Where does it say...Uphill has the right of way???- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 302
  1. #1
    ColoradoCoolBreeze
    Reputation: SingleTrackLovr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    679

    Where does it say...Uphill has the right of way???



    Can some one give me a link to a Federal website stating "uphill mountain bikers have the right-a way over down hill"?

    I just spent 1 hour on google looking for something official and could not fine one website with this rule. I did find lots of Rules of the Trail:

    Sierra Club Conservation Policies
    Off Road Use of Bicycles
    I. POLICY
    Appendix E - Trail User Etiquette and Education
    1. In order to minimize conflicts with other trail users, bicyclists should know and use the established Rules of the Trail: - Ride on open trails only. - Leave no trace. - Control your bicycle. - Always yield trail. - Never scare animals. - Plan ahead.
    2. Bicyclists should know and follow applicable laws and regulations.
    3. Bicyclists yield trail to foot travelers, both animal and human. Yielding trail means: slow down, be prepared to stop; establish communication; dismount when appropriate; and pass safely.
    =======
    MBA Mountain Bike Rules of the Trail (IMBA)
    From Kevin Tisue,
    Your Guide to Mountain Biking.
    The following is the official list of mountain biking rules of the trail from IMBA, otherwise known as the International Mountain Bicycling Association.
    These mountain bike rules are designed to minimize our impact on our environment as well as promote friendly relationships between all trail users by creating a safe environment for us all. By following these rules we help ensure our access to trails in our local communities will continue and hopefully grow.
    Every mountain biker should know and live by these mountain biking rules from IMBA:
    Rules of the Trail
    The way we ride today shapes mountain bike trail access tomorrow. Do your part to preserve and enhance our sport's access and image by observing the following rules of the trail, formulated by IMBA, the International Mountain Bicycling Association. These rules are recognized around the world as the standard code of conduct for mountain bikers. IMBA's mission is to promote mountain bicycling that is environmentally sound and socially responsible.
    1. Ride On Open Trails Only.
    Respect trail and road closures - ask if uncertain; avoid trespassing on private land; obtain permits or other authorization as may be required. Federal and state Wilderness areas are closed to cycling. The way you ride will influence trail management decisions and policies.
    2. Leave No Trace.
    Be sensitive to the dirt beneath you. Recognize different types of soils and trail construction; practice low-impact cycling. Wet and muddy trails are more vulnerable to damage. When the trailbed is soft, consider other riding options. This also means staying on existing trails and not creating new ones. Don't cut switchbacks. Be sure to pack out at least as much as you pack in.
    3. Control Your Bicycle!
    Inattention for even a second can cause problems. Obey all bicycle speed regulations and recommendations.
    4. Always Yield Trail.
    Let your fellow trail users know you're coming. A friendly greeting or bell is considerate and works well; don't startle others. Show your respect when passing by slowing to a walking pace or even stopping. Anticipate other trail users around corners or in blind spots. Yielding means slow down, establish communication, be prepared to stop if necessary and pass safely.
    5. Never Scare Animals.
    All animals are startled by an unannounced approach, a sudden movement, or a loud noise. This can be dangerous for you, others, and the animals. Give animals extra room and time to adjust to you. When passing horses use special care and follow directions from the horseback riders - ask if uncertain. Running cattle and disturbing wildlife is a serious offense. Leave gates as you found them, or as marked.
    6. Plan Ahead.
    Know your equipment, your ability, and the area in which you are riding -- and prepare accordingly. Be self-sufficient at all times, keep your equipment in good repair, and carry necessary supplies for changes in weather or other conditions. A well-executed trip is a satisfaction to you and not a burden to others. Always wear a helmet and appropriate safety gear.
    Keep trails open by setting a good example of environmentally sound and socially responsible off-road cycling.
    ========
    The MMBA has adopted the International Mountain Biking Association's (IMBA) Rules of the Trail.
    ========

    So who is the "who said of the greatest magnitude" that states the uphill rider has the right-of-way?

    thanks
    STL

  2. #2
    cheeseburger in paradise
    Reputation: bluchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    220
    I don't think it's a rule. Just common sense courtesy. It's a courtesy that isn't specific to mountain biking, but has been adopted by mountain biking. Not sure where it all started, maybe with cars on steep narrow roads, or maybe even wagons for all I know.

  3. #3

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    317
    It's common courtesy - rule or not. I've been riding primarily DH lately, and I still get pissed when some douche fails to yield for climbers.

    Not flaming you - but it's a sad state of affairs when a person looks to rules and regulations to guide their behavior.

  4. #4
    MK_
    MK_ is offline
    carpe mañana
    Reputation: MK_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,278
    Just think about the effort required to resume riding when your going uphill vs downhill. And the physical effort of going uphill vs. downhill and your common sense ought to steer you in the direction of yielding to uphill traffic out of sheer courtesy.

    (This BTW ought to be respected by hikers, too. Since it takes no effort for them to step to the side for a brief moment while the uphill biker pedals past. Especially on tech sections. Hikers have in my experience showed the worst trail manners.)

    _MK

    "The things you get fired for when you’re young are the same things you get Lifetime Achievements for when you’re old."

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: glenzx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,868
    It's bicycle community 101 - and has nadda to do with hiker/equestrian rules or Federal Law... Took me exactly 10 seconds to find the link, copy it, and paste it here.

    LINK

    For the attention defecit disorder types, I quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by IMBA
    "...Be familiar with who has the right of way while on the trail. For instance, a rider going uphill has the right of way, and a rider coming downhill must yield. Hikers and equestrians have the right of way over any cyclist. ..."
    "It's better to regret something you HAVE done, than something you haven't..." -

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kaba Klaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,673
    I think it is an overall rule of courtesy but not one that is strict. Whenever two chaps meet on a trail both should simply assess for who it is easier to get-going again after stopping/making room. In many cases this is the one coming down - but not allways.

    As an example think of a technical section. I would always stop for the one already in there. Regardless if she/he climbs or decents.

    No excuses in my mind for anybody going too fast to stop. Bombing DH on public trails, racing into blind corners is simply not on. It is gross neglect, borders on criminal behavior and no responsible biker does that.

  7. #7
    Inflexable...
    Reputation: kchri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,901
    If everyone would just start riding double track this would not be an issue.


    IMBA creates rules that are not enforcable but are designed to appeal to riders with common sense...
    Tact is for people not witty enough to be sarcastic...

  8. #8
    Bad Case of the Mondays
    Reputation: Jdub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,009
    Quote Originally Posted by MK_
    Just think about the effort required to resume riding when your going uphill vs downhill. And the physical effort of going uphill vs. downhill and your common sense ought to steer you in the direction of yielding to uphill traffic out of sheer courtesy.
    Well said.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,267
    Are you talking about horses or bikers? Only "asshats" hold the uphill line, eh? Seems like there may be more asshats out there than you guessed.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    336
    Never the less, I wish it was the other way around. I hate stopping when I am enjoying a great, fast downhill cruise; I often appreciate the excuse to take a break on a long uphill grind. But, the precedent has been set, and I don't see any chance that my preference will ever prevail.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: glenzx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote Originally Posted by BonkedAgain
    Never the less, I wish it was the other way around. I hate stopping when I am enjoying a great, fast downhill cruise; I often appreciate the excuse to take a break on a long uphill grind. But, the precedent has been set, and I don't see any chance that my preference will ever prevail.
    Um, unless you go ride DH on DH trails! Der. Get the best of both worlds - lifts to help you get UP, and no one in the way on the way down...

    Or - go live in a place that ain't so clogged up with pesky people preventing your preference from prevailing!



    Christ almighty, it does indeed suck to have to share... AND be courteous!
    "It's better to regret something you HAVE done, than something you haven't..." -

  12. #12
    ColoradoCoolBreeze
    Reputation: SingleTrackLovr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by glenzx
    It's bicycle community 101 - and has nadda to do with hiker/equestrian rules or Federal Law... Took me exactly 10 seconds to find the link, copy it, and paste it here.

    LINK

    For the attention defecit disorder types, I quote:
    That is kinda what I thought. No real rule...

    If an uphill rider complained to a park ranger or whatever trail official was present. The official would have no rule to enforce. So we are back to "Right of Weight" if you think the downhiller is going to clobber you, you better move. Being dead right is never a good position.

    I for one like IMBA's rule #4 specifically the last sentence.
    "4. Always Yield Trail.
    Let your fellow trail users know you're coming. A friendly greeting or bell is considerate and works well; don't startle others. Show your respect when passing by slowing to a walking pace or even stopping. Anticipate other trail users around corners or in blind spots. Yielding means slow down, establish communication, be prepared to stop if necessary and pass safely. "

    This makes more sense (to me) for bikers going up or down. Every case/incounter is going to be different. Both riders need to get by safely and that should be all that matters.

    STL
    Last edited by SingleTrackLovr; 08-22-2007 at 11:06 AM.

  13. #13
    Your retarded
    Reputation: Nickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,085
    I don't think this topic has ever come up before.
    A trail that’s too difficult wouldn’t exist because it’d never be used. But, trails can exist that’re too difficult for you.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: glenzx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackLovr
    That is kinda what I thought. No real rule...

    If an uphill rider complained to a park ranger or whatever trail official was present. The official would have no rule to enforce. So we are back to "Right of Weight" if you think the downhiller is going to clobber you, you better move. Being dead right is never a good position.

    STL
    True - just like there's no real specific rule about accidental stick-in-the-spokes episodes for overtly aggro/ididotic riders...

    Go ahead - make me move.

    neener neener neener.

    Um - in case it's not patently clear, I'm kidding.

    Really though, what's your point? There's no federal "law" so go ahead and blaze away, scattering all the feeble uphill riders in your path? There's a whole lot more holding a society together than freakin' law...


    Though it'd be fun to see who ended up off-trail azz over head...


    "It's better to regret something you HAVE done, than something you haven't..." -

  15. #15
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by BonkedAgain
    Never the less, I wish it was the other way around. I hate stopping when I am enjoying a great, fast downhill cruise; I often appreciate the excuse to take a break on a long uphill grind. But, the precedent has been set, and I don't see any chance that my preference will ever prevail.
    EDIT - doh. now older and wiser. my previous post was dumb.
    Last edited by thump; 07-22-2015 at 08:01 AM.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: glenzx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote Originally Posted by thump
    I'd agree.. from a trail preservation perspective it actually makes more sense for the uphill rider to stop. Making the downhill person have to brake to a stop (even without skidding) is still more wear on the trail than someone going up just putting a foot down. If I'm on a long climb and see someone ripping the downhill I'll usually stop and wave them by.. Maybe I'd feel differently if I was a diehard spandex "loves the climb" roadie convert, but I usually don't mind a quick break.
    Oh geez, here we go.... all folks that know how to ride a bike UP and downhill must be roadie convert spandex wanker leg shaving sissies....

    "rippin' downhill".... like in yer baggies, bro - after some bong hits and brews in the p-lot with yer tunes blasting? See - Generalizations suck and make one sound less than bright....

    But as Nickle noted - it's all been said and done and beaten to death before....

    "It's better to regret something you HAVE done, than something you haven't..." -

  17. #17

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by kchri
    If everyone would just start riding double track this would not be an issue.
    (Load of BS start)
    We can also ride on paved bike paths that are completely flat. then it will be a non-issue.

    single track trails should only be used by hikers any way, they are the only ones that don't damage the trail.
    (load of BS end)

    why is this even being discussed. It is for overall safety that we are not slamming into each other on the trail at mock speeds and getting people killed.

    I would love to shove a stick in the front wheel of some asshat that is giving cyclist a bad name.

    We all ride public trails. that is why we don't have to pay.

    so claiming there is no rule. Is the same as saying that a horse rider does not have to clean up after the horse. Which I think is a bigger deal then who has the right of way up or down.

  18. #18
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by glenzx
    "rippin' downhill".... like in yer baggies, bro - after some bong hits and brews in the p-lot with yer tunes blasting? See - Generalizations suck and make one sound less than bright....
    Alright, alright.. I deserved that one. But the comment about the additional trail wear still stands.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    30
    .... I try to yield whatever my position is, depending on if there is a turnout on the trail. MK and KABA's got it right. Just assess the situation and dont COMPLAIN about it... geezo... its like what... 2 seconds! If its the next day and still bothering you.. see a therapist.
    Ok, so maybe it is an addiction.
    The Dire Riders Consortium

  20. #20

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    519
    Not again!!!!!

  21. #21
    enlightened.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,494
    I just push people out of my way. Quick and effective. Leaves a lasting impression.

  22. #22
    Mutha Flippin'
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6
    First off, I always respect other trail-users, and try to warn and accommodate them within reason. But for fun, here are some arguments I can think of from the two sides:

    DH: The encounter lasts longer if the DHer has to stop and wait for the uphill rider to pass.
    UH: It's more effort for me to get going again than for you.
    DH: DH is about the groove. Don't mess with my groove.
    UH: I get satisfaction from cleaning the trail, so stopping for you messes with my groove.
    DH: Physics says it's easier to brake the slower you are going, so you brake.
    UH: I have the right of way.
    DH and UH: blah blah blah

    Personally, I think the people who ride up or down like they are in a race and get all freaked out when they're inconvenienced with yielding need to chill the flip out. I'd love to bomb the shite but the fact is- it's a two way trail, so deal with it.
    Don't let yesterday use up too much of today.

  23. #23
    ColoradoCoolBreeze
    Reputation: SingleTrackLovr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by glenzx
    But as Nickle noted - it's all been said and done and beaten to death before....
    Not all posters have been a member of mtbr since 2003-04 like you two.
    It maybe an old topic for you, its not to me.

    With the exception of a few personnel attacks I think the answers, opinions, and discussion posted to my question have been great.

    If you find this topic old or boring, why post? why even open my thread?

    peace,
    STL

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: glenzx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackLovr
    Not all posters have been a member of mtbr since 2003-04 like you two.
    It maybe an old topic for you, its not to me.
    First off, I've been kickin around here for much longer than THAT! pffft. Late 2003 is when they last changed mtbr.com forum format and server(s) I think.... so us old pharts appear to have been members since only then. There was life even before THAT! Not that I had one - or have one now, for that matter...

