Idiots riding the wrong way around trails

Splottboy

Remember riding in Coed Y Brenin years back, and a Bus, Yes, a BUS came down a fireroad! Single decker luckily...
It was full of schoolgirls looking for a Netball tournament some where near Dolgellau.
They were about 10 miles out.

If we'd been legging it down the f/road, could have been nasty.
Lady in our group knew exactly where to send them though!
Hope they were really late...plonkers.

adiggers

being a new mtbiker i cant really comment,on genral trail use but......well do anyways

LAW
HEALTH and SAFETY
and my favorite BLAME

you all got bikes etc for the purpose of enjoyment ,but i see all 4 capped words in this topic

has the full country finally gone mad,or ist it just a few who need to get a grip?

Stuey01

The guidance on the signs at Afan says bikes give way to walkers and horses. Walkers give way to horses.
So, apparently, horses rule the roost.

It's patently pretty flipping stupid to go the wrong way up/down a waymarked bit of singletrack. Forest roads are fair game in my opinion. Obviously legally you can do either, though common sense would say otherwise.

s_blanche@hotmial.co.uk

To be fair buddy, all of us being fellow riders have had the annoyance of riders going the wrong way. It goes with out say, totally unacceptable on singletrack but as for a fire road ?? surely there is enough space for 2 way traffic;

Tho i can share your anger, whilst out on a ride saturday on follow the dog trail at cannock, nearer the start of the section there is a tiny bit of boardwalk, as i come winding down at a fair speed, to my amazement a family riding the wrong way along it ! causing me to bail out and over the handlebars i went !!! i was annoyed to say the least but being told to be more careful and have more respect for others on the trails, THE CHEEK OF IT !!!!!!!!! :x how can some people justify them selves

andrewjoseph

"Dirtydog11 wrote:

...

Surely If there are no rules as far as direction is concerned I would take no more responsibility than the man going the 'right' way around the trail.

It has already been said that I'm at fault for not expecting someone to be coming the other way and I'm quite happy to accept that!

you started off making a slight fool of yourself, now you are starting to look like you are an idiot.

I suggest you stop before you prove yourself an imbecile.

hoathy

this is one of the really annoying things about trail centres, people think that is like a football field is for football. Trails are not just for MTBers who want to follow arrows to the next prescribed thrill. Use you imagination and your eyes and you'll have way more fun.

paul.skibum

I haven't been to Afan for a while but I was under the impression that the start of each singletrack section specified it was for bikes only and the end had no entry signs on it? As I say I am not certain but there are footpaths near or alongside most of the tracks and walker routes around to keep everyone happy aren't there?

And I don't think FC land is open to everyone to roam where they like not least because the clause "as long as you cause no damage" is a bit airy fairy - I mean a walkers footprint technically damages a woodland.

The riders coming the wrong way down whites opening decent are definitely int he wrong - clearly a singletrack climb although it'd be a pretty good decent too!

walkers on mtb centre singletrack would definitely not be welcomed with open arms by me.

junglist_matty

We went to Afan back in April/May on the 4 day bank holiday weekend and I remember we were climbing at a snails pace, (mostly walking) because we were so unfit, but just over half way up the climb my friends seatpost bolt snapped. Luckily he was the fittest rider out of all of us (by a long way) so we decided it would be best if he rode back down to the visitor centre and try to get a new bolt at the bike shop.

This meant he had to ride all the way back down most of the whites level ascent on a busy saturday bank holiday morning with plenty of riders doing the climb. Goes to show there's more than one reason for needing to go the "wrong" way along a section of singletrack.

weeksy59

junglist_matty wrote:

We went to Afan back in April/May on the 4 day bank holiday weekend and I remember we were climbing at a snails pace, (mostly walking) because we were so unfit, but just over half way up the climb my friends seatpost bolt snapped. Luckily he was the fittest rider out of all of us (by a long way) so we decided it would be best if he rode back down to the visitor centre and try to get a new bolt at the bike shop.

This meant he had to ride all the way back down most of the whites level ascent on a busy saturday bank holiday morning with plenty of riders doing the climb. Goes to show there's more than one reason for needing to go the "wrong" way along a section of singletrack.

Why not just remove the seat and carry on climbing ?

wordnumb

junglist_matty wrote:

This meant he had to ride all the way back down most of the whites level ascent on a busy saturday bank holiday morning with plenty of riders doing the climb. Goes to show there's more than one reason for needing to go the "wrong" way along a section of singletrack.

Not necessary at all. Each section links to a fire road which can be used to cut through to a descent or followed down to the car park. Far quicker, far safer and far more enjoyable, unless you enjoy getting peoples' way.

