Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 113
  1. #1
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    773

    Changing the rules...

    So got a newer idea rollin around in my head in reguards to who yields to who. The current system of Bikes yield to hikers and horses, hikers yield to horses could use a revisit in my opinion, and that of several of my riding companions. The new system i am going to propose is based on the laws of physics and sheer size.

    First. everyone yields to horses. They are the largest trail user in sheer size. Starteling them can injure both the rider and the conflicting trail user.
    Second. Downhill MTB traffic should have the right of way over uphill traffic as it is much easier for an uphill rider to move out of the way. This will also result in less trail erosion due to Downhill traffic not having to skid to stop downhill progress and move over, furthermore bicycles are the only wheeled vehicle where downhill traffic yields to uphill. Moreover the Downhill rider has already climbed to the top and should not have his or her reward of a sweet DH run interrupted. This should not apply to shuttle traffic as they are usually on uni-directional trails.
    Third, hikers should yield to all of the above as it is much easier for a hiker to step off the trail to allow passing traffic than all of the above.
    discuss...
    Make Flagstaff RAD Again.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Casual Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,206
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    So got a newer idea rollin around in my head in reguards to who yields to who. The current system of Bikes yield to hikers and horses, hikers yield to horses could use a revisit in my opinion, and that of several of my riding companions. The new system i am going to propose is based on the laws of physics and sheer size.

    First. everyone yields to horses. They are the largest trail user in sheer size. Starteling them can injure both the rider and the conflicting trail user.
    Second. Downhill MTB traffic should have the right of way over uphill traffic as it is much easier for an uphill rider to move out of the way. This will also result in less trail erosion due to Downhill traffic not having to skid to stop downhill progress and move over, furthermore bicycles are the only wheeled vehicle where downhill traffic yields to uphill. Moreover the Downhill rider has already climbed to the top and should not have his or her reward of a sweet DH run interrupted. This should not apply to shuttle traffic as they are usually on uni-directional trails.
    Third, hikers should yield to all of the above as it is much easier for a hiker to step off the trail to allow passing traffic than all of the above.
    discuss...
    Works for me.
    Nobody gives a s#$t you singlespeed.

  3. #3
    Eroding into the trail
    Reputation: DustyBones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    897

    Sounds good!
    Only thing better in addition, would be that horses have their own designated trails, no bikes, no hikers. This eliminates the horse issue from mtn. bikers/hikers & makes everyone safer. Now the challenge is how to get this implemented, designated horse trails constructed & trail users educated?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmarkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,356
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    So got a newer idea rollin around in my head in reguards to who yields to who. The current system of Bikes yield to hikers and horses, hikers yield to horses could use a revisit in my opinion, and that of several of my riding companions. The new system i am going to propose is based on the laws of physics and sheer size.

    First. everyone yields to horses. They are the largest trail user in sheer size. Starteling them can injure both the rider and the conflicting trail user.
    Second. Downhill MTB traffic should have the right of way over uphill traffic as it is much easier for an uphill rider to move out of the way. This will also result in less trail erosion due to Downhill traffic not having to skid to stop downhill progress and move over, furthermore bicycles are the only wheeled vehicle where downhill traffic yields to uphill. Moreover the Downhill rider has already climbed to the top and should not have his or her reward of a sweet DH run interrupted. This should not apply to shuttle traffic as they are usually on uni-directional trails.
    Third, hikers should yield to all of the above as it is much easier for a hiker to step off the trail to allow passing traffic than all of the above.
    discuss...
    I go with common sense above all, which 99.9% of the time works out to pretty much exactly what you said.

  5. #5
    Bloodied but Unbowed
    Reputation: DesertCrawler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,498
    Seems like how it works anyway, so maybe most people have figured this out.

    F'rinstance, I have only met a handful of downhill MTB traffic that understands they are supposed to yield to the uphill traffic. While I expect MTBers to know and follow the rules of engagement, usually it doesn't bother me, much. Now and then it is a real PITA. I enjoy descending too and understand how having to stop during a descent can be an irritant, but getting going downhill after a stop is almost always trvial in comparison to resuming a climb, for me at least. Sometimes, depending upon the climb, stopping precludes pedaling again without some HAB. Other times I use the stop as an excuse to catch my breath.

    As to horses, I am with you. I am not about to put the horse, the rider, me, or anyone else at risk because the horse or its rider freaks out over an encounter with a hiker, biker or trail obstacle, no matter who is right or wrong. I generally stop and try to get clear out of the way to minimize me being in the wrong place if horse or rider does something random.

    What hikers? Seriously, most hikers I encounter defer to the cyclist as they seem to understand that cycling the gnarlier trails may be harder than walking them. Maybe they are just taking pity in my particular case. I'm okay with that. The few that are grumpy about sharing, whatever, gives me something to mutter about as I flail about along the trail. I know that others have had different and less positive experiences, now and then, which is too bad, because we have such great trail resources here in the valley. Can't we all just get a bong? Maybe that's the problem, dunno.

    I think the answer is to dress up like a horse, ride the biggest bike you can, and always point downhill.

  6. #6
    wawe member
    Reputation: Black Bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    Downhill MTB traffic should have the right of way over uphill traffic as it is much easier for an uphill rider to move out of the way. This will also result in less trail erosion due to Downhill traffic not having to skid to stop downhill progress and move over, furthermore bicycles are the only wheeled vehicle where downhill traffic yields to uphill.
    Spot on, why are bikes the only wheeled vehicles where downhill yields to uphill? Wait, cars, trucks and Jeeps aren't wheeled vehicles, are they? Nope, spot on!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kubo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    774
    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos View Post
    I go with common sense above all, which 99.9% of the time works out to pretty much exactly what you said.
    +1
    I know the rules to yeilding but never really followed it. I have yeilded to uphill bikers/ hikers, and they have yeilded for me... it really all depending on what was easier for each person.

    The only problem I ever had was a couple bikers on National trail trying to go up... saw me, put their head down and kept chugging along in the middle of the trail as fast as they could. I practically had to ride off the trail, ride into a rocky wash just to get out of their way in time.

    They chimed in as they went by "Downhillers yeild to uphillers".... asshat

  8. #8
    Just another half mile...
    Reputation: Epicrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    997
    Typical downhiller mentality…me me me. If you have to skid in order to stop, you are going way to fast on a multiuse trail and not riding in control. On narrow trails, hikers can’t always just step off the trail safely to get out of the way so you can come flying by without you slowing down. It is not easier for uphill riders to get out of the way especially on steep narrow trails. It’s a lot harder to get going again. Downhill riders just need to stop or slow down and pass and let go of the brakes and your off and rolling. If you want uninterrupted flow, go to a bike park.

    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    So got a newer idea rollin around in my head in reguards to who yields to who. The current system of Bikes yield to hikers and horses, hikers yield to horses could use a revisit in my opinion, and that of several of my riding companions. The new system i am going to propose is based on the laws of physics and sheer size.

    First. everyone yields to horses. They are the largest trail user in sheer size. Starteling them can injure both the rider and the conflicting trail user.
    Second. Downhill MTB traffic should have the right of way over uphill traffic as it is much easier for an uphill rider to move out of the way. This will also result in less trail erosion due to Downhill traffic not having to skid to stop downhill progress and move over, furthermore bicycles are the only wheeled vehicle where downhill traffic yields to uphill. Moreover the Downhill rider has already climbed to the top and should not have his or her reward of a sweet DH run interrupted. This should not apply to shuttle traffic as they are usually on uni-directional trails.
    Third, hikers should yield to all of the above as it is much easier for a hiker to step off the trail to allow passing traffic than all of the above.
    discuss...

  9. #9
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,928
    I don't have a big problem with the way the rules are, including or not including horses on trails is a safety issue IMO, but a different issue in terms of who yields, since the rider can not control the unpredictable animal, it kind of has to be the way it is.

    I find downhills where there are few people or that are specifically for downhill riding, and that's where I "let it rip". Otherwise, I find that a few downhill riders are usually the ones that do not want to yield. How many people plan to stop and pull over when on a downhill? If someone else pulls off way ahead, great, if not, I plan to do it. As much as I love downhills, I agree with Epicrider that there are rules there for a purpose. If your local trail is too busy/crowded that you can't do an "unbroken" run, it's probably not a good place for all-out downhill in the first place.
    Last edited by Jayem; 06-23-2011 at 01:16 PM.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  10. #10
    Bloodied but Unbowed
    Reputation: DesertCrawler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,498
    Quote Originally Posted by kubo View Post
    +1
    I know the rules to yeilding but never really followed it. I have yeilded to uphill bikers/ hikers, and they have yeilded for me... it really all depending on what was easier for each person.

    The only problem I ever had was a couple bikers on National trail trying to go up... saw me, put their head down and kept chugging along in the middle of the trail as fast as they could. I practically had to ride off the trail, ride into a rocky wash just to get out of their way in time.

    They chimed in as they went by "Downhillers yeild to uphillers".... asshat

    Not sure why they were asshasts when they were in the right and you were in the wrong. We can disagree with the rules, but the social contract would indicate that it is more than a little questionable to ***** at or about people who follow them especially when the *****er does not.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    155
    Anything that *****S all over a trail should not be on the top of the "right of way" list.

  12. #12
    Shovel Ready
    Reputation: Cycle64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    5,780
    What did Traildoc say about this?
    Currently at Mayo Clinic being tested for a kidney transplant. Donors welcome.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,854
    Good discussion. My take from the hiker POV is that it would be a bummer, even though I can step off the trail rather quickly, to encounter a gaggle of DH'rs trying to set a Super D record on say a trail like Schultz. Riders whizzing by at 30mph would, as Traildoc would say: detract from the hiker experience. Or say a group or family out hiking. You'd have to keep your kids on a leash. Or what about Walter who I haven't seen lately but he use to frequent Shultz with his oxygen tank to walk his dogs. He can't hear you coming.

    Anyhoo, I think the existing system works fine. I agree with Epicrider and Jayem. If you want to get your game on on a multi-use trail do it on a weekday. I rarely if ever get out of the way when climbing a trail. I'm not really looking up because I'm sucking air into my lungs and if the wind is blowing I can't hear anything either.
    Last edited by rockman; 06-23-2011 at 01:30 PM.

  14. #14
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by DesertCrawler View Post
    Not sure why they were asshasts when they were in the right and you were in the wrong. We can disagree with the rules, but the social contract would indicate that it is more than a little questionable to ***** at or about people who follow them especially when the *****er does not.
    Maybe it is time to change this " Social Contract" I hereby emplore all trail users in the Northland to consider this new ammendment.
    Make Flagstaff RAD Again.

  15. #15
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    Good discussion. My take from the hiker POV is that it would be a bummer, even though I can step off the trail rather quickly, to have to encounter a gaggle of DH'rs trying to set a Super D record on say a trail like Schultz. Riders whizzing by at 30mph. As Traildoc would say: detracting from the hiker experience. Or say a group or family out hiking. You'd have to keep your kids on a leash. Or what about Walter who I have seen lately but use to frequent Shultz with his oxygen tank to walk his dogs. He can't hear you coming.

    Anyhoo, I think the existing system works fine. I agree with Epicrider and Jayem. If you want to get your game on on a multi-use trail do it on a weekday. I rarely if ever get out of the way when climbing a trail. I'm not really looking up because I'm sucking air into my lungs and if the wind is blowing I can't hear anything either.
    I do think that common sense should be exercised tho, downhill bikes on Shultz are completely out of place, and people in Full DH mode should be on single use trails that are uni-directional. I was refering mostly to All mountain riding.
    Make Flagstaff RAD Again.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chongoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,933
    What about a small child on a pony? A big dude with full gear on a DH bike could very well out weigh a kid on a pony. What do the laws of physics and sheer size argument do with that one?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,854
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    I do think that common sense should be exercised tho, downhill bikes on Shultz are completely out of place, and people in Full DH mode should be on single use trails that are uni-directional. I was refering mostly to All mountain riding.
    Roger, I'm just playing devil's adocate. I think you have to pick and choose your trail wisely and you can have the best of both worlds. I don't even think of descending Schultz or Sunset at 11am on a Saturday. The endless encounters with hikers, bikers, and even horses just kills the flow. It would still kill the flow if 100% of them got out of my way.

