cryptid01

Does anyone know of a specific instance where a legal public trail has been closed for reasons other than environmental impact? I'm involved in a discussion within my local mtb advocacy group, and there is a voice that says if we build our trails with any technical features and someone gets injured, we run the risk of trail closure due to lawsuit. I'm skeptical, of course, but curious to know if there's a precedent that would lend credence to that claim.

rankin116

I would be skeptical as well. Who owns the land? Who is allowed to ride there? If it's state/federal land, who would be sued if there was an accident? I know you said legal public trail, so I don't understand what that person means. The only thing I could see happening is that whatever you build being taken down. That is if you're building bridges/jumps/etc. If it is just difficult terrain, someone could always walk through/around it.

Bike Lover

I posted this on the MMBA (Michigan Mountain Bike Association) forum. Very knowledgable fellows and fellas there. Hopefully you'll get some responses. Link.

mtnbiker66

Are ya building on the "farm"?

Dannihilator

This is why I like natural features.

cryptid01

Nah, the farm is private. This is a new, sanctioned, public trail on municipal land that'll start a little over a mile from my house. Yes, I have a vested interest.

We're not talking about 12' high skinnies or big gap jumps here, we're talking about log crossings - about as natural as it gets.

Thanks for the linkage BL.

Maelstrom 

North Shore tried this and was stopped. Regular trails would have been left and stunted trails would have been destroyed.

They partially won in reality. The trails are morre hidden, further up the mountain and out of site. Now of course there is still the "basic" stunted trails which were left and doing fine, in this case it covered the "extreme" stunts.

cryptid01

You're Canadian, it doesn't count.

Trust me, one look at the "basic" shore trails like the stuff on Seymour would have the majority of riders around here packing up and going home. The trail in question is going to be much tamer than Lost Lake, even. I'm just advocating we utilize natural features to create some spicier options.

Maelstrom 

Then in that case I guess I don't have much to offer but support.
but:
1 - Ensure to offer easy outs or girly options, always creates a built in insurance policy, River Runs Through it had multiple "outs" for most levels of riders.
2 - make sure there is a disclaimer poster (I am sure you remember river runs through it, you may not remember the signs at every entrance, with warnings and very clear displays of the type of trail, heck even a disclaimer of trail protection for weather etc)

I don't know what american laws would be like but that in and of itself is a bit of protection against the evil lawyers

Bike Lover

Gastro, as I suspected, there is some info. posted at the link above, including a link to the IMBA web site with information.

roccobike

You may want to talk to the folks at Storm Endurance (formerly Fit To Be Tried) in Sanford over in Lee County, NC. They maintain one of the public trails (SanLee I think) down there and made significant changes about a year ago. I'm sure they looked into the liability angle because they added a difficult rock garden.

Tra!l !

where is this at exactlly?

junkyard

I like natural features, too. Wait, are you referring to women or trails?

harov3

Either way, I'll forgive a little intervention.

cryptid01

Thanks for the input everyone. Looks like I've got a lot of reading to do.



The new trail will roughly parallel the Nat Greene trail from the marina to the greenway. Drop me a pm if you're interested in helping out with construction, which will start later this month.