Even if you're following a waymarked trail you should know what else is around you.

I remember during the war....[/grandad]

junglist_matty

wordnumb wrote:

junglist_matty wrote:

This meant he had to ride all the way back down most of the whites level ascent on a busy saturday bank holiday morning with plenty of riders doing the climb. Goes to show there's more than one reason for needing to go the "wrong" way along a section of singletrack.

Not necessary at all. Each section links to a fire road which can be used to cut through to a descent or followed down to the car park. Far quicker, far safer and far more enjoyable, unless you enjoy getting peoples' way.

Even if you're following a waymarked trail you should know what else is around you.

I remember during the war....[/grandad]

Consider that we had never ridden Afan before this, we didn't know the area, didn't really know about where the fireroads went etc... That with the fact that we had planned to be out on the bikes all day and the bolt snapped after just 30mins of riding, was easiest for him to ride back down to the shop to get it fixed, I'm pretty sure he didn't get in anyones way because he has a brain and knows that he was going the "wrong" way, so pulled over to let anyone coming up to easily get past him.

bails87

Riding on fireroad is like walking on the pavement, there may be a sign saying "Town Centre=>" but that doesn't mean you have to walk that way. It's just a sign telling you which way something is.
Purpose built singletrack *should* really only be ridden one way but there's no legal reason to not go up a downhill section, you'd just have to accept some liability when someone comes fying down into you, and accept you're doing something stupid.

diy

Interesting legal debate here, so I thoughts I'd join in...

Access to Forestry Land..
- its covered in our ancient constitutional law, which basically grants access without fee or toll. Its the same law that gives rights to collect bark etc.. It doesn't expressly grant you permission to ride a bicycle on the land. What it does do is grant you access and is silent on the form. So unless there are specific laws restricting access (as there often are).. It is the same as if it was a foot path that is not adjacent to a highway. Contrary to what the bobble hats (ramblers assoc) will say, you are not braking the law riding a bike on a footpath. It is just that you do not have expressed legal rights to do so.

in summary, you don't have permission to ride your bike on such land, but it is not illegal to do so. For it to be illegal, there would be a need for a specific bylaw making it an offence. The same applies to foot paths that are not covered by other legislation.

Criminal liability for an accident..
There are no such offences for riding inconsiderately, or dangerously such as for motor vehicles, so the only criminal law which could be acted upon are the ancient law of wanton and furious riding (riding with a deliberate attempt to cause harm and causing harm), but plod would likely use offences against the person laws and depending on the severity of injury caused, assault, GBH, GBH with intent, to manslaughter or murder.

The test for GBH is probably lower than people here think. In simple terms it is not a deliberate attack which must be proved, but carrying on a conduct that the reasonable person would know or should know is likely to cause injury. So if a person was flying down a hill without care or consideration and crashed in to another person causing reasonably serious injury, they could be done for GBH.

Liability for injury (civil law)..
In simple terms - Who ever fails to stop gets the blame. There is no high way code to consider, but failure to observe conventions might be a factor. At the end of the day this would be a personal injury claim. So unless the uphill rider had passed signs saying danger you are riding the wrong way, or beware of cycles descending etc. The down hill rider would cop the blame. As he would have a more obvious duty of care to ensure he could stop. If blame could not easily be determined then it would be based on contribution to injury, or contributory negligence. I.e. failure to limit injury, by wearing helmet, etc. None of this affects a persons ability to claim damage to property in the event of negligent behavior, but I imagine a court would seek the standard test to be quite high. i.e. both parties have an expectation of risk.

I never thought a cycling thread could touch civil, constitutional and criminal law all in the same thread

grumsta

We'll have none of that relevant factual information round here thank you very much. :evil:

dodgy

yeehaamcgee wrote:

remember that the Marin trail is just a small part of Gwydyr forest. No reason to limit yourself to riding the waymarked trail.

+1 And I get the impression that a lot of mountain bikers these days feel compelled, almost programmed to ride in the sterile confines of trail centres. It's not good preparation for when they finally 'fly the nest' and start riding the proper stuff. "Oh no, someone is coming the other way, who has to stop"

CycloRos

weeksy59 wrote:

junglist_matty wrote:

...my friends seatpost bolt snapped. Luckily he was the fittest rider out of all of us (by a long way) so we decided it would be best if he rode back down to the visitor centre and try to get a new bolt at the bike shop...

Why not just remove the seat and carry on climbing ?

because he values his offspring producing parts of his body! I really wouldn't recommend attempting to ride XC without a saddle.

So in summary ride within your limits, be aware of your surroundings and other trail users, don't deliberately ride the wrong way along a clearly way marked trail cos you will get hurt!