  18. #18
    How much further ???
    Reputation: Douger-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    Second. Downhill MTB traffic should have the right of way over uphill traffic as it is much easier for an uphill rider to move out of the way. This will also result in less trail erosion due to Downhill traffic not having to skid to stop downhill progress and move over, furthermore bicycles are the only wheeled vehicle where downhill traffic yields to uphill. Moreover the Downhill rider has already climbed to the top and should not have his or her reward of a sweet DH run interrupted. This should not apply to shuttle traffic as they are usually on uni-directional trails.
    discuss...
    I respectfully disagree. It is not always easy to just "move out of the way" and not to mention it is more difficult to get started again especially on technical climbs. As an All Mountain rider who climbs and descends I feel climbing is more physically demanding and a particular line is much more critical in the uphill direction as there isnt always a lot of momentum to spare.
    “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did." Mark Twain

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: u2metoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,902
    If I am walking my bike down the hill, all I need to yield to are horses and uphill hikers. Everybody pedaling and all hikers heading down need to yield to me.

    I just improved my trail ranking 2 spots.


    See that, I'm a game changer...

  20. #20
    How much further ???
    Reputation: Douger-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by u2metoo View Post
    If I am walking my bike down the hill, all I need to yield to are horses and uphill hikers. Everybody pedaling and all hikers heading down need to yield to me.

    I just improved my trail ranking 2 spots.


    See that, I'm a game changer...
    If you are walking your bike you must yield to yourself so just stand there and dont move.
    “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did." Mark Twain

  21. #21
    wawe member
    Reputation: Black Bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by DustyBones View Post

    Sounds good!
    Only thing better in addition, would be that horses have their own designated trails, no bikes, no hikers. This eliminates the horse issue from mtn. bikers/hikers & makes everyone safer. Now the challenge is how to get this implemented, designated horse trails constructed & trail users educated?
    Know what'd be even betterer? We make the equestrians breed winged horses to ride on double rainbow sky trails! Now the challenge is nailing down Yosemite Bear to help out with this project.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmarkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,356
    Quote Originally Posted by DesertCrawler View Post
    Not sure why they were asshasts when they were in the right and you were in the wrong. We can disagree with the rules, but the social contract would indicate that it is more than a little questionable to ***** at or about people who follow them especially when the *****er does not.
    This is why
    whether you're going uphill or downhill, only an asshat would blindly chug along assuming the oncomer knows the "rules".

  23. #23
    The PNF Ax Man.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Epicrider View Post
    Typical downhiller mentality…me me me. .
    I don’t think it was the intent of the OP to pit down hillers only against everybody else. This seems to be a genuine discussion about your typical shared trail that has hills and yielding. So I’m not sure why you would give feedback about “typical down hillers” implying selfishness when this is clearly not the case here. That’s bound to get people fired up, arguing, and hating each other. Not good for the sport.

    That said I’ve never really seen this as a hardcore problem. Here in Prescott, there are lots of hills. We get plenty of experience with this, especially on summer weekends. I tend to lean towards that the uphill riders should take the “high road” here (no pun intended). Why? Because I think it comes down to a safety issue. What is the safest way to go about it? It all comes down to who can hear and see who the soonest to avoid collision.
    1. It’s safer for the uphill rider who has more time and more audibles to yield to avoid potential collisions. The uphill rider typically (I understand not always) can hear and/or see the downhill rider coming sooner than the downhill rider can hear and/or see the uphill rider coming. When you’re going downhill, I’m talking safe and in control speeds here, you got much more wind noise, brake noise, tire noise, elevated voices (whooping and hollering), and the speed of approaching obstacles. All these things make it more difficult to hear and see those coming uphill. Reverse all that uphill now: much less wind, tire, brake noise (if any) with average voice levels (if any with all that huffing and puffing). Thus making it safer for the uphill rider to move out of the way quicker with less likelihood of collision. I understand and know that with some trail sections it isn’t possible to just step aside. But isn’t that the exception? Depends on where you ride I suppose. Most riders have the strength and skill to get right back to pedaling again, especially after a short breather. If you don’t, then it’s good practice. I personally would rather take a few short stops on the way up yielding to down hillers than to stop at all on the way down. JMO. But my guess all this comes down to personal opinion. .

    2. Honestly, I can count on one hand the number of other trail user’s who were nasty while stepping aside for us coming downhill when they were going up. Typically, everybody appreciates the rest. Most recreational riders are grateful for the small breather from the uphill grind when the downhill riders come down. And it’s human nature (I’d like to think) to do nice things. Most hikers and bikers are happy to move aside when they’re grinding uphill.

    My two Abe Lincoln’s.

    Dash
    Clearer-er of Prescott trails. Downhill downfall in your way? PM me. Have ax, will travel.

  24. #24
    RNC
    RNC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    98
    What Douger-1 said. Downhillers should generally yield to somebody grinding up the hill, especially as the trail gets steeper and more technical.

    As far as horses, I agree that you should always defer to them. My only problem has been when you come up behind them and they are moving much more slowly on the trail. I think they should allow you to pass, but I agree that the mountain biker (or runner/hiker) should take a lot of caution to make sure that he announces himself and passes carefully (after the horses are prepared for you to pass).

  25. #25
    pedaller
    Reputation: Noelg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,400
    Because I think it comes down to a safety issue. What is the safest way to go about it? It all comes down to who can hear and see who the soonest to avoid collision.
    If you put safety first, then the person traveling faster should yield. "Safety" would suggest that all passes be made at slow speeds in order to minimize the casualties from possible collisions. If you give downhill traffic the right of way, then you are increasing the possibilities of high speed collisions and putting the responsibility on the slower party in general. That is crazy.

    Control your bike. If you cannot see, slow down. Reduce the possibility of "surprise" collisions or conflicts.

    "Nobody ever told me not to try" - Curious George Soundtrack by Jack Johnson

  26. #26
    RNC
    RNC is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    98
    DashRipRock does make some good points about the downhill vs. uphill issue. I would still stick with my general rule, but there are a lot of exceptions to the rules that are just based on common sense. There are certainly times when I have been going up a hill and it just made sense (and it was polite) to let the downhiller, or the hiker, pass. Other times, it didn't (and the other person agreed). I think one of the problems is when there are some people who are really married to the "rules" and insist on enforcing them, whether or not it makes sense. Or you have the guys who hate the "rules" and insist on breaking them. If both parties are looking out for the general safety of other trail users, the worst that you might have are two people who stopped on the trail and are staring at each other.

  27. #27
    Shovel Ready
    Reputation: Cycle64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    5,780
    Quote Originally Posted by chongoman View Post
    what about a small child on a pony firing off fireworks? A big dude with full gear on a dh bike could very well out weigh a kid on a pony. What do the laws of physics and sheer size argument do with that one?
    fify
    Currently at Mayo Clinic being tested for a kidney transplant. Donors welcome.

  28. #28
    pedaller
    Reputation: Noelg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,400
    BTW, I'm all for horse diapers/ blue bags!
    "Nobody ever told me not to try" - Curious George Soundtrack by Jack Johnson

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmarkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,356
    Quote Originally Posted by DashRiprock™®© View Post
    I don’t think it was the intent of the OP to pit down hillers only against everybody else. This seems to be a genuine discussion about your typical shared trail that has hills and yielding. So I’m not sure why you would give feedback about “typical down hillers” implying selfishness when this is clearly not the case here. That’s bound to get people fired up, arguing, and hating each other. Not good for the sport.

    That said I’ve never really seen this as a hardcore problem. Here in Prescott, there are lots of hills. We get plenty of experience with this, especially on summer weekends. I tend to lean towards that the uphill riders should take the “high road” here (no pun intended). Why? Because I think it comes down to a safety issue. What is the safest way to go about it? It all comes down to who can hear and see who the soonest to avoid collision.
    1. It’s safer for the uphill rider who has more time and more audibles to yield to avoid potential collisions. The uphill rider typically (I understand not always) can hear and/or see the downhill rider coming sooner than the downhill rider can hear and/or see the uphill rider coming. When you’re going downhill, I’m talking safe and in control speeds here, you got much more wind noise, brake noise, tire noise, elevated voices (whooping and hollering), and the speed of approaching obstacles. All these things make it more difficult to hear and see those coming uphill. Reverse all that uphill now: much less wind, tire, brake noise (if any) with average voice levels (if any with all that huffing and puffing). Thus making it safer for the uphill rider to move out of the way quicker with less likelihood of collision. I understand and know that with some trail sections it isn’t possible to just step aside. But isn’t that the exception? Depends on where you ride I suppose. Most riders have the strength and skill to get right back to pedaling again, especially after a short breather. If you don’t, then it’s good practice. I personally would rather take a few short stops on the way up yielding to down hillers than to stop at all on the way down. JMO. But my guess all this comes down to personal opinion. .

    2. Honestly, I can count on one hand the number of other trail user’s who were nasty while stepping aside for us coming downhill when they were going up. Typically, everybody appreciates the rest. Most recreational riders are grateful for the small breather from the uphill grind when the downhill riders come down. And it’s human nature (I’d like to think) to do nice things. Most hikers and bikers are happy to move aside when they’re grinding uphill.

    My two Abe Lincoln’s.

    Dash

    This should be a sticky.

  30. #30
    suvlako
    Reputation: suvlako's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    496
    The rules are the rules. They suck in my opinion and I would welcome changes as well as copiuos uni directional dh specific trails, but this is a wish I doubt will be granted any time soon. Awareness is the key. I get a ton of hikers and mtbers yielding to the dh rider(not dh in the pure sense, speaking in terms of direction) where I ride(maybe they appreciate the stoke of the dh more than the pain of the uh). I am aware enough to see what they are doing and plan accordingly. When I see hikers with the dear in the headlights look, I stop. When I see them moving off the trail, that tells me "come on through" and they are thanked in kind.

  31. #31
    How much further ???
    Reputation: Douger-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by DashRiprock™®© View Post
    1. It’s safer for the uphill rider who has more time and more audibles to yield to avoid potential collisions. The uphill rider typically (I understand not always) can hear and/or see the downhill rider coming sooner than the downhill rider can hear and/or see the uphill rider coming. When you’re going downhill, I’m talking safe and in control speeds here, you got much more wind noise, brake noise, tire noise, elevated voices (whooping and hollering), and the speed of approaching obstacles. All these things make it more difficult to hear and see those coming uphill. Reverse all that uphill now: much less wind, tire, brake noise (if any) with average voice levels (if any with all that huffing and puffing). Thus making it safer for the uphill rider to move out of the way quicker with less likelihood of collision. I understand and know that with some trail sections it isn’t possible to just step aside. But isn’t that the exception? Depends on where you ride I suppose. Most riders have the strength and skill to get right back to pedaling again, especially after a short breather. If you don’t, then it’s good practice. I personally would rather take a few short stops on the way up yielding to down hillers than to stop at all on the way down. JMO. But my guess all this comes down to personal opinion. .

    Dash
    Again I respectfully disagree. I realize that you personally have no issues with taking a few short breathers, which is fine, but there are others who pride themselves on conquering a tough technical climb without stopping. To your point one could also argue that the faster you go the farther ahead you look so the downhill riders should be aware of the uphill riders much sooner.

    To follow up on an earlier point I made, in my experience it is much easier to change your line going downhill than up. Typically there is a single groove that is used when climbing. It follows the path with the least amount of loose gravel and works its way up in a path of least resistance. If Im coming down its much easier for me to yield or move over into the loose stuff and drop off a couple steps than for the guy climbing to pull out of the groove.
    “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did." Mark Twain

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Scary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    197
    This I'd all way too confusing.Too many words.
    I say first user to "call" the trail when happening upon another user,gets the right of way,period.

    Horses get an advantage because of height.
    DHers get an advantage cuz they usually look further down the trail.
    XCers get an advantage cuz they ride in couples alot(like roadies)
    Hikers get an advantage cuz they're always looking for someone to ***** at.
    codafurnituredesign.com

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Scary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    197
    Then,if there's a dispute,or you both call it at the same time........
    Rock,paper,scissors.
    codafurnituredesign.com

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AZTtripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    542
    There are trails that are already this way. The whole desert trails system on the north side of Gallop possibly the trails SE of town also can't remember for sure.

    There are trails that are closed to horses. Bootleg as I recall, not sure what it's like since the fire but there was a loop south of Big Lake, AZ, no horses at Fantasy Island in Tucson.

    99% of the time hikers are already off of the trail before we see them. If you slow down and play nice most are super friendly and don't mind yielding.

    In my experience with horse riders it's about 50-50 but usually they say it's easy for them to get off of the trail, unless it's steep side slope. As long as you are talking as you go past a horse so it knows you are a person, and not some crazy wheeled beasty it's generally all good.

