# Reducing user conflict - how do you do it?



## granpa (Sep 11, 2007)

The trails are right next to a city of 2 million plus. We have equestrians, mtbers, runners, dog walkers, families etc. using the trails.

I was just wondering if there are other ways to reduce user conflict besides making one way trails, user specific trails or use specific days i.e. alternating foot traffic or bike traffic.

Or, if you've tried any of these which was most accepted or worked best?


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

educate your various user groups on what's appropriate.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Ongoing education campaigns supported by each user group and endorsed by land manager.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Empty_Beer said:


> Ongoing education campaigns supported by each user group and endorsed by land manager.


This. It's astounding how little some user groups understand about each other. You think the average hiker knows what a red ribbon in a horse's tail means?Awe, isn't that cute?

One thing to think about with regards to directional trails and specific days, etc - if trails alternate direction by day (you'll need a sign for that) and you make MTB and foot traffic go opposite ways on the same day, it's easier for everyone to see everyone else coming. I've also encouraged MTBers locally to use bells, etc so people know they're coming. Some are ok with it, some aren't.

During particularly heavy traffic seasons on some trails, I attach a small cowbell to the bottom of my seat, which may be taking it touch to far, but the only person you didn't hear me coming (and most people smile and wave at me, and tell me the bell is clever, and they knew I was coming, and thanks) was a girl walking her dog with headphones on so loud I could hear her music riding along behind her, trying to get her attention.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

More trails.
Unfortunately, that is easier said than done, the way things work in USA.
In my corner of the world, access to undeveloped land is a right - and trails are mainly a natural result of people going where they want to go. 
More people = more trails


----------



## BonkedAgain (Aug 23, 2005)

In my opinion if you can't separate the users then you need to lower the average speeds of the bikers to reduce the likelihood that bikers will startle (and piss off) other users. Add more twists and turns, if possible. The bikers will still enjoy the trail and reducing biker speeds reduces conflicts.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

What DOES a red ribbon in a horses tail mean? He's a kicker?


----------



## CraigH (Dec 22, 2003)

I didn't know either, so looked it up:










(I've never seen a horse with a ribbon on it's tail in BC or Washington, but I only see horse on back country trails.)


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

See what I mean? User group education can do a lot. I've also come across equestrians on trails who warned me "this horse kicks sometimes" and there was no red ribbon. I asked and the guy was like "What?" He didn't know either. Turns out, he should have been wearing a green ribbon himself.


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

CraigH said:


> I didn't know either, so looked it up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Never heard or saw that before either but that is missing the most important color,
yellow, which is my favorite color and since I am according to the Chinese a fire horse it finally all makes sense now.


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

Empty_Beer said:


> Ongoing education campaigns supported by each user group and endorsed by land manager.


Second that, communication is the key.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

BonkedAgain said:


> In my opinion if you can't separate the users then you need to lower the average speeds of the bikers to reduce the likelihood that bikers will startle (and piss off) other users. Add more twists and turns, if possible. The bikers will still enjoy the trail and reducing biker speeds reduces conflicts.


^ This. We have two very different trail networks in my area. One has smooth, gravel-surfaced trails with steep hills; plenty wide for users to pass one another. The other has tight, twisty, mostly flat, highly technical rocky and rooty singletrack, where users often need to step aside to allow others to pass.

The first has more user conflict due to hikers being startled by bikers descending at high speeds. The second has little conflict at all.

It also helps that the mountain bike community maintains the second network, and we stress the importance of being polite on the trail. The simple act of saying "Hello" to other users on the trail goes a long way.


----------



## CraigH (Dec 22, 2003)

I don't think the ribbons are used in BC by the guide/outfitters or the back country horse riders.

We sometimes encounter pack trains but know what to do when we meet them.


Step off the trail on the down hill side
bikes laying on the ground
helmet & sunglasses off
talk to the riders

That way the horses know you are a human and not a predator. We haven't had a bad encounter yet. Earlier this year my wife and I did a couple of days trail work with a couple of back country horse riders in Eastern Washington, learned more about working with and round horses from that trip.


----------



## CycleKrieg (Dec 19, 2013)

granpa said:


> I was just wondering if there are other ways to reduce user conflict besides making one way trails, user specific trails or use specific days i.e. alternating foot traffic or bike traffic.


All of those ideas could work, though the alternating days thing just sucks and I would recommend avoiding it like the plague.

The big one everyone forgets: Directionality. In other words, this group goes this way, that group goes that away. Its a little bit more work on the signs (they become dual sided), but it saves tons of headaches.