    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackLovr
    With the exception of a few personnel attacks I think the answers, opinions, and discussion posted to my question have been great.
    I haven't read any personal attacks here, yet - it's all good. I'd watch out for athalliah though!

    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackLovr
    If you find this topic old or boring, why post? why even open my thread?
    Old topic? yes. Means there's been a LOT of dialogue already. Boring? No! Us guardians of trail user righteousness have to keep fighting the fight, or risk having a few proverbial bad apples fahk it up for everyone else... you know, that ed-u-macate the young-ins and newbies thing and all.

    I simply speak from experience. Rippin' high speed descents ought to take place only where you're 100% sure you're 'clear', in that if someone - on a bike or horse or on foot - approaches from below, you can stop without skiding, and without crashing and yield the trail.

    IF they happen to be generous and nice enough to yield to you, you know what? It's still worth slowing down and saying "thanks". And if you absolutely must hammer a descent with no interuptions, come out and race, or ride at designated DH trails.
    "It's better to regret something you HAVE done, than something you haven't..." -

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: glenzx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,868
    Speaking of mentorship, that crazy 'search' function is nifty!

    LINK to results page of mtbr.com search for "trail etiquette"... the SoCal one near the top is especially humorous!
    "It's better to regret something you HAVE done, than something you haven't..." -

  26. #26
    That's what she said
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    206
    Old topic? yes. Means there's been a LOT of dialogue already. Boring? No! Us guardians of trail user righteousness have to keep fighting the fight, or risk having a few proverbial bad apples fahk it up for everyone else... you know, that ed-u-macate the young-ins and newbies thing and all.

    I simply speak from experience. Rippin' high speed descents ought to take place only where you're 100% sure you're 'clear', in that if someone - on a bike or horse or on foot - approaches from below, you can stop without skiding, and without crashing and yield the trail.

    IF they happen to be generous and nice enough to yield to you, you know what? It's still worth slowing down and saying "thanks". And if you absolutely must hammer a descent with no interuptions, come out and race, or ride at designated DH trails.[/QUOTE]


    Well said.

  27. #27
    Ride 2 Work, Work 2 Ride!
    Reputation: thebigred67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,469
    I stop going uphill due to the fact that I love running fast downhill and know that others do too. Plus I can always use the break when climbing.
    "Don't give up, Never give up!"

  28. #28
    Inflexable...
    Reputation: kchri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by glenzx


    I simply speak from experience. Rippin' high speed descents ought to take place only where you're 100% sure you're 'clear', in that if someone - on a bike or horse or on foot - approaches from below, you can stop without skiding, and without crashing and yield the trail.

    I

    Ya, this always happens...
    Tact is for people not witty enough to be sarcastic...

  29. #29
    ColoradoCoolBreeze
    Reputation: SingleTrackLovr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    679
    I couldn't agree more.
    High speed descents belong at the ski resorts. Not on public land.

    STL

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackLovr
    High speed descents belong at the ski resorts. Not on public land.
    Huh? Can you justify that opinion? I can just hear all the guys lined up to ride Jones Park/Sandy Wash/Porcupine/Zippety/where ever gasping over that.

    IMO, just ride at whatever speed the conditions allow. If there is a trail that is a favorite for downhillers, and there is an alternate way to get to the top, ride the alternate way and let the downhillers have their fun. If you are riding up and some dh'er acts like they own the trail b!tch at them (in the 1.5 seconds they are in hearing range). Above all, be flexible and don't insist on ruining other people's fun just because it is your right.

  31. #31
    3327333
    Reputation: edemtbs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,856
    Quote Originally Posted by glenzx
    ....ed-u-macate ....
    What the...?

    Don't be dragging me into this imbroglio G, I've NEVER macated, never ever! And I always ride uphill, in both directions. So give way, scatter yourselves as you bomb the downhills and I split the echelon with my relentless uphill struggles.

    I'll shut up now. Athallia, you now have the floor again

    Ed

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: glenzx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote Originally Posted by edemtbs
    ...I always ride uphill, in both directions.
    YOU and me both, buddy!
    "It's better to regret something you HAVE done, than something you haven't..." -

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: glenzx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote Originally Posted by BonkedAgain
    IMO, just ride at whatever speed the conditions allow.
    That sort of sums it up... but wait!

    Quote Originally Posted by BonkedAgain
    Above all, be flexible and don't insist on ruining other people's fun just because it is your right.
    Fun. That's a tricky one, that fun-thing. Fun is all in the eye of the beholder - so let's just stick to common sense and etiquette. Fun, for me not only is rippin' that descent (r, or climbing it like Ed!), but spending 2, 3, sometimes 4 hours climbing 5k - 6k feet to get there.
    "It's better to regret something you HAVE done, than something you haven't..." -

  34. #34
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackLovr
    I couldn't agree more.
    High speed descents belong at the ski resorts. Not on public land.
    I think it's worth clarifying there's a large difference between "high speed" and "out of control". A noob running old v-brakes on a hardtail might be out of control doing 10mph down a rocky trail. I like to hit the downhills with some nice speed, but I'm looking well down the trail and have never had issue coming to a nice smooth stop using the 2.5 tires and 8 inch rotors on my Uzzi.. I pedal all 38 lbs of that bike up and around the trail b/c I want to enjoy any technical feature or DH that I can. There isn't a one-true-speed-limit, it's about riding within your limits and keeping it safe. If you can't do that at high-speed then keep your fingers on those levers.

  35. #35
    Inflexable...
    Reputation: kchri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackLovr
    I couldn't agree more.
    High speed descents belong at the ski resorts. Not on public land.

    STL
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha....

    There are so many more people at the ski resort than there are on the bike trails.
    Tact is for people not witty enough to be sarcastic...

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: timroz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    339
    A few years ago there was a group of really angry hikers hiding in the weeds next to the trail in Pineridge open space waiting for bikers to come by so they could jump out in front of them and get hit - then complain to the city trails department that the bikers were not yielding trail. Seemed like a good way to get bikers banned from what they wanted to be hiking only trails. We are starting to sound a lot like them. So keep this argument going and we'll end up with a hell of a lot more hiker only trails (read - possible closure at Monarch Crest trail). How about we all yield to everybody (except rattlesnakes - push them off the trail with a big stick) and focus on keeping all trails open both ways for all bikes.

  37. #37

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    519
    oh God!!!

  38. #38
    enlightened.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,494
    Quote Originally Posted by edemtbs

    I'll shut up now. Athallia, you now have the floor again
    That's a good idea because I was about to shove you off of it

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,195

    I'll yield to a downhill rider

    I say a downhill rider, I don't encounter downhillers much. Sometimes I am suffering and like a break. When I'm in a groove climbing hard I don't like to yield and expect someone riding downhill to see, appreciate it & yield. Mostly its not a problem as my rides are not the shuttle types anyway.

  40. #40

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11
    ok, letting an uphill rider go first is just right, and everybody should do it, but when i let a dude go, i usually never hear "thank you" or "have a nice ride/day", that's also a common courtesy, but i see lot of xc dude's have a problem lately with that. Instead of "thank you" i can hear grawwling/stupid comments, or nothing, and that does not help the whole dh/xc situation. Common on guys if a guy going downhill yelds you, what hurts to say something nice, so the person going downhill fells like he did a good thing letting you go ;/

    I think it is an overall rule of courtesy but not one that is strict. Whenever two chaps meet on a trail both should simply assess for who it is easier to get-going again after stopping/making room. In many cases this is the one coming down - but not always.
    DH: The encounter lasts longer if the DHer has to stop and wait for the uphill rider to pass.
    UH: It's more effort for me to get going again than for you.
    DH: DH is about the groove. Don't mess with my groove.
    UH: I get satisfaction from cleaning the trail, so stopping for you messes with my groove.
    DH: Physics says it's easier to brake the slower you are going, so you brake.
    UH: I have the right of way.
    DH and UH: blah blah blah
    Exactly, because everybody is the "most important" person on the trail and he deserves everything ;p

    There isn't a one-true-speed-limit, it's about riding within your limits and keeping it safe. If you can't do that at high-speed then keep your fingers on those levers.
    Hell ya, everybody comes out to ride trails for one reason, to have fun. As somebody said, a person can go fast and still be in control, and know what to do in certain situations


    How about we will show more respect to everybody, have more trust in other riders, and just be nice to other users of the trail, because the trails are multi-use, and they are build from every bodies money. But probably this will never happen

    My .02 cents

    Peace

  41. #41
    icanseeformiles(andmiles)
    Reputation: Rm80Co's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    241
    Well, it's not like this topic has been done before.

    In Colorado, it all goes back to state laws for driving on the roads. Colorado law states that the downhill driver always yields to the uphill driver (usually applied under slippery conditions and single-lane jeep trails). It used to be one of the questions always asked on the written DL test.
    Quote Originally Posted by MB1
    To differentiate riders by the type of surface frequented is IMO the height of foolishness.

  42. #42
    ColoradoCoolBreeze
    Reputation: SingleTrackLovr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by thump
    I think it's worth clarifying there's a large difference between "high speed" and "out of control". A noob running old v-brakes on a hardtail might be out of control doing 10mph down a rocky trail. I like to hit the downhills with some nice speed, but I'm looking well down the trail and have never had issue coming to a nice smooth stop using the 2.5 tires and 8 inch rotors on my Uzzi.. I pedal all 38 lbs of that bike up and around the trail b/c I want to enjoy any technical feature or DH that I can. There isn't a one-true-speed-limit, it's about riding within your limits and keeping it safe. If you can't do that at high-speed then keep your fingers on those levers.
    That's what I ment, thank you thump.

    To the sages of mbtr (guardians of trail user righteousness) sorry if this topic opens an old wound or is old hat for you. There are many new members (myself included) here that might not know the issues we all face.

    Before someone posts the usual "why don't you use the search" well, this is a forum for active discussion and maybe I don't really care about what the conclusion was in 2004.

    Great Discussion, thanks everyone for joining in. As a newbie to mtbr I am a more informed and considerate rider thanks to this website.

    STL
    Last edited by SingleTrackLovr; 08-23-2007 at 06:07 AM.

  43. #43
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    A lot of it comes from the jeep trail rules of the road, downhill yields to uphill because it can be so difficult to get going again. Of course one size doesn't always fit all in that situation; it might be easier for the uphill driver to back down to that wide spot 50 feet below than for the downhill driver to back up the road 100 yards to a pull out.
    In mountain biking I've always yielded to the climber, While it might be easier to stop when going uphill as opposed to downhill, it's much harder to [I]get going again[I] when climbing, than it is to resume your downhill ride. Not only do you loose your momentum, you loose your breathing rhythm, etc. All you have to do to regain your downhill momentum is take your fingers off the brake. I guess that if the climb is nothing but a detestable necessity to be avoided when possible your priorities will be to maintain your DH “flow and “adrenaline rush”. There’ nothing inherently wrong with that, but when you’re sharing a single track trail with various users going in various directions, there are going to be problems.
    IMO, one of the negative impacts of big bikes, shuttling, and general DH/FR style of riding is that it puts so much more emphasis on the downhill experience than the overall ride/loop/cycling experience of traditional XC riding. IMO when one puts such a disproportionate emphasis on haulin' ass on a 35 lb. + bike with 6"+ of suspension on trails that have two way traffic of different users, it's going to lead to conflicts with the other folks you share the trail with. If you are going so fast that you increase your impact on the trail to yield to another user, you need to slow down.
    Thankfully, there is not a lot of trails that are suitable for shuttlers where I live. The DH crowd hangs at Keystone or a few DH only trails, although I did see a couple full on Body armor, full face w/ goggles, big bike guys on the blue river trail about a month or so. A little overkill for what is not a technical or steep trail IMO, I can go 30mph on my weeny 4" suspension XC bike. Only one of the three (the last in line) yielded to me or slowed down. (I was trail running) and I had to jump off the trail to avoid getting run over. Usually though, that’s not the case in Summit Co, most folks yield to the climber, to hikers and horses, most climbers say “thanks” and for the most part, we get along.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    29
    I'll bite.

    The way it *should* work is that whomever has an easier time of stopping and starting should be the one to stop. So if one person has started a technical section, he or she should keep going and the other person should stop and watch. Unfortunately this is a rather vague rule and we need something else to fall back on when it isn't clear who should stop.

    Consider our possibilities: uphill rider has rights vs downhill rider has rights.

    If the downhill rider has right of way, then there is is no reason for them to slow down, is there? That means that if I'm climbing and I can't get my butt off the trail fast enough, we are going to crash. People going fast through blind corners will be scary, and guys that are listening to an ipod while grinding away will get hit for not being fast enough to jump out of the way.

    If the uphill rider has right of way, then the downhill rider is forced to stay in control (i.e. can stop for another rider or hiker) and crashes are generally avoided.

    The 'uphill rider has right of way' rule is less about starting and stopping than it is about not crashing into each other.

  45. #45
    formerly shabadu
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by derek14
    I'll bite.

    The way it *should* work is that whomever has an easier time of stopping and starting should be the one to stop. So if one person has started a technical section, he or she should keep going and the other person should stop and watch. Unfortunately this is a rather vague rule and we need something else to fall back on when it isn't clear who should stop.

    Consider our possibilities: uphill rider has rights vs downhill rider has rights.

    If the downhill rider has right of way, then there is is no reason for them to slow down, is there? That means that if I'm climbing and I can't get my butt off the trail fast enough, we are going to crash. People going fast through blind corners will be scary, and guys that are listening to an ipod while grinding away will get hit for not being fast enough to jump out of the way.

    If the uphill rider has right of way, then the downhill rider is forced to stay in control (i.e. can stop for another rider or hiker) and crashes are generally avoided.

    The 'uphill rider has right of way' rule is less about starting and stopping than it is about not crashing into each other.
    This is the most logical post in this thread. Gracias.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,267
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm
    IMO, one of the negative impacts of big bikes, shuttling, and general DH/FR style of riding is that it puts so much more emphasis on the downhill experience than the overall ride/loop/cycling experience of traditional XC riding. IMO when one puts such a disproportionate emphasis on haulin' ass on a 35 lb. + bike with 6"+ of suspension on trails that have two way traffic of different users, it's going to lead to conflicts with the other folks you share the trail with.