All sounds like common sense to me...

welshkev

andrewjoseph wrote:

Fire roads are for everyone, mtb'ers, walkers, horse riders, farmers and tractors, FC vehicles and emergency vehicles, just because it is used as a climb on a waymarked route doesn't mean that is its exclusive use. Everyone has as much right to ride it in whatever direction they chose.

Riding dangerously is another thing altogether, but there is no mention of this, just riding the 'wrong' way.

Just bear in mind that it is not illegal to ride even the singletrack sections the 'wrong' way. As riders we have unlimited access to ride on FC land wherever we like, as long as we cause no damage. It is also not illegal for walkers or other users to be on the marked singletrack trails, going in any direction.

I regularly ride down the penhydd fireroad 'climb' at Afan, or I would have to ride all of penhydd trail just to get to start a club ride!

if you are on a fireroad and not expecting other traffic, then you are riding dangerously yourself.

Fireroads are not the sole property of mtb'ers, they are not 'one way streets', never expect right of way, never expect the route to be same as the last time. Always respect other trail users.

what he said ^

yoohoo999

If my memory serves me correctly..................

you owe a common law duty of care to all other users of the land.

in the event of an accident, it will have to be decided if you were "negligent".

i.e. did you exercise the standard of care expected of a reasonable person? This is an objective test.

Would an ordinary, reasonable person have taken a blind corner at 30mph, aware of the fact (or should have been aware) that walkers might be coming the other way?

If the answer is no, the ordinary, reasonable person would not have done so, then you have been negligent and will be liable to those you cause harm to.

Of course, contributory negligence plays a large factor in the scope of your liability. If the walker was walking in the middle of the fire road round the corner aware (due to signs or otherwise) that mountain bikers may be likely to come round, then the walker would have contributed to some extent to their own injuries.

Once the courts have established that you have been negligent and breached your duty of care to the walker, the key thing limiting your own liability is the element of contributory negligence by the walker. Otherwise it might be open season!

If I was to be paralysed by a negligent cyclist through no fault of my own, and unable to work for the rest of my life, the court may well award damages in respect of my potential loss of earnings for the rest of my life that I now can't work. Damages in the millions are common for professionals. These are normally as a result of car accidents and covered by insurance (hence the legal obligation to take it out!).

I think it should be compulsory for cyclists using FC land to take out 3rd party liability insurance. I would hate it if someone cost me my career and they didn't have two pennies to rub together. Suing FC would be far more difficult in those cicrumstances.

Most bike insurers now include cover for personal injury up to about £10m.

Doombrain

I nearly hit some idiot putting his chain back on right in the centre of black single track on afan w2 last saturday.
I managed to get around him but it really buggered the flow up for me, gave him a mouth full at the next control gate.

if that was you, i meant what i said. good job you ran off.

diy

yoohoo999 wrote:

Of course, contributory negligence plays a large factor in the scope of your liability. If the walker was walking in the middle of the fire road round the corner aware (due to signs or otherwise) that mountain bikers may be likely to come round, then the walker would have contributed to some extent to their own injuries.

highly unlikely.. the duty is on the rider to be able to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. One might argue that taking a wide bend when walking around a corner is even sensible behavior. The only time the walker could be negligent in this case, is if he stepped in to the path of the cyclist within the riders stopping distance. There are lots of motor vehicle cases against pedestrians which would apply here.

gaz047

why what would you have done if he hadn't run off?
you don't think he was there just to ruin your flow, do you?
instead you could have said, do that at the side of the trail mate, or do you need a hand.... :roll:

yoohoo999

diy wrote:

yoohoo999 wrote:

Of course, contributory negligence plays a large factor in the scope of your liability. If the walker was walking in the middle of the fire road round the corner aware (due to signs or otherwise) that mountain bikers may be likely to come round, then the walker would have contributed to some extent to their own injuries.

highly unlikely.. the duty is on the rider to be able to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. One might argue that taking a wide bend when walking around a corner is even sensible behavior. The only time the walker could be negligent in this case, is if he stepped in to the path of the cyclist within the riders stopping distance. There are lots of motor vehicle cases against pedestrians which would apply here.

That's not the only circumstance where it would come into play, but I agree, we could do with coming up with a better example! but the principle remains the same. I've highlighted in bold below the parts most relevant, but to quote a resource far more reliable than my own memory:



The standard of care in contributory negligence is what is reasonable in the circumstances, and this usually corresponds to the standard of care in negligence.

The standard of care depends upon foreseeability. Just as actionable negligence requires the foreseeability of harm to others, so contributory negligence requires the foreseeability of harm to oneself.

A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonably prudent person, he might hurt himself.

