# Trail Hazards



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

New asst trail steward here. I know there can be differing opinions on what constitutes a hazard vs trail sanitizing but would anyone care to offer up some thoughts on what are some generally accepted hazards?

Parameter would have to consider the trail type as far as beginner/intermediate.

One particular example problem I have is what height to cut saplings at. We had someone go through doing unauthorized cutting (prob cause they thought it was too tight) and left trailside stumps at 10" or so, perfect for catching a pedal. To me they dumbed the trail and created a hazard.

Thoughts?


----------



## Woodman (Mar 12, 2006)

Cut the stumps flush. Did a ride today and there were tons cut at the same 10", hazard or not, just but ugly.



Hardtale said:


> New asst trail steward here. I know there can be differing opinions on what constitutes a hazard vs trail sanitizing but would anyone care to offer up some thoughts on what are some generally accepted hazards?
> 
> Parameter would have to consider the trail type as far as beginner/intermediate.
> 
> ...


----------



## 9GUY9 (Jul 14, 2007)

A sapling cut any where from 1" to 3' is a very real hazard. I'm one of the last people to get too uptight about dangers on the trail, but people cutting off saplings at a height that will skewer a falling rider bother me. 

With a high quality loppers you can stick the end in the dirt and cut it below ground level.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

If it needs to be cut more than just a branch or two being trimmed back to the trunk, I prefer to pull them out of the ground, but baring that they should at least be cut flush. I was "handed" a trail system recently that had a bunch of stobs along the trail. I pulled all of them. Next time I was out, I overheard someone saying how glad they were a particular one had been removed because they constantly hung their pedal on it. Naturally, I would advise them to pay more attention, but it's a beginner trail too, so if one person can hang a pedal on it, then a new rider could have a very bad experience with it.


----------



## old_MTBer (Feb 16, 2014)

We have one trail system that the LM approved horse use also. The equestrians cut saplings and other brush about 6 inches above ground level. Sometimes at an angle. Their explanation was that the horse could see it and not step on it. We had to explain that it was a hazard to cyclists for pedal catching or worse falling and being impaled. They do not cut them at ground level because if the horse does not see the cutting and steps on it the soft inner part of their hoof could be injured.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

As mentioned, tree stumps and saplings should be flush cut or pulled. When trees need to be limbed to whatever your desired corridor width is, the should be cut close to the trunk to not leave punji sticks.
Loose large rocks/boulders on the upslope side of the trail that present a falling rock hazard should be either stabilized or moved to the downslope side of the trail or used as needed for construction. 
Water bars or other drainage features can be so poorly constructed that they present an endo hazard. At best people will go around them and widen the tral and at worst people can get sent over the bars.
Of course there's man made hazards like barbed wire or old jagged metal that shouldn't intrude on the tread or corridor.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hardtale said:


> To me they dumbed the trail and created a hazard.
> 
> Thoughts?


Find them and take a set of loppers to their handlebars?

:madmax:


----------



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

This particular trail is bike/hike so no horsies but I'm glad I asked, just goes to show the different things to consider. There are full mixed trails in my area so it could come up somewhere else.

I think I will default to flush cuts for starters so whatever roots there are can hold the soil together and only remove if I think its going to inhibit drainage or something.

Any other situations anyone considers to be a universally accepted hazard. I know; one mans gold... just trying to look at things from all angles so fire away.


----------



## Dr. Dolittle (Feb 1, 2013)

Hardtale said:


> Parameter would have to consider the trail type as far as beginner/intermediate.


To me, this is the key factor. A beginners trail should be mostly smooth and level. A few manageable roots and/or small flat rocks are OK and will help build confidence to move up to intermediate trails. Same for hills - just enough to start building some cardio endurance. There should be no point on a beginners trail where there is a risk of serious injury if ridden at a reasonable pace.

Intermediate trails are a different beast. I'm in favor of more challenging technical sections and steeper ups and downs, but there should always be an option to get off and hike if a rider feels like he's in over his head. We have several trails around here that are labeled intermediate but have short sections that are pretty advanced. I guess that's OK since there's almost no way to have a trail be 100% intermediate and be worth riding.


----------



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

:


slapheadmofo said:


> Find them and take a set of loppers to their handlebars?
> 
> :madmax:


I've read most of the recent threads on sanitizing and dumbing down of trails so I knew where you stood slaphead . And I agree about the original cutter's work especially since the worst offenses were on intermediate and advanced trail sections. Just trying to deal with what I have in front of me.

As evidenced by the number of responses to threads on the subject this is a tough topic and difficult to assess from a distance, so many shades of grey. But I could up the ante and really have some fun; what does IMBA have to say on the subject? 

