Anyone have anything they'd like to rant about?

[toast2266]

I dunno, how it is set up now is not complicated at all. If you have to slow down for constant hikers/bikers, the problem is not the wrong right-of-way, the problem is trail is crowded and one asshole will always ruins everything in life. When the trail is too narrow for anyone to pass, that rule you hate is nice to have, because then everyone knows what to do.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, I've just never seen the rule as a big issue to care about. Even in overcrowded Park City where I ride and have to stop quite often. I used to ride in MT a lot like you, I guess I was really annoyed too moving to a crowded area but then I got used to it.

Just based on my occasional trips to more crowded places, I'm surprised there's not more segregation of users. Build bike only trails. Build hiker only trails. Maybe they're right next to each other and go to more or less the same place. That's fine.

The problem is just that there's too many people on the trails that exist. Trail building hasn't kept pace with usage, and management is behind the times too (in most places). Look at any survey of people in an "outdoorsy" area and trail amenities are almost always listed as a top priority. But funding and construction of those resources isn't anywhere close to what it needs to be. Even in [many of the] places that are building a lot of trail, the trails are still super crowded. And managers are still reluctant to shut a given user group out of a trail. They have this imagined utopia where multi-use trails work well and offer the most bang for the buck, when in reality it just makes the trail more crowded and a crappier experience for all users.

[Dantheman]

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, I've just never seen the rule as a big issue to care about. Even in overcrowded Park City where I ride and have to stop quite often. I used to ride in MT a lot like you, I guess I was really annoyed too moving to a crowded area but then I got used to it.

I think I can summarize and clarify toast's overall thesis with some local examples:

If you're trying to set a downhill KOM on Jenni's/Pinecone/etc., you're a jackass deserving of scorn and ridicule.

If you're climbing Black Forest/John's/Spin Cycle/etc., you're a jackass deserving of scorn and ridicule.

Just based on my occasional trips to more crowded places, I'm surprised there's not more segregation of users. Build bike only trails. Build hiker only trails. Maybe they're right next to each other and go to more or less the same place. That's fine.

Draper actually built a hiker/horse-only trail in Corner Canyon. It appears to barely get used.

Park City could make their trail system vastly better without lifting a finger by designating some trails up-only and down-only, but there appears to be no desire to do so.

[toast2266]

Draper actually built a hiker/horse-only trail in Corner Canyon. It appears to barely get used.

But it opens the door for them to build (or convert an existing trail) for bikes only. And then when the hikers inevitably bitch about it, they can point to the no-bikes trail.

[muted]

Just based on my occasional trips to more crowded places, I'm surprised there's not more segregation of users. Build bike only trails. Build hiker only trails. Maybe they're right next to each other and go to more or less the same place. That's fine.

The problem is just that there's too many people on the trails that exist. Trail building hasn't kept pace with usage, and management is behind the times too (in most places). Look at any survey of people in an "outdoorsy" area and trail amenities are almost always listed as a top priority. But funding and construction of those resources isn't anywhere close to what it needs to be. Even in [many of the] places that are building a lot of trail, the trails are still super crowded. And managers are still reluctant to shut a given user group out of a trail. They have this imagined utopia where multi-use trails work well and offer the most bang for the buck, when in reality it just makes the trail more crowded and a crappier experience for all users.

Makes sense, I agree.

I think I can summarize and clarify toast's overall thesis with some local examples:

If you're trying to set a downhill KOM on Jenni's/Pinecone/etc., you're a jackass deserving of scorn and ridicule.

If you're climbing Black Forest/John's/Spin Cycle/etc., you're a jackass deserving of scorn and ridicule.

I totally agree, but I was talking about hikers right-of-way specifically and if it's dumb or not. I do agree with 'preferred' direction of travel I've seen in some areas, it's nice.

[Canada1]

They have. But when you live on a trail that is suddenly directional, it sucks. Used to end and start every ride at my house, and now have to tie in other trails. It’s hard to manage these first world problems!

[EWG]

For what it's worth, in CO's front range I don't think I've ever had a problem with a hiker not stepping to the side. But that said, I've certainly seen my share of bitter access arguments in city meeting halls.

