Anyone have anything they'd like to rant about?

[TahoeJ]

Uphill users have the right-of-way. It's simple, only a d-bag wouldn't understand. The other that might not is one who thinks they know who's having more fun, the narcissistic mind at work whilst dipping heavily in the insecurity sauce.

It’s a dumb rule. I always move over when climbing so the people descending and having fun don’t have to stop. Pay it forward.

[toast2266]

It’s a dumb rule. I always move over when climbing so the people descending and having fun don’t have to stop. Pay it forward.

This.

Broad rules, blindly applied without any localized considerations. No big surprise that they often don't work well. Common sense is a far better rule.

[muted]

I didn’t know this was controversial. Uphill gets right of way so people don’t buzz others on the way down, god knows I have had issues knowing how slow to go past people...although I’ve finally figured it out that going ridiculously slow is what I need to do. Sometimes I yield anyways going uphill, but often it confuses the person and we both end of stopping. I’ll still do it occasionally when it makes sense.

So I’m not opposed to yeilding going uphill when it works, but I am I the last one to think we should all stick to the old school plan of uphill has right of way to make it easy? What’s the arguement on not yeilding to uphill bikers? When did this be some a thing? When did it stop working to have everyone on the same page?

[toast2266]

What’s the arguement on not yeilding to uphill bikers? When did this be some a thing? When did it stop working to have everyone on the same page?

When people decide it's a good idea to ride up a trail that is essentially a directional descent. The descending rider's good time is ruined by the uphill rider's poor life choices. Which is lame.

A lot of land managers need to figure out that bike networks often work better when they're at least partially directional.

[EWG]

When people decide it's a good idea to ride up a trail that is essentially a directional descent. The descending rider's good time is ruined by the uphill rider's poor life choices. Which is lame.

A lot of land managers need to figure out that bike networks often work better when they're at least partially directional.

This is exactly right. In the old days when all trails were bi-directional uphill getting ROW made sense - harder to get started again on on uphill trail, especially in clip-ins. However, modern trails recognize that a great downhill trail and a great uphill one a different. On a bi-directional trail I still yield if I'm downhilling and expect yielding when I'm climbing. But if a trail is a damn directional downhill trail, and you are riding it uphill, then A) don't and B) get the hell off the trail when you see someone coming down.

[gravitylover]

Is this the right place to rant about getting altered and having your life changed forever by a mistake made in the hospital? I'm so fucking pissed and disappointed 🤬🤢

[reckless toboggan]

Is this the right place to rant about getting altered and having your life changed forever by a mistake made in the hospital? I'm so fucking pissed and disappointed [emoji2959][emoji1785]

Woah.

That's sounds tough.

You okay?

Care to elaborate?


My guess is:

1. You got snipped, it didn't take, and now you've got a bun in someone's oven.

2. You got a sex change operation, it didn't take, and now you've got a bun in the oven.

[muted]

When people decide it's a good idea to ride up a trail that is essentially a directional descent. The descending rider's good time is ruined by the uphill rider's poor life choices. Which is lame.

A lot of land managers need to figure out that bike networks often work better when they're at least partially directional.

Carry on then.

[TahoeJ]

Is this the right place to rant about getting altered and having your life changed forever by a mistake made in the hospital? I'm so fucking pissed and disappointed 🤬🤢

You can’t leave us hanging without details after that...

[Bunion 2020]

When people decide it's a good idea to ride up a trail that is essentially a directional descent. The descending rider's good time is ruined by the uphill rider's poor life choices. Which is lame.

A lot of land managers need to figure out that bike networks often work better when they're at least partially directional.

No argument there but in this case the signage makes it pretty clear that it is bi-directional and the uphill rider has the right of way. No?

[toast2266]

No argument there but in this case the signage makes it pretty clear that it is bi-directional and the uphill rider has the right of way. No?

The sign makes it clear, but it doesn't make it right. If that's a trail that's commonly and preferably used as a descent, then the sign is dumb and the land manager should pull their head out of their ass instead of blindly relying on arcane rules that don't adequately address the realities of modern recreation.

Of course, if that trail is the preferred climbing route, then I take no issue.

[jamal]

Seems to depend on who owns the land and what uses are allowed.