Also, having user group meets and greets, like BBQ Saturday, really helps. Look at what HMBA does at Brown County or Allaire Park in NJ.

PM me and I will send you PDFs from one of my presentations on trail design. You won't get the cool animation or notes, but it should be enough to give you some ideas. If you are that close to an urban area, I'll send you the ones from my urban mountain biking presentation, they have more text to them.


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

Applying the principles of a stacked looped trail system can help reduce conflicts. Make the trails immediately out of the trailhead easy and very wide. Most people only make it a mile out of the trailhead. Make the trails increasingly hard with expert trails only accessed after traversing a section of intermediate trail. Design the trail intersections in a way to give people a visual indicator of how hard a trail they are turning off on. 

Also give a lot of thought/maintenance to sightlines. Sudden surprises is what causes the worst trail conflicts. You can also manage mountain bike usage by anticipating where you will have fast moving mountain bike traffic and then create pinch points to slow down riders. The pinch point doesn't actually have to exist, just look like the trail narrows or may have obstacles.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Good sightlines and speed checking through chokes/chicanes/obstacles are IMO the best way to allow bikes to happily share trails with slower user groups. This usually means some serious rock moving/trail reroutes if working with an existing trail - you get lots of trails with long smooth straights into sweeping blind turns. That's a nightmare for conflict. 

Luckily, enough rocks and twisties to slow down a mountain bike, plus some extra care with sight lines is usually considered *fun*, while not really hampering the enjoyment of hikers or equestrians. 

-Walt


----------



## UncleTrail (Sep 29, 2007)

granpa said:


> The trails are right next to a city of 2 million plus. We have equestrians, mtbers, runners, dog walkers, families etc. using the trails.
> 
> I was just wondering if there are other ways to reduce user conflict besides making one way trails, user specific trails or use specific days i.e. alternating foot traffic or bike traffic.
> 
> Or, if you've tried any of these which was most accepted or worked best?


It's the consensus of the Front Range Forum that Free Bells and elbows are the best solutions to trail user conflicts.

http://forums.mtbr.com/colorado-front-range/best-bike-bell-front-range-984705.html


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

Put me in the good sight lines and managing speed differential camp. 

I recently startled a hiker on a tight steep switchback that was blind due to thick vegetation. Funny thing was I was climbing and he was descending. He was walking faster than I was riding. 

Good sight lines also have the benefit of allowing riders more time to see upcoming obstacles, which can lead to less panic braking/skidding and trail wear.

As others noted, the speed differential is huge when it comes to user conflicts. You don't want 30 mph downhills on a trail chocked full of hikers going 3 miles an hour. 

Tieing those two concepts together, the faster the trail, the more sight distance you need, but even with good sight lines, nobody likes being buzzed at 30 mph. 

So, my vote is to go for more technical features to slow riders down. Start with the sight line issues first since it can often be easier to modify vegetation at eye level than it is to move rocks and dirt.

Focus on problem areas (high speed/poor sight distance) and think about removing vegetation above waste level (not necessarily at tread level). Then add features to narrow traed and/or give visual cues (rock or log placed along the edge) that tend to slow people down.

And, but thinking of how features 1 or 2 straights or corners previous to the problem spot link up to it. Sometime the root cause isn't all at 1 spot, but it might be 2 a fast section 2 corners back. 

One caveat, it making better sight lines isn't always a silver bullet. Opening up sight lines can also encourage riders to go faster, so you have to use some judgement.

I can see both sides of directional trails. Most of the trails in our area are directional by default since the terrain is steep and the trails were built too steep for 99% of people to climb on a bike, so I don't often have to worry about oncoming bike traffic on a one-way, but that will also get some riders to turn off their brains and forget about the other slower moving users, which can lead to more conflict with those groups.

But, I've lived and ridden in areas with stacked loop systems with lots of bike and hiker traffic where directional trails also worked well, especially on systems with really high bike traffic.

The trails I've often enjoyed the leaset have sections of high speed narrow two-way trails with poor sight distance. Never liked riding those sections and had tons of close calls with other out of control riders, and didn't fully enjoy the ride otherwise since I felt held back (so as to not be one of the out of control riders).

Don't ever propose alternating days if you can help it. Guaranteed to piss a lot of people off in each user group when the one or two days a week they can ride or hike fall on the off-limits day. Better than losing all access, but a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## mudflap (Feb 23, 2004)

To be honest, I usually am going too fast wherevere I'm riding.
That's what it's all about after you've been doing it for a while.
Whenever I do have to screech to a stop, I always apologize and offer a friendly presence, and explain my lack of manners as a part of mountain biking collateral damage, and that we too, really like being outside and having fun, just like them.
Works every time, hmm, and we part, they better informed.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Comments from equestrians and mountain bikers who have learned to work together and out "culture of cooperation".

