statutes do is create a rebuttable presumption that the uphill skier is at fault. basically just creates a (ahem) uphill battle for the uphill skier


----------



## ecosse (May 24, 2008)

FrostyStruthers said:


> Not all that long ago, I was the one that bombed every piece of track I rode. I didn't care about you. *If I happened to be in a spot on the trail going 40mph, and you were coming up, I was prepared to crush you. Rules? Pffft. That's pretty funny. The rules that applied to me were that I was going to probably kill whoever decided to challenge me in that situation. The rules that applied to you is that you better jump out of the way... and fast. * Snide comments? Rocks flying? Again... funny stuff, but believe me, it doesn't go down like that when you decide to play chicken with one big idiot like me on a giant rocket sled.





FrostyStruthers said:


> Here is the deal. I will ride for pleasure. I will ride fast. I will scare people from time to time as I approach them unaware at a high rate of speed. * But I will brake. And I will stop if necessary. If I have to fly off a cliff and die, I will do that before hitting someone. *


Frosty, you've contradicted yourself.

I don't believe you're any different than the majority of riders on the forums here (in terms of trail courtesy, etc). I too ride hard and fast, and have also spooked the bejeezus out several people. You're right that there is no law or governing body that determines trail etiquette, rules, laws, whatever. HOWEVER, I (as well as you I'm sure) am not immune to pain, broken bones, torn ligaments, etc. At the end of the day, very few people are stupid/careless enough to INTENTIONALLY hit someone. Do you really want to be off your bike for weeks due to an injury you could have avoided by being giving someone else the right away??? If you can avoid an accident DO IT!

You're making it seem like people are infringing on your rights to be you. No one is doing that. The point people are trying to make is that no one wants to get hurt on the trail because of some idiots actions. Just because there are rules posted, doesn't mean they work. Assume everyone on the trail is an idiot. They key is to do what YOU need to do to avoid an accident. Bottom line.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

ecosse said:


> Frosty, you've contradicted yourself.
> 
> You're making it seem like people are infringing on your rights to be you. No one is doing that. The point people are trying to make is that no one wants to get hurt on the trail because of some idiots actions. Just because there are rules posted, doesn't mean they work. Assume everyone on the trail is an idiot. They key is to do what YOU need to do to avoid an accident. Bottom line.


Not really as in the first sentence you quoted he states he 'WAS' that type of rider.

But your point to assume everyone on the trail is an idiot is a healthy way to survive on the trails (and on the road). And applies to idiots who bomb trails regardless of anyone else and idiots who steadfastly hold their uphill position because they believe some guideline (not even a rule) puts them in the right.


----------

