funny, when i'm running i find the bikers to be a bother, when i ride i find the runners to be a bother. so while i hate myself half the time i always find the dog walkers with the 30 ft extendable leashes a real pain. Ha!

Asking a series of stupid questions doesn't do much for your case.

And I guess if all rules are there for a reason, then no rules or laws should ever change or ever should have changed. Meaning slavery, prohibition, women's labor laws, etc were there for a "very good reason" & should be reinstated in modern society.

Or maybe not all rules make sense, & should be changed accordingly. I'll let you decide.

So let me see if I have this right. The current commonly accepted protocol on multi-use trails that MTBers yield to pedestrians is the equivalent of slavery and should be changed... to what exactly? Pedestrians should yield to bikes and if they don't then it's ok to hit them?
I'm all for lobbying against rules or laws that don't make sense, but would you care to explain why this one doesn't?
And please don't say you are merely advocating for bikes-only trails because I haven't heard anyone here object to that.

I'm sorry, REALLY not trying to pick a fight, but I couldn't just sit here and read such blatant nonsense without responding to it.

I was using slavery as an example of rules that didn't make sense. An analogy to try & help corvax understand that not all rules are what they are for a reason--some are what they are simply because no one cares to make the effort to change them--& that if the world was full of nothing but people like him, most people in my area would probably still have slaves.

And in defending the runners even after several people suggested making it a bike-only trail, I believe he was objecting to what you told me not to say. But you asked nicely for me not to say it so I won't

I still don't fully understand how you couldn't realize that was an analogy, & I hope you can appreciate how much my gut is turning over inside me in keeping from releasing my inner smartass & going crazy. But I respect you & I'm trying to avoid a b**** fight with one of the few people on this forum that ever contributes anything.

Um.

What?

I'll let corvus speak for himself, but it is clear to me that he was speaking to the reality that the vast majority of recreational trails are on public land, which by definition means that they are likely to be designated as multi-use. I saw nothing in any of his posts indicating he (or anyone else for that matter) has any objection to bikes-only trails. If you did then please quote him on it.

I realize you were making an analogy, I just don't see it as even close to being a valid one. You still have not explained why you think the almost universally accepted hierarchy on multi-use trails is a rule that doesn't make sense.

I do appreciate your efforts to keep it civil, thank you for that.

Too lazy too go back & read all that on my slow phone internet, but what struck me wrong about him is that he seemed to be the only one viewing it as straight black & white, & anyone who has a slightly varying opinion is wrong, end of story. This kind of view on anything in life is unhealthy & anti-human (as it's human nature to evolve, ie change).

It's all relative, my friend. In the real world, yes, it's almost universally accepted. Unfortunately mountain biking is far from a popular sport, not even earning its own link on the Wiki page of Sports in the US (though handball & cricket do). But this is a mountain biking forum & the OP seemed to be venting in hopes of getting support from his fellow MTB'ers. So is it really so surprising that I clashed heads with someone who's view-point sounds like something you would hear from someone who's never mountain biked before? IIRC, I'm not the only one who did.

In fact, not the only one.

Precisely.

This has to be the silliest thread ever.

EDIT: When did I ever say or imply there were no mountain bikers who agreed with the rules?

And you can thank me later for not convoluting the thread with pointless quotes of things you've already read in an attempt to defend a point no one ever made.

This all good discussion. I know that I need to work on my trial manners a bit.

I always yield to an ascending cyclists; and 9 times out of ten, a jogger (either going in the same direction as I, or opposite) will laterally get out of the way; but I have had a problem with a dog walker. I thought there was enough room for us to pass each other, she was right in the middle ot the trial (not giving an inch), and she gave me the stink eye.

I should have gotten off and let her by.

I also need to slow down a bit descending, because I have been in a couple of situations where I came upon another user heading up, and getting stopped in time was quite the challenge.

The "problems" on the trail are far and few, and I know that I can do a little more to lessen the occurance.

Then what exactly is your point? First you suggested (via your slavery analogy) that the MTBs-yield-to-peds convention is a rule that doesn't make sense and needs to be changed. Then you said that corvus was the only one who considered it to be a done-deal, and when I pointed out that this is clearly not so you walked away from that argument.

At this point I honestly have no idea of where you're coming from. I suspect that you are running out of self restraint (I have been warned), and I have no expectation that your position (whatever it is) will become any more lucid, so perhaps we should just call it a day and move on.

I can think of at least one that was way sillier, and sadly I was largely responsible for it.

Call it a day and move on.

The IMBA has already discussed/debated all this crap to a degree not even remotely reached here, all to trail users' benefit.

Thanks, IMBA.

Informed opinion of someone who has advocated for and built trails > uninformed opinion of someone who hasn't.

Ok....So do I hit the guy or not?

When did I ever say that was my point? My point is that the fact that it's a public park shouldn't mean that making it a bike-only trail isn't a option, & a black-and-white view of public park rules is idiocy because laws change all the time. So why is it so far fetched that the rules for the trails could as well? Same reason I made a joke about runners on a BMX track earlier, because my local BMX track is a bike only track so I think it's reasonable for the creators of the trails the OP was riding to become bike-only.

The points I made about peds yielding was just bringing up a different view point (ie - blowing off steam) because I think pedestrians are given the right to too much inconsiderate behavior by the law, & I think that because of these laws, people treat all pedestrians as if they're infants & seniors that can barely manage themselves in public. As I mentioned earlier, common sense & consideration from both parties would (& has, for me at least) prevent 99% of all problems between runners & bikers on the trail.

I'm sorry it's hard for you to follow what I say, maybe I think faster than I can write & come off as batty & all of this only makes sense to me. But I type like I talk & this isn't an issue in the real world, so then again maybe not. Either way, I've wasted too many seconds on this thread & probably an equal amount of 25 others just like it. Now it's time to reflect on what the world would be like if I used all the time I've spent on the internet, on making the world a better place.

Yes, but get off your bike first.

I put a bell on my bike and ring it when coming around a blind corner that way the hiker has no excuse for not getting out of my way. And if they're still in the way, i put my head down, and bump bump.