[SK6]

So, I would strongly urge that people continue it without being to specific in regard to location and such. As far as complaints go, they will be only dealt with with if deemed an actual issue, not a personal one.

While the suggestion this person made was pretty good one, it would require far to much of my time to discern what is and what is unacceptable as far the location, or names and such. I would urge the discussion continue but be a little more respectful.

 

[BikeGeek]

There was some good discussion going on in the FR thread that's been deleted. It's a shame it was lost, but understandable considering that spots were named and there's always some nervousness about giving too much info about some of the places you ride. I'd like to see the discussion continue.

To do that, a couple guidelines:
Don't name anything. If you want to refer to a particular locale, be vague. (ie. "that place NW of DC," etc)
Be respectful. These types of discussions tend to spiral into XC vs. DH/FR pissing matches. That gets us nowhere. I'm an XC rider and have learned a lot about the issues you guys face by simply biting my tongue and looking at it from your perspective.

The FR community has grown by leaps and bounds in the past couple of years and looking at what's available for you to ride, I feel you have legitimate issues and concerns. Seeing what MORE has gone through to get access to XC riding in the area, I know it's not always an easy thing to do. It's going to be even harder given the perceived risk in your style of riding.

What's in it for me, an admitted XC rider? My fun comes from challenging myself on each ride. I love roots and rocks. I'm currently building up a rigid bike, not everyone's cup o' tea, I know, but I find it to be more of a challenge. I like riding over logs and, lately, on logs. Someday I'll be looking for something more challenging. Not sure what that will be, but if it takes me to a big bike and armor it sure would be nice to have a place to ride.

So, what's the next step? I think MORE has a lot of politcal connections to offer, but I'm out of touch with them these days. Is current leadership likely to be interested in pursuing FR TTFs beyond the occasional log?

 

[peter6061]

Why'd the old thread get deleted? It had some good debating going on. Couldn't individual posts have been removed?

edit: or is that what you're talking about?

edit2: my bad. I just saw the link.

edit3: After reading you're bit, it's just one more reason I don't ride the normal locations often and keep the trails I do ride to myself and a small contingent of friends. And yes, they are permissable to ride on.

 

[BikeGeek]

There was some general uneasiness about certain places being named considering the nature of the TTFs there. It would have been a lot of work for Ralph to go through and moderate a word here and there in the thread.

 

[Brunettes]

What sense does it make, most can't handle it.

 

[urbaindk]

Thanks sk6 and bikegeek.

Again MORE claims to be a club of the members and for the members. They are admittedly xc oriented by tradition but they do appear ready to be open to new ideas and directions but only if people seem interested. They have given freeriders a forum on which freeriders can voice there views. (here's the link again: http://www.more-mtb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=53) I think it could be very constuctive to partake in a dialog with them.

I decided to put my money where my mouth is yesterday and I payed for a MORE membership. What the hell right?

 

[spacemanspiff06]

Wow, I'm out of it. what was the big issue here? i've never witnesed a freerider and a XC rider getting pissed at each other because of somthing that happened on 2 wheels. what have yall got going on?

 

[BikeGeek]

Wow, I'm out of it. what was the big issue here? i've never witnesed a freerider and a XC rider getting pissed at each other because of somthing that happened on 2 wheels. what have yall got going on?

In a nutshell, the local club, whose membership is primarily XC riders, speaks out against unauthorized trails and TTFs (as does IMBA). Add to that, TTFs being removed from a local park in the past by the club at the request of land managers. Stir in some TTFs being removed at a place near DC by God knows who, and you end up with a general animosity toward the club and XC riders in general.

The fight usually goes along the lines of one accusing the other of tearing stuff down, the other complaining that the TTFs jeopardize access for all, etc. Essentially everyone really just wants to ride their way. Recently, the local club has added a FR forum to their website. Hopefully, things can be ironed out.

 

[denjen]

I am an idiot what is a TTF

 

[urbaindk]

I am an idiot what is a TTF

Technical trail feature. ie. stunt. ladder bridge, log ride, interesting thing to ride.

 

[BikeGeek]

I am an idiot what is a TTF

It's IMBA's nice way of saying stunt, which sounds way too dangerous.

 

[urbaindk]

So to summarize again: Some Technical Trail Features (TTF) went Ta Ta for now (TTFN).