    Well said.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    328
    Plain and simple why this is a common courtesy. When you are climbing you need momentum and traction to keep going. If you have to stop you lose all of this. When you are going downhill it is just much easier to stop and get going again. This rule applies to ATV's and 4 Wheeling trails also.

  48. #48
    Your retarded
    Reputation: Nickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,085
    This circular argument sucks. My solution: bolt a javelin to the front of the bike and we'll see who has right of way then.

    A trail that’s too difficult wouldn’t exist because it’d never be used. But, trails can exist that’re too difficult for you.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,232
    damn, i wonder if they pulled it out or left it for the lucky doctor to do it.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    328
    <embed src="http://www.familyguyfiles.com/videos/stewie_loader.swf?id=stewie-gets-glass-in-his-head" width="320" height="260"></embed>
    <br>Now Playing:
    <br><a title="stewie gets glass in his head video" href="http://www.familyguyfiles.com/stewie-gets-glass-in-his-head-video/">stewie gets glass in his head video</a>

    Reminds me of this

  51. #51

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11
    derek14 - You are totally right, but there will always be a group of people that think they are "the most important person on the trail", and they will never use common courtesy (even if two riders are going that same way, one is faster, slower guy should let him go, usually the slower guy never yields, and that is the rule). But whatever, there are people that use common courtesy and others don't.

    We all have a common interest in riding bikes and having fun on them, so if we are fighting right now, it will probably get ever worse over time (specially look how young our sport is), and this definitely doesn't give us as mountainbikers a good images specially in eyes of people that just got in to this sport or wants to

    Peace

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3

    Colorado State Law

    Don't know of any other states with this, but if you are in Colorado, state law says uphill vehicle has the right of way. I know this goes back to at least the 1960s, so it is pre-mountain bike, but also under Colorado law, a bicycle is considered a vehicle.

  53. #53
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,878
    Quote Originally Posted by AgustinGoba View Post
    Don't know of any other states with this, but if you are in Colorado, state law says uphill vehicle has the right of way. I know this goes back to at least the 1960s, so it is pre-mountain bike, but also under Colorado law, a bicycle is considered a vehicle.
    A bicycle IS NOT a vehicle under Colorado law. Get run over and you'll find out the hard way.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    A bicycle IS NOT a vehicle under Colorado law. Get run over and you'll find out the hard way.
    Yeah, you might actually have wanted to check before making that statement. Under Colorado law, a bicycle is a vehicle. Doesn't mean you can't get run over, but you can get ticketed for running a red light, speeding, etc.
    42-4-1412. Operation of bicycles and other human-powered vehicles

    1. Every person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this article...

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rmalling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    371
    People who don't yield to uphill riders are the same people who...
    1.Drive in the left lane and pass in the right.
    2.Exit stores using the door to their left at the same time those who follow the social agreement of using the door to right are attempting to enter.
    3.Leave their glassware at the brewpub on the tables when done resulting in the one bartender needing to go retrieve them instead of serving up beer.
    4.Shake hands with their left hand (Yes, this happens)

    With the exception of number 1 in many states (finally!), none of these are FEDERAL laws and thank god for that. If you need laws or written out statements from groups like IMBA or Sierra Club to act civilly and get along with your fellow citizen, then I'm sad to say the struggles I'm sure you face in life are entirely your fault.

    In high school in the 90's in of all places, OHIO, I learned from older riders that the rider traveling uphill has the right of way and we should pull over when descending and yield the trail. Pretty cool that an agreement among trail users such as this made its way all the way to the armpit of America and was shared with teenagers close to 20 years ago and none of us wasted our time debating the merits of this agreement.

  56. #56
    Trail Bomber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    253
    As much as I hate stopping on a good DH rip, I do. I do, because other rides stop for me when I am climbing. Its a part of using multi-use trails. I have a bike park pass for that reason. I can go ride Trestle, Steam Boat, Angel Fire, and Crested Butte bike parks for free with my pass, and I don't have to stop for hikers or uphill traffic, because there isn't any.
    2019 Knolly Fugitive LT
    2016 Specialized Fuse
    2013 Raleigh RX

  57. #57
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by rmalling View Post
    People who don't yield to uphill riders are the same people who...
    1.Drive in the left lane and pass in the right.
    2.Exit stores using the door to their left at the same time those who follow the social agreement of using the door to right are attempting to enter.
    3.Leave their glassware at the brewpub on the tables when done resulting in the one bartender needing to go retrieve them instead of serving up beer.
    4.Shake hands with their left hand (Yes, this happens)
    YES! I like round numbers:

    5. Enter an elevator before people have gotten out.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by TVC15 View Post
    YES! I like round numbers:

    5. Enter an elevator before people have gotten out.
    Just like:

    6: Eating with your left hand and wiping with your right. I mean c'mon!

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rmalling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by TVC15 View Post
    YES! I like round numbers:

    5. Enter an elevator before people have gotten out.
    Of course! I couldn't think of a #5. I accept this addition.

  60. #60
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by rmalling View Post
    Of course! I couldn't think of a #5. I accept this addition.
    Highfive!

  61. #61
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,878
    Quote Originally Posted by AgustinGoba View Post
    Yeah, you might actually have wanted to check before making that statement. Under Colorado law, a bicycle is a vehicle. Doesn't mean you can't get run over, but you can get ticketed for running a red light, speeding, etc.
    42-4-1412. Operation of bicycles and other human-powered vehicles


    1. Every person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this article...

    I'm familiar with that CRS but I'm not sure you are interpreting correctly.

    My understanding is that a bicycle is classified as a "bicycle" under Colorado law and while you have the same rights and duties as a DRIVER, you are not operating a "motor vehicle" by definition, you are riding a "bicycle".

    So yes, a bicycle is a "vehicle" under Colorado law, but NO a bicycle cannot be operated the same as a MOTOR vehicle, nor do you have the same rights as motor vehicles as stated in your first post.

    It's the same way bikes are interpreted in CA. You cannot apply MOTOR vehicle laws to bicycles in Colorado. Bicycles have their own laws.

    This was the compromise in 2009. Bike advocates wanted vehicle status, but settled on this quasi-vehicle status which offers more protection/culpability in accidents than pre-2009, but does not give full motor vehicle status.

    Why does this matter? because when you are involved in an accident with another cyclist, i.e. run over by a bicyclist, legally he/she can be given the status of pedestrian, at the DA's discretion, and any lawsuit against the other rider becomes a civil lawsuit at your own expense. So don't expect the DA to come to bat for you because someone on a bicycle violated a motor vehicle law. That lesson cost me $25K out of pocket...

    Vehicle Finder

  62. #62
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    A bicycle IS NOT a vehicle under Colorado law. Get run over and you'll find out the hard way.
    OK.

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    ... you are not operating a "motor vehicle" by definition, you are riding a "bicycle".

    So yes, a bicycle is a "vehicle" under Colorado law, but NO a bicycle cannot be operated the same as a MOTOR vehicle, nor do you have the same rights as motor vehicles as stated in your first post...
    OK. Good got it.

    It's not a vehicle, but it is a "vehicle". Makes perfect sense.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  63. #63
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,878
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    OK.



    OK. Good got it.

    It's not a vehicle, but it is a "vehicle". Makes perfect sense.
    Glad I could help.

  64. #64
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    Uphill has the right of way comes from dirtbikes and Jeeps. They go the same speed uphill or down and their weight makes it hard to re-start on climbs with limited traction. Someone decided to use this same model for MTB and it was a mistake. They go much faster down than up so it's easier for the uphill rider to stop and restart.
    Keep the Country country.

  65. #65
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    Uphill has the right of way comes from dirtbikes and Jeeps. They go the same speed uphill or down and their weight makes it hard to re-start on climbs with limited traction. Someone decided to use this same model for MTB and it was a mistake. They go much faster down than up so it's easier for the uphill rider to stop and restart.
    It's only harder for the DH rider to stop if they're not riding in control (There are places and in some places, times where riding DH full tilt is appropriate, but almost none of them are on well used, multi use, multi directional trails) and I can't believe anyone really thinks it's harder for a DH rider to restart.

  66. #66
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    It's harder to get back up to the speed you were going. It takes a hundred feet and a couple gear shifts to get back up to speed. A climber who was going 5mph can stop and start with no gear shifts and in a bike length. You don't have to be out of control to need some distance to come to a stop. If you're going 20-25mph on loose soil it's gonna take hard braking and some time to stop. I'm just pointing out where the "rule" came from, why it existed in the moto world, and why it doesn't make as much sense for MTBs. If two riders encounter each other and one can stop in a bike length, then get back up to the speed they were going in a bike length while the other needs 50-100ft to stop and another 50-100ft to get back up to speed who can more easily move aside? Doesn't it make sense for the person who can more easily yield to do it? That's why I alway yield on climbs. There's the added aspect of sound and visible motion. A downhiller riding fast can be heard while a climber is silent. From a distance through trees you more eaily see someone who's moving fast. When I'm climbing I can always hear and see a descender before they see me. I'm often foot down, leaning off the side of the trail already when they first notice me. If you forget that a different sport already had a yieding rule and that some random person applied it to MTB and instead use common sense when encountering another rider it makes it easy to decide what action to take.
    Keep the Country country.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    It's harder to get back up to the speed you were going. It takes a hundred feet and a couple gear shifts to get back up to speed. A climber who was going 5mph can stop and start with no gear shifts and in a bike length. You don't have to be out of control to need some distance to come to a stop. If you're going 20-25mph on loose soil it's gonna take hard braking and some time to stop. I'm just pointing out where the "rule" came from, why it existed in the moto world, and why it doesn't make as much sense for MTBs. If two riders encounter each other and one can stop in a bike length, then get back up to the speed they were going in a bike length while the other needs 50-100ft to stop and another 50-100ft to get back up to speed who can more easily move aside? Doesn't it make sense for the person who can more easily yield to do it? That's why I alway yield on climbs. There's the added aspect of sound and visible motion. A downhiller riding fast can be heard while a climber is silent. From a distance through trees you more eaily see someone who's moving fast. When I'm climbing I can always hear and see a descender before they see me. I'm often foot down, leaning off the side of the trail already when they first notice me. If you forget that a different sport already had a yieding rule and that some random person applied it to MTB and instead use common sense when encountering another rider it makes it easy to decide what action to take.
    Stop...just stop...seriously, stop it. Enough! Grow up!

    The rule isn't going to change. Please just follow it so we all don't get kicked off the trails.

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ds2199's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs View Post
    Stop...just stop...seriously, stop it. Enough! Grow up!

    The rule isn't going to change. Please just follow it so we all don't get kicked off the trails.
    ^^^^
    Thank you!

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    It's harder to get back up to the speed you were going. It takes a hundred feet and a couple gear shifts to get back up to speed. A climber who was going 5mph can stop and start with no gear shifts and in a bike length. You don't have to be out of control to need some distance to come to a stop. If you're going 20-25mph on loose soil it's gonna take hard braking and some time to stop. I'm just pointing out where the "rule" came from, why it existed in the moto world, and why it doesn't make as much sense for MTBs. If two riders encounter each other and one can stop in a bike length, then get back up to the speed they were going in a bike length while the other needs 50-100ft to stop and another 50-100ft to get back up to speed who can more easily move aside? Doesn't it make sense for the person who can more easily yield to do it? That's why I alway yield on climbs. There's the added aspect of sound and visible motion. A downhiller riding fast can be heard while a climber is silent. From a distance through trees you more eaily see someone who's moving fast. When I'm climbing I can always hear and see a descender before they see me. I'm often foot down, leaning off the side of the trail already when they first notice me. If you forget that a different sport already had a yieding rule and that some random person applied it to MTB and instead use common sense when encountering another rider it makes it easy to decide what action to take.
    it's about fkin time someone w/ a brain chimed in on this debate.

    this makes PERFECT sense and, i'll re-iterate, it's much, much easier for the uphill rider to yield. there's no "getting up to speed" for the climber b/c they weren't at 'speed' to begin with. You do not need to be going mach 10 to realize that it takes much longer for the DH rider to stop. apparently none of you understand basic physics and think that some xc rider climbing has any real momentum to speak of.

    be a dick and don't yield to the DH rider, and find out just how much more momentum that person has....idiots.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    27
    I yield to DH riders as I would want the same after climbing 2 hours, etc.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs View Post
    Stop...just stop...seriously, stop it. Enough! Grow up!

    The rule isn't going to change. Please just follow it so we all don't get kicked off the trails.
    are you seriously that DUMB?!?!

    you're the one that needs to grow up.

    he just made an argument that DESTROYS anything you guys have posited as an objection to this nonsense rule of yielding to uphill traffic, yet you're calling him immature b/c he's making the most logical argument?

    Do you even Think, Bro ?
    .....

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Brettster5555 View Post
    I yield to DH riders as I would want the same after climbing 2 hours, etc.
    EXACTLY! people forget that the DH rider on your XC trails likely rode his ass off to earn that descent. so fking let him have it inside of being a dick and making him yield to your strava-sshole KOM attempt.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    EXACTLY! people forget that the DH rider on your XC trails likely rode his ass off to earn that descent. so fking let him have it inside of being a dick and making him yield to your strava-sshole KOM attempt.
    Yes, "rode his ass off" up the hill in his Bro-Truck...

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    are you seriously that DUMB?!?!

    you're the one that needs to grow up.

    he just made an argument that DESTROYS anything you guys have posited as an objection to this nonsense rule of yielding to uphill traffic, yet you're calling him immature b/c he's making the most logical argument?

    Do you even Think, Bro ?
    .....

    Do you really think the rule will ever change? Please, answer the question for once.

    Also, humor us by answering as if we're all sitting in a room with other trail users and land managers. Act like you're expecting other adults to take you seriously, not like you're spewing garbage on an internet forum.

  75. #75
    wanna be
    Reputation: bigmariow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    EXACTLY! people forget that the DH rider on your XC trails likely rode his ass off to earn that descent. so fking let him have it inside of being a dick and making him yield to your strava-sshole KOM attempt.
    So if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, **** all of the other trail users out there on all of the multi use trails, it's all about me and my flow bro! How do you think bikes got banned from most of Boulder city trails? I don't like having to stop and let others through, but I know if I want to keep riding open space, I need to be courteous to others

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sbsbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,403
    " apparently none of you understand basic physics and think that some xc rider climbing has any real momentum to speak of."