A plaintiff must take into account the possibility of others being careless. As with negligence, the standard of care is objective in that the plaintiff is assumed to be of normal intelligence and skill in the circumstances.

Knowledge by the plaintiff of an existing danger or of the defendant's negligence may be an important element in determining whether or not he has been guilty of contributory negligence.

The question is not whether the plaintiff realised the danger but whether the facts which he knew would have caused a reasonable person in his position to realise the danger. It is a question of fact in each case whether the knowledge of the plaintiff in the particular circumstances made it so unreasonable for him to do what he did as to constitute contributory negligence.

The knowledge which a plaintiff has of the dangers of railways or places where the public has rights of access, and of the precautions taken in respect of such dangers, may tend either to establish or to refute contributory negligence.

diy

gaz047 wrote:

instead you could have said, do that at the side of the trail mate, or do you need a hand.... :roll:

True, but at that split moment in time - it is the amygdala (flee, freeze, fight) making the decisions, which typically provokes aggressive illogical "road rage" type responses. The brain is thinking idiot, he nearly killed me - I'll fight him. The amygdala can't distinguish between danger and near danger and has no ability to determine liability for a crash.

I remember many years ago being knocked off my motorbike by a guy who pulled out of his drive - It was as much as I could do not to thump him. He was distraught, I was ready to kill

busta gonad

These trail centres are in working forrests, how does this numbskull think they go about their daily buisness without using forrest roads. Thats it the enchanted forrest is purely there to satisfy the hedonistic tendencies of fat middle aged wannabe bikeriding gods, i asks you.

diy

yoohoo999 wrote:

...The standard of care in contributory negligence is what is reasonable in the circumstances, and this usually corresponds to the standard of care in negligence....
.

yes a good definition is the basis of understanding, but it is well trod ground in courts and almost all cases rely on an existing case to define it. - my point being that a person who crosses the road without looking can be regarded as negligent (using your definition, which is sound btw), However, time and again the courts have failed to limit liability where a driver has not anticipated this or taken avoiding action.

Of course the key point which is interesting, is that courts tend to apportion blame to the driver, because there is insurance to cover it. Now we all know they should not do this and any legal precedents could not take this into account. Which is why I say the balance of liability would fall on the cyclist.

anjs

Well all singletracks at Swinley are technically bi directional and I have never had a problem with it.

yoohoo999

diy wrote:

yoohoo999 wrote:

...The standard of care in contributory negligence is what is reasonable in the circumstances, and this usually corresponds to the standard of care in negligence....
.

Of course the key point which is interesting, is that courts tend to apportion blame to the driver, because there is insurance to cover it. Now we all know they should not do this and any legal precedents could not take this into account. Which is why I say the balance of liability would fall on the cyclist.

nail on the head. not my area, but well aware of the view the courts tend to take in this respect.

is it fair (to the parties involved, from a financial perspective, excluding of course any insurers that have joined proceedings) ? probably.

is it legally sound? no!

i wonder if the position would vary if parties using FC land (ie at trail centres) were forced to take out and maintain 3rd party insurance.

wordnumb

This thread has inspired me to design and build a new trail. This trail will be one big loop crossing no paths or fire roads. The loop will be accessed by a thin single track, joining the loop at an angle, hidden behind thick bushes and so pretty much invisible to the riders circling the loop forever.

Doombrain

gaz047 wrote:

why what would you have done if he hadn't run off?
you don't think he was there just to ruin your flow, do you?
instead you could have said, do that at the side of the trail mate, or do you need a hand.... :roll:

Were you there? Do you understand the context? Did you register the person involved reaction on the day? Was it you looking forward to a clear run?

I’m guessing no.

It's a black run and it’s a black for a reason. IMO if you stop to undertake a running repair in the centre of single track, you deserve to be hit at speed, only the rider does not deserve to be sent for a big hit for attacking the ride.

Roll eyes icon…….

andrewjoseph

I learned the fireroad lesson quite early with mtb's. I came face to face with a timber lorry on a tight bend, the lorry was taking up the whole road. The only place I could go was

a: into the lorry
b: into the bushes

I chose the bushes. It hurt, but not as much as a lorry in the face would have done.

Now I ride around fireroads taking the line that gives me the best view, not the racing line.

We all need to recognise that riding a bike is not without risk, we do it for fun and enjoy pushing our own limits. We should be aware that our actions may put others at risk, we should get off the trail for repairs, we should take a map and know how to use it, we should take spares and emergency equipment.

I would hate to be out on a remote mountain, have problems that needed emergency services and for someone to be injured as a result of my own stupidity.

When we go out for a ride, we should all try to be self sufficient as much as we can and not rely on others for our safety.