 

[denjen]

Hmm isnt that wha moutainbiking is all about? Those little features on the trail that make it a little more interesting. If it werent for TTF's we would be riding the road

 

[BikeGeek]

Hmm isnt that wha moutainbiking is all about? Those little features on the trail that make it a little more interesting. If it werent for TTF's we would be riding the road

Exactly. But a lot of folks have forgotten that and are only interested in getting from points A to B as fast as possible. All that interesting stuff just slows them down. Someone mentioned Schaeffer the other day. That place used to have all sorts of interesting things to ride. Go there now and you'll see that the ride-arounds have become the primary line and logs have been chainsawed through.

 

[HotButterToppin]

So to summarize, we should talk in general terms about very specific problems in very specific areas, but not talk about them in a way that anyone outside the issue could find remotely understandable unless they already know what we're talking about. Real helpful.

How can you start at the grassroots level working to keep specific areas open using agreements tailored to that area, unless you can speak directly about the area? Speaking in generalities when each problem trail system is unique is a waste of time. Theory without application is worthless.

What a waste of time.

What a waste of everyone's time who contributed to that previous thread.

 

[SK6]

To interject a little bit, I know for a fact that much of the issue in regard to trails and TTF's falls under the issue of liability. Basic Tort law states that all landowners, private or otherwise have an inherent duty to public safety as a whole. This also involves quite a bit a liability.

if a land owner says you can build stunts and someone gets hurt, the landowner, regardless of permission and even a waiver, is responsible to the injured party. Yes we are all aware of the fact that there are inherent risks, and and assumption of risk is a term used, it still does not protect the landowner from being liable.

it's a long legal discussion, but that's about it in a a nutshell.

 

[urbaindk]

Hmm isnt that wha moutainbiking is all about? Those little features on the trail that make it a little more interesting. If it werent for TTF's we would be riding the road

Yeah, well. I think we are refering to larger features, drops, etc.


That said, let's consider your average fallen tree, not some 6' high skinny bridge for a moment. It seems that in my estimation (this is speculation based on my own personal observations now and conversations with other riders and trail managers) that anything over 6-12" around is frequently removed to make trails safer for all users, hikers, horseback riders. This leads to the misconception that MORE is dumbing down trails. I don't fault MORE for this, they are only doing what the land managers dictate.

There are alternatives though. IMBA guidelines clearly state that features are allowable if there are alternative lines availible. What I don't see often enough are such lines (ride arounds). It's easier to cut the tree out of the way then to either do the extra trail work or to work with and educate the land manager about the alternatives. It is here that I fault MORE.

 

[BikeGeek]

There are alternatives though. IMBA guidelines clearly state that features are allowable if there are alternative lines availible.

IMBA advocates ride-arounds now? I didn't know that. I thought they were against it based on the whole "redundant line" thing.

Personally, I'm against it (for the most part). I understand what Ralph is saying regarding liability, and it makes sense in areas of heavy newb use (Wakefield), but coming across a cut-out in some of the harder, more distant areas makes me mad. When I started riding, I was taught you either walk it or learn to ride it.

 

[peter6061]

I'm in agreement. If you can't ride a trail the way it is, maybe you're riding the wrong trail. As I stated in the previous thread, I'm so proud of my wife when she makes it over a log for the first time. What sucks is when we show up the next time and 'someone' has removed the log as it interupted their 'flow'. C'mon, we're talking about a small 8"-10" log.

I know of many trails in this area that have TTFs that I cannot ride. Most of these are natural (ie big drops or similar). Maybe 10 years ago, I would have done some of these, but now I know my limitations and only attempt things I know I can handle (or I fly off fast enough because I was riding too close the the guy in front of me.)

These trails could be easily 'dumbed down' but they would entirely lose all they have to offer the people who appreciate them the way they are. Even the very easy to ride locations around town 'used' to have a few spots that the average rider could not ride. They have all since been removed to make the trails into 'dirt sidewalks'.

Don't get me wrong, I've got a SS bike that I love to rail around on, but I also have a big FR/DH bike that likes to ride the steeps and drops. Sorry, but I don't think every trail needs to be rideable by every rider. Some of us would appreciate it if you left our damn trails alone.