It's the horse riders that are occasionally a pain in the ass out on the trail. Most of them are wonderful, but every once in a while...

[Dantheman]

But it opens the door for them to build (or convert an existing trail) for bikes only. And then when the hikers inevitably bitch about it, they can point to the no-bikes trail.

There's actually several bike-only trails there already. While far from perfect, Draper "gets it" more than a lot of places do. I just think it's funny that they built this bike-less trail that connects to all the same places and makes for a way better hike than the multi-use trails, and no one uses it.

They have. But when you live on a trail that is suddenly directional, it sucks. Used to end and start every ride at my house, and now have to tie in other trails. It’s hard to manage these first world problems!

I assume Rob's is your issue. Yeah, that was weak since there's nothing else over there. It's emblematic of the half-assed approach they've taken. They've made some uphill designations, but haven't made anything downhill-only (Mojave doesn't count).

[joetron]

I think I can summarize and clarify toast's overall thesis with some local examples:

If you're trying to set a downhill KOM on Jenni's/Pinecone/etc., you're a jackass deserving of scorn and ridicule.

If you're climbing Black Forest/John's/Spin Cycle/etc., you're a jackass deserving of scorn and ridicule.



Draper actually built a hiker/horse-only trail in Corner Canyon. It appears to barely get used.

Park City could make their trail system vastly better without lifting a finger by designating some trails up-only and down-only, but there appears to be no desire to do so.

I do enjoy going mach loony on Pinecone and John's is a great climb. I tend to ride down Pinecone as the sun is setting so there are very few if any people climbing(and I jam on the stoppers if I see anybody - most of that trail has awesome sightlines; and I rarely see people on Johns, and know most of the folks I see riding that old jank.) I've only almost run someone over on Pinecone once, and it was YMJC, so that doesn't even count.

As far as the rest of the conversation goes - bikes are going faster than any other user and can inflict the most damage on another user, so we need to be the ones controlling our speed and yielding. Yielding doesn't necessarily mean a full stop, and Toast's anecdote of the 1% grumpy hiker is something most of us have encountered and will always be unreasonable. Yielding means slowing down, demonstrating control of your bike and giving the other user a moment to figure out what they're going to do...in my experience, most hikers do step over and make room if I haven't already managed to stop, put a foot on the upper embankment and waved them by with a smile. Its a nice, civil, human interaction...something we all could use more of. With a lot of riders, I'll stop and wave them by, or they stop and wave me by.

When I'm climbing, I tend to hold my line and keep riding, if the descending rider is in control and slowing, I'll shimmy over and give em some room. If its some 23 y.o. kook who just bought a $4k Santa Cruz but hasn't figured out how to actually ride it and is skidding in my direction or not braking at all, I'll hold my line, give em a holler and probably a little bump.

Think of it like this....mtn biking is exploding right now, bikes are absolutely amazing and allow newbies to ride a hell of a lot faster than many of us were able to regularly go in the 90s and 2000s. If this 'rule' about descending riders yielding to everyone else didn't exist, we'd have a bunch of yahoos bombing multi-use trails with the expectation that everyone is going to jump out of the way. The only entitlement that a hiker has in a situation like that is the entitlement to general safety, which is not outrageous. When I want to ride without the worry of constantly slowing for other users, I know where and when to go...its not particularly difficult.

[Dantheman]

Point of order, I didn't say riding down Pinecone makes one a jackass; I said riding down it like a jackass makes one a jackass. You're clearly not doing that.

Up John's though, hmmm, I almost feel obligated now to give it whirl and report back.

I feel like it's impossible for people not to talk past each other whenever this discussion comes around again.

[mtngirl79]

As far as the rest of the conversation goes - bikes are going faster than any other user and can inflict the most damage on another user, so we need to be the ones controlling our speed and yielding. Yielding doesn't necessarily mean a full stop, and Toast's anecdote of the 1% grumpy hiker is something most of us have encountered and will always be unreasonable. Yielding means slowing down, demonstrating control of your bike and giving the other user a moment to figure out what they're going to do...in my experience, most hikers do step over and make room if I haven't already managed to stop, put a foot on the upper embankment and waved them by with a smile. Its a nice, civil, human interaction...something we all could use more of. With a lot of riders, I'll stop and wave them by, or they stop and wave me by.

