Anyone have anything they'd like to rant about?

[dcpnz]

^^completely disagree with your take on this toast.
Inevitable result of granting right of way to downhill traffic would be higher speeds, and collisions, injuries and probably deaths. Not a desirable scenario IMHO.
Just ride in control, slow down when necessary and put a foot down if you have to. It's not that hard. If you need to get your bro brah fix go to the lift serve bike park and shred to your heart's content.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[californiagrown]

There's no good reason for uphill riders not to yield. .

Ummmm, to not empower the kind of assholes who ride faster than their sightlines allow?

That is really the reason for "downhill yields"- so that dangerous riding faster than sight lines allow and putting the onus on the slower ascender to avoid collisions isnt legally condoned and codified. Hell, its common knowledge that downhill yields and you still have assholes blowing people off trails, you dont think it will be way, way worse when the rule followers amongst us start doing the same? The onus is placed on the faster user to avoid collisions as that is a good way to "force" them to stay in control. Otherwise they will be encouraged to ride on the edge of control making it much more dangerous for other trail users.

FWIW, i always yield to descending riders, unless im in the middle of a techy/punchy climb. Its the charitable thing to do and the easiest way to follow rule #1....

[toast2266]

^^completely disagree with your take on this toast.
Inevitable result of granting right of way to downhill traffic would be higher speeds, and collisions, injuries and probably deaths.

No, the inevitable result is directional trails, which is how it should be.

If uphill riders don't have the right of way, they'll ride up the dedicated climbs instead of trying to suffer their way up a good descent and ruining it for everyone.

[dcpnz]

No, the inevitable result is directional trails, which is how it should be.

If uphill riders don't have the right of way, they'll ride up the dedicated climbs instead of trying to suffer their way up a good descent and ruining it for everyone.

Are you serious?
You keep harping on this "ruining it for everyone" mantra. When your downhill jollies are more important than anyone else's safety you are part of the problem.
I'm all for directional trails but reality is they are relatively few and far between outside of bike parks. That is unlikely to change any time soon.

[skaredshtles]

No, the inevitable result is directional trails, which is how it should be.

If uphill riders don't have the right of way, they'll ride up the dedicated climbs instead of trying to suffer their way up a good descent and ruining it for everyone.

Yeah... but then you have to convince people what a "good descent" is... which is nigh on impossible here on the Front Range.

[rideit]

Apex/enchanted should be downhill only, bike only, every day, all year.
There, I said it. [/sarcasmfont]

[schuss]

No, the inevitable result is directional trails, which is how it should be.

If uphill riders don't have the right of way, they'll ride up the dedicated climbs instead of trying to suffer their way up a good descent and ruining it for everyone.

What if the trail networks don't have space? I agree that directional trails would be great, but it's just not feasible most places.

[toast2266]

I'm all for directional trails but reality is they are relatively few and far between outside of bike parks. That is unlikely to change any time soon.

That's just not true at all.

Everytime this stupid right of way discussion comes up, it's park city and front range people bitching about downhill riders interfering with their suffer fest because of "the rules."

Look at the Pacific Northwest or BC. Shitloads of trails. Shitloads of users. Lots of directional trails. Waaaaay less conflict.

There are obvious solutions that work well in many places. Or, alternatively, you can stick to doing the exact same thing and bitching on the internet about how people aren't following the rules that don't really work.

[toast2266]

What if the trail networks don't have space? I agree that directional trails would be great, but it's just not feasible most places.

A trail corridor is like 10' wide. There's space.

[rideit]

Look at the Pacific Northwest or BC. Shitloads of trails. Shitloads of users. Lots of directional trails. Waaaaay less conflict.

.

Yes…on *mostly* private or Crown lands. Hell will have to be a lot cooler before there are any significant new trails on Jeffco land, I would wager. (Wildlife management ‘safe zones’)

[ridinshockgun]

No, the inevitable result is directional trails, which is how it should be.

If uphill riders don't have the right of way, they'll ride up the dedicated climbs instead of trying to suffer their way up a good descent and ruining it for everyone.

This is only valid on purpose built, bike only trail systems and almost always results in dirt sidewalks being built for "climbing trails" or fire roads and then anything that is actually interesting to climb getting turned into downhill only. Of course if you don't virtually pave the climbing trail everyone complains because it is too hard. There is a solution here but it requires building more trails and actually building uphill trails that are interesting and challenging as well. But as soon as you build an uphill trail that is technical everyone says it should be downhill only because it has some roots and rocks on it.

I'm probably in the minority in that I like both - I love descending at high speeds on directional (and non-directional) trails and I really enjoy the challenge and workout of a technical climb. There have to be options for those who enjoy technical climbing, it isn't always just a "sufferfest" - it is a really fun challenge that to me is way better than "suffering" up a fire road or dirt sidewalk with 1000 switchbacks. I also will move over for descenders whenever possible or feasible (like 95% of the time).

On trails where there can also be hikers, or equestrians this isn't an issue to climb whatever you want because in theory the descenders need to be on the lookout for all users and under control.

[klauss]

round these parts, most of the trails with significant elevation delta are one way. I like that. On two way trails, I usually pull off for downhill riders as like toast says, it seems way more efficient for all involved.

[californiagrown]

Yes…on *mostly* private or Crown lands.

