Had a bit of a discussion with an outdoor ed type last night who has a friend in the med profession.

The gyst of the conversation is that he and his mate/s reckon that someone should be collating all the accidents/incidents reported(we should all be reporting incidents?) into some sort of statistical report that the FE/trailbuilders can then use to build trails in a way that accidents dont happen.

The reason for the discussion was yet another serious accident @ the jump area in Mabie. Same as previous incidents where a rider jumps and clears first table top only to land on face of second. This combo has already paralysed one person, this weeks rider has a seriously damaged face apparently. I know of others not so bad btw.

What do you think…discuss pls

I agree – keeping tabs on this is important. It may show if a jump/drop/corner is causing more than its ‘fair share’ of problems.

Unfortunately I think it ends up going into the H&S culture of the UK – ie ‘ooh, someone had an accident, quick, stop them doing anything’.

Unfortunately I think it ends up going into the H&S culture of the UK – ie ‘ooh, someone had an accident, quick, stop them doing anything’.

That’s the danger here. I think we need to allow risk, but make sure people take responsibility for their own risks. I’ve certainly jeyed out of sections of trail when I haven’t been feeling right, because I didn’t want my friends to have to scrape me off the rock.

Risk is good, as long as it is properly managed. Reporting these accidents is a part of that risk management, but I do rather fear that everything would be overly sanitised if there were too many reports of problems.

Surely we can accept that accidents are caused by a mis-match between rider ability and trail difficulty?

Surely we can accept that accidents are caused by a mis-match between rider ability and trail difficulty?

My point exactly

I have no problem deciding something is beyond my abilities.
Speaking to a trailbuilder this morning and he cant do certain sections of trail. His attitude is just keep trying!! But I dont want to injure myself

Frankly I’m amazed that they don’t already do this.

“Surely we can accept that accidents are caused by a mis-match between rider ability and trail difficulty?”

No, I’d say that

“Surely we can accept that some accidents are caused by a mis-match between rider ability and trail difficulty?”

The builders do have to accept a certain level of responsibility. If something has been built and it is later found to be dangerous then surely there is a duty to rectify the situation? I’m not recommending the complete sanitisation of trails but if, to use the OPs example, it is found that some tabletops are too close then is there not a duty of care to remedy the situation say by moving the table tops further apart?

Surely we can accept that some accidents are caused by a mis-match between rider judgement, and trail difficulty? I would say.

Sounds a reasonable thing to me. Most airsports have voluntary incident reporting systems, so that others can learn from peoples mistakes are see if there are patterns to accidents.
Of course as others have mentioned, there is the distinct possibility of negative knee-jerk reactions to seeing a whole list of accidents/incidents.

Such stats would be helpful – but should IMO be used to determine signage etc on trail features in ordeer to minimise injuries.

I think it needs to be collated BUT this sport is inherently dangerous…by designing a trail where accidents can’t happen is removing a large part of Mountain Biking.

Typically, corporations are happy to do the H&S thing to death (to the point where it becomes counter-productive in some cases) as it covers them…but the problem seems to be that nowadays, people aren’t willing to take responsibility for their own actions…each time someone crashes at a trail centre and someone posts up about it someone always responds that it may not have been the riders fault (or words to that effect!) – if that is the case then who was making the rider ride the bike in the fashion that they were and who made them come off their bike?

I think this needs to be collated but I think it needs to be looked at with the knowledge that this is a dangerous sport and it is part and parcel of it…using it to design trails I think is going to be counter-productive i.e. someone spends 6 months riding the new cotton wool wrapped trails and they think they are a mountain biker…go offroad on natural stuff and will come a cropper very quickly.

Mountain biking isn’t a theme-park ride.
If you go too fast or ride beyond your abilities in some other way you may crash and hurt yourself.

If you ride a blind drop-off without stopping to have a look first it’s your fault if you hurt yourself.

To paraphrase the pro-gun lobby: Trails don’t hurt riders, riders hurt themselves.

It is sensible enough monitoring accidents, I suppose. My knee-jerk reaction is that I assume responsbility for risk while riding my bicycle off road. Most of the time I don’t ride at trail centres, so the idea that I have just fallen off because someone made the slippery rock on that bridlepath wrong, and I ought to sue them, does not compute. I have invariably fallen and hurt myself because I am not as good a rider as I thought I was.

Reporting will lead to particular things being removed, the assessments will be discoverable in litigation, particular sorts of things will not be built that may be fun to ride but that a lot of people screw up riding.

All that to save people from making a grown-up decision about whether they can ride a section and then living with the consequences.

The builders do have to accept a certain level of responsibility. If something has been built and it is later found to be dangerous then surely there is a duty to rectify the situation?

So are you saying if the trailbuilder builds a black-graded trail and somone who tends to ride Blues (as an example) goes and rides it and has an accident then the trailbuilder has a portion of blame for building that grade of trail?

I think providing the trails are signposted well enough to make it clear what grade a trail is then the trailbuilder isn’t responsible as it is then down to the rider to choose whether or not they ride it or not…

If the trail is built and not signed then perhaps that would be an issue, but at an actual trail centre, it should be signed…

I would say that obstacles have to be reasonably visible at sensible speeds for that part of the trail. For example, if you see something coming up and decide you can’t do it, you can stop. This of course would only apply to red and black routes – for greens and blues you could assume that a rider might not have the experience to make that call. If you put say a 4ft drop around a blind corner, that’d be terrible.

On the other hand, if you’ve got a wide open course (as jumpy bits tend to be) with loads of space and you can clearly see a double coming up, it’s up to you to decide if you can clear them both. If you try and fail, well that’s mtbing. You’ve clearly got room to stop, have a look, roll it a few times, try a bit of air of each jump etc. If you just hurl yourself at it gung-ho without sufficient skill, then you’ll crash. Possibly badly, since it’s a double. Your own fault tbh, even if you are a beginner.

It’s not about fault or legal responsibilities. It’s just caring about the people riding your trail. If you build something that in some way encourages people to ride dangerously and loads of people hurt themselves on it, that isn’t your fault (obviously it is still their fault), but that is no reason not to alter the trail to make it less likely that people hurt themselves.

Built trails are particularly an issue here because they often have that smooth, scalectrix build to them, which makes people feel able to ride really fast even when they can’t. And however much some people might say they should, people don’t walk a whole trail before they ride it.

For example if you build a fast swooping corner, round a blind bend, then steeply going down 10 foot at a 90 degree angle, with the straight on taking you off a cliff, you’d make something that encouraged people to ride really fast off a cliff. Yes they’d be stupid for doing it, and it would maybe not be your fault, but given people do ride fast on built trails, it would show some care for the people riding your trail to modify this in some way (making it more visible or whatever).

When you build a trail, it isn’t at all obvious how people will ride the trail, and which features will be dangerous, hence why recording where people fell off, and which trail sections encourage people to ride dangerously is a useful idea.

Joe

This does tend to annoy me in parts. For example parts of the Dalby red route have been dumbed down (certain 1foot drops have been filled in to create a flat descent. These were in no way hard or dangerous to anyone capable of riding a red route, but due to the increasing problem of daddy and 5 year old Johnny complaining that they can’t ride it without falling off, someone then decidess its easier to fill them in rather than tell them they’re not skilled enough to ride them.

“Oh look theres a black optional route – oooh an 8foot rollable drop – I can’t ride that I’ll complain to FE and get them to put handrails and safety harnesses in”

I’m getting sick of helping build a trail to a specific grade that is perfectly rideable, only to find certain trail features getting filled in or removed – it just turns into a waste of time for the designer and trailbuilders.

On the other hand, jump parks and the like do need to be carefully monitored, there is a much higher risk of injury from these, and should there be an issue with said jumps causing more than their fair share of injuries, then these should be reworked into a safer set.

Whinge over.

I can see some practical difficulties with this idea. For one thing, mountain bikers tend to be quite a self-reliant bunch and not the type to go crying to the ranger when they hurt themselves. So only the really serious incidents get picked up. But truly serious accidents are very few and far between anyway, so I doubt you’d get much of a pattern emerging, even if a trail was badly designed.

Another problem is that there are a lot of variables. Does a trail attract a high proportion of newbies? Are dangerous sections of trail clearly apparent as such? In the above example, what if they took the middles out of the tabletops – would it deter less experienced riders and reduce accidents, at the expense of a big decline in the numbers of users? It’s an art, not a science.

I’m getting sick of helping build a trail to a specific grade that is perfectly rideable, only to find certain trail features getting filled in or removed – it just turns into a waste of time for the designer and trailbuilders.

I think this is where measures like qualifier sections, remote trail locations and putting your black loop mid way round an already tough trail come in.

however much some people might say they should, people don’t walk a whole trail before they ride it.

No, but if something’s signed as a black trail you would take care before hooning round a blind corner or off a drop with no visible landing. Also the dangerous stuff tends to be obvious on FC trails even if it’s not signed. Just think of Glentress Black for example, you’re not going to ride down stuff like the Wormhole by accident unless you’re really not paying attention.

Also the dangerous stuff tends to be obvious on FC trails even if it’s not signed. Just think of Glentress Black for example, you’re not going to ride down stuff like the Wormhole by accident unless you’re really not paying attention.

That’s my point. That is the trail designers caring about the riders, by making it clear what you’re getting into. I bet you they also modify the trails if they think too many people are getting hurt on a section*.

Joe

* I know they do at the Welsh trail centres

It’s not about fault or legal responsibilities. It’s just caring about the people riding your trail. If you build something that in some way encourages people to ride dangerously and loads of people hurt themselves on it, that isn’t your fault (obviously it is still their fault), but that is no reason not to alter the trail to make it less likely that people hurt themselves.

I’m afraid I strongly suspect that the Occupier’s Liability Act does not agree. If someone hurt themselves on something that the FC had collected data to show was a dangerous accident black-spot but had not removed/altered the FC would be in a hole legally.

So are you saying if the trailbuilder builds a black-graded trail and somone who tends to ride Blues (as an example) goes and rides it and has an accident then the trailbuilder has a portion of blame for building that grade of trail?

Not if it is clearly identified as a black graded trail and the obstacle wouldn’t be considered dangerous by those who do regularly ride black trails. If however the obstacle was a 15ft drop (as an example :wink:) on a black XC trail then yes in those circumstances the trail builder would bear some responsibility.

By “Some responsibility” I meant a some responsibility in some cases, not some responsibility in all cases.

I’m afraid I strongly suspect that the Occupier’s Liability Act does not agree. If someone hurt themselves on something that the FC had collected data to show was a dangerous accident black-spot but had not removed/altered the FC would be in a hole legally.

Yes it is true that there may be some legal liability (although probably less than people would think), but that isn’t the only reason that they should alter things. They should alter things just because they should care about people who ride the trails that they’ve built not getting badly hurt.

Joe

That’s fine Joe, but my worry is that actually doing the reporting makes the legal liability for an accident at a known problem area worse.

at kielder castle there is a ‘warm-up’ track. it consists of a very short (circa 3 minute) lap next to the car park it has some ‘typical trail features’ graded blue, red and black.

It seems a really good idea; not only does it allow you to have a few laps to get your eye in after driving up there but it lets you assess your ability with regards to the kielder trailbuilders’ thoughts on red/ black,as we all know they vary hugely around the country.

It also gives the trailbuilders a bit of get out.

That’s fine Joe, but my worry is that actually doing the reporting makes the legal liability for an accident at a known problem area worse.

Only if they don’t do anything about it. Presumably they’d only bring in reporting if they were going to do anything?

the obstacle wouldn’t be considered dangerous by those who do regularly ride black trails.

An instant problem as it is subjective…I ride black trails, but I’m not skilled – the bits I can’t do I walk…but likewise I don’t go shouting about it being too hard – if I can’t ride it I know I need to improve.

Grading has been given a specification so you know a black will be X and a red will be Y – it isn’t really open to interpretation – before the grading was done, it was and that is why the Glentress Black should have been a red until a few years back when they made it harder – it wasn’t any more technical than the red but it was longer…so it got classed as a black. That has changed now, but when it was first around it was open to interpretation so one man’s black is another man’s blue…

From what I know, the FC do keep tabs on all accidents and where they happened – they need to show that they are doing what they can to remove/reduce the risk of accidents so when an accident does occur, they can show it was documented and their remedial work was taken.

They are also self-insured so if someone does decide to sue, it comes out of their bottom line i.e. they don’t have an insurance policy as such…so I’m pretty sure they will do what they can to remove the risk of anyone suing them…which can have a detrimental affect on a trail for some riders.

The problem as I see it with this particulat skills area is that there is no progression, it is either all or nothing ie big. There is plenty of signage inc grid ref and A&E phone number. The problem may be that no-one bothers to stop and read it!!
The site was designed and built by a Scottish DH champ to his and his mates level of ability. The kids and others who can do it make it look easy btw. Me , I just roll it, I have no wish to “get air”

There’s a reason God gave us eyes in the front of our heads. Isn’t that what mountainbiking is about; pushing yourself and your reactions/ability? Surely you take your own responsibility if you do that. If you don’t want risk then ride on the tarmac pavements with cycle logos on them; if you hit a bump then you can sue the council.

A customer of mine lost his life at Cwmcarn a few years back.

The reason for the discussion was yet another serious accident @ the jump area in Mabie. Same as previous incidents where a rider jumps and clears first table top only to land on face of second. This combo has already paralysed one person

OMG!! seriously? that’s terrible.
that miniX track is really, really badly designed, all the jumps are far too short, infact the only way they work is if you ride the whole track chainless/no pedalling. if you sprint out the gate (there’s not even a start ramp, nevermind a gate but you get what I mean) and clear the double into the first berm you have no choice but to either brake check the first jump or squash it the second jump has a horrible kicker too. that straight id the worst but the final straight is also really badly designed.

Trekster, Was it Tally who built/designed it?