When I'm climbing, I tend to hold my line and keep riding, if the descending rider is in control and slowing, I'll shimmy over and give em some room. If its some 23 y.o. kook who just bought a $4k Santa Cruz but hasn't figured out how to actually ride it and is skidding in my direction or not braking at all, I'll hold my line, give em a holler and probably a little bump.

Think of it like this....mtn biking is exploding right now, bikes are absolutely amazing and allow newbies to ride a hell of a lot faster than many of us were able to regularly go in the 90s and 2000s. If this 'rule' about descending riders yielding to everyone else didn't exist, we'd have a bunch of yahoos bombing multi-use trails with the expectation that everyone is going to jump out of the way. The only entitlement that a hiker has in a situation like that is the entitlement to general safety, which is not outrageous. When I want to ride without the worry of constantly slowing for other users, I know where and when to go...its not particularly difficult.

This.

[toast2266]

As far as the rest of the conversation goes - bikes are going faster than any other user and can inflict the most damage on another user, so we need to be the ones controlling our speed and yielding.

Well, I'd argue horses have the potential to inflict the most damage on another trail user. But yet, per the rules, everyone else is obligated to get the fuck out of their way.

So why is it different for bikes? Why shouldn't everyone else have to make some effort to allow the fast moving user to pass? That's essentially just the trail equivalent of "slower traffic keep right," which is pretty much universally agreed to be a good rule: if you're going slow, get out of the way.

[TahoeJ]

You mean because horses weigh a shit ton and are scared of their own shadows?

We know the real answer: $$$$

[mtngirl79]

Well, I'd argue horses have the potential to inflict the most damage on another trail user. But yet, per the rules, everyone else is obligated to get the fuck out of their way.

So why is it different for bikes? Why shouldn't everyone else have to make some effort to allow the fast moving user to pass? That's essentially just the trail equivalent of "slower traffic keep right," which is pretty much universally agreed to be a good rule: if you're going slow, get out of the way.

Are you kidding?

A horse is most likely to get spooked, dump its rider and run away. You are pretty unlikely to get injured by another persons horse unless you go right up to it from behind.

The horse/rider is most vulnerable. It's harder for the horse to step off the trail in a lot of places. If the horse goes down, its likely to injure the rider.. etc, etc.

Most of the time, horses are walking just slightly faster than people walk.

It just makes sense for everyone to yield to horses, period.

Making the slower, and more vulnerable yield translates into "getting out of the way".

Its safer to require the user most likely and able to cause harm to another user to yield.

I cannot believe this is even a question. Multi use trails are kinda frustrating when they are crowded but there really isnt a better way when we have to share.

[mtngirl79]

You mean because horses weigh a shit ton and are scared of their own shadows?

We know the real answer: $$$$

No. Because horse riders were using the trails first and it isnt safe to expect a rider have their horse step off the trail and wait for a mountain bike to pass it at whatever speed the mountain bike feels is safe.

One jerk buzzing a horse and scaring it could cause issues that take months to fix. Horses are prey animals.

You might not like horses, but they have been using the trails for longer and your hatred and lack of understanding hurts access.

[Canada1]

When a horse falls down it can crush you or the rider. When scared they kick and can kill you. Buzzing a horse is like buzzing a moose only two lives are at risk. So for me, I yield to horses and moose.

[joetron]

So why is it different for bikes? Why shouldn't everyone else have to make some effort to allow the fast moving user to pass? That's essentially just the trail equivalent of "slower traffic keep right," which is pretty much universally agreed to be a good rule: if you're going slow, get out of the way.

Ok, let’s continue with this analogy. These roads are 1.5 lanes wide and bi-directional. I’ve got my new Porsche and want to rally the shit out of it, I just watched some rally videos on PinkCar and I’m fired up. I’m just gonna drive as fast as I can and bet that the nice old hippy lady who is out for a mellow drive in her VW is gonna steer into the ditch when I come screaming around the corner. There better not be any fuckin bikes in the goddamn road!! I’m going faster and I’m positive I’m having more fun.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[joetron]

Point of order, I didn't say riding down Pinecone makes one a jackass; I said riding down it like a jackass makes one a jackass. You're clearly not doing that.