 

[BikeGeek]

So to summarize, we should talk in general terms about very specific problems in very specific areas, but not talk about them in a way that anyone outside the issue could find remotely understandable unless they already know what we're talking about. Real helpful.

I didn't complain about it, nor did I delete it, and I tend to agree that it does need to be talked about. It seems that a core part of the problem is the unwillingness to jeopardize what exists in the hope of getting more. It's definitely a gamble. That's why I asked what the next step is. Is there a sacrificial lamb, one spot to try to make legitimate, knowing that it could be lost? It's a baby step, but it's a start.

 

[BikeGeek]

Maybe take up MORE on the Conway Robinson stuff? It may not be what you had in mind, but it could be a foot in the door. Supporting it would also keep the other places out of sight for now. Whatever happens, it definitely needs support from the riders. The unfortunate side of advocacy is that it takes time (I've heard MORE say that Schaeffer took 3 years to negotiate). Yes you already have places to ride now, but we're going to have to get behind something if we want to be taken seriously.

 

[VDfree]

I am glad the old thread got deleted. If someone from MORE read the thread, they would feel threatend by us, and we need them to continue to be allies. I think the new mentallity at MORE is very possitive for us. Schaffer should not get bashed either...if we don't want our trails to be for every level, than their trails shouldn't have to be either. (Meaning, you're too good). For most of us, there was a time that schaffer was the best place for us. Maybe we think it is too easy because we are better riders now, not because they made it that way.

 

[urbaindk]

IMBA advocates ride-arounds now? I didn't know that. I thought they were against it based on the whole "redundant line" thing.

.

They sure do! Here's one reference. There are others.

On beginner trails, place the ladder bridge to the side for an optional, more challenging route. On advanced trails, the feature may be located in the main line. However, a clearly visible option around the ladder bridge should always be incorporated into the design.

Link: http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_building/ladder_bridge.html


I too am from the old school where if you can't ride it, dismount and walk. Great idea but it doesn't work. There are way too many numb skulls / newbs that will ride around on an undefined reroute and quickly braid out what was once nice single track. Just ride at Patapsco and you'll see what I mean. If there is a well defined alternative people will tend to use it rather than make their own!

 

[peter6061]

This comment is not directed at MORE at all. I hope that someday we can all fight on the same side for the things that will benefit us all.

But, here's a recent example: I usually get in a spin at Wakefield once a week or so after work. I've got a loop I spin around on and hammer into the night. Let me just say, I KNOW this trail as I usually ride this loop 5+ times on a given outing. Well, after the 'whoops' you rush through two berms and into the woods for one more berm. If you carry your speed, you're launched into a set of three logs across the trail. The first one is built up almost into a jump. The second is just a small ~6" log you just hop. And the third,..... uh,.....um,.....someone removed the third because a ~4-6" log is too big to be in the trail. WTF?

It's been there for the last year or so. It's not like someone put this 4-6" 'TTF' out there as a new challenge.

*edit: I'm really close to joining MORE, but really don't want to. Isn't there some kind of alternative group? Is MAMBO still around?

 

[peter6061]

They sure do! Here's one reference.

I 've already got a spot picked out for this once a certain area gets approved...

assuming it's permissable

 

[BikeGeek]

Schaffer should not get bashed either...if we don't want our trails to be for every level, than their trails shouldn't have to be either. (Meaning, you're too good). For most of us, there was a time that schaffer was the best place for us. Maybe we think it is too easy because we are better riders now, not because they made it that way.

I'm not bashing Schaeffer, I'll be the first to tell you that MORE isn't always calling the shots when it comes to "dumbing" the trail. Riders get a lot of the blame too. As more and more people choose the easy line, the old line disappears.

 

[BikeGeek]

I 've already got a spot picked out for this once a certain area gets approved...assuming it's permissable

One of the houses in my neighborhood just took down a huge oak. It's laying in their yard in 2 to 3 foot sections. I wonder if we should lay it up somewhere for seasoning in case milled lumber isn't permitted.

 

[urbaindk]

Food for thought:

http://www.more-mtb.org/forum/showthread.php?p=23523#post23523

Step up people.

 

[VDfree]

I'm not bashing Schaeffer, I'll be the first to tell you that MORE isn't always calling the shots when it comes to "dumbing" the trail. Riders get a lot of the blame too. As more and more people choose the easy line, the old line disappears.