    That leaves 1% of the hikers out there that feel the need to go by the letter of the law (rule, guide line what ever). Seems like one percent of the time is not that big of a deal why not just let that one percent have at it.

    So that only leaves the bike on bike interaction. I have one riding partner who has never finished and extended climb without stopping ever. He is more then will to take a break any chance he gets so he is happy to yield to down hill traffic. If I am on a climb that I know I can clean I would much rather not put a foot down. On the down hill side it's so easy to stop and start again I really don't care if I have to stop on the down hill.

    When two hikers meet in the mountains they seem to yield to up hill traffic. I have had hikers yield to me on this concept. Even if I offer to stop they will say no up hill has the right of way. It only makes sense that bike traffic the newer users follow the same concept. If the trail is super gnarly there will be very few up hill riders if they are still on the bike and clean climbing they should have the right of way. The rider who knows he will be walking soon will most likely be willing to yield.

    I see no problem with things the way they are now. It seems like 99% of the time riders won't have to stop but should always slow down for hikers. And it seems like every one from both sides agrees that we need to stop and give horses all of the space they need.

    And there are some places that do require horses to wear diapers pretty sure Garden of the Gods city park in Colorado Springs at least makes the outfitter do this. Not that you can ride a bike there anyway.
    Singin' I love hike a bike!!!

  35. #35
    How much further ???
    Reputation: Douger-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    So got a newer idea rollin around in my head in reguards to who yields to who. The current system of Bikes yield to hikers and horses, hikers yield to horses could use a revisit in my opinion, and that of several of my riding companions. The new system i am going to propose is based on the laws of physics and sheer size.

    First. everyone yields to horses. They are the largest trail user in sheer size. Starteling them can injure both the rider and the conflicting trail user.
    Second. Downhill MTB traffic should have the right of way over uphill traffic as it is much easier for an uphill rider to move out of the way. This will also result in less trail erosion due to Downhill traffic not having to skid to stop downhill progress and move over, furthermore bicycles are the only wheeled vehicle where downhill traffic yields to uphill. Moreover the Downhill rider has already climbed to the top and should not have his or her reward of a sweet DH run interrupted. This should not apply to shuttle traffic as they are usually on uni-directional trails.
    Third, hikers should yield to all of the above as it is much easier for a hiker to step off the trail to allow passing traffic than all of the above.
    discuss...
    I just got to thinking I may actually like your new idea. If we are going to base it on the law of physics and sheer size than after horses comes us clydesdales right? Since Im over 200lbs its harder for me to stop and if I run into one of you skinny buck fifty guys you will be in a world of hurt. I think us clydesdales end up with the highest weight to speed ratio out there. Everyone yield to us !!! Yes yes I like this.
    “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did." Mark Twain

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    236
    The problem with the OPs proposal is that it is too wordy. It is hard enough getting people to understand the current trail etiquette, and that can be explained in 2 sentences. Try explaining this new set of rules to some newb. There would be pandemonium everywhere. But at least the equestrians would be okay, cause nothing changed for them.

  37. #37
    Bloodied but Unbowed
    Reputation: DesertCrawler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,498
    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos View Post
    This is why
    whether you're going uphill or downhill, only an asshat would blindly chug along assuming the oncomer knows the "rules".
    Fair enough, and I considered that, just didn't correct myself.

    Someone already said it - common sense. There's an inherent issue with that though, because the term seems to be an oxymoron.

  38. #38
    bland
    Reputation: m77ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Epicrider View Post
    Typical downhiller mentality…me me me. If you have to skid in order to stop, you are going way to fast on a multiuse trail and not riding in control.
    Its people with epicriders mentality that ruin others users day. People that have the "this person rides this type bike/looks like this/rides these trails and therefor I should judge them as this" are bad for trails. You should abandon your narrow-minded views, it would do you some good.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chongoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,933
    Quote Originally Posted by DashRiprock™®© View Post
    I don’t think it was the intent of the OP to pit down hillers only against everybody else. This seems to be a genuine discussion about your typical shared trail that has hills and yielding. So I’m not sure why you would give feedback about “typical down hillers” implying selfishness when this is clearly not the case here. That’s bound to get people fired up, arguing, and hating each other. Not good for the sport.

    That said I’ve never really seen this as a hardcore problem. Here in Prescott, there are lots of hills. We get plenty of experience with this, especially on summer weekends. I tend to lean towards that the uphill riders should take the “high road” here (no pun intended). Why? Because I think it comes down to a safety issue. What is the safest way to go about it? It all comes down to who can hear and see who the soonest to avoid collision.
    1. It’s safer for the uphill rider who has more time and more audibles to yield to avoid potential collisions. The uphill rider typically (I understand not always) can hear and/or see the downhill rider coming sooner than the downhill rider can hear and/or see the uphill rider coming. When you’re going downhill, I’m talking safe and in control speeds here, you got much more wind noise, brake noise, tire noise, elevated voices (whooping and hollering), and the speed of approaching obstacles. All these things make it more difficult to hear and see those coming uphill. Reverse all that uphill now: much less wind, tire, brake noise (if any) with average voice levels (if any with all that huffing and puffing). Thus making it safer for the uphill rider to move out of the way quicker with less likelihood of collision. I understand and know that with some trail sections it isn’t possible to just step aside. But isn’t that the exception? Depends on where you ride I suppose. Most riders have the strength and skill to get right back to pedaling again, especially after a short breather. If you don’t, then it’s good practice. I personally would rather take a few short stops on the way up yielding to down hillers than to stop at all on the way down. JMO. But my guess all this comes down to personal opinion. .

    2. Honestly, I can count on one hand the number of other trail user’s who were nasty while stepping aside for us coming downhill when they were going up. Typically, everybody appreciates the rest. Most recreational riders are grateful for the small breather from the uphill grind when the downhill riders come down. And it’s human nature (I’d like to think) to do nice things. Most hikers and bikers are happy to move aside when they’re grinding uphill.

    My two Abe Lincoln’s.

    Dash
    I can appreciate your diplomatic approach here, but all that stuff about safety, wind noise, whooping and brake/tire noise seems a little hog-washy to me. If a rider is going so fast that they can't hear or see enough they should make sure that no one is in the path before they open it up. It's not that hard to do that.The whole reason that DH yeilds to UH riding and hiking is based on safety. People going fast DH are more likely to hurt people going slow UH. This rule is not in place to penalize or make DH riders feel bad. We all know that UH hikers and riders can be dumb and unpredictable. If they jump the wrong way of freeze in the wrong spot they might get clobbered no matter how smart the DH rider is. The rule is in place to keep people from getting hurt. The parks simply cannot afford to deal with people getting hurt, and it is very likely that changing a very old common knowledge rule for the benefit of MTBers will lead to people getting hurt. It's not about fault or right or wrong it's about avoiding injuries in the parks.

    I'm also going to have to disagee with point 2 as well. I'm not going to let it ruin my day when a DH rider fails to yield when I'm climbing, and will generally smile and say howdy regardless, but to suggest that most UH riders and hikers are "happy" to move to the side so you can blaze past is a HUGE stretch of the imagination. Grinding up hill for many runners, hikers, and bikers is the whole point. They want to get their burn on just like we want to get out flow on. Just because they smile and nod rather than giving you the finger doesn't mean they're happy to move out of your way. And the whole "being nice is human nature" rationalization... Are you really saying that it is more "nice" for a UH hiker/biker to move to the side than it is for a DH rider/hiker to yield? How did you come to that conclusion?

  40. #40
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation: big0mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,901
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    First. everyone yields to horses. They are the largest trail user in sheer size. Starteling them can injure both the rider and the conflicting trail user.
    Sounds good so far...

    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    Second. Downhill MTB traffic should have the right of way over uphill traffic [load of complete dog excement deleted due to the complete stupidity of said excrement]
    Sounds like a complete load of crap written from the point of view of someone who believes they own the MULTIUSE trail they are on.

    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    Third, hikers should yield to all of the above as it is much easier for a hiker to step off the trail to allow passing traffic than all of the above.
    Now you're back on track. Luckily, I'd say 80% of all hikers understand this and follow this rule even though it's not the real rule.

    And, luckily, I haven't run into any bands of DHing doooshbags that think everyone on a multiuse trail should get out of their way.

  41. #41
    The .05 percent
    Reputation: sinatorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by Epicrider View Post
    Typical downhiller mentality…me me me. If you have to skid in order to stop, you are going way to fast on a multiuse trail and not riding in control. On narrow trails, hikers can’t always just step off the trail safely to get out of the way so you can come flying by without you slowing down. It is not easier for uphill riders to get out of the way especially on steep narrow trails. It’s a lot harder to get going again. Downhill riders just need to stop or slow down and pass and let go of the brakes and your off and rolling. If you want uninterrupted flow, go to a bike park.
    Pretty sure that you missed the point entirely, I am not surprised. You obviously know little about Downhilling, and the mentality that goes with it. My point was in reference to Multi use trails, for instance the ones on your coveted little map. DH trails are single use, and uni directional so these proposed changes really do not apply. I was more focused on all mountain riding and the question refers to the inconsistancies between bicycles and every other form of wheeled recreation. Take that how you will, seems like you are the one with the typical skinny tire mentality of my point is the only one that matters, therefore I will not listen to anyone else. Thank you for your time...
    Make Flagstaff RAD Again.

  42. #42
    wawe member
    Reputation: Black Bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    I was more focused on all mountain riding and the question refers to the inconsistancies between bicycles and every other form of wheeled recreation.
    You keep saying this yet it's not true. Off Roaders also go by downhill yields to uphill.

    Hiking etiquette also uses the same rule.

    BTW, where are these DH only trails that everyone usually shuttles? Seems the trails most commonly discussed for shuttling are normal multi-use and public trails.

  43. #43
    Give it a crank
    Reputation: Mtn-Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,995
    I just wish it could all be reduced to one simple rule: slower yields to faster, and that's all anybody needs to obey.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kubo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    774
    Quote Originally Posted by DesertCrawler View Post
    Not sure why they were asshasts when they were in the right and you were in the wrong. We can disagree with the rules, but the social contract would indicate that it is more than a little questionable to ***** at or about people who follow them especially when the *****er does not.
    Slowing down would have been nice. Maybe moving to the side of the trail where I could have room to stop and let him pass would be another option.

    I guess I'll just stop in the middle of the trail next time... then we'll see who *****es

  45. #45
    How much further ???
    Reputation: Douger-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn-Rider View Post
    I just wish it could all be reduced to one simple rule: slower yields to faster, and that's all anybody needs to obey.
    I wish that were the case on our highways but Im not so sure thats the best practice on multi-use trails.
    “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did." Mark Twain

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DonRastafari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn-Rider View Post
    I just wish it could all be reduced to one simple rule: slower yields to faster, and that's all anybody needs to obey.
    Amen to that! I've always wondered (coming from an off road motorcycle racing background), why do so many mountain bikers have difficulty realizing that if someone catches up to you, they are going faster than you and it would be a good idea to let them by. I'm not talking about the newbies that don't have the control to focus on anything but what's directly ahead. I mean the guys/girls that will keep on the main line regardless of the fact you are practically rubbing their rear tire. So is pulling off the line for the faster riders not done in mountain bike racing, or has it just not made it's way to the trails?
    a real Dirkbag!

  47. #47
    How much further ???
    Reputation: Douger-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,371
    Moving over for a faster rider behind you is just common courtesy which everyone should strive to do more of. We are talking about the interaction of horses vs bikes vs hikers and bikes in uh vs dh. Like others have said if the goal is safety in a multi-use environment then faster should yield. IMHO
    “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did." Mark Twain

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DonRastafari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    69
    I suppose it was just fresh in my mind because this morning I got stuck behind a guy who also didn't move out of the main line for the guy coming down hill at us. I try to look as far ahead and behind as possible and move over whenever I see oncoming/overtaking traffic. But I also understand you can't always do that, so I think safety would dictate dh yield to uh.
    a real Dirkbag!

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Casual Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,206
    Quote Originally Posted by DonRastafari View Post
    I suppose it was just fresh in my mind because this morning I got stuck behind a guy who also didn't move out of the main line for the guy coming down hill at us. I try to look as far ahead and behind as possible and move over whenever I see oncoming/overtaking traffic. But I also understand you can't always do that, so I think safety would dictate dh yield to uh.
    1) were you sure he heard you and the other rider, and 2) did he know you wanted to pass. Sometimes, a rider will quickly come from behind me, and I'll eihter be in some kind of daze and not hear them or whatever. Also, while it pisses me off, every once and a while a biker might come up behind me and then just sit there, I'm assuming to rest of draft.

