MTB on hiking trails poll.

[Nalgene Ninja]

Kind of a off-shoot of the proposed opening of NPs to MTBs.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/27183753/

There are a good many dual use trails here in AL (Monte Sano and Oak Mtn SPs come to mind), and from what I've seen its not that big of a deal.

[Cuffs]

Not a big deal?  Have you been on a hiking trail and been almost run over by folks on MTBs that were not supposed to be there?  or almost trampled by horses? 

Have you been on a trail so narrow that you almost fall off the face of the mountain in order to let a hiker headed in the other direction pass?  if this is the case, how will you pass a bike?  There are huge problems with mulit use trails.

[Cuffs]

You poll hopefully is reflecting only trails that are currently multi use.  If bikes are on hiking trails, they are there illegally.  You need a poll option for this too.

[Joshua Szulecki]

Not a big deal? Gotta disagree with that one.

Bicycles: Much faster than pedestrian-mobile humans, and take time to stop, and are a lot harder than a human. Collisions do happen, and they hurt like hell. Make bringing dogs on multi-use trails problematic if you are following the law, because leashes can get caught on bikes. They tear up trails with narrow footprints, and make messy ruts in muddy conditions. I know we have a lot of bicyclists around here, so I'll be polite, but I also find that bicyclists tend to look at hikers as second-class citizens on multi-use trails. I've had several bicyclists at Oak Mountain (and elsewhere) pester me about why I didn't just get a bike (one even suggested my dog wanted one) when they weren't even on multi-use/bike trails! I would never say bikes should be restricted to no-trail status, but multi-use trails are a pain, and bikes don't really belong in more sensitive areas, anyway. I'd prefer to see some dedicated bike trails, but only in areas where environmental damage was a minimal concern, such as on old pine plantation land, etc... That's only my opinion, so treat it accordingly.

Horses: Sheesh. Crap and ruts, just want I wanted to hike on. Nah, horses should to old logging roads and whatnot. All the multi-use trails in Sipsey are a nightmare due to the horse ruts, and somehow horses manage to crap on the one dry spot on the trail. Erosion. How come horse owner's don't have to clean up after THEIR pets?

ATVs: Noise pollution, air pollution, massive ruts, dangerous as hell around pedestrians.

ORVs: Really? Have you seen our regular FS dirt roads? Is an ORV trail just forest?

[Nalgene Ninja]

That why I'm asking.
no.
no I've always yeilded the trail for the 5 seconds they need to get by me.
yes
Not proposing that they be allowed in areas where it would be unsafe to co-exist. It can be done smartly.


Never had any of those problems, I guess I'm too much of a newb or lucky. If you read my Mammoth Cave report you'll see I'm no big fan of horse-made erosion. But I've never had problems w/ MTBs.

[Joshua Szulecki]

See, you aren't supposed to have to yield to bikes. Similar signs to this posted on almost all multi-use trails, including at Oak MTN:
http://www.biketrails.com/296.html

Bikes yield to pedestrians and horses.
Pedestrians yield to horses.
Horses always have the right of way on multi-use trails.

Bicyclists who refuse to yield right of way are risking your safety and theirs, except where it is physically impossible for them to yield, and in that case, bikes and hikers probably shoudn't be sharing that trail. 

Of course, if they fail to yield, then you've got no choice but to yield. Squish.

[Lostsheep]

I see that bikes CAN be an issue on multi use trails. I see that the bikers SHOULD yield to hikers. I also see how both CAN agree.

On a hiking only trail - bikes should not be allowed and should have steep penalties if/when they are on them. Easy enough.

On a multipurpose - it's easier for me(hiker) to yield, especially since they(bikers) have more momentum than me. I take myself & my dog to the low side of the trail and wait it out. It lasts all of 1min and doesn't affect me in any way. I would see it more as a problem to make the biker, who travels faster, pull over and let me loli-gag my way by him. It's fine and I don't mind it.

On bike only trails - I see that the biker should have priority. I(hiker) should be responsible for yielding and letting them by. I have no problem with that either.

Environmentally? Yea, I see several issues, but you can't take a sport away just because it could/can be harmful. I mean, then you'd be telling hikers to stay out of the woods too.

[Joshua Szulecki]

Lostsheep,

I agree with most of what you've said.

However, I'd like to note that on multi-purpose trails, the reason that bikes must yield is that they are mechanical (i.e. vehicles), and just like cars, they are expected to yield to pedestrians unless otherwise noted. I often yield to bikes myself, and I don't really mind, what bothers me is that bikers assume I'm going to do it, and rarely if ever even slow down.

[Lostsheep]

Now Josh, I agree w/ your statement about them "ASSUMING I'M YIELDING". If it weren't for that, I'd bet it would be such a hassle.

Granted, the only problem area I've experienced is at Oak Mtn.

[Joshua Szulecki]

Yeah... Most of my issues stem from Oak Mountain, too.

[WolfVanZandt]

Frankly, I try to avoid multi-use trails when possible. The last time I was at Callaway Gardens, I didn't spend much time on the trails for dodging bikes.