    People use this same argument to deny me my right to ride bikes on roadways.
    This is exactly why DH riders need to slow and yield to uphill. I drive a F-250, big diesel, I have a responsibility to drive with greater respect toward other road users because of the size and momentum of my vehicle. In a VW bug, the wash of air won't push a cyclist off the road during a pass, but my F-250 will, so i slow down, and pass with respect to my size and mass. Same for riding bikes, The DH rider can do considerable damage to an uphill rider so they need to ride with greater respect. It is not about who can get going easier, or who can stop easier, it is about respecting other trail users, and operating in a responsible manner. If you can't operate in a responsible manner, take your show to one of the many resorts that allow unrestrained DH riding, and stay off multi use trails. If you want to see our rights to use trails further diminished, keep up the irresponsible riding, and see what the Man does to those that do not share. We do not have a right to use trails, it is a privilege, that can be removed by the man if too many riders do not show restraint and manners toward other users.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs View Post
    Yes, "rode his ass off" up the hill in his Bro-Truck...
    lmfao!!

    I'm going to rock my full face and leatt on xc descents just to fk with you guys..BUT, I'm going to ride really slow and yield to every uphiller just to look at the confused looks on your faces..

    lol

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs View Post
    Do you really think the rule will ever change? Please, answer the question for once.

    Also, humor us by answering as if we're all sitting in a room with other trail users and land managers. Act like you're expecting other adults to take you seriously, not like you're spewing garbage on an internet forum.
    I absolutely think it should change: b/c it's unsafe to force a rider with a massive momentum differential to come skidding to a stop (which can also fk up trails) when the dude climbing can simply step aside w/o any risk on his part.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    I absolutely think it should change: b/c it's unsafe to force a rider with a massive momentum differential to come skidding to a stop (which can also fk up trails) when the dude climbing can simply step aside w/o any risk on his part.
    And.....this weak argument would quickly be shot down by some old lady who likes hiking and looking at birds.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmariow View Post
    So if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, **** all of the other trail users out there on all of the multi use trails, it's all about me and my flow bro! How do you think bikes got banned from most of Boulder city trails? I don't like having to stop and let others through, but I know if I want to keep riding open space, I need to be courteous to others
    bikes got banned from boulder trails due to ignorance and discrimination. boulder NEVER had a downhill scene. the banned the idea of people riding downhill before it ever happened, and based their decision on unfounded rumors and stereotypes that are not supported by the data (and they use trail stats from the 90's).

  81. #81
    Chronic 1st-timer
    Reputation: lubes17319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,432
    Don the costume of your choice; sausage-suit or flat-billed cap, and meet behind the playground at 3:30. Let's get ready to rumble!
    Trailwrecker at large

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,968
    I have come to the conclusions that some people are just dks. Nothing more needs to be said. Wiggs is 100% right. On a multi-use trail, if you are going so fast that it takes 100's of feet to get to that speed again and you need 100's of feet to stop, are you really ridding in control? Really, just think about it.
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    126
    If the front range had more purpose built directional trails then a lot of trail conflict would be resolved. I understand that this isnt a simple thing. Its been done in other places and works.
    Until the CO front range gets with the times, use common sense and respect one another.

  84. #84
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    I absolutely think it should change: b/c it's unsafe to force a rider with a massive momentum differential to come skidding to a stop (which can also fk up trails) when the dude climbing can simply step aside w/o any risk on his part.
    If you're skidding to a stop you're out of control on a multiuse trail and owe whoever you yielded to -- late -- an apology. Key word being multiuse.

    I'm beginning to believe you are a troll. No one can be this stupid. If you're not and ride front range trails, I hope we meet one day as I'm climbing and you're descending.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,510
    How can you even consider this an argument? Rules state that you must yield to the uphill rider. You can polish your argument with your flat brim hat all you want but it does not change anything. You are a Bro and Wiggs is an educated human being so what is the point???
    I am going to add yielding to the uphill rider along with politics, abortion and religion to things not to talk about with strangers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    are you seriously that DUMB?!?!

    you're the one that needs to grow up.

    he just made an argument that DESTROYS anything you guys have posited as an objection to this nonsense rule of yielding to uphill traffic, yet you're calling him immature b/c he's making the most logical argument?

    Do you even Think, Bro ?
    .....

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    I absolutely think it should change: b/c it's unsafe to force a rider with a massive momentum differential to come skidding to a stop (which can also fk up trails) when the dude climbing can simply step aside w/o any risk on his part.
    Not that I expect any of these responses to change your opinion cause no one is ever wrong on the internet...

    TVC and a few others beat me to it but one could argue (correctly) it's much more unsafe to be riding a multi use, bi directional trail in such a way that you can't stop in a controlled manner when an unexpected obstacle appears. And not just uphill bikers/hikers, half of my rides a deer pops up in the middle of the trail. Go to keystone or trestle and you have free reign to destroy yourself with minimal risk to anyone else.

  87. #87
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    bikes got banned from boulder trails due to ignorance and discrimination. boulder NEVER had a downhill scene. the banned the idea of people riding downhill before it ever happened, and based their decision on unfounded rumors and stereotypes that are not supported by the data (and they use trail stats from the 90's).
    Do you not understand that pretty much everything you argue supports those stereotypes? This issue isn't new, it's been around for a long time, Technology has made it easier for bikes to go a bit faster downhill, but the image of adrenalin junkie mountain bikers flaying down multi use trail scattering everyone in their way is not new. It's been around since I started riding in the mid 80s and it's not just a stereotype, there's more than a little truth to it, What you're saying boils down to "get out of my way"

    It's about a lot more than who's having the most fun (as if anyone can actually determine that) it's about safety, sharing with a wide range of other users, respecting the trail and other people.

  88. #88
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    bikes got banned from boulder trails due to ignorance and discrimination. boulder NEVER had a downhill scene. the banned the idea of people riding downhill before it ever happened, and based their decision on unfounded rumors and stereotypes that are not supported by the data (and they use trail stats from the 90's).
    Should little old lady's and kids riding MTB's yield to FlowTards also?

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Liquidmantis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    561
    I was at Lair of the Bear last week and some dude came flying around the corner, going by me at one of the tree chokepoints and narrowly missing me. There were a couple of kids groups out as well (the Avid4Adventure camp) and little guys were all over the trail. I had passed through their group a bit before so I sure hope the coaches had let the kids know they needed to yield to the downhiller that can't even be bothered to check his speed.

  90. #90
    wanna be
    Reputation: bigmariow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    bikes got banned from boulder trails due to ignorance and discrimination. boulder NEVER had a downhill scene. the banned the idea of people riding downhill before it ever happened, and based their decision on unfounded rumors and stereotypes that are not supported by the data (and they use trail stats from the 90's).
    In the eyes of every other trail user a mountain biker descending is a downhiller. Take a minute to reflect on why we now have odd/even days at Apex and odd even weekends at the cone. "I have met the enemy, and he is us" - Walt Kelly
    Mario

  91. #91
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409
    I would hereby like to nominate Jamesm925 the New King Trollmeister. Can I get a second?

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    I would hereby like to nominate Jamesm925 the New King Trollmeister. Can I get a second?
    Seems he's left the room. He probably had to blow off some aggro-bro-steam by stopping at the Denver Dumb Friends League to punch some kittens, followed by a visit to the Cherry Creek Mall to push children off the bacon & eggs play area.

  93. #93
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthonyf View Post
    If the front range had more purpose built directional trails then a lot of trail conflict would be resolved. I understand that this isnt a simple thing. Its been done in other places and works.
    Until the CO front range gets with the times, use common sense and respect one another.
    Directional trails may or may not happen although I'd guess it's a fairly big hurdle on FR open space parks. You're not likely to see many - if any - existing multi use multi directional trails converted to one way trails. Building an entirely new purpose designed trail is probably a more likely scenario and that would take a lot of public support (not just mountain bikers) and willingness by the managing agencies to devote the resources. It's possible of course, but even in the most optimistic scenario, those trails would be few and far between and the large majority of the trail will still be multi use, multi directional.
    Last edited by zrm; 07-22-2015 at 02:02 PM.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    I would hereby like to nominate Jamesm925 the New King Trollmeister. Can I get a second?
    I love how you guys automatically assume that I DONT yield to uphillers (which I do).
    I just think there's no logical argument to support adherence to some archaic, antiquated rule established nearly 3 decades ago in a different era, based on an OHV rule that doesn't make any sense for mountain bikes.

    Why you don't you asshats go ahead and put speed limit signs on the trails and encourage the rangers to come out w/ radar guns like they do in marin county.


    obviously, I'm not blasting these trails like you morons are assuming, but I think the current rule is utter illogical ********.

    it's EASIER for someone going 5mph uphill to yield than it is for someone going 15-20mph downhill (and that's taking it easy).

    the speed differential makes it easier for the uphill rider to GTFO of the way much more SAFELY than it does for the downhill rider, whom you may force to come to a stop in the middle of a rock garden.

    obviously, I'm aware of my surroundings and don't go bombing trails during heavy traffic hours w/ little kiddos buzzing around.

    seriously, when is the last time you saw a hiker on longhorn, bitterbrush, or the canyon link trail, let alone a little old lady?!?
    oh wait, did you bring wifey along to hike while you get your KOM on your Moots fully rigid??

  95. #95
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    <snip>
    Why you don't you asshats go ahead and put speed limit signs on the trails and encourage the rangers to come out w/ radar guns like they do in marin county.
    Errr - there already *is* a speed limit on JCOS trails. And yes, they have occasionally enforced it in just this manner.

    obviously, I'm not blasting these trails like you morons are assuming, but I think the current rule is utter illogical ********.

    it's EASIER for someone going 5mph uphill to yield than it is for someone going 15-20mph downhill (and that's taking it easy).

    the speed differential makes it easier for the uphill rider to GTFO of the way much more SAFELY than it does for the downhill rider, whom you may force to come to a stop in the middle of a rock garden.
    I think one point that is missing here is that you should be slowing to walking speed on the DH when someone *does* yield to you. You know... for safety's sake.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    well no shit...I'm not aiming to crashing into anyone. I just think it makes more sense for the uphill rider to yield when possible.

  97. #97
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,555
    @JamesM925

    Do you talk like this in person?

    Like, actually carry on conversations with adults in this manner?

    I can't imagine that working out for you on any professional, social, or personal level. I have to think that the anonymity of the Internet is your best friend.
    Death from Below.

  98. #98
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    I love how you guys automatically assume that I DONT yield to uphillers (which I do).
    Because this, bro.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    be a dick and don't yield to the DH rider, and find out just how much more momentum that person has....idiots.
    Maybe you really are this dumb.

  99. #99
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    ...obviously, I'm not blasting these trails like you morons are assuming, but I think the current rule is utter illogical ********...
    See, that's just the thing. You think the current rule is illogical.

    But you're wrong! Your opinion is based on your selfishness and your own personal worldview. You aren't even considering the consistently offered arguments supporting the existing rule. You think everything should be arranged so that you, a d!ckhead, can have everybody on the trails behave in a way that will let you have your jollies.

    It's like arguing with a two-year-old. Stubborn, loud, wrong.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  100. #100
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    See, that's just the thing. You think the current rule is illogical.

    But you're wrong! Your opinion is based on your selfishness and your own personal worldview. You aren't even considering the consistently offered arguments supporting the existing rule. You think everything should be arranged so that you, a d!ckhead, can have everybody on the trails behave in a way that will let you have your jollies.

    It's like arguing with a two-year-old. Stubborn, loud, wrong.
    Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TomP again.

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation: djlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    294
    Directly aimed at Jamesm925:

    The problem on the trail is your spoiled, petulant, childish behavior. The problem on these forums is your spoiled, petulant, childish thinking. Throw in your temper tantrums and you look like a little boy. So pay back your mom for wasting her data plan and go back to school where you'll learn all about capital letters and punctuation. And sharing.
    Then, when you're a grown up and pay your own living expenses, you can sit at the adult table.
    Is this where I write something witty?

  102. #102
    Trail Bomber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    253
    I think that every user group is pretty selfish to be honest. Hikers don't like bikers mostly and would prefer that bikers and equestrians not be on their hike. Equestrians love leaving poop everywhere so that it goes in my face, and they would prefer hikers and bikers got lost on the way to the trail head. Uphill bikers hate down hillers because they are suffering, sweaty, tired, and their bike isn't shifting right... and "now I have to stop" cause this guy didn't yield?? DH guys hate everyone that is in their way because they earned their shred.

    SO. we can ***** and argue back and forth all day about which is a better rule. Regardless of my own opinions (which do not matter), the rules are the rules. If you don't want to play nice, don't expect people to be happy. If we piss off the other user groups we risk losing access to our after work rides.

    The simple fact is... if you don't want to stop on the downhill, ride the resort or trails where there are not likely to be anyone else. Otherwise, deal with the BS that is multi-use multi-directional trails on the front range.
    2019 Knolly Fugitive LT
    2016 Specialized Fuse
    2013 Raleigh RX

  103. #103
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    ... the current rule is utter illogical ********...
    You know it just occurs to me that, since much of my job is logic, I may be able to demonstrate that the current rule IS logical.

    Logic involves evaluating truth and falsity of certain statements or assertions, and then combining them in a way that reaches a more complex conclusion.

    Let's start with a question.

    If I am riding at a low speed and I run into somebody, will the potential for injury be lower than if I am riding at higher speed and run into somebody?

    Simple question. Simple answer, the faster I am going when I run into someone, the more likely there will be injury to one or both parties.

    Second question.

    When people are riding downhill, do they have the potential to go much faster than when they are climbing uphill? I'm going to say yes, disagree at your will.

    Third question.

    Do people ever make mistakes? Um, I think that's gotta be a yes.

    Here comes the logic part:

    IF downhill riders carry more speed, and if a person carrying speed has greater potential to injure somebody they strike than if they were not carrying speed, and if people make mistakes sometimes,

    THEN (that's the cool logicy part)

    the downhill rider is a greater threat to the safety of others and therefore should be the one who stops when there is a trail encounter.

    Now, we know jamesm925 doesn't make mistakes. Goes without saying. He's a fscking GOD on a bike. But other people do! Like the poor slob who's climbing, leaps out of james' way but makes a mistake and instead lurches into james' path.