I was told by the the guy who is responsible for cutting logs that are unridable at schaffer, that the logs he leaves in the trail are cut by the parks people. MORE has actually been stretching what they have done there lately and are trying to ease into building more things out there, but are afraid of being stopped by the parks people. I think that says alot for the new blood (and some old) in the MORE group. They also said they have not done more, because admittingly, they don't know what, or how to do it. Take JDS's advise and post on their forum.

 

[Brunettes]

You get my PM Phil?

 

[VDfree]

You get my PM Phil?

no...here or dcstreet?

 

[Brunettes]

Here... I'm still in search of pedals!

 

[Stiff]

Exactly. But a lot of folks have forgotten that and are only interested in getting from points A to B as fast as possible. All that interesting stuff just slows them down. Someone mentioned Schaeffer the other day. That place used to have all sorts of interesting things to ride. Go there now and you'll see that the ride-arounds have become the primary line and logs have been chainsawed through.

Exactly. This is the problem with the DC area's mtb scene.

XC, trials, FR, DH, DJ, street = all good as long as there's obstacles to try to get through with skill. Besides two wheels and a love of beer, that's the one thing all MTBers *should* have in common.

my two drachmas

 

[Dartman]

Well, I helped start and am a board member of the MORE chapter in Richmond.

I also "Freeride" as well as ride trails (XC). For me the more tech the better. I have been preaching this as much as possible to keep the tech and also provide ride arounds for beginners.

All I can say is if you can't beat 'em join 'em. Get involved and let your opinions be heard. It only costs $20 a year and 20 hours labor.

Mike

 

[Stiff]

I am glad the old thread got deleted. If someone from MORE read the thread, they would feel threatend by us, and we need them to continue to be allies. I think the new mentallity at MORE is very possitive for us. Schaffer should not get bashed either...if we don't want our trails to be for every level, than their trails shouldn't have to be either. (Meaning, you're too good). For most of us, there was a time that schaffer was the best place for us. Maybe we think it is too easy because we are better riders now, not because they made it that way.

I agree with VD. Schaefer (both the park and the beer) is great for some, but I want advanced terrain for advanced riders. MORE supports this perspective to some degree, and up to a limit, but honestly, not enough advanced FR/DH riders support MORE. All we have to do is sign up, go to the meetings and start getting stuff done. You know, all that democrazy stuff. I joined MORE, and I tried to do what I sid above, but have since run into a serious time deficit. MORE are generally very amenable folks when it comes to what we (FR/DHers) would like to do - and are quite open to seeing what the whole gravity thing is about.

 

[SK6]

Dude, don't capitalize "tort." What are you, a first-year paralegal or something?
Besides, characterizing property liability as "inherent duty to public safety" is misleading. That's just too broad. Where are you getting this stuff, some unaccredited internet course? Pheonix online?

ahh...yes it is...and .....well ahh.....your wrong.

Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad Company, 248 N.Y. 339; 162 N.E. 99; 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 1269; 59 A.L.R. 1253

Have a nice day.

 

[mud'n'sweat]

Get a room legal geeks!

 

[SK6]

Get a room legal geeks!

Dude, that case was an absolute trip, and set one HELL of a precedent!

 

[SK6]

Consent or not, whether the landowner knew or not, does not relieve the landowner of the liability. There is the Cardozo rule, so it defines the extent and to how far. The landowner may have granted permission for the cyclist to ride on their property, but in doing so assumes ALL liability, regardless of the assumption of risk. Rush v. Commercial Realty Co., 145 A. 476 (N.J. 1929) and Turcotte v. Fell, 502 N.E.2nd. 964(N.Y. 1986), respectively.

Palsgraf just set the precedent as to how far, meaning knowledge of riders or not, landowner assumes responsibility.

The liability is with the landowner. (Note the owner, NOT the individuals who hold interest in same)

 

[SK6]

Great reply. Apparently you've had a class on torts, but not property. Besides, we're not even talking about unforeseeable plaintiffs here - you were referring to situations where the landowner grants use of his land to a cyclist. How can the cyclist be unforeseeable? Have you even read Palsgraf? The issue wasn't that the plaintiff was on the property, but that she was injured because of the actions of the RR's employees. That case had nothing to do with property.

By the way, it's "you're," not "your." It's not possessive.

BTW, LOVE the discussion and debate!!!