Kathy's response:
Both of you have contacted local SLO County equestrians about how and why we (horses and bikes) get along together sharing trails.

Pam saw an article written by Kathy ****** (the other equestrian on the BOD of our local mt.bike group CCCMB) and Laney has a friend in common Debby **** who is the ride manager for an endurance ride at our Montana de Oro State Park (which all the proceeds go back to trails in the park).

Both Kathy ****** and myself attend CCCMB meetings, trainings and workdays with CCCMB which is a very active, proactive and progressive mountain bike group. Their "president" and I, along with our CA State Parks Coastal Sector Superintendent Juvie Ortiz (retired) did a well received presentation at last years 2010 CA Trails and Greenways Conference on cooperation on multi-use trails.

Simple facts are: we attend and contribute to many local land managing group meetings, we organize cooperative trail work maintenance days and trainings, and we realize that if we work together we all benefit.

RULE #1 We don't bad mouth the other user group. We all realize we have some "rotten apples" in each of our user groups, but by our actions we are committed to cultivating more "great apples" and educating the others to follow suit.

RULE #2 We know we are going to have to take a lot of flak from some in our own user groups. We give a little and get a lot in the spirit of compromise.

RULE #3 We all learned early in life- SHARING- we all get more if we are willing to share.

To address some of the issues of sharing our most popular narrow single track front country trails, CCCMB implemented a "bell" program. They provide a wooden box at the main trail head with a 2" bell with a Velcro strap that a biker can mount under their seat or on handle bars and then you can hear them before you can see them and the equines learn to associate the sound of the bell with a bicycle approaching. Now this does not give license to the cyclist to not ride responsibly, under control and yielding according to the accepted trail courtesy "yellow triangle" that is the standard for multi-use trails. Even IMBA has their own signs available for purchase at a very reasonable price.

In our area it is hard to get a good turn out of equestrians to show up to monthly trail work days, but the several equestrian groups help by contributing money to CCCMB so they don't have to spend as much time fund-raising and they can focus on what they do best- sustainable trail building and maintenance.

Please check out the website CCCMB to see more about the good work this group is doing.

I hope this helps you start to build a "spirit of cooperation" in the Monterey Area. And I invite you to please check out the website CCCMB to see more about the good work this group is doing.

Kathy Longacre, SLOPOST 
SLOPOST - San Luis Obispo Parks, Open Space And Trails

Greg's response:

I think Kathy's explanation of the three "rules" of cooperation which we use is exactly right on.
I can only add one thought about "sharing". And you may have this insight already but I think it is worth stating.
Sharing assumes compromise and compromise assumes that you don't get everything that you want or that you do something that you wouldn't otherwise do. But the imperative assumption is that by compromising on some things you get more of other things than would otherwise be possible. I can give you some very concrete examples:
1. I suspect equestrians generally would rather not have to share trails with bikers - I certainly wouldn't if I were them. After all the experience is different in many fundamental ways: e.g. speed, perspective, relationship with the trail, size, amount of control, etc. etc.
2. As a trail maintainer and builder, I would prefer to not have to take horse traffic into account. Frankly it would be much less work for me and my organization.
3. State Parks staff has to do more work because the park trail system continues to expand and change. And that is because the trail users on the trails committee are always bringing up new trail projects. And Parks feels inclined to take on the additional challenges.

So what are the pay offs for these compromises?
1. Equestrians (& hikers & cyclists) have more miles of safe and well maintained trails to ride.
2. As a biker (& maintainer/builder) I have more miles of safe and well maintained trails to ride. And I have equestrian labor and money as resources.
3. State Parks gets to spend its finite resources on managing a well maintained and dynamic trail system and not wasting its resources on the truly ugly business of managing conflict.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks
Greg Bettencourt
former Director, Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

OP, how expansive are your trails? Here in MA there were a series of pubic meetings about trail use, conflicts and management issues concerning a popular park near Boston. Turns out dog users were the biggest user group, who knew. They now have an off leash large field in which to run, less trail conflicts. 
Back to the question. Room for separate trails? Make a short ped loop with families in mind, under 10 yrs old, not a lot of trail needed. What about an open area just for dogs? Some times they just need to run, some might want longer walks. Enough trail for some mt bike only trails and some just horse trails?


----------



## granpa (Sep 11, 2007)

As the OP I've gotta say thanks to the community. The discussions and suggestions are, for the most part, very helpful. At some point in time I might be contacting individuals on this thread. 