If it's a public trail open to all users, don't ride it like a dh only bike trail.

[gravitylover]

Some details are going to be held back until I figure out if there's a malpractice case or not. For everything else see the Hey Gravitylover thread.

[mtngirl79]

I hate this downhill versus uphill debate.

If it's a downhill only trail, people shouldnt be riding up it... they suck.

When I first started riding I had sections of the climb (the regular climbing route that pretty much everyone rides up but downhill traffic was allowed and did happen) that I hadn't cleaned that I was trying to. In some sections if I stopped I would have to walk up or down to a flatter section to get started again.

Jerks would come bombing down and expect me to get out of their way, many go so fast that it is a close call no matter what the climbing rider does.

That sucks. It's harder for a climbing rider to get going again and the decending rider is the one that needs to watch their speed to prevent collisions. If the responsibility to yield is on the climbing rider then you are basically saying they have to get out of the way to not be hit...

I'm all for downhill only trails, but shared trails the downhill rider needs to be ready to yield...

[Bunion 2020]

I hate this downhill versus uphill debate.

If it's a downhill only trail, people shouldnt be riding up it... they suck.

x2

The sign makes it clear, but it doesn't make it right. If that's a trail that's commonly and preferably used as a descent, then the sign is dumb and the land manager should pull their head out of their ass instead of blindly relying on arcane rules that don't adequately address the realities of modern recreation.

Of course, if that trail is the preferred climbing route, then I take no issue.

Fair enough. But according to who?

Regions vary when it comes to etiquette, most trails on public lands around my neck of the woods are bi-directional because we just don't have that kind of crowding. The few downhill only trails are marked as such. When it comes to DH/uphill Preferred, preferred by who?

There are a lot of folks who do get enjoyment out of riding uphill so the argument about who is having more fun is kind of bullshit and in my view it helps to have a rule that is widely universal so that people know who does have right of way.

That said, depending on the trail, I may yield to DH riders no matter what the universal rule.

Best solution I can see is, more trails, lots more.

/rant.

[bagtagley]

You can’t leave us hanging without details after that...

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...y-Gravitylover

[toast2266]

Regions vary when it comes to etiquette, most trails on public lands around my neck of the woods are bi-directional because we just don't have that kind of crowding. The few downhill only trails are marked as such. When it comes to DH/uphill Preferred, preferred by who?

Definitely. And this isn't really an issue that I run into locally - there's just not really enough people to matter. But the more people there are on the trails, the more a directional flow needs to be established.

I've ridden a lot of places where the trails aren't marked as directional on any official signage. But they're often marked as directional on trailforks, and riding the trail makes it pretty clear that there's a directional flow in mind: berms on the corners, jumps that only work in one direction, lots of steep pitches that aren't climbable, etc.

And I've definitely been the one who shows up in a new area and rides the wrong way on a trail because the signage sucks. But I generally realize my mistake and get the hell out of the way of people descending, because I'm the one doing something stupid. The people I have a problem with are the guys that do that, but then belligerently block the trail because they're climbing, and they technically have the right of way according to a stupid "universal" rule that was invented by hikers.

[Bunion 2020]

I hear ya, there is a very popular DH recommended trail just outside of town that has pretty good signage identifying it as what it is.

On any given day there will be hikers walking up the center of 6' wide, 3' deep banked turns and often people pushing DH bikes up the damn thing.

All you can do is laugh.

[joetron]

Obviously directional DH trails won’t have signs like that.
But where there are historic multi-use non-directional trails close to urban areas, it’s a good rule.
Riders descending multi use trails need to ready to stop/yield for uphill riders as well as hikers/runners/dog walkers/etc. if you’re in the mindset that uphill riders are gonna get out of the way because you’re ‘having more fun’ you’re probably gonna go too fast to safely yield to everyone else.
The entitlement inherent in this tiresome argument just bothers the shit out of me.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Canada1]

Obviously directional DH trails won’t have signs like that.
But where there are historic multi-use non-directional trails close to urban areas, it’s a good rule.
Riders descending multi use trails need to ready to stop/yield for uphill riders as well as hikers/runners/dog walkers/etc. if you’re in the mindset that uphill riders are gonna get out of the way because you’re ‘having more fun’ you’re probably gonna go too fast to safely yield to everyone else.
The entitlement inherent in this tiresome argument just bothers the shit out of me.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I agree. I need to tell myself to keep my self in check constantly on descents. Modern bikes allow us to descend at speeds that just don't mix with anyone else being on the trails. We need to keep ourselves in check, or we will loose more and more access.

