Who has right of way on a trail?

What's the big deal? For the mountain bike trails to now be considered multi-use/hiking trails which would be a big step backwards in getting the trails recognized as mountain bike trails.

Then any maintenance must cater to hikers as well as bikers.

So when you are building your gaps, jumps and a-frames, you must now build stairs to allow hikers to get by them.

Most bikers DO yield when it is safe to do so. Are we now expected to yield at the expense of our safety?

I think you're focusing on the worst case scenario. MTB trails could be catagorized as MTB primary trails (a type of multi-use) and be maintained for mountain bikes. The fact that hikers are allowed on the trails does not necessarily mean that the trail must be built to suit them. A MTB trial that allows hikers may be a pretty lousy trail to hike on.

The Dump in Victoria is an excellent example of this. The trails are MTB trails that allow other users. They're built for mountain bikes, not hikers or equestrians, and as a result, they're pretty lousy for these users. Result? Few hikers, few equestrians, minimal conflicts. Mountain bikes still technically have to yield, but no hiker or equestrian on these trails would be unaware enough to not be ready to relinquish the right-of-way if necessary. I doubt that any of the trail work that's gone on in The Dump was geared around hikers or equestrians. Perhaps it would be different in North Van, but this area is quite similar: public land (CRD parks in our case), administered by the state (CRD) and managed by the users (SIMBS)

I think you're focusing on the worst case scenario. MTB trails could be catagorized as MTB primary trails (a type of multi-use) and be maintained for mountain bikes. The fact that hikers are allowed on the trails does not necessarily mean that the trail must be built to suit them. A MTB trial that allows hikers may be a pretty lousy trail to hike on.

So why not call them mountain bike trails and be done with it?

The fact is most builders that I know are mountain bikers. I know I do little things for hikers, in my travels, but only if it is convienent to me, as I hike these trails sometimes more than I ride them. Other than that, I am working on a mountain bike trail, and the free work that you are getting out of me, is going towards that.

If this worst case scenerio happens(and it most likely will) I can see alot of builders packing up and moving on……Most of them hate being told what to do, as it is.

Once you lose your core group of vollies, you have one of 2 choices if you want to ride…..learn to ride gravel paths and like it, or a paid trail building crew.

Nobody is going to pay for a proper trail crew. that can replace what the core vollies can do……..

The Dump in Victoria is an excellent example of this. The trails are MTB trails that allow other users. They're built for mountain bikes, not hikers or equestrians, and as a result, they're pretty lousy for these users. Result? Few hikers, few equestrians, minimal conflicts. Mountain bikes still technically have to yield, but no hiker or equestrian on these trails would be unaware enough to not be ready to relinquish the right-of-way if necessary. I doubt that any of the trail work that's gone on in The Dump was geared around hikers or equestrians. Perhaps it would be different in North Van, but this area is quite similar: public land (CRD parks in our case), administered by the state (CRD) and managed by the users (SIMBS)

Victoria is the WORST example of mountain-bikers getting shafted in the province. No other city, to my knowledge in bike-friendly BC has been so hostile to mountain-biking. Every trail that got put in the "old days" (Dre will laugh at this) in Mt Doug, Thetis Lake, Tolmie, Beaver and Elk Lake got shut down to bikes. The CRD, Saanich muni etc all had rangers out fining and ticketing bikers. The horse and hiking groups had bikes run out of the land and back to the road where they belonged!

SIMBS got conned into signing a lease for the Dump and now have more legal obligations as a user group for the miserable craptasticness that is the Dump -- you don't see soccer teams, hiking groups, kayakers etc having to sign leases to take responsibility for public lands that they are using.

Don't get me wrong tashi. I know where you're coming from. You're just saying (if I can paraphrase) that if you designate an area as mountain-bike trails that very few other user groups won't use it and there won't be that much conflict. And you get to keep the same right of way rules in there.

All we're saying is that right now these trails in North Van are mountain-bike primary so why not just leave it that way.

and btw - I know there's tons of trails in South Island. But you guys have to drive to all those trails. Meanwhile Millstream is now a golf-course. You have to poach Mt Doug and thetis at night … etc etc.

Meanwhile what is the NSMBA's stance on this?

The fact is most builders that I know are mountain bikers. I know I do little things for hikers, in my travels, but only if it is convienent to me, as I hike these trails sometimes more than I ride them. Other than that, I am working on a mountain bike trail, and the free work that you are getting out of me, is going towards that.

Isn't that what it comes down to? Trail builders do this for free. The local
and provincial governments spend a lot of money to make and maintain a hiking
trail that is for hiking only. Why is it such a hard thing to accept that a biking trail
that was built with love for free stay a biking trail?

If everyone had this altruistic view that some of you are professing then there
would be no right of way issue or land access issues. Thing is, that there is a
sizable amount of people that don't want bikers in their area or on their trails.
By taking away a biking only or biking mostly type of designation and making
them all multi-use, you make it so much easier for the nimby crowd to then later
say "well, these are our trails, we just 'let' you ride on them", next thing, you're
out.

How often do you hear "the alpine of Fromme", and "we need to save the ancient
trees of Fromme" even though they are mostly 2nd or 3rd growth? They don't let
the truth stand in the way of their agenda.

Letting them change the designation like that is a huge step backwards and
a mistake.

…
and btw - I know there's tons of trails in South Island. But you guys have to drive to all those trails. Meanwhile Millstream is now a golf-course. You have to poach Mt Doug and thetis at night … etc etc….

You're right, the state of "Official" trails is pretty abysmial these days. Luckily there are tons of trails out there on the margins, you've just got to know how to look.

Don't get me started on the old days. I used to love skipping class to ride douggie, or anywhere else in CRD and Saanich Parks' jurisdiction. Sigh.

On topic: The Dump has problems, big ones, but it's an excellent example of the trails being good for mountain bikes and maintained/designed for mountain bikes while still having normal, workable right-of-way rules. That aspect of it works quite well so I don't think that shared use is something that must always be feared, it can be done well. Even for us.

On topic: The Dump has problems, big ones, but it's an excellent example of the trails being good for mountain bikes and maintained/designed for mountain bikes while still having normal, workable right-of-way rules. That aspect of it works quite well so I don't think that shared use is something that must always be feared, it can be done well. Even for us.

The trails in the dump aren't anywhere near as steep and technical as on the shore. They're more XC. I agree its easier to have workable right of way rules on trails that aren't as steep and with good sight lines.

it all comes down to the demographics of the users. If lots of hikers use the trail, then something has to be done to accommodate them.
Declaring all trails multi-use is not the answer;some trails should be biking only and built so that it's apparent that is their primary function.
But regardless of a trail's purpose when it was built, you have to look at the "real" situation on it. If you just ignore the foot traffic, it will create massive braids and trample the surrounding vegetation a ton. Of course it's a more complicated issue than that, and as bikers we need to protect our interests. However, we also have to ensure that we don't continue to be seen as a radical element of society rather than one of the core components of it that we truly are. Taking an us and them approach to the matter is not likely to be conducive to discourse or progress in any direction.

If you build a mountain bike trail and someone posts a sign saying dog walkers ahead slow down. Is it ok to tell them to take there dog crap and get the f… out of here and find somewhere else to walk and leave trail gifts.

If a bear cuts you off on Freight Train and you soil yourself is it the bears fault or should i drink less coffee when i ride WBP.
Just a few things i've always wondered about.

bears and cougars always have ROW anywhere…period.

If a bear cuts you off on Freight Train and you soil yourself is it the bears fault or should i drink less coffee when i ride WBP.