    While slower riders should let faster rides pass, faster riders really should let the slower rider know they want to pass, and what side they are going to pass one (i.e., Going to pass you on the left when you get a chance).
    Nobody gives a s#$t you singlespeed.

  50. #50
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    242
    I go with the common sense approach. If someone looks like they are doing what they are doing and doing it well, why trump 'em.

    If you're a noob, and someone looks like they ride, get out of the way.
    If you're a veteran, and you're not in a hurry, be nice and let the others have the path.

    Too many rules and frankly too many buttheads that just don't give a damn to follow them.

    My 2 cents.

    Oh, one last thing, if you act like a butthole, be prepared. Warning, not a threat. Homy don't play that game.

  51. #51
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by big0mike View Post
    Sounds good so far...
    yep, we have horses and the knuckle dragging ****** bags ride like dip wads, well keep it up and see what you get. You ever have 1200 lbs on your a$$? Not fun and not funny!


    Quote Originally Posted by big0mike View Post
    Sounds like a complete load of crap written from the point of view of someone who believes they own the MULTIUSE trail they are on.
    Golf clap. I have been going up hill and had sucky aR$e ******s run me off the track and they sucked. Concur with you on your comment.


    Quote Originally Posted by big0mike View Post
    Now you're back on track. Luckily, I'd say 80% of all hikers understand this and follow this rule even though it's not the real rule..
    Want to lose riding trails, piss these clowns off fast and WE lose in the end. Don't push it with them, they're a tough battle when they act like ar$e$, and we won't win that battle...

    Quote Originally Posted by big0mike View Post
    And, luckily, I haven't run into any bands of DHing doooshbags that think everyone on a multiuse trail should get out of their way..
    It's not just the DHers, I ran into a granddads at DC last Sunday and this old FFer thought he was all that and a bag of nachos. I frigging yelled at his ass and told him to FFIng pick a side...

  52. #52
    Fragile - must be Italian
    Reputation: dgangi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,308
    Hey...it's the annual "let's redraw the rules of yielding" discussion. These always seem to come around this time of year when it's hot outside and people start thinking too much.

    Jesus people...the rules are the rules and they work.

    Horses, as much as I hate them, get to be on top because they can kill somebody. That's a no-brainer.

    Next, hikers get right of way primarily because they can also be LITTLE KIDS. There are lots of 2-5yr olds running around the trails, and we have to protect them. Even riding close to those kids scares them, so we have to be extra careful. If somebody on a bike came by and knocked my daughter over, I'd beat the living **** out of them. Riders should always yield to hikers. I don't always stop, but I slow down well in advance and ask if it is OK to pass by. If they decide to move over...great...I go. If they don't want to move, then I stop.

    Cyclists are at the bottom, primarly because (a) we can't kill somebody, and (b) we're adults. This has nothing to do with hikers being "better" than cyclists...it has to do with the age group of each trail user.

    Lastly...downhill riders must ALWAYS yield to uphill riders. Period. When climbing, I never yield an inch to downhill riders, especially if the trail is steep and/or technical. Call me an asshat for taking this point of view, but I am out to climb the trail and get to the top without walking...and a rude downhiller forcing me to stop just killed that intent. Not only that, when I am on my singlespeed, there is NO starting once I've had to stop.

    I hope I don't come across as a dick...but living near PMP I've seen it all. In my younger days I used to pooh-pooh the rules...but after years of sharing the trails with horses, hikers, dogs, cyclists, runners, and every other user group imaginable...I now understand why the rules of yielding are as they are.

    Let's use common sense people and be good stewards. Us MTB'ers are already hated by the horse and hiking community as it is. And since we're the smallest (and probably the poorest) of these user groups, we will always lose if we get into a pissing match with them. We have great trail access in AZ...let's not ruin it with cavalier attitudes about our "rights".

    Thx...Doug

  53. #53
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,139
    Quote Originally Posted by dgangi View Post

    Horses, as much as I hate them, get to be on top because they can kill somebody.
    something i learned last night, which i never knew - equestrians want you to announce yourself to the horse. apparently a human voice they see as a non-threat and will react better.

    I always thought that might scare the horse, and interestingly a lot of people assumed all bikers knew this.

    Just a little something to pass on that might help make our trails friendlier...

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DonRastafari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by skinny-tire View Post
    1) were you sure he heard you and the other rider, and 2) did he know you wanted to pass. Sometimes, a rider will quickly come from behind me, and I'll eihter be in some kind of daze and not hear them or whatever. Also, while it pisses me off, every once and a while a biker might come up behind me and then just sit there, I'm assuming to rest of draft.

    While slower riders should let faster rides pass, faster riders really should let the slower rider know they want to pass, and what side they are going to pass one (i.e., Going to pass you on the left when you get a chance).
    1. He knew I was there, he looked back when I first got behind him. At first I didn't push, cause I wasn't sure how fast he was on climbs and I'm not a climber. I hate to pass someone and then hold them up.
    2. Did he know I wanted to pass? I guess this is my point that if someone comes up on you, they are going faster, so let them by. They're not there to stare at your butt (usually, that is). I hear what you're saying about "dazing" out, I've done it, but it's pretty rare and I was following this guy for some time. I can't imagine someone drafting on the trail, but if someone pulls in behind me, I'm moving over.

    Lastly, I'm not a fan of calling which side I want to pass on. I feel that is better determined by the lead rider as he/she will have a better view of the upcoming trail and their ability to move one way or the other depending on their skill.
    a real Dirkbag!

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: woahey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,289
    Quote Originally Posted by sinatorj View Post
    Downhill traffic not having to skid to stop downhill progress and move over, furthermore bicycles are the only wheeled vehicle where downhill traffic yields to uphill.

    Moreover the Downhill rider has already climbed to the top and should not have his or her reward of a sweet DH run interrupted.

    discuss...
    Bikes aren't the only ones where uphill traffic has right-of-way. The same goes for ATV's, 4x4's, hikers, ect. If you can't stop from hitting a hiker without skidding, you probably were going to fast for that section of trail. Common sense would dictate being able to stop within your line of sight on a multi-use trail.

    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos View Post
    I go with common sense above all, which 99.9% of the time works out to pretty much exactly what you said.
    This is really what needs to be done. Have a little bit of common sense and courtesy and be surprised at how far it can go.

    Quote Originally Posted by chollaball View Post
    something i learned last night, which i never knew - equestrians want you to announce yourself to the horse. apparently a human voice they see as a non-threat and will react better.

    I always thought that might scare the horse, and interestingly a lot of people assumed all bikers knew this.

    Just a little something to pass on that might help make our trails friendlier...
    Horses are just as dumb as they are big. You never know what may spook them. Ultimately though, if you spook the rider you'll spook the horse. Announce yourself to both and try to stay out of their way.
    The secret to mountain biking is pretty simple. The slower you go the more likely it is you’ll crash.
    - Julie Furtado

  56. #56
    banned
    Reputation: The Prodigal Son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    860
    Quote Originally Posted by dgangi View Post
    Hey...Us MTB'ers are already hated by the horse and hiking community as it is. And since we're the smallest (and probably the poorest) of these user groups, we will always lose if we get into a pissing match with them. We have great trail access in AZ...let's not ruin it with cavalier attitudes about our "rights".

    Thx...Doug
    Mountain bikers are hated by other trail users, that is true. However, we are not the smallest user group. Equestrians represent less than 2% of all trail users. Here in Flagstaff, on most trails, especially those further from town, mountain bikers are the largest user group. They do the majority of volunteer trail work. They leave the least amount of garbage.

    There is a time when the bike community needs to be more vocal and make demands of land managers. We could chase the horses far from our favorite trails if we stood shoulder to shoulder and forced the issue. The best angle is to say the numbers of bikers out on the trails is growing too fast for horses to safely share the trails with us. Once you present it as risk management and warn of impending litigation should a personal injury occur, you back them into a corner where they need to cover their butts.

    The politics have changed and mountain bikers have more juice than ever. And not just the ones who have played by the rules. The downhillers and moto groups have been building outlaw trails for decades. First, the Forest Service cursed them and tried to close the trails. It was a pathetic effort and those trails reopened qithin weeks, and many others were built to spite the law dogs from the FS. The result is the FS cried uncle and is now on their knees asking the downhillers and moto's what they can do to serve them better. That's the history of trail building in Flagstaff. The FS is willing to reward negative behavior once they realize that behavior represents a tidal wave they can't possibly stop.

    There are still going to be riders who prefer the old methods of sitting through years of meetings where old-timers show up and scream that new trails near their properties will bring in crime. They'll report back to fellow riders they are beginning to make progress and that in 5 or 10 years, they might get to a point where the planning process begins moving forward. Meantime, in Sedona, there were 40+ new trails built during that time. None went through any official planning process. They were built by bike riders who didn't want to grow old waiting for some lazy government worker to do what he is being paid to do.

    The OP makes a bold suggestion. I applaud him for it. I prefer to have high-speed downhill traffic yield to me, though. But I have learned to quickly judge the risks of holding my line and always try to accomodate the dowhill traffic, if there is space. These are the best of times out on the trails. Let's not be afraid to stand tall and take on those who would ban us from the trails if they could.

  57. #57
    Fragile - must be Italian
    Reputation: dgangi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,308
    Quote Originally Posted by chollaball View Post
    something i learned last night, which i never knew - equestrians want you to announce yourself to the horse. apparently a human voice they see as a non-threat and will react better.

    I always thought that might scare the horse, and interestingly a lot of people assumed all bikers knew this.

    Just a little something to pass on that might help make our trails friendlier...
    Horses are spooked by our bikes and helmets. Because of these, they don't readily recognize us as people. So I've been told to do as Jason says...announce yourself in a loud, clear voice...and then the horse realizes that it's just another human and will calm down.

    Oddly enough, horses are also spooked by hiking backpacks (those that are tall and stick above your head).

    I guess anything that makes you look less "human" scares a horse.


    Thx...Doug

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,854
    You really don't like the FS do you TPS? You make that quite clear. They're not all lazy gov't workers. There's other things going on before they can give the thumb's up to a trail as you well know. NEPA compliance for one. They have to play by the rules. I guess some of us don't.

    As for yielding, I yield to no biker when climbing. Unless I have good line-of-site and I'm not grinding out a climb. And that's really the issue isn't it? The line-of-site is excellent in the desert but in the trees with few exceptions it doesn't exist. Not when a rider is descending 20+ mph.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmarkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,356
    Jesus people...the rules are the rules and they work.
    Next, hikers get right of way primarily because they can also be LITTLE KIDS. There are lots of 2-5yr olds running around the trails, and we have to protect them. Even riding close to those kids scares them, so we have to be extra careful. If somebody on a bike came by and knocked my daughter over, I'd beat the living **** out of them. Riders should always yield to hikers. I don't always stop, but I slow down well in advance and ask if it is OK to pass by. If they decide to move over...great...I go. If they don't want to move, then I stop.
    If the rules are rules and they work, then why do I experience the opposite? 99% of the time hikers yield to me. I believe it's because most people are not stupid and see that it's much easier to step to the right or left then to recall what "rules" say. Should I yell at them because they're breaking the rules? Or, let them know that by allowing me to pass they’re being enablers?

    Lastly...downhill riders must ALWAYS yield to uphill riders. Period. When climbing, I never yield an inch to downhill riders, especially if the trail is steep and/or technical. Call me an asshat for taking this point of view, but I am out to climb the trail and get to the top without walking...and a rude downhiller forcing me to stop just killed that intent. Not only that, when I am on my singlespeed, there is NO starting once I've had to stop.
    Again, I rarely see this. Most people I see climbing will let me by. If I was coming down and saw you coming up, and it was clear you were not paying attention to me, or you were acting tough, I would stop and smile as you pass. I would do this because it makes my life easier.

    Us MTB'ers are already hated by the horse and hiking community as it is. And since we're the smallest (and probably the poorest) of these user groups, we will always lose if we get into a pissing match with them. We have great trail access in AZ...let's not ruin it with cavalier attitudes about our "rights".
    I don't agree, and I think this attitude is defeatist and useless. We are growing, getting organized, and gaining a voice.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Casual Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,206
    Quote Originally Posted by dgangi View Post
    Hey...it's the annual "let's redraw the rules of yielding" discussion. These always seem to come around this time of year when it's hot outside and people start thinking too much.