    Unplanned sh!t happens. Safety of all trail users is a higher priority than the selfish pleasure of a few trail users. The rule is designed to protect the vulnerable.

    It's totally logical. Unless you're part selfish narcissist and part fuggin' retard (no offense to actual retards).

    Don't use the word logic unless you understand what it means.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    423
    Yea!!! What TomP said!!!!
    When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.

  105. #105
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs View Post
    Do you really think the rule will ever change? Please, answer the question for once.

    Also, humor us by answering as if we're all sitting in a room with other trail users and land managers. Act like you're expecting other adults to take you seriously, not like you're spewing garbage on an internet forum.
    It's not a rule. It's a suggestion and a poor one at that.
    Keep the Country country.

  106. #106
    "I want it now!"
    Reputation: Veruca Salt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    You know it just occurs to me that, since much of my job is logic, I may be able to demonstrate that the current rule IS logical.

    Logic involves evaluating truth and falsity of certain statements or assertions, and then combining them in a way that reaches a more complex conclusion.

    Let's start with a question.

    If I am riding at a low speed and I run into somebody, will the potential for injury be lower than if I am riding at higher speed and run into somebody?

    Simple question. Simple answer, the faster I am going when I run into someone, the more likely there will be injury to one or both parties.

    Second question.

    When people are riding downhill, do they have the potential to go much faster than when they are climbing uphill? I'm going to say yes, disagree at your will.

    Third question.

    Do people ever make mistakes? Um, I think that's gotta be a yes.

    Here comes the logic part:

    IF downhill riders carry more speed, and if a person carrying speed has greater potential to injure somebody they strike than if they were not carrying speed, and if people make mistakes sometimes,

    THEN (that's the cool logicy part)

    the downhill rider is a greater threat to the safety of others and therefore should be the one who stops when there is a trail encounter.

    Now, we know jamesm925 doesn't make mistakes. Goes without saying. He's a fscking GOD on a bike. But other people do! Like the poor slob who's climbing, leaps out of james' way but makes a mistake and instead lurches into james' path.

    Unplanned sh!t happens. Safety of all trail users is a higher priority than the selfish pleasure of a few trail users. The rule is designed to protect the vulnerable.

    It's totally logical. Unless you're part selfish narcissist and part fuggin' retard (no offense to actual retards).

    Don't use the word logic unless you understand what it means.
    And this is why the ladies love Tom P.

  107. #107
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs View Post
    And.....this weak argument would quickly be shot down by some old lady who likes hiking and looking at birds.
    Has nothing to do with the conversation. While I always slow and move to the opposite side of the trail, every hiker I've ever encountered has stopped and stepped off the trail as I approach. Slowing requires much less effort and skidding than coming to a full stop which is what you're proposing when encountering a climbing rider.
    Keep the Country country.

  108. #108
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Veruca Salt View Post
    And this is why the ladies love Tom P.
    This is a very sweet thing to say, but I'm pretty much certain that I've never gotten laid because of my madd logick skillz
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    Has nothing to do with the conversation. While I always slow and move to the opposite side of the trail, every hiker I've ever encountered has stopped and stepped off the trail as I approach. Slowing requires much less effort and skidding than coming to a full stop which is what you're proposing when encountering a climbing rider.
    It has a LOT to do with the conversation. Do you even know why we can no longer ride Enchanted Forest downhill every day of the week?

  110. #110
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,878
    Quote Originally Posted by teethandnails View Post
    I think that every user group is pretty selfish to be honest.
    Having worked professionally with all three I would disagree.

    Equestrian users are the most disliked by the other 2 groups and they know it and respond accordingly. Some can be real asshats but in general they are nice people.

    Hikers feel entitled, know they have the upper hand when it comes to politically correct open space use, and act accordingly. They are the bullies of the trail. Of course they are the first to tear down trail barricades, cut switchbacks, create braiding, etc... and break the rules. You run across every different type of person in the hiker group. The worst are the environmentalists nazi hiker type who want's everything closed to everyone except them.... and their off-leash dog. Think Vandeman.

    Bikers have been conditioned to be pacifists and you are probably the easiest to get along with.... until you talk about trail design when opinions are like *******s, everybody's got one...

    Speaking of bad bike path/route design.
    New bike lanes called ?death trap.? | TOSC

    I would say the biggest factor is age. The older the user the more stubborn they can be to work with and reach compromise. Really young guys and newcomers can be asshats too.

    If I had to rank them in difficulty to work with it would be
    1 Hikers
    2 Equestrians
    3 Bikers

  111. #111
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs View Post
    It has a LOT to do with the conversation. Do you even know why we can no longer ride Enchanted Forest downhill every day of the week?
    Because someone ran over an old lady about 2 hours before the public meeting....

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    Because someone ran over an old lady about 2 hours before the public meeting....
    Good guess.

    Old lady hikers wanted to watch birds without fear of being run over.

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sbsbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    Because Jamesm925 ran over an old lady about 2 hours before the public meeting....
    Fixed that.

  114. #114
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409
    Where, you ask?

    Right here - it says it right here:

    https://jeffco.us/open-space/regulat...are-the-trail/

    Mind you - that is only for JCOS.

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by sbsbiker View Post
    Fixed that.
    you guys are actually the immature ones. You think I'm dick for going against some ******** ingrained rule?! and for challenging it? in a logical fashion? Then you automatically stereotype me into some concept you have of a 'bro downhiller?'....just because I challenge your theory on what's correct.

    Ok, so here's the "logic in that": If A, then also B (because You hold an ignorant stereotype regarding A), where A = anyone that doesn't agree with the yield to uphill 'rule', and B = kamikaze downhiller.

  116. #116
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    35,057
    Perfect day for a ride. Uphill downhill and all around hill.
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  117. #117
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    The worst are the environmentalists nazi hiker type who want's everything closed to everyone except them.... and their off-leash dog.
    You had me until this one. Around these parts, it seems that the people who want to hike with their off-leash dog know that they're in the same endangered category as bikers. The worst are the environmentalists nazi hiker type who wants everything closed to everyone except them, including off-leash dogs.

  118. #118
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesm925 View Post
    you guys are actually the immature ones. You think i'm dick for going against some ******** ingrained rule?! And for challenging it? In a logical fashion? ...

    Ok, so here's the "logic in that": If a, then also b (because you hold an ignorant stereotype regarding a), where a = anyone that refuses to acknowledge the clear logic behind the yield to uphill 'rule', and b = moron.
    ftfy
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  119. #119
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    Having worked professionally with all three I would disagree.

    Equestrian users are the most disliked by the other 2 groups and they know it and respond accordingly. Some can be real asshats but in general they are nice people.

    Hikers feel entitled, know they have the upper hand when it comes to politically correct open space use, and act accordingly. They are the bullies of the trail. Of course they are the first to tear down trail barricades, cut switchbacks, create braiding, etc... and break the rules. You run across every different type of person in the hiker group. The worst are the environmentalists nazi hiker type who want's everything closed to everyone except them.... and their off-leash dog. Think Vandeman.

    Bikers have been conditioned to be pacifists and you are probably the easiest to get along with.... until you talk about trail design when opinions are like *******s, everybody's got one...

    Speaking of bad bike path/route design.
    New bike lanes called ?death trap.? | TOSC

    I would say the biggest factor is age. The older the user the more stubborn they can be to work with and reach compromise. Really young guys and newcomers can be asshats too.

    If I had to rank them in difficulty to work with it would be
    1 Hikers
    2 Equestrians
    3 Bikers
    I've worked with all these groups and throw in Motorized users. I've found that everyone are usually nice enough people who happen to have a point of view. They all want to guard what their preferred experience. I've found you can't pigeonhole every individual into a neat category although there are some trends in each group.

    Posts like yours and teethandnails show how so many of us have our preconceived notions and want to vilify the "other" people. When I sit down with people from other user groups, as much as I'm usually there to represent MTB interests, I also try to see and understand where other people are coming from.

    I can see the POV of hikers because when I've been out hiking, I've been brushed off by MTBers without a word too many times. I can see people who place a high value on the lands issue with MTBers and Moto users because all too often they place their experience over stewardship and their method of transportation can, when done irresponsibly can have disproportionate negative impacts. I can see the motorized folks anger because they have been the one's who have really been losing access (whether or not that is justified is another conversation). Mtn bikers like to complain because they see themselves as being lumped in with motos and being unfairly targeted. Equestrians have been using trails for longer than any of us (those "pack trails" shown on USGS maps aren't referring to backpacking, they're referring to horse packing) and like the hikers that get brushed off by MTBers, they too have had many MTBers behave discourteously and dangerously.

    Everybody has their point of view which is to them, just as valid to them as your's or mine is to us. The problem is MTB, which has become to some extent and "adrenaline" sport much more than it used to be which in itself isn't inherently a bad thing - to each their own- but that user experience isn't very compatible with the long established trail dynamics of multi use trails. Yes, we can all coexist, we can even all have a lot of fun, but there needs to be some rules that work for ALL of us and safety and stewardship , not what's the most fun need to be the overriding principles.

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    you guys are actually the immature ones. You think I'm dick for going against some ******** ingrained rule?! and for challenging it? in a logical fashion? Then you automatically stereotype me into some concept you have of a 'bro downhiller?'....just because I challenge your theory on what's correct.

    Ok, so here's the "logic in that": If A, then also B (because You hold an ignorant stereotype regarding A), where A = anyone that doesn't agree with the yield to uphill 'rule', and B = kamikaze downhiller.
    As an engineer, I'm bound to try and figure out extreme cases for "things" and here is one.

    How do you think it would play out if you plowed into a family--mom, kids--but missed the extremely fit father. What do you think he might do? Taco your wheels? Yes, for starters. Throw your bike off the trail? Yep. Hurt you? Permanently? It is surely possible that a father, in a fit of rage, would absolutely murder you...

    And roll you into a ditch...

    YMMV

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,037
    Good timing with this thread, as I just had a downhill rider at Picture Rock in Lyons run into me as I was climbing about a mile in from the TH. His excuse was "oh man, I thought you had enough room".

  122. #122
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs View Post
    It has a LOT to do with the conversation. Do you even know why we can no longer ride Enchanted Forest downhill every day of the week?
    Never even heard of Enchanted Forest. This isn't the JeffCo or Boulder forum. It encapsulates half the state. Plenty of us only ride on BLM or National Forest land. If you're riding downhill in the high country and a climber pulls over and waves you on please don't be one of those people who rolls up, stops 10ft away,and insists that they go. Instead scrub a little speed, cruise by on the opposite side of the trail, then return the favor next time you see a downhiller before they see you.
    Keep the Country country.

  123. #123
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    Good timing with this thread, as I just had a downhill rider at Picture Rock in Lyons run into me as I was climbing about a mile in from the TH. His excuse was "oh man, I thought you had enough room".
    Was it wide enough that a pass was possible if both riders moved to the side of the trail? If not he should have stopped if you didn't stop first. If it was did you move to the side or "hold your line" in the middle? If the later let me ask you: If you approached someone on a sidewalk would you each move to opposite sides so you could pass without stopping or would you hold your line in the middle? How about if you're riding on a flat rail and encounter a rider?I realize everyone sees a downhiller who is reluctant to come to a complete stop as the selfish one but I don't see how a climber who doesn't make any effort to move over isn't being a jerk. I think the aforementioned mentality is purely due to someone at IMBA in 1990 (who probably rode very slowly on downhills and prided themselves on their climbing) telling climbers that they have the "right" to hold their line. They aren't a rule maker with any authority. If a downhiller had made the opposite delaration that wouldn't be any more a "rule".

    What works best is if people are observant, courteous, and use common sense.
    Keep the Country country.

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    If you approached someone on a sidewalk would you each move to opposite sides so you could pass without stopping or would you bold your line in the middle?
    Weak argument... A sidewalk is a consistent surface. We all know the "line" for uphill is wherever you can get traction and it often alternates sides depending on terrain.

  125. #125
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs View Post
    Weak argument... A sidewalk is a consistent surface. We all know the "line" for uphill is wherever you can get traction and it often alternates sides depending on terrain.
    And do you only follow this "rule" when on a loose trail with bad traction? When on a climb with plenty of grip across the width of the trail do you move to the side or stop completely? Or do you hold your line no matter what cuz you're the climber and that's the rule?
    Keep the Country country.

  126. #126
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    ... This isn't the JeffCo or Boulder forum. It encapsulates half the state...
    Mmm no, not really.

    You've picked open a scabbed over peeve of mine about mtbr, and to a greater extent the newer and clue-less-er CO residency.

    The Colorado Front Range is a colloquial geographic term for the most populous region of the state of Colorado in the United States. The area is located just east of the foothills of the Front Range, aligned in a north-south configuration on the western edge of the Great Plains, where they meet the Rockies. We're talking about the metroplex that starts with Fort Collins to the north and either Colorado Springs or Pueblo to the south.

    I don't include Pueblo, because the term Front Range came from the fact that this area is on the east slope of the mountain range starting from the Indian Peaks near the Wyo border and ending at, well, Pikes Peak. Pueblo is a prairie town, the mountains are pretty far away unless you count the Wets, and they are foothills really. Also the Front Range is characterized as being the population center of CO, and Pueblo really hasn't grown much since the 50s.

    Anyhoo! The Front Range has way more than half the people in the state, but not nearly half the state's land.

    The other Colorado Forum, Western Slope, does not pick up the other half. The western slope is defined very simply. It's the land west of the continental divide.

    I live in Salida. Not Front Range, not Western Slope. Limon has well-known great riding, but it is neither Front Range nor Western Slope.

    There's a metric sh!t-ton of land in CO that isn't either Front Range or Western Slope.

    Now I know this doesn't really address the point you were trying to make, but that's wrong too.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  127. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sbsbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    you guys are actually the immature ones. You think I'm dick for going against some ******** ingrained rule?! and for challenging it? in a logical fashion? Then you automatically stereotype me into some concept you have of a 'bro downhiller?'....just because I challenge your theory on what's correct.