Seriously, given their experience do any IMBA publications address this topic because I'd be interested in reading or viewing what they have to say. Still plan to get feedback from my local club so not looking to give up my autonomy or conform to some mundane uniform standard w/o considering our local situation.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hehehe....yeah, I'd be bent if someone jackass took it on themselves to butcher our trails like that. Seems like you're pretty much stuck with the results of some d-bags unwillingness to learn how to handle their bike; only thing to do now is cut them down as low as possible, or better yet, pull them. 

Or block and then reroute even tighter, just out of spite.
(Okay, I'm not gonna recommend this to anyone else, but that's what I'd do if someone decided to pussify our local trails and create a ton of work for us in the process).


----------



## old_MTBer (Feb 16, 2014)

From the IMBA Trail Solutions book page 138:

*Removing Trees and Brush*
When small trees and bushes are growing in the middle of the future tread, don't cut them flush with the ground. They must be dug out, roots and all, or else they'll become dangerous "pungee sticks" when the tread compacts around them. Cutting them at waist level leaves a handle for levering them out. Fill and compact the resulting hole to match the tread.








Trees, bushes, stumps, and their root balls must be completely removed from the trail tread. Cutting them at waist level leaves a handle for levering them out.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Sucks that they got cut, but removing the remnants with a pulaski as pictured above is pretty easy. Chop around the base to cut the roots, then lever them out. 
Glad we don't have to deal with much of that. Though we have a bunch of sketchy hung up (big) deadfall that is going to cause a problem sooner or later...


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

I make it a priority to remove stumps completely from the trail tread and within 2' of each side of the trail. All others can be cut flush. If the stem is less than 2" in diameter it is usually a 30 second job to remove it, roots and all, with a rogue hoe or similar. It won't re-sprout this way either.

Other hazards I look out for are blind features that even experienced riders would have difficulty with when riding the trail for the first time. Locally, there is a small tree which is right at the apex of a moderate speed turn and hidden behind a much larger tree. Many riders clip their handlebars on it which sends them OTB. It is completely blind until you are 2' away and at that point correction is not an option. I would classify this as a hazard.

Trees/limbs which are hung up in other trees and leaning over the trail are another (widow makers).

Trail Hazard: Any feature that grossly falls outside the anticipated challenge for the trail, does not add to the quality or character of the trail, and/or poses an imminent danger to trail users.


----------



## twright205 (Oct 2, 2011)

I'd post up a notice on the trail describing the correct way to address trail issues, so you don't get this person from continuing the practice...


----------



## Dr. Dolittle (Feb 1, 2013)

aero901 said:


> Trail Hazard: Any feature that grossly falls outside the anticipated challenge for the trail, does not add to the quality or character of the trail, and/or poses an imminent danger to trail users.


Wow, that sums it up quite nicely!


----------



## Wildfire (Feb 4, 2004)

Brushing and pruning are common jobs relegated to volunteers but I've often had a tough time getting volunteers and some trail crew members to do a good brushing/pruning job even when they have had training on how to do it right. They tend to leave high stumps, stobs on tree trunks, just cut the tips off branches hanging into the corridor and also have a proclivity for tossing the slash into drainways. Not sure why, groupthink, I guess. it's best if if a knowledgable person work with them for a while until they get dialed in.


----------



## Woodman (Mar 12, 2006)

When one of the equestrians gets thrown from a horse and takes one of these into the chest, they will learn why they should cut them flush.



old_MTBer said:


> We have one trail system that the LM approved horse use also. The equestrians cut saplings and other brush about 6 inches above ground level. Sometimes at an angle. Their explanation was that the horse could see it and not step on it. We had to explain that it was a hazard to cyclists for pedal catching or worse falling and being impaled. They do not cut them at ground level because if the horse does not see the cutting and steps on it the soft inner part of their hoof could be injured.


----------



## bankerboy (Oct 17, 2006)

It wouldn't be the most convenient but a sapling puller would be the quickest and most effective option if there are lots of these 6-10 inch cuts all over the place.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

What the pulaski diagram and note post say.

I can't stand people building or rerouting and then flush cutting. The tread will compact and then you'll be left with ankle breakers. Roots are fine. but anything between .25-10 inches will be a massive hazard.

Its a rookie error not using the pulaski and my volunteers and students at trail schools get this reinforced multiple times.


----------



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

That sapling puller looks like a handy gadget.
As far as what Ive got most are off or just off the trail so not "in" the tread. That being the case a flush cut just so no one gets impaled is probably OK.