    Jesus people...the rules are the rules and they work.

    Horses, as much as I hate them, get to be on top because they can kill somebody. That's a no-brainer.

    Next, hikers get right of way primarily because they can also be LITTLE KIDS. There are lots of 2-5yr olds running around the trails, and we have to protect them. Even riding close to those kids scares them, so we have to be extra careful. If somebody on a bike came by and knocked my daughter over, I'd beat the living **** out of them. Riders should always yield to hikers. I don't always stop, but I slow down well in advance and ask if it is OK to pass by. If they decide to move over...great...I go. If they don't want to move, then I stop.

    Cyclists are at the bottom, primarly because (a) we can't kill somebody, and (b) we're adults. This has nothing to do with hikers being "better" than cyclists...it has to do with the age group of each trail user.

    Lastly...downhill riders must ALWAYS yield to uphill riders. Period. When climbing, I never yield an inch to downhill riders, especially if the trail is steep and/or technical. Call me an asshat for taking this point of view, but I am out to climb the trail and get to the top without walking...and a rude downhiller forcing me to stop just killed that intent. Not only that, when I am on my singlespeed, there is NO starting once I've had to stop.

    I hope I don't come across as a dick...but living near PMP I've seen it all. In my younger days I used to pooh-pooh the rules...but after years of sharing the trails with horses, hikers, dogs, cyclists, runners, and every other user group imaginable...I now understand why the rules of yielding are as they are.

    Let's use common sense people and be good stewards. Us MTB'ers are already hated by the horse and hiking community as it is. And since we're the smallest (and probably the poorest) of these user groups, we will always lose if we get into a pissing match with them. We have great trail access in AZ...let's not ruin it with cavalier attitudes about our "rights".

    Thx...Doug
    Regarding downhillers yielding to uphillers, I'm assuming you're referring to somebody who has already begun his climb? Many time, when I approach the start of a climb, I'll make sure nobody is coming down, or about to come down (this happens a lot on T100 heading east to Conversation Point). If they are, I have zero problem waiting for them to descend, since for the most of us, we enjoy going up more than coming down, and nothing ruins a descent than having to stop for somebody who could have easily waited 20 seconds to let me coming down.
    Nobody gives a s#$t you singlespeed.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kubo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    774
    Quote Originally Posted by Douger-1 View Post
    but there are others who pride themselves on conquering a tough technical climb without stopping.
    I take pride in a nice flowy, consistant downhill run in which everyone celebrates with a round of high fives and good-games... Just sayin

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Casual Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,206
    Quote Originally Posted by DonRastafari View Post
    1. He knew I was there, he looked back when I first got behind him. At first I didn't push, cause I wasn't sure how fast he was on climbs and I'm not a climber. I hate to pass someone and then hold them up.
    2. Did he know I wanted to pass? I guess this is my point that if someone comes up on you, they are going faster, so let them by. They're not there to stare at your butt (usually, that is). I hear what you're saying about "dazing" out, I've done it, but it's pretty rare and I was following this guy for some time. I can't imagine someone drafting on the trail, but if someone pulls in behind me, I'm moving over.

    Lastly, I'm not a fan of calling which side I want to pass on. I feel that is better determined by the lead rider as he/she will have a better view of the upcoming trail and their ability to move one way or the other depending on their skill.
    It really is common courtsey (some would even say "the rules") to let a slower rider know you want to pass. And in most cases, you can see the trail ahead and have a good idea where the ideal passing spot is. This is coming more from my racing experience, but I HATE when somebody passes me and they something like "here I come" or "I'm passing." Sorry, I don't have eyes in the back of my head, and I'm not taking my eyes off the trail to see which way you're going. At a min, you should say "can I pass you when you find a safe spot? Just let me know when." Personally, I'll NEVER stop or pull off the trail (and please, please, please don't pull off the trail to let somebody by) to let somebody pass me.
    Nobody gives a s#$t you singlespeed.

  63. #63
    Fragile - must be Italian
    Reputation: dgangi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,308
    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos View Post
    If the rules are rules and they work, then why do I experience the opposite? 99% of the time hikers yield to me. I believe it's because most people are not stupid and see that it's much easier to step to the right or left then to recall what "rules" say. Should I yell at them because they're breaking the rules? Or, let them know that by allowing me to pass they’re being enablers?
    Now you're being silly on the semantics of this discussion. Are you telling me that you just blow into a group of hikers and expect them to move over? Or do you slow down, say "hello", and see what they intend to do -- stopping and letting them go if they dont' feel like moving over, and passing politely if they do? If it's the latter, which I suspect it is, then you are "yielding" as intended. "Yield" doesn't necessarily mean that you let the other person by. Rather, "yielding" means that you offer the courtesy to the other user group first...and if they step aside and offer you the trail...then great...and if not, then you wait and let them by.

    Again, I rarely see this. Most people I see climbing will let me by. If I was coming down and saw you coming up, and it was clear you were not paying attention to me, or you were acting tough, I would stop and smile as you pass. I would do this because it makes my life easier.
    I frankly don't understand this attitude. Why would you expect any uphill rider to pull over and let you by? The other person is working their ass off to climb the hill...but you want them to step aside so you can have your flow? That's ********.

    I don't agree, and I think this attitude is defeatist and useless. We are growing, getting organized, and gaining a voice.
    It's not defeatist and useless. It's a fact. You can think whatever you want...but the truth of the matter is that us MTB'ers are FAR FAR outweighed by the horse and hiker groups in both politics AND money. Horse people are generally filthy rich AND well connected (think ranchers). Hiker groups outnumber us 10 to 1, and just about every politician hikes. And this trend is not just in AZ...it's everywhere. If you don't believe me then attend any of the Phoenix city park meetings. Or watch what is happening in Congress with the Wilderness Act.

    And it's not just MTB'ers that are low on the totem pole. The moto's and ATV communities are right with us at the bottom. These 3 user groups will always struggle to maintain access to public lands...and knowing that, I feel it is imperative for us to play well with the other user groups. That's all I am saying.


    Thx...Doug

  64. #64
    Fragile - must be Italian
    Reputation: dgangi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,308
    Quote Originally Posted by skinny-tire View Post
    Regarding downhillers yielding to uphillers, I'm assuming you're referring to somebody who has already begun his climb? Many time, when I approach the start of a climb, I'll make sure nobody is coming down, or about to come down (this happens a lot on T100 heading east to Conversation Point). If they are, I have zero problem waiting for them to descend, since for the most of us, we enjoy going up more than coming down, and nothing ruins a descent than having to stop for somebody who could have easily waited 20 seconds to let me coming down.
    Yes that's excatly what I was implying. I never start a climb if I see somebody coming down the hill...waiting that extra 30 seconds is no big deal. In fact, I think that would be dick-ish of me if I didn't wait.

    My gripe is when I am already into my climb, and somebody comes barreling down the trail and expects me to move over. Fock that...I won't do it. But truth be told, I rarely have issues with people not wanting to move over. Most stop and cheer me on as I try to make it up the hill.

    And conversely, I try to yield to the uphill rider when I'm ripping the downhills. Now there are times that I've ridden too fast and didn't see the rider coming up the hill (or the hiker around the bend) in time to slow down and move over, and in those cases I apologize profusely for being a dick. This happens the most at the McDowell's and SoMo (especially Geronimo and National)...and it's my fault for not being careful on busy days.

    Thx...Doug

  65. #65
    banned
    Reputation: The Prodigal Son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    860
    Quote Originally Posted by dgangi View Post
    Horses are spooked by our bikes and helmets.

    Oddly enough, horses are also spooked by hiking backpacks

    I guess anything that makes you look less "human" scares a horse.


    Thx...Doug
    Not true of all horses. Some people buy and own a horse, like others own dogs. They do the bare minimum to train them. These animals are not safe on trails if they are confronted by those you describe above.

    On the other hand, my brother-in-law has trained dozens of horses to be part of a police horse patrol. He can fire a gun next to any of these horses and they will not spook. They are used in riot situations and crowd control situations where people often try to torment them to see what they will do.

    We all know there are beginner riders who make all sorts of mistakes while out riding. Usually they are the one who pays for those mistakes. But we often overlook the fact that their are people who take large poorly trained or untrained horses out on public trails and place themselves and others at great risk, knowing that animal will not respond well to many common situations.

  66. #66
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    242
    Horses spook easily because their line of vision is only forward. They have very keen sense of hearing and are very curious by nature. They aren't so much spooked as is the rider who has a momentary loss of control of the horse when it spins around to see what it hears.

  67. #67
    banned
    Reputation: The Prodigal Son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    860
    [QUOTE=rockman;8178893]You really don't like the FS do you TPS? You make that quite clear. They're not all lazy gov't workers. There's other things going on before they can give the thumb's up to a trail as you well know. NEPA compliance for one. They have to play by the rules. I guess some of us don't.
    QUOTE]

    I've had a government job. I've even had a government job working for the Forest Service. Overwhelmingly, the attitude is that you get paid exactly the same, whether you work 100% of the day or 10% of the day. There was no way to motivate people who did not have to produce any results. Statistically, yes, there must be some who are not lazy. I never got to meet any of them. I'm still looking for one. NEPA can be done in weeks or years, depends on who wants it done.

    Talk to a couple bike shops in town. They were told Brookbank was going to be done two years ago. If you've poached on Little Elden since the fire, you know it could easily have been opened last fall. Now, in typical government fashion, they are saying they won't open it this year and don't want to do any trail work on the upper sections until after September, because of an owl living near Schultz Tank. The trail has been there forever but they feel a trail crew cleaning it up will cause harm to the owl.

    Yup, I could go on and on about major funding sources, like RPT grants that state parks doles out, that the Peaks Ranger District passed on. It only required a sentence or two to get the $50k to do trail maintenance, but they took a pass. Over petty disagreements about why state parks got to hand it out and not them. So we suffer.

    And how about the dozens of times I've passed the hotshot crews while running on the trails over here on the eastside? I ask the crew boss why they aren't doing trail work during down time. Sometimes they even jog while carrying a combi-tool, so they are fully prepared to do trail work. They tell me they are just doing aerobic training, not strength training. But then they add, the FS pays for a gym membership so they can do strength training. What's wrong with swinging your pulaski and doing trail work to get ready for fire season? Oh, and the trail crews are allowed to get red carded so they can leave behind all the nasty trail work during prime season, and go do support work on a fire. How much sense does that make? Last Saturday, while doing trail maintenance on Little Elden, I asked what the FS trail crews boss was up to? They said he left town to go work a fire. In the past he told me he paid for his patio with OT, working on fires. Not fighting the fire, doing support stuff like delivering food to the camp. Meanwhile that NEPA proposal sitts gathering dust for another 2 or 3 months.


    You should be quite thankful to the downhillers and moto riders who are out building trails. They have passion for the sport and a willingness to work hard to make sustainable trails for the rest of us. You won't find that attitude at the FS.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Casual Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,206
    Quote Originally Posted by The Prodigal Son View Post
    Mountain bikers are hated by other trail users, that is true. However, we are not the smallest user group. Equestrians represent less than 2% of all trail users. Here in Flagstaff, on most trails, especially those further from town, mountain bikers are the largest user group. They do the majority of volunteer trail work. They leave the least amount of garbage.

    There is a time when the bike community needs to be more vocal and make demands of land managers. We could chase the horses far from our favorite trails if we stood shoulder to shoulder and forced the issue. The best angle is to say the numbers of bikers out on the trails is growing too fast for horses to safely share the trails with us. Once you present it as risk management and warn of impending litigation should a personal injury occur, you back them into a corner where they need to cover their butts.

    The politics have changed and mountain bikers have more juice than ever. And not just the ones who have played by the rules. The downhillers and moto groups have been building outlaw trails for decades. First, the Forest Service cursed them and tried to close the trails. It was a pathetic effort and those trails reopened qithin weeks, and many others were built to spite the law dogs from the FS. The result is the FS cried uncle and is now on their knees asking the downhillers and moto's what they can do to serve them better. That's the history of trail building in Flagstaff. The FS is willing to reward negative behavior once they realize that behavior represents a tidal wave they can't possibly stop.

    There are still going to be riders who prefer the old methods of sitting through years of meetings where old-timers show up and scream that new trails near their properties will bring in crime. They'll report back to fellow riders they are beginning to make progress and that in 5 or 10 years, they might get to a point where the planning process begins moving forward. Meantime, in Sedona, there were 40+ new trails built during that time. None went through any official planning process. They were built by bike riders who didn't want to grow old waiting for some lazy government worker to do what he is being paid to do.