    Ok, so here's the "logic in that": If A, then also B (because You hold an ignorant stereotype regarding A), where A = anyone that doesn't agree with the yield to uphill 'rule', and B = kamikaze downhiller.
    At this point, I'm just having fun at your expense, lighten up its the Internet

  128. #128
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    Was it wide enough that a pass was possible if both riders moved to the side of the trail? If not he should have stopped if you didn't stop first. If it was did you move to the side or "hold your line" in the middle? If the later let me ask you: If you approached someone on a sidewalk would you each move to opposite sides so you could pass without stopping or would you hold your line in the middle? How about if you're riding on a flat rail and encounter a rider?I realize everyone sees a downhiller who is reluctant to come to a complete stop as the selfish one but I don't see how a climber who doesn't make any effort to move over isn't being a jerk. I think the aforementioned mentality is purely due to someone at IMBA in 1990 (who probably rode very slowly on downhills and prided themselves on their climbing) telling climbers that they have the "right" to hold their line. They aren't a rule maker with any authority. If a downhiller had made the opposite delaration that wouldn't be any more a "rule".

    What works best is if people are observant, courteous, and use common sense.
    Well, knowing Picture Rock, there really aren't any such wide spots, unless they've slowly been created because of people riding the edges of the trail or off the trail (I haven't ridden there in 2 or 3 years). And asking riders to ride to the edge or off the trail just leads to trail widening. But that's neither here nor there, because let's assume that the trail was wide enough for 2 skilled riders to pass. So what?

    One of the biggest issues I see on this forum, and from mt bikers in general, is the belief that everyone should be as skilled as they are at their sport, or close to it. A beginner or intermediate rider may not feel comfortable edging close to the side of the trail. For ex, my wife once fell into a cactus at PR, and won't even ride that trail anymore, but if she did, I know she would want to be planted in the middle of the trail. Or maybe there are a few rocks in the trail, and while those rocks seemed inconsequential to the descending rider, the uphill rider wanted to choose a particular line through them. The reality is that all of those variables are far too great for any rider -- descending or ascending -- to deduce in a brief few second encounter. There needs to be a bright line rule of who is supposed to yield to who.

    Now, we can argue (as some here have) that it should be the uphill rider who yields, but that isn't the system we have (nor should it be, IMO). So, when one is descending, it seems to me that the choices are simple. Yield, unless it is abundantly obvious that the uphill rider is yielding (as I often do when climbing trails that are fun to go down, because I know that downhill me would want uphill me to yield), or there is space for 2 to pass AND the uphill rider is clearly giving me that space by obviously moving to one side of the trail. I don't try to squeeze by just because *I* thought there was space for 2, because maybe the uphill rider is a newb and doesn't feel comfortable giving me that space.

    Your whole premise is based on everyone being at or near your skill level. Your analogy to a sidewalk is inapposite, because generally speaking, there are no "newbs" at walking on a sidewalk, except perhaps toddlers and elderly.

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smmokan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    Was it wide enough that a pass was possible if both riders moved to the side of the trail? If not he should have stopped if you didn't stop first. If it was did you move to the side or "hold your line" in the middle? If the later let me ask you: If you approached someone on a sidewalk would you each move to opposite sides so you could pass without stopping or would you hold your line in the middle? How about if you're riding on a flat rail and encounter a rider?
    Yes, I was over to the right as far as possible. The guy made a small effort to move over just a tiny bit, but made no effort whatsoever to slow down or even stop. So no, I wasn't being a jerk but I commend your effort in trying to stir things up.

  130. #130
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    Mmm no, not really.

    You've picked open a scabbed over peeve of mine about mtbr, and to a greater extent the newer and clue-less-er CO residency.

    The Colorado Front Range is a colloquial geographic term for the most populous region of the state of Colorado in the United States. The area is located just east of the foothills of the Front Range, aligned in a north-south configuration on the western edge of the Great Plains, where they meet the Rockies. We're talking about the metroplex that starts with Fort Collins to the north and either Colorado Springs or Pueblo to the south.

    I don't include Pueblo, because the term Front Range came from the fact that this area is on the east slope of the mountain range starting from the Indian Peaks near the Wyo border and ending at, well, Pikes Peak. Pueblo is a prairie town, the mountains are pretty far away unless you count the Wets, and they are foothills really. Also the Front Range is characterized as being the population center of CO, and Pueblo really hasn't grown much since the 50s.

    Anyhoo! The Front Range has way more than half the people in the state, but not nearly half the state's land.

    The other Colorado Forum, Western Slope, does not pick up the other half. The western slope is defined very simply. It's the land west of the continental divide.

    I live in Salida. Not Front Range, not Western Slope. Limon has well-known great riding, but it is neither Front Range nor Western Slope.

    There's a metric sh!t-ton of land in CO that isn't either Front Range or Western Slope.

    Now I know this doesn't really address the point you were trying to make, but that's wrong too.
    The title of the forum specifically says Summit County and this is where Summit County is discussed. You won't see mention of Summit in the Western Slope forum. To name the forum Front Range is kinda misleading but that's why they list the areas it covers.
    Last edited by Lelandjt; 07-22-2015 at 07:07 PM.
    Keep the Country country.

  131. #131
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    The title of the forum specifically says Summit County and this is where Summit County is discussed. You won't see mention of Summit in the Western Slope forum. To name the forum Front Range is kinda misleading but that's why the list the areas it covers.
    Wow, you're right! Mtbr does list Summit and Winter Park as Front Range!

    Guess what genius? Both of those places are on the Western Slope.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  132. #132
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    Wow, you're right! Mtbr does list Summit and Winter Park as Front Range!

    Guess what genius? Both of those places are on the Western Slope.
    I can't tell if you're sarcastically calling me "genius" as if I don't know where I've lived for half my life or you're being critical of MTBR for how they split the state. They probably had their reasons (like Summit & Winter Park are a short drive from Denver and a lot of Front Ranger ride up here). Regardless, even the Front Range proper is a large area that covers a lot of different riding spots besides JeffCo & Boulder. People in here sometimes forget that when discussing trail stuff and only think of their regular riding spots. I thought this discussion was worth participating in because most of the people posting in here will ride Breck this summer and I just overheard a conversation in my shop between a coworker and local customer about yielding to (clearly out of town) descenders only to have them stop and insist that the climber proceed because "that's the rule". I've also experienced this and every time I'm nearly certain it was a Front Ranger.
    Keep the Country country.

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    175
    Here's an example of an encounter I had at 3 Sisters. Didn't even know the fellow. If you're on here, sorry about the soaked gloves. I'm a profuse sweater.


    (looks like my phone doesn't show the video link)
    '16 Yeti SB6c - spruced up a bit
    (on the way: Guerrilla Gravity Pedalhead)

  134. #134
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by MisledYouth View Post
    Here's an example of an encounter I had at 3 Sisters. Didn't even know the fellow. If you're on here, sorry about the soaked gloves. I'm a profuse sweater.


    (looks like my phone doesn't show the video link)
    :highfive:

    right on.

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    665
    Here's a handy tutorial. Trail Etiquette | Boulder Mountainbike Alliance

    It sure would be nice if all bike shops handed out something like this when selling or renting bikes.

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by MisledYouth View Post
    Here's an example of an encounter I had at 3 Sisters. Didn't even know the fellow. If you're on here, sorry about the soaked gloves. I'm a profuse sweater.


    (looks like my phone doesn't show the video link)
    meh.. you could've just thrown a whip over his slow ass

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    and hand the downhiller a beer while you're at it!

    https://ev1.pinkbike.org/data/photos...Sterl_Hart.gif

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    Mmm no, not really.

    You've picked open a scabbed over peeve of mine about mtbr, and to a greater extent the newer and clue-less-er CO residency.

    The Colorado Front Range is a colloquial geographic term for the most populous region of the state of Colorado in the United States. The area is located just east of the foothills of the Front Range, aligned in a north-south configuration on the western edge of the Great Plains, where they meet the Rockies. We're talking about the metroplex that starts with Fort Collins to the north and either Colorado Springs or Pueblo to the south.

    I don't include Pueblo, because the term Front Range came from the fact that this area is on the east slope of the mountain range starting from the Indian Peaks near the Wyo border and ending at, well, Pikes Peak. Pueblo is a prairie town, the mountains are pretty far away unless you count the Wets, and they are foothills really. Also the Front Range is characterized as being the population center of CO, and Pueblo really hasn't grown much since the 50s.

    Anyhoo! The Front Range has way more than half the people in the state, but not nearly half the state's land.

    The other Colorado Forum, Western Slope, does not pick up the other half. The western slope is defined very simply. It's the land west of the continental divide.

    I live in Salida. Not Front Range, not Western Slope. Limon has well-known great riding, but it is neither Front Range nor Western Slope.

    There's a metric sh!t-ton of land in CO that isn't either Front Range or Western Slope.

    Now I know this doesn't really address the point you were trying to make, but that's wrong too.
    why are you mad, bro??

    You patrol this forum hardcore. Do you WANT them to make it front range only?
    Then you'd have no one to talk to b/c you live in the middle of nowhere and probably never see other riders on your local trails...

    btw, here's a question for you:

    if you're riding uphill, and you see a bear coming downhill, do you: a) yield, b) keep going b/c you have some 'right' of way, or c) hi-five that bear and hand it a beer?

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    and hand the downhiller a beer while you're at it!

    https://ev1.pinkbike.org/data/photos...Sterl_Hart.gif
    I expected this to be a GIF of downliller grabbing a beer mid-jump and drinking it. Instead it was just some knob completely wasting a beer.

    This proves everything you think is cool and right, is lame and wrong.

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs View Post
    I expected this to be a GIF of downliller grabbing a beer mid-jump and drinking it. Instead it was just some knob completely wasting a beer.

    This proves everything you think is cool and right, is lame and wrong.
    haha... you know: that's what I was trying to find, but I wasn't successful, just like your attempts to pass other riders on the trail lololol #roflcopter

  141. #141
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm925 View Post
    why are you mad, bro??

    You patrol this forum hardcore. Do you WANT them to make it front range only?
    Then you'd have no one to talk to b/c you live in the middle of nowhere and probably never see other riders on your local trails...

    btw, here's a question for you:

    if you're riding uphill, and you see a bear coming downhill, do you: a) yield, b) keep going b/c you have some 'right' of way, or c) hi-five that bear and hand it a beer?
    I come from a multi-generational Colorado family. The term Western Slope was explained to me when I was like 5. I know Colorado's place names, its history, and I've seen pretty much every part of the state. But I grew up in the midwest, so I have some insight into what it was like to come to live here as an outsider.

    Lots of new people are coming here, and they don't know sh!t. They make assumptions, or learn things from other newcomers, and pretty soon some things are forgotten entirely and others are gotten wrong. Like what mtbr did when they decide how to partition the state and name the partitions. They published misinformation, and now clue-less goobs like yourself believe it. And don't care if they're wrong!

    I'm not mad, more like disgusted. This country is becoming full of people who are ignorant, but think their opinions are as important as the people who actually know things. They don't think about things like ethics and dismiss the opinions of people who do.

    So for example, they dismiss a rule for conduct on the trails that's based on ethics in favor of one based on maximizing their own pleasure.

    Get off my yard.

    I did say way before in this thread that the yielding thing isn't really my personal issue, but it has been. I rode all those same trails you folks do 25 years ago, and we were working on this same issue. Even then there were d-bags that wouldn't yield amazingly enough, even though we all rode rigid bikes with triples. We saw clearly then as I do now, that rudeness and dangerous behavior are a threat to land access and therefore to the sport.

    I do ride in the middle of nowhere, especially during summer. I often see bears. I have never once felt even a hint of fear when I saw one. They don't want to eat us. They might swat us if we're trying to keep them from a dumpster or pic-a-nic basket, but that's never the situation when I see them.

    If I saw a bear coming down the trail toward me, I'd stop and get out my camera and hope I got a chance to snap a photo before he saw me and took off for the horizon. Because out in the wild, that's what they do. As soon as they become aware of the presence of people they take off. And those fsckers can run! They're a blur when they move past.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  142. #142
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    I come from a multi-generational Colorado family. The term Western Slope was explained to me when I was like 5. I know Colorado's place names, its history, and I've seen pretty much every part of the state. But I grew up in the midwest, so I have some insight into what it was like to come to live here as an outsider.

    Lots of new people are coming here, and they don't know sh!t. They make assumptions, or learn things from other newcomers, and pretty soon some things are forgotten entirely and others are gotten wrong. Like what mtbr did when they decide how to partition the state and name the partitions. They published misinformation, and now clue-less goobs like yourself believe it. And don't care if they're wrong!

    I'm not mad, more like disgusted. This country is becoming full of people who are ignorant, but think their opinions are as important as the people who actually know things. They don't think about things like ethics and dismiss the opinions of people who do.

    So for example, they dismiss a rule for conduct on the trails that's based on ethics in favor of one based on maximizing their own pleasure.

    Get off my yard.

    I did say way before in this thread that the yielding thing isn't really my personal issue, but it has been. I rode all those same trails you folks do 25 years ago, and we were working on this same issue. Even then there were d-bags that wouldn't yield amazingly enough, even though we all rode rigid bikes with triples. We saw clearly then as I do now, that rudeness and dangerous behavior are a threat to land access and therefore to the sport.

    I do ride in the middle of nowhere, especially during summer. I often see bears. I have never once felt even a hint of fear when I saw one. They don't want to eat us. They might swat us if we're trying to keep them from a dumpster or pic-a-nic basket, but that's never the situation when I see them.

    If I saw a bear coming down the trail toward me, I'd stop and get out my camera and hope I got a chance to snap a photo before he saw me and took off for the horizon. Because out in the wild, that's what they do. As soon as they become aware of the presence of people they take off. And those fsckers can run! They're a blur when they move past.
    Somebody needs a HUG!


  143. #143
    Chronic 1st-timer
    Reputation: lubes17319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,432
    How I imagine the result of Tom P encountering a bear on trail.
    Trailwrecker at large

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    I come from a multi-generational Colorado family. The term Western Slope was explained to me when I was like 5. I know Colorado's place names, its history, and I've seen pretty much every part of the state. But I grew up in the midwest, so I have some insight into what it was like to come to live here as an outsider.

    Lots of new people are coming here, and they don't know sh!t. They make assumptions, or learn things from other newcomers, and pretty soon some things are forgotten entirely and others are gotten wrong. Like what mtbr did when they decide how to partition the state and name the partitions. They published misinformation, and now clue-less goobs like yourself believe it. And don't care if they're wrong!