There are some old cuts in the tread that probably were flush cut and, as you guys are saying are now being exposed. Of course if I remove them all someone will complain that that was their favorite obstacle etc. Just have to take them one by one. If its high enough to stick someone I will have to make a choice as to whether or not it adds to the challenge or is simply a nuisance or outright hazard.

Off hand I think a small stump or exposed root ball on an uphill grind tends to be more of a "feature" if you will as opposed to the same thing on a faster section where they would tend to dump someone of cause flats.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

In my experience, a sapping puller is much less efficient than a sharp rogue hoe or pulaski. A pain to carry any distance as well.

If there are any flush cut stems in the tread they should be removed. I wouldn't take someone too seriously if they complained because they were removed (even if on a climb). An obstacle is usually added/included in the trail deliberately and when the trail was built the stumps probably weren't intended to be a feature.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

aero901 said:


> ...
> Trees/limbs which are hung up in other trees and leaning over the trail are another (widow makers).
> ...




How's this for a trail hazard? Maybe 40 cm diameter where it crosses over the trail. AFAIK it's been like that the whole year.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

I'm glad I'm not alone with hating the punji sticks. That is my biggest trail hazard pet peeve. There is no reason other than laziness that those get left in. Angle cutting them to a sharp point, is inexcusable laziness and ignorance, whereas flush cutting them in the tread is at least well intentioned but still ignorant.

Cut them out of the tread. If it's outside of the tread, then probably OK to flush cut them, but don't ever leave a sharp stub that someone can fall on. Same goes for pruning trees. Don't ever leave a sharp stub sticking out. The worst are on dusty trails where the punji sticks get so coated in dust that they are nearly invisible.

Another one I hate is leaving the butt ends of a downed tree hanging half way into the trail when it is suspended off the ground. If you're going to clear downed trees, do it right. Cut it back so it isn't hanging over the tread. Cutting it back far enough usually doesn't even take an extra cut, it's just taking more though into where to place your cut.

I don't mind it as much when a log laying on the ground is cut close to the tread to keep the trail narrow, but even then you have to pay attention to location. If it's in a straight section where it's clearly visible, it's not a big deal, but I've seen plenty of times when someone makes the cut so the butt end is hanging out into the trail right at the apex or exit of a turn on the outside, with the log up in the air so that anybody that comes into the corner a little too hot is going to get jousted off their bike.

Hazards hidden in tall grass or vegetation is another one I don't like. I don't really care for trails that are so overgown that you can hardly even tell where the 12" wide tread is, yet there are huge holes, stumps, logs etc..hidden all over right up to the edge of the tread. In my opinion, the vegetation needs to be kept back so that it isn't overhanging the tread, or at minimum, get rid of some of those hidden dangers if it is likely the vegetation is going to repeatedly grow over to the point where you're not sure where the actual tread is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for widening singletrack tread or sanitizing trails, but leaving day-ending stuff hidden where riders have no chance of seeing it, yet a high likelihood of clipping it doesn't really add value to a trail in my opinion.


----------



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

twd953 said:


> ...leaving day-ending stuff hidden where riders have no chance of seeing it, yet a high likelihood of clipping it doesn't really add value to a trail in my opinion.


That I agree with. A pongee in the tread on a descent or at the bottom of a hill where it will come up fast does nothing for me. Especially true now that he leaves are starting to drop. Sure after I ride the trail a couple times I'll know it's there but it's not adding anything to the trail and a little well earned speed and fun is deserved.

A couple on a climb I don't necessarily mind since they can add to the challenge. Get bounced off your line and maybe you don't make that hill.


----------



## sambs827 (Dec 8, 2008)

In no particular order, the following always induce a bit of rage in me:

-Trees cut above surface sticking out of the ground.
-Limbs cut not flush with the trunk
-Both of the above, especially coming around a turn. (think leaning into a turn and catching a stake in the face)
-Rebar used for construction
-Anything less than an 8' high corridor

-Rock features built with dinner-platter rocks that kick up and scatter. I've seen a slack kick up when the front wheel rolled over it, catching the chainring and sending the rider OTB at 15 MPH.

-Digging pits to source dirt for construction. If dirt needs to be mined, use tree throws, the trail surface (if you can), and locations not well away from the trail. Dig pits to a basin-shape and toss waste rocks, roots, etc into them to minimize trip hazards. When digging, put some flags up around your dirt pit so a distracted worker doesn't wander into a hole.

-Then of course, there's the mach-chicken straightaway directly into a sharp, blind turn with big consequences if you mess up. Not many of these on the East Coast, but boy there sure are in Cali.

The way I see it, the rider should only have to worry about obstacles which are part of the trail surface and that create an obvious, vertical obstruction on either side of the trail. Anything else is unnecessary and just dangerous.