Yes logging company land and DNR land is where trails in WA get built... but also the downhill directional trails tend to be the kind that you cannot physically ride up. I.E. legit steep, with features. And the directional climbing trails tend to be real shitty to ride down ie flat corners, tighter undulations that would kill flow at speed, etc. Also, most of these trails are purpose built mtb trails, not repurposed multiuse trails, so the intended use (uphill, downhill, or both) is built into the trail.

IME conflict tends to happen on two-way rolling trails, or mellower trails that people can and do enjoy climbing.

[toast2266]

This is only valid on purpose built, bike only trail systems and almost always results in dirt sidewalks being built for "climbing trails" or fire roads and then anything that is actually interesting to climb getting turned into downhill only. Of course if you don't virtually pave the climbing trail everyone complains because it is too hard. There is a solution here but it requires building more trails and actually building uphill trails that are interesting and challenging as well. But as soon as you build an uphill trail that is technical everyone says it should be downhill only because it has some roots and rocks on it.

I'm probably in the minority in that I like both - I love descending at high speeds on directional (and non-directional) trails and I really enjoy the challenge and workout of a technical climb. There have to be options for those who enjoy technical climbing, it isn't always just a "sufferfest" - it is a really fun challenge that to me is way better than "suffering" up a fire road or dirt sidewalk with 1000 switchbacks. I also will move over for descenders whenever possible or feasible (like 95% of the time).

On trails where there can also be hikers, or equestrians this isn't an issue to climb whatever you want because in theory the descenders need to be on the lookout for all users and under control.

Agreed with all of that. I'm a big fan of techy climbs.

Doesn't need to be bike only though. Anything that's directional uphill will generally work fine with other users. Except for maybe horses, since those things don't play well with anyone. But that's a different discussion.

[Benneke10]

Everytime this stupid right of way discussion comes up, it's park city and front range people bitching about downhill riders interfering with their suffer fest because of "the rules."

As a bitching Park City rider, I'll emphasize that there are a bunch of DH-only trails that riders can go crazy on, but there are only a handful of trails suitable for climbing and its inconsiderate to bomb them at top speed.

[nickwm21]

Ahhhh…. The age old Debate….

I don’t like the phrasing of the rule: “Uphill gets right-of-way” or “downhill yields”.

It should be changed to say “uphill rider determines who yields”

There are plenty of situations where the uphill rider should pull over, but that should be a decision made by the uphill rider, not forced by a stravasshole careening down at them.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[mcski]

^this

[Lvovsky]

I don't understand why guys have to make cycling so competitive. I'm restless and it's always been a way to stay busy and be outside. I'm not super competitive and more internally driven but I hate that people I ride with whether it's MTN or Road have to ride as fast as they can? or average a certain speed or watts. Your not a pro , take a fucking chill pill.

They are not a pro hence have inferiority complex.

[One (+) Sentence]

I don’t like the phrasing of the rule: “Uphill gets right-of-way” or “downhill yields”.

It should be changed to say “uphill rider determines who yields”

Interesting. But, how exactly can we expect the uphill rider to make his/her intentions known? Should the descending rider keep going at full gas until told by the uphill rider that this time they’d like the right-of-way?

[rideit]

They are not a pro hence have inferiority complex.

Oh, I have known more than a few pro’s that excel at what they do due to precisely that.

[Sirshredalot]

As a bitching Park City rider, I'll emphasize that there are a bunch of DH-only trails that riders can go crazy on, but there are only a handful of trails suitable for climbing and its inconsiderate to bomb them at top speed.

The gapes bombing Jenny's downhill and failing to yield to climbing traffic and small children never take me up on the offer when I point out that they should just haul ass on Insurgent or NCS.

Come to think of it, I never see those guys on those trails, either.

How odd.

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

[Boissal]

The gapes bombing Jenny's downhill and failing to yield to climbing traffic and small children never take me up on the offer when I point out that they should just haul ass on Insurgent or NCS.

Come to think of it, I never see those guys on those trails, either.

Right? The fucking Brunis and Pierrons of the PC green trail seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that there are much better trails to prove their worth on... Not too hard hitting 25 mph on carpet, much scarier in blown out dusty trenches straight down the fall line. And what do you know, those trenches never see any uphill traffic or children either!

[ridinshockgun]

Right? The fucking Brunis and Pierrons of the PC green trail seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that there are much better trails to prove their worth on... Not too hard hitting 25 mph on carpet, much scarier in blown out dusty trenches straight down the fall line. And what do you know, those trenches never see any uphill traffic or children either!

We ride quite a few moto trails here (they are really, really good) - the motos like to come up the trails we like to bomb down. If you aren't ready to yield while descending you can be in for a really bad day.

[Dantheman]

Right? The fucking Brunis and Pierrons of the PC green trail seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that there are much better trails to prove their worth on... Not too hard hitting 25 mph on carpet, much scarier in blown out dusty trenches straight down the fall line. And what do you know, those trenches never see any uphill traffic or children either!

Bombing down Jenni's is so inexcusably cunty it's hard to fathom--Red Bull is right f-ing there! I don't ride PC much, but this another reason why I've gravitated toward climbing Sweeny and John's when I do.

[One (+) Sentence]

Bombing down Jenni's is so inexcusably cunty it's hard to fathom--Red Bull is right f-ing there! I don't ride PC much, but this another reason why I've gravitated toward climbing Sweeny and John's when I do.

John’s is no-doubt the best uphill route to Mid Mountain.