    I'm not mad, more like disgusted. This country is becoming full of people who are ignorant, but think their opinions are as important as the people who actually know things. They don't think about things like ethics and dismiss the opinions of people who do.

    So for example, they dismiss a rule for conduct on the trails that's based on ethics in favor of one based on maximizing their own pleasure.

    Get off my yard.

    I did say way before in this thread that the yielding thing isn't really my personal issue, but it has been. I rode all those same trails you folks do 25 years ago, and we were working on this same issue. Even then there were d-bags that wouldn't yield amazingly enough, even though we all rode rigid bikes with triples. We saw clearly then as I do now, that rudeness and dangerous behavior are a threat to land access and therefore to the sport.

    I do ride in the middle of nowhere, especially during summer. I often see bears. I have never once felt even a hint of fear when I saw one. They don't want to eat us. They might swat us if we're trying to keep them from a dumpster or pic-a-nic basket, but that's never the situation when I see them.

    If I saw a bear coming down the trail toward me, I'd stop and get out my camera and hope I got a chance to snap a photo before he saw me and took off for the horizon. Because out in the wild, that's what they do. As soon as they become aware of the presence of people they take off. And those fsckers can run! They're a blur when they move past.
    Name:  52401463.jpg
Views: 382
Size:  50.7 KB

  145. #145
    SS Chimp
    Reputation: 32x18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by Veruca Salt View Post
    And this is why the ladies love Tom P.
    Veruca again? Maybe the FRF isn't the shithole I thought it was. Bringing back the 2000's!!!
    all single...all the time

  146. #146
    SS Chimp
    Reputation: 32x18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by 32x18 View Post
    Veruca again? Maybe the FRF isn't the shithole I thought it was. Bringing back the 2000's!!!
    Oh wait...it was a shitshow back then too!

    TomP for President!!!!!!!!!
    all single...all the time

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69erEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    701
    Some of ya'll need to put in your manpon and read this article

    9 Ways to Get Relief from PMS | Women's Health Magazine
    99% of the problems and questions posted here would be answered if people actually walked into a bicycle shop and asked

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by 69erEverything View Post
    Some of ya'll need to put in your manpon and read this article

    9 Ways to Get Relief from PMS | Women's Health Magazine
    Did you really post the same reply in two separate threads? People really do this?...

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69erEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggs View Post
    Did you really post the same reply in two separate threads? People really do this?...
    First, I'm not a person. Secondly, it was a mistake but then I remembered that both threads are pretty much the same people arguing about the same thing.

    Think of it as a glitch in the matrix.
    99% of the problems and questions posted here would be answered if people actually walked into a bicycle shop and asked

  150. #150
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by 32x18 View Post
    Veruca again? Maybe the FRF isn't the shithole I thought it was. Bringing back the 2000's!!!
    I approve of this message. And it was nothing but awesome riding with her this morning. Chick is badass. \m/ {>_<} \m/ <-- (shamelessly stolen emoticon)

  151. #151
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    I just overheard a conversation in my shop between a coworker and local customer about yielding to (clearly out of town) descenders only to have them stop and insist that the climber proceed because "that's the rule". I've also experienced this and every time I'm nearly certain it was a Front Ranger.
    This is funny on a number of levels. First, the descender is an idiot, because while it is the rule (or custom, or etiquette or whatever), it is always trumped by the rule of what two consenting trail users do is fine. I often yield to downhillers, because I like going fast downhill too. The only times I don't are when I'm really in a climbing groove or I'm somewhere that would be difficult to start back up were I to stop. And when I yield to the downhiller, he sure as sh*t should continue blazing down and not stop to tell me I'm wrong.

    But second, you assume that it was a front ranger every time (based on what, your disdain for the practice and your disdain for front rangers?), as if these customs are purely a front range creation, and the way you use the phrase front ranger practically oozes with disdain. Well, many "front rangers" weren't always so, many of us lived all over the state. Sure, in more remote places the rule/custom/etiquette isn't needed nearly as much, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I lived on the Western Slope for many years, and the same trail rules have always applied.

    And FWIW, TomP, "Western Slope" may have a technical definition, sure, but I doubt most people consider Summit Cty or Winter Park as part of the "western slope", get over your pedantic definitions.

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,043
    I'm old school. I yield to uphill riders. It is nice when a few uphill riders pull over and wave you on though. It's just the nice thing to do. I try not to be a jackass...too many out there and they don't need their ranks bolstered.

  153. #153
    SS Chimp
    Reputation: 32x18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by TVC15 View Post
    I approve of this message. And it was nothing but awesome riding with her this morning. Chick is badass. \m/ {>_<} \m/ <-- (shamelessly stolen emoticon)
    You mean to tell me that Veruca is not a fat, balding dude? Have I been wrong all these years?
    all single...all the time

  154. #154
    SS Chimp
    Reputation: 32x18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    "Western Slope" may have a technical definition, sure, but I doubt most people consider Summit Cty or Winter Park as part of the "western slope", get over your pedantic definitions.
    If my wizz, assuming I could wizz a river, ends up in the Pacific it's the Western Slope pedantically speaking.
    all single...all the time

  155. #155
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    ... And FWIW, TomP, "Western Slope" may have a technical definition, sure, but I doubt most people consider Summit Cty or Winter Park as part of the "western slope", get over your pedantic definitions.
    I know what "most people consider". That's the problem, but yeah, it's my problem.

    Go ahead, keep being most people. Nobody expects more from you.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    I'm not mad, more like disgusted. This country is becoming full of people who are ignorant, but think their opinions are as important as the people who actually know things. They don't think about things like ethics and dismiss the opinions of people who do.
    I could not possibly agree more!

    The Death of Expertise

  157. #157
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Quote Originally Posted by 32x18 View Post
    You mean to tell me that Veruca is not a fat, balding dude? Have I been wrong all these years?
    Very.

    She's tiny and blonde and strong as an ox. A very cute ox.

  158. #158
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by 32x18 View Post
    If my wizz, assuming I could wizz a river, ends up in the Pacific it's the Western Slope pedantically speaking.
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    I know what "most people consider". That's the problem, but yeah, it's my problem.

    Go ahead, keep being most people. Nobody expects more from you.
    The problem is, then, that we as a people use the term Western Slope to denote far too many things. By your pedantic definition, it only relates to water. As a water attorney, I can dig that, and I can surely live with that definition (because it's quite meaningful in the context of water). But it's used in so many other ways to mean many other things, and the water definition just doesn't work. For example, it's used extensively as a political region, "the Western Slope vs. the Front Range". Well, that makes no sense if Summit and Grand County are formalistically part of the Western Slope, because they're most certainly part of the Front Range "orbit", protestations of Lelandjt being included in the Front Range notwithstanding.

    Language changes, and is used in many different ways over time. Western Slope is used as convenient shorthand in many discussions, and that usage is worthless under your narrow definition. You can shake your cane at all those people and shout at them to get off your lawn, but your sense of superiority over your usage is most certainly not warranted.

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    And FWIW, TomP, "Western Slope" may have a technical definition, sure, but I doubt most people consider Summit Cty or Winter Park as part of the "western slope", get over your pedantic definitions.
    Why would you oppose truth and understanding?

  160. #160
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,141
    And FFS, if you feel strongly enough to give me a negative rep for a post I made, at least be man enough to say why.

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69erEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by TVC15 View Post
    Very.

    She's tiny and blonde and strong as an ox. A very cute ox.
    Bring back JennyJo please
    99% of the problems and questions posted here would be answered if people actually walked into a bicycle shop and asked

  162. #162
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Grom Redman View Post
    Why would you oppose truth and understanding?
    why is your truth and your understanding the universal one?

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69erEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by Grom Redman View Post
    Why would you oppose truth and understanding?
    Salida, Breckenridge, and Winter Park are simply second home locations for Front Rangers. Locals are there to serve the needs of second home owners therefore they are part of the Front Range forum. Simple.
    99% of the problems and questions posted here would be answered if people actually walked into a bicycle shop and asked

  164. #164
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by 69erEverything View Post
    Salida, Breckenridge, and Winter Park are simply second home locations for Front Rangers. Locals are there to serve the needs of second home owners therefore they are part of the Front Range forum. Simple.

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    why is your truth and your understanding the universal one?
    I took a law class before I decided it was for lizards. I prefer engineering.

    I'm not vested in the answer. I only care about exposing information. Why do you protest details? Sometimes they matter. As a lawyer, you should be fully aware that you can legally screw people for missing a comma.

    Use any form of pedantic again and I'll have to assume it's your dictionary word of the day. Cheers!

  166. #166
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    She's too busy for this nonsense.

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69erEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by TVC15 View Post
    She's too busy for this nonsense.
    OK but tell her to update her blog.
    99% of the problems and questions posted here would be answered if people actually walked into a bicycle shop and asked

  168. #168
    MFin' Princess
    Reputation: TVC15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,488
    Will do!

  169. #169
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Grom Redman View Post
    I took a law class before I decided it was for lizards. I prefer engineering.

    I'm not vested in the answer. I only care about exposing information. Why do you protest details? Sometimes they matter. As a lawyer, you should be fully aware that you can legally screw people for missing a comma.

    Use any form of pedantic again and I'll have to assume it's your dictionary word of the day. Cheers!
    Of course details matter. And I work with lots of water engineers by the way, and they'd say I'm not a lizard; we get along just fine. But I digress. When the Denver Post discusses a (non-water) conflict between the Western Slope and the Front Range, what two groups/regions/political interests do you think they are discussing? Do you cling to the (now-antiquated) pedantic -- oops, I mean technical -- usage of purely water, even if that is not the political division being discussed, and then complain about how the article has many inaccuracies? or do you accept that the article is using the term differently, and if that one "inaccuracy" is accepted as a now-accurate usage, the remainder of the article makes sense? Who, then, is ignoring the details? You, for taking the former position, or me, for taking the latter? So again, why is your truth and your understanding the universal one?

    And sorry if the big words scare you, I'll try to dumb it down next time and use small words.

  170. #170
    SS Chimp
    Reputation: 32x18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    For example, it's used extensively as a political region, "the Western Slope vs. the Front Range". Well, that makes no sense if Summit and Grand County are formalistically part of the Western Slope, because they're most certainly part of the Front Range "orbit"
    By "orbit" do you mean that Summit and Grand County should be considered part of the Front Range because they are frequented by people from the Front Range more often than other counties that are on the west of the Continental Divide? Because the counties political concerns are more aligned with those of the Front Range? The Front Range is a sub-region of the Eastern Slope. Perhaps we should get a East Slope, West Slope argument fired up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    Language changes, and is used in many different ways over time. Western Slope is used as convenient shorthand in many discussions, and that usage is worthless under your narrow definition. You can shake your cane at all those people and shout at them to get off your lawn, but your sense of superiority over your usage is most certainly not warranted.
    I feel no sense of superiority based on the correct usage of the term. If you choose to muddle the definition that is fine but it is crystal clear to me.
    all single...all the time

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    Of course details matter. And I work with lots of water engineers by the way, and they'd say I'm not a lizard; we get along just fine. But I digress. When the Denver Post discusses a (non-water) conflict between the Western Slope and the Front Range, what two groups/regions/political interests do you think they are discussing? Do you cling to the (now-antiquated) pedantic -- oops, I mean technical -- usage of purely water, even if that is not the political division being discussed, and then complain about how the article has many inaccuracies? or do you accept that the article is using the term differently, and if that one "inaccuracy" is accepted as a now-accurate usage, the remainder of the article makes sense? Who, then, is ignoring the details? You, for taking the former position, or me, for taking the latter? So again, why is your truth and your understanding the universal one?

    And sorry if the big words scare you, I'll try to dumb it down next time and use small words.
    Personally, I think they are discussing Denver vs Grand Junction. I think of the stuff in between as The Mountains

    BTW, I really enjoy interacting with sesquipedalians but prefer if they vary the words.

    And I apologize for the term lizard. Law is just not me and that is the term I attached long ago. IRL, I get along with everyone... it's uncanny

  172. #172
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by 32x18 View Post
    By "orbit" do you mean that Summit and Grand County should be considered part of the Front Range because they are frequented by people from the Front Range more often than other counties that are on the west of the Continental Divide? Because the counties political concerns are more aligned with those of the Front Range? The Front Range is a sub-region of the Eastern Slope. Perhaps we should get a East Slope, West Slope argument fired up.



    I feel no sense of superiority based on the correct usage of the term. If you choose to muddle the definition that is fine but it is crystal clear to me.
    Fair questions. As for me muddling the definition, well, it ain't me. I'm merely recognizing that the definitions that some of you seem to cling to have been greatly muddled already. For example, this very forum description that started this whole thing. Plus, a quick perusal of news stories will also show that muddled definition. Now, I can be grampa simpson and yell at a cloud, but the reality on the ground is that the water-specific definition is not adhered to by a vast majority of folks. And at some point, when that muddled usage becomes so commonplace, at some point, it also simply becomes the new meaning. Again, it's not me, and I don't really care, I'm just recognizing the fact and not railing against it.

    As for the first, well, I knew when I wrote that I might have to explain it. Basically, many front rangers are property owners in those counties, many front rangers spend a significant amount of time in those communities, and those communities rely on front range dollars to a huge extent. I do also think that those communities tend to be somewhat politically aligned with the front range, but the connections extend beyond politics. Friendships and regular connections are much more likely to exist between front rangers and grand/summit countiers, Basically, there's a web of connection -- economically, politically, personally -- that doesn't exist when you go much further out.

    And it goes both directions. When someone in Summit or Grand County wants to see a concert, go to a museum, or needs to get shopping done that they can't do online or in town, where do they go? When they need to fly? When I lived in Durango, I didn't drive to the Front Range to do any of that crap, but people in Summit/Grand, well? The further out you get (Eagle County is kind of the cusp, IMO), they stop looking to the Front Range as the regular place to go for those things.

    Anyone who says that Summit County is more aligned with Grand Junction than the Front Range is fooling themselves. I will admit that some of my perspective is fueled by my time in Durango. No way was Summit part of the Western Slope to me when I lived there. When I traveled to Summit, I felt like I had in some ways entered the Front Range, I could just feel it (some might say I could smell the stink of it ).