Up John's though, hmmm, I almost feel obligated now to give it whirl and report back.

I feel like it's impossible for people not to talk past each other whenever this discussion comes around again.

Haha. I’m not jumping on you Dan, and my jackassery is definitely up for debate.
I highly recommend climbing Johns. When the thought of another drag race up Armstrong or the mind-numbing drudgery of Jenni’s is too much to bear (which is pretty much always), but they’re not hauling bikes on Crescent yet; climb the steeper, techy-er, shorter Johns. It also gets you right to the most options without cussing your way through the goddamn MM Gondola re-route. Or maybe that’s just me.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[toast2266]

Ok, let’s continue with this analogy. These roads are 1.5 lanes wide and bi-directional. I’ve got my new Porsche and want to rally the shit out of it, I just watched some rally videos on PinkCar and I’m fired up. I’m just gonna drive as fast as I can and bet that the nice old hippy lady who is out for a mellow drive in her VW is gonna steer into the ditch when I come screaming around the corner. There better not be any fuckin bikes in the goddamn road!! I’m going faster and I’m positive I’m having more fun.

Well that's not really the analogy, now is it? The law says the slower driver has to get out of the way, but that doesn't mean the faster driver gets to drive like an irresponsible asshole. It just means that, in order to create the most efficient flow of traffic, the obligation is put on the slowest driver to move over. Because it's a lot more logical to create a rule that says the slower driver has to move over than it is to create a rule that the faster driver has to speed up, slow down, move over, yield, speed up again, slow down again, try to make eye contact with the other drivers to figure out if they're going to yield to him because it's the courteous thing to do even though the rule says they don't have to, speed up again, slow down again, etc.

In your bi-directional 1.5 lane example: you're driving your Porsche at a reasonable speed, and you're not out-driving your brakes. A couple is walking side by side along the road towards you. You see them, and since you're in control, you'd have no problem stopping. Now, are you going to come to a complete stop and let them walk past? Or are you going to slow down a bit and expect them to drop into a single file line and walk on the edge of their lane, since that takes virtually no effort on their part and will allow everyone to pass each other efficiently and with minimal fuss?

[mtngirl79]

You are changing the rules.

Slow traffic stay right is when you have two lanes traveling the same direction.

With one lane, its pull over to allow others to pass when safe to do so.

On coming traffic is a completely different matter, but I believe etiquette while driving on one lane roads, downhill traffic is to yield to traffic going uphill because it's harder to start moving again on a steep hill.

Obviously people should be polite and reasonable and use common sense, but you just dont want anyone to get in your way ever.

[toast2266]

Obviously people should be polite and reasonable and use common sense, but you just dont want anyone to get in your way ever.

Not at all - I yield to other trail users quite a bit. Regardless of whether I have the right of way, if I'm in the best position to stop and get out of the way, then I do it. And I want everyone else to do the same.

Common sense works for me, you, and the majority of people we encounter on the trails. But there's a minority that can't handle operating on anything quite so vague, and thus we have rules. So the rules should just codify what's common sense. And I'm saying that the current rules don't do that.

[Dantheman]

It also gets you right to the most options without cussing your way through the goddamn MM Gondola re-route.

That's a hell of a point.

[Terrapin Ben]

Arguing for sake of arguing really grinds my gears. Like, what's the point? Go ski or something.

[bagtagley]

[mtngirl79]

Common sense works for me, you, and the majority of people we encounter on the trails. But there's a minority that can't handle operating on anything quite so vague, and thus we have rules. So the rules should just codify what's common sense. And I'm saying that the current rules don't do that.

So I'm grinding away on a local two directional climbing trail. You're coming down. Someone has to stop and move off the trail.

Who should it be?

[toast2266]

So I'm grinding away on a local two directional climbing trail. You're coming down. Someone has to stop and move off the trail.

Who should it be?

If it's a climbing trail, then me. Because I'm riding against the preferred direction of travel for that trail.