Anyone have anything they'd like to rant about?

[GiBo]

Isn't it always downhill rider yields?

[mtngirl79]

It's not a climbing trail. It's a two way trail that most people go up.

[mtngirl79]

Isn't it always downhill rider yields?

That's what I think. Slow down and be ready to yield unless waved on.

[toast2266]

It's not a climbing trail. It's a two way trail that most people go up.

Then that's a climbing trail. Because most people go up it.

[EWG]

I think if it's a two way trail, even if it's a 70-30 split with most people descending, then the descender gets off. But if it's a generally accepted downhill trail, don't freaking climb it, and if you do, get out of the damn way. Cause at that point you are endangering everyone.

There are trails that most folks descend because they are hard as hell to climb. But there are still masochists that like to try to clean them (myself included). That's a two way trail, and downhillers yield.

But there are trails, like part of White Ranch on the front range, that just aren't really rideable up, and the only time anyone would ride them up is if they are lost or being a dumbass. It's not marked as a 1 way trail, but the reality is that there are multiple sections that are only rideable down if you commit, and it would be really bad to encounter an uphiller. On a trial like that the climber shouldn't be there, and if they are, they are a guest and should be ready to move.

Common sense.

Generally I'm with Toast. I hate the outdated rules that came from another time and people say you have to follow. Like raising your left hand up in the arm at a 90 degree angle to signal a right turn on a bike. Stop that. Stop that right now. Just point to the damn right.

[joetron]

But the rule is not outdated. Trails are more crowded and bikes are faster and more capable than ever, and will continue in that direction. That is a scenario that needs rules and management.
If the expectation is that everyone on the trail should yield to downhill mtbs, shit will get out of hand real quick. I say that as someone who raced DH for 10 years, still races enduro and still loooooves to go downhill fast. I just don’t feel entitled to descend multiuser trails as fast as I want with the expectation that everyone should get out of my way.
Why is this so hard to grasp?



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[toast2266]

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Because you're the only one talking about descending riders getting to blast down trails at whatever speed they want with everyone else having to get out of the way.

[joetron]

Isn’t that what it means when uphill riders and other users yield to downhill mtbs? You don’t think a good number of mtb riders would take that as carte blanche to just blast by other users?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[toast2266]

Isn’t that what it means when uphill riders and other users yield to downhill mtbs? You don’t think a good number of mtb riders would take that as carte blanche to just blast by other users?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Assholes will be assholes, regardless of what the rule says.

For 95%+ of us, I don't think a logical change in the rules would make any difference in the vast majority of our interactions. Because, as has been discussed, most people just use common sense and get on with their day.

But for the shitty people that are super hung up on the letter of the law, it'd make for more efficient passing transactions. And when a normal biker passes a douchey hiker, it'd give less ammo for that hiker to get butt hurt that the biker didn't do a full stop, foot down yield. And when some guy decides to ride up a popular descent because it's a good challenge, that's fine, but he doesn't get to be all indignant when a descending rider doesn't come to stop for him since he's the one going against the flow.

[Terrapin Ben]

Toast - as a lurker who has kinda already said my peace, I no longer know what you are even arguing....

[toast2266]

Toast - as a lurker who has kinda already said my peace, I no longer know what you are even arguing....

I think the current rules of the trail aren't logical, that the user who is in the best position to yield should (per the rules) do so, and land managers should be more aggressive about designating a directional flow to bike traffic (which doesn't necessarily mean banning two way traffic - giving a stated right of way to traffic in one direction would often work fine).

[simple]

Everything should be like BC riding eh? One or two climbing trails and dozens of descending options. Love riding up there.

Yup too bad the hikers and horse riders established the trails in the US well before the mountain bikers showed up. Also, you can't come into the wilderness bro....

[Bunion 2020]

Change of pace.

It hasn’t happened yet, but one day, bicycles and baby strollers will be welcome in wilderness. That’s the goal of the nonprofit Sustainable Trails Coalition, which seeks to permit other forms of human-powered trail travel in wilderness areas, besides just walking.

Congress never prohibited biking or pushing a baby carriage. Both are banned by outmoded decisions that federal agencies made in the 1970s and 1980s. Over time, those decisions became frozen into place by lethargy and inertia.

It is true that the Wilderness Act forbids “mechanical transport.” By this, however, Congress meant people being moved around by machines, not people moving themselves with mechanical assistance. Now that wilderness acreage is larger than California and Maryland combined – vastly larger than when the walk-only rules were imposed – there is a pressing need to restore Congress’ original vision.

Ted Stroll bikes on Willson Peak Trail at Henry Willard Coe State Park, Gilroy, California in 2014.
Courtesy Ted Stroll

In 1977, renowned conservationists Sen. Frank Church of Idaho and Arizona Rep. Morris Udall explained what they thought Congress’ intentions were. Church said, “Agencies are applying provisions of the Wilderness Act too strictly and thus misconstruing the intent of Congress as to how these areas should be managed.” Udall warned against “stringent ‘purity’ criteria” that have “led to public opposition to wilderness proposals based on what is, and what is not, perceived to be … permissible in wilderness areas. …” As early as 1964, some Forest Service staff wanted to ban even rowboats.

The Sustainable Trails Coalition’s proposal is modest. It would not permit mountain biking or walking with a baby stroller everywhere. Instead, local land managers would be given the discretion to allow forms of human-powered travel where they believe it’s appropriate. The United States has 765 wilderness areas, each one managed by officials who know the terrain.


Opposition to the coalition’s proposed bill apparently rests partly on unjustified fears that federal employees can’t manage their land. Another argument is that where bicycles go, motorcycles and ATVs will soon follow. But members of the coalition have talked with staffers at many congressional offices, and none of them show any interest in using our proposed bill as a stalking-horse for motorized uses that, unlike bicycles, have never been allowed in wilderness.