  173. #173
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Grom Redman View Post
    Personally, I think they are discussing Denver vs Grand Junction. I think of the stuff in between as The Mountains
    That's exactly it, same here.

    And thanks for the apology.

  174. #174
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Grom Redman View Post
    Personally, I think they are discussing Denver vs Grand Junction. I think of the stuff in between as The Mountains
    Ditto
    You would think the word "slope" would help them figure that out.

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    That's exactly it, same here.

    And thanks for the apology.
    It would fit this thread, and be hilarious, if someone corrected me by saying the mountains are called the "High Country"

  176. #176
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Grom Redman View Post
    It would fit this thread, and be hilarious, if someone corrected me by saying the mountains are called the "High Country"


    We haven't even opened the can of worms that is the San Luis Valley. The fine folks living in Del Norte might be upset to know that they're not members of the Western Slope but the folks living in Breckenridge are!

  177. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation: B-Raaten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    17
    Wow, I feel ashamed I actually spent time reading this thread. I'm not quite sure what I learned, but I'll wait for someone to tell me. Oh wait, I have choices and I'll choose to go ride bikes (while using my version of common sense).

  178. #178
    Trail Bomber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    253
    Shut up and yield. If you don't want to stop RIDE A DAMN RESORT. It is NOT rocket science.
    2019 Knolly Fugitive LT
    2016 Specialized Fuse
    2013 Raleigh RX

  179. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    NEVAH!!!! \m/

  180. #180
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    You assume that it was a front ranger every time (based on what?)
    29er hardtails with short forks and pinner tires. Not many Summit residents ride that setup. Also, not recognizing them (it's a small town and I often recognize riders I pass). In addition, it's pretty common up here for a climber to yield if they see the descender first and these riders' surprise at that indicates they don't ride here often. Finally, I've never been anywhere else where people so rigidly apply this rule as the Front Range so combined with the above it's easy to guess where they're from.

    Don't worry too much about the "disdain" you read into the term "Front Rangers". It's just how country folk refer to city folk in this state. Better than being called a "Texan", right?
    Keep the Country country.

  181. #181
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by 69erEverything View Post
    Salida, Breckenridge, and Winter Park are simply second home locations for Front Rangers. Locals are there to serve the needs of second home owners therefore they are part of the Front Range forum. Simple.
    ^Truth. We don't like being reminded we're servants but it is what it is. Beats digging in the dirt for money like you had to 100 years ago if you wanted to live up here.
    Keep the Country country.

  182. #182
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    29er hardtails with short forks and pinner tires. Not many Summit residents ride that setup. Also, not recognizing them (it's a small town and I often recognize riders I pass). In addition, it's pretty common up here for a climber to yield if they see the descender first and these riders' surprise at that indicates they don't ride here often. Finally, I've never been anywhere else where people so rigidly apply this rule as the Front Range so combined with the above it's easy to guess where they're from.

    Don't worry too much about the "disdain" you read into the term "Front Rangers". It's just how country folk refer to city folk in this state. Better than being called a "Texan", right?
    Not sure I'd agree with your assessment of what Summit residents ride and most people I know and ride with yield - as in come to a stop - for the climber. Even the shuttlers on Barney Ford and the Aspen Forest seem to have gotten that message.

  183. #183
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Not sure I'd agree with your assessment of what Summit residents ride and most people I know and ride with yield - as in come to a stop - for the climber. Even the shuttlers on Barney Ford and the Aspen Forest seem to have gotten that message.
    Sure I see XC bikes at the races but 99% of what our customers bring in and what I see on the trail are mid-travel bikes with big tires.
    Today I was descending Aspen Alley and had a climber see me from a switchback below (right near the bottom). He stopped and called out "go ahead" before he even came into my view. I thanked him as I went by and was grateful to get a clean run. If he hadn't done that I would have stopped or slowed way down but I'd have been bummed since I had a heater of a run going. Yes, I KOMed it, bring the hate.
    Keep the Country country.

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    I come from a multi-generational Colorado family. The term Western Slope was explained to me when I was like 5. I know Colorado's place names, its history, and I've seen pretty much every part of the state. But I grew up in the midwest, so I have some insight into what it was like to come to live here as an outsider.

    Lots of new people are coming here, and they don't know sh!t. They make assumptions, or learn things from other newcomers, and pretty soon some things are forgotten entirely and others are gotten wrong. Like what mtbr did when they decide how to partition the state and name the partitions. They published misinformation, and now clue-less goobs like yourself believe it. And don't care if they're wrong!
    WOW seems like someone needs a time out

    by the way buddy I'm the typical jackazz from the east coast who came and invaded your great state, I do my best to be a complete dick just like a typical east coaster, heck it was a total accident that I moved here too, aren't you lucky

    guess the multi generational card carrying coloradans should be giving all of us new comers a test to see if we are worthy to live here

    I guess I do concider myself lucky to have grown up where I did, it was alittle more enlightening of a place than hicksville colorado, i was exposed to lots more stuff as a kid than some one from say littleton, I just got lucky and made an off the hand desision and moved here

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by 69erEverything View Post
    Salida, Breckenridge, and Winter Park are simply second home locations for Front Rangers. Locals are there to serve the needs of second home owners therefore they are part of the Front Range forum. Simple.
    sure dude maybe you should grab your man card and come hang out with me, been setting concrete forms and tying rebar all week a couple days it was ankel deep mud

    I can show you what its like to be someones (servent) as I was bent over in the rain this week I realised that the crack head drunks I was working with seemed like better people than the average mtbr member they don't seem to worried about their hands or back hurting or if someone didn't yeild to them on the trail or say hi

    so if anyone wants to work today I can get you hired onto the crew 8 hrs in the sun will hurt you and then sat we'll do a 10 hr mtb ride and then I'll hand out man cards to anyone who can handle all that work and bike riding

  186. #186
    Diggity Dog
    Reputation: ShinDiggity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by ripper roo View Post
    sure dude maybe you should grab your man card and come hang out with me, been setting concrete forms and tying rebar all week a couple days it was ankel deep mud

    I can show you what its like to be someones (servent) as I was bent over in the rain this week I realised that the crack head drunks I was working with seemed like better people than the average mtbr member they don't seem to worried about their hands or back hurting or if someone didn't yeild to them on the trail or say hi

    so if anyone wants to work today I can get you hired onto the crew 8 hrs in the sun will hurt you and then sat we'll do a 10 hr mtb ride and then I'll hand out man cards to anyone who can handle all that work and bike riding
    My goodness someone needs a hug!

    I'll make sure to get out of your way if we ever meet on the trail as your sheer manliness will be evident well before you are in sight. Whether going up or down it won't matter as you will have the right of way.

    You're a legend in your own mind for sure.

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinDiggity View Post
    My goodness someone needs a hug!

    I'll make sure to get out of your way if we ever meet on the trail as your sheer manliness will be evident well before you are in sight. Whether going up or down it won't matter as you will have the right of way.

    You're a legend in your own mind for sure.
    I'd Just probably mistake all that rugged manliness for a bear on the trail, in which case, I'd totally yield for you bro

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69erEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    701
    Ripper roo is ultraromance's twin. I've seen him.
    99% of the problems and questions posted here would be answered if people actually walked into a bicycle shop and asked

  189. #189
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by 69erEverything View Post
    Ripper roo is ultraromance's twin. I've seen him. https://yonderjournal.com/wp-content...-1280x1024.jpg
    You got Rip all wrong. Underneath the troll is a cuddly pooch who loves kids

    https://blog.breckenridge.com/wp-con...ck_HighRes.jpg

  190. #190
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,555
    Quote Originally Posted by ripper roo View Post
    sure dude maybe you should grab your man card and come hang out with me, been setting concrete forms and tying rebar all week a couple days it was ankel deep mud

    I can show you what its like to be someones (servent) as I was bent over in the rain this week I realised that the crack head drunks I was working with seemed like better people than the average mtbr member they don't seem to worried about their hands or back hurting or if someone didn't yeild to them on the trail or say hi

    so if anyone wants to work today I can get you hired onto the crew 8 hrs in the sun will hurt you and then sat we'll do a 10 hr mtb ride and then I'll hand out man cards to anyone who can handle all that work and bike riding
    "All that work and bike riding".

    That's giggle-worthy. I'll eat your soul.
    Death from Below.

  191. #191
    West Chester, PA
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    29er hardtails with short forks and pinner tires. Not many Summit residents ride that setup. Also, not recognizing them (it's a small town and I often recognize riders I pass). In addition, it's pretty common up here for a climber to yield if they see the descender first and these riders' surprise at that indicates they don't ride here often. Finally, I've never been anywhere else where people so rigidly apply this rule as the Front Range so combined with the above it's easy to guess where they're from.

    Don't worry too much about the "disdain" you read into the term "Front Rangers". It's just how country folk refer to city folk in this state. Better than being called a "Texan", right?
    I got scolded yesterday at Buffalo creek by a guy that fits your description perfectly. Apparently he didn't realize my east coast ass was already getting off the bike before he turned the corner, because I was sucking wind big time. He says "nobody told you to stop!"

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Well, you're all wrong about the regions of Colorado. Front Range and Western Slope are both colloquialisms. That's alright, though, because it's easier than saying you're from one of the 7 physiographic regions of CO:Where does it say...Uphill has the right of way???-physiographic-provinces.jpg

    Regardless, uphill has the ROW unless, you know, circumstances.

  193. #193
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by 92gli View Post
    I got scolded yesterday at Buffalo creek by a guy that fits your description perfectly. Apparently he didn't realize my east coast ass was already getting off the bike before he turned the corner, because I was sucking wind big time. He says "nobody told you to stop!"
    So you were sucking wind while descending and stopped first but then the climber told you you shouldn't have stopped? That doesn't fit my description. I'm talking about being the climber, stopping, waving the descender on while saying "go ahead", then having the descender stop and tell me I have the right of way.
    Also, I don't see how somebody who fits my description would be caught riding Buff Creek in the middle of summer. That place is as XC as skin suits and soft tails and should be reserved for mud season.
    If I misunderstood your description of the situation reread your anecdote and consider how you could more clearly describe it.
    Keep the Country country.

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    It's harder to get back up to the speed you were going. It takes a hundred feet and a couple gear shifts to get back up to speed. A climber who was going 5mph can stop and start with no gear shifts and in a bike length. You don't have to be out of control to need some distance to come to a stop. If you're going 20-25mph on loose soil it's gonna take hard braking and some time to stop. I'm just pointing out where the "rule" came from, why it existed in the moto world, and why it doesn't make as much sense for MTBs. If two riders encounter each other and one can stop in a bike length, then get back up to the speed they were going in a bike length while the other needs 50-100ft to stop and another 50-100ft to get back up to speed who can more easily move aside? Doesn't it make sense for the person who can more easily yield to do it? That's why I alway yield on climbs. There's the added aspect of sound and visible motion. A downhiller riding fast can be heard while a climber is silent. From a distance through trees you more eaily see someone who's moving fast. When I'm climbing I can always hear and see a descender before they see me. I'm often foot down, leaning off the side of the trail already when they first notice me. If you forget that a different sport already had a yieding rule and that some random person applied it to MTB and instead use common sense when encountering another rider it makes it easy to decide what action to take.
    Spot on. Climbers should not EXPECT the downhill rider come to a complete stop. Most of the trails in the front range have the room for both to pass. I'm not advocating for a full speed downhill pass. I'm advocating for mtbr's to share the front range trails, uphill and down.

    And really, it only takes one pedal rotation and 3 feet of trail to return to climbing (most sections). If a rider is climbing lower CG switchbacks, obviously I'm going to stop (and watch). But if a rider is climbing (Ex: Falcon, LOTB, etc), know there is room for both to pass, don't expect a downhill rider to 100% stop.

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    Never even heard of Enchanted Forest. This isn't the JeffCo or Boulder forum. It encapsulates half the state. Plenty of us only ride on BLM or National Forest land. If you're riding downhill in the high country and a climber pulls over and waves you on please don't be one of those people who rolls up, stops 10ft away,and insists that they go. Instead scrub a little speed, cruise by on the opposite side of the trail, then return the favor next time you see a downhiller before they see you.
    Yup, always do...

  196. #196
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,519
    Should just reword the rule to specially say DH traffic should slow down to a safe speed, if that's the rule's main goal. People overreacting too much and creating senseless drama. Just need to be courteous.

    When I'm climbing, I expect the DHer to be a complete novice and get the F out of the way so I don't get hit. If they're not a novice, then I am impressed as I watch. When I'm going down myself, I know my own skill level and I know being on the brakes takes away from my control... I will yield if uphill traffic is continuing to climb, but if they stop, I will ride around them at a very conservative, smooth, and controlled pace. Who wants to see a crazy out of control rider skidding, just to stop, causing needless trail erosion (throwing up dust and/or fecal matter into the air for the bystanders to breathe in)? It doesn't make sense. If there's room, the skilled faster person should be avoiding the slower one.

  197. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    Was it wide enough that a pass was possible if both riders moved to the side of the trail? If not he should have stopped if you didn't stop first. If it was did you move to the side or "hold your line" in the middle? If the later let me ask you: If you approached someone on a sidewalk would you each move to opposite sides so you could pass without stopping or would you hold your line in the middle? How about if you're riding on a flat rail and encounter a rider?I realize everyone sees a downhiller who is reluctant to come to a complete stop as the selfish one but I don't see how a climber who doesn't make any effort to move over isn't being a jerk. I think the aforementioned mentality is purely due to someone at IMBA in 1990 (who probably rode very slowly on downhills and prided themselves on their climbing) telling climbers that they have the "right" to hold their line. They aren't a rule maker with any authority. If a downhiller had made the opposite delaration that wouldn't be any more a "rule".

    What works best is if people are observant, courteous, and use common sense.
    Yup, exactly. Share the trail people, uphill and down.

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    571
    All of you can eat my *******

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by bikebum View Post
    Most of the trails in the front range have the room for both to pass.
    Sadly this wasn't always the case. I can't put an exact year on it, but through the 1990's and early 2000's, most of our trails were still nice skinny singletrack. At some point, with the influx of morons moving here, every front range trial became a bloated mess.

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69erEverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    701
    Nope it was 29ers. They ruined everything.
    99% of the problems and questions posted here would be answered if people actually walked into a bicycle shop and asked

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 2

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.