[toast2266]

I think the universal rule that bikes yield to hikers is dumb too. It's a self serving rule that was invented by hikers that doesn't work well in reality.

If I'm passing a hiker while riding (climbing or descending), all it takes for the hiker is a quick step to the side for the pass to happen. But a biker has to slow down, unclip, find a good spot to stop a 6 foot long vehicle, and then get back up to speed again. I'm not saying this out of entitlement, I'm saying it from the logical viewpoint of having everyone getting to do their recreation with the least interruption possible. And that doesn't mean that descending riders get to blast by everyone without any speed check, but forcing them to come to a complete stop just so a hiker doesn't have to step 20 inches to the side is dumb. Why do the hikers get to be entitled, but when a biker wants a more rational solution, it's a problem? Why does a hiker's chosen form of recreation trump mine?

Again, on my local trails, it's just not really an issue. Not enough people. But I've ridden places on the front range that were just ridiculous. Following the "rules of the trail," I was stopping for other users every 30 seconds. And that's on a random weekday morning, when things weren't overly crowded. If that were what my normal ride looked like, I think I'd probably just not bother.

Obviously the solution isn't for people to just ignore the rules because they're antiquated and dumb. But it sure would be nice if land managers exercised a little more discretion in handling that sort of thing.

[muted]

I think the universal rule that bikes yield to hikers is dumb too. It's a self serving rule that was invented by hikers that doesn't work well in reality.

If I'm passing a hiker while riding (climbing or descending), all it takes for the hiker is a quick step to the side for the pass to happen. But a biker has to slow down, unclip, find a good spot to stop a 6 foot long vehicle, and then get back up to speed again. I'm not saying this out of entitlement, I'm saying it from the logical viewpoint of having everyone getting to do their recreation with the least interruption possible. And that doesn't mean that descending riders get to blast by everyone without any speed check, but forcing them to come to a complete stop just so a hiker doesn't have to step 20 inches to the side is dumb. Why do the hikers get to be entitled, but when a biker wants a more rational solution, it's a problem? Why does a hiker's chosen form of recreation trump mine?

Again, on my local trails, it's just not really an issue. Not enough people. But I've ridden places on the front range that were just ridiculous. Following the "rules of the trail," I was stopping for other users every 30 seconds. And that's on a random weekday morning, when things weren't overly crowded. If that were what my normal ride looked like, I think I'd probably just not bother.

Obviously the solution isn't for people to just ignore the rules because they're antiquated and dumb. But it sure would be nice if land managers exercised a little more discretion in handling that sort of thing.

But 99% of the hikers do step out of the way for me. they know it's a bunch easier for them to move. it works very well in reality,

[toast2266]

But 99% of the hikers do step out of the way for me. they know it's a bunch easier for them to move. it works very well in reality,

Sure. Usually common sense prevails, and everyone's happy (ish). Until I pass that 100th hiker, who I slow down for and ride along the edge of the trail, and they sort of step out the way. Except it turns out they're one of the militant anti-bike types, and they start yelling at me for not coming to a complete stop and yielding to them. Even though I did the exact same thing I did with the other 99% of hikers, and those interactions all went fine. But now, I've technically broken the "rules of the trail" because I became too accustomed to using common sense, and this anti-bike douchebag is going to call the local land manager and bitch about it, which is going to make bike access more problematic in the future. When in reality, if the rules weren't stupid in the first place, the whole ordeal could have been avoided. I would have slowed down and skootched over, anti-bike guy would have stepped to the side, and we all would have gone on with our day without giving the interaction a second thought. But it doesn't happen like that, because anti-bike guy has the leverage of a dumb rule to back him up.

[TahoeJ]

Preach, Toast, preach. This whole thing doesn't have to be so complicated.

[muted]

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.