This is a fully developed non-motorized trail system co-managed by the city and the forest service. We have horses, dog walkers, runners, families and walkers w/canes. While its manageable now, the mtn bike community is growing and I want to make sure that conflict remains low.


----------



## Shark (Feb 4, 2006)

Personally, I'd move to a less-populated area  Then again, I don't like crowds lol.

Best thing is keep your speed down, and be polite. Actually stop, say hi, get off your bike & pass like a civilized human.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

CraigH said:


> I didn't know either, so looked it up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bikers should maybe wear their helmets in similar fashion.

*waits for responses*


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Walt said:


> Good sightlines and speed checking through chokes/chicanes/obstacles are IMO the best way to allow bikes to happily share trails with slower user groups. This usually means some serious rock moving/trail reroutes if working with an existing trail - you get lots of trails with long smooth straights into sweeping blind turns. That's a nightmare for conflict.
> 
> Luckily, enough rocks and twisties to slow down a mountain bike, plus some extra care with sight lines is usually considered *fun*, while not really hampering the enjoyment of hikers or equestrians.
> 
> -Walt


This is a good start.

On heavily used trails, I would add that speedy, more technical sections provide adequate room, or alternate routes for slower less technically inclined trail users. In the backcountry none of this matters. In our area, opening up just a few routes in the Wilders for MTB's would be sufficient enough to extend an entire network of trails. In similar fashion, routing particular sections of trail that are more inviting for MTB's would "fix" some user conflicts. Every area is different, and should require special considerations where user conflicts exist. If it ain't broke, it don't need fixing.

Was riding with my boys yesterday, and the eldest got away from me and the younger. He's getting REALLY fast, and quite a bit more adventurous. Coincidentally, there were lots of people riding and hiking. I was concerned by the way he was riding that there would be some long faces, but he was really enjoying himself. Plus, I was sort of admiring his vigor. Anyway, the youngest and I stopped for one lady to pass, and I happened to question her about the one ahead of me...her reply: "yeah, he almost ran me over!" I got a mad look on my face right away, and she could tell...but, she quickly followed with "not really, he was just going really fast, but he sure did look like he was having fun!" I sort of laughed, but I was quick to advise him on some rules of the trail when we got back to the parking lot. Anyway, that could have gone one way, or the other, depending on a whole lot of variables. I could tell that she has had some pretty close encounters with bikers before, and this was a particularly fast section of trail for cyclists. There are also some fairly blind corners. Funny thing about that is, that it was recently re-routed with a few tight corners, and while the intent was to slow people down (which it didn't really accomplish) it actually created more blind corners. Not only that, but the erosion that will happen due to the lack of berms in the newly constructed corners will eventually cause more problems with regard to sustainability. Putting in berms, which is something that our Open Space frowns upon because they say it invites more speed, might be an appropriate use of trail feature where speed and sustainability are concerned. Simply put, this is a section where there should be a trail specific for biking-up traffic, hikers and horse people, and another trail given more considerations towards directional use for cyclists. Instead, they actually closed off the older section, which could have benefited from some simple upgrades for such use. Subtle, ongoing changes like this will create an atmosphere of confidence among all users that there are solutions, rather than the resentment that comes from stagnancy. In my area, there is no need to massively re-work every potential conflict. It's way too big of an undertaking.

PS: Sorry for the ramble!


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Bikers should maybe wear their helmets in similar fashion.
> 
> *waits for responses*


In my experience they already do, around here. The ones who wear full face helmets (seriously? We have mild XC around here, nothing worse) are always the ones to watch for. They know nothing of etiquette.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Cotharyus said:


> In my experience they already do, around here. The ones who wear full face helmets (seriously? We have mild XC around here, nothing worse) are always the ones to watch for. They know nothing of etiquette.


For a trained eye, the bright neon "enduro" colors are quite telling as well; especially when they are paired with matching socks and decal kit.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Different trail heads for different user-groups. Sign routes to keep users traveling at different rates of speed separated. Send hikers up and down MTB climbs. Designate "off leash" areas if dogs become an issue.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

Perception is key!

My take on bike bells is that they affect other users at a pretty primal level.

A ringing thing approaching, passing, leaving you = friendly prey animal.

A thing which makes few or no noises, passing, leaving you = just escaped getting eaten by silent predator.

If only the noise didn't drive the rider nuts too... but I think it's worth it.

Also note that sleigh bells aka jingle bells aka horse bells were historically used for this purpose--especially since a horse drawn sleigh is no where near as nimble as a bicycle.

Design is also key, but often done wrong. In urban areas, things like stacked loops are hard since access comes from all directions.


----------