    The OP makes a bold suggestion. I applaud him for it. I prefer to have high-speed downhill traffic yield to me, though. But I have learned to quickly judge the risks of holding my line and always try to accomodate the dowhill traffic, if there is space. These are the best of times out on the trails. Let's not be afraid to stand tall and take on those who would ban us from the trails if they could.
    You honestly think the FS (or the land manager or whoever decides who and who does not use a trail) would consider banning horses (or hikers?) but allow bikers just becasue we do more trail work and because we demand it? Not sure I want to go down that path.
    Nobody gives a s#$t you singlespeed.

  69. #69
    The PNF Ax Man.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    88

    Nature rules. .

    Quote Originally Posted by chongoman View Post
    How did you come to that conclusion?
    From years of riding experience out on the hill of Prescott trails. When you go to a trail you know that has hills or have never been on that trail before, your common sense and gut instincts kick in. Those instincts tell you to look out and be aware of those coming downhill because you KNOW you can hear them long before they’ll hear or see you. Anybody who’s ridden more than once knows this to be true most of the time. I’ll go so far to say it’s a self-preservation instinct. You yourself know what it’s like to come down that hill with the noise and the speed. Who wants to get hit head-on when you hear somebody coming?

    For example, when I take somebody who’s never ridden a mountain bike in their life on a hilly trail, say trail 305 or 396 here in Prescott. Without telling them a thing about the “rules” the first time they hear somebody coming downhill as they’re going up, they immediately and instinctively stop and get out of the way or stop and give me a look like “what do I do?” Without knowing a thing about hills or yielding, their common sense tells them to get out of the way because they can hear the downhiller. And they know the downhill hasn’t heard or seen him yet. It’s just how it works naturally. Most mountain bikers who ride hills regularly know this even if they won’t admit it.

    Again I really have no issue with yielding either way. Usually I’m so grateful to be out in the woods riding, nothing can ruin it.

    Dash
    Clearer-er of Prescott trails. Downhill downfall in your way? PM me. Have ax, will travel.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: woahey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,289
    Quote Originally Posted by AzMntBkr1 View Post
    Horses spook easily because their line of vision is only forward. They have very keen sense of hearing and are very curious by nature. They aren't so much spooked as is the rider who has a momentary loss of control of the horse when it spins around to see what it hears.
    Horses spook easily for many reasons. The biggest reason is that they are a prey animal, when they see a bicyclist moving really fast and quiet it can resemble a predator. Horses spook at many things- could be the sound of your baggies rubbing together as you pedal, the sound of your chain hitting your chain stay or even on your gears if it's not lubed. It could be the clicking sound of that Chris King hub, or the way the tubeless tires sound on hard packed ground. It could be the helmet or the glare off of your glasses or the tube on your camelbak. This is just a short list of what COULD spook a horse when you're on your bike.

    A good horse is trained to listen to its rider's input. Very much like dogs, only more-so, horses can sense moods, feelings, etc. If you startle the rider, you will startle the horse. There is no way around this. If a rider has been spooked by one bike, they're much easier to get spooked again.
    The secret to mountain biking is pretty simple. The slower you go the more likely it is you’ll crash.
    - Julie Furtado

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: berzerker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Epicrider View Post
    Typical downhiller mentality…me me me. If you have to skid in order to stop, you are going way to fast on a multiuse trail and not riding in control. On narrow trails, hikers can’t always just step off the trail safely to get out of the way so you can come flying by without you slowing down. It is not easier for uphill riders to get out of the way especially on steep narrow trails. It’s a lot harder to get going again. Downhill riders just need to stop or slow down and pass and let go of the brakes and your off and rolling. If you want uninterrupted flow, go to a bike park.
    Typical uphiller mentality...me,me,me. Just because someone skids doesn't mean they're out of control. Some of us can handle riding at higher speeds and are well in control, even when sliding around a corner.
    Uphillers just need to pick a side of the trail and stay on it so both riders don't have to interrupt their 'flow'. Sure, I'll give the right of way on narrow trails like VOAZ, but tr.100 is wide enough for two bikes, a horse and a couple hikers to walk side by side.
    There's no bike parks in AZ except for Sunrise, but that's almost NM, rarely open and they really have no desire to make their trails flowy...but that's beating a dead horse.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,854
    Quote Originally Posted by The Prodigal Son View Post
    You should be quite thankful to the downhillers and moto riders who are out building trails. They have passion for the sport and a willingness to work hard to make sustainable trails for the rest of us. You won't find that attitude at the FS.
    Well, I am thankful. Especially in Sedona where I consider it fine work. I won't get into the rest of your discourse because that would be pointless. Not to get off topic but name one "downhill" trail on Elden that you would consider sustainable.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prodigal Son View Post
    If you've poached on Little Elden since the fire, you know it could easily have been opened last fall. Now, in typical government fashion, they are saying they won't open it this year and don't want to do any trail work on the upper sections until after September, because of an owl living near Schultz Tank. The trail has been there forever but they feel a trail crew cleaning it up will cause harm to the owl.
    I believe the upper sections wrt am owl nesting site you are referring to are on L. Elden trail and not L. Bear. I haven't poached it but I have talked to those who have. Perhaps you have as well since you have such an educated opinion. My impression is that while much of it is rideable there is slope wash over the trail. It will require considerable bench cutting and where it dips into drainages there are large erosional gullies that are HAB. These will require extensive work, possibly even bridges of some sort. The 3" rainstorm that caused most of the damage last year in the burn area is paltry compared to what can occur during monsoon thunderstorms. The FS is being prudent to let it lie fallow for another year until the erosion runs it's course. That, and as the root balls decay on the dead trees there is going to be considerable deadfall.
    Last edited by rockman; 06-24-2011 at 05:05 PM.

  73. #73
    banned
    Reputation: The Prodigal Son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    860
    Quote Originally Posted by skinny-tire View Post
    You honestly think the FS (or the land manager or whoever decides who and who does not use a trail) would consider banning horses (or hikers?) but allow bikers just becasue we do more trail work and because we demand it? Not sure I want to go down that path.

    I can tell you what I see and that is why I feel we are in the drivers seat. The FS knows horses do a lot of trail damage and their owners could care less. When I asked one horse rider why he was riding on a soft wet trail only hours after a rain storm, he replied that he was high and dry and his horse liked the soft wet ground. He didn't seem to care about the siz inch deep postholes that would require extensive work to repair. His horse could walk over loose rocks and postholes. His horse didn't even really require a trail at all.

    My point is that the more trails we build, the more trail work must be done to maintain them. Horse owners are generally rich, fat, and lazy. They don't like to volunteer. Hikers do and so do bikers. This does not go unnoticed. But the old-timers at the FS were raised on horses. A few years back, over 100 of us were hijacked on National Trails Day, to do trail work on the FS bosses favorite horse trails near Ashurst Lake, a place void of mountain bikers. Now that slug has retired and younger people have replaced many others like him, they view mountain bikers as the people who can do their trail work for them, while they wander off to earn double time working at a wildfire.

    FBO has done something amazing in Flagstaff. They have organized these volunteer trail days and gotten a lot of work done. The FS has given them almost complete control. They get to decide what trails get worked on during the summer. If FBO started making demands, and they already have, the FS not only listens, they comply. While I do not fully embrace the moto traffic out in Fort Valley, they did create a couple new trails by riding over a section over and over. Yes, it was totally unauthorized, but it goes to show how much juice FBO has. Anthony showed a willingness to get people out to build trails in Fort Valley but said he wanted many of them open to moto users. That's something I was told by the guy who ran the trails program would never happen. But he made the deal, and he made a number of other deals. Now, they are about to reward the downhillers and freeriders for building so many illegal trails by offering to build them specific use trails to meet their needs. They know they are understaffed and would prefer not to reward people who violate their rules, but they can't stop all of what is going on. They feel they have to cut deals. Horse owners are not players. They don't have a thing to offer the FS. I discussed the idea of signing trails and parking areas where equestrians unload, with signs that tell horse riders to leave no trace; dismount your animal and move it's manure off the trail. They were open to the idea. After a couple years of non-compliance, the FS has just cause to close a few trails to horses. They know some trails are just too full of bike riders for horses to safely ride them anyway. This would just give them cause, while showing how unwilling the equestrians are to help maintain the trails.

  74. #74
    wawe member
    Reputation: Black Bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by AzMntBkr1 View Post
    Horses spook easily because their line of vision is only forward.
    No, horses, like many prey animals, have eyes on the sides of their heads giving them a huge range of vision and can be startled by things they see, that's why humans developed "blinders" for them. Bad idea to use them (blinders) on a narrow trail though. Pretty much the only blind spot they have is behind their ass.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: woahey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,289
    Quote Originally Posted by The Prodigal Son View Post
    We could chase the horses far from our favorite trails if we stood shoulder to shoulder and forced the issue. The best angle is to say the numbers of bikers out on the trails is growing too fast for horses to safely share the trails with us.

    Meantime, in Sedona, there were 40+ new trails built during that time. None went through any official planning process. They were built by bike riders who didn't want to grow old waiting for some lazy government worker to do what he is being paid to do.
    The forest service really really wants to work with the MTB community. They don't, however, want to work with any group that doesn't want to share the trails with all other groups. It's not the number of bikers that is making it dangerous to share the trails, it's the skill level of the bikers. The bikes are bigger and better than ever and the riders are able to go faster and handle a lot more. To the point where they can't see a freakin' 1000 lb animal that's 10 feet tall if you count the rider.

    As for the trails in Sedona, this is something that they're keeping their eyes on. The old "trail guy" wanted to adopt some of the non-system trails that actually were built well. Unfortunately he moved to CA before he could and we just got somebody new, at least he rides too. The trails that weren't built well they want to tear out. Don't be surprised to see some of the 40+ trails being destroyed, whether they're sanitized or demolished. Again, the FS doesn't want trails that can't be enjoyed by everybody.
    The secret to mountain biking is pretty simple. The slower you go the more likely it is you’ll crash.
    - Julie Furtado

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DonRastafari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by skinny-tire View Post
    It really is common courtsey (some would even say "the rules") to let a slower rider know you want to pass. And in most cases, you can see the trail ahead and have a good idea where the ideal passing spot is. This is coming more from my racing experience, but I HATE when somebody passes me and they something like "here I come" or "I'm passing." Sorry, I don't have eyes in the back of my head, and I'm not taking my eyes off the trail to see which way you're going. At a min, you should say "can I pass you when you find a safe spot? Just let me know when." Personally, I'll NEVER stop or pull off the trail (and please, please, please don't pull off the trail to let somebody by) to let somebody pass me.
    I guess we will just disagree. Sounds like a lot of unnecessary conversation to me. Maybe mountain bike racing is just way different.
    a real Dirkbag!

  77. #77
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by woahey View Post
    Horses spook easily for many reasons. The biggest reason is that they are a prey animal, when they see a bicyclist moving really fast and quiet it can resemble a predator. Horses spook at many things- could be the sound of your baggies rubbing together as you pedal, the sound of your chain hitting your chain stay or even on your gears if it's not lubed. It could be the clicking sound of that Chris King hub, or the way the tubeless tires sound on hard packed ground. It could be the helmet or the glare off of your glasses or the tube on your camelbak. This is just a short list of what COULD spook a horse when you're on your bike.

    A good horse is trained to listen to its rider's input. Very much like dogs, only more-so, horses can sense moods, feelings, etc. If you startle the rider, you will startle the horse. There is no way around this. If a rider has been spooked by one bike, they're much easier to get spooked again.
    I own horses and I was giving the short list... Thus the keen sense of hearing...

  78. #78
    banned
    Reputation: The Prodigal Son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    860
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    Not to get off topic but name one "downhill" trail on Elden that you would consider sustainable.



    I believe the upper sections wrt am owl nesting site you are referring to are on L. Elden trail and not L. Bear. I haven't poached it but I have talked to those who have. Perhaps you have as well since you have such an educated opinion. My impression is that while much of it is rideable there is slope wash over the trail. It will require considerable bench cutting and where it dips into drainages there are large erosional gullies that are HAB. These will require extensive work, possibly even bridges of some sort. The 3" rainstorm that caused most of the damage last year in the burn area is paltry compared to what can occur during monsoon thunderstorms. The FS is being prudent to let it lie fallow for another year until the erosion runs it's course. That, and as the root balls decay on the dead trees there is going to be considerable deadfall.