----------



## bweide (Dec 27, 2004)

The biggest trail hazard here in Arizona, outside of really vicious types of vegetation (teddy bear cholla, catclaw acacia), are poorly maintained trails above dangerous drops. What are the consequences of a rider falling off the trail at that point? A section of trail above a drop should be one of the easiest sections on that trail (wide, flat, no encroaching vegetation). This doesn't mean it has to be easy, just easier than the average difficulty of the rest of the trail.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

sambs827 said:


> ...
> -Digging pits to source dirt for construction. If dirt needs to be mined, use tree throws, the trail surface (if you can), and locations not well away from the trail. Dig pits to a basin-shape and toss waste rocks, roots, etc into them to minimize trip hazards.
> ...


While I understand the reasoning behind filling in pits, trying to do a bit of quick trail repair and finding someone has filled the pits with a bunch of crap is very, very annoying. Sure, you should avoid digging dangerously deep pits and place them sensibly, but a knee deep hole full of dirt is about the least dangerous thing you'll find out in the forest. I don't think filling them with a bunch of wood (as people seem to love doing) makes them any safer.

Edit: Obviously filling or not filling is going to be up to the personal preference of the builder, just putting it out there that there are valid reasons for not filling pits.


----------



## sambs827 (Dec 8, 2008)

cerebroside said:


> While I understand the reasoning behind filling in pits, trying to do a bit of quick trail repair and finding someone has filled the pits with a bunch of crap is very, very annoying. Sure, you should avoid digging dangerously deep pits and place them sensibly, but a knee deep hole full of dirt is about the least dangerous thing you'll find out in the forest. I don't think filling them with a bunch of wood (as people seem to love doing) makes them any safer.
> 
> Edit: Obviously filling or not filling is going to be up to the personal preference of the builder, just putting it out there that there are valid reasons for not filling pits.


Valid points. I guess my issue is that other users see a hole and freak out that those uppidy mountain bikers are digging holes in the forest....so making them less conspicuous once construction is done can save this pain and anger later.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

twd953 said:


> Hazards hidden in tall grass or vegetation is another one I don't like. I don't really care for trails that are so overgown that you can hardly even tell where the 12" wide tread is, yet there are huge holes, stumps, logs etc..hidden all over right up to the edge of the tread.


Heheh...I hear ya. Reminds me of a buddy's old go-pro footage at the beginning of this vid...afterward, he says "I though that was just uhh...a piece of trail."


Come to think of it, this entire trail would probably classify as a hazard these days.


----------



## Walt Dizzy (Aug 18, 2003)

sambs827 said:


> In no particular order, the following always induce a bit of rage in me:
> 
> -Trees cut above surface sticking out of the ground.
> ...
> ...


Hard to dispute that body-piercing punji sticks are not a good idea...but in practice this can be difficult to avoid under all circumstances. The way I build new trail is to make a thoroughly brushed corridor (no stumps!) 6-8 ft wide.

I also have miles of older trail to maintain that has lots of brush growing in. I would prefer not to leave stumps but it's extremely difficult to get a cutting tool down to ground level without dulling it on the rocks-which are everywhere. Since the rocks are, in fact, everywhere on and around this trail, when people fall they often land on a rock. If a way could be found to grind every sapling and brush stump down to ground level, it would do very little to make these trails safer because there would still be thousands of rocks to land upon. The rocks in this park, besides being extremely numerous, are also metamorphosed limestone: mostly schist and chert which have a razor sharp glass-like fracture. Absolute hell on tires. And skin.

To date: lots of rock-cut injuries, approximately zero piercings by stumps.

If I had endless amounts of time, really the correct thing to do would be to go back over every inch of trail that has been built, and widen the corridor by pulling out tons and tons of rock and cut the brush out properly.

Since I don't have endless amounts of time, I compromise by cutting the brush/saplings high enough to clear my sickle-bar hedge trimmer above the rocks. I believe the safety gained by being able to see the trail far outweighs the small additional hazard of the sapling/brush stumps.

I'm working on getting the resources together to re-work the "Beginner" section, at least, so that newbies can have a little bit of relatively safe trail to ride. I'd like a short section of trail that is smooth and wide and safe. But still recognizably single track. We've built a couple of short reroutes elsewhere that are highly sanitized, and I'd have to say they are pretty nice. Ideally I'd like to bring in a pro-builder, but I have to persuade some influential people that my priorities serve the park better than some other worthy projects.

Oh, and with regards to the question of small, loose rocks in built features: couldn't agree with you more. I am very leery of using anything under 50 lbs or so. Tippy is bad news, really only acceptable when the rock is well enough retained so it can't rotate at all or move more than a tiny bit.

Walt


----------