We suspect that our opponents’ real fear is not that reform will fail, but that it will succeed. If we cease limiting wilderness travel to methods available in biblical times and thereby achieve better-managed wilderness – with more volunteers maintaining trails and cycling visits that keep trails accessible to everyone – the previous cries of “wolf” will look foolish.

Some opponents accuse us of being pawns of giant bicycle companies with large cash reserves and a thirst to get bicycles back into wilderness. But the coalition is a grassroots effort, funded by individuals and a few small businesses.

Opponents of biking in wilderness are like pen-and-ink types opposing manual typewriters. It might be comical if the effects weren’t so grave, disconnecting more people from the outdoors and increasing their indifference to conservation.

Some people also worry that bicycles would “shrink” wilderness, and argue that we already have enough places to ride. But backpacking technology allows for more invasive intrusions into wilderness than bicycles. Most bicyclists leave the wilderness at dusk and don’t camp.

As for the call for us to “go somewhere else,” we would never patronize these critics by saying they’re not welcome in wilderness unless they travel by bicycle. We prefer to bicycle, but we don’t insist that everyone else has to ride. Bicycling is clean, environmentally benign, and has that wonderful quality of “flow,” which the human psyche rejoices in experiencing. Mountain biking may be richer in flow than any other recreational endeavor — that’s one reason so many of us prize it.

There’s a grim backdrop to the struggle over wilderness that this quarrel only worsens. In the 52 years since Congress passed the Wilderness Act of 1964, national forest wilderness has fallen victim to a number of contradictions that have warped the original vision. Some areas are overrun and loved to death, like the Maroon Bells in Colorado. Others are no longer managed and seldom visited, and marijuana growers reportedly have filled the vacuum, as in California’s Yolla Bolly. Still others, including the Pasayten in Washington, are despoiled by pack outfitters, whose abuses are ignored by many wilderness activists and the government.

Fixing these problems will take a generation, lots of money, and new leadership. Cyclists can’t do it alone, but we can help, if we’re accepted as partners, not treated as interlopers into the wilderness private club.

The Sustainable Trails Coalition loves wilderness and thinks Congress got the law right in 1964. Now, we seek restoration of the original vision. There is nothing to fear about granting federal employees the discretionary authority the coalition proposes.

strollted-color-jpg
Ted Stroll is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News. He is an attorney and president of the Sustainable Trails Coalition in California.

The comments section shows many to be..... not in favor.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/its-ine...mZULnYxD6FdsLA

[Thaleia]

Finding 26 inch wheels (for both my xc bike and fat bike). Slim pickings out there.

[EWG]

Finding 26 inch wheels (for both my xc bike and fat bike). Slim pickings out there.

And 26" forks.

[toast2266]

Finding 26 inch wheels (for both my xc bike and fat bike). Slim pickings out there.

I've been told that 26" will be making a big comeback any second now.

[gravitylover]

I have quite the pile of 26 parts and a couple of bikes I'll likely never use again. I'd love to get some $$ out of the 07 S Works Enduro that has been hanging from a hook in the basement for 5 years now. There's also a pile of tires and a couple of basic wheels. Bring cash

[ACH]

I have quite the pile of 26 parts and a couple of bikes I'll likely never use again. I'd love to get some $$ out of the 07 S Works Enduro that has been hanging from a hook in the basement for 5 years now. There's also a pile of tires and a couple of basic wheels. Bring cash

Word...

Maybe we could start a 26" for sale/trade thread?

[evdog]

I could probably contribute to a 26" buy/sell thread. I do a have a few 140-150mm / TA / straight steer tube forks that work well but have some bushing wear on the stanchions.

[Danno]

It just means that, in order to create the most efficient flow of traffic

But for the shitty people that are super hung up on the letter of the law, it'd make for more efficient passing transactions.

Maybe this is the disconnect. You're seeming to think that efficiency of "transaction" is the goal, and I don't think others are doing that. Others are looking at safety outcomes, like this:

But the rule is not outdated. Trails are more crowded and bikes are faster and more capable than ever, and will continue in that direction. That is a scenario that needs rules and management.
If the expectation is that everyone on the trail should yield to downhill mtbs, shit will get out of hand real quick.

I ride up a trail often that is also often ridden downhill (Schoolbus in Ned, for those who know it). It's not a "climbing" trail nor a "downhill" trail. If I hear someone coming down, I almost always pull off and let them pass. I can use the break, usually, but also because I like descending fast and know that I prefer if climbers let me continue down without stopping or slowing significantly. That said, I don't ALWAYS pull off, sometimes I'm in a real groove and at a real hard part of the trail. I think the current "rule" makes a lot of sense from a safety POV, and I think people who really enjoy descents should also generally yield while climbing, because they know that's what they'd prefer if the roles were reversed.

[toast2266]

Maybe this is the disconnect. You're seeming to think that efficiency of "transaction" is the goal, and I don't think others are doing that. Others are looking at safety outcomes, like this:

I think safety is the primary goal, but in areas that have a high volume of use, efficiency needs to be a close second. I also think that, if applied correctly, efficiency brings safety (car example: roundabouts - more efficient and safer). And right now, in most trail locations, efficiency is barely even considered. I'm confident there's a better way.

[Danno]

I'm confident there's a better way.

directional trails. but around here, that seems like a (mostly) lost cause.

[muted]

Roundabouts at all trail intersections seems like a great start.

[toast2266]

Roundabouts at all trail intersections seems like a great start.

Now we're getting somewhere.

[powdrhound]

Roundabouts at all trail intersections seems like a great start.

In this current discussion, a roundabout is necessary at every possible point of constriction.