    I've always viewed a trail to be sustainable if it is rideable. Some stay nice because they were designed so water can't cause much damage. Others, like Lower Oldham, are called something other than sustainable, yet, I am willing to put in dozens of hours or work each year to keep it rideable. So, to me it has sustained all that nature and horses and riders can dish out, even if a helping hand is required.


    You sound exactly like the FS regarding Little Bear. There was a fire on portions of the trail and weeks later, summer rains caused water flows that damaged the trail. In some places made ruts several feet deep. This is what I've been told. I had not been in the closed areas until last Saturday to do volunteer trail work sponsored by FBO.

    So those ruts are going to do what, if they are ignored through another monsoon season? Get smaller or deeper? You have seen the grand canyon, haven't you? Well, that is erosion running it's course. The only reason most of our trails don't quickly become unrideable due to ruts from summer rains is because we quickly address those problem areas and build drainages, like grade dips. Sometimes very large grade dips that can handle a large flow of water. Waiting for erosion to run it's course will double or triple the cost of the repairs. But isn't that what government does so well. Why fix a problem for $100k when you can put off the repairs for another year and spend $200k? It's another government stimulus program perhaps.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 'size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by dgangi View Post
    Lastly...downhill riders must ALWAYS yield to uphill riders. Period.
    Thx...Doug
    Quote Originally Posted by dgangi View Post
    ...I try to yield to the uphill rider when I'm ripping the downhills. Now there are times that I've ridden too fast and didn't see the rider coming...
    Thx...Doug
    be careful when dealing with absolutes and slow down on those 'ripping' downhills, there just might be another trail user coming up who you can't see.

    from what i read, some people
    Quote Originally Posted by dgangi View Post
    ...never yield an inch to downhill riders
    you don't want to be
    Quote Originally Posted by dgangi View Post
    ... a rude downhiller forcing me to stop.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: woahey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,289
    Quote Originally Posted by DonRastafari View Post
    I guess we will just disagree. Sounds like a lot of unnecessary conversation to me. Maybe mountain bike racing is just way different.
    When I started riding in Michigan, the etiquette on the trails when approaching a slower rider was to slow down and announce yourself. When you have the opportunity to safely pass, say "on your right" or whatever. When I got into racing, again this was acceptable.

    I started to leave out which direction I am passing on. I still greet the slower rider, and let them know that I am going to pass when I can, and will tell them when I am passing. Nobody should have to leave the trail to pass or be passed. Again, this is an area where a little bit of common sense and courtesy can go a long way.
    The secret to mountain biking is pretty simple. The slower you go the more likely it is you’ll crash.
    - Julie Furtado

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,854
    Quote Originally Posted by The Prodigal Son View Post
    You sound exactly like the FS regarding Little Bear. There was a fire on portions of the trail and weeks later, summer rains caused water flows that damaged the trail. In some places made ruts several feet deep. This is what I've been told. I had not been in the closed areas until last Saturday to do volunteer trail work sponsored by FBO.

    So those ruts are going to do what, if they are ignored through another monsoon season? Get smaller or deeper? You have seen the grand canyon, haven't you? Well, that is erosion running it's course. The only reason most of our trails don't quickly become unrideable due to ruts from summer rains is because we quickly address those problem areas and build drainages, like grade dips. Sometimes very large grade dips that can handle a large flow of water. Waiting for erosion to run it's course will double or triple the cost of the repairs. But isn't that what government does so well. Why fix a problem for $100k when you can put off the repairs for another year and spend $200k? It's another government stimulus program perhaps.
    Yep, I've seen the Grand Canyon and have more than 1000 days of field work in that awesome place. I'm a geologist and my focus is stream erosion and deposition. You are missing my point. What I am telling you is that the post-flood erosion is not done. It won't be until the slopes above it are stabilized by vegetation and/or any erodible sediment is gone. There is likely a prodigous amount of sediment that has eroded but has not been transported further downslope or out of the area. Even with vegetation/straw/wood chips the sediment will be readily mobilized this summer. The trail will continue to see more erosion where it crosses drainages, and burial where the slopes above it are mass wasting/slumping and shedding sediment downhill.

    So, you would have the FS repair 3.5 miles of trail when the work will potentially/probably need to be redone a year from now? Large grade dips are not going to be up to the task. Not yet. That's the FS postion and I happen to agree with it. At least until we see what falls from the sky in July and August. How is that wasteful spending by the federal agency in charge of the resource? I know you know your way around a proper switchback and grade reversal but how much experience do you have in trail maintenane/recovery efforts in areas following catastrophic wildfire? None I suspect. Let's compare notes in September.

  82. #82
    banned
    Reputation: The Prodigal Son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    860
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    Yep, I've seen the Grand Canyon and have more than 1000 days of field work in that awesome place. I'm a geologist and my focus is stream erosion and deposition. You are missing my point. What I am telling you is that the post-flood erosion is not done. It won't be until the slopes above it are stabilized by vegetation and/or any erodible sediment is gone. There is likely a prodigous amount of sediment that has eroded but has not been transported further downslope or out of the area. Even with vegetation/straw/wood chips the sediment will be readily mobilized this summer. The trail will continue to see more erosion where it crosses drainages, and burial where the slopes above it are mass wasting/slumping and shedding sediment downhill.

    So, you would have the FS repair 3.5 miles of trail when the work will potentially/probably need to be redone a year from now? Large grade dips are not going to be up to the task. Not yet. That's the FS postion and I happen to agree with it. At least until we see what falls from the sky in July and August. How is that wasteful spending by the federal agency in charge of the resource? I know you know your way around a proper switchback and grade reversal but how much experience do you have in trail maintenane/recovery efforts in areas following catastrophic wildfire? None I suspect. Let's compare notes in September.
    I want to take your side here. I really do. Ten years ago I would have listened to the FS explanation and quickly told them I support their view.

    But I don't trust or believe them. They will say whatever they feel people will believe. Rocky shocked me in this thread by saying he has seen or knows about the condition of Little Bear and it isn't in bad shape, for the most part. Those signs are off a bit. Little Bear is 3.7 miles long. I'd like to hear how much of the trail Rocky says is unharmed. It could be close to 3 miles. You can repair the half mile that was damaged and return as needed following the monsoon rains. I'll return and do follow-up repairs at no charge.

    Have you ridden the AZ Trail near Walnut Canyon, this year? The section from the 303 trail head that leads over to Fisher Point? You saw the pictures I posted here last summer as our crews completed the reroutes at both ends of the canyon, leading in and out. On the west end, we got a good deal of the new trail built during the Americorps state conference at NAU. I got them to organize a service project doing trail work. They provided about 35 volunteers for a half day and we roughed in the new allignment.

    What I'm getting to is several FS trail people were there and when we walked the whole reroute, discussing what still needed to be done. This is an example when educated people tend to show off their erudition. It is just like listening to you or the FS discuss Little Bear. You guys could go on all day long describing one ten foot section of trail where a tree fell over and collapsed part of the trail. In the time it takes you to descibe it, a small group of us could have fully repaired it. Those FS guys walked the trail and told me, again and again, that I needed a retaining wall here and a retaining wall there, and we needed to sledge hammer a large rock structure to provide a wider corridor for pack animals, and on and on, ad nauseam. I listened politely to folks who had read a lot of books about trail building. Then I built the trail without doing a single thing they suggested. OK, so it might not hold up for 1000 years. But it will hold up for 100 years. The same thing happened during my second year of trail building. Brian Poturalski, who ran the Peaks trail crew, gave me instructions on how to build retaining structures on the then half finished Little Bear Trail. We tried to comply as best we could but we were not a highly skilled or experienced crew back then. We used some fallen trees as a retaining wall. I wouldn't do it today but oddly, after he suggested we pull it out and build a proper stone wall, we never got around to doing it. For the next 12 years, I enjoyed riding down Little Bear and seeing our sub=standard retaining wall still going strong.

    My experiences tell me they are exaggerating the damages and exaggerating what will happen this year and what will hapen if we just restore and reopen the trail. Same goes with their decision to hold up repairs on Little Elden because of an alledged owl nest, that has gone unharmed though decades of bike races, horse traffic, and a huge wildfire.

    You keep drinking the FS kool-aid. Over these many years, I have come to find it quite distasteful.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DonRastafari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by woahey View Post
    ..... Again, this is an area where a little bit of common sense and courtesy can go a long way.
    I get it, but would argue that "common sense" would dictate the lead rider make the concession, for the following reasons:

    1. He is obviously going slower and it's usually because he is not as good of a rider as the person who caught him. Argue that if you want, but I can tell from body position/line choice/speed that the riders who pass me are typically better riders. I typically ride 15 miles a day and can't remember ever passing someone I thought was a better rider unless they were stopped.

    2. He has the best view of the trail and can decide for himself where he feels safe riding. I could bomb up on people all day long, say "on your right" as I blast by and they could end up in the brush. I know I can get by, it's the other rider I have no knowlege of.

    3. Like it or not, if you're going slower, you're in the way and should have the courtesy to not hinder another rider's progress. It's really not that hard to pay attention and be aware of your surroundings. I can think of 1 time in the last two years that I was surprised by someone coming up on me. I apologized and got over before he had to say anything. Usually I'll see them coming well in advance and try to stay out ahead as long as I can, but when they get close, I'll move over and give them the fast line.
    a real Dirkbag!

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,854
    Quote Originally Posted by The Prodigal Son View Post
    I want to take your side here. I really do. Ten years ago I would have listened to the FS explanation and quickly told them I support their view.

    But I don't trust or believe them. They will say whatever they feel people will believe. Rocky shocked me in this thread by saying he has seen or knows about the condition of Little Bear and it isn't in bad shape, for the most part. Those signs are off a bit. Little Bear is 3.7 miles long. I'd like to hear how much of the trail Rocky says is unharmed. It could be close to 3 miles. You can repair the half mile that was damaged and return as needed following the monsoon rains. I'll return and do follow-up repairs at no charge.

    Have you ridden the AZ Trail near Walnut Canyon, this year? The section from the 303 trail head that leads over to Fisher Point? You saw the pictures I posted here last summer as our crews completed the reroutes at both ends of the canyon, leading in and out. On the west end, we got a good deal of the new trail built during the Americorps state conference at NAU. I got them to organize a service project doing trail work. They provided about 35 volunteers for a half day and we roughed in the new allignment.

    What I'm getting to is several FS trail people were there and when we walked the whole reroute, discussing what still needed to be done. This is an example when educated people tend to show off their erudition. It is just like listening to you or the FS discuss Little Bear. You guys could go on all day long describing one ten foot section of trail where a tree fell over and collapsed part of the trail. In the time it takes you to descibe it, a small group of us could have fully repaired it. Those FS guys walked the trail and told me, again and again, that I needed a retaining wall here and a retaining wall there, and we needed to sledge hammer a large rock structure to provide a wider corridor for pack animals, and on and on, ad nauseam. I listened politely to folks who had read a lot of books about trail building. Then I built the trail without doing a single thing they suggested. OK, so it might not hold up for 1000 years. But it will hold up for 100 years. The same thing happened during my second year of trail building. Brian Poturalski, who ran the Peaks trail crew, gave me instructions on how to build retaining structures on the then half finished Little Bear Trail. We tried to comply as best we could but we were not a highly skilled or experienced crew back then. We used some fallen trees as a retaining wall. I wouldn't do it today but oddly, after he suggested we pull it out and build a proper stone wall, we never got around to doing it. For the next 12 years, I enjoyed riding down Little Bear and seeing our sub=standard retaining wall still going strong.

    My experiences tell me they are exaggerating the damages and exaggerating what will happen this year and what will hapen if we just restore and reopen the trail. Same goes with their decision to hold up repairs on Little Elden because of an alledged owl nest, that has gone unharmed though decades of bike races, horse traffic, and a huge wildfire.

    You keep drinking the FS kool-aid. Over these many years, I have come to find it quite distasteful.
    I understand. You don't like anyone, whether it's a person or an agency, that gets in your way. But I hope you're right about L. Bear. My understanding is that parts of it are "rideable". You don't need a trail at all for slopes to be rideable. I can't say I disagree about the owl deal, but that's AZ Game and Fish or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service putting pressure on the Peaks District. I can't say I ever remember a race on L. Elden but that makes sense as well. You make stuff up. Funny how now you sing the praises of FBO. It wasn't too long ago you were lambasting them on this forum. What changed?
    Last edited by rockman; 06-25-2011 at 08:39 PM.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,169
    I'm giving this thread a five star rating now for pure entertainment value! Thank you Sinatorj.

  86. #86
    banned
    Reputation: The Prodigal Son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    860
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    I understand. You don't like anyone, whether it's a person or an agency, that gets in your way. But I hope you're right about L. Bear. My understanding is that parts of it are "rideable". You don't need a trail at all for slopes to be rideable. I can't say I disagree about the owl deal, but that's AZ Game and Fish or the Nat. Wildlife Service putting pressure on the Peaks District. I can't say I ever remember a race on L. Elden but that makes sense as well. You make stuff up. Funny how now you sing the praises of FBO. It wasn't too long ago you were lambasting them on this forum. What changed?
    I have yet to see Little Bear Trail, post fire. Others who have, will be the best source of information. We need Rocky to post what he knows.

    You don't remember the race on Elden? It was maybe three years ago. They raced either up or down Little Bear. It was the same race that Absolute moved to Lower Oldham because the snow was too deep on Little Bear last year. The FS put flagging on Little Elden, about halfway through the aspens, forcing racers to leave the trail, ride up Elden Springs Road, turn left on Schultz Pass Road, then turn left again and get back on Little Elden, right about where that horse trough is located next to the trail. They even had a sign explaining to riders that there was an owl nest in the area. The day after the race, they removed the flagging and we all got to ride through the owl area like before.

    Occasionally, you say something I totally agree with. More often than not, FBO does incredible things for the mountain biking community. Why is criticizing Absolute's routing of a race the same as criticizing FBO? Race sponsors always promise to use fees to pay for restoration work following a race. I thought that making that promise to the FS should have been kept.

    FBO is doing good work. They deserve praise and support. If the government goes broke, FBO may be totally in charge of managing the trails. I'd be fine with that.

    I've got to get out on the new R.I.P. right now and see if I'm a closet free-rider at heart.

  87. #87
    How much further ???
    Reputation: Douger-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by kubo View Post
    I take pride in a nice flowy, consistant downhill run in which everyone celebrates with a round of high fives and good-games... Just sayin
    Well of course you do. Im not sure how fair it is to take a small part of a larger post and comment on it out of context but thats fine. I said what I did because someone suggested that its easy for the uphill rider to just pull over and start up again. I have never suggested that downhill riders must dismount for every uphill rider.
    “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did." Mark Twain

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Casual Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,206
    Quote Originally Posted by DonRastafari View Post
    I get it, but would argue that "common sense" would dictate the lead rider make the concession, for the following reasons:

    1. He is obviously going slower and it's usually because he is not as good of a rider as the person who caught him. Argue that if you want, but I can tell from body position/line choice/speed that the riders who pass me are typically better riders. I typically ride 15 miles a day and can't remember ever passing someone I thought was a better rider unless they were stopped.

    2. He has the best view of the trail and can decide for himself where he feels safe riding. I could bomb up on people all day long, say "on your right" as I blast by and they could end up in the brush. I know I can get by, it's the other rider I have no knowlege of.

    3. Like it or not, if you're going slower, you're in the way and should have the courtesy to not hinder another rider's progress. It's really not that hard to pay attention and be aware of your surroundings. I can think of 1 time in the last two years that I was surprised by someone coming up on me. I apologized and got over before he had to say anything. Usually I'll see them coming well in advance and try to stay out ahead as long as I can, but when they get close, I'll move over and give them the fast line.
    Let's put it this way: if you're worried about what's behind you, you can't enjoy what's ahead (I saw that in a fortune cookie). It takes two seconds to say "pass when you get a chance." Not sure what the issue is.
    Nobody gives a s#$t you singlespeed.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: woahey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,289
    Quote Originally Posted by DonRastafari View Post
    I get it, but would argue that "common sense" would dictate the lead rider make the concession, for the following reasons:

    1. He is obviously going slower and it's usually because he is not as good of a rider as the person who caught him. Argue that if you want, but I can tell from body position/line choice/speed that the riders who pass me are typically better riders. I typically ride 15 miles a day and can't remember ever passing someone I thought was a better rider unless they were stopped.

    2. He has the best view of the trail and can decide for himself where he feels safe riding. I could bomb up on people all day long, say "on your right" as I blast by and they could end up in the brush. I know I can get by, it's the other rider I have no knowlege of.

    3. Like it or not, if you're going slower, you're in the way and should have the courtesy to not hinder another rider's progress. It's really not that hard to pay attention and be aware of your surroundings. I can think of 1 time in the last two years that I was surprised by someone coming up on me. I apologized and got over before he had to say anything. Usually I'll see them coming well in advance and try to stay out ahead as long as I can, but when they get close, I'll move over and give them the fast line.
    Saying that is like saying that when driving down a two lane road, a slower moving car should pull off the road to let a faster moving car pass even though there is a passing zone. Who ever is trying to pass should make the decision as to whether they are comfortable passing. Also, you're saying that a lesser skilled rider should know what a higher skilled rider sees as a good line when they lack the skill to ride said line. No thanks, I would rather take the line I see fit, even if it were a higher skilled rider telling me which line to take.

    The thing that I was taught that you seem to be missing is that you should slow down, not bomb by at 25mph scaring the sh*t out of people. Have a quick meet and greet before you pass, not just scream "on your right" and doze them off the trail.
    The secret to mountain biking is pretty simple. The slower you go the more likely it is you’ll crash.
    - Julie Furtado

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DonRastafari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    69
    No, a more accurate comparison would be if a motorhome was slowly driving down the center of a two lane road. Should you have to announce yourself to get him to move over? Also, I wasn't suggesting anyone "pull off" the road/trail, just don't continue to ride down the midddle. You're right that the rider trying to pass should make the decision as the whether they are comfortable passing, but you need the "motorhome" to move over so you can see what's coming up. Incidentally, when someone passes me while I'm driving my motorhome, I try and hug the right line so they have plenty of room.

    I never implied the lesser rider should pick the line for the overtaker. Just try and stay to one side or the other. The passer has to pick his spot, obviously.

    Lastly, I'm not missing the point about courtesy and not bombing past people at 25mph. I would never do that. My point was that I can ride a lot of stuff that some people can't and for me to call out "on your right" implies that I want the leading rider to stay left, but if he doesn't feel comfortable seeing what's coming up on his left, who am I to decide that for him, from behind him. I don't care which side he stays to, just move over when possible. I'm not suggesting they immediately move over, but when they feel safe to do so. I ride the same loop everyday and I'm not talking about narrow or blind sections, I mean when there is plenty of room, it makes no sense to keep "motorhoming" down the middle when someone faster than you is now on your butt.
    a real Dirkbag!

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Casual Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,206
    Quote Originally Posted by DonRastafari View Post
    No, a more accurate comparison would be if a motorhome was slowly driving down the center of a two lane road. Should you have to announce yourself to get him to move over? Also, I wasn't suggesting anyone "pull off" the road/trail, just don't continue to ride down the midddle. You're right that the rider trying to pass should make the decision as the whether they are comfortable passing, but you need the "motorhome" to move over so you can see what's coming up. Incidentally, when someone passes me while I'm driving my motorhome, I try and hug the right line so they have plenty of room.

    I never implied the lesser rider should pick the line for the overtaker. Just try and stay to one side or the other. The passer has to pick his spot, obviously.

    Lastly, I'm not missing the point about courtesy and not bombing past people at 25mph. I would never do that. My point was that I can ride a lot of stuff that some people can't and for me to call out "on your right" implies that I want the leading rider to stay left, but if he doesn't feel comfortable seeing what's coming up on his left, who am I to decide that for him, from behind him. I don't care which side he stays to, just move over when possible. I'm not suggesting they immediately move over, but when they feel safe to do so. I ride the same loop everyday and I'm not talking about narrow or blind sections, I mean when there is plenty of room, it makes no sense to keep "motorhoming" down the middle when someone faster than you is now on your butt.
    You seem to be getting worked up about something that happens, what, once every 6 months or so? I'm honestly trying to recall the last time I either came upon a very, very slow rider riding down the middle of a trail and who refused to get over. Or, for that matter, was passed by somebody going so fast that they could not call out and let me know they wanted to pass.

    I guess all I'll say is, keep expecting slower riders to give you the right of way without any kind of verbal request. I've refrained from saying this, but will know, it seems kind of "dickish" of you.
    Nobody gives a s#$t you singlespeed.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DonRastafari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    69
    Like I said, I ride everyday so this happens every week or two. I'm not sure how much you ride, or if it's just not that busy where you ride, but it happens frequently where I ride. I also never claimed to be going too fast to call out. My point is that if the few people that insist on trail hoggin' down the middle just moved over like 95% of everybody else, it would be far more infrequent. If expecting people to extend a courtesy that I give all the time makes me a dick, then so be it.

    I have yet to hear one reason why the slower rider can't just pay attention to his/her surroundings and just move over when overtaken? Other than the possibility of someone drafting, which I assume was sarcastic.
    a real Dirkbag!

  93. #93
    Shovel Ready
    Reputation: Cycle64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    5,780
    Once I was behind a prius. Never mind I"ll get docked rep points...
    Currently at Mayo Clinic being tested for a kidney transplant. Donors welcome.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Casual Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,206
    Quote Originally Posted by DonRastafari View Post
    Like I said, I ride everyday so this happens every week or two. I'm not sure how much you ride, or if it's just not that busy where you ride, but it happens frequently where I ride. I also never claimed to be going too fast to call out. My point is that if the few people that insist on trail hoggin' down the middle just moved over like 95% of everybody else, it would be far more infrequent. If expecting people to extend a courtesy that I give all the time makes me a dick, then so be it.

    I have yet to hear one reason why the slower rider can't just pay attention to his/her surroundings and just move over when overtaken? Other than the possibility of someone drafting, which I assume was sarcastic.
    Where the heck do you ride where folks refuse to move over when "overtaken"? I'll be sure to avoid those trails.
    Nobody gives a s#$t you singlespeed.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DonRastafari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    69
    I didn't mean while I'm going by, although that has happened on the DC. I meant overtaken in that I caught up to them from behind and if they don't speed up I will naturally be passing them, that is if I don't decide to draft. Maybe I'll get a bell.
    a real Dirkbag!

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Casual Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,206
    Quote Originally Posted by DonRastafari View Post
    I didn't mean while I'm going by, although that has happened on the DC. I meant overtaken in that I caught up to them from behind and if they don't speed up I will naturally be passing them, that is if I don't decide to draft. Maybe I'll get a bell.
    And they just keep riding? Even when you tell them you want to pass? Or you just spiritually and morally opposed to saying anything? So, what did you do? What trails are these again?
    Nobody gives a s#$t you singlespeed.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Casual Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Cycle64 View Post
    Once I was behind a prius. Never mind I"ll get docked rep points...
    Too late!
    Nobody gives a s#$t you singlespeed.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DonRastafari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    69
    It's not that I don't say anything, I usually say good morning. I don't tell them I want to pass, I think that's obvious that I want to pass. What possible reason would someone have to ride up behind someone and just follow them?? That makes no sense.... just give me one. Do you think your butt looks that good? And no one is drafting on the DC.
    a real Dirkbag!

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Casual Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,206
    Quote Originally Posted by DonRastafari View Post
    It's not that I don't say anything, I usually say good morning. I don't tell them I want to pass, I think that's obvious that I want to pass. What possible reason would someone have to ride up behind someone and just follow them?? That makes no sense.... just give me one. Do you think your butt looks that good? And no one is drafting on the DC.
    I have no idea why they think you're riding behind them. Since the majority of the riders I know will let somebody know when they want to pass, they probably DO think you're checking out their ass. Next time, try letting them know you want to pass, and see what happens. You honestly think they are not letting you by to be jerks? Wait, you said this was DC? Nevermind, I take back everything I said.
    Nobody gives a s#$t you singlespeed.

  100. #100
    Shovel Ready
    Reputation: Cycle64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    5,780
    Quote Originally Posted by skinny-tire View Post
    Too late!
    Dude now I'm negative 7. This means war bastage.
    Currently at Mayo Clinic being tested for a kidney transplant. Donors welcome.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Rules
    By TobyGadd in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-08-2009, 12:39 PM
  2. EVO rules!
    By hairygut in forum Custom Builders & Other Manufacturers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-13-2008, 08:53 PM
  3. Changing travel = changing geo? Bad?
    By s62 in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 07:15 AM
  4. Changing pressure for changing conditions?
    By Tubes6al4v in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2007, 01:12 PM
  5. My New SB Rules!
    By mtbski in forum Titus
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-29-2005, 08:51 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •