Forum menu
In the US its quite simple - the climber has right of way. Its posted at the trailhead & everyone excepts it. It certainly makes sense to me as well. If your descending then it's easier to stop & easier to start, not so easy going uphill. Dont kid yourself its the other way round, just ask gravity if your not sure..
A bit of common sense & a little less willy waving is required I think 😉
Oops meant accept - my spelling gone to dog do-do out here!
It all seems to have been talked to death, but here's my two penneth. The main reason (95%) I do the climbs is to enjoy the downhills. Unless it's a particular section of climb I really enjoy to clear with no dabs, I wouldn't have a problem stopping and moving for somebody hammering downhill having the time of his/her life. And even if I was enjoying the climb and the track was narrow, I'd gladly stop and move, I hope others would do the same for me.
So, ups give way to the downs!
gravelrash/everyone else,
The main reason a rider going fast downhill should yield is they are a danger to the other trail user (be it cyclist going up, walker, horse, dog, whatever..) due to their speed. Simple as that.
If you are going downhill fast and you find someone in your path you should NOT continue on at that pace expecting them to get out of your way, you put yourself and other trail users at risk. So if your slowing down a bit to make sure the other trail user isnt at risk, then why not slow down a bit more and go round the person coming up. If the other user moves out the way then fine then go ahead, consider it a kind gesture of the other rider not wanting to spoil your fun, dont consider it their obligation!
Remember kids, you can have fun, but play safe ;0)
[obviously this does not apply to waymarked trail... as long as your going the right way!]
JoB - Memberit's "Get out of the way, d'you know who I wannabe?" usually
"Get out of the way, d'you know who I draw?"... surely?
"same in the Highway Code, a person driving downhill should give way to a person driving uphill"
That's to prevent low powered vehicles stopping and getting stuck going up - you can't push a car/truck uphill. It doesn't practically apply to cycling/horses since you can walk your bike/horse up.
I vote for downhill cyclist has priority, since stopping is more of a hazard.
i guess it all boils down to the OP of "courtesy"
I havn't read all the posts after the ricockulous suggestion that someone going down should stop at speed and give way to the poor soul grinding up. The poor soul grinding up should remind themselves why they are grinding up in the first place.
why, exactly, are they grinding up in the first place?
what if the person climbing sees it as a challenge, and enjoys it even, to make it to the top in one go as much as the person descending sees the going down as something to be enjoyed and cleaned with speed and grace?
either can be pissed when their task is ruined by an idiot coming the other way
[i] RepacK - Member
In the US its quite simple - the climber has right of way. Its posted at the trailhead & everyone excepts it. It certainly makes sense to me as well. If your descending then it's easier to stop & easier to start, not so easy going uphill. Dont kid yourself its the other way round, just ask gravity if your not sure..
A bit of common sense & a little less willy waving is required I think [:wink:] [/i]
I think this guy makes absolute sense. Is this original repackrider?
I can understand, although not really relate to the concept that the pleasure of a good climb is the same as the enjoyment of a descent, but aside from that, when it comes to "safety" surely it is easier and safer for the person not carrying speed to put aside their personal challenge when traveling at 1mph, rather than the individual traveleling at say 20-30mph? An inconsiderate asshole coming either direction is no fun, usually there is a compromise dictated by the trail itself, ie it's pretty ****ing obvious.
And as regards Repacks quote "If your descending then it's easier to stop & easier to start, not so easy going uphill.", that is absolute bollox. Even 30 years ago.
I can agree with this bit though "A bit of common sense & a little less willy waving is required I think [:wink:]"
[i]"If your descending then it's easier to stop"[/i]
Pootle along do we?
Its not always simple to start again on some downs either, though thats the sort of stuff is unrideable uphill anyway
Wow, seems to be a few downhill rageboys here who learned their personal skills shooting people in the back on x-box.
Basic fact of life - if you are operating something that has the capacity to cause injury, then you should be doing so in such a way that you can either stop it or change line to avoid causing injury. You may not like it, but you could end up a very very poor rageboy if you turn some one else into a paraplegic.
Public tracks have the public on them, expect to find them there. Speed is not a fundamental right.
Good manners work wonders in both directions.
Save race speeds for designated race tracks.
Well said epic.
It is far easier to restart downhill. You don't get baulked and have to walk the rest of the descent do you?
Its simple. If someone is rude to you, hit them. It isnt a secret society where all mountain bikers are vetted on entry. There are no stringent initiation rites where we are all 'brothers' FFS. Its a hobby. Someones rude etc- hit them.
Even on waymarked trails, it possible someone could be walking up the other way since walkers have right of way anywhere they like on FC land, where most waymarked trails are built - walker have right of way. Anyone unable to come to a controlled stop on a descent shouldn't be riding there.
Obviously when riding other factors come into play - if one of the riders is walking/pushing then they should give way to the person riding, regardless of direction.
Devil's advocate: if they're pushing, they're a walker and so have right of way 😉
If I'm climbing a trail, and someone approaches from the other direction nearly always at a much higher speed, am I just being obstinate by holding my ground and assuming I have right of way (and the other rider is aware of and adheres to this point of ettiquete), thus putting myself and the other rider who will have more difficulty stopping and making way in danger? It's not in my mind the point that both riders should be able to control their bike, I agree with that, I just don't accept that increasing the risk of an accident in this scenario to uphold a debateable point of principle is appropriate.
I also don't think my drunken rudeness that came through in my posts last night is appropriate either, sorry folks 🙁
By god you lot need to wake up and stop talking nonsense. There is no right of way up or down. Even on a waymarked trail you can't afford to be riding like you stole it, what if someone has had an off and you come flying round a corner and can't stop.
It doesn't matter what way the trail goes, you don't have the right to be a reckless fool. And it's bloody hard to recklessly endanger others riding uphill. We have no right to expect others to get out of the way, but others do have the right to expect not to be put at risk by our riding.
Epic said it all really.
"it's bloody hard to recklessly endanger others riding uphill. "
It's quite easy to endanger yourself and others travelling at speed say around a corner or in a situation where they are being [b]needlessly[/b] forced to scrub off a lot of speed quickly , simply because an individual decides that although they could easily and safely pull over to the side in a fraction of the time with a fraction of risk, a point must be made. Just like the idiots I occasionally encounter at trail centres who think the best place to fix a puncture is in the middle of it, preferably just after the jump/drop that caused it, not off to the side. In a situation where someone has had an off and is lying on the trail incapacitated, the risk of braking hard and the potential consequence of that cannot be avoided. It can in the first scenario. Of course it could also in the second scenario simply by going downhill nice and slowly. Each to their own.
All this thread does is highlight why there are arguments on the trail. No one side is correct, it depends on your personal view. I suggest, as I've said from the start, you just take care of yourself and others and be willing to move if you need to. If you stop to fix a puncture, do so at the side. If you're hooning down a trail and cant see in time to stop, assume you may have to bail into a hedge to not hurt someone else simply because hitting them is going to hurt you just as much, if not more.
You can still ride it like you stole it, I think it's fairly safe to say that most riders DO ride like this when in the flow - thats what makes biking fun, otherwise it's just a mode of transport. For all those who think stopping on a downhill is easier than stopping and starting on an uphill, you dont ride downhill fast enough!
For all those who think slowing on a downhill is harder than stopping and starting on an uphill, you don't ride tricky enough climbs!
🙂
Erm, in reality don't both riders usually just move to the side a little bit so they can pass?
But if I'm heading downhill and come round a corner to see a rider or walker coming up, and it's possibly to late to stop, I don't want him or her to try to move - as they might jump the same way that I've decided to steer.
Simple way to solve it (since the downhill doooods on here think its ok to fly around a corner or whatever at a speed they cant safely stop)...
If your coming down a hill full tilt and you pile into someone as neither of you budged.... and someone (you/them) is injured.... who would win the court case? the rider doing 30mph and not in control of his bike (which your not if you cant stop in time or avoid the other person) or the person who is walking/riding up the trail? pretty simple really, its about safety and being in control.
All this sh*te about it being dangerous to stop going downhill, are you serious???
the idiots I occasionally encounter at trail centres who think the best place to fix a puncture is in the middle of it, preferably just after the jump/drop that caused it, not off to the side
Trail centres are a bit different, but still you expect this sort of thing so you approach with some sense. And as an earlier poster pointed out, waymarked trails are not 'bike only' but suggested bike only so walkers etc. are still allowed on them.
"All this sh*te about it being dangerous to stop going downhill, are you serious???"
Well I think it is [b]more[/b] difficult to stop safely at speed, than when riding at walking pace. That's the point I am trying to make. I personally have always found it sensible and good manners to pull aside when climbing and someone else is enjoying a descent. It's never bothered me at all to do so, and seems like good sense.
And let's not construct a big old straw man with the suggestion that the majority of mtbers that gain their enjoyment going fast down or along a trail rather than slowly "cleaning a climb" or somesuch are either exceptional to the rule "downhill doooods" or selfish riders either. If they were a minority, there would be a much bigger market for hardtails with 80mm travel forks for a start. And if no mountainbiker felt such a sense of self righteous on a trail as to assume right of way let alone put others at risk to make a tenuous point for their own personal satisfaction, then this would never have been an issue at all. I can't imagine it is really at all to be honest, most people have more common sense than that.
at the top of every trail I tend to call out "excuse me please" I then proceed down the trail and upon noticing other trail users I'll exclaim the following "MY BRAKES!! MY BRAKES!!!", I find this often assists people in determining right of way, also if I'm climbing I'm often looking out for any opportunity to stop and put my lungs back in be it a snake/twig, a colourful "what was that bird" or "technical assessment". Allowing other trail riders right of way offers an excellent resting opportunity and if you're quick you can even "snatch a go" on their water bottle! now, who's up for a few rounds of CoD on hardcore mode?
Mr Nutt, I have to admit that when gravity pulls as it tends to do, I tend to take out my huge whab, and smite grimicing lycra types, causing them to construct impractical "rules" and "regulations".
[img] 
[/img]
Shame I can't find an example of precious lycra smiting...
Well I think it is more difficult to stop safely at speed, than when riding at walking pace. That's the point I am trying to make.
Yes of course its more difficult to stop if your going faster (that applies for going along the flat too) but that has nothing to do with who should give way. If you find it difficult to slow down enough when you come across someone in your way then your going too fast simple as that. Think of it like a car on a windy singletrack road, you wouldnt do 60 round a blind bend would you if you didnt know what was there?
I personally have always found it sensible and good manners to pull aside when climbing and someone else is enjoying a descent. It's never bothered me at all to do so,
Im like this too, i love downhills, hell ive even got a monsterous 47 lb DH bike that go's like a rocket when i dare let the brakes off. But when im going downhill i NEVER ASSUME a person coming up should move first, because if they dont and i plow on regardless then its going to be pretty messy for both sides. If your in control its simple enough to slow down a bit and go round them. And for people who say they cant change line, or there is no other line, or cant slow down... where the hell do you expect the other person to move to then to allow you to fly past? if there is enough room for the person coming up to move, there is enough room for the person going down to go round.
and seems like good sense.
youve got to realise (as shown by this thread) that one persons sense is not anothers, therefore you CANNOT assume the person going down has right of way, if you do you are putting others at risk, so just slow down.
We all know downhills are great fun, and that having a run 'spoilt' by having to slow at some point sucks, but that is no reason to expect others to get out your way when they are out enjoying the countryside too.
if no mountainbiker felt such a sense of self righteous on a trail as to assume right of way let alone put others at risk
If your both entitled to be on the trail, and they are going 4mph and you are doing 25mph (even under control), who is putting who at risk? ask yourself what a court would decide.
Well said Stato.
I will often pull over if I am going uphill - but not always. If its a climb thats a challenge to clean and I am forced to halt I will be walking the rest of the way to the top.
STATO,
The last thing I would do going up or down is assume that someone coming either way should adhere to a code as such. I've always assumed common sense when riding either way, and when coming down I do slow down if someone decides to stand in the middle of the trail. I don't think the idea of a common code is practicable at all though, one reason being that a hell of a lot of bikers don't actually read internet forums and may be unaware of ettiquette created by it's inhabitants.
Personally, If I were concerned what an insurance court may conclude from my regular activities, and were to modify my actions to appease it, I think I would prefer suicide to life.
Of course though I like most people would like my fellow monkeys to show a degree of empathy for others in their actions. Some empathy for me and my friends and family etc for a start.But when I hear self righteous idiots proclaiming some unwritten, impractable and self created law that has no semblence of reality in my experience I will question it.
I do feel that some people are missing the point though. It's not really about gnarly downhillduuuuudes v's "real" mtbers who love to "clean a climb" etc...I'd say it's about people who are willing to accept common sense and reality, v's those that seem to have chosen for the sake of argument an unrealistic and untenable position. I have no time for a selfish bellend crashing into me anymore than I have for a pious cock holding his/her ground in the centre of a trail simply to make a point. I have more sympathy for someone forced into an accident than I do for a person who feels obliged to cause it, and that is what the uphill groundholder steadfast crew are suggesting..
"clean a climb" is quite frankly, a very silly phrase. I'm surprised that TJ even used it!
gnarly!
"[i]I don't think the idea of a common code is practicable at all though, one reason being that a hell of a lot of bikers don't actually read internet forums and may be unaware of ettiquette created by it's inhabitants.[/i]"
well i've been aware of the common etiquette of "Climber Has Right Of Way" long before the internet was invented, and as RepacK mentions above "In the US its quite simple - the climber has right of way. Its posted at the trailhead & everyone excepts it."
"[i]But when I hear self righteous idiots proclaiming some unwritten, impractable and self created law that has no semblence of reality in my experience I will question it.[/i]"
Which side of the argument are you talking about here?
Those in the "Descender Has Right" camp are proclaiming some unwritten, impractable and self created law too
"[i]I have more sympathy for someone forced into an accident than I do for a person who feels obliged to cause it, and that is what the uphill groundholder steadfast crew are suggesting..[/i]"
they are?
no more so than your you are sticking to your side of the argument
JoB, I don't really have a side of argument. I think its stupid to assume that anyone has ingested an unwritten code (or in the case of the trails that repack rider rides a written code. But I don't live in the US, thankfully) before getting on a bike and riding a trail. I think anybody that assumes they have is stupid. I think anyone that causes an accident by trying to make a point going up or down a trail is a fool. I think an accident is more likely to occur by assuming I have right of way climbing a trail than by not assuming I have right of way, and taking the selfless option and stepping aside, just in case.
It would appear that you seem to be sticking to a side of "the argument ". I have no axe to grind, it just seems really , really stupid to force someone travelling faster to slow down when its a hell of a lot simpler to just have good manners and let them enjoy riding their bike. It's much more risk prone to stop a bike at speed than at walking pace, isn't it? Does that concern you?
Mr Nutt. Clean a climb - as in ride it without a dab. How else do you describe it? Its a challenge that gets me up many a climb.
Coffeeking you just put it straight. If I'm climbing (or more probably pushing) I try to be aware of riders coming down fast. I've also had to stop on a great descent for a group of five abreast who were oblivious, and felt mild resentment. Surely manners still exist? And then there's dogs; which I don't have a problem with except they can be like squirrels are when you're driving'
"[i]it just seems really , really stupid to force someone travelling faster to slow down when its a hell of a lot simpler to just have good manners and let them enjoy riding their bike.[/i]"
similarly it is also good manners for the person traveling faster to slow down, adjust their line accordingly, and for both the descender and climber to both continue riding their bikes with the minimum of disruption, why does the climber have to be the only one to show good manners?
"[i]It's much more risk prone to stop a bike at speed than at walking pace, isn't it? Does that concern you?[/i]"
it concerns me that the crux of your argument is that you can't safely stop your bike should anything untoward should happen on a multi-use trail, yes
JoB -it concerns me that the crux of your argument is that you can't safely stop your bike should anything untoward should happen on a multi-use trail, yes
I've yet to ride trails with nice manicured little hard shoulders where you can safely and easily pull up to a halt.
Sorry I didn't mean to start a post about dogs.
Should have rang your bell back at her!
Like pk-ripper said: "we're all uncourteous idiots.
just because we're on bikes doesn't make us friends"
Same when driving etc. (Some us do say thanks-I bloody do!) but remember there is a reason for everyones rubbish behaviour and no excuse (She had a bad day but so what).
Instead of dwelling on what reason-ignore it and use the time you'd think of it by riding and enjoying yourself! ignore the dosuche bag 😀
Gnargnar - I've yet to ride a trail ( ecept playparks) where I can't stop safely in what I can see
Well I feel slightly sorry for you. As folks have said above, we can all be "insert swear word" so it would seem best never to assume anyone is going to give way to you regardless of trail position.
I always assume everyone will do the most stupid thing possible. I hope they do the right thing and behave courteously and safely.
If you can't stop safely in the distance you see you are either going too fast or you have rubbish skills.
TandemJeremyIf you can't stop safely in the distance you see you are either going too fast or you have rubbish skills.
Well, I doubt you've ridden my local trails, nor I yours but I doubt they could be much different. That being said I can think of dozens of trail sections I ride on a regular basis where it would be difficult or just plain dangerous to stop once under way, in fact the only think preventing a crash is momentum in many cases. Be it a steep twisty piece of single track, a rock strewn descent, a slab of rock etc there are dozens of typical trail sections where stopping should be the last thing on your mind.
It's not down to "rubbish skills" its the nature of the trail.
" the crux of your argument is that you can't safely stop your bike should anything untoward should happen on a multi-use trail,"
Pardon moi, where did you get that impression? Do you know me? I think you made that up, didn't you?
I think it would be great if both the descender and climber could adjust their line accordingly. It's a shame though that some people think that as they are climbing, they don't have to. Eh?
"[i]Pardon moi, where did you get that impression?[/i]"
from this...
"It's much more risk prone to stop a bike at speed than at walking pace, isn't it? "
and this...
"Well I think it is more difficult to stop safely at speed, than when riding at walking pace. That's the point I am trying to make."
is that ok?
"[i]It's a shame though that some people think that as they are climbing, they don't have to. Eh?[/i]"
as much a shame as the people who think that as they are